Guest post by David Archibald
In May, WUWT kindly hosted a post with slides from a presentation I gave to the Institute of World Politics in Washington. Following are some further slides from a presentation I gave during the week to the triennial Nuffield Conference in Perth, Australia.
Figure 1: US Wheat and Corn prices 1916 – 2011 in 2011 constant dollars
Grain prices fell 70% in constant dollar terms from the Korean War to the end of the 20th century. In 2008, energy-related inputs relative to total operating expenses were about 60% for both wheat and corn. A $200 per barrel oil price will raise operating costs by 60% from the 2008 level. A similar price response was experienced during the First Oil Shock of 1973. This time the price increase will be permanent.
Figure 2: Tunisian Wheat Consumption 1960 – 2010
The Arab Spring began with a vegetable vendor, but what they mainly eat is wheat. Figure 2 shows Tunisian wheat consumption per capita from 1960. A 2,500 calorie per day diet is 267 kg per annum of wheat and that is shown as the red line in the graph. The population of Tunisia is 10.4 million growing at 1% per annum. On that basis, Tunisian wheat demand is ratcheting up at 28,000 tonnes per annum.
Figure 3: Yemeni Grain Consumption 1968 – 2010
Yemeni agricultural production falls well short of what is required to feed them. While the average per capita consumption of wheat is half that of Tunisia, the median age is also about half that of Tunisia at 18 years. Tunisia’s is 30 years. Similarly, 43% of Yemenis are under 14 years old while the figure for Tunisia is 23%. Therefore Yemen’s biggest wheat-eating years are ahead of it. Note the big jump in grain imports in 1988.
Figure 4: Yemen Oil Production 1982 – 2015
The big jump in grain imports in 1988 is explained by the fact that 1988 was the year that Yemeni oil exports took off. Production peaked a decade ago and is now in steep decline. With or without a civil war, by the end of the decade there will be very little oil production to pay for wheat imports. The population of Yemen is 24 million growing at 2.6% per annum. Population is currently increasing at 630,000 per annum. If we assume that they all make it to adulthood and eat 267 kg of wheat per annum for a 2,500 calorie per day diet, wheat imports are ratcheting up at 170,000 tonnes per annum.
Figure 5: Afghanistan Wheat Consumption 1960 – 2010
As unpleasant as Yemen is, there is a place that is yet more execrable. To paraphrase Mark Steyn, Afghanistan is a pestilential nation of pederasts, the chief exports of which are terrorism and heroin. As Figure 5 shows, the modern history of that country is written in its wheat consumption. Wheat imports started in the mid-1970s when Afghanistan was no longer able to feed itself from its own efforts. Imports keep rising during the early years of the Russian invasion and then collapsed along with domestic production. Population growth didn’t fall below 2% per annum during this period of restricted supply. Wheat imports rose dramatically after the US started its turn at running the country. Afghanistan is very similar to Yemen in having a median age of 18 years and population growth rate of 2.4% per annum. At that rate, the current population of 29.8 million is growing by 715,000 per annum. Thus wheat demand is ratcheting up at about 190,000 tonnes per annum.
Figure 6: Population of Afghanistan from 1960 with a projection to 2025
Heroin is 25% of Afghanistan’s GDP. One day the world may stop paying for that heroin and the Danegeld for its terrorism. So where will the wheat come from then? Another alternative is that there may be a will to send Afghanistan some grain but there will be a physical lack of grain due to a climatic event. Figure 6 shows a possible future for Afghanistan’s population in the event of a sudden cessation of grain imports. Population can be expected to collapse below the natural carrying capacity of the country of about 12 million.
Figure 7: Pakistan Wheat Production 1960 – 2011
Wheat imports into Afghanistan would have to come through Pakistan which would have first call on them. Figure 7 shows that Pakistan’s wheat production profile is quite impressive with a five-fold increase from 1960 to nearly 25 million tonnes per annum.
Figure 8: Pakistan Wheat Production per Capita 1960 – 2032
Figure 8 shows that Pakistan’s per capita wheat production from 1980 has been static in the range of 120 to 140 kg per annum. If population keeps growing at its established trend rate, by 2030 Pakistan will be needing another 8 million tonnes of wheat per annum.
Figure 9: Wheat yields in developing countries 1950 – 2005
The biggest driver of higher wheat yields over the last 60 years has been the development of dwarf strains, pioneered by Norman Borlaug. In a sense, that put off the problem for a generation and made it twice as bad. Wheat yields have plateaued from 1996.
Figure 10: Egyptian wheat and corn consumption by source
Two hundred years ago, Egypt’s population is estimated to have been about 4 million. It is now 82 million and growing at 2% per annum – another 1.6 million Egyptian souls are created each year. As adults, their temporal bodies will want to consume an extra 440,000 tonnes of grain per annum. Figure 10 shows that on established trends, Egypt will be needing to import two thirds of its grain consumption. The projected import requirement matches the current level of US wheat exports.
Figure 11: Egyptian oil production and consumption 1965 – 2020
Food and fuel are subsidised in Egypt. What has helped fund that is Egypt’s oil production. That peaked in the 90s and Egypt’s oil consumption is now higher than its production. Oil and grain imports are now rising in tandem. Whoever controls Egypt from here, either the Muslim Brotherhood or the Army, will have a hard time balancing the budget.
Figure 12: US production of major grains and soybeans 1960 – 2010
The biggest increases in agricultural production in recent years have been from the US and Brazil. The mandated ethanol requirement has increased US corn production by 100 million tonnes per annum. That quantum could feed some 300 million people. In fact total US grain and soybean production could feed some 1,500 million people on a vegetarian diet, with the soybeans offsetting corn’s deficiency in lysine and tryptophan.
Figure 13: Mexican major food imports 1960 – 2010
South of the border, the situation isn’t as rosy. As Figure 13 shows, Mexico imports about half of its food requirement. With a population of 113 million growing at 1.1% per annum, there are another 1.2 million Mexicans created each year who, as adults, will need another 370,000 tonnes of imported grain to feed them.
Figure 14: Mexican oil production and consumption 1965 – 2021
Mexican oil production has peaked and is now falling rapidly towards the level of domestic Mexican consumption. That line will be reached in 2016, beyond which Mexico will have to pay for oil imports as well as increasing food imports, or do without something.
Figure 15: Brazilian sugar and soybean exports 1960 – 2010
Demand pull from China, importing 50 million tonnes of soybeans per annum, has created a supply response in other places. Figure 15, showing a dramatic increase in Brazilian soybean and sugar exports starting in the mid-1990s, begs the question of how much more land in Brazil could be put to the plough. With protein content of 38%, Brazil’s soybean exports equate to 100 million tonnes per annum of wheat in terms of protein content.
Figure 16: Russian wheat production and consumption 1987 – 2010
In accordance with good economic theory, Russian wheat production rose as a consequence of the end of communism in 1990, though it was a very lagged response. The drought in 2010 reduced production by 20 million tonnes and the Russian Government banned exports as a consequence.
Figure 17: World production of major grains in 2009
The World produces about equal quantities of wheat, rice and corn for a total of 2,200 million tonnes. This equates to 311 kg per capita for the seven billion people on the planet. The recent increase of US corn production by 100 million tonnes per annum in response to the price signal from the mandated ethanol requirement suggests that production of grains in the US could increase as the price signal increases. On that basis, there may be the ability to return more land to cropping in the US and increase production by a further 100 million tonnes per annum.
It has been estimated that Brazil has 190 million hectares of currently uncropped land that could be brought into production. Assuming 2 tonnes per hectare, Brazil’s production could rise by a further 380 million tonnes per annum. Similarly, Russia has 40 million hectares of cleared land that could be used for agriculture but currently isn’t. That might provide a further 80 million tonnes of grain per annum. The total is 670 million tonnes per annum of potential further production from the US, Brazil and Russia, which might feed 1,675 million people at 400 kg per capita.
Figure 18: World population growth rates 1950 – 2050
Figure 18 shows the World’s population growth rate from 1950 with a projection in blue to 2050. China’s Great Leap Forward shows up clearly in the chart. 30 million Chinese died as a result of a Government requirement to meet grain quotas while not allowing the peasants to retain enough to live on. This was 5% of China’s population at the time. Assuming that the World could produce a further 670 mtpa of grain and that would feed a further 1,675 million humans, that limit would be reached about two decades from now. There are likely to be some bumps along the way. At one stage in 1816, blocks of river ice from the Mississippi River were encountered by ships 100 kilometres out in the Gulf of Mexico. This was due to the Tambora eruption the year before. As the current de Vries cycle event progresses, the chance that a major volcanic eruption will have an agricultural impact continues to rise.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
October 8, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Cementafriend says:
October 8, 2011 at 4:08 am
I do not quite agree with David about the timing of peak oil -there is lots still to be found in Alaska and arctic waters and also in the southern ocean around the Falklands, southern Chile etc. However, I do agree with his early presentation where he wrote about coal to liquids which is now viable at present oil prices,
+++++++++++++++
Every prediction of peak oil in the last 100 years has been completely incorrect. Expect more of the same for centuries to come.
———
Just because previous predictions where wrong, does not mean current predictions are. Facts change, evidence mounts. The evidence is clear, flow rates world wide has peaked. Those of you arguing against peak oil are still making the same mistake. It’s about flow rates matching demand, not what’s in the ground.
Spector says:
October 9, 2011 at 2:44 am
Yes, I believe an instinctive desire to have a large family can become favored if people with that instinct tend to have an above average number of descendants in a world where optional birth control technology is generally available.
In the last 1970’s the Saudi’s wanted some US built tanks and the US Government wanted the Saudi’s to educate their girls and a deal was struck and the Saudi’s provided Universal education for girls. The fertility rate in Saudi Arabia has fallen from 6+ to 2.5 in the space of a generation.
The inverse correlation between fertility rate and educational attainment of girls is quite strong even in countries with substantial cultural and religious attitudes towards female reproduction.
Everyone tends to do what they do best in order to secure their own future, including illiterate females. Unfortunately, illiterate females don’t know how to do much besides make babies…so they do what they do best.
Afghanistan…which has one of the highest fertility rates in the world was run by the Taliban for quite some time. The Taliban prohibit the education of girls.
harrywr2 says:
October 8, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Don’t confuse an ‘economic peak’ with physical or flow rate peaks.
———————
That is another peak factor of oil production, economics. The Oil Drum recently did a bit about that. The basic premise is this. Oil price increases as demand reaches maximum flow capacity (regardless of the reason). But there is a limit to how much that price can increase before it triggers a recession, then demand drops, and prices drop. Demand slowly grows, price slowly increases again, but then that price ceiling gets hit, at a lower price, and recession hits, dropping demand even lower, and on and on in a cycle of decline for decades. Each rise lower than the previous, each drop lower than the previous. We have started to see this since the $149 oil in 2008. So yes, economics is very important. Lack of credit due to the banking crisis could very well prevent some oil production from going forward. So production drops even more as no new fields can be brought on line because there is no money in the economy.
jrwakefield says:
October 9, 2011 at 9:40 am
“……..Usual mistake of all who dispute peak oil. Peak oil is not about what’s in the ground, it never has been. It’s about how fast it can be extracted, the flow rate, and the energy it takes to extract it. Flow rates from unconvensional sources will be lower than convensional sources…..”
___________________________________________________________________
Sounds like a very good reason to look at decent energy sources like Thorium Nuclear. It is idiotic to burn a very good source of plastics and other useful products when a reasonably safe and viable energy source is available and abundant and stockpiled.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html
American Chemical Society:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8746sci2.html
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/80th/print/thoriumprint.html
EnergyFromThorium
http://energyfromthorium.com/2009/11/17/dr-mitch-jacoby-introduces-thorium-to-the-acs/
How to Throw Away Eight Years Worth of Electricity: http://energyfromthorium.com/2006/07/07/how-to-throw-away-eight-years-worth-of-electricity/
I farm and ranch in Nebraska. We sit right on top of the Ogallala Aquifer. Everybody needs to be humble about their knowledge of groundwater and the recharge mechanism. We don’t know much and we understand even less. “Wild Guess” is as scientific an estimate as we have as to consumption and recharge. We know a whole lot more about the atmosphere, weather and climate. And look at how meteorology and climate science fails to answer so many simple questions (the weatherman and the climatologist need to double-down on humility too). Why won’t people accept the honest answer: “We don’t know” There is always some fraudster saying “Yes we do too know – I have the secret knowledge!” And lamentably, the believers flock to him.
We are at peak oil, and we always have been. History. The history of oil production is the history of peak oil. The term “peak oil” was coined in the 50s. Its useful in modelling the decline of a given play or field using the current extraction technology. But the new technologies used to extract oil and gas from shale and deep ocean drilling, let alone the heavy oils of Alberta and Venezuela make world peak oil a very bad joke – Its just silly to draw the little declining charts…. I too expected better of David Archibald.
1. Money is a “Medium of Exchange”. If you have salt or oil or whatever, and I don’t –but I have corn or wheat or whatnot and you want what I have, and I want what you have, we can trade or use money. Got it!
2. Land, and current on-site technology, can only produce so much food. We eventually reach a point when there’s less food for most of us if the population keeps popping. Got it!
3. Climate changes. Always has, always will. Got it!
4. People aren’t always very smart. Got it!
5. Stock Options, Short Sales, Margins, and other tricks and games of the market only cover (or not) the rich guys and gals who buy them. Got it!
6. Life’s a beach. If we’re not careful, we’re all going to freeze, roast, starve, die of thirst, drown, or something. Got it!
7. When you have more than I have or I have more than you have, and one of us gets mad about such a bad bad situation; or you don’t like my way of life, or religion, or god, or music, and/or I feel the same about you, then regardless about everything else that’s happening in our lives, or the price of tea in China, we just might start blowing each other up. Got it!
Hummmmmm…
RE: harrywr2: (October 9, 2011 at 10:06 am)
“The inverse correlation between fertility rate and educational attainment of girls is quite strong even in countries with substantial cultural and religious attitudes towards female reproduction.”
I believe that countries with traditional high fertility rates have also had high child mortality rates. The net population growth rate is the only thing that really counts.
But aside from that, I think that any inherited mental attitude in favor of large families that results in an above average number of descendents will be favored as long as it has that advantage. This could be seen as a genetic adaption to whatever might be suppressing the normal tendency for population growth.
In excess, of course, such an attitude could have a deleterious effect on reproductive success, thus such extreme tendencies would not be favored.
RE: JohnL: (October 9, 2011 at 4:47 am)
“The standard error is to confuse growth in wealth, consumption, and population. Wealth can grow forever because there is no law that requires it to be tied to resource consumption.”
Yes, ‘wealth’ is a relative term. Some of the wealthiest persons in history lived without electric power, without internal combustion engines, and without access to the advanced medical care we all take for granted today.
@ur momisugly jrwakefield October 9, 2011 at 9:40 am
The usual mistake of those who support the peak oil argument is that they do not take in to account new technology. Who, 50 years ago, would have imagined the advent of the personal computer or the internet and how it would fundamentally change our society. Who, 25 years ago, would have forseen fracing and how it would result in the upgrading of oil resources to reserves. Nobody knows what the future holds but one certainty is things will not remain static.
One other point, allowing oil production at maximum flow rates is not good if you are trying to maximise the production from your oil field as it results in formation of “bubbles” within the oil. This reduces permeability with a subsequent reduction in the amount of oil which can be recovered from the oil resevoir.
Reneck: “This may be a somewhat hard thing for you to believe but the formation of oil is occurring at present at the same rate as it has in the past, as implied by the principle of uniformitarianism. ”
That oil may be forming at the same rate as it did in the past is neither here nor there. The relevant question you need to seek the answer to instead is whether oil is forming at the same rate as we are extracting & burning it (~85-87 million barrels per day). If it was, then oil could be termed a renewable resource. Hint: it isn’t!
I’ve always thought it’s a shame that some genius or other has not invented an in-car gizmo that takes the principle Internal Combustion Engine products i.e. CO2, CO and H2O and recombines them cleverly back into Octane. The ultimate in recycling, it would eliminate further AGW and Peak Oil at a stroke! There would only be the traffic-jams etc left to get annoyed about!
Cheers – John
@ur momisugly MarkB says:
October 8, 2011 at 9:50 am
[SNIP: Sorry, but there ARE certain banned topics here at WUWT and this is one of them. It is best not to let the discussion get started at all. -REP]
So are you calling the former head of the Senate Intelligence Committee a “nutter” too? Perhaps it’s time you retire the pejorative term “nutter” and begin to honestly asses the facts? I’d also like to point out the bias against certain areas of research and enlightenment here at WUWT which is ironic in it’s similarity to the bias displayed by AGW church-goers against anything contrary to their religion of human-hating devolution.
In regards to this post there is another key issue which needs to be considered: artificial scarcity. Used by the DeBeers diamond cartel for decades to prop up the price of diamonds, this tactic is clearly in use today by the oil cartel. Deliberate restriction of refining facilities is obvious to anyone who bothers to look: no new refining facilities in America despite obvious demand, massive government regulations which inhibit new refining operations, and a general “back to the stone age” mind set of the new watermelons such as Obaaama manifesting in current shutting down of coal-fired power generation across the USSA. The “carbon is bad” mantra is totally debunked, yet it continues to be used to justify the watermelon’s agenda.
Another key issue here is lack of vision. While this website is one of the largest collection of geniuses on the web it’s stunning how limited the vision can be at times. How about we innovate our way out of this mess through the application of genius to solve problems and invent solutions? How about we investigate the many inventions in the past century which have been bought out & shelved or outright killed? Are we to believe that 400mpg vehicles are totally impossible for instance?
Oops looks like they are already commercially available:
400 MPG… Or Conspiracy Theory?
http://epautos.com/2011/09/18/400-mpg-or-conspiracy-theory/
Just as climate change is an immensely complex area of study, so too is the alleged “peak oil” theory. The more you know, the less you know ….
Redneck says:
October 9, 2011 at 5:25 pm
@ur momisugly jrwakefield October 9, 2011 at 9:40 am
The usual mistake of those who support the peak oil argument is that they do not take in to account new technology. Who, 50 years ago, would have imagined the advent of the personal computer or the internet and how it would fundamentally change our society. Who, 25 years ago, would have forseen fracing and how it would result in the upgrading of oil resources to reserves. Nobody knows what the future holds but one certainty is things will not remain static.
———-
All technology does is get extractable oil faster. Cantarell did this, now in terminal decline. The area under a production curve is the total volume of extractable oil. One recent study showed tha current new technology isn’t affecting flow rates. There are physical limits.
————
One other point, allowing oil production at maximum flow rates is not good if you are trying to maximise the production from your oil field as it results in formation of “bubbles” within the oil. This reduces permeability with a subsequent reduction in the amount of oil which can be recovered from the oil resevoir.
———-
This is EXACTLY why Texas peaked early.
Dirk, I think you can generalize on this statement:
“The Afghan business model looks pretty sound to me. People never stop paying for dope.”
People will never stop paying for the apparent essentials in life – dope, sex, energy, clean water and some convenient protein.
If you look at world per capita oil production, it appears that this did peak in 1979 at about 5.5 bbls per person per year and since the mid 1980’s it has held generally steady at about 4.5 bbls per person per year. Of course, typical automotive efficiency is higher now than in 1979. The last micro-peak I see is 4.6 bbls/P/yr in 2005 and the last value I have is about 4.3 bbls/P/yr in 2009. These are from my own calculations.
The primary message that I see is that the impending ‘Peak Oil’ event is a wake-up call to seriously start developing long-term alternative energy sources or in the unlikely event it is proven that no such sources exist, prepare for the coming of a lower energy lifestyle. Perhaps one of the existing energy supply corporations should think about creating something on the order of a ‘Thoridyne’ subsidiary to develop, if practicable, a thorium based nuclear power technology while they still can afford it.
Of course this is a very controversial issue and nobody is saying “The science is settled.” The following official document seems to cover the range of estimates for global peak production(yesterday to never):
Peaking of World Oil Production:
Recent Forecasts
DOE/NETL-2007/1263
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/Peaking%20of%20World%20Oil%20Production%20-%20Recent%20Forecasts%20-%20NETL%20Re.pdf
One notable included comment by D. Greene (Oak Ridge National Laboratory energy analyst) is, “Peaking of conventional oil production is almost certain to occur soon enough to deserve immediate and serious attention.”
What that attention should be is, of course, open to many options.
>>Ian H
>>I could feed my family from a garden in the backyard. At the moment
>>I prefer to work in a University and buy my food. But perhaps I should
>>haul out the cultivator, dig up the back lawn, and start planting.
>Ralph
>Ahh, the pipe-dream fantasies of the liberal ‘intelligentsia’. Been watching too much ‘The Good >Life’ obviously. Gentle hint – that was a comedy show, notnreal life.
You haven’t seen my backyard, so don’t judge. I was stating a literal fact. With the extremely fertile soil and mild and wet climate in the area I live, and with a third of a hectare of backyard to play with, I could in fact very easily feed a bunch of families.
>You are describing the surf system of strip-farming popular in England in the Middle Ages. And it >produced nothing but grinding poverty and insufficient production. That is why we had the >Enclosures Act, to make farms larger and more efficient, plus mechanisation.
I’m not describing or advocating any system. I’m stating a fact about the unused productive capacity of my backyard. At present the effort required to bring that land into production is simply not justified. But in a world where global famine were in the offing, my family would most definitely not go hungry.
>If we returned to strip farming, 95% of the population would die of starvation. Or perhaps that is >what you want.
What a nasty comment! All I said was I could feed my family from the unused productive capacity of my backyard and suddenly you are accusing me of advocating genocide! Get a sense of proportion and calm down.
My point (which you seem to completely have missed) is that there is an awful lot of unused productive capacity out there which graphs of grain production and so forth do not capture. Were global famine really in the offing, that land would soon come into production. Things are not as dire as they seem.
I put this here, suppose that i don have to explain more, dont have other link to Anthony Watts.
“”On August 22nd, 20011 Polarstern reached the geographic North Pole. At slow speed our bridge officer steered her vessel through a dense ice-flow field, and stopped it exactly at the pole. As expected, the compass showed directions changing wildly,”
“http://www.awi.de/en/infrastructure/ships/polarstern/weekly_reports/all_expeditions/ark_xxvi/ark_xxvi3/29_august_2011/”
Ilkka Mononen, alias Sähköteurastaja , both are public, rather Sähköteurastaja , means Electric butcher.
Ilkka;
Say what? The geographic North Pole is not the Magnetic Pole, and compasses would not “swing wildly”.
That sounds like one confused or mendacious report.
Its seems that 140 of worlds most extreme scientist at Polarstern didnt knew that.
Anyway they tells us it´s true north pole via institutes text on their own link.
Is this same scam as north pole row, tey didn´t reac any pole, etc.
A non-magnetic, GPS or gyrocompass system might give erratic east-west readings at 90 degrees true north.
Riiiggghht, Spector. Tell it.
Ilkka, it’s really disgusting that such semi-official bodies are prepared to lie so loudly, stupidly, and obviously. Send them a blast.
Why you don´t give a tip to somebody who can spread it.
I dont have any contacts here far north in our small circles in Finland, where media does not
publish it, and nobody cares.
Its all yours.
This was my point.
Seems that nobody hasnt regonized possibile scam.
Ilkka
However, to be fair: “directions” expressed as N, S, E, W might “change wildly” if you were moving back and forth over the pole, even with a non-magnetic system. Sitting directly on the pole, all directions would show “South”. Slightly off the pole, it would depend on the direction you were facing how stable the reading would be.
But normally, the swinging wildly phenomenon is attributed to magnetic compasses on or very near the Magnetic Poles.
RE: Brian H: (October 13, 2011 at 8:31 pm)
“But normally, the swinging wildly phenomenon is attributed to magnetic compasses on or very near the Magnetic Poles.”
True, but I was thinking that the use of magnetic compasses for navigation might have gone the way of the use of sliderules for calculation in this day and age.
You are right, but does gps display “spins wildly” because pole is only one calculated position ?
The arrow if used is only the show direction from location a to location b.
Never cared to watch what happened when GPS arrives to destiny, in some mearurement flights.
Maybe it beeps, if wanted.
Also i suppose that gyro systems if used, don’t regognize any pole, i´ts a location along the others.
Something strange case “spinning wildly”.
I dont trust these AGW hockeystickers, at any point, as you see.
Maybe i’m a´little bit paranoidic, or more, it´s theirs fault.
I´continue to check what mentioned systems are supposed to show at “pole”.
Ilkka
No spinning compass at gps system, link near near norh pole, only settled location , and
display whitc shows coordinates etc.
Sipinning compass remembered me, about history of finding north pole with magnetic compass.
Magnetic compass does the same today.
Did Polarstern really reach geodectical pole, as media touted, on same day as magnetic?
I´only wonder.
http://seymourlaxon.blogspot.com/
Ilkka
The phrase “As expected, the compass showed directions changing wildly” *could* be referring to a digital readout, which is what I would expect most electronic compasses to have. At least as quoted here, there is no mention of spinning. If there were, then that would be another story, especially if there were a reference to a compass ‘needle.’ I have no comment on any other aspect of this except that only an electronic compass could be ‘expected’ to behave erratically over the true North Pole. Google Earth has a similar problem at that place.
Thats the way, it goes, a new text from source. Little bit of pharsing.
“On August 22nd, 20011 Polarstern reached the geographic North Pole. At slow speed our bridge officer steered her vessel through a dense ice-flow field, and stopped it exactly at the pole. As expected, the compass showed directions changing wildly, ”
Not spinning wildly anymore.
That explain all.
Chancing wildly it that, was exceptet with gsm or gyro data analyses, generating when reaching
destination, whatever it is located.
Anyway, spindling needle is missing, and why “spinning compass” is chanced to “directions changing wildly”, witch can be explained theorethically, but probably newest measurement aplications, dont produce mentioned “changin wildy”, rarher reasonable
description, Goal, etc, maybe beep? Who Knows.
I mean that nowdays electronics have done the best that GSM system newer shows sipinning
wildy, or chancing wildly becouse it its very dangerous.
Before GSM, happened a nasty lecture in navigation near north pole. (and USSR those days)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_902
Problem solved.
Only champagne.
Are they crazy, or me ,is this the source of “thin ice” and North pole.
Easier to look ice behind green glasses.
http://www.awi.de/en/infrastructure/ships/polarstern/weekly_reports/all_expeditions/ark_xxvi/ark_xxvi3/5_september_2011/
If thats true, tell it Anhony Watts, or send him a message, and whole story..
Still doesn’t make sense. At “exactly” the North Pole, all directions are South. There’s nothing to change, wildly or otherwise.
What is exactly south.
GPS data around near the pole.
“Waypoint: (A) (B) (C) (D)
Location: N88° W089° N88° W001° N88° E001° N88° E089°
GPS Readouts
(X Axis, Easting) Y 1777952 Y 1996124 Z 2003876 Z 2222048
(Y Axis, Northing) UTM 1996124 UTM 1777952 UTM 1777952 UTM 1996124
Numbers are the location around pole, how they are spinning, no zero value.
In my mind, magnetic compass is only device that should show at noth pole all south,
but its impossible to show all the south directions at same time.
Maybe one direction or an other randomly.
But why spinning, as we are told in history.
Is there any phenomena to explain spinning, or is it from arctic adventures publiciations?
Also it reads (last link) that some other measuremet devices misoperated on magnetic north
pole. Are there devices connected to magnetic compass, it still easier connect location to
GPS, why magnetic compass, still wondering, is this some kind of fairy tale.
There is some kind of graphic evidence that Polarsterns route to real north pole
on map.
But straigt line at the pole, and text says “towards”, after Polarstern reaching north pole.
Still waiting for coordinates, i´cant find Polarsterns N W at the pole, neither
ship satellite tracker.
We are told only north poles coordinates, not Polarsterns at north pole.
Ilkka
As I recall, thin Ice at the North Pole has been reported before and I remember thinking that this might not be all that unusual because descending warm air at the center of a stationary polar-high-pressure cell might accelerate ice-melt in this area.
I found this reference:
Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
John Daly lives forewer, cheerio to him.
I,m almost alone in Finland agaist AGW, and need ammunitions for fighting.
Found plenty around the world, special thanks to WUWT.
I must ask you, whats is the best place that i shoud involve.
First time that i try get contact to tell what is AGW situation in Finland.
As: WWF leader is also FMI leader (FMI : Finnish Metereological Institutute) etc.
What shall i do?
Coming on this way, i also understand that that this chain is merely economic.
I was some kind of space tecnology designer, without any merits,
but main designer.
I dont´now my place to do my best other side of the Atlantic for all?
My motive is to fight against the media, main media, in these days, has not spoken
theme named “climategate” in Finland.
Here is no censorchip, but things like climategate newer published main media.
Ilkka
What I would expect to see changing rapidly near the North Pole is a reading of a ships longitude, as all 360 degrees of longitude come together at that point. A reading of the ships heading would rapidly switch from north to south going over or just past the pole.
As there are pictures of clear water at the North Pole going all the way back to 1958, I do not think that the ability of a ship to navigate to the North Pole says all that much about recent arctic melting.
I can only imagine that the incomprehensible reference to a ‘South Magnetic Pole’ in the Canadian Arctic (Alfred Wegener Institute; ARK-XXVI/3, Weekly report no 4) is a mistranslation of a phrase indicating the (North) Magnetic Pole’s placement relative to the true geographic North Pole.
————————————
Back to the Topic
Here is a recently found video talk by someone who *appears* knowledgeable on the on the economics of oil exhaustion, but that is tainted by an apparent assumption of a linear CO2 effect, common to many in the public, and a false belief that 450 PPM CO2 concentration would constitute a worldwide death tipping level. Thus he expects that “we are going to have to put a price on carbon emissions”–I do not think so, even though they have done this in Australia.
Most interesting, however, is his claim that oil prices are driven up by increased producer usage at cut-rate prices.
Peak Oil & $225 Oil by 2012 Predicts CIBC Economist Jeff Rubin
Dec, 2009
207 likes, 5 dislikes; 58,350 views; 45:53 min
“Jeff Rubin, the former Chief Economist of CIBC World Markets and the author of Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller built his reputation as one of Canada’s top economists based on a number of successful predictions including the housing bust of the early 90s and the rise of oil prices. In his recent book, Mr. Rubin predicts $225 per barrel oil by 2012 and with it the end of globalization, a movement towards local sourcing and a need for massive scaling up of energy efficiency.”
Spector;
AFAIK the North/South Magnetic Poles thing is just a reference to the “opposites attract” phenomenon — the north pole of your compass points to the south geomagnetic pole, and versa visa. 😉