At 8:34 AM 3/23/5, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >Terry Blanton wrote: > >> This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you >> can't squeeze it out fast enough: >> >> http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ > > >Fascinating. > >Does anyone here know what the effect of peak oil is likely to be on >global warming? Lack of oil will ruin the economy and lead to WWIII -- >but will it also save the polar bears? Or have CO2 levels already gone >so high that a methane burp followed by a total meltdown is inevitable?
All you can get on this right now is opinion, so here's mine. The very existence of global warming is still contended. Unlike typical new scientific theories and supporting data, which can be fully accepted only when those who have professed opposed principles all their lives die off, we can not wait for those who can not accept the existence global warming, much less the possibility of *runaway* global warming, to die off before action is taken. Unfortunately, that is the mode we have been in - waiting for both politically over committed scientists and scientifically challenged politicians to die off so an appropriate perspective can be developed. Research on global warming in general, and on methane release in particular, has been grossly underfunded. This is the other side of the coin with regard to common funding errors. Funding for fusion research, and renewable energy research and development, is too small because the funding process is not based on the expected value of the research, but rather the likelihood the research will yield anything important. This effect is due to the need for ego protection. No bureaucrat wants to fund anything which might fail, much less anything stigmatized which might fail. The expected value of research is the sum of the probability of each possible outcome times the dollar value of such outcome. Errors in funding decisions occur when there is a colossal value to a possible outcome which has small probability. In the case of cold fusion, the dollar value is for all practical purposes infinite. The probability of successfully achieving it is not zero, as many researchers can attest, so the expected value of the research in this area dwarfs many other kinds of research. This results in an error on the positive side, or type 1 error (my definition). The other side of the coin, a type 2 error, is an error on the negative side, a failing to asses the expected cost of risk, i.e. to examine negative expected values. Research on runaway global warming, due to methane release and high altitude water vapor, is undervalued due to a type 2 error. Failing to asses the risk early enough has a catastrophically high negative value. The probability of this risk is not zero, as evidenced by the climate mode of Venus. Given the fact that type 1 and and type 2 funding errors continue to be made, there is no way to reliably answer your question. The ongoing research may be too little too late. The effect of the oil peak can be reasonably predicted, however. The response in some countries will likely be to substitute coal energy for petroleum energy. The effect of this is clearly catastrophic. It is reasonable to expect that only a world war, both economic and military, can stop this. Further, the peak is just that, merely a peak. The subject article suggests the peak is symmetrical. If the peak occurs in 2000, it suggests the production in 2020 will be the same as in 1980. On this basis we can see that emissions out to 2150 will mimic those of the industrial age, and thus environmental catastrophe is unavoidable even if Hubbert's peak exists and we have passed the peak. I happen to have a little bit of practical experience with the projection of production curves. In my experience they are not symmetrical. They decrease more rapidly than they increase. I therefore think we thus can expect social effects more quickly than the article suggest, and a turn to coal production much more quickly than many expect. Methane production will increase dramatically too, but that is already a given. To sum up my opinion, the net effect of passing a global oil production peak, barring a miracle, will be to increase carbon emissions. Research funding errors, both type 1 and type 2 have been and will continue to be made until those who make them die off or are replaced. On the bight side, I was most surprised to catch on TV a small piece of a recent news conference in which President Bush was strongly encouraging energy conservation. I was also surprised no one mentioned it on vortex. This may be a sign of some kind of awakening in the administration. Then again, maybe not. My approach to a solution of the problem, "An Energy Legacy Plan", I have posted here on vortex a number a times. As the plan notes, the funding amount suggested in the plan is too small, but was chosen because it seemed feasible based on political and economic conditions at the time. The essence of the plan is to create an entity which operates outside politics as much as possible, which has long term funding and a positive perspective, and which profits substantially from the energy crises so that exponential positive feedback exists in the solution process as well as the problem processes. It then politically is just a matter of determining the importance of and amount of funding, not the course of action. Regards, Horace Heffner
