The Great Climate Change Swindle

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

9 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

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

I din't start either, but reading many posts on this forum have had the exact opposite effect on me. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

5 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I din't start either, but reading many posts on this forum have had the exact opposite effect on me. 

Usually I try to use a bit of humor to try to get my point across.  And sometimes I fail.

[Kit Moore + 50]

1 hour 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.

I'd agree with that.  I would postulate it is not agricultural work per se, but heavy, industrial, high-yield farming that does the damage.  Long gone are the days when everyone had a goat/pig, chickens and a vegetable patch.  Poo recycled back into the garden and crops/meat grown for the table.

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

4 minutes ago, Kit Moore said:

I'd agree with that.  I would postulate it is not agricultural work per se, but heavy, industrial, high-yield farming that does the damage.  Long gone are the days when everyone had a goat/pig, chickens and a vegetable patch.  Poo recycled back into the garden and crops/meat grown for the table.

I grew up on a dairy farm / cash crop farm.  2 square miles of crops.  Despite what many here may think about me (horrible and unreasonable neanderthal, etc.)  I'm acutely aware of environmental issues, and am in favor of causing the least amount of damage possible to the environment.  But I'm not interested in reverting to horse and buggy days and living in the pre-industrial dark ages, either.

[TXPower + 643]

2 hours 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.

Affordability isn’t universal.  Never has been and never will be.

I think I understand where you are coming from and admire your faith in human goodness.  

Unfortunately,  behind the facade of UN altruism is the real goal to CONTROL.  I can’t think of a better way to control people than to control food supply.  Which is why they want to institute a tax to limit the amount of land used for Ag purposes.  A very old and simple equation.

 

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

12 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I have some information you seem to be lacking: Ships, airplanes, and locomotives can all run on LNG, medicines, plastics fertilizers etc. 

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://www.texansfornaturalgas.com/25_things_you_didn_t_know_were_made_with_natural_gas

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

 

I know that natural gas can be stored. But the storage is quite difficult compared to oil. Also, storing by ordinary people is very difficult compared to storing diesel or petrol.

Ships can use LNG due to their big size and may be even railway can use CNG. But planes cant use them and all these proposals are just optimism. Medicines like aromatic compounds, special formulas etc need petroleum for convenient manufacture. Using CNG can be quite inefficient and waste over 60% of energy due to the use of process like GTL. This will further exacerbate the scarcity of gas.

 

13 hours ago, NickW said:

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.

This is valid only for current levels. How can you say that for next doubling too? Also, how did geometric input turn linear in output? There is no proper explanation for this

[NickW + 2,714]

5 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

 

This is valid only for current levels. How can you say that for next doubling too? Also, how did geometric input turn linear in output? There is no proper explanation for this

The problem is you are examining this from a simplistic 2 dimensional view that is global temperature and CO2 levels. There are numerous other factors that come into play if you double CO2 levels that are both positive and negative feedback mechanisms. More methane (+), less ice cover (+), more clouds (-). Greater expanses of desert (-) Growth of forests in higher latitudes (-) and so one. 

The 2 degrees for every doubling of CO2  is an approximation can be worked back over previous ranges of CO2.  I would estimate that that as CO2 levels climb it triggers greater negative feedbacks which means increasingly more CO2 is needed to have the same effect (deniers / Sceptics should like this point) 

As I said before a unit of light can only hit a CO2 molecule once and be emited as IR. Alternatively it gets reflected back as IR and either collides with CO2 or is emitted into space. 

I dare say someone has done similar calculations with Venus which is the ultimate model of CO2 induced global warming. Here we have a planet with 960,000 ppm CO2 and and an atmospheric pressure 92x that of the Earth. Average temperature is 462 degrees C. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

 

This is valid only for current levels. How can you say that for next doubling too? Also, how did geometric input turn linear in output? There is no proper explanation for this

I don't understand why you have an issue with this. I am no expert in maths but I can think of lots of scenarios where a geometric change may give rise to a linear change. 

For example. I have a big container and drill some holes in the base

To get the water level to say 0.1 metre (equivalent of temperature) I have to pour in water at x rate 

To get the water level to 0.2 metres I have to double the rate at which I pour in water to 2X

As I pour in more water the rate of loss increases due to pressure forcing more water out

To get the level to 0.3 metres I now have to add water at a rate of 4X

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

59 minutes ago, NickW said:

I don't understand why you have an issue with this. I am no expert in maths but I can think of lots of scenarios where a geometric change may give rise to a linear change. 

For example. I have a big container and drill some holes in the base

To get the water level to say 0.1 metre (equivalent of temperature) I have to pour in water at x rate 

To get the water level to 0.2 metres I have to double the rate at which I pour in water to 2X

As I pour in more water the rate of loss increases due to pressure forcing more water out

To get the level to 0.3 metres I now have to add water at a rate of 4X

This is a one off case. The speed required at 0.4m will not be 8x though speed difference between 0.2 and 0.3m has been at this rate. The equation you are trying to give is something like k*2^(x) which is really strange for no parameter I know of behaves in that way.

Also, the distribution of temperature change is quite different as has been proven. The root cause of temperature rise has been shown to be deforestation and concretisaton. This can be clearly seen by the studies conducted about regional variations of temperature. But the extent of concretisation and deforestation is limited due to the limited amount of forests left. So, the idea that temperature will jump indefinitely on the basis of CO2 levels is highly incorrect.

Moreover, the CO2 level was 0.03% and increased to 0.04% of atmosphere. Atributing 0.01% of CO2 rise to increase in temperature by 1 celsius is really funny. Venus is not a good comparison as Venus is much closer to the sun and hence receives much higher sunlight. Also, an example of Mars which also has CO2 atmosphere shows freezing temperatures because of its distance from sun.

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

This is a one off case. The speed required at 0.4m will not be 8x though speed difference between 0.2 and 0.3m has been at this rate. The equation you are trying to give is something like k*2^(x) which is really strange for no parameter I know of behaves in that way.

Also, the distribution of temperature change is quite different as has been proven. The root cause of temperature rise has been shown to be deforestation and concretisaton. This can be clearly seen by the studies conducted about regional variations of temperature. But the extent of concretisation and deforestation is limited due to the limited amount of forests left. So, the idea that temperature will jump indefinitely on the basis of CO2 levels is highly incorrect.

Moreover, the CO2 level was 0.03% and increased to 0.04% of atmosphere. Atributing 0.01% of CO2 rise to increase in temperature by 1 celsius is really funny. Venus is not a good comparison as Venus is much closer to the sun and hence receives much higher sunlight. Also, an example of Mars which also has CO2 atmosphere shows freezing temperatures because of its distance from sun.

I wasn't actually suggesting my bucket analogy performed in exactly the same way😂

At some point the 2 degree increase for every doubling of CO2 concentration will veer off - I would agree with that. The point is the ranges experienced on earth appear to approximately follow this formula. 

Venus is much closer to the sun - but its atmosphere reflects 90% of incoming solar radiation. Mars has very little atmosphere . Less than 1% of that of the Earth which is a significant factor in its temperature. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

16 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

So true!

[Bobby P + 88]

On 12/4/2018 at 9:58 AM, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

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

Doesn't matter if it's heavy oil or light oil. What matters is that they are considered "Proven recoverable reserves". Ultra heavy oil in Canada is recovered using SAGD technique where they basically pump high pressure/temp steam to the reservoir to make it into "heavy Oil" so it can flow to the production well. And as a result that is why these reserves are considered "Economically and technically PROVEN RECOVERABLE RESERVES". You can easily find on SPE website what proven recoverable reserves actually mean, it does not matter how heavy the oil is - if it is recoverable, it is a RESERVE. You still have not answered my initial question as to why you have not included them in your reserve count as they are economically and technically recoverable. 

Edited December 6, 2018 by Bobby P

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Bobby P said:

Doesn't matter if it's heavy oil or light oil. What matters is that they are considered "Proven recoverable reserves". Ultra heavy oil in Canada is recovered using SAGD technique where they basically pump high pressure/temp steam to the reservoir to make it into "heavy Oil" so it can flow to the production well. And as a result that is why these reserves are considered "Economically and technically PROVEN RECOVERABLE RESERVES". You can easily find on SPE website what proven recoverable reserves actually mean, it does not matter how heavy the oil is - if it is recoverable, it is a RESERVE. You still have not answered my initial question as to why you have not included them in your reserve count as they are economically and technically recoverable. 

Perhaps there is merit in differntiating  between different reserves by EROEI to give a gross and net reserve. 

If Saudi has say 200 bn barrels and the EROEI is 100 then we know the net reserve is 198 bn barrels equivalent

If Canada has 200bn barrels and the EROEI is 4 then we know the net reserve is 150bn barrels equivalent

[Red + 252]

14 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Despite what many here may think about me (horrible and unreasonable neanderthal, etc.)  I'm acutely aware of environmental issues, and am in favor of causing the least amount of damage possible to the environment. 

Then that suggests you continue to ignore the available evidence on the effects warming has had on the environment.  Ecosystems have been and will continue to be impacted.  Duration of seasons and rainfall patterns are affecting land use, while warming oceans are changing distributions of fish and other marine organisms, and exacerbating coral bleaching.

14 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

But I'm not interested in reverting to horse and buggy days and living in the pre-industrial dark ages, either.

This is a common catch-cry from those who do not accept the science and somehow think there's a plant to take us back in time. 

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

10 hours ago, Bobby P said:

Doesn't matter if it's heavy oil or light oil. What matters is that they are considered "Proven recoverable reserves". Ultra heavy oil in Canada is recovered using SAGD technique where they basically pump high pressure/temp steam to the reservoir to make it into "heavy Oil" so it can flow to the production well. And as a result that is why these reserves are considered "Economically and technically PROVEN RECOVERABLE RESERVES". You can easily find on SPE website what proven recoverable reserves actually mean, it does not matter how heavy the oil is - if it is recoverable, it is a RESERVE. You still have not answered my initial question as to why you have not included them in your reserve count as they are economically and technically recoverable. 

The tar sands are extracted by injecting steam at high temperatures and melting the bitumen to fluid. But once it is melted, it only stays like that for limited time. So, even if the molten tar sands is transferred to the storage container, to remove it from the container for transport will be difficult. So, the tar sands after being melted by steam, is processed in 2 ways:

1. Mix thoroughly tar sands with light crude oil to make heavy crude oil which is capable of flowing like liquid
2. Hydrogenate the tar sands using natural gas to upgrade it into liquid

If the conventional oil reserve deplete or if natural gas reserves deplete, extracting Tar Sands will be very difficult. That is the reason why Venezuela is struggling to extract their oil despite showing to have extraordinarily high reserves. Venezula produces oil at 10% of Saudi Arabia despite having much more reserves than Saudi Arabia. Tar sands is essentially crude oil which has lost most of its hydrogen content and hence got solidified. But it has not lost too much of hydrogen to become hard solid like coal and is in late intermediate stage of gel. Tar sands reserves is as proven as coal reserves. Just like we don't consider coal reserves as oil reserves despite coal liquefaction ability, we don't consider Tar Sands as oil reserves. Tar sands is "Tar Sand reserves", not crude oil reserves.

The corrupt people are resorting to deception tactics to fool people into believing that there is lot of oil.

9 hours ago, NickW said:

Perhaps there is merit in differntiating  between different reserves by EROEI to give a gross and net reserve. 

If Saudi has say 200 bn barrels and the EROEI is 100 then we know the net reserve is 198 bn barrels equivalent

If Canada has 200bn barrels and the EROEI is 4 then we know the net reserve is 150bn barrels equivalent

The EROI is not considered that way as the energy input is almost always from natural gas, not from oil itself. So, natural gas is being used to make oil. EROI is not fully appropriate as different forms of energy are not necessarily interchangeable. EROI is useful to show whether it is difficult to extract energy resource or not. But the qualitative aspect of the energy resource also has to be considered in addition to EROI. Merely subtacting energy expense using EROI number is not correct

Edited December 7, 2018 by Bhimsen Pachawry

[Billyjack + 58]

On 12/6/2018 at 2:59 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

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? 

Obviously, you don't know what socialism is which would require reading a few books. I suggest Hayek, Von Mises. Marx, Nietzsche, and Rand. In order for socialism to work requires a government centralized planner with the omniscient ability to allocate scare resources perfectly. The only way this can occur is through supernatural ability. This worked so well in the USSR and China with a hundred million murdered and seems to be working well in Venezuela.

[Billyjack + 58]

On 12/5/2018 at 11:32 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

 

Yes Tom, there is little difference between the "educated" clergy of the monarchs of yore versus government climate scientists. The clergy provided the proof of the king's right to rule by divine providence. By providing this research the church got to share in the plunder of the peasants by the king and the king got to avoid the messy use of the sword as the peasants voluntarily gave up their labor and property.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

20 minutes ago, Billyjack said:

Obviously, you don't know what socialism is which would require reading a few books. I suggest Hayek, Von Mises. Marx, Nietzsche, and Rand. In order for socialism to work requires a government centralized planner with the omniscient ability to allocate scare resources perfectly. The only way this can occur is through supernatural ability. This worked so well in the USSR and China with a hundred million murdered and seems to be working well in Venezuela.

Hayek, Von Mises & Marx I get (and I have studied them). What does Nietzsche have to with this? 

I will clarify : The definition of socialism is NOT a centralized government. It is specifically that Government OWNs the means of production. This is decidedly not the case with UN or any other government in West. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism 

Have you read the books you suggest I read? I believe you are confusing Social-liberalism (John Sutart Mill if you wanna do some reading) from Socialism. Venezuela & USSR are clear examples of socialism. China is somewhere in between because they do to an extent respect private property. 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

50 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

China is somewhere in between because they do to an extent respect private property.

To what extent do they respect private property?

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

The tar sands are extracted by injecting steam at high temperatures and melting the bitumen to fluid. But once it is melted, it only stays like that for limited time. So, even if the molten tar sands is transferred to the storage container, to remove it from the container for transport will be difficult. So, the tar sands after being melted by steam, is processed in 2 ways:

1. Mix thoroughly tar sands with light crude oil to make heavy crude oil which is capable of flowing like liquid
2. Hydrogenate the tar sands using natural gas to upgrade it into liquid

If the conventional oil reserve deplete or if natural gas reserves deplete, extracting Tar Sands will be very difficult. That is the reason why Venezuela is struggling to extract their oil despite showing to have extraordinarily high reserves. Venezula produces oil at 10% of Saudi Arabia despite having much more reserves than Saudi Arabia. Tar sands is essentially crude oil which has lost most of its hydrogen content and hence got solidified. But it has not lost too much of hydrogen to become hard solid like coal and is in late intermediate stage of gel. Tar sands reserves is as proven as coal reserves. Just like we don't consider coal reserves as oil reserves despite coal liquefaction ability, we don't consider Tar Sands as oil reserves. Tar sands is "Tar Sand reserves", not crude oil reserves.

The corrupt people are resorting to deception tactics to fool people into believing that there is lot of oil.

The EROI is not considered that way as the energy input is almost always from natural gas, not from oil itself. So, natural gas is being used to make oil. EROI is not fully appropriate as different forms of energy are not necessarily interchangeable. EROI is useful to show whether it is difficult to extract energy resource or not. But the qualitative aspect of the energy resource also has to be considered in addition to EROI. Merely subtacting energy expense using EROI number is not correct

I said.....

NET & EQUIVALENT (for the purposes of comparison)

This may help

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/

 

besides, of course EROEI  is considered that way. For example when you read a nuclear power has an EROEI of 25 do you think that all the energy inputs in construction and commissioning were electrical........

You may also take note that the 'E' in EROEI stands for energy. It doesn't stand for gas, or coal, or oil etc. So on converting all your inputs and out puts into joules you can then form your EROEI for that particular activity.

For comparison purposes you can then illustrate how much of the energy produced, equivalent is used to produce the oil as in this case.

 

Anyway thanks for the detailed description of tar sand operations. All of which is completely irrelevant to the point about calculating EROEI.

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by NickW

[TXPower + 643]

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

To what extent do they respect private property?

To the extent that as long as you do what the “centralized” government says then your property is safe.  Otherwise, well, you get the point.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, TXPower said:

To the extent that as long as you do what the “centralized” government says then your property is safe.  Otherwise, well, you get the point.

What property?

[Red + 252]

5 hours ago, Billyjack said:

Yes Tom, there is little difference between the "educated" clergy of the monarchs of yore versus government climate scientists. The clergy provided the proof of the king's right to rule by divine providence. By providing this research the church got to share in the plunder of the peasants by the king and the king got to avoid the messy use of the sword as the peasants voluntarily gave up their labor and property.

What is a government climate scientist?

The only way denial of climate science works is if you can create a false narrative and suck in the gullible.  Trying to argue the science is a hiding to nothing. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

5 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

To what extent do they respect private property?

 

3 hours ago, TXPower said:

To the extent that as long as you do what the “centralized” government says then your property is safe.  Otherwise, well, you get the point.

I am no expert on Chinese law, so I cannot answer in detail, I see Chinese citizens purchasing land etc in Europe. This must mean that they allow export of capital. Land in Europe (or US or elsewhere) cannot be seized, so hence to an extent the Chinese government must respect private property. 

[Red + 252]

11 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

 

I am no expert on Chinese law, so I cannot answer in detail, I see Chinese citizens purchasing land etc in Europe. This must mean that they allow export of capital. Land in Europe (or US or elsewhere) cannot be seized, so hence to an extent the Chinese government must respect private property.