Failed Prognostications of Climate Alarm

By Rob Bradley writing at IER

“If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit [between now and] the year 2025 to 2050…. The rise in global temperature is predicted to … caus[e] sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.”

— Philip Shabecoff, “Global Warming Has Begun.” New York Times, June 24, 1988.

It has been 30 years since the alarm bell was sounded for manmade global warming caused by modern industrial society. And predictions made on that day—and ever since—continue to be falsified in the real world.

The predictions made by climate scientist James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer back in 1988—and reported as model projected by journalist Philip Shabecoff—constitute yet another exaggerated Malthusian scare, joining those of the population bomb (Paul Ehrlich), resource exhaustion (Club of Rome), Peak Oil (M. King Hubbert), and global cooling (John Holdren).

Erroneous Predictive Scares

Consider the opening global warming salvo (quoted above). Dire predictions of global warming and sea-level rise are well on their way to being falsified—and by a lot, not a little. Meanwhile, a CO2-led global greening has occurred, and climate-related deaths have plummeted as industrialization and prosperity have overcome statism in many areas of the world.

Take the mid-point of the above’s predicted warming, six degrees. At the thirty-year mark, how is it looking? The increase is about one degree—and largely holding (the much-discussed “pause” or “warming hiatus”). And remember, the world has naturally warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age to the present, a good thing if climate economists are to be believed.

Turning to sea-level rise, the exaggeration appears greater. Both before and after the 1980s, decadal sea-level rise has been a few inches. And it has not been appreciably accelerating. “The rate of sea level rise during the period ~1925–1960 is as large as the rate of sea level rise the past few decades, noted climate scientist Judith Curry. “Human emissions of CO2 mostly grew after 1950; so, humans don’t seem to be to blame for the early 20th century sea level rise, nor for the sea level rise in the 19th and late 18th centuries.”

The sky-is-falling pitch went from bad to worse when scientist James Hansen was joined by politician Al Gore. Sea levels could rise twenty feet, claimed Gore in his 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, a prediction that has brought rebuke even from those sympathetic to the climate cause.

Now-or-Never Exaggerations

In the same book/movie, Al Gore prophesied that unless the world dramatically reduced greenhouse gasses, we would hit a “point of no return.” In his book review of Gore’s effort, James Hansen unequivocally stated: “We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.”

Time is up on Gore’s “point of no return” and Hansen’s “critical tipping point.” But neither has owned up to their exaggeration or made new predictions—as if they will suddenly be proven right.

Another scare-and-hide prediction came from Rajendra Pachauri. While head of a United Nations climate panel, he pleaded that without drastic action before 2012, it would be too late to save the planet. In the same year, Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, predicted “global disaster” from the demise of Arctic sea ice in four years. He too, has gone quiet.

Nothing new, back in the late 1980s, the UN claimed that if global warming were not checked by 2000, rising sea levels would wash entire countries away

There is some levity in the charade. In 2009, then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown predicted that the world had only 50 days to save the planet from global warming. But fifty days, six months, and eight years later, the earth seems fine.

Climate Hysteria hits Trump

The Democratic Party Platform heading into the 2016 election compared the fight against global warming to World War II. “World War III is well and truly underway,” declared Bill McKibben in the New Republic. “And we are losing.” Those opposed to a new “war effort” were compared to everything from Nazis to Holocaust deniers.

Heading into the 2016 election, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson warned that “a vote for Trump is a vote for climate catastrophe.” In Mother Jones, professor Michael Klare similarly argued that “electing green-minded leaders, stopping climate deniers (or ignorers) from capturing high office, and opposing fossil fueled ultranationalism is the only realistic path to a habitable planet.”

Trump won the election, and the shrill got shriller. “Donald Trump’s climate policies would create dozens of failed states south of the U.S. border and around the world,” opined Joe Romm at Think Progress. “It would be a world where everyone eventually becomes a veteran, a refugee, or a casualty of war.”

At Vox, Brad Plumer joined in:

Donald Trump is going to be president of the United States…. We’re at risk of departing from the stable climatic conditions that sustained civilization for thousands of years and lurching into the unknown. The world’s poorest countries, in particular, are ill-equipped to handle this disruption.

Renewable energy researcher John Abraham contended that Trump’s election means we’ve “missed our last off-ramp on the road to catastrophic climate change.” Not to be outdone, academic Noam Chomsky argued that Trump is aiding “the destruction of organized human life.”

Falsified Alarms, Compromised Science

If science is prediction, the Malthusian science of sustainability is pseudo-science. But worse, by not fessing up, by doubling down on doom, the scientific program has been compromised.

“In their efforts to promote their ‘cause,’” Judith Curry told Congress, “the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem.” She continued:

This behavior risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty. It is this objectivity and honesty which gives science a privileged seat at the table. Without this objectivity and honesty, scientists become regarded as another lobbyist group.

Even DC-establishment environmentalists have worried about a backfire. In 2007, two mainstream climate scientists warned against the “Hollywoodization” of their discipline. They complained about “a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.” To which Al Gore (the guilty party) responded: “I am trying to communicate the essence [of global warming] in the lay language that I understand.”

“There has to be a lot of shrillness taken out of our language,” remarked Environmental Defense Fund’s Fred Krupp in 2011. “In the environmental community, we have to be more humble. We can’t take the attitude that we have all the answers.”

Most recently, Elizabeth Arnold, longtime climate reporter for National Public Radio, warned that too much “fear and gloom,” leading to “apocalypse fatigue,” should be replaced by a message of “hope” and “solutions” lest the public disengage. But taxes and statism don’t sound good either.

Conclusion

If the climate problem is exaggerated, that issue should be demoted. Enter an unstated agenda of deindustrialization and a quest for money and power that otherwise might be beyond reach of the climate campaigners. It all gets back to what Tim Wirth, then US Senator from Colorado, stated at the beginning of the climate alarm:

We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.

“Right thing” in terms of economic and environmental policy? That’s a fallacy to explode on another day.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
427 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
August 7, 2018 2:07 am

Great summary except, Peak Oil, as described by M. King Hubbert in 1956, isn’t an “exaggerated Malthusian scare.” It’s just the mathematical description of reservoir depletion. Others have created exaggerated Malthusian scares out of Hubbert’s work, like the Olduvai catastrophe fiction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_theory

John Trujillo
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 4:44 am

Except we keep finding more oil all over the world. Texas just shut down wells due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas.

Reply to  John Trujillo
August 7, 2018 5:19 am

That’s because there’s a helluva lot more recoverable oil in the ground than M. King Hubbert imagined in 1956… And “Texas” hasn’t “shut down” any wells “due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas” or for any other reason. “Texas” doesn’t have any oil wells.

In 1956, Hubbert calculated that peak oil production in the US would occur between 1965 and 1975, based on a total estimated recoverable resource of 150-200 billion barrels. Cumulative production has already exceeded 200 billion bbl, current proved reserves are 40 billion bbl and the estimated undiscovered resource is currently around 130 billion bbl.

comment image

Proved reserves are just a fraction of the recoverable oil in existing reservoirs. So, proved reserves tend to rise with production and the undiscovered technically recoverable resource is also likely to increase over time. So, peak oil will continuously be pushed off into the future… as long as oil companies are allowed to operate as oil companies.

https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/1956_hubbert.pdf

Dr. Tony
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 7:21 am

….nonsense!

John Endicott
Reply to  Dr. Tony
August 7, 2018 10:50 am

Dr. Tony, while there is at least one bit of nonsense in that post (addressed elsewhere in this thread). could you elaborate on what you think is nonsense and why?

Reply to  John Endicott
August 7, 2018 11:46 am

I’m pretty sure Dr. Tony’s nonsense has to do with Peak Oil being just the mathematical description of reservoir depletion on. I probably should have qualified that as…

Peak Oil, as described by M. King Hubbert in 1956, is just the mathematical description of reservoir depletion… on a basin, region, national or global scale.

chinch
Reply to  John Endicott
August 7, 2018 1:43 pm

I think Tony just stroked a check to Algore and doesn’t want to incur the stop-payment charge.

Thudgun
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 8:17 am

““Texas” doesn’t have any oil wells.”

LOL!!!!!!!!

Reply to  Thudgun
August 7, 2018 9:50 am

Which oil wells does Texas own and operate?

Bryan A
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 10:15 am

comment image
source https://ballotpedia.org/Fracking_in_Texas

This is a map of all the (as of 2016) operating Oil and Gas wells within the state of Texas. They are all privately owned and operated. None are State Owned and operated so Yes Texas, as a state, owns and operates zero wells.
However
As of February 2017, Texas had 279,615 active oil and gas wells all Private or Corporate owned

Reply to  Bryan A
August 7, 2018 10:29 am

My point was that this sentence was not just wrong, it was impossible:

Texas just shut down wells due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas.

Texas couldn’t have “just shut down wells due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas,” because Texas doesn’t own or operate any oil wells.

Now… The Texas Railroad Commission can tell operators how much they can produce… But that would have nothing to do with either the cost of producing those wells or the price of imported oil.

David Langley
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 11:08 am

You are a poindexter, aren’t you?

[The mods permit this comment only because they agree, DM is probably a poindexter. 🙂 -mod]

Reply to  David Langley
August 7, 2018 11:41 am

Is a Poindexter more like a nerd or a geek? I need more information before I can categorically confirm one way or the other.

For the record:

I do own a slide rule… But I forgot how to use it.

I do not have a pocket protector… Most of my short-sleeved shirts don’t even have pockets.

I also pride myself in being a sarcastic smart@$$.

Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 11:57 am

You got two out of three correct: “sarcastic smart@$$”

Reply to  Dave Burton
August 7, 2018 3:38 pm

That’s my favorite one! LOL!

Everett Maddox
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 1:56 pm

I think I’m moving into your camp. I’m a recovered slide rule thinker myself.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  David Langley
August 7, 2018 5:52 pm

Greetings, fellow Poindexters. Isn’t this a this was a Poindexter safe place?

Reply to  Pop Piasa
August 7, 2018 6:16 pm

+42

Barry Johnson
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 10:23 pm

That is an absurd semantic argument, Middleton. We all know that people make decisions in corporations, and corporations operate within state boundaries. “Texas” was obviously referring to decision-makers within the state of Texas, and not the Texas state government. Please improve the discussion here, and refrain from being a time-waster.

Slacko
Reply to  Barry Johnson
August 9, 2018 1:45 am

YAWWWWN. Yeah, time to delete another 100 unread threads from my inbox. And I won’t be coming back to this one.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Slacko
August 9, 2018 5:33 am

Slacko, you will be missed for your incisive rhetorical thrusts and parries.

marque2
Reply to  Bryan A
August 7, 2018 12:47 pm

Companies and landowners have oil wells. Texas – itself is not an oil company, and therefore doesn’t have oil wells.

When saying Texas has oil wells, people are taking a huge short cut in describing the situation. Now if you said “There are oil wells in Texas” it would be a different story. Yes there are

Reply to  marque2
August 7, 2018 3:39 pm

Lots of them.

c.p.
Reply to  marque2
August 7, 2018 6:24 pm

Splitting hairs. Are we in court here? Do I need a lawyer to edit my answers? Ridiculous nonsense.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  c.p.
August 9, 2018 5:37 am

It reveals David’s free enterprise bent and pride in it. Yours reveals yours!

Rod Burton
Reply to  Bryan A
August 7, 2018 5:01 pm

It is my understanding that the University of Texas, a state institution, owns and operates oil wells used to fund the university.

Reply to  Rod Burton
August 7, 2018 6:22 pm

No. They own mineral rights under University Lands that were established by the State of Texas.

Oil companies lease the mineral rights, just like they do from private owners and the Federal government. The oil companies own the wells and the production. As part of the lease agreement, the lessor receives a percentage of the revenue from the production, usually 1/8.

John Endicott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 10:24 am

Do you seriously believe there are ZERO oil wells in Texas? no? then why are you playing semantic games about what was said and meant.

Reply to  John Endicott
August 7, 2018 10:34 am

Because this sentence was not only wrong, it was impossible:

Texas just shut down wells due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas.

I’ve lived in Texas and worked as a geologist/geophysicist in the oil industry since 1981… And I can unequivocally state that “Texas” hasn’t “just shut down wells due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas,” because “Texas” doesn’t own or operate any of the thousands of producing oil wells in Texas.

John Endicott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 10:36 am

From the context it was clear (and most everyone else on the thread seemed to understand) that what was meant was that oil wells in Texas had been shut down. *Not* that the State of Texas owned those oil wells. That you keep making a semantic issue over it only makes you look petty and less credible despite your claims of being an “authority” for having “lived in Texas” and worked as a “geologist/geophysicist in the oil industry since 1981”.

GozieBoy
Reply to  John Endicott
August 7, 2018 11:11 am

John, these silly self-appointed “oil experts” in Texas and elsewhere are a dime a dozen and usually just full of themselves, as you have just witnessed. Wells get shut down in Texas, and prospective wells not drilled, all the time due to economics, as we saw in 2014-16. And the state of Texas has a financial (tax) stake in every single well.

Reply to  GozieBoy
August 7, 2018 11:35 am

From late 2014 through early 2016 oil prices were cratering. Lots of wells were shut down and companies went bankrupt.

WTI is up $20/bbl over the past 12 months. A whole different world than 2014-2016.

Seabrina
Reply to  David Middleton
August 8, 2018 6:45 am

Oh my word. This is not complicated. Oil wells have been shut down and/or reopened in response to the price of oil per barrel. Some wells cost more to produce a barrel of oil than others.

Reply to  John Endicott
August 7, 2018 11:36 am

Well then… What wells were just shut in due to cheap imports?

Crowhunter
Reply to  John Endicott
August 7, 2018 2:15 pm

Bloomberg 8-7-18: “Oil production in Texas is set to double by 2023, aided by investments form Exxon Mobil Corp, Chevron Corp, BP, Plc and others, to reach 5.4 million barrels a day, according to estimates by researcher IHS Market Ltd. That would top the output of any country in OPEC except Saudi Arabia.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  John Endicott
August 9, 2018 5:42 am

John, its a difference in political theory between you and David. You protesteth too much, revealing antipathy toward control of such matters by the private sector.

John Endicott
Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 10, 2018 5:31 am

Gary you are talking nonsense. It was a silly semantic argument. David was being a self-described @$$, there was no political theory to it. You are looking at inkblots and seeing what you want to see.

If you bothered to check my posting history you’d see posts from me in support cutting of regulations and very critical of govt subsidies. I suspect David and I are in agreement in most threads on most issues on this forum., I just didn’t agree with you mischaracterization of one post where he admits that he was being an sarcastic @$$. I’m very much a small government pro-free market conservative which doesn’t fit your nonsense about my having some kind of “antipathy toward control of such matters by the private sector”. That’s a goblin of your own imagination.

If one wants to read “political theory” into it, then your read is totally backwards. It’s those who see the only possible meaning of “Texas had shut down wells” to be “[the government of the state of] Texas had shut down wells” that could be reasonably accused of “revealing antipathy toward control of such matters by the private sector” rather than those who see that sentence, in context, to mean “[the owners of the wells in the state of] Texas had shut down wells”.

Put another way, never play poker because your seeing of imaginary tells will end with you losing your house to the first card shark you come across.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
August 10, 2018 5:48 am

“I just didn’t agree with you mischaracterization …”

should have read

“I just didn’t agree with his mischaracterization …”

Edit window closed before I could correct.

Jess Sain
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 11:57 am

Correctamundo. There is oil/gas on my relatives property in Kansas. They produce nothing, the company who got the rights to drill can produce and my relatives will get royalty payments. At this time they are not pumping as prices are not conducive to do so.

Joe Barcelona
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 1:16 pm

Not so many oil wells in Pennsylvania anymore but there is a boatload of natural gas in the Marcellus & Utica formations.

GozieBoy
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 11:03 am

Texas has a direct financial stake in every oil well in the state.

Reply to  GozieBoy
August 7, 2018 11:38 am

It sure does… As does every mineral rights owner who receives royalties.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  David Middleton
August 9, 2018 5:49 am

A stake, as government has in every productive industry in the state. I see a “tell” in this discussion that David’s detracters are in the anti-free enterprise camp. Friends, you are taking on a giant.

John Endicott
Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 10, 2018 5:40 am

A gaint as imaginary as the “tell” you see. See my above post from a few minutes ago for more on how poorly you see “tells”.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  GozieBoy
August 7, 2018 1:02 pm

And oil/gas production does occur on state land, which makes Texas a landholder which sells production leases. The revenue goes into the Permanent University Fund, which partially funds higher education in the UT system.

Theo
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 12:15 pm

Does the State of Texas not own the Gulf continental shelf out to nine nautical miles? While it might not operate any shallow water wells lying out there, it owns, so must lease, the “land” to drillers.

Do the drillers own the wells or just the rigs and pipes, while the land around the hole belongs to Texas? A legal distinction without a difference, I guess.

Reply to  Theo
August 7, 2018 12:58 pm

We pay them royalties on the production. We own the wells and the production. They own the mineral rights, which we lease.

Theo
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 1:11 pm

The state also owns the land, which carries with it mineral rights.

Reply to  Theo
August 7, 2018 3:26 pm

The State owns the land, unless they’ve sold it. The State generally owns the mineral rights, even if they’ve sold the lands. Mineral rights are often severed from surface ownership. The mineral rights under University Lands are leased to oil companies. They retain a royalty interest in any production that is established on the leases. They do not own the wells, the infrastructure or the production.

In the US all mineral rights are owned by 1) private entities/individuals, 2) State governments, or 3) the Federal government. Mineral owners are generally paid a cash bonus as part of a lease agreement, under which they deliver the mineral rights to an oil company for a period of time that can range from 3 to 10 years (primary term). If production is established on the lease, the oil company retains those mineral rights so long as there is production on the lease. The mineral rights owner is generally paid a royalty interest. This can vary widely; but 1/8 of the production is a common royalty. If the primary term expires without production being established, the oil company relinquishes the mineral rights and the owner is free to offer the acreage up for leasing again.

Mitchell Fields
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 4:32 pm

don’t be a quibbling douche, it wasn’t a point worth making in the first place.

Louis Hunt
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 4:53 pm

He didn’t say it was the state of Texas or the government of Texas that has oil wells. He just said Texas, which any reasonable person would interpret as “Texans” in general. Are there no Texans who have oil wells? Can we stop with deliberately misinterpreting other’s comments just so you can create a straw man to tear down to make yourself look smart? Everyone knows you knew what he meant, so it only makes you look like a smart a$$.

Reply to  Louis Hunt
August 7, 2018 5:03 pm

Guilty as charged.

George Reagan
Reply to  Thudgun
August 8, 2018 9:30 am

I have worked for the Texas petroleum industry ever since the mid 1970s. Geophysical Services, Gearhart Industries, Halliburton, Weatherford EDI, all oil patch service companies that provide down hole, both open hole and cased hole logging (surveying) services. There are many independent service companies to numerous to mention. Yes, there were slow downs in the mid 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Halliburton bought out Gearhart wireline in the late 1980s and Precision Energy services (Canada) bought out Computalog in the early 2000s. Then PES sold out to Weatherford in 2008. Because of Obozo’s ‘economic’ disaster, Weatherford closed it’s Benbrook facility down 1n 2015 and moved its wireline business to Houston. There has ALWAYS been R&D and profitable field ops in spite of Old Blues competition.
From some one that was on the rigs front lines, Retired engineer, Fort Worth, TX

susan
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 8:45 am

Texas doesn’t have any oil wells? I’ve lived in Texas my whole life. My grandmother had 2 wells in her back pasture. A good friend has wells on his property south of San Antonio. You might want to look at this map of all the currently pumping gas and oil wells in Texas and rephrase your comment.

http://www.drillingmaps.com/Texas.html#.W2m-AdJKjcs

Paul Penrose
Reply to  susan
August 7, 2018 9:41 am

Susan,
I’m sure that David meant “Texas does not *own* any oil wells”, which is true enough. So “Texas” can’t shut them down for purely economic reasons.

Dr. Tony,
You got negative ratings because just blurting out “nonsense” without stating specifically what you think is nonsense and why, is not helpful and does not advance the discussion.

Reply to  Paul Penrose
August 7, 2018 10:35 am

Yes… That is exactly what I meant. I thought it was obvious.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 8, 2018 8:36 am

It was obvious to me.

Reply to  susan
August 7, 2018 9:51 am

Exactly which oil wells does “Texas” own and operate?

John Endicott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 10:25 am

Do you seriously believe there are ZERO oil wells in Texas? no? then why are you playing semantic games about what was said and meant.

Reply to  John Endicott
August 7, 2018 10:35 am

See my previous answers.

John Endicott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 10:51 am

See my previous replies. See Chad’s reply below.

Chad Irby
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 10:28 am

“Texas,” in this usage, means “inside the state of Texas.”

This is common English usage, you should probably try to learn it instead of attempting to be so inaccurately pedantic.

John Endicott
Reply to  Chad Irby
August 7, 2018 10:40 am

Exactly Chad.

Reply to  Chad Irby
August 7, 2018 11:05 am

Try to follow along…

John Trujillo
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/07/failed-prognostications-of-climate-alarm/#comment-2423418
Except we keep finding more oil all over the world. Texas just shut down wells due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas.

My reply to the comment above was:

That’s because there’s a helluva lot more recoverable oil in the ground than M. King Hubbert imagined in 1956… And “Texas” hasn’t “shut down” any wells “due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas” or for any other reason. “Texas” doesn’t have any oil wells.

In 1956, Hubbert calculated that peak oil production in the US would occur between 1965 and 1975, based on a total estimated recoverable resource of 150-200 billion barrels. Cumulative production has already exceeded 200 billion bbl, current proved reserves are 40 billion bbl and the estimated undiscovered resource is currently around 130 billion bbl.

[…]

This is the sentence I took issue with: “Texas just shut down wells due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas.”

Which oil wells did Texas shut down?

I suppose, I could have been less snarky with my reply… But, that sentence demanded snarkiness.

For that matter, what oil wells in Texas were “just shut down… due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas.”

If the well is producing, no one would shut it in if it was at least covering its lease operating expenses. And this is not the sort of environment in which operating expenses exceed revenue.

comment image

https://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil.aspx?timeframe=1y

John Endicott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 11:25 am

Try to follow along…

You made a big kerfluffle about the poster use of the word “Texas” when from the context it was meant as a location not the owner of the wells. This is commonly used everyday American English when people are talking about something happened in a particular state without getting into the details of who in that state is doing it. That you keep going on and on about it despite being pointed out to you by multiple posters what was meant just makes you look even more petty that your initial semantic games did. The OP used the word Texas in a different way than you would have used the word Texas, too bad.

[The mods request that you let it go already. This is now officially an off-topic distraction. Thank you for your cooperation. -mod]

seabrina
Reply to  David Middleton
August 8, 2018 6:58 am

You are just plain wrong. Oil wells are shut down and restarted based on the price per barrel. While it might be profitable for a well to produce when oil is at $60, it may not be cost effective for that well to continue at $20, thus it is shut down.

H. Moyer
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 10:30 am

The University of Texas System owns tons of oil reserves in west Texas that are used to finance the University of Texas. The benefit from the PUF, Permanent University Fund, which DOES own and lease Oil Properties is for benefit of University students, so yes, “Texas” does own oil wells.

Reply to  H. Moyer
August 7, 2018 10:48 am

They don’t own or operate the wells. They own the mineral rights and make money from royalty payments made by the oil companies that own and operate the wells.

Reply to  susan
August 7, 2018 10:48 am

I believe his point was that the great state of Texas does not own or control oil wells. Those decisions are made by the owners and operators of said wells. I would even go so far as to suggest that he put Texas inside quotation marks to emphasize that point. Everything else he said looks pretty correct to me.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tony K
August 7, 2018 10:54 am

Correct only if you ignore the meaning of the post he was replying to. As chad and I have pointed out the context of the post makes it clear that the OPs meaning for Texas was as a location, not as an owner as David pedantically rants about.

Reply to  John Endicott
August 7, 2018 11:26 am

Well then… What wells in Texas would have been “just shut down… due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas”?

With WTI trading $20/bbl higher now than 1 year ago… not many wells are being shut in because of cheap imports or any other economic reason.

John Endicott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 11:35 am

Finally a reasonable question for you. Why didn’t you simply ask the OP that question instead of going on a pedantic rant that ignored the context of what he was saying?

Reply to  John Endicott
August 7, 2018 12:57 pm

Because I like being a smart@$$.

John Endicott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 8, 2018 5:18 am

There’s nothing smart about being a smart@$$, it just makes one look like an @$$.

Reply to  Tony K
August 7, 2018 11:23 am

Exactly.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  susan
August 7, 2018 11:18 am

Susan’s mother’s first name was Texas.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
August 7, 2018 6:00 pm

Our county here in Illinois used to have a coroner with the first name of Dallas, so let’s put this thread to rest.

USecpat
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 9:10 am

“Texas” doesn’t have any oil wells.
How so? This site says different or am I missing something?
http://www.drillingmaps.com/texas.html#.W2nENNJKiM8

Reply to  USecpat
August 7, 2018 9:35 am

The oil wells in Texas belong to the oil companies that drilled them.

Bryan A
Reply to  USecpat
August 7, 2018 2:20 pm

There is a vast difference between the statements
Texas has oil wells (possessive)
and
There are Oil Wells in Texas

Much like…
Texas has shut down oil wells
and
Oil Wells were shut down in Texas.

The State owns no wells so The State can’t shut them down, only the owner can. (unless they are causing environmental damages by leaking then the State can order they cease pumping until repairs are made.)

Reply to  Bryan A
August 7, 2018 3:28 pm

Under certain circumstances, the Texas Railroad Commission can tell you how much you can produce. Production allocation is generally done to ensure that a reservoir is drained efficiently.

Charles Casaburi
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 10:07 am

Of course there is a finite amount of oil but long before we run out we will move on to some better more efficient means of fueling the economy. It was once said that the industrial revolution had to end because we would run out of coal.

Reply to  Charles Casaburi
August 7, 2018 10:36 am

Same principle as leaving the Stone Age.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  David Middleton
August 9, 2018 6:03 am

Yeah, David. An oil minister in Saudi Arabia famously stated that rhe Stone Age didnt end because they ran out of stones! We will have a reliable substitute before we run out of oil,too. It just wont be what the Gang Green is proffering.

beafrank
Reply to  Charles Casaburi
August 7, 2018 4:58 pm
beafrank
Reply to  Charles Casaburi
August 7, 2018 5:03 pm
J P
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 11:03 am

Glad you made the point that TX does not own any wells. Even though many think they understood what the OP meant to say they are still reinforcing an idea of collective ownership. It’s echoed many times as “our” oil or “our” gas especially when it comes to taxing oil are limiting exports.

Fracking is driven by private individuals working for private companies on private land and should never be referred to with the royal “we”.

Reply to  J P
August 7, 2018 11:31 am

I plead guilty of being snarky… But, the post demanded a snarky reply.

Here’s a classic from 2013…

Pres. Obama: We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years.

What do you mean by “we”? You don’t produce any oil.

See that decline in Federal Gulf of Mexico production from ~1.7 MMbbl/d to ~1.4 MMbbl/d since early 2010?

comment image

You actually did build that.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/13/sotu-energy-fabrications-falsehoods-and-fantasies/

c. p.
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 6:39 pm

While I’m all good with bashing Obama at every opportunity, just because a person may say “our” or “Texas” given the right context does not necessarily indicate ownership. My team is the Dallas Cowboys. No I’m not Jerry Jones, nor have I bought the team from him.

Reply to  c. p.
August 7, 2018 7:23 pm

When Jerry Jones fired Tom Landry, did “we” fire Tom Landry?

John Endicott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 8, 2018 5:20 am

“we’ might not have, but it’s perfectly legitimate to say “Dallas” fired him even though the city of Dallas had nothing to do with it.

Lokki
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 12:22 pm

This will be unnoticed because so many rants have been traded back and forth and I am a bit late to the party. However, in Texas, mineral rights, by state law, belong to the owner of the land. Thus, on state land, the oil belongs to the state.

In fact,
“One of the primary responsibilities of the Texas General Land Office is to lease the vast mineral holdings of the state for oil and gas development, with the proceeds going to the Permanent School Fund (PSF) to help pay for Texas public education.

Oil and gas leases on PSF lands generate more revenue than any other source of income for the public education endowment, and managing these leases is one of the GLO’s core functions. Leases for oil and gas development occur both onshore and offshore.

Typically, the GLO receives a 20 to 25 percent royalty from oil and gas produced from leases on state land and may take this royalty in cash or in kind, which can be sold competitively to public entities such as gas or electricity (see Energy Marketing). Since inception, the Texas General Land Office has deposited more than $16.8 billion into the Permanent School Fund from oil and gas revenue on PSF lands.”

So, Mr. Middleton – you are incorrect. The STATE OF TEXAS is the legal owner of many many oil wells. As a matter of policy it elects to sub contract the operation of pumping machinery to various operators in return for royalties but, it does own oil wells.

Reply to  Lokki
August 7, 2018 12:56 pm

The State of Texas doesn’t own the oil wells. They own the mineral rights under PSF lands. Oil companies lease the mineral rights, drill the wells, own and operate the wells and the production. The oil companies pay royalties on the production to the State of Texas.

“One of the primary responsibilities of the Texas General Land Office is to lease the vast mineral holdings of the state for oil and gas development, with the proceeds going to the Permanent School Fund (PSF) to help pay for Texas public education.

Royalties are a percentage of the gross proceeds from the production.

Milt Morris
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 1:03 pm

I think mother earth must be producing new oil.

Reply to  Milt Morris
August 7, 2018 3:29 pm

It is.

c. p.
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 6:18 pm

What in the heck do you mean Texas has no oil wells???

Reply to  c. p.
August 7, 2018 7:00 pm

“Texas” neither owns nor operates oil wells.

Texas has oil wells in exactly the same manner that the Gulf of Mexico or Permian Basin has oil wells.

The comment to which I initially replied said “Texas just shut down wells due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas.”

lonestarlizard
Reply to  John Trujillo
August 7, 2018 9:38 am

John, what are you smoking dude? No oil wells in Texas? Take a clue and wake up.

Reply to  lonestarlizard
August 7, 2018 10:37 am

No one said there were no oil wells in Texas. My comment that the State of Texas doesn’t own or operate any oil wells was misinterpreted about 42 times.

John Endicott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 11:31 am

No, it’s you that has misinterpreted what the OP was saying “42 times”. The OP wasn’t claiming Texas owns or operated oil wells, as has been pointed out to you the 42 times you’ve misinterpreted it. And will continue to be pointed out to you should you wish to misinterpret it another 42 times.

John Endicott
Reply to  lonestarlizard
August 7, 2018 11:29 am

lonestarlizard. I didn’t say there was no oil wells in Texas, David on the other hand was claiming no oil well in Texas were shut down because Texas doesn’t own any oil wells. which begged the question that you’ve mistaken for a statement. Perhaps you should let us know what you were smoking when you did that?

lonestarlizard
Reply to  John Endicott
August 7, 2018 2:36 pm

My mistake John on my first post here. It appears that I replied to the wrong person. Sorry for the mix up. And, I don’t smoke anything.

SuperDelegate
Reply to  John Trujillo
August 7, 2018 1:17 pm

The Russians, God love them, were the first to discover oil 4-5 miles beneath the surface. Hard to imagine how that was a biological process, unless we discover that there are anaerobic subterranean species at work. It is possible, perhaps, it’s an abiological organic process creating all of this new-found oil. The world is awash in petroleum, enough to get us through the conversion to Hydrogen or another, as yet, undeveloped source.

Theo
Reply to  SuperDelegate
August 7, 2018 5:03 pm

Microbes have been found in gabbro, which normally doesn’t even exist until over two miles below the sea floor. Yet, in a section of uplifted gabbro (Atlantis Massif), just 4600 feet down in Atlantic crust, Oregon State researchers found microbes, including apparent methanogens.

http://terra.oregonstate.edu/2010/11/in-earths-deep-crust-microbes-abound/

So, while the planet itself might not make petroleum geologically, ie abiotically, there could still be a deep, hot biosphere, which does produce it biotically.

Reply to  Theo
August 7, 2018 5:20 pm

It’s not impossible.

Theo
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 5:26 pm

Makes more sense to me than does purely geologically made petroleum, with its complex chemicals.

Reply to  Theo
August 7, 2018 6:12 pm

Crude oil is a combination of complex chemicals.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/18/oil-where-did-it-come-from/

In the Gulf of California, petroleum-like substances have been associated with hydrothermal vents in basins with overlying thick organic-rich sediments. However nearby hydrothermal vents with little to no sediment cover (rises) do not exhibit evidence of “hydrothermal oil,” just methane and simple hydrocarbons.

comment image

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/04/new-study-challenges-prevailing-theory-about-how-deep-sea-vents-are-colonized-and-hydrothermal-oil/

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Theo
August 9, 2018 6:10 am

Even abiotic would be geological

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Theo
August 7, 2018 6:31 pm

I just saw one of those (incandescent) cartoon lightbulbs appear over my head!
That would sure make good research.

comment image

Dr. Tony
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 7:21 am

Peak Oil” is another inane and fatuous myth, brother. The latest geophysical research indicates oil is not produced from decaying organic matter. All the dinosaurs didn’t die in Saudi Arabia, duh. Hey, we now know that the earth basically sweats and that sweat that it produces way down deep, deep, deep, to the core is what we call petroleum. The world is awash in petroleum and always will be.

Larry Cline
Reply to  Dr. Tony
August 7, 2018 7:50 am

“The latest geophysical research indicates oil is not produced from decaying organic matter…. [W]e now know that the earth basically sweats…”

The Earth “sweats?” Wow, just wow. What’s your doctorate in, Women’s Studies? Please produce one –just ONE– source for oil being sweated out “deep, deep, deep to the core,” and I will publicly kiss your butt right on this forum.

It’s good that you’re on the right side of the issue, “Doctor” Tony, but please don’t try to help. Delusional statements tarnish all of us “deniers” by association.

Napoleon Strayer
Reply to  Larry Cline
August 7, 2018 9:41 am

“Sweat” as used in that comment is figure of speech. It’s an apt metaphor for the natural production of petroleum that has been going on for billions of years, all based on the earth’s original endowment of methane and other hydrocarbons.

Reply to  Napoleon Strayer
August 7, 2018 10:38 am

Hundreds of millions of years and it has nothing to do with “earth’s original endowment of methane and other hydrocarbons.”

Larry Cline
Reply to  Napoleon Strayer
August 7, 2018 2:49 pm

I’m not taking issue with his metaphor. It’s his science that’s out to lunch.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Larry Cline
August 7, 2018 6:43 pm

So, Larry, aren’t you inClined to give proof that his science is actually “off the clock”?
I suspect that you are a drive-by troll who is metaphorically challenged.

MarkW
Reply to  Napoleon Strayer
August 7, 2018 7:14 pm

Being a gas, none of the original methane ended up beneath the crust.

Jason Pastrick
Reply to  Dr. Tony
August 7, 2018 8:12 am

See “The Deep Biosphere”, Thomas Gold.

Reply to  Jason Pastrick
August 7, 2018 9:51 am

Bad science fiction.

MarkW
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 7:15 pm

Not even good science fiction.

honest liberty
Reply to  Dr. Tony
August 7, 2018 8:45 am

I am reading through this site, and following the comment threads. Now that I’ve conquered the myth of CAGW I think I’m going to start exploring the fundamentals behind arguments of biogenic vs. abiogenic hydrocarbons. From what little I have invested in time, I’m asking myself whether it is possible to have a combination of the two.

https://principia-scientific.org/russians-nasa-discredit-fossil-fuel-theory-demise-of-junk-co2-science/

Because of my limited scope, limited knowledge, and zero field work I certainly will not weigh in or formulate a conclusion on this matter for quite some time. I reckon I have a few thousand hours to spend on this topic.

honest liberty
Reply to  honest liberty
August 7, 2018 9:07 am

interesting to think about the state of affairs, provided my comment above. Let’s say, for arguments sake (as I’ve already expressed a lack of knowledge) that abiogenic oil is pseudo-science. Now, with the canary in the coal mine (Alex Jones being censored on the major social media platforms) being exposed as Big Brother and Big Corporation deciding for us what is reality, credible…then how am I ever to grow my reasoning and logical skills. Isn’t the onus on me, the individual (the smallest minority), to strive to discover the truth of any matter to the best of my abilities? Isn’t it incumbent upon me, and only me, to be willing to challenge my current worldview when additional information presents itself that may alter those conclusions?

I’m mentioning this because we are under attack by rogue elements of totalitarians masquerading around as “tolerant” “protectors of free-speech” while operating in exactly the opposite manner. They are elitist in mentality, collective in action and thought, and genuinely despise the individual. This is why they want to shut down debate and censor unpalatable opinions/theories/people. Alex Jones, for all of his eccentricity and volatility, misinformation (and sometimes good information), quirks, offensive words, intolerant interruptions, etc… is a necessary voice in a free society. If we are to eliminate the average mind from accessing unpalatable ideas, then we are reverting to a time where religion dominates the individual by occulting knowledge while de-educating the population (which is happening right now across the globe).

As much as I despise these CAGW charlatans for publishing fear-mongering pseudo-science for selfish motives- I wouldn’t dare ever censor them from publication. Let the debate of ideas be free and open, so that our civilization can advance itself through research and reflection, for we know that the under the threat of violence and coercion, civilization retreats in barbarism.

I very much appreciate the platform provided by Mr. Watts for contributors both in essay and the comments section. Without such media I would likely still be in the Church of CACA – (because I initially read this site with extreme skepticism).

Reply to  Dr. Tony
August 7, 2018 9:49 am

I’m sorry… 38 years as a petroleum geologist must have blinded me to the latest science fiction.

Here are a couple of clues:

1) Oil doesn’t come from dinosaurs.
2) Oil is not produced from “decaying” organic matter.

Neither of these inane ideas have ever been part of the science.

The world is “awash” in petroleum because the Jurassic to Middle Cretaceous and a few other periods in geologic history couldn’t have been better hydrocarbon kitchens even if they were designed to be.

comment image

https://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2016/02/rich-petroleum-source-rocks

Chad Irby
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 10:32 am

Even if abiogenic oil (as a theory for mass oil production) is false, the mechanism does work, at least in some rare cases. Heat + pressure + chemicals = a lot of weird things, over time.

Much like “natural nuclear reactors,” the Earth is so big, and time’s been long enough, for at least a little abiogenic oil to be produced, somewhere.

Reply to  Chad Irby
August 7, 2018 10:49 am

Sure. It’s possible. The chemical equations can be balanced. There’s just no evidence anywhere on Earth of a significant volume of crude oil that was generated from inorganic material.

ripshin
Editor
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 11:28 am

David,

Doesn’t it come down the complexity of the hydrocarbon molecule in question? As in, the complex hydrocarbon molecules we find in crude oil (or whatever) could not have formed from abiotic processses? (I’m asking cause I feel like this was discussed before but don’t remember.)

Thanks in advance,

rip

Reply to  ripshin
August 7, 2018 12:49 pm

I don’t care for “abiotic” or abiogenic” because the implication is that crude oil forms from a biotic or biogenic process.

The subject was discussed in these threads…

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/18/oil-where-did-it-come-from/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/10/the-world-keeps-not-running-out-of-oil/

Theo
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 12:59 pm

The organic material from which petroleum forms comes from once living organisms, mainly marine microbes. If the feedstock is of biological origin, what’s wrong with “biotic” to describe the process or final product?

Reply to  Theo
August 7, 2018 3:33 pm

Biogenic methane is formed by the direct decay of organic matter. Most natural gas is not biogenic, even though the original source material was organic. Most natural gas is thermogenic, formed by the same process that forms crude oil.

comment image

Theo
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 4:19 pm

I thought that you were referring to petroleum. And coal of course is purely biogenic.

ripshin
Editor
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 2:30 pm

Thanks David. I remember that column now, and it certainly informed much of my current understanding on this subject. One thing I didn’t remember was the point you made on source material being flora rather than fauna. I guess it was a distinction I’d never considered before, but thinking it through it does make more sense that plant material (marine or terrestrial) would be much more prevalent than dead animal carcasses.

Thanks again.

rip

JonScott
Reply to  Dr. Tony
August 7, 2018 9:54 am

Geophysical research? Please tell me more!

Larry Cline
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 7:21 am

Obviously there is SOME finite limit to the amount of oil there is in the ground, but new sources continue to be found, meaning that limit is currently unknown.

What IS unlimited is human ingenuity. The development of new technologies continues to change what was formerly considered “unrecoverable” oil into a usable resource that can drive further innovation. What is thought to be “too difficult” or “too expensive” to recover today may not be seen that way tomorrow, either because new technology lowers the cost of recovery, or economic changes make the cost acceptable.

Capitalism is a wonderful thing: it makes the impossible possible.

sycomputing
Reply to  Larry Cline
August 7, 2018 8:46 am

Obviously there is SOME finite amount of oil there is in the ground, though new sources continue to be found, meaning that limit is currently unknown.

The argument to “finitude” seems to presuppose no new petroleum is being created in the earth as we speak.

When did the processes that formed the petroleum we now have in the ground stop? Why did they stop?

If they haven’t stopped, can you estimate how many new barrels of petroleum are being created in the ground each day? If you can’t, why do you argue that “there is SOME finite amount of oil…”?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  sycomputing
August 7, 2018 9:26 am

Agreed We will never run out of oil

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 7, 2018 9:55 am

We won’t run out… But, not due to how fast or where the Earth makes oil.

Kelly Hemperley
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
August 7, 2018 10:01 am

Until we do. What about cheap oil? Will we ever run out of that?

Reply to  Kelly Hemperley
August 7, 2018 10:44 am

It depends on how you define “cheap.”

John Endicott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 11:01 am

as cheap is a relative term, I’d suggest in this context “cheaper than the alternatives” (in particular solar, wind, and other “renewables”) was meant.

Reply to  John Endicott
August 7, 2018 11:48 am

Then we have a lot of cheap oil left to produce.

MarkW
Reply to  John Endicott
August 7, 2018 7:19 pm

John, any energy is cheap compared to energy sources that aren’t there when you need them.

Reply to  sycomputing
August 7, 2018 9:53 am

The process hasn’t stopped. However, we are producing oil much faster than the Earth makes it. Every oil reservoir ever drilled exhibits a decline curve. If the Earth was making oil at a rate comparable to production, there would be no decline curves.

sycomputing
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 10:00 am

If the Earth was making oil at a rate comparable to production, there would be no decline curves.

Thanks for your patience, David.

So, e.g., a glass of water is being continually replenished by condensation, however, the rate of draw from the user(s) exceeds that replenishment. I get that part.

Do we know how many glasses of water are in the ground?

Reply to  sycomputing
August 7, 2018 10:43 am

A lot of Olympic swimming pool-size worth of glasses. Off the top of my head, I don’t know what the latest global estimate of undiscovered technically recoverable oil is.

For the US, the undiscovered technically recoverable resource is currently estimated to be around 130 billion bbl. In reality, it’s probably a lot more than that.

If you include the Green River oil shale (genuinely unconventional oil), it’s over 1 trillion bbl.

sycomputing
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 11:14 am

Thanks for your time.

Reply to  sycomputing
August 7, 2018 11:48 am

I already had all that written down ahead of time… 😉

sycomputing
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 11:52 am

I gotcha…still, it took a bit of your time (that you’ll never get back) to answer my silly questions.

🙂

Reply to  sycomputing
August 7, 2018 12:39 pm

I’m good at multitasking… 😉

sycomputing
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 2:22 pm

Just accept the dang gratitude already…geez!

🙂

Larry Cline
Reply to  sycomputing
August 7, 2018 10:37 am

“When did the processes that formed the petroleum we now have in the ground stop?”

It hasn’t stopped, but it’s a geologically slow process. The oil we collect and refine today took millions of years to form, while we’ve been using it for only 150 years or so. Even if what we’ve used amounts to one one-hundredth of a percent of the total (one part in ten thousand) we are massively outstripping nature’s “production capacity” by several orders of magnitude.

Fortunately, long before the supply becomes an issue, we’ll have cracked nuclear fusion and energy will no longer be an issue. There’s more than enough oil to fulfill ours needs until then.

sycomputing
Reply to  Larry Cline
August 7, 2018 11:08 am

The oil we collect and refine today took millions of years to form, so we’re massively outstripping nature’s “production capacity.”

Thanks for your time.

It would seem logical to assume that those “millions of years” to create new petroleum end each and every day continuously presently. E.g., the last million years ends each day forward. Or thought of another way, another million years has a birthday each day there is another day.

Thinking of it in terms of 1 year processing time (just for simplicity’s sake), then if a barrel of oil were created in 365 days the very first time the natural process finished, however many eons ago, then each day past the first year means another barrel of oil per day, e.g., day #366 = 1 new, day #367 = 1 new, and so on.

If you’d suggest as David did above, that “every reservoir exhibits a decline curve;” I get that concept, however, it would still seem for your argument to be valid that you’d have to know exactly how much petroleum the earth is producing everywhere, all the time, each day, along with what I assume we are able to estimate, i.e., the number of barrels being pulled out of the ground.

Otherwise, don’t we Beg the Question by simply assuming that because of known reservoir decline rates, all available petroleum in the ground is being produced faster than the earth is replenishing it?

Reply to  sycomputing
August 7, 2018 12:01 pm

Unknown reservoirs haven’t been drilled. They won’t exhibit decline curves until they are drilled and put on production.

There are something like 70,000 oil fields in the world. Every single one of them exhibited or will exhibit a decline curve, either due to pressure depletion or water production or both. Even the great Gwahar Field will soon exhibit a decline curve, because its cumulative production is close to half of the total volume of recoverable oil in the reservoir.

Generally speaking, production increases as a field is developed, peaks and then declines, eventually hitting an economic limit…

comment image

https://halliburtonblog.com/what-is-a-mature-field/

Field operators will do everything economically possible to prolong production… gas lift, workovers, recompletions, sidetracks… If the field is big enough, they will even opt for secondary and tertiary recoveries with water and CO2 floods. But, ultimately production falls to the point that it ceases to be economic.

Reply to  Larry Cline
August 7, 2018 11:12 am

There’s even evidence from a 4d seismic survey in Eugene Island 330 field that reservoirs are actively recharging along one particular fault. IT’s just not recharging fast enough to reverse the inevitable.

comment image

sycomputing
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 11:34 am

Right but I’m still thinking of it over the entire planet, not just a single reservoir.

Suppose we were able to gather all the existing petroleum in the earth and pipe it into some reservoir of our making. Suppose further that for each new barrel of oil created naturally per day we were able to pipe that barrel into the same reservoir.

Is it possible to know how a production versus recharge (thanks for the correct lingo, David) graph would look?

Reply to  sycomputing
August 7, 2018 12:38 pm

I think the plumbing would be prohibitively expensive… 😉

This article has a discussion of the evidence of active recharge of some reservoirs in the Eugene Island 330 field…

https://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-91/issue-17/in-this-issue/exploration/recovering-dynamic-gulf-of-mexico-reserves-and-the-us-energy-future.html

The recharge only slows the decline. It doesn’t reverse it.

comment image

sycomputing
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 12:44 pm

I think the plumbing would be prohibitively expensive…

lol you reckon?

Thanks again, take care.

MarkW
Reply to  sycomputing
August 7, 2018 7:18 pm

The process that creates oil and gas is slow. We are pulling it out of the ground orders of magnitude faster than the earth is creating it.

NorwegianSceptic
Reply to  sycomputing
August 7, 2018 11:55 pm

As long as there are humans on the planet, we’ll for sure never run out of snake oil…….

Kelly Hemperley
Reply to  Larry Cline
August 7, 2018 9:57 am

I am reasonably confident we will be producing oil for hundreds of years. However, drilling on the bottom of the ocean, in the arctic, fracking, lateral drilling, squeezing oil sands, and so on add lots to up front costs. Oil in the ground, in sand, in shale, and bottom of oceans is not cheap oil.

Larry Cline
Reply to  Kelly Hemperley
August 7, 2018 10:32 am

“Oil in the ground, in sand, in shale, and bottom of oceans is not cheap oil.”

Maybe with today’s technology. And “cheap” is a relative term. If the price goes high enough, oil that was was too expensive to go after can become worth the trouble after all.

Furthermore, technology has a way of changing the cost of getting a commodity. Oil locked in shale formations was considered unrecoverable by any economically-viable means… until fracking was developed just in the past couple of decades. Just because something isn’t usable right now, it does not necessarily follow that it will always be so.

The tip of the spire of the Washington Monument is made of aluminum. Why? Because it was a precious metal. In the late 19th century, smelting aluminum was so expensive and difficult that it was literally worth more than gold. Add some new technological innovations, and today we wrap sticks of gum in it.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Larry Cline
August 7, 2018 12:27 pm

Larry, please double-check your facts about aluminum being more expensive than gold in the “late 19th century”.

A more accurate statement would be that aluminum metal was more expensive than gold up until about 1856, which is certainly not the late-19th century. It was far less valuable than gold when the aluminum tip was placed on Washington Monument in 1884. It was still a precious metal though, being worth about the same as silver.

The first commercial process for producing aluminum was perfected in 1856. In 1850, aluminum was worth about $500 per pound ($1102/kg), which is due to the fact that it could only be produced in small quantities in the laboratory. At the time, the dollar was defined as 1/20 of a troy ounce of gold, which means that gold was worth about $643/kg. Aluminum was about 70% more valuable than gold by weight.

By 1859, the price of aluminum had dropped to about $40 per pound ($88/kg), less than 1/7 the value of gold, which is still far more than it is worth today.

In 1884, aluminum was worth about $16 per pound ($35/kg). Silver was worth about $1.10 per troy ounce which is also about $35/kg.

doubledutch
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 7:52 am

When referring to “Peak Oil” now, most people in the industry mean peak demand. We should see peak demand for oil in the coming decades.

Reply to  doubledutch
August 7, 2018 9:57 am

The volume of recoverable oil in the Earth is finite. Whether demand or supply driven, at some point we will have recovered about half of the oil we will ever produce. That midpoint will be roughly correlative with the ultimate peak production rate.

MarkW
Reply to  doubledutch
August 7, 2018 7:21 pm

What makes you believe that peak demand is soon?

Theo
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 12:33 pm

Six years into the supposed “Olduvai Cliff”, there is no sign of the extinction of electrical power grids. Nor are we in any danger of running out of gas, oil and coal. Besides which, there is nuclear power.

IMO we should run our vehicles on natural gas (except diesel for trains and kerosene and gasoline for aircraft), saving petroleum for making things instead of burning it.

Reply to  Theo
August 7, 2018 3:35 pm

The “Olduvai Cliff” is Grade-A Malthusian bad science fiction.

George Reagan
Reply to  Theo
August 8, 2018 10:10 am

There are many other products made from petroleum. Greases, waxes, asphalt, polymers, various chemicals to name a few. As a developing Nation, we wouldn’t be as advanced today as we are without petroleum products. When it’s depleted, we may have life altering living conditions with “green” energy products. A World covered with inefficient expensive solar panels and ugly expensive wind turbines, both with a life expectancy of ~20 years or less. On a heavy clouded windless day, we may have to crank up the old gasoline/diesel 40 KVA 120/240 generator that is out in the detached fire proof building that houses the fire prone lithium batteries that go with our personal solar cell arrays and wind turbine(s). We would need to keep several 55 gallon barrels (or maybe 42 gallon barrels from the old petroleum days) to run the generator, but in a separate fire prof building close to the rain collecting tank that the progressive federal bureaucracy says that you can’t have for your forbidden vegetable garden.

Reply to  David Middleton
August 8, 2018 5:18 am

Yes, I remember the gas shortages of the 1970’s. It’s a closed end mind set, a fatalism that mankind just won’t make. That’s peak oil. Always… “The END is Near “. You can not see beyond where the train tracks look like they come together in the distance.
Whatever we need, will be there. There will be new energy sources. All that money poured into solar and wind should be being spent on developing something else. Solar and wind are the most ridiculous things. You could cover the earth with them and it won’t supply a fraction of what we need.
Fundamental difference in philosophy.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  David Middleton
August 9, 2018 5:24 am

David, I met and talked with Hubbert in the mid 70s. I was the only foreigner invited to a USGS sponsored strategic meeting in Denver on the resources and potential energy tech aspects of lithium for the future. I asked Hubbert how he thought the energy picture would unfold as O and G declined. He said he didnt worry about that, that human resourcefulness would take care of it. It always has and it always will as long as we are free to employ its bounty.

Editor
August 7, 2018 2:17 am

Hansen et al., 1988 vs Hansen’s reality (GISTEMP):

comment image

Scenario C has humans undiscovering fire in 2000.

David Batlle
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 6:22 am

Peak oil is a reality. But it won’t be an overnight civilization-killing catastrophe. It will be a gradual dwindling of the oil supply over a very long period, perhaps a century. As the price of oil rises during this dwindling down period, other energy sources will come into their own in a natural and organic way.

Reply to  David Batlle
August 7, 2018 9:57 am

It won’t even be that noticeable.

Kelly Hemperley
Reply to  David Batlle
August 7, 2018 10:05 am

Short of science fiction, no alternative energy comes close to replacing petro chemicals. I include coal as a petrochemical.

Reply to  Kelly Hemperley
August 7, 2018 10:45 am

That’s certainly the case today and probably for the next 50-100 years.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 6:43 am

GISSTemp is in no way reality. Any “global temperature” is far from reality.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
August 7, 2018 7:09 am

The point is that David is beating Hansen about the head and shoulders with his own graph. “Even if you think the graph is a true representation of the risks, it’s still an epic fail.

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
August 7, 2018 9:58 am

Give D. J. a cigar!

Daniel C Ashley
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
August 7, 2018 7:20 am

You are correct. Using GISSTemp, the NOAA published a map showing the areas with the most and least warming. It showed Ghana has one of the places warming up fastest. The problem is: there are no satellites recording temperature in Ghana, and no ground stations either.

One way to destroy your credibility is to keep fudging data.

Pilot Dave
Reply to  Daniel C Ashley
August 7, 2018 8:29 am

As a pilot since 1990, I can say with 1st hand experience, NOAA’s numbers are being shifted to readings from “heat islands” – as in the center of hundreds of acres of black top, and 400F jet exhaust. – Example, Waco TX “All time high temp” last week. No mention from NOAA the airport did not exist before 1941, and the prior temp of only 2F less was not from a head island – Waco Regional Airport.

Funny, AWS are NEVER moved from a heat island, to a grassy park, or a rural area.

Curt
Reply to  Pilot Dave
August 7, 2018 10:57 am

There is a reason for that.

The purpose of the weather stations at airports is to support the safe operation of aircraft not monitor the environment. Regardless of the cause of the temperature, UHI or something else, the pilots using the airport still need to know the actual temperature at the airport for a variety of reasons.

It is when said temperature records are then used as somehow untainted that you have problems. It is interesting that the US spent a large sum on a National Climate Reference Network and yet it never seems to be used for that purpose.

Pilot Dave
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
August 7, 2018 8:24 am

Then we have the MSM constantly quoting a NOAA Automated Weather Station’s “All time high temperature” as proof of climate change, without mentioning the simple fact NOAA moved that source of official temperature to a “Heat Island” like Waco Regional Airport, that did not exist before 1941, and has military and civilian jets emitting 400F exhaust gases near the AWS. – Hard to trust such information.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
August 7, 2018 9:58 am

It’s Hansen’s reality.

Stuart Lynne
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
August 7, 2018 10:25 am

GISSTemp is simply another rather elaborate model for estimating the earth’s temperature (or at least coming up with a number that they imply is the earth’s temperature.)

Heat islands, vast areas of the earth that are underrepresented by recorded temperatures, changes over time in how temperatures are recorded, changes in how the equipment works and degrades. The list of things that have to be accounted for and adjusted make GISSTemp just another intricate model subject to GIGO.

David Stone
August 7, 2018 2:20 am

The BBC were at it (as usual and again) with “new” predictions of coming disaster. It must have been a day with no real news!

Reply to  David Stone
August 7, 2018 10:58 am

The NOAA in Asheville NC is nothing more than a proptganda shop for the climate weather guessers!!I remember the Hurricane scare a few years ago after Catrina Hurricane scare!!! Where are all of those hurricanes?????

Sheumais
August 7, 2018 2:29 am

I happened to hear the BBC radio news at 10am this morning and unnamed “scientists” are apparently predicting a 60 metre, yes, 60 metre, rise in sea levels if the planet warms by one more degree. I’ve ordered new water wings from Amazon, just in case.

EDIT: I see this is covered, under “wacky”, elsewhere on this site:- https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/06/claim-planet-now-at-risk-of-heading-toward-hothouse-earth-state/

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Sheumais
August 7, 2018 3:47 am

Ahhh, success! Another flyer investment pays off, in AmaXon and in Acme Water Wings!

stpaulchuck
Reply to  Sheumais
August 7, 2018 5:47 am

I feel so blessed to live at the top of the Mississippi river bluffs in St. Paul, MN. That puts me a couple hundred feet above the river at about 800+ feet altitude so even if the oceans rise 200 feet or so I’m good, ha ha ha. Al Gore’s mansion on the East Coast not so much.

Pilot Dave
Reply to  stpaulchuck
August 7, 2018 8:40 am

Chuck – Al’s 737 is always fueled and ready to take him to another mansion… We should call him “Carbon Al” – his family wealth started with Occidental Petroleum…

Fatty Matty
Reply to  Sheumais
August 7, 2018 6:20 am

Wow, that sounds bad

KAT
Reply to  Sheumais
August 7, 2018 7:51 am

Sea levels were higher during the early Holocene. Presumably that indicates that global average temperatures were higher as well. It appears that the long term sea level trend & temperature trend is downwards – not upwards…….

“During the last 7000 years, southern African sea levels have fluctuated by no more than ±3 m. Sea-level curves based on observational data for southern Africa indicate that Holocene highstands occurred at 6000 and again at 4000 cal years BP, followed by a lowstand from 3000 to 2000 cal years BP. The mid-Holocene highstands culminated in a sea-level maximum of approximately 3 m above mean sea level (MSL) from 7300 to 6500 cal years BP and of 2 m above MSL at around 4000 cal years BP.14-16 Thereafter, RSL dropped to slightly below the present level between 3500 and 2800 cal years BP.13 Sea-level fluctuations
during the late Holocene in southern Africa were relatively small (1–2 m); however, these fluctuations had a major impact on past coastal environments.” South African Journal of Science http://www.sajs.co.za

A layer of mussel & oyster shells on the slope way above the present shoreline is pretty hard evidence to refute!

Reply to  KAT
August 7, 2018 5:33 pm

comment image

Alasdair
August 7, 2018 2:30 am

Yes a good analysis.

It is now predictable that current scientific prediction is based on false premises.

Reply to  Alasdair
August 7, 2018 2:57 am

More often than not, the catastrophic Malthusian predictions are only tangentially related to the underlying science.

In the case of RCP8.5-derived climate predictions, the science becomes bad science fiction.

Kelly Hemperley
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 6:41 am

Yes Thomas Malthus was full of it. Any fool knows it IS possible to have “intimate growth from finite resources”. What was he thinking? Didn’t he see the coming of the “green revolution” or the increased utilization of petroleum? Or better health care, decrease in infant mortality, on, and on. How did he miss all that? What an alarmist fool.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Kelly Hemperley
August 7, 2018 8:19 am

intimate?
Maybe you mean “infinite”?
: > )

Consultofactus
Reply to  Juan Slayton
August 7, 2018 8:27 am

Or it was a Freudian slip….

Pilot Dave
Reply to  Kelly Hemperley
August 7, 2018 8:45 am

Kelly – how about John Deere’s impact on feeding the Earth? In my lifetime, population control was partially regulated by the ability to grow crops. Now, with diesel farm equipment and infrastructure to move the food, we have about 5 billion more people than an Earth not burning fossil fuels could sustain.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Kelly Hemperley
August 7, 2018 9:52 am

Kelly,
While you use a mocking tone, that is exactly what was wrong with Malthus: he failed to take into account human ingenuity and the drive to not only survive, but to improve. While it was not possible for him to predict specific advances, to ignore this innate quality of humanity was a grave error and a sign of his hubris.

honest liberty
Reply to  Paul Penrose
August 7, 2018 1:42 pm

Pareto Principal in effect. In my estimation, what Malthus really despised was the 80% of humanity who only accounts 20% of its total production, while simultaneously consuming approximately the 80% of production produced by the 20% of the population. I think this overlays with German concept of “useless eaters” and with eugenics as an implemented philosophy. There is much resentment for takers constantly feeding off the hard work of the makers. Granted, the super elite who have amassed untold wealth during times with little to no governmental regulation have now stacked the odds through political collusion to eliminate competition, thus making creativity and production capabilities of the non-wealthy percentage of that 20% all the more difficult and taxing (pun intended). I’m sure, now, the pareto principal in human production terms, under our current quasi capitalist/socialist/fascist/communist centralized system of control is even more concentrated at the top because of what I just noted.

The logical conclusion, if anyone is actually paying attention, is the march towards A.I., being force fed into the population of unsuspecting millenials. They don’t understand that having robots do most of the work doesn’t actually allow them all the freedom to explore the arts and hedonism, but is a long term eugenics program to eliminate the 80% as they don’t contribute enough, and therefore have a negative resource/production consumption. They are so obtuse they don’t even recognize that their lack of desire to go get some A$$ is a consequence of this long con scheme.

Much of this ties together, and at the heart of this con is bad science couched in the impervious mantra of “settled”.

honest liberty
Reply to  honest liberty
August 7, 2018 1:44 pm

add on top of that the push for RFID chip (which loads of unsuspecting dupes are lining up to have implanted) and eventual conversation about permits to procreate (not on the table yet but it is coming I assure you), and we will end in a dystopian, terrible B-rated sci-fi movie of suffering.

Guess what parties are responsible for enforcing all those lovely elitist laws? *hint…. It ain’t civilians…
another *hint – they have always had special badges and costumes 😉

MarkW
Reply to  Kelly Hemperley
August 7, 2018 7:25 pm

“intimate growth”

Shouldn’t we limit that to the privacy of your bedroom?

wboehmer
Reply to  Alasdair
August 7, 2018 3:49 am

When predictions reliably fail in the same direction, the bias of those doing predicting is revealed.

JohnD
Reply to  Alasdair
August 7, 2018 6:12 am

Actually, it is based on corruption and lies.

yarpos
August 7, 2018 2:56 am

I saw a great comment on these types of predictions a while ago, it went something like “There are two types of AGW alarmists predictions. Those that have failed to happen, and those that are yet to fail to happen”

Colorado Wellington
Reply to  yarpos
August 7, 2018 6:08 am

I reckon a cowboy came up with that. Her’s another bit of cowboy wisdom:

There’s two theories about arguing with a woman. Neither one works.

Harry Totter
August 7, 2018 3:23 am

I caught a Tuna today in Times Square as per Al Gore’s prediction.

Reply to  Harry Totter
August 7, 2018 6:56 am

I trust you were using dolphin-safe methods…

John Campbell
August 7, 2018 3:24 am

The same people who brought us their globalist scam of man made “Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/ (fill in the blank)” are the same ones who stood to profit on creating a new vacuum pipe for taxpayer dollars around the world as well as dictatorial desires. Anyone should know that the climate changes all on it’s own and the vanity of determining that man has anything to do with it is just that.

Of course it might be worth mentioning that already with yesterday’s news of Google and Facebook banning certain voices on issues of politics, Media Matters also decided the same day to demand that any voice that denies, disputes, or argues against the idea of man made “Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/ (fill in the blank)” mantra must be banned as well.
It seems to some people silence truly is golden, especially when it’s the opposition that gets silenced.

Doug Huffman
Reply to  John Campbell
August 7, 2018 3:52 am

The post-modern ‘golden rule’.

Russell Johnson
Reply to  John Campbell
August 7, 2018 4:25 am

The diversion/hoax of climate change et. al. is part of the global fascist plan to control everything. For the masses the following must be severely reduced or eliminated:
Personal wealth, corporate wealth, freedom of speech, freedom of association and movement.
Censorship is gaining momentum, the education system is teaching intolerance. Privacy has already been eliminated.Nations must dissolve so open borders is being pushed even by the Pope.
What’s next? Will we soon have to swear an oath of allegiance to work, eat, travel and conduct commerce?

stpaulchuck
Reply to  Russell Johnson
August 7, 2018 5:50 am

‘1984’ wasn’t meant to be a plan.

Juan Pescador
Reply to  Russell Johnson
August 7, 2018 10:24 am

Russell Johnson – answer to your last question: yes

MarkW
Reply to  Russell Johnson
August 7, 2018 7:28 pm

That and get a number tatoo’d on our foreheads.

bubchek
Reply to  John Campbell
August 7, 2018 5:11 am

I’ve always thought it was the height of self aggrandizement to refer to one’s own actions as “Saving the planet”. So juvenile.

Larry Cline
Reply to  bubchek
August 7, 2018 8:46 am

Speaking of self-aggrandizement, remember obama’s acceptance speech for the 2008 Democrat nomination?

“Generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that… this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…”

Such a humble messiah. If simply getting nominated reversed “global warming,” it’s no wonder they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize.

Joe Brown
Reply to  Larry Cline
August 7, 2018 9:16 am

Obama was not talking about himself

Trump is always talking about himself

Bubchek
Reply to  Joe Brown
August 7, 2018 3:34 pm

Obama’s favorite word was “I”. Did you watch ANY of his lectures, oops I mean speeches?

William
Reply to  Joe Brown
August 7, 2018 6:29 pm

Trump is from Queens … it’s what they do. Plus, the MSM has a little something to do with it, as well.

Reply to  Larry Cline
August 7, 2018 11:20 am

comment image

ripshin
Editor
Reply to  David Middleton
August 7, 2018 11:38 am

Eyeballing that graph…looks like W’s second term is what brought SLR to a halt…

rip

NFlaMark
Reply to  John Campbell
August 7, 2018 5:20 am

Here is the story you mentioned in Media Matters. It is a must read for WUWT readers and probably deserves a separate post.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/07/31/Facebook-has-a-climate-denial-problem/220855

A few quotes frm the article:

“(Zuckerberg) … is not using the immense power of his platform to halt misinformation about climate change. To the contrary, Facebook is enabling and disseminating climate denial on multiple fronts.”

“Combating fake news is key to combating climate change. As an editorial in the journal Nature Communications argued last year, “Successfully inoculating society against fake news is arguably essential” if major climate initiatives are to succeed. Facebook could be a big part of the solution. But by kowtowing to conservatives, prioritizing profits over accuracy, and maintaining open-door policies toward misinformation, Facebook is entrenching itself as a major part of the problem.”

MarkW
Reply to  NFlaMark
August 7, 2018 7:30 pm

Democrat senators caught circulating a plan for the government to take over the internet.
In order to protect democracy.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/31/democrats-tech-policy-plans-leaked

Notanist
August 7, 2018 3:28 am

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. -H.L. Mencken

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Notanist
August 7, 2018 3:51 am

Page 369, Minority Report : H.L. Mencken’s Notebooks (1956)

Much of the value of a great on point quotation is lost in the risk of out of context or misattribution.

John Fairplay
Reply to  Doug Huffman
August 7, 2018 8:25 am

Although it’s not possible to be both “on point” and “out of context.”

Doug Huffman
August 7, 2018 3:45 am

N. N. Taleb of ‘Black Swan’ repute directly addresses the failure of prognostication absent Damocles’ Sword of Truth as doxastic comittment.

August 7, 2018 4:13 am

GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE PRIMER

Global Warming is Dead

The argument about global warming has morphed into climate change. This
subtle shift was necessary because the warming as evidenced by satellite
measurements has stopped since 1998, even while CO2 concentrations have
continued to increase. It has become increasingly obvious CO2 is not
driving the warming, the climate, or anything else.

The hysteria about melting ice caps, sea level rise, stronger storms,
droughts, floods, forest fires, etc., has not materialized:
* ice continues to accumulate at record levels in the Antarctic wherein
lies 90% of the world’s ice inventory. Meanwhile, the Arctic Ice Cap
has survived decades of predictions of its demise.
* sea level rise according to Nils-Axil Morner, the world’s leading
authority on sea level change, has not changed at all.
* annual accumulated cyclonic energy is at historical lows, as are the
overall number and strength of hurricanes and tornadoes.
* Droughts and floods continue their march in tune with oceanic
oscillations, such as, La Ninas and the Indian Ocean Dipole.
* Forest fire activity remains at the mercy of lightning strikes,
underbrush stockpiles and interference with nature by humans.

Climate Change has no Evidence

There is not one piece of empirical evidence linking human activities to
the climate – NOT ONE. The only arguments for climate change are
anecdotes, computer projections, Hockey Sticks, and consensus.
* Anecdotes are short, obscure historical or biographical accounts.
Anecdotes cannot be traced to one another or anything else. Anecdotes
are not proof.
* Computer projections are Ludic fallacies based on dubious initial
conditions. The computer projections have failed, because their only
input is greenhouse gases. Computer projections are not proof.
* Hockey Sticks are the cobbling together of two unrelated proxy data
sets. These FrankenGraphs, which would have received an “F” in JHS
science class 50 years ago, are incredibly embraced by many scientists
today. Hockey Sticks are artificial fabrications, not proof.
* Consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.

Millennia and centuries ago the consensus believed the Earth was the
center of the Universe and Solar System. Consensus is not proof.
To the contrary, there is abundant evidence proving the climate has
changed often and sometimes violently, all without any human influence.

The Historical Temperature Record

For the last 600,000,000 years temperatures have hovered around 12C
about 14% of the time, around 22C about 50% of the time, and somewhere
in between 36% of the time. Right now we are at 14.5C, about 25% above
the bottom of the historical range. (Ref: Dr. Christopher R. Scotese‘s
PALEOMAP Project at http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm). We are no
where near any temperature tipping point.

The 0.4C rise in temperature since the Industrial Revolution (IR) pales
in comparison to the 1.6C increase of the Medieval Warming Period (WP),
the 2.5C increase of the Roman WP, and the 3.2C increase of the Minoan
WP using the IR as a baseline. The average temperature has been
declining for the last 6,000 years. (Alley, R.B. 2000, The Younger
Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland, Quaternary Science
Reviews, 19:213-226.) We are at the very end of the present 10,500 year
old Interglacial WP. After this comes about 90,000 years of snow, ice,
advancing glaciers and incredible loss of life. Enjoy the warmth while
you can.

The Recent Temperature Record

The temperature data for the last 100 years has been twisted and
contorted by scientists to comply with the global warming agenda. Under
the guise of ‘homogenizing’ data sets, NOAA has chopped off the cooler
temperatures of the late 1800s, thus making trends afterwards look
warmer. Also, the percentage of fake temperature measurement stations
since 1993 has increased from 5% to 43%, over an 800% increase. A new
fake station was created in Africa which helped conclude that 2016 was
the warmest year ever. This fake science from fake data has created an
ever-increasing temperature record, when the satellite data says since
1998 there has been no warming at all.

The Historical CO2 Record

About 550,000,000 years ago CO2 was 7,000 ppm and has wound it‘s way
down to where it is today, near it’s historic low (Berner, R.A. and Z.
Kothavala, 2001. GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over
Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science, v.301, pp.182-204,
February 2001.) Below 100 ppm photosynthesis ceases. We are very close
to the tipping point of Earth turning into a lifeless snowball with too
little CO2 for plants to reproduce. On the other hand, plants thrive in
nurseries kept at CO2 concentrations of 1,000 ppm. Thanks to recent CO2
increases, vegetation has increased 11% in arid areas of the world.

The Recent CO2 Record

The famous Mauna Loa CO2 measurements began in 1958, coincidentally at a
historic low CO2 level of 315 ppm. In 1942 and again in 1822 CO2 was
440 ppm, 40 ppm higher than today. (Ernst-Georg Beck, 180 Years of
Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis By Chemical Methods, Energy & Environment,
Volume 18 No. 2, 2007, Fig. 2).

For the last 1400 years there have been 6 distinctive cycles of CO2
concentration as registered in plant leaf stomata proxy data. Each
cycle is about 230 years in duration with a 300 ppm minimum and 400 ppm
maximum. As of 2016 400 ppm was reached, the top of the cycle. If
history repeats, expect this deVries cycle to reverse and produce lower
CO2 readings over the next 115 or so years.

To say we are nearing runaway, irreversible global warming due to recent
paltry CO2 increases is ludicrous.

Temperatures and Solar Irradiance

There have been three global cooling and three global warming periods
within the last 250 years. These periods all march to the tune of
changing solar irradiance, not CO2 concentrations. (Douglas V. Hoyt and
Kenneth H. Schatten, A Discussion of Plausible Solar Irradiance
Variations, 1700-1992, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, No.
All, Pages 18,895-18,906, November 1, 1993). Isn’t the correlation
obvious? It’s the Sun, not CO2.

Greenhouse Gas Effect (GGE)

Only 3.27% of all CO2 generated comes from man, the other 96.73% comes
from nature. Only 0.001% of water vapor comes from man; the other
99.999% comes from nature. Water vapor by a factor of 26 has more of a
spectral absorption bandwidth or GGE than does CO2. After adding the
contributions of methane, nitrous oxide, and CFCs it turns out only
0.28% of the GGE comes from man, the other 99.72% comes from nature. If
man ceased to exist, the reduction in the GGE would be one part out of
357, or barely noticeable.

And one last thing: According to ice core records, the CO2 increases
occur about 800 years AFTER the temperature increases. That is, CO2
doesn’t cause rising temperatures, rising water temperatures cause CO2
to gas out of solution from the world’s oceans into the atmosphere. CO2
is not a driver of climate. CO2 is a passenger.

Get the facts visit:
http://www.windpowerfraud.com
http://www.aconvenientfabrication.com

Bill G
Reply to  Charles S, Opalek, PE
August 7, 2018 6:47 am

Great facts. I’ve never joined the GW crusade,as in the 70’s we were headed for an Ice age. How quick the wackos forget threir own predictions

Roberto
Reply to  Charles S, Opalek, PE
August 7, 2018 8:06 am

“Only 3.27% of all CO2 generated comes from man, the other 96.73% comes
from nature.” What is your source for this claim?

Jtom
Reply to  Roberto
August 7, 2018 9:10 am

I though I would find a source that could not be labeled as being promulgated by d-nyers, but discovered an interesting thing. It’s hard to find a site that promotes AGW that will give the actual numbers (wonder why – sarc). So I will offer this:
According to the IPCC, 150 billion tonnes of carbon go into the atmosphere from natural processes every year. This is almost 30 times the amount of carbon humans emit.

If you think AGW is a problem, you should trust that source. If you don’t believe it is a problem, there is no shortage of sites arguing against AGW that will give the same numbers.

J_theB
Reply to  Jtom
August 7, 2018 1:02 pm

Look up ‘mass of the atmosphere ‘ which is 10E15 tons. So humans emitting 10E8 tons per year is 7 orders of magnitude less. Insignificant. PS . 90% of the atm mass lies below 60,000 ft altitude where mixing occurs. Human CO2 production is trivial. Human CO2 emission is following the exponential rise in energy use and population. So 150 years ago when liberals say humans started this warming the human – generated fraction was orders of magnitude less than 10E-8.

J_the_B
Reply to  Roberto
August 7, 2018 12:52 pm

A NOAA website used to quote the 4-96 split of human-natural CO2 production. Must have been too embarrassing cuz they took it down.

JoJoJams
Reply to  Charles S, Opalek, PE
August 7, 2018 8:48 am

“We are at the very end of the present 10,500 year
old Interglacial WP. After this comes about 90,000 years of snow, ice,
advancing glaciers and incredible loss of life. Enjoy the warmth while
you can.”

This is one of those things I’ve been using in some arguments. Eg: Even if AGW has any validity (which I don’t believe it does…) then it can be argued that humankind is effectively helping to stave off the next inevitable ice age as Sol and this planet goes through their cycles.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Charles S, Opalek, PE
August 11, 2018 1:28 pm

“The argument about global warming has morphed into climate change. This
subtle shift was necessary because the warming as evidenced by satellite
measurements has stopped since 1998”

Not really. The CC in IPCC stands for Climate Change. Global Warming was the popular phrase, but the CC phrase was already in use well before 1998.

Trusted Monkey
August 7, 2018 4:15 am

Important to check back with the same people on what happened – based on an increase of 1/3 of a degree per year projected temperature is a simple plot. What was learned was the oceans absorbed more heat. So the overall thermal change was more accurate, just the placement was in err.

Just the same ocean volume rose, but not directly to sea levels. This was because weight of all that water deformed the ocean floor downward more than expected. So the volume of water increased about the predicted amount.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Trusted Monkey
August 7, 2018 4:49 am

“ocean volume rose, but not directly to sea levels. This was because weight of all that water deformed the ocean floor downward”

But an increase in volume from warming doesn’t imply an increase in weight. (And of course the ocean basins haven’t recently deepened—i.e., not since 1950.)

Roger Knights
Reply to  Roger Knights
August 7, 2018 6:15 am

PS: I should have said that the ocean basins haven’t deepened MUCH since 1950.

Peter Morris
Reply to  Trusted Monkey
August 7, 2018 6:37 am

That’s pretty funny.

Jtom
Reply to  Trusted Monkey
August 7, 2018 9:16 am

And tell us sir, just how much would that 1/3 of a degree per year, projected to take place in the air (an absurdly high number, imo), heat the oceans?

If you were correct, the additional heating of the oceans would not be measurable. So how can you make that claim?

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Trusted Monkey
August 7, 2018 10:01 am

What a bunch of post hoc nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about.

David Langley
Reply to  Trusted Monkey
August 7, 2018 11:33 am

We’ve got real comedian over here!

MarkW
Reply to  David Langley
August 7, 2018 7:34 pm

Cut him some slack. He’s making it up as fast as he can.

MarkW
Reply to  Trusted Monkey
August 7, 2018 7:33 pm

The oceans average several thousand feet deep.
Are you really naive enough to believe that a few more inches is going to deform thousands of feet of rock??????

JohnB
Reply to  MarkW
August 7, 2018 8:39 pm

Possibly yes, just not by much. (I hope) The Scandinavian Ice sheet was some two miles thick and depressed the area by around 800 metres. When you look at the data on post glacial isostatic rebound the only real conclusion you can draw is that the “solid” earth of the crust isn’t really all that solid. A few inches over a few million square miles is a lot of water and weight.

Cringe
August 7, 2018 4:17 am

I don’t know how accurate the 1988 date is, I remember hearing about sea-level rise(Long Island and Florida will be under water in 30 years) as early as 1981. I know that ’cause I was driving my gas guzzling ’67 Impala at the time.

Reply to  Cringe
August 7, 2018 5:23 am

Hansen published his climate model and testified before the US Senate in 1988… It’s the unofficial dawn of Gorebal Warming… But, the hypothesis has been around since the 1850’s.

August 7, 2018 4:37 am

Global warming (aka climate change) is the religion of the stupid.
Sheep, lemmings, and Leftists are easily manipulated.
zazzle.com/firstprinciples?rf=238518351914519699

C L Shaw
August 7, 2018 4:49 am

The problem was exaggerated by Al Gore and team and everything the man said never happened; that in itself ended the argument over Global Warming/Climate Change for most people. Now it just seems as though the Climate Change alarmists are more political than scientific.

Sceptical lefty
August 7, 2018 5:03 am

“This behavior risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty. It is this objectivity and honesty which gives science a privileged seat at the table. Without this objectivity and honesty, scientists become regarded as another lobbyist group.”

For anyone who has been paying attention, that ship has already sailed — and not just because of climate science.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Gavin McDougald
August 7, 2018 10:05 am

That’s the equivalent of leaving a flaming bag of dog poop on someone’s front step and ringing the door bell.

canes58
August 7, 2018 5:06 am

hansen pulled back his claims in the 70’s as his models were not showing what he said it would and gore who had sat as his feet called him old and senile as the claims had gone political and not science! massive amounts of money flowed into believers and almost zero to non believers! when the un took over they saw it as a means to a end to use the rich countries to funnel money to the poor ones mostly africa! when heat did not happen and we started to cool they changed the model then when those claims did not happen the un changed it to climate change which happens every day! at the un and our own congress they are trying to shut down all dissent of this lie!

william murray
Reply to  canes58
August 7, 2018 8:10 am

Gore is a genius he studied Swaggart and Ponzi and Madoff and came up with a scheme that made him some real money

RightStuff
August 7, 2018 5:09 am

“Global warming” is why we read the story of Chicken Little to young people in elementary school. Of course, the progressives have ruined all public schools, and we don’t do that now.

Sommer
August 7, 2018 5:15 am
John M
Reply to  Sommer
August 7, 2018 9:30 am

If their are any rich Salon readers who are panicking about their ocean-front properties and want to unload them real cheap, I’d be willing to listen.

RightStuff
Reply to  Sommer
August 7, 2018 9:33 am

Yes, the sky is falling, indeed! What else do you expect to read at Salon?

Trevor
August 7, 2018 5:20 am

Anthony Watts :
WITH STATEMENTS LIKE THIS:
“Tim Wirth, then US Senator from Colorado, stated at the beginning of the climate alarm:
We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
THEN , HOW CAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC in the USA maintain any kind of belief in the
CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING aka CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE ?????????
Especially when people like Judith Curry make statements like this :
“This behavior risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty.
It is this objectivity and honesty which gives science a privileged seat at the table.
Without this objectivity and honesty, scientists become regarded as another lobbyist group.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Not ONLY are they SHOWN AS A LOBBYIST GROUP…………………………..THEY ARE EXPOSED
AS A GREEDY , MONEY-GRUBBING , MISLEADING , UN-SCIENTIFIC LOBBYIST GROUP !!!
This makes them VULNERABLE as never before !
Surely , there MUST come a time when HONEST SCIENTISTS ( surely THE VAST MAJORITY ! )
TAKE A STAND to protest this violation of THEIR PROFESSION ?
“CLIMATE SCIENCE” is now ” the bastard child” of Environmentalism and Marxism :
fueled by HATRED OF THE SUCCESSFUL WESTERN CIVILISATION which created and uses
DEMOCRACY and the FREE-ENTERPRISE SYSTEM and which they are intent on destroying !
NOW , with POTUS TRUMP in power , is the time to EXPOSE AND VILIFY these
societal deviants for the reprehensible , execrable , dangerous misfits that they are !
THE much vaunted “PRESS”has FAILED MISERABLY to protect the CITIZENS from
the “CLIMATE SCIENCE BRIGADE and their relentless PROPAGANDA ” and they should
be MADE AWARE OF THEIR FAILINGS AND HELD TO ACCOUNT by correcting and
retracting and APOLOGISING for ALL the misleading articles they have EITHER
BEEN WILLING or BEEN DECEIVED into PRINTING for the last 30 YEARS !!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PERHAPS an appeal to their “INTEGRITY” may serve to elicit such a response ????????????

william murray
Reply to  Trevor
August 7, 2018 5:59 am

Next you will be appealing to the integrity of the press, change your name to Diogenes

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Trevor
August 7, 2018 6:40 am

It’s batty Trevor again. Sheesh. Can someone put him back in his rubber room?

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Trevor
August 7, 2018 10:07 am

Just stop SHOUTING!

John Endicott
Reply to  Paul Penrose
August 7, 2018 11:52 am

and use paragraphs. Walls of words (particularly ALL CAPPED words) does not make for good communication.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  John Endicott
August 11, 2018 2:10 pm

That’s been suggested to him many times, John. He doesn’t care, or is incapable of decorum.

Tony
August 7, 2018 5:21 am

There’s something weird in the liberal psyche which demands constant fear and trepidation. There is always some type of doom-and-gloom scenario they feel they must advance. As I recall these dire predictions came and went, in this order:
– over-population
– global cooling
– alar
– nuclear winter
– acid rain
– shrinking ozone hole
– global warming
– climate change.
From one failed prediction to the next. Wierd.

Larry Cline
Reply to  Tony
August 7, 2018 8:57 am

Fortunately, all of those can be fixed (along with unemployment, racism, crime, poor schools, bad movie sequels, dandruff, etc., etc.) if we’ll simply increase taxes on the rich! Isn’t it funny how it works out that way every time?

yarpos
Reply to  Tony
August 7, 2018 4:53 pm

plastic straws

Yoyo
August 7, 2018 5:21 am

Too bad algore wasn’t concerned with or give us answers to Chicago gun violence

Gary V
Reply to  Yoyo
August 7, 2018 3:29 pm

The correct term is gang violence not gun violence, but there is no constituency for that term.

yarpos
Reply to  Yoyo
August 7, 2018 4:56 pm

Surprised Obamy isnt in there leading the charge on his old home turf, organising the community and all. Given the location of his memorial/mausoleum/library thing he wont get many visitors unless the area is cleaned up a bit

Alan
August 7, 2018 5:34 am

I would love for your message to continue but resoundingly with the wisdom to note that we should be good stewards of our planet. I do believe that global warming is a hoax, but I also believe that we should protect creation with the best of our abilities. Thanks for your hard work.

Jef
August 7, 2018 5:34 am

The great Global Warming Cult. A scam for socialists to steal money from other countries and the gullable leftists in the States who know no religion. It’s a scam.

christopher swift
August 7, 2018 5:40 am

this is the thirtieth anniversary of my baptism into climate theory in an enviro course. I accepted it, but only as possible, and was prepared to be open minded about it. Thirty years. Even I’m surprised at the number of utterly failed predictions but mostly angry about how little these facts matter to the warmists.

stpaulchuck
August 7, 2018 5:43 am

“the stable climatic conditions …”

Seriously?? When exactly in history did that happen? 12,000+ years ago we were coming out of a full-on ice age. In between then and now we had the Roman Warm Period, the Middle Ages Warm Period, the Little Ice age (which occurred in several tranches of cold/not so cold), and other deviations. About 8,000 years ago the Earth’s tilt orientation changed and the Sahara became a desert. Cyclical superposition of the AMO, PDO, ENSO and other oceanic cycles have caused huge deviations in climate around the globe. Periods of high volcanic activity have cooled the hemispheres and brought crop failures and death. Etc., etc. Apparently they must have used their history books for door stops instead of reading them.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  stpaulchuck
August 7, 2018 1:10 pm

You forgot to mention the Holocene climate optimum.

Theo
Reply to  Steven Fraser
August 7, 2018 1:25 pm

Also the Egyptian and Minoan Warm Periods, with cold spells in between them, as also between the Minoan and Roman, Roman and Medieval and Medieval and Modern WPs, the latter being the LIA. Cold periods are generally associated with Dark Ages.

Too many MWPs, so we need better names to abbreviate. Minoan is actually a misnomer, anyway, since that warm period mostly came after the flourishing of Minoan civilization, 2600 to 1400 BC. The Modern is sometimes called the Current WP.

D3F1ANT
August 7, 2018 5:43 am

The moonbats STILL eat this stuff up! Never mind we’ve been waiting for the sea level flood the coasts since 1988! But their minds are made up…don’t confuse them with the facts…

Tom D.
Reply to  D3F1ANT
August 7, 2018 6:45 am

Have you ever compared “sea level rise” to the DAILY tide reports?????

VendicarKahn
August 7, 2018 5:49 am

Current Temperatures are 1.1’C higher than pre-industrial levels and rising.

Dale S
Reply to  VendicarKahn
August 7, 2018 6:06 am

Actual pre-industrial temperatures were not fixed and can’t be established with any level of precision. Current temperatures are about 1.1C higher than an arbitarily selected reference frame in the latter half of the 19th century, a temperature that has neither been established as optimal nor typical of pre-industrial times.

The mild warming we have experienced appears to have been a net positive, independent of the benefit from CO2 fertilization.

The main problem with “climate alarm” is that so far there has been absolutely nothing to be alarmed about. Not only has global warming failed to be catastrophic, it’s failed to even be annoying. Long-term, if anthropogenic emissions prevent the interglacial from ending, then an *actual* catastrophe that we know has happened before would be thankfully averted.

Timo V
Reply to  VendicarKahn
August 7, 2018 6:27 am

@VendicarKahn

Yes, temps are higher and it’s wonderful! The Little Ice Age caused these to us Finns:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1695–1697
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_of_1866–68

The first event killed third of us, and the second every tenth. So come and tell us warm is bad.

Jtom
Reply to  VendicarKahn
August 7, 2018 9:24 am

I would like to believe temps will continue to rise (Warm,good. Cold, bad. Gore, con man.), but unfortunately, past results do not predict future performance.

MarkW
Reply to  VendicarKahn
August 7, 2018 7:36 pm

You say that as if you believe you have said something profound.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  VendicarKahn
August 12, 2018 8:30 am

“Current Temperatures are 1.1’C higher than pre-industrial levels and rising.”

How many temperatures? There are many that haven’t changed much at all since that time. Some started out warmer and got cooler, some the opposite.

william murray
August 7, 2018 5:51 am

The sea water is not rising ,the earth is sinking into the sinus in the core ,know as “The Sinus in the Earth’s Core “‘. The skies are sinking due to man made aluminum siding and soon we will have less headroom ,a clear danger to tall people and trees. Finally sushi restaurants are causing a rice shortage , the fish are doing fine , thanks for asking.

Roberto
August 7, 2018 6:04 am

What percentage of the total greenhouse effect is CO2 responsible for? What percentage of all CO2 is humanity responsible for? What percentage of human-caused CO2 is America responsible for?
Does anyone have these numbers?

william murray
Reply to  Roberto
August 7, 2018 7:45 am

Is this a true /false or multiple choice

Roberto
Reply to  william murray
August 7, 2018 8:03 am

You miss the point with your irrelevancy. I’m looking for the answers because I don’t have them. Do you?

Jtom
Reply to  Roberto
August 7, 2018 11:38 am

There are others with a better grasp of numbers than I, and these questions can be researched online, but I’ll give you a first-order approximation:
1. We can calculate the difference between what the temperature is versus what it would be without an atmosphere. Beyond that is theory. We do know that atmospheric pressure should contribute, as well as water vapor and methane, in addition to CO2. Water vapor has a larger impact than C02, and there is far more of it in the atmosphere. Methane, too, is a greater greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but there is less of it. If all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, it is theorized that the temperature would drop 2.5 degrees C.
2. Natural CO2 is believe to be greater than 96%; what Man produces, less than 4%. This assumes that the CO2 would have remained constant in nature during the last few decades, an assumption that may not be justified.
3. The US produced 14.34% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions in 2015, according to Wikipedia (a sometimes unreliable source). Since that time, China’s emissions have been increasing about 3% a year, while the US’s has dropped about 1.5%.
4. Yes, people have the numbers, but you need to research them yourself until you are satisfied you have the best answers, not what someone with an agenda may want you to believe.
5.Questions you didn’t ask but should: What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? What percentage of the atmosphere is Man-produced CO2? What is the ideal temperature for Earth? What is the ideal amount of atmospheric CO2 for life?

J_the_B
Reply to  Jtom
August 7, 2018 1:14 pm

Look up whose CO2 emissions continue to rise: Europe! Those crazy environmental sticklers are, according to their own AGW religion, toasting our world.

yarpos
Reply to  J_the_B
August 7, 2018 5:00 pm

nah not really, they are meaningless climate wise they are just wasting time, money and intellectual capital pursuing irrelevant goals incompetently