Fossil Fuels, Climate, and Climategate

David Rutledge Caltech

web: rutledge.caltech.eduemail: rutledge@caltech.edu

2

The UN Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

• Released 4th Assessment Report in 2007• For climate projections, the IPCC uses

– 19 computer models with a range for temperature sensitivity for a doubling of the CO2 level of 2.1 to 4.4°C

– the report gives a 66% chance that the true sensitivity is in the range from 2.0 to 4.5°C

– and a 90% chance that the true sensitivity is above 1.5°C• For oil, gas, and coal production, the IPCC works with

scenarios — “… 40 SRES [Special Report on Emissions Scenarios] scenarios together encompass the current range of uncertainties…”

3

Oil Production in the IPCC Scenarios

• Gb = billions of barrels• Range for production from 2010 to 2100 is 1,446Gb to 8,278Gb

— still growing in 13 scenarios in 2100

4

Goal is to Reduce these Uncertainties

• Oil, gas, and coal– US oil — Hubbert’s peak – World oil and gas– British coal — The Coal Question– World coal

• Climate change– CO2 concentrations– Temperature – Sea level

Characterizing Uncertainty• Residuals are the differences between data and models • The model with the smallest residuals is used for projections• Uncertainty refers to the inconsistency of the projections• A range giving the upper and lower values is one measure of

uncertainty• When residuals look like a string of independent random numbers,

or they can be decorrelated, we can use the computer to create replications, which are effectively alternative histories

• Replications allow us to calculate confidence intervals — a statement of the form

“The 90% confidence interval is 0.9°C to 1.8°C”means that there is a 90% chance that the interval includes the actual temperature

• Limitation in confidence intervals is that they depend on the form of the models — models can break, and we will see examples

5

6

King Hubbert

• Geophysicist at the Shell lab in Houston, Texas

• In 1956, he wrote a paper suggesting the possibility of a peak in US oil production in 1970

US Crude-Oil Production

• Average price after the peak is 2.6 times higher — $44 vs $17

7

8

Cumulative Plot for US Crude Oil

• Production scale gives a projection for the ultimate production — 227Gb• Ultimate production is total production, past and future• Excel’s Solver takes one second for the curve fit — r2 = 99.990%

Historical Projections for the US Oil Ultimate

• Large circles are government estimates, small circles are non-government• Government median is 433Gb, non-government median is 230Gb• USGS = US Geological Survey, MMS = Mineral Management Service

9

Residuals for US Crude Oil

• Maximum residual from 1901 on is 11 months — 3 weeks in 2009• Residuals from 1901 on are used in the curve fit• The maximum residual of one year in the last 100 years suggests an error

estimate for the ultimate of 1 year of current production — ±2Gb• Residuals can be decorrelated to do statistical replications

10

Confidence Band for Historical Ultimates

• 1000 replications — current 90% confidence interval is ±2Gb• The USGS/MMS assessment, 385Gb, implies an extraordinary break

with history11

12

Kenneth Deffeyes on the USGS Assessments

“When USGS workers tried to estimate resources, they acted, well, like bureaucrats. Whenever a judgment call was made about choosing a statistical method, the USGS almost invariably tended to pick the one that gave the higher estimate.”

Kenneth Deffeyes Professor of Geology, emeritus, Princeton University

Deffeyes’ Law of Bureaucratic Resource Estimates

13

World Oil and Gas Production

• 7.33 barrels of oil = 1 metric ton, toe = metric tons of oil equivalent• Natural gas added as the energy equivalent

14

Residuals for World Oil and Gas

• Change in slope may be interpreted as a change in exhaustion rate, not a change in the ultimate — so there can be a joint fit

• Projection for ultimate is 618Gtoe

Historical Projections for the World Oil and Gas Ultimate

• 1,000 replications — current confidence interval is 544 to 667Gtoe• Close to BP’s reserves + cumulative production, 596Gtoe

15

16

British Coal Photo by John Cornwell

17

The Coal Question (1865) Stanley Jevons

18

• Mt = millions of metric tons• Production is now 16 times less than the peak, while the average

price after the peak is 2.4 times higher than before• In 1913, Britain exported 27% of its production, now it imports

74% of the coal it burns

UK Coal Production

Historical Projections for the UK Coal Ultimate

• Reserve numbers are available before projections stabilize• Produced 18% of the 1871 Royal Commission reserves + cumulative• Criteria were too optimistic ― 1-ft seams, 4,000-ft depth (Deffeyes’ law)

19

Residuals for UK Coal

• Jumps are strike years: 1893, 1921, 1926, 1974, and 1984• Residuals become larger with time 20

21

American Coal

Photograph by Christian Abraham used with permission

US Coal Production

• Will analyze as three regions: Pennsylvania anthracite, Western coal, and other Eastern coal

22

Pennsylvania Anthracite Production

• Burns without smoke — used for home heating• Production is now 59 times less than the peak, while the

average price after the peak is 1.7 times higher than before 23

Historical Projections for PA Anthracite

• Reserve numbers are available before projections stabilize• Produced 42% of 1921 reserves + cumulative

24

Coal West of the Mississippi

• Early production cycle (3Gt ultimate) peaked in 1918• New start after the 1970 Clean-Air Act Extension, which encouraged

the use of low-sulfur coal25

Residuals for Western Coal

• Maximum residual for the current ultimate is 22 days• Projection for ultimate is 46Gt (29% of reserves + cumulative)

26

US Coal Reserves

• From the World Energy Council surveys• Paul Averitt responded to criticism from mining engineers by

tightening reserves criteria (violates Deffeyes’ law) — seams at least 28 inches thick, up to 1,000 feet deep, within 3/4 mile from a measurement, 50% recovery

• Now 13 times lower than in 1913 27

African Coal

• SASOL = South African Synthetic Oil company28

Residuals for Africa

• Projection for the ultimate is 23Gt (41% of reserves + cumulative)29

Historical Projections for Chinese Coal

• Reserves submitted to World Energy Council in 1989 and 1992 differ by 6:1• Projection for ultimate is 117Gt (75% of reserves + cumulative)

30

Growth Rate for South Asia

• Includes Middle East and Taiwan• Will use reserves + cumulative = 78Gt for projection — likely an

overestimate of the ultimate• India recently shifted from reporting coal-in-place to recoverable coal

― 92Gt to 56Gt 31

Historical Projections for World Coal

• Other regions not shown, but are available on line• 5% range from 1994 on — much tighter than for world oil and gas• Projection for ultimate is 665Gt, 59% of reserves + cumulative• IPCC range for production through 2100 is 355 to 3,500Gt

32

• The scenario report SRES (2000) references the 1995 and 1998 surveys• The IPCC chose to use additional recoverable reserves and they also

chose 1998 (3,368Gt) instead of 1995 (680Gt) (Deffeyes’ Law)• Additional recoverable reserves are now 19 times smaller than in 1998• The 4th Assessment report notes the 2004 survey results, and includes

100,000EJ (5,000Gt) as a “possible resource” with no reference

Where Does the IPCC Get Its Coal Numbers?World Energy Council survey

Proved recoverable reserves, Gt

Additional recoverable reserves, Gt

1992 1,039 702

1995 1,032 680

1998 984 3,368

2001 984 409

2004 909 449

2007 847 180

33

34

Carbon-Dioxide Emissions

• Carbon coefficients for oil, gas, and coal from the IPCC 4th Assessment• Projection is less than any of the IPCC scenarios (Deffeyes’ Law?)

Climategate

The Climategate Material• 63MB zip file• 1,037 emails with threads for a few

scientists at the Climate Research Unit– earliest is March 6, 1996– latest is Thursday, November 12, 2009 —

• 3,400 files in 101 folders — data, code, proposals, reviews, spreadsheets– earliest is March 3, 1993– latest is November 11, 2009

Blog Time Line (PST) November 17, 2009

37

0320 Someone logged into Gavin Schmidt’s Real Climate blog as an administrator and uploaded the zip file — Schmidt quarantined the material and notified the University of East Anglia

0324 A link to Real Climate was posted to Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit Blog

1825 A link to a Russian proxy site was posted to Anthony Watts’ Watts Up With That blog — quarantined by Charles Rotter, the blog moderator

1947 The link to the Russian proxy site was posted to Warren Meyer’s Climate Skeptic blog — not noticed

1957 The link to the Russian was proxy site posted to Jeff Id’s The Air Vent blog — not noticed

From Charles Rotter, at Watts Up With That

• Rotter quarantined the message, but he downloaded the material from the Russian web site

• Rotter gave the material to a colleague, Steve Mosher, who studied it for two days to assure himself that the material was genuine before beginning to post emails on November 19

“On Tuesday November 17th I was at my desk, browsing the web and moderating at the same time when the now infamous post came in from user FOIA at 6:25 [pm] PST.

‘We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.

This is a limited time offer, download now:http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip’ “

Who Done It?• Last email 11/12 first posting 11/17• An FOI (Freedom of Information) request from Steve McIntyre in

Canada was turned down by post on 11/13 — McIntyre says that he received the letter on 11/18

• No personal material — however, some has no connection to an FOI request (fund-raising efforts with Shell Oil company, photo-shopped images making fun of climate skeptics)

• Emails appear to be selected by key words (SRES, Yamal, SST, …) of interest to skeptics

• The files appear to be selected by content• Tracks are covered by artificial file creation dates and proxy servers

• If I were investigating, I would start by questioning people who were aware that the FOI request was turned down

39

Phil Jones — Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU)

• Leader of effort to develop the most important world land temperature series (CRUTEM3) — the only thermometer series that goes back to 1850

• Jones has temporarily stepped down

• The British MET office has announced a three-year review of the temperature record

Phil Jones to Michael Mann (February 2005)

“The two MMs [Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone…. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

Phil Jones to Michael Mann (September 2008), apparently related to an FOI request from David Holland (turned down June 2008)

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4 [the IPCC 4rth Assessment Report]? Keith will do likewise.… Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

Response to Freedom of Information (FOI) Act

Keith Briffa to Ed Cook (June 2003)

“I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review - Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please”

Tom Wigley to Michael Mann, Phil Jones and others (January 2005)

“If you think that [Editor Jim] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted.”

From Phil Jones to others (August 2009)

“All of them know the sorts of things to say - about our comment and the awful original, without any prompting.”

in response to the journal request: “Please list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and could give an unbiased review of your work. Please do not list colleagues who are close associates, collaborators, or family members.”

Editors and Reviewers

The Temperature RecordTom Wigley to Phil Jones (November, 2009)

“Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming -- and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.”

Tom Wigley to Phil Jones (November, 2009)

“Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs [sea surface temperatures] to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we'd still have to explain the land blip.”

Phil Jones to Michael Mann (March, 2004)

“Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully.”

Land vs Ocean Temperatures

• Land adjusted from the CRU (CRUTEM3), land raw and land stations from the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network)

• Ocean adjusted from the UK Hadley Centre (HadSST2), Ocean raw by subtracting adjustments from Rayner at al., 2006

• 11-year averages, relative to the 1850-1900 average

Surface versus Satellite Temperatures

• Rise is about 0.1°C/decade• Annual production of oil, gas, and coal CO2 is 1.0% of the ultimate

• Cumulative production of oil, gas, and coal CO2 is 41% of the ultimate• Suggests a future rise of 0.6°C

45

• Projection includes 1.45Gt/yr land-use carbon emissions (1951-2005 average)• Fraction of variance accounted for is 99.9%

CO2 Levels from Tom Wigley’s MAGICC

46

Temperature

• Monthly surface temperatures from the UK Hadley Centre, with seasonal effects removed

• 1999-2008 average is 0.7°C above the 1850-1900 average• Model is T = T0 + T1 log2(CO2)d where d accounts for thermal delays• Only 63% of variance explained — residuals are large and complex 47

Temperature Residuals

• The 90% range extends from ±0.3°C• Residuals are highly correlated

48

Two Time Constants in Residuals

• The diamonds indicate the autocorrelation of the residuals• Model assumes that temperature responds in time to carbon

dioxide as it does to the things the model does not cover49

Comparison with Crowley and Kim (1995)

• Step response, with vertical scale adjusted to match at 60 years• Dotted line shows Crowley and Kim’s energy-balance model• Solid black line shows the global climate model Crowley and Kim

used for the comparison with the energy-balance model

Confidence Band for Association between Temperature and log2(CO2)

• This slope (T1) is not exactly comparable to the IPCC sensitivity, where aerosols and greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide are considered separately — but it has been stable for sixty years

• 1,000 replications — current 90% confidence interval is 1.5°C to 2.9°C51

Confidence Band for the Temperature

• The future rise associated with the increase in CO2 levels is 0.6°C — comparable to the 0.6°C residual fluctuations

• 53% of the total projected rise appears to have already occurred• IPCC uses a few selected marker scenarios, and this artificially alters the

uncertainty — no marker scenarios have oil production rising in 2100 52

Satellite Radar Sea-Level Measurements

• TOPEX and Jason radar satellites — University of Colorado data• Corrected for air pressure with seasonal effects removed• 1999 to 2008 rise is 28mm• Half of the 1.7-mm/yr rise from 2004 to 2007 comes from thermal

expansion, measured by the ARGO network of diving floats53

Rahmstorf Model for Sea Level

• Model for rise rate is R = 1.5 + 1.7T mm per year• Fraction of variance accounted for is 97.5%• Tide gauge data from John Church and Neil White

54

• Rise rate associated with temperature is comparable to the background• The current decadal sea-level rise is 76% of the projected peak rise• IPCC uses a few selected marker scenarios, and this artificially alters the

uncertainty — no marker scenarios have oil production rising in 2100

Decadal Sea-Level Rise

55

Long Beach Subsidence

— 9m!

• Picture taken by Roger Coar in 1959 — his dog’s name was King

• With the permission of the Long Beach Historical Society

56

57

Summary• Oil, gas, and coal

– US crude-oil production has been following a normal curve since 1901 — the 1995 USGS/2006 MMS assessment is not consistent with history

– The projection for ultimate world oil and gas production is consistent with the BP reserves

– Ultimate production estimates for coal from geological reserves are available early, but they are too high (6 for the UK, 2 for PA)

– The projection for the world coal ultimate is 59% of the reserves plus cumulative production — stable within a 5% band since 1994

• Climate– Half of the projected temperature rise appears to already occurred– The current decadal sea-level rise is 3/4 of the projected peak– For both temperature and sea level, humanity’s part of the future rise

appears to be comparable to the natural changes

58

Thank You• Sandro Schmidt at the BGR (the German Resources Agency)• Granger Morgan, Melissa Chan, Ed Rubin and Jay Apt at Carnegie-Mellon• Charlie Kennel at the University of California at San Diego• Kevin Bowman and Dimitri Antsos at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory• Lee Freese and John Rutledge at Freese and Nichols, Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas• Kyle Saunders, Euan Mearns, and Dave Summers at The Oil Drum• Andrew Ferguson at the Optimum Population Trust• Tom Crowley at the University of Edinburgh• Tom Wigley at the National Center for Atmospheric Research for MAGICC• Alex Dessler, Andy Dessler, and Jerry North at Texas A&M• Steve Mohr at the University of Newcastle, New South Wales• Ben Chao and Henry Wu at National Central University, Taiwan• Steven Schwartz at Brookhaven National Laboratory• Jim Murray at the University of Washington• Many Caltech colleagues, but particularly Bill Bridges, Paul Dimotakis, David

Goodstein, Nadia Lapusta, John Ledyard, Carver Mead, Tapio Schneider, John Seinfeld, and Tom TombrelloSpecial thanks to Sandy Garstang and Shady Peyvan in the Caltech Library, Tony Diaz in the Caltech Geology Library, and Kent Potter and Dale Yee in the Caltech Engineering Division for their perseverance and ingenuity in locating historical coal production and reserves records

• Copyright © 2007, revised 2008, 2009, and 2010 by David Rutledge• Permission is given to copy this work, provided attribution is given,

and provided that the link http://rutledge.caltech.edu/ is included.• This site has links to the current version of these slides, an Excel

workbook with calculations for the graphs, and streaming video for a public lecture. A book is in preparation.

59