Oil prices crash

[Purple]

We can. And, to the best of our knowledge, we have done so.

Incidentally, where are you getting this "we can't prove it so it must be true" stuff from? All we've said is that we cannot predict the outcome with 100% certainty because the problem is just too damn big.

These quotes in particular:

The thing about climate change is that most of it is influenced by the equivalent of a black box which we do not understand. (This is in sharp contrast to the simple logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature; one can literally calculate how much temperatures will rise by exhaling.)

Now the climate is also changing but is there actually a hard evidence that this change unlike similar changes in the past is caused purely by human activities instead of some yet unknown natural phenomena which just happen to coincide with increased human CO2 emissions. Or possibly natural climate change that is also mixing with climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions and stopping one will not stop the other.

The first of those is actually what sparked me to ask here. He described the whole thing as a black box. And that can't be good.

Also, every single word LaCroix said. Especially his continuous strawmaning which immediately rang alarm bells for me because it's the kind of tactic used by people who argue out of faith and not science. A lot of his arguments and those of a few others here would down to them proclaiming that I demand an insanely accurate result, can newer be satisfied and must thus be wrong.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Ok then, go with this:

The scientific community are near-unanimously agreed on the general predictions of climate change theories (even to the point where I, as a humble astronomer, have learned of this). As the scientific community is the group most familiar with the minimum acceptable level of evidence, take their word for it. If you still require more detailed information and/or an explanation, may I suggest you try searching for one online rather than asking it of us non-climate-scientist SF fans. Because we can't help you with a subject that isn't our own.

[Covenant]

Those sources will also be more motivated to teach (and educate in general) than the people here, who are more inclined to argue and debate, or even just to shout someone down. There's nothing wrong with firing the broadsides at an actual belligerent, but I think you just hit a nerve. I cautioned against saying "I'm a skeptic" if only to allow you to survive long enough to actually get some data and get educated.

There are, however, still good resources here, at least once you know what questions to ask. People are much more willing to bring up the sheets and sheets of graphs to predict global mean temperature and such within the bounds of a "What if" than they are just to prove it to someone who is on the fence. I think, for some reason or other, they find it much more annoying than instructional.

I personally have no problem with that kind of board culture (I always do my own research first anyway) but we just saw you become roadkill despite really only asking for help figuring things out, so I think it bears remembering.

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/ ... GK20141128

Interesting read. I will just summarise the main take home messages.

1. Poorer OPEC members wanted to cut production to keep the price of oil higher, as they need the money to balance their books.
2. Saudi Arabia is less interested because it
a) has huge cash reserves
b) is interested in maintaining market share

3. Which begs the question, market share against whom? Apparently they specifically refer to US producers who extract from shale. Obviously shale is more expensive to extract than conventional sources, and its become profitable due to the high price of oil.

So SA with its larger clout has convinced OPEC to stay the course for now. In effect this is being described as a price war with the US, particularly shale producers.

This article from Vox however suggests that US shale producers can still remain profitable at somewhat lower costs (whether they would want to as opposed to finding somewhere else to make money with better returns is another matter). So the question is, how low can it go?

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/here- ... es-2014-10

Older article and quite long so I won't repost it, but I feel its quite relevant. It essentially argues who are the winners and who are the losers with falling oil prices, going in detail.

In essence winners - China, India and to a lesser extent the US and EU (it explains in more detail)
Losers - Russia, Venezeula and Iran.

[Starglider]

'The AGW doomer crowd' is a small subset of 'people who think AGW is a problem'. The former consists of people who think AGW will definitely destroy global civilisation and possibly cause human extinction, e.g. via methane hydrate chain reaction. We used to have a few prominent posters talking about this e.g. Zeon's Global Mean Temperature story; seems to be out of fashion on this forum at the moment, but plenty of eco-apocalyse believers elsewhere on the Internet.

The premise is not entirely implausible but I'd put it rather lower down the existential risks list.

[tim31]

Global Mean Temperature was Surlethe's story. Duchess's story was called something else. Both were bleak and scary, although GMT was supposed to have a more hopeful tone in a long-view kind of way. But that won't save my (grand)children.

[LaCroix]

Also, every single word LaCroix said. Especially his continuous strawmaning which immediately rang alarm bells for me because it's the kind of tactic used by people who argue out of faith and not science. A lot of his arguments and those of a few others here would down to them proclaiming that I demand an insanely accurate result, can newer be satisfied and must thus be wrong.

WTF?

You asked for a grand unified formula, I told you what you would need to give you that formula, and told you your "simple demand" is completely unreasonable - it's not my fault you little fuck need all drawn out in crayon and spoon fed for he's to dumb to at least google a subject before he gets into a discussion about it.

[Simon_Jester]

'The AGW doomer crowd' is a small subset of 'people who think AGW is a problem'. The former consists of people who think AGW will definitely destroy global civilisation and possibly cause human extinction, e.g. via methane hydrate chain reaction. We used to have a few prominent posters talking about this e.g. Zeon's Global Mean Temperature story; seems to be out of fashion on this forum at the moment, but plenty of eco-apocalyse believers elsewhere on the Internet.

The premise is not entirely implausible but I'd put it rather lower down the existential risks list.

Global Mean Temperature was Surlethe's story. Duchess's story was called something else. Both were bleak and scary, although GMT was supposed to have a more hopeful tone in a long-view kind of way. But that won't save my (grand)children.

Well, Surlethe basically depicted humanity being wiped out ecologically; I forget if some scattered bands survived in the arctic latitudes or not.

Duchess was one of several participants in a collaborative story of the more mundane 'peak oil doom' type, focusing mainly on the idea that the US would splinter politically and have a second civil war under the economic pressures and thanks to the increasing polarization of our politics. Which is obviously a highly specific prediction compared to general ones like "peak oil is a problem" or even "peak oil will screw us."

I'd consider GMT to be a lot more bleak and scary because it involves the total destruction of human civilization as we know it, whereas the collaborative peak oil story was more like "a lot of nasty shit happens but life goes on even if a lot of people who now live in First World comfort will have to live in Third World circumstances."

[Purple]

Ok then, go with this:

The scientific community are near-unanimously agreed on the general predictions of climate change theories (even to the point where I, as a humble astronomer, have learned of this). As the scientific community is the group most familiar with the minimum acceptable level of evidence, take their word for it. If you still require more detailed information and/or an explanation, may I suggest you try searching for one online rather than asking it of us non-climate-scientist SF fans. Because we can't help you with a subject that isn't our own.

Thanks. That works for me. I'll address any future question to someone else somewhere else if and when they appear.

Those sources will also be more motivated to teach (and educate in general) than the people here, who are more inclined to argue and debate, or even just to shout someone down. There's nothing wrong with firing the broadsides at an actual belligerent, but I think you just hit a nerve. I cautioned against saying "I'm a skeptic" if only to allow you to survive long enough to actually get some data and get educated.

There are, however, still good resources here, at least once you know what questions to ask. People are much more willing to bring up the sheets and sheets of graphs to predict global mean temperature and such within the bounds of a "What if" than they are just to prove it to someone who is on the fence. I think, for some reason or other, they find it much more annoying than instructional.

I personally have no problem with that kind of board culture (I always do my own research first anyway) but we just saw you become roadkill despite really only asking for help figuring things out, so I think it bears remembering.

Overall you are right. I think I'll take your advice and stay away from this board when it comes to asking questions in the future. The atmosphere is frankly toxic and half the people are just here for a fight that I don't care to have.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Asking questions is fine, even here, I've done it on occasion and learned many useful things. What's important is doing enough research first to ask the right sort of questions and, most importantly, to understand the answers, without resorting to "I know nothing about this, but I'm going to disagree with the answers because I don't know anything about this." I'm not saying you did that specifically, I'm simplifying for effect, but it's a mindset that gets very annoying.

The best bet is to have a separate thread specifically for the questions, rather than sidetracking a different thread where people want to discuss an issue rather than answer questions from a self-confessed layman.

[General Brock]

More like, warmer climates are relocating to the people!

(Yes, I know climate change is more complicated that simply "warmer", but increased hydrocarbon consumption will affect that as well.)

Not nearly quickly enough from where I'm shivering at, although quickly would probably have strings attached...

FIREFIGHTER: The house is on fire! You have to get out!

GUY WITH HIS HEAD IN THE FRIDGE: But I feel cold! I know without even looking that you're totally full of shit.

If you don't like cold weather, why live in Canada? Is it really worth destroying entire ecosystems to ensure that you won't need a jacket?

Its not up to me; realism suggests I take what I can get including the cheap jokes. By destroying entire ecosystems, presumably you mean the Tar Sands heavy oil project; to enough people, that means good paying resource sector jobs and its worth it to them.

The Harper government squeaks in election after election on what appears to be a split centrist-left-of-centre vote between the Libs, NDP, and Greens. Its not clear that a Liberal majority would be much different. Neither the NDP or the Greens are likely to form a government, although the NDP is sounding far less radical than it did in an attempt to capture the mainstream; meaning, an improbable NDP government might not act much differently from the Liberals. The Harper government is also in the habit of muzzling and dismissing scientists.

As far as climate change goes, its not yet clear how Canada will fare; the most recent predictions aren't as rosy.

[Sky Captain]

'The AGW doomer crowd' is a small subset of 'people who think AGW is a problem'. The former consists of people who think AGW will definitely destroy global civilisation and possibly cause human extinction, e.g. via methane hydrate chain reaction. We used to have a few prominent posters talking about this e.g. Zeon's Global Mean Temperature story; seems to be out of fashion on this forum at the moment, but plenty of eco-apocalyse believers elsewhere on the Internet.

The premise is not entirely implausible but I'd put it rather lower down human civilization the existential risks list.

I have also hard time accepting that global warming could destroy human civilization. In the history of Earth there have been periods with no ice caps even at poles and tropical climate extending from equator to high latitudes and life flourished in those conditions. Can't really imagine humans failing to survive in similar conditions and most climate models predict much less warming than that.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I have also hard time accepting that global warming could destroy human civilization. In the history of Earth there have been periods with no ice caps even at poles and tropical climate extending from equator to high latitudes and life flourished in those conditions. Can't really imagine humans failing to survive in similar conditions and most climate models predict much less warming than that.

I don't recall humans existing much during those periods, and during the one major Ice Age, the human population was reduced to a mere 10,000.

Humans will no doubt adapt to a polar-ice-cap-less world, but a number of major cities are going to in the water, like New York, London, just to name a few. Given how many countries tend to drag their feet on the matter, by the time something is done, it's probably too late.

[Sky Captain]

I don't recall humans existing much during those periods, and during the one major Ice Age, the human population was reduced to a mere 10,000.

I think this was caused by a large volcano erupting in Indonesia and causing global temperature to drop in a year or two for few decades in already colder than normal world.

Humans will no doubt adapt to a polar-ice-cap-less world, but a number of major cities are going to in the water, like New York, London, just to name a few. Given how many countries tend to drag their feet on the matter, by the time something is done, it's probably too late.

That would be a problem, but hardly a civilization ending more like a long term planning issue. It's not like all the glaciers in the world will melt instantly. If this climate change eventually turns Earth into polar ice free world it will most likely take many centuries as it takes lot of energy to melt all that 2 - 4 km thick ice.

[Alyrium Denryle]

We can. And, to the best of our knowledge, we have done so.

Incidentally, where are you getting this "we can't prove it so it must be true" stuff from? All we've said is that we cannot predict the outcome with 100% certainty because the problem is just too damn big.

These quotes in particular:

The thing about climate change is that most of it is influenced by the equivalent of a black box which we do not understand. (This is in sharp contrast to the simple logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature; one can literally calculate how much temperatures will rise by exhaling.)

Now the climate is also changing but is there actually a hard evidence that this change unlike similar changes in the past is caused purely by human activities instead of some yet unknown natural phenomena which just happen to coincide with increased human CO2 emissions. Or possibly natural climate change that is also mixing with climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions and stopping one will not stop the other.

The first of those is actually what sparked me to ask here. He described the whole thing as a black box. And that can't be good.

Also, every single word LaCroix said. Especially his continuous strawmaning which immediately rang alarm bells for me because it's the kind of tactic used by people who argue out of faith and not science. A lot of his arguments and those of a few others here would down to them proclaiming that I demand an insanely accurate result, can newer be satisfied and must thus be wrong.

Ok. I am going to be nice.

The climate model is huge. Absolutely huge. Running the calculations in order to get climate predictions takes weeks on a bank of supercomputers sort of huge. Main variables are as follows:

1) CO2, Methane, and other gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, their movements, and region-specific concentrations, including daily cycles in concentration due to photosynthesis.

2) Particulates and gases in the atmosphere that reflect the light of the sun, including their movements and region specific concentrations etc

3) Sun spot activity etc

4) Volcanic eruptions and their effect on 1 and 2

5) The melting of glacial and sea ice, and the changes in albedo and ocean currents these create.

6) The prospect that trapped CO2 and Methane in permafrost deposits will be released by melting.

7) Feedback loops created by 5 and 6, tipping points for which we simply dont fucking know.

Tiny changes in the earth and moons orbit.

9) The movement of continents

10) Daily human activity like international air travel--not the emissions, but the changes in air currents

And there is more. Climate scientists have plugged these into massive computer models (see above), and post-dicted the earths climate with a little bit of fuzz around the edges. A herculean effort in and of itself. Then, applied that to the future.

But

They dont know what future conditions will be. It is one thing to hold other variables constant or at very readily predicted values and just modify greenhouse gases. But in order to get perfect predictions, they would need to know what the status of the airline industry is including the daily flight schedule 10 years from now. The same goes for deforestation etc.

There is also chaos theory to consider. Tiny errors in the measurement of CO2 or any of the other variables get amplified when you are trying to make long term predictions. This is why we cannot predict the weather more than a few days in advance. We never and can never perfectly measure, say, barometric pressure. The error gets amplified because the models are sensitive to initial conditions. The same goes for the climate.

So, while the climate scientists can say "If CO2 increases by X amount, mean global temperature should increase between M and N amounts, with the following general effects on your daily lives", they cannot get much more precise than that. They can give you a confidence interval. They can say for example that droughts will get worse. They cannot tell you whether drought will hit Dallas or Mombasa in the spring of 2040

[Adam Reynolds]

FIREFIGHTER: The house is on fire! You have to get out!

GUY WITH HIS HEAD IN THE FRIDGE: But I feel cold! I know without even looking that you're totally full of shit.

That is one of the best short summaries of global warming deniers I have seen.

This is obviously not to say that General Brock is a global warming denier.

[Purple]

@Alyrium Denryle

Thank you.

[Raw Shark]

That is one of the best short summaries of global warming deniers I have seen.

I can't take the credit; it's a paraphrase from memory of a political cartoon I first saw here.

[General Brock]

FIREFIGHTER: The house is on fire! You have to get out!

GUY WITH HIS HEAD IN THE FRIDGE: But I feel cold! I know without even looking that you're totally full of shit.

That is one of the best short summaries of global warming deniers I have seen.

This is obviously not to say that General Brock is a global warming denier.

For the record, I'm not a global warming denier but am familiar with that position, which is why I'm not a global warming denier.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I do not believe that AGW will cause human extinction. Before I hoped it wouldn't because I was scared. Knowing what I know about science today I am now very confident it will not cause human extinction. I do believe its consequences will be very expensive, which is why I'm specializing in a field which exists more or less to provide solutions to the main problem it will cause.

I also regret my frenetic advocacy over peak oil fears. At the time I was very susceptible to being scared by other people and it making me hyperactively focused on a topic. As it turned out, the optimistic view that economic factors would drive technology to achieve total oil exploitation turned out to be correct, mercifully. Because of this we have approximately 400% more oil than was previously anticipated and peak oil is therefore probably 70 - 80 years a way. Due to the simultaneous massive increase in gas consumption and reduction in coal consumption, use of coal for power is probably going to end in the next 50 years when in combination with renewables, such that when peak oil finally happens, it won't happen, because F-T process extraction of hydrocarbons from coal will further prolong that energy economy.

That said, whether or not there is enough energy to sustain a transhumanist future without want on this planet alone is a much more questionable subject, because absolute demand for energy is increasing geometrically in modern society and there are absolute constraints. But that's neither here nor there, which is that I felt the need to comment on my name being brought up, and the need to state I pretty much desperately regret everything I've ever done on this forum and wish people would forget me. Thank you.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Duchess, I don't know what has happened to make you feel such regret, but I for one have learned a lot from your posts over the years, have been entertained by your writing, and consider you to be one of the more valuable members of this board since its founding. Your reasons for not wanting to continue to participate in this community are your own and no one will pry or hold it against you, but I thank you for shedding so much light on so many topics.

[madd0ct0r]

seconded. It's nice to get smacked down when I get my fluid dynamics wildly wrong (again)

[General Brock]

Gosh Duchess, there's nothing to regret about being smart and passionate about issues.

[Welf]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/ ... GK20141128

Interesting read. I will just summarise the main take home messages.

1. Poorer OPEC members wanted to cut production to keep the price of oil higher, as they need the money to balance their books.
2. Saudi Arabia is less interested because it
a) has huge cash reserves
b) is interested in maintaining market share

3. Which begs the question, market share against whom? Apparently they specifically refer to US producers who extract from shale. Obviously shale is more expensive to extract than conventional sources, and its become profitable due to the high price of oil.

So SA with its larger clout has convinced OPEC to stay the course for now. In effect this is being described as a price war with the US, particularly shale producers.

This article from Vox however suggests that US shale producers can still remain profitable at somewhat lower costs (whether they would want to as opposed to finding somewhere else to make money with better returns is another matter). So the question is, how low can it go?

There's a bit more to the story, Saudi Arabia was acting reasnably. The power of the OPEC was always in large part the ability of Saudi Arabia to change their production. Both oil demand and oil supply are very inflexible in the short run. So Saudi Arabia could manipulate the price by reducing the available oil. But that only worked in the 60s in 70s. The last time they tried that was in 1982 and it failed because of new oil producers in the north sea. In the end SA lost a lot of revenue and accomplished not much. And this time their situation is even worse since their market share has declined. If they cut their own production all they would achieve would be to make US fracking even more profitable and even attract more investment. And at the same time this wouldn't help the porer members.
For the frackers we won't see a decline in production anytime soon. It takes a lot of initial investment to develop a new oil field, even more so with fracking. So they can't really close them down until the daily cost is higher than the revenue, and that long term.