The Great Climate Change Swindle

15 hours ago, Bobby P said:

There is an abundance of oil supply right now and we are not going to be running out of Oil for at least the next 300 years. There is plenty of oil around the around and with improving technology - we are able to achieve much higher recovery rates and geological formations which were not accessible before. So, I am going to have a disagree with your theory regarding a "false flag" narrative. Haha! Good try though. 

Abundance in the sense? Here is my number:

The world oil reserves is about 650GBL. The oil consumption (NGL, Tar sands exckuded) is 30GBL per year

Here are some of the rough oil reserves based on various calculations and speculations in GBL:

Oil reserves of Muslim countries:

KSA: 110

UAE: 33-35

Kuwait: 33-35

Iraq: 55

Iran: 50

Azerbaijan: 7

Qatar: 5

Oman: 5

Yemen: 3

Syria: 2

Bahrain: <1

Libya: 15

Algeria: 12

Egypt: 4

Malaysia: 4

Indonesia: 3

Total oil with muslim countries comes to around 350GBL.

Oil reserves in non-muslim countries are: 

Russia: 125-130 (with shale oil of 20GBL)

USA: 50 (with shale oil)\

China: 25

Nigeria: 22-25

Kazhakhstan: 25

Brazil: 12

Ecuador: 8

Angola: 8

Mexico: 8

Norway: 7

India: 5

Canada, Venezuela, Vietnam, Sudan, Colombia, Chad, Argentina, UK, Australia, Bruinei, Guinea, Peru and others: 20

Total oil with non-muslim countries is roughly 300GBL.

(PS:Venezuela and canada don't hold large reserves. What they hold is tar sands, an intermediate between coal and oil.)

 

From where did the 300 years worth of oil supply come from? Current oil consumption is about 31 billion barrels a year.

 

14 hours ago, NickW said:

Errr No. However it a reasonable question for anyone to ask

I believe the effect is approximately a 2 degree increase for every doubling of Co2 concentration. On that basis raising Co2 to 10,000ppm would give rise to a 9 degree celsius rise +/- negative / positive feedbacks. 

 

 

How will doubling of CO2 increase CO2 by 2 celsius? How can geometric input convert to linear result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

The bag thing was just an example, I think. Here's another: renewable electricity is costlier than the juice from gas-fired plants, at least down here, and utilities are raising their rates because of this. Higher bills hit everyone but the poorer you are, the harder the blow. 

Agree. 
Some health / pollution aspects to be considered as well though - poor people tend to bear brunt of that pain as well, as well as having less resources to fight it. 

Think I'm gonna dust off some old Marx  theories under the feudalism thread... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Abundance in the sense? Here is my number:

The world oil reserves is about 650GBL. The oil consumption (NGL, Tar sands exckuded) is 30GBL per year

Here are some of the rough oil reserves based on various calculations and speculations in GBL:

Oil reserves of Muslim countries:

KSA: 110

UAE: 33-35

Kuwait: 33-35

Iraq: 55

Iran: 50

Azerbaijan: 7

Qatar: 5

Oman: 5

Yemen: 3

Syria: 2

Bahrain: <1

Libya: 15

Algeria: 12

Egypt: 4

Malaysia: 4

Indonesia: 3

Total oil with muslim countries comes to around 350GBL.

Oil reserves in non-muslim countries are: 

Russia: 125-130 (with shale oil of 20GBL)

USA: 50 (with shale oil)\

China: 25

Nigeria: 22-25

Kazhakhstan: 25

Brazil: 12

Ecuador: 8

Angola: 8

Mexico: 8

Norway: 7

India: 5

Canada, Venezuela, Vietnam, Sudan, Colombia, Chad, Argentina, UK, Australia, Bruinei, Guinea, Peru and others: 20

Total oil with non-muslim countries is roughly 300GBL.

(PS:Venezuela and canada don't hold large reserves. What they hold is tar sands, an intermediate between coal and oil.)

 

From where did the 300 years worth of oil supply come from? Current oil consumption is about 31 billion barrels a year.

 

How will doubling of CO2 increase CO2 by 2 celsius? How can geometric input convert to linear result?

Canada and Venezuela have large resource of "heavy Oil", this heavy oil is processed to "synthetic crude" and then sent to a refinery for end product conversion. There is over a trillion barrels of oil to recover from the Athabasca oil sands and there is many other fields which are not even discovered yet. 

 

Canada has about 170 Billion barrels of Proven recoverable reserves and Venezuela over 250 Billion, why is this not your list? Care to explain? "Heavy Oil" is considered "proven reserves" which I do not see on your total. Even, Saudi Arabia is running out of Conventional crude and they have asked our engineering company to help them build a heavy oil processing facility for their Zuluf oil field - which is a heavy oil field. With planned production of 600K BPD. Convention oil reserves may be depleting but there is plenty of unconventional oil to be produced. 

Edited by Bobby P
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobby P said:

Canada and Venezuela have large resource of "heavy Oil", this heavy oil is processed to "synthetic crude" and then sent to a refinery for end product conversion. There is over a trillion barrels of oil to recover from the Athabasca oil sands and there is many other fields which are not even discovered yet. 

 

Canada has about 170 Billion barrels of Proven recoverable reserves and Venezuela over 250 Billion, why is this not your list? Care to explain? "Heavy Oil" is considered "proven reserves" which I do not see on your total. Even, Saudi Arabia is running out of Conventional crude and they have asked our engineering company to help them build a heavy oil processing facility for their Zuluf oil field - which is a heavy oil field. With planned production of 600K BPD. Convention oil reserves may be depleting but there is plenty of unconventional oil to be produced. 

There is a difference between heavy oil and ultra heavy oil. Heavy oil is liquid whereas ultra heavy oil is a form of gel also called tar sands. It is like Asphalt and is not oil. It is transported by mixing with conventional oil and refined by hydrogenating with Natural gas. It comes to be similar to coal for that matter. Usage of ultra heavy oil is like using coal liquefaction. The Saudi heavy oil, on the other hand, is just a heavy oil which is liquid but thicker than its other oil fields. Even that is conventional oil itself but not yet exploited as Saudi Arabia had plenty of other oil fields with lighter oil. But this heavy oil of KSA is included in reserve estimate and is proven to be extractable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Agree. 
Some health / pollution aspects to be considered as well though - poor people tend to bear brunt of that pain as well, as well as having less resources to fight it. 

Think I'm gonna dust off some old Marx  theories under the feudalism thread... 

Yep, the wealthier you are, the better food you can afford, too.

Please do. I found "The Capital" in our family library recently and seriously thought about having a go at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

How will doubling of CO2 increase CO2 by 2 celsius? How can geometric input convert to linear result?

I believe he meant doubling CO2 emissions leads to global temperatures rising by said number of degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

Please do. I found "The Capital" in our family library recently and seriously thought about having a go at it.

 

c48242b7da1c25435a299d54d4a473a1e9835b5df9ecf90349d0cde94e474bf8.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I hear people talking about peak oil I always wonder why they ignore the fact that natural gas is also abundant and that it can do about anything that oil can. It is like they live in an alternate reality to mine. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gas is boring. Just think about it, nobody is suing anybody because of gas production, are they? There's not enough in gas ti sink your (not your personally, of course) teeth it, you see. Now oil, on the other hand, is black and stinky, and you can sue soooo many people for producing it. That's my theory, at least, but I don't really have a high opinion of humankind, so I may be wrong.
 

@Tom Kirkman, I'm getting one of these for Christmas!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

When I hear people talking about peak oil I always wonder why they ignore the fact that natural gas is also abundant and that it can do about anything that oil can. It is like they live in an alternate reality to mine. 

 

Natural gas is also limited in quantity. Natural gas can last only about 20 years more than oil. Natural gas can't do many things which oil can. Some of these are -

- Storage is difficult due to high pressure container requirements. 6000 Cubic feet natural gas is equal to 1 barrel oil. 1 barrel oil in cubic feet will need about 5.7 cubic feet of space.

- lower energy per volume when stored in compressed form and hence lower mobility

- petrochemical like pesticides, medicine, organic compounds etc can't be made

- planes, ships etc find it impossible to have Natural gas for fueling engine

- Paints, vanishes, grease, PVC, bakelite etc can't be made

 

Natural gas is also limited to about 7000TCF which can't last for too long. Natural gas is somewhat like sun light when it comes to storage as it is really difficult to store gas. LPG made of butane and propane is easier to store due to its higher boiling point. But methane is quite difficult to store due to its low boiling point of 110Kelvin

Edited by Bhimsen Pachawry
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2018 at 2:30 PM, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Abundance in the sense? Here is my number:

The world oil reserves is about 650GBL. The oil consumption (NGL, Tar sands exckuded) is 30GBL per year

Here are some of the rough oil reserves based on various calculations and speculations in GBL:

Oil reserves of Muslim countries:

KSA: 110

UAE: 33-35

Kuwait: 33-35

Iraq: 55

Iran: 50

Azerbaijan: 7

Qatar: 5

Oman: 5

Yemen: 3

Syria: 2

Bahrain: <1

Libya: 15

Algeria: 12

Egypt: 4

Malaysia: 4

Indonesia: 3

Total oil with muslim countries comes to around 350GBL.

Oil reserves in non-muslim countries are: 

Russia: 125-130 (with shale oil of 20GBL)

USA: 50 (with shale oil)\

China: 25

Nigeria: 22-25

Kazhakhstan: 25

Brazil: 12

Ecuador: 8

Angola: 8

Mexico: 8

Norway: 7

India: 5

Canada, Venezuela, Vietnam, Sudan, Colombia, Chad, Argentina, UK, Australia, Bruinei, Guinea, Peru and others: 20

Total oil with non-muslim countries is roughly 300GBL.

(PS:Venezuela and canada don't hold large reserves. What they hold is tar sands, an intermediate between coal and oil.)

 

From where did the 300 years worth of oil supply come from? Current oil consumption is about 31 billion barrels a year.

 

How will doubling of CO2 increase CO2 by 2 celsius? How can geometric input convert to linear result?

I would presume its a law of diminishing returns as the level of CO2 increases. A unit of visible light / UV can only hit a molecule of CO2 once, be absorbed and then emit infra red. As more co2 builds up in the atmosphere the chances of that collision increases but not in a linear fashion. Also as the temperature of the earth increases so will its energy emission rate which will therefore build into that diminishing return. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2018 at 2:30 PM, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

 

 

How will doubling of CO2 increase CO2 by 2 celsius? How can geometric input convert to linear result?

If it can't then this graph would be impossible. 

 

expo function.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2018 at 2:30 PM, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

 

 

How will doubling of CO2 increase CO2 by 2 celsius? How can geometric input convert to linear result?

Here you go. A bit of light reading for you

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/519612/1/N519612PP.pdf

Extract from the summary

ECS is defined as the global mean warming that would occur if the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was doubled and the climate was brought to equilibrium with that new level of CO2.

Here, we present a new ‘Emergent Constraint’ on ECS which yields a central estimate of ECS=2.8K with 66% confidence limits (equivalent to the IPCC ‘likely’ range) of 2.2-3.4K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 12/4/2018 at 11:27 PM, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

 

Natural gas is also limited in quantity. Natural gas can last only about 20 years more than oil. Natural gas can't do many things which oil can. Some of these are -

- Storage is difficult due to high pressure container requirements. 6000 Cubic feet natural gas is equal to 1 barrel oil. 1 barrel oil in cubic feet will need about 5.7 cubic feet of space.

- lower energy per volume when stored in compressed form and hence lower mobility

- petrochemical like pesticides, medicine, organic compounds etc can't be made

- planes, ships etc find it impossible to have Natural gas for fueling engine

- Paints, vanishes, grease, PVC, bakelite etc can't be made

 

Natural gas is also limited to about 7000TCF which can't last for too long. Natural gas is somewhat like sun light when it comes to storage as it is really difficult to store gas. LPG made of butane and propane is easier to store due to its higher boiling point. But methane is quite difficult to store due to its low boiling point of 110Kelvin

I have some information you seem to be lacking: Ships, airplanes, and locomotives can all run on LNG, medicines, plastics fertilizers etc. Natural gas is continually produced by nature. All living things end up largely as methane. Methane hydrates in the oceans have never been mined, they have three times as much natural gas as is on land.and natural gas on land has mainly been found only as a byproduct of oil. 

 

https://ngtnews.com/

https://www.marineinsight.com/tech/10-noteworthy-lng-fueled-vessels/ 

https://thetechjournal.com/tech-news/future-planes-will-use-liquid-natural-gas-to-fly.xhtml

https://www.texansfornaturalgas.com/25_things_you_didn_t_know_were_made_with_natural_gas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_storage

 

Edited by ronwagn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2018 at 11:18 PM, Billyjack said:

I am always amused by the quotations from the epistle of the Church of warming , a sect of the religion of Secular Socialism whose deity is government.  When one considers that all religions are man made constructs that reenforce and then usurp an individual's spirituality for the enrichment and power of their clergy, then it becomes obvious that there isn't much difference between Al Gore and Joel Osteen.

 

554f3108633f6ae7f45b859e6ad9ecc07ceacf57bca1fca2e30939c0f3f7349b.png

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.N. now recommends increased taxation and a reduction of farmland, to combat "climate change". 

Or perhaps more succinctly, taxes and starvation.

UN Climate Report Recommends Taxing Carbon and Discouraging Agriculture

The latest UN Emissions Gap Report provides psychological advice for defeating political opposition to carbon pricing, and suggests discouraging farming by taxing agricultural land.

Land taxes on agricultural land can also help reduce agricultural land use and deforestation

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2018 at 4:18 PM, Billyjack said:

I am always amused by the quotations from the epistle of the Church of warming , a sect of the religion of Secular Socialism whose deity is government. When one considers that all religions are man made constructs that reenforce and then usurp an individual's spirituality for the enrichment and power of their clergy, then it becomes obvious that there isn't much difference between Al Gore and Joel Osteen.

Do you even know what socialism is? Seriously. Because it seems you have very poor understanding of it. 

I am you would define me as socialist just for writing this but nothing could be further from the truth. 

Guys like you do so much damage to the O&G industry. I firmly believe - and there is hard evidence for this - that we are headed for future with multiple energy sources for economic reasons. All statements like yours does is to egg on the hardcore enviromentalists. If you really wanted to see the O&G industry live for another 100 years you would promote multiple energy sources. 

So, do you lack insight or are you secret renewables crusader? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The U.N. now recommends increased taxation and a reduction of farmland, to combat "climate change". 

Or perhaps more succinctly, taxes and starvation.

UN Climate Report Recommends Taxing Carbon and Discouraging Agriculture

The latest UN Emissions Gap Report provides psychological advice for defeating political opposition to carbon pricing, and suggests discouraging farming by taxing agricultural land.

Land taxes on agricultural land can also help reduce agricultural land use and deforestation

Tom, 

Have you read the report in entirety? Or are you posting to provoke? Either is fine - I just thing you need to declare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Tom, 

Have you read the report in entirety? Or are you posting to provoke? Either is fine - I just thing you need to declare. 

 

 

d974644098cf592e925dbc1d52032cc79aff2655d08f40ed401be63d08803ef3.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

?

So just posting to provoke? 

Not exactly.  I certainly don't expect others to agree with me.

But I try to nudge people to question the official narrative.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Not exactly.  I certainly don't expect others to agree with me.

But I try to nudge people to question the official narrative.

Tom, 

I love the O&G industry, specifically the offshore industry. Seriously. And I know O&G will be part of the energy mix for the rest of my lifetime. I just think that crusaders like you do more damage than good. O&G can be part of the solution. It doesn't have tto be the enemy. but when views are presented in a provocative manner it creates an equally staunch adversary. Dialogue. Not confrontation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Tom, 

I love the O&G industry, specifically the offshore industry. Seriously. And I know O&G will be part of the energy mix for the rest of my lifetime. I just think that crusaders like you do more damage than good. O&G can be part of the solution. It doesn't have to be the enemy. but when views are presented in a provocative manner it creates an equally staunch adversary. Dialogue. Not confrontation. 

Noted, and I understand your viewpoint.

Please note, I didn't start this fight, I'm  just pushing back against the narrative being forcibly rammed down the world's throat.

The U.N. has stated that hydrocarbons need to stay in the ground. 

And that pretty much all of hydrocarbons need to be heavily taxed in order to stop the world from using hydrocarbons.

And now the U.N. wants countries to increase taxes on agricultural land, to reduce the amount of agricultural land being used to grow food.  That is insanity.

I'm actually pretty happy that ordinary French people have said enough is enough and are pushing back against additional onerous carbon taxes.

Macron is being hugely arrogant and provocative, and his "tax hydrocarbons to death" dictates are blowing up in his face.  While he was waxing lyrical in an Op Ed to the WSJ and preparing to bask in praise from the U.N. about his huge carbon tax, the French citizens who are being strongly affected by his carbon tax dusting off the guillotine.

 

cb2442ef2aa970f2b687cea0660dca327230e71ddf8967520aa1d0d273491e4b.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

And now the U.N. wants countries to increase taxes on agricultural land, to reduce the amount of agricultural land being used to grow food.  That is insanity.

 

It really depends how the tax is executed. If it is executed in such a way that I have to pay a little more for a beef steak and the Argentinian farmer still gets same or more for his product I can live with it. Seriously. As long as nutrious food is available at affordable prices then no problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

It really depends how the tax is executed. If it is executed in such a way that I have to pay a little more for a beef steak and the Argentinian farmer still gets same or more for his product I can live with it. Seriously. As long as nutrious food is available at affordable prices then no problem.

Understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites