- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Tam Hunt: Is the Magically Deflating Oil Price All About Speculation?
Question: Are speculators and Enron ex-employees behind oil price turbulence, as 60 Minutes recently asserted? Answer: No.
That line alone would be a tad short for an op-ed, so let me explain. 60 Minutes, the most popular and respected newsmagazine on television, devoted a Jan. 11 segment to dramatically declining oil prices. The show gave airtime to many commentators, all of whom argued strongly that the key factor in the run-up of oil prices in the first half of 2008, and the precipitous decline since then, was oil market speculation. There was even a brief discussion of Enron’s erstwhile employees and their continuing role in energy markets. The implication was that there may yet turn out to be some malfeasance in the oil price gyrations over the last few years.
60 Minutes opened the show with a disclaimer about the complexity of the forces behind oil price movements. But then the program spent 15 minutes painting a very one-sided story about the reasons for oil price movements, with not a single dissenting view presented.
I agree that oil markets are highly complex. And I agree that at this point literally no one knows the full answer as to why markets have been on such a wild ride. But the sketch provided by 60 Minutes is only half the story, at best. The more complete analysis takes into account the fact that prices have been driven as much by supply and demand, and the perception of supply and demand, as by speculation. I’ll unpack this statement below.
First, let’s look at oil prices over the last decade (Figure 1). As we can see, oil prices, which reflect one of the few truly global markets, have risen steadily for 10 years. But from early 2007 until the middle of 2008, they surged to almost $150 a barrel. The surge went the other direction from July 2008 until now, with oil prices again around $40 a barrel. The black trend line, however, shows that even without this spike, prices have been steadily increasing for a decade.
So what’s going on?
It’s highly important to look at the global supply and demand situation over the last few years. As I mentioned, oil is one of the truly global markets. As such, global supply and demand sets the price, not regional supply and demand. Or, to be more accurate, perceptions of global supply and demand are the most important data.
The mainstream media — including 60 Minutes — have done a very poor job at highlighting the fact that global oil supplies stagnated for about four years, from 2004 to the end of 2007, as Figure 2 shows.
Global supplies only matter, however, when compared to global demand. If demand was also plateauing, or declining, at the same time as this plateau occurred, we would have had no problem with supply. But that wasn’t the case. Demand was, in fact, continuing to rise. As Figure 2 shows, global oil demand rose to 86 million barrels a day in 2008 from about 82 million barrels in 2004 — a substantial increase.
When we look at both trends together, we see that there was a sustained period of imbalance between supply and demand, lasting, unsurprisingly, about the same length of time as the dramatic run-up in the price of oil lasted (1.5 to 2 years, Figure 3). This means that global inventories of oil, both private and public, were being drawn down during the imbalance period. Obviously, such a situation could not continue. Something had to give and prices rose. And then fell, as supplies increased and demand dropped.
The Energy Information Administration is the United States’ official energy statistics agency. It was cited in the 60 Minutes piece, but the information cited was used misleadingly. Yes, U.S. demand for oil and gasoline declined dramatically in the first half of 2008, and since, but as late as the first quarter of 2008, global demand was still exceeding global supply — and had been for the previous two years. (This data is also revised, sometimes substantially, after its initial release, highlighting the fact that real-time data on oil markets is not very reliable).
Moreover, the International Energy Agency — the international equivalent of the EIA — had released a report in July 2007 warning of a pending oil supply crunch if major investments in new projects were not made. This document was publicly available, and still is. While this report, and the ongoing supply/demand imbalance were not discussed much in the mainstream media, they were discussed a great deal in professional media and more energy-oriented mainstream media like The Wall Street Journal. And many Web sites discussed the ongoing situation in great detail, such as www.theoildrum.com, which contains sophisticated discussions of various energy issues, including “peak oil,” which is the notion that global oil supplies are at or near their peak and that supply/demand imbalances will persist and get worse over time.
This segue brings me to a broader point, regarding peak oil, Again, even though the mainstream media haven’t done a very good job reporting on this topic, some outlets ran significant articles and commentary over the last few years, including The Journal, Los Angeles Times, National Geographic, New York Times and others. And, of course, the professional media included much discussion of the idea that global oil supplies are at or near their peak. At the same time, the EIA and IEA were releasing increasingly dire data and reports, warning of major supply crunches if new investments weren’t made.
This brings me to my final point: markets function based on expectations for future profit, as well as actual need for the product. Global oil markets are not open only to those purchasing oil for their own use. As the 60 Minutes story mentions, there are traders in the market — and lots of them. But markets don’t operate for long without fundamentals to back them up. So the better story about what happened to oil prices over the last few years — as demonstrated by the nearby charts — is that global supply became very constrained vis a vis demand, stocks were drawn down, and expectations of future supply shortages dominated the market for a short time. Prices rose very high as a result. When prices became too high, economies started to shudder. As we now know, the United States went into recession in December 2007, long before the credit and mortgage crises hit. As these crises hit us, global oil supplies finally started to increase again. The net result: a large run-up in prices as supply constraints worsened, followed by an even sharper drop as supplies finally started to increase and demand plummeted.
Is this the full story? No. We’ll probably never know the full story, but this is a far more accurate version than the caricature provided by 60 Minutes.
So it’s not just another Enron story. Rather, there are fundamentals at the root of recent oil price gyrations. The very real risk posed by blaming the oil prices on bad actors is that we miss the exceedingly serious problem of even more significant oil supply shortfalls headed our way — peak oil. As the IEA described in its 2008 World Energy Outlook, the world needs three new Saudi Arabias of oil by 2015, and almost seven by 2030. This, to be blunt, is not going to happen. And we need to start preparing for the much higher prices and eventual shortfalls in oil that are headed our way.
The current economic crisis will give us a little more time, due to declining global oil demand, but it will make the midterm and long-term problems even worse. This is the case because of the failure to bring new projects online that would otherwise have come online over the next few years.
The IEA report concludes: “Securing energy supplies and speeding up the transition to a low-carbon energy system both call for radical action by governments — at national and local levels.”
We might want to heed those words.
— Tam Hunt is energy program director and an attorney for the Community Environmental Council, and is a lecturer in renewable energy law and policy at UCSB’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. Click here for the CEC’s regional energy blueprint.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 01.25.09 @ 07:08 PM
Very well put Tam, though inconclusive. I do agree that securing the next paradigm energy supply is critical. I do not agree with you or many of the so called alternative energy zealots who leave the most abundant and environmentally benign sources like nuclear and geothermal off the table out of some idiotic fear. I also do not believe burning fossil fuels is endangering the planet by inducing or radically speeding up climate change. And even if it were it is no less unnatural than cattle flatulence or termite waste. So once again I’ll pitch the solution; burn coal and natural gas produced locally and wean ourselves off OPEC oil. Use the capital we once shipped off short to those who hate us to invest in a massive nuclear and geothermal powered expansion to the national electric grid. As soon as we have enough of these non-fossil fuel burning supplies on line we begin a massive investment in converting the remaining hydrocarbon stocks into liquid high energy density fuel for transportation (diesel and gasoline substitutes). In parallel we can develop solar PV as a way to augment highly distributive electrical generation (very light on the power infrastructure) and to a lesser extent the least reliable wind power. This is not an either or scenario but an all of the above scenario with special emphasis on maintaining abundance at a low cost without impacting food supplies. Our remaining hydrocarbon stocks are finite, being that they were produced over millions of years by solar photosynthesis and geothermal/pressure. We will have to follow natures example and start synthesizing our hydrocarbon stocks but it will take a massive investment over a great deal of time to work without sending the industrialized world back to the stone age and starving the third world to death. Unfortunately we are going to have to deal with the very vocal, unscientific, socialist driven, overly emotional nit wit climate change religious zealots who are obstructing progress at every step with pure unmitigated nonsense. Some one really needs to expose Al Gore for the snake oil selling charlatan he is and release the science community from the fear driven government grant apparatus that holds otherwise objective researchers hostage to political whim. Unfortunately, we elected the charlatan’s greatest orator instead, so chances are slim we will survive.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.09 @ 09:39 PM
You are a lawyer?
Dynamics. Bush got out of office and to save grace, his constituents big oil lobby, got scared. This happens a lot when new administrations move into office.
Why don’t you op-ed a piece about OPEC and that they are actually Arabs with American mentality. This way you can show how important education is played into the propogation of the media “60” minutes.
The current economic crisis is not going to give us a little more time. Think of spring and pendulum where the harmonics was stable. Since no 60 seconds of thought was allowed, think of what the harmonics will be as to depress the initial point at half of the original angular position.
Now talk about chaos but limit your paramaters to mis and non as to feasibility of economics. Easy or still mal?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.09 @ 05:09 AM
Tam Hunt makes excellent points. I fear that people will be lulled into complacency about the coming peak oil crisis. Demand is down, but I fear the minute an economic recovery begins oil prices will re-inflate. We must use this interlude to continue the process of transitioning off of fossil fuels.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.09 @ 05:11 AM
C’mon, Tam. Every good enviro and leftie knows that it was Bush’s doing :-).
Actually, very good article on a very complex issue that is often oversimplified by those with a political agenda on one side or another.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.09 @ 05:33 AM
So nice to see a rational discussion based on data. We have wasted 8 years of possible adult conversation due to the absolute hatred of Bush, and unwillingness to fathom that problems may have occurred without his conspiring behind closed doors. Maybe now we can unravel the dynamics of our energy situation, and have people like Tam Hunt to hopefully teach our students to look at all the data. (Including where the buck stops.)Now I have a dream!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.09 @ 06:50 AM
Hunt left out one very important point. Oil prices began to fall in late June/early July, at the exact same time Bush lifted the executive moritorium on offshore and shale oil exploration and leasing. Prices really began to fall on October 1, the very day Congress lifted their own ban.
Is this coincidence? I think not. Current prices are affected by what investors believe will happen to future prices and speculators are very sensitive to future prices, supplies and consumption.
But all this is really a distraction from the real issue. For decades oil companies have been increasingly prevented from exploring for and producing oil in the U.S. ANWAR and the Beaufort Sea are off limits. Offshore California is off limits. Oil shale leasing in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming have been off limits. Oil companies have been prevented from developing fields containing 2 TRILLION ( that’s right, TRILLION) barrels of oil.
Prices are affected if production is restricted, which is exactly what has happened in the U.S. OPEC is able to cause increases in oil prices by restricting oil production.
The answer to cheap energy is increased supply of energy. Increased supply equals lower costs. The U.S has 2 trillion barrels of oil. Canada has 2 trillion barrels locked up in oil sands and they are producing 1.5 million barrels of sand oil a day and increasing production every month. Together the U.S and Canada can supply the world with oil for over 100 years. Add in current known world reserves of conventional oil and the world has over 150 years worth of oil. Factor in future technology that will extract more energy out of a given amount of oil and we have enough oil to last hundreds of years. 200 years from now humans will be speeding along in vehicles powered by nuclear reactions.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.09 @ 07:02 AM
Thanks Tam for helping to demystify the forces behind wild gyrations in oil price. With Barrack Obama’s goal of “restoring science to its rightful position” in the administration and choosing Steve Chu as Secretary of Energy, perhaps we can take advantage of the sea change to finally adopt sound energy policy.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.09 @ 11:06 AM
Steve Chu is only Experimental Physics. I was hoping Obama elected a Mathematician like Shing-Tung Yau who will “demistify” any sea changes to adopt policy. I bet you the Fields Medal winner just has to apply himself immediately by finding physical paths in manifolds.
As for snake oil charlatans, I was really hoping Al Gore to volunteer his laurels because as to tame any cents for politicians and Energy, his Nobel alone can hypnotize what the science community are still puzzled on what to do. The politicians at Washington still think the Nobel is the most covenant prize.
Surviving depends on knowing both sides’ mentality so for any oration, I suggest the best thing to do is teach. While everyone is complaining at Acadamia about Gore, let us all concentrate on lectures and hope the same funds from the government will also not be cut.
Wasn’t Gore not a lawyer but a journalist? Isn’t Obama a Law professor? I think the real answer about economics is the math has not caught up yet.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.09 @ 01:34 PM
Re: Becker. If anything, big market movement with announcements regarding US offshore development show how much of the price was driven by perception alone. There is WAY more oil to be had in Colorado from oil shale than both coasts put together. But like anywhere else, it takes money, resources, and has environmental impacts.
Peak oil is a boogeyman. Oil isn’t going to disappear, but it will get progressively more expensive. Supply, demand, geopolitical stability, technology. Those are the things that matter.
That chart with oil prices makes the scientist in me wince a bit. It really shouldn’t go through the origin, because oil has never been free on the open market, especially not in 1998. More instructive would be to go back several decades, and see the real price fluctuations rather than start in the year with the cheapest oil since the oil embargo.
Above all, instead of whining about peak oil or how the relatively small amount of oil off our coasts will somehow save us, we should be instituting a real carbon tax that accurately reflects the cost of fossil fuels to our natural resources (specifically air and water quality).
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.27.09 @ 06:40 AM
I am shocked that so many liberals in academia (as well as most liberals in general) are so enamored with the idea of a carbon tax. This is the most regressive policy on earth and would hurt the most vulnerable the most. It is not the wealthy that have benefited more from cheap energy, but instead the poor. Cheap energy has given the poor something that only wealthy elites have enjoyed; mobility, abundant food and freedom from drudgery. While all the limousine liberals caterwaul about making energy expensive to save the planet from the climate change boogeyman they conveniently forget who will suffer the most from high energy cost. Yes impose a carbon tax, but Al Gore will still fly his jet while millions of poor walk to work and limit their food intake. When those proposing such harsh methods actually do their homework and find out that you can’t jack the price up on one necessity without a consequence to other necessities (aka, the mortgage collapse right after record gasoline prices) then maybe we can have a humane discussion. The poor are unable to absorb price escalations like Al Gore and his merry band of zealots, so a truly compassionate energy policy would be one that doesn’t raise prices but maintains them a level the less fortunate can afford, that is unless those proposing regressive policies want to make up the difference themselves.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.27.09 @ 08:52 AM
Anso, I got news for you the world is not flat and yes humans contribute to global warming through the consumption of fossil fuels. Go back and take a basic science class so you can understand carbon data.
On a different note, I agree that a stable gas price would be beneficial. We could stabilize the price by having a variable gas tax. The tax would have a baseline level and go down with the price of gas goes up and vice versa. This would serve to maintain a more stable price at the pump and collect much needed revenue for things such as infrastructure projects, retiring debt and developing alternative energy sources. Lets face it at $2 per galloon a slight higher tax would not even be noticed. The oil companies are already playing around with the gas price at the pump by manipulating the refinery capacity. Notice that eventhough the price of a barrel of oil is near a cycle low the price of gas is up about 50 cents from its low.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.27.09 @ 11:37 AM
While we complain about Darfur, let us all smile to China. In thinking about the future, let us not tax today; better to spend and keep the rich richer than having some politician get richer. Politician is already rich to begin with. Let us argue about inhumanity while the rest of the world gets smarter.
Here is a proof for economics:
There is no mass in the universe.
Validation:
F = ma, E = mc^2
m = F/a, m = E/c^2
Substitute a Brain:
F/a = E/c^2
Thinking:
Since acceleration is a measurement of meters per second and the hypothetical speed of light squared is also meters per second, dividing the equation above is just a ration of Constants. I will call such constants A and C, both fractional numbers less than one but greater than zero. I will now show:
FA = CE (since I can also place constants either front or back of numbers)
The final result in not knowing the equation is in the FACE.
In my most humble inhumane of saying to you sir, all that economics have to really say is that only forces and light make up the mass of the universe. It is all integral is the correct mathematics is applied.
Now put up a dissertation panel for the physicist because I just found the missing link between Einstein and Newton.
Education is The Law
qed.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.27.09 @ 11:46 AM
only forces and ENERGY make up the mass of the universe.
It is all integral IF the correct mathematics is applied.
ENERGY and IF
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.28.09 @ 07:55 AM
That “ANSO,” or anyone, can use terms like “climate change boogeyman” in rejecting the proof behind global warming, shows that evolution is, indeed, not a straight line. There are still those among us who refuse to pry themselves from their personal primordial ooze. The basic science of global warming, as others have pointed out, is well-established and simple enough for 7th graders to “get.”
Carbon dioxide molecules prevent reflected heat from leaving the Earth’s atmosphere - this can be demonstrated in middle-school science labs. Add more CO-2, and more heat accumulates, remove the gas, and temperature reduces. Introduce the larger molecule of methane, and the problem is magnified by 10. That’s why these molecules, and others, are now referred to as “Green House Gases.” Get it now?
In a 200 hundred year span, we humans have released carbon-based gases into our atmosphere that took literally millions of years to build up in coal and oil deposits. How could anyone think that there could NOT be a consequence to that?
Pogo once said “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Still true after all these years, but he might have modified it to read: “We have met the enemy and he is guys like ANSO.” Had he not been a gentlemanly southern possum, he might also have added the advice, “Get a grip. Grow up!”
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.28.09 @ 09:55 AM
Two comments:
1) Tam, you’ve done a nice job of sorting out some complex variables. Every single issue isn’t explored in excruciating detail (after all, this is a short article), but you’ve brought useful insight to the discussion.
2) Comments, my goodness!!! What hostility, what un-useful words, what opinion.
I lose hope for any solutions or improvements when I read comments so irrelevant to the fundamental questions. One may deny climate effects, one may deny peak oil, but one cannot deny the nearly 70% of US petroleum purchases that are being cycled out of our borders—with the attendant loss in multiplier than if it were spent in the US.
Finally, the belief that drilling in ANWAR or offshore would provide immediate relief or solve or fundamental energy problems misses the point. You’re looking at five to ten years before that’d be in place. What immediate relief? Conserve. Conservation is said to have contributed to the US’s reduction in oil demand more than all the oil that’d come from ANWAR. Let’s get real.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.28.09 @ 04:27 PM
When the banks collapsed, everyone (including hedge funds) sold their oil positions to cover bad loans and liquidation requests. Everyone knew the housing mess was going to cause a recession so the smart people sold off their oil shares. Supply was too high due to the $100.00+ prices. Then demand evaporated as homes foreclosed. Also high gas prices forced people to drive less, get cleaner cars, or ride their bikes. The future of oil will be interesting. It may be too precious to use as a transportation fuel. It will continue to be used for plastics and industrial uses.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.29.09 @ 03:03 PM
Former Barbarian, Its AN50 and I understand the carbon cycle just fine thank you. What I don’t understand is how you and the rest of your religious zealots can’t read past Al Gore’s pseudo science. I never said the planet wasn’t getting warmer, nor implied that man wasn’t in some small way contributing to the process. Unlike you and your snake oil salesman, I look at the bigger picture, the whole carbon cycle and climate over much longer periods of time. There was at one time three times the CO2 in the atmosphere (something we cannot attain even if we burn every last once of fossil fuels left), yes it was warmer, there was much greater abundance of life and the proliferation of plant life kept the average O2 level much higher allowing life forms to grow bigger. Overall a much more life friendly environment than the cold ice encrusted planet you and Al would like us to live in. Furthermore, since when did it become important to all the pseudo environmentalist to arrest change in the environment or the climate for that matter? If there is one constant you can count on in the biosphere it is change and for a very good reason. It is the one reason Al and you dolts, who cannot read past him, seem to miss. Change is necessary. Our planets living organisms are designed to not only handle change but benefit from it. Lack of change breads death, inability to adapt to change equals death. Catastrophic events have killed off vast amounts and varieties of life on this planet in the past. Those life forms that survived are our ancestors (the very reason we need change now just to survive). We carry the genetic programming to enable us to survive and you caterwauling nit wits scream in panic that things might change. OMG it might get warmer! OMG the sea level might rise! What will we ever do!!!! Quit trying to play god with the climate and do what all the other robust life forms do and adapt. Quit trying to ram your infantile socialist driven environmental policies down our throats and start figuring out how to adapt to the change that is coming, that you cannot stop no matter how much you pray to Al or drive the world into poverty.
Just so the rest of you understand, we waste an immense amount of resources trying to find a better way to store energy in order to make it more portable (like batteries) when we have already discovered what nature does already, hydrocarbons. Yep, those nasty hydrocarbons, the bane of the climate change ninnies, living organisms use very successfully. Hydrocarbons pack a great deal more energy per kilogram (80 times more) than the best battery today. “Oh, but burning hydrocarbons produces CO2!” the wailing Al Gore zealots scream. Yes and so do you and your dog and most bacteria and termites, and so on. The point is living organisms either use CO2 and produce O2, or they use O2 and produce CO2, and humans burning fossil fuels is no different. Of course we could encourage more plant growth to offset that CO2 production so that we don’t over work the oceanic sink but hey even if we do we are an adaptable species, well accept for Al’s followers.
So what it all boils down to is this; what does Al really want and why? He still flies a jet and consumes 10 times the energy of the average man, so I cannot believe he really believes what he preaches. Many of his followers are living ascetic lives in homage to the new religion while this fat, bloviating lout continues to spew fear and panic. And of course he’s making a lot of money doing it. Hmmm, follow the money as the old saying goes. For the rest of us adapt or die.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.30.09 @ 04:12 AM
It is hard to take some of these comments seriously when it is clear that there is a lack of understanding of basic science. One opinion talks about comparing what animals naturally release as equal to the mass burning of hydrocarbons. The issue here is the massive acceleration of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. To release massive amounts of man made CO2 into the atmosphere and not believe there is a significant material impact is dead wrong. Also to prescribe just growing more plants as an overset demonstrates a massive lack of understanding of atmospheric chemistry.
Just like many politicians make decisions on issues such as economics and the environment in which they know little about maybe some should only offer up opinions in whatever areas they actually understand and have some expertise? To push aside all of the scientific findings in some kind of rant about Al Gore just demonstrates a total lack of maturity in tackling a very critical issue. The science is obvious and straight forward if one removes their pre-conceived notions.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.30.09 @ 11:06 AM
Ah, ANSO - If only your arguments were cogent rather than merely insipid. In the first posting of your 3 diatribes so far, you said: “I also do not believe burning fossil fuels is endangering the planet by inducing or radically speeding up climate change. And even if it were it is no less unnatural than cattle flatulence or termite waste.” Then in your 3rd posting you say, “I never said the planet wasn’t getting warmer, nor implied that man wasn’t in some small way contributing to the process.” And you expect to be taken seriously? T’is to laugh…
For the record, I’ve never seen Gore’s movie, read any of his books, and don’t go out of my way to listen when the media reports on what he’s saying. Nothing he does or says is original, except in the use of his public bully pulpit, which I suppose we (not you, of course) should be grateful for. But I have been paying attention for the past 30+ years to empirically-based research.
Somehow, in your addled reading of my and others’ postings, you’ve concluded that we want a “cold ice encrusted planet.” This is typical of your warping of what others are trying to drill into your Paleolithic skull. I can’t speak for the others (but would bet they’d agree), but I’m quite happy with the interglacial period in which human civilization has evolved to its current circumstances, and would prefer to keep desertification from spreading farther. I’m not happy with the way male-dominated societies and institutions have chosen to proceed over the last two millenia (there are entirely too many of the Homo consumerensis species competing for too few resources), but I’m hopeful that we’ll catch on before we have to deal with catastrophic collapse toward which we are probably heading. We just need to weed out (through better education) those with fundamentalist beliefs, including libertarians who cleave to the sort of social Darwinism that seems to underlie your “ideas.”
Yes, Nature bats last, and we could enter into another extended period of vulcanism, with concomitant release of GHG’s that would make human activity inconsequential, but that’s the price we pay for being passengers on the big blue marble. I just don’t think we should exacerbate the situation through stupid behaviors. And that’s what separates me from thee…
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.30.09 @ 12:53 PM
So let me get this straight;
Global warming pseudo science = gospel
650 (and growing) dissenting scientists = heratics.
Science settled! Burn the heratics! (but purchase your carbon credits from Algore first)
CO2 is 3.62% of all greenhouse gasses. Man made CO2 is 0.12% of that 3.62%. That’s a significant material impact?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.30.09 @ 01:05 PM
Of Science, concerning Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss.
The weather is not linear like the butterfly flapping wings causing showers in for May; all that is left to convey in weather is a cycle. To be perturbed already my harmony with her says there are things forthcoming.
Springing in pendulums predicted seasons plan my daily activities wronged, I am living in a vivid world of chaos. Starting from excrements of others to minute bonds constricts this consonant cycle that upon release, I envision new worlds to come.
Summer cold with snow and Winter hot, our needs of thirsts quenches lemons will forever see life ever such disorganized. For tales of Requiem in any or fot other, ever true in that, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” My futile immense soul ceases.
Mathis Faulkner
Reality: Math is like Faulkner, better to say that to a poet who cares little of science. The weather is not linear with the stress of the Green House effect. The CO2 put out in the atmosphere will not only perturb degrees of temperatures from having really cold winters to really hot summers, but in essence like a wave, this starts out to be wavy and finally unpredictable.
Summers will be cold and winters hot because as to chaos, that is just it. I can never really tell. My solution is to for all to study more math like d’Alambert’s wave equations rather than Newton’s law of thermodynamics. Physical weather dynamics must be understood that thermal dynamics is conserved in the Earth to begin with.
The former Vice President had a documentary which opened our eyes about Global Warming but the science is a little linear. I agree, Al Gore is still wrong both in not running and science because as to the weather or whether; chaotic to begin with. Just the Nobel and not the President hurts because that is the Hero – Teacher knows what it feels and that is all there is to it.
We in the Sciences are sometimes misinterpreted by others who read a different type of words, interpretations of other literature that in their semantics our point should have spoken their words instead of ours so that our points would’ve gotten the message across. In the works of G. H. Hardy, this was just I hoped to envision. I am not out to attack any passionate fool enough to get a message across about our ends because that too will be my cause. In my futile endeavors:
A Mathematician’s Apology
I am not arguing with you man. I will actually follow your message of urgency concerning the rest of the world is ignorant of any of the hypothetical concerns we all have. Privileged to understand better reason in allowing our learning to explain and allow others to understand, I am seeking this creed till I die. If anybody asks, that’s the first step because I can not answer questions as a teacher.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Tam Hunt: On Time and Free Will
Was Einstein wrong about the nature of time and determinism?
Tam Hunt: The Decline and Fall of the Oil Age
High oil prices and new technologies a driving force behind massive transformation
Tam Hunt: Is It Time for California to Phase Out Nuclear Power?
There may be no better time than the present to begin a more aggressive transition to alternative power sources
Tam Hunt: Wiki-Government As an Antidote to Corruption
Crowdsourcing government could take many different forms and is spreading as an idea
Tam Hunt: A Postmortem of America’s War in Iraq
As a country, we owe it to ourselves and to the world to never again abide an illegal U.S. war and military atrocities by our troops
Weather: Fair 44.0º
Search Noozhawk »
