[mustang19]

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/ ... cover.html

Global warming is trivially refuted by summer sunlight explaining temperature.

Warming caused people to move north into cold areas, causing industrialization.

[Plantagenet]

Planty-
In order for a carbon tax to become reality, it would require Republican participation.......

That isn't true.

You clearly don't understand how the government works.

The Ds can use the budget reconciliation process to pass anything having to due with budgets on a simple majority vote, i.e. absolutely no R votes would be needed at all.

A carbon tax is a budget matter, but the Ds didn't include it in the budget they passed earlier this year using budget reconciliation, and Biden and the Ds aren't considering a carbon tax for any future budget reconciliation vote. Because the Ds can pass a carbon tax without needing even one R vote, this means the Ds are to blame for their own failure to pass a carbon tax.

Time to face facts, suxsie. Biden and the Ds talk about climate change but when it comes to passing a carbon tax Biden and the Ds don't walk the talk.


Right now would be a great time for the Ds to use their political power to pass a carbon tax as part of budget reconciliation bill but the Ds won't do it

Cheers!

[mustang19]

World’s recoverable oil now seen 9% slimmer; commercial volumes can keep global warming below 1.8˚C
July 13, 2021

Every year and following the publication of the BP Statistical Review, Rystad Energy releases its own assessment to provide an independent, solid and clear comparison of how the world’s energy landscape changed last year. Our 2021 review deals a major blow for the size of the world’s remaining recoverable oil resources – but it also shows that oil production and consumption can align with climate goals.

Rystad Energy now estimates total recoverable oil resources at 1,725 billion barrels, a significant reduction of last year’s estimate of 1,903 billion barrels. Out of this total, which shows our estimate of how much oil is technically recoverable in the future, about 1,300 billion barrels are sufficiently profitable to be produced before the year 2100 at a Brent real oil price of $50 per barrel.

“In this scenario, global production of oil and natural gas liquids will fall below 50 million barrels per day by 2050. Exploring, developing, processing and consuming this amount of commercially extractable oil will lead to gross greenhouse gas emissions of less than 450 gigatonnes of CO­­2 from now until 2100. This is compliant with IPCC’s carbon budget for global warming limited to 1.8˚C by 2100,” says Rystad Energy’s Head of Analysis, Per Magnus Nysveen.

[table at link]

US and China take the largest hit by the revision:

This year’s review of global recoverable oil resources is based on resources modelled at well level rather than field level. This more detailed approach has removed 178 billion barrels from the expected accounts as the confidence level for decline rates has increased with the amount of new information gathered.

Our updated report also includes revisions for proved reserves. Here Rystad Energy applies a consistent set of conservative probabilities, as opposed to official reporting by authorities which is deemed less consistent. Among other findings, we see significant differences among OPEC members on the longevity of proved reserves, ranging from well below 10 years for some members to almost 20 years for Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

In terms of absolute volumes removed from non-OPEC producers, remaining recoverable resources in the US are now reduced to 214 billion barrels, losing 30 billion barrels from last year’s estimate. China suffers the second-largest loss with its remaining recoverable resources now limited to 50 billion barrels, a downwards revision of 26 billion barrels. Mexico’s recoverable resources are third on the loss list, downgraded by 12 billion barrels to 26 billion barrels. Most of this year’s revisions are driven by lower upside potential from shale oil drilling due to complex geology and the need for extensive exploration campaigns and improved fracking technologies.

The remaining recoverable resources of OPEC countries are reduced by 53 billion barrels to 741 billion barrels. Iran and Saudi Arabia have the largest revisions, losing 11 billion barrels each, with Saudi recoverable oil volumes now calculated at 288 billion barrels and Iranian volumes at 101 billion barrels. Iraq follows in third place, seeing its recoverable resources shrink by 8 billion barrels to 110 billion barrels.

Who sits on the largest resources?

In this revision, Saudi Arabia keeps the throne as the producer with the largest volumes of recoverable oil resources (288 billion barrels). The US follows second (214 billion barrels), Russia third (149 billion barrels) and Canada fourth (138 billion barrels).

In Central and South America, Brazil remains first in recoverable resources, sitting on 83 billion barrels (down 2 billion barrels from last year’s update). In Europe, with 19 billion barrels (down by 1 billion barrels in this update), Norway remains ahead of the UK, whose volumes have shrunk by 2 billion barrels to 10 billion. In Africa, resource leader Nigeria lost 6 billion barrels and its recoverable resources are now estimated at 20 billion barrels.

Unlike most countries in our analysis, Australia’s estimated recoverable oil resources are now seen higher by 2 billion barrels at 23 billion barrels.

The time stamp of Rystad Energy’s newest resource assessment is 1 January 2021. In other words, our analysis illustrates where the remaining recoverable resources of each country stood at the beginning of this year.

1.3 was about Laharrere's guess I think.
If C+C falls below 50mbd by 2050 the price won't stay at $50, unless ICEs are outlawed altogether. I don't see the explanation, perhaps lower demand and a resulting relatively low resulting price are the limiting factor.

The earth has 30kg co2 per square meter. Houses are 500.

Global warming requires co2 be a ten times better insulator than is used in real life.

[AdamB]

1.3 was about Laharrere's guess I think.
If C+C falls below 50mbd by 2050 the price won't stay at $50, unless ICEs are outlawed altogether. I don't see the explanation, perhaps lower demand and a resulting relatively low resulting price are the limiting factor.

The earth has 30kg co2 per square meter. Houses are 500.

Global warming requires co2 be a ten times better insulator than is used in real life.

"Hi..I admit I'm a troll. 2+2=5. I'm a sock puppet. Who can't even do it creatively."

Why don't you just stick to the troll threads, and not screw around with folks honestly posting, wanting to perhaps discuss that topic, rather than having their thoughts insulted by having you respond?

[Newfie]

Adam,

Let it go. Responding in this manner itself screws up the thread.

I’m not having this thread turned into another mud slinger.

[mustang19]

Dr. James Hansen and his co-workers published an analysis showing much the same thing over a decade ago, i.e. lower oil production due to peak oil would theoretically limit the amount of warming.

But its probably too late for reductions in oil production to save us.

The amount of CO2 coming from coal-fired power plants continues to rise thanks to China, and the amount of CH4 going into the atmosphere also is steadily increasing. And other greenhouse gases like hydrofluorocarbons and SP6 are also steadily increasing in the atmosphere.

AND we're already at the point where the planet has warmed so much that natural sources of CO2 and CH4 are increasing enough to make the planet warmer and warmer no matter what happens to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

For instance, we saw a big drop in travel and oil use and human CO2 emissions last year during the pandemic , but atmospheric CO2 just kept on rising anyway thanks to increasing contributions from thawing permafrost etc.



Cheers!

There's 30kg co2 per square meter. A house is 500.

You're claiming co2 is ten times better insulation than real life.

It's obvious you don't believe what you're saying. Global warming is trivially refuted by how absurd the insulation value would have to be.

[Newfie]

Mustang,

I don’t have a clue of what you are talking about.

I don’t see where your statements, wherever they come from, are tied to this discussion.

What is 30kg of CO2 per sq meter supposed to mean and who made that claim? What is the context?

[mustang19]

Mustang,

I don’t have a clue of what you are talking about.

I don’t see where your statements, wherever they come from, are tied to this discussion.

What is 30kg of CO2 per sq meter supposed to mean and who made that claim? What is the context?

It's obvious. Compare the amount of co2 to the insulation in a home.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The earth has 30kg co2 per square meter. Houses are 500.

Global warming requires co2 be a ten times better insulator than is used in real life.

So, WHERE ARE THE CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC LINKS, for your empty opinions?

As per usual, your credibility is zero.

And yet, you endlessly post nonsense.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Mustang,

I don’t have a clue of what you are talking about.

I don’t see where your statements, wherever they come from, are tied to this discussion.

What is 30kg of CO2 per sq meter supposed to mean and who made that claim? What is the context?

It's obvious. Compare the amount of co2 to the insulation in a home.

Try talking like an adult, instead of an incoherent insect. Use specific facts, figures, credible citations, logic, etc. Or are you even CAPABLE of that?

[mustang19]

https://trends.google.com/trends/explor ... m%2F0d063v

I just want to add, global warming is declining in popularity. Keep clinging to your dying idea that peaked a few years ago and then people realized it requires co2 to be a ten times better insulator than fiberglass.

[Newfie]

What on Earth does popularity have to do with it?

[AdamB]

What on Earth does popularity have to do with it?

And you asked me not to encourage the trolls.

[mustang19]

What on Earth does popularity have to do with it?

Because the only reason you could possibly pretend co2 is a 100x greater insulator than it is in real life is libs. So you're clinging to this dying belief that you still for whatever reason think is popular.

[JuanP]

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US-CA-807&q=%2Fm%2F0d063v

I just want to add, global warming is declining in popularity. Keep clinging to your dying idea that peaked a few years ago and then people realized it requires co2 to be a ten times better insulator than fiberglass.

You are hilarious! Also, I have always disagreed with most humans on most issues, and I am proud of it when I see what humans are doing to our planet. Only rarely do I agree with the majority, and I like digging on those issues deeper when I do since most humans are incredibly stupid and ignorant, IMO, and agreeing with most of them on anything makes me wonder if I'm wrong.

[mustang19]

I just want to add, global warming is declining in popularity. Keep clinging to your dying idea that peaked a few years ago and then people realized it requires co2 to be a ten times better insulator than fiberglass.

Fiberglass and co2 are not the same in any sense. It's like comparing a greenhouse to the side of a refrigerator. It is a null argument

Fiberglass insulation blocks heat movement, regardless of direction. It traps air in spaces too small to allow convection. If the atmosphere were fiberglass we would never have existed.

CO2 instead acts as a gate, it is transparent to visible and UV light so sunlight passes by heating the earth's surface. The earth then reradiates some of that heat in infrared wavelengths. CO2 is opaque to IR so absorbs that energy. It then reradiates some back to earth. Most gases like oxygen and nitrogen aren't selective in this way. Fiberglass isn't at all.

In just the right concentration CO2 keeps the earth warm enough for liquid water, without it we wouldn't be. But with too much we are dogs left in the car to cook under the sun.

Regardless, this isn't a thread about whether GW is popular or even valid so take that bs elsewhere.

.

Which simply makes your argument more absurd, if co2 is 100x better than real life you can't possibly believe that.

[mustang19]

I guess that's it?

[Newfie]

What on Earth does popularity have to do with it?

Because the only reason you could possibly pretend co2 is a 100x greater insulator than it is in real life is libs. So you're clinging to this dying belief that you still for whatever reason think is popular.

Exceptional claims require exceptional proof.

So far you have nothing that commands attention.

[mustang19]

What on Earth does popularity have to do with it?

Because the only reason you could possibly pretend co2 is a 100x greater insulator than it is in real life is libs. So you're clinging to this dying belief that you still for whatever reason think is popular.

Exceptional claims require exceptional proof.

So far you have nothing that commands attention.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... of-rm-co-2

Your filter argument means it's less effective and you refuted global warming. So you've refuted your own point and are basically incomprehensible. If you mean infrared causes more heat than visual light, that's wrong, IR is simply easier to generate.

[mustang19]

I just want to add, global warming is declining in popularity. Keep clinging to your dying idea that peaked a few years ago and then people realized it requires co2 to be a ten times better insulator than fiberglass.

Fiberglass and co2 are not the same in any sense. It's like comparing a greenhouse to the side of a refrigerator. It is a null argument

Fiberglass insulation blocks heat movement, regardless of direction. It traps air in spaces too small to allow convection. If the atmosphere were fiberglass we would never have existed.

CO2 instead acts as a gate, it is transparent to visible and UV light so sunlight passes by heating the earth's surface. The earth then reradiates some of that heat in infrared wavelengths. CO2 is opaque to IR so absorbs that energy. It then reradiates some back to earth. Most gases like oxygen and nitrogen aren't selective in this way. Fiberglass isn't at all.

In just the right concentration CO2 keeps the earth warm enough for liquid water, without it we wouldn't be. But with too much we are dogs left in the car to cook under the sun.

Regardless, this isn't a thread about whether GW is popular or even valid so take that bs elsewhere.

.

That does nothing besides further limit the heat co2 traps. Really I'm arguing with a clown.