• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Homing in on a key factor of climate change

B

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
37,042
Reaction score
17,950
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The sensitivity of Earth’s climate to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is a big unknown in predicting future global warming. A compelling analysis suggests that we can rule out high estimates of this sensitivity.
​

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00480-0

"More than 150 estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) have been published, many of which suggest that worryingly high sensitivities are possible — including one that was published in Nature just a few weeks ago. On page 319, Cox et al. use an ingenious approach to rule out high estimates. If correct, this would improve the chances of achieving internationally agreed targets for minimizing global warming."
Click to expand...
"Past research that seemingly constrained the top end of ECS estimates to lower values often excluded major uncertainties, or worked from a previous estimate of ECS that was skewed towards low values. The published ranges therefore depended on the researchers’ assumptions about ECS, rather than the evidence. By contrast, Cox et al. started from climate-model values that are at the upper end of the IPCC range, and used evidence to effectively rule out catastrophically high values: they estimate that there is a 66% likelihood of ECS being between 2.2 °C and 3.4 °C, with less than a 1% chance of it being greater than 4.5 °C (Fig. 1)."
Click to expand...
"Cox et al. then used the relationship between the metric and the ECS found in the models as a constraint on ECS in the real world. Their analysis revealed that only climate models that produce relatively small values of ECS match the variability seen in the historical temperature record. It turns out that, in general, climate models have considerable memory in their climate systems, so if one year is abnormally hot, for example, then the next year is likely also to be hot. The historical temperature record, however, does not seem to have as much system memory as most models. This means that some models have both autocorrelations and ECS values that are too high."
Click to expand...


Even 2.2 °C is likely too high but let's leave that aside for now.
All well and good to acknowledge the problems with the IPCC models - it's long overdue - but there might be a bit of hinted subtext in the bolded part of a sentence above.
The actual paper (paywalled by Nature) could be used to encourage compliance with the Paris climate accord by suggesting "See it's not as bad as we thought ... we can do Paris"

In reality, if no one does anything, it'll probably never be more than 1.5 °C by 2100 anyway.
 
One must realize that humanity has used, uses and will continue to use the deposits of fossil fuels that have accumulated for hundreds of millions of years. We used these reserves for tens of years, that is, a million times faster than they accumulated. And this can not be with impunity. We will pay for this by the deterioration of the climate at best and the uttermost climatic catastrophe - at worst.
 
Vlad Dreamer said:
One must realize that humanity has used, uses and will continue to use the deposits of fossil fuels that have accumulated for hundreds of millions of years. We used these reserves for tens of years, that is, a million times faster than they accumulated. And this can not be with impunity. We will pay for this by the deterioration of the climate at best and the uttermost climatic catastrophe - at worst.
Click to expand...

We will use them as long as they are cost effective to do so,
but there are very real cost involved in finding, extracting, and transporting
organic hydrocarbons. People talk about oil as if it is free energy, it is not.
We have already found and extracted the easy stuff, what is left is neither inexpensive or easy.
We do have a very real energy problem, but it is that our current supply of organic hydrocarbons
are insufficient to allow everyone alive to live a first world lifestyle, it they choose.
 
Vlad Dreamer said:
One must realize that humanity has used, uses and will continue to use the deposits of fossil fuels that have accumulated for hundreds of millions of years. We used these reserves for tens of years, that is, a million times faster than they accumulated. And this can not be with impunity. We will pay for this by the deterioration of the climate at best and the uttermost climatic catastrophe - at worst.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
bubbabgone said:
The sensitivity of Earth’s climate to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is a big unknown in predicting future global warming. A compelling analysis suggests that we can rule out high estimates of this sensitivity.
​

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00480-0






Even 2.2 °C is likely too high but let's leave that aside for now.
All well and good to acknowledge the problems with the IPCC models - it's long overdue - but there might be a bit of hinted subtext in the bolded part of a sentence above.
The actual paper (paywalled by Nature) could be used to encourage compliance with the Paris climate accord by suggesting "See it's not as bad as we thought ... we can do Paris"

In reality, if no one does anything, it'll probably never be more than 1.5 °C by 2100 anyway.
Click to expand...

You are correct that 2.2C is still too high.

". . . The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side[FONT=&quot], about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. . . ." [/FONT]

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic
 
longview said:
We will use them as long as they are cost effective to do so,
but there are very real cost involved in finding, extracting, and transporting
organic hydrocarbons. People talk about oil as if it is free energy, it is not.
We have already found and extracted the easy stuff, what is left is neither inexpensive or easy.
We do have a very real energy problem, but it is that our current supply of organic hydrocarbons
are insufficient to allow everyone alive to live a first world lifestyle, it they choose.
Click to expand...

Organic hydrocarbons....

Beg to differ but there is nothing organic about crude oil. How would anything organic ever be found at the depths we find crude oil?

It can not...

Truth is oil is not organic at all. It forms in beneath the earths crust, and above the mantle... Crude oil does not require organic anything.

Fossil fuels don't exist. We have found enough oil to last for hundreds of years. Probably will never run out of the stuff...

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

https://principia-scientific.org/ru...ossil-fuel-theory-demise-of-junk-co2-science/

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/we-are-not-running-out-of-oil-earth-produces-crude/

We learn new things about the earth all of the time, but all we ever hear is the butt hurt left bitch about Trump....
 
Last edited:
Blkdirt Farmer said:
Organic hydrocarbons....

Beg to differ but there is nothing organic about crude oil. How would anything organic ever be found at the depths we find crude oil?

It can not...

Truth is oil is not organic at all. It forms in beneath the earths crust, and above the mantle... Crude oil does not require organic anything.

Fossil fuels don't exist. We have found enough oil to last for hundreds of years. Probably will never run out of the stuff...
Click to expand...

Organic in contrast to the hydrocarbon fuel products we can build from scratch.
You are right though we will likely never run out of the stuff, because it will stop being cost effective to use it as fuel.
 
Why are We Still Being Lied to?
Indeed, so lame has the fossil fuel theory*become that even its most strident supporters are unable to muster the flimsiest of evidence for their position. In*“The Abiotic Oil Controversy” key proponent of the abiotic (fossil) origin,*Richard Heinberg*admits his case is exposed as threadbare lamenting,
“Perhaps one day there will be general agreement that at least some oil is indeed abiotic. Maybe there are indeed deep methane belts twenty miles below the Earth’s surface.”
So scant is the evidence to support Heinberg and other western pro-fossil fuel theorists that in researching*his article*‘The Evidence for Limitless Oil and Gas’*(Digital Journal),*Bill Jencks reveals,
“I searched the internet including Google Scholar and there seems to be no ‘absolute proof’ or support from direct modern research for the Biogenic Theory of oil and gas formation. This theory — for want of a better word — seems to be greatly ‘assumed’ by geologists throughout geological research.”
Like me, Jencks found a mountain of evidence backing Russian claims.*From the Joint Institute of the Physics of the Earth Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow we find incredible sources as revealed by*A Dissertation by J.F. Kenney*which condemns the outmoded 18th century*“anarchaic hypothesis” that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolved from biological detritus, and is accordingly limited in abundance.
Instead, the fossil fuels hypothesis has been replaced during the past forty years by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins which has established that petroleum is a primordial material erupted from great depth. Kenney states,
“Therefore, petroleum abundances are limited by little more than the quantities of its constituents as were incorporated into the Earth at the time of its formation; and its availability depends upon technological development and exploration competence.”
In a straight scientific shootout*Peak Oil Theory vs Russian-Ukraine Modern Theory*the Russians win hands down. But it remains a peculiar anachronism that there is no body of American or other English language peer review to verify or disprove the Russian science.
But why are we still being lied to? With such unwillingness to correct these intellectual failings it is little wonder that there is growing dissatisfaction among voters and thinkers in English-speaking nations and the EU.*Those who study carefully the facts now reasonably conclude that beyond the media hard sell there is no energy crisis; the world has a plentiful supply of cheap renewable petroleum and another enviro-myth needs to be mercilessly culled
 
longview said:
Organic in contrast to the hydrocarbon fuel products we can build from scratch.
You are right though we will likely never run out of the stuff, because it will stop being cost effective to use it as fuel.
Click to expand...

I don't think your seeing the whole picture here at all. It will likely never be not cost effective to use it as fuel. It is plentiful and cheap to extract if you know were to look, at the thin spots in the earths crust...

Read what I ring here and understand what we are being lied to about...
 
Blkdirt Farmer said:
Why are We Still Being Lied to?
Indeed, so lame has the fossil fuel theory*become that even its most strident supporters are unable to muster the flimsiest of evidence for their position. In*“The Abiotic Oil Controversy” key proponent of the abiotic (fossil) origin,*Richard Heinberg*admits his case is exposed as threadbare lamenting,
“Perhaps one day there will be general agreement that at least some oil is indeed abiotic. Maybe there are indeed deep methane belts twenty miles below the Earth’s surface.”
So scant is the evidence to support Heinberg and other western pro-fossil fuel theorists that in researching*his article*‘The Evidence for Limitless Oil and Gas’*(Digital Journal),*Bill Jencks reveals,
“I searched the internet including Google Scholar and there seems to be no ‘absolute proof’ or support from direct modern research for the Biogenic Theory of oil and gas formation. This theory — for want of a better word — seems to be greatly ‘assumed’ by geologists throughout geological research.”
Like me, Jencks found a mountain of evidence backing Russian claims.*From the Joint Institute of the Physics of the Earth Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow we find incredible sources as revealed by*A Dissertation by J.F. Kenney*which condemns the outmoded 18th century*“anarchaic hypothesis” that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolved from biological detritus, and is accordingly limited in abundance.
Instead, the fossil fuels hypothesis has been replaced during the past forty years by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins which has established that petroleum is a primordial material erupted from great depth. Kenney states,
“Therefore, petroleum abundances are limited by little more than the quantities of its constituents as were incorporated into the Earth at the time of its formation; and its availability depends upon technological development and exploration competence.”
In a straight scientific shootout*Peak Oil Theory vs Russian-Ukraine Modern Theory*the Russians win hands down. But it remains a peculiar anachronism that there is no body of American or other English language peer review to verify or disprove the Russian science.
But why are we still being lied to? With such unwillingness to correct these intellectual failings it is little wonder that there is growing dissatisfaction among voters and thinkers in English-speaking nations and the EU.*Those who study carefully the facts now reasonably conclude that beyond the media hard sell there is no energy crisis; the world has a plentiful supply of cheap renewable petroleum and another enviro-myth needs to be mercilessly culled
Click to expand...

I remember reading about abiotic petroleum origins, it is an interesting theory, but at the end of the day does not matter.
Whatever the process, we pump it out faster than it forms, so wells and fields still run dry.
 
Vlad Dreamer said:
One must realize that humanity has used, uses and will continue to use the deposits of fossil fuels that have accumulated for hundreds of millions of years. We used these reserves for tens of years, that is, a million times faster than they accumulated. And this can not be with impunity. We will pay for this by the deterioration of the climate at best and the uttermost climatic catastrophe - at worst.
Click to expand...

So I take it you're the very person who will put corks in volcanic eruptions. I salute you.
 
Blkdirt Farmer said:
I don't think your seeing the whole picture here at all. It will likely never be not cost effective to use it as fuel. It is plentiful and cheap to extract if you know were to look, at the thin spots in the earths crust...

Read what I ring here and understand what we are being lied to about...
Click to expand...

Oil has a real cost, the people who operate refineries pay real dollars for feedstock to supply the refinery.
It looks like at about $90 a barrel, it will be more profitable to make their own feedstock, than to buy oil.
It takes about 55 Kwh of electricity to make a gallon of gasoline from atmospheric CO2 and water.
(From what I have read from the Naval research labs, the process seems to only make premium, high octane.)
Also finding oil is not easy, or extraction cheap.
We do know their is a very large reserve under the Gulf, in 900 fathoms.
 
longview said:
Oil has a real cost, the people who operate refineries pay real dollars for feedstock to supply the refinery.
It looks like at about $90 a barrel, it will be more profitable to make their own feedstock, than to buy oil.
It takes about 55 Kwh of electricity to make a gallon of gasoline from atmospheric CO2 and water.
(From what I have read from the Naval research labs, the process seems to only make premium, high octane.)
Also finding oil is not easy, or extraction cheap.
We do know their is a very large reserve under the Gulf, in 900 fathoms.
Click to expand...

If we hit 90bucks again it will be pure speculation and greed. Never again will it be a supply issue..

That one reserve you speak of is enough at current usage for 100+ years.

Another was found in Texas since then that will last another 100... Add to this the Balken formation for yet another couple of hundred years..

We will never run out of this resource in any for see able time frame.

Cost of extraction actually have come down with time, as we extract so much more than we used to...
 
Jack Hays said:
Nonsense.
Click to expand...

It is yous opinion. My opinion is different. Unprecedented hurricanes, droughts, forest fires are all consequences of human activity. It is the effect of speedy using of fossil fuel that leads to very fast increase of temperature of the surface of the planet (in geological scale). And, I'M afraid, this is just a beginning.
 
Blkdirt Farmer said:
If we hit 90bucks again it will be pure speculation and greed. Never again will it be a supply issue..

That one reserve you speak of is enough at current usage for 100+ years.

Another was found in Texas since then that will last another 100... Add to this the Balken formation for yet another couple of hundred years..

We will never run out of this resource in any for see able time frame.

Cost of extraction actually have come down with time, as we extract so much more than we used to...
Click to expand...

We may hit $90 a barrel again, but somewhere in that area market forces,
and real alternatives start building downward market pressure.
There are many costs that go into what it cost to get a barrel of oil to a refinery,
and it is those actual costs that will determine the economic shift point.
The current man made fuel processes are claimed to be 70% efficient, (Audi/Sunfire)
but the real players, Exxon,Shell, ect. have not shown their cards.
If Shell research for example has something that is 80% efficient, they can eliminate all lessor competition,
or license their better process.
I don't think we will run out of oil, but it will cease to be economically viable to use as fuel.
Finding, drilling, and extracting oil is risky business, and businesses don't like risk, and unknowns.
In my opinion, once the refineries can make their own feedstock, for cheaper than buying oil, they will not return
to oil quickly.
(I started in the geophysical business out of college, in the early 80's, I do not know anyone who has not been burned at least once
by changes in oil prices.)
 
Blkdirt Farmer said:
Organic hydrocarbons....

Beg to differ but there is nothing organic about crude oil. How would anything organic ever be found at the depths we find crude oil?

It can not...

Truth is oil is not organic at all. It forms in beneath the earths crust, and above the mantle... Crude oil does not require organic anything.

Fossil fuels don't exist. We have found enough oil to last for hundreds of years. Probably will never run out of the stuff...

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

https://principia-scientific.org/ru...ossil-fuel-theory-demise-of-junk-co2-science/

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/we-are-not-running-out-of-oil-earth-produces-crude/

We learn new things about the earth all of the time, but all we ever hear is the butt hurt left bitch about Trump....
Click to expand...

The case for abiotic (non biological) petroleum has been made. Petroleum is lighter than water and there is no theory of the geological history of the Earth that puts these ever expanding enormous reserves several miles underneath the primordial floor of the Earth's oceans other than upwards seepage from deep withing the Earth's mantel.

liberated CO2 is consumed by two primary methods:

1) On land and sea by the assimilation (as food) of living plants and thence to animals. (ie more life on the Earth's surface and in the seas)

2) Copepods in the Earths oceans form the largest biomass on the planet, they consume carbon dioxide dissolved by way of ingesting CO2 eating phytoplankton in the oceans to form insoluble calcium carbonate that sinks to the ocean floor at an average depth of 3.5 km. upon their death. These along with krill (5 times the biomass of all humans) absorb CO2 also by way of ingesting CO2 eating phytoplankton to form additional Calcium Carbonate that is either consumed by larger sea animals or sinks to the bottom of the seas at death.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
I remember reading about abiotic petroleum origins, it is an interesting theory, but at the end of the day does not matter.
Whatever the process, we pump it out faster than it forms, so wells and fields still run dry.
Click to expand...

This is not true, as long as we value petroleum we will never run out. Each year the volume of known petroleum reserves grows larger, not smaller.
eHere's what "the experts" used to say:

https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/weve-been-incorrectly-predicting-peak-oil-for-over-a-ce-1668986354


Here is what free market capitalists have done (not said)

View attachment 67227336
 
SirGareth said:
This is not true, as long as we value petroleum we will never run out. Each year the volume of known petroleum reserves grows larger, not smaller.
eHere's what "the experts" used to say:

https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/weve-been-incorrectly-predicting-peak-oil-for-over-a-ce-1668986354


Here is what free market capitalists have done (not said)

View attachment 67227336
Click to expand...

I don't think we will run out, I think using oil for fuel will price itself out of the market.
Alternative man made fuels will be the least expensive (most profitable) option.
 
Vlad Dreamer said:
It is yous opinion. My opinion is different. Unprecedented hurricanes, droughts, forest fires are all consequences of human activity. It is the effect of speedy using of fossil fuel that leads to very fast increase of temperature of the surface of the planet (in geological scale). And, I'M afraid, this is just a beginning.
Click to expand...

There have been no "unprecedented" hurricanes, droughts or forest fires.
 
bubbabgone said:
Even 2.2 °C is likely too high but let's leave that aside for now.
All well and good to acknowledge the problems with the IPCC models - it's long overdue - but there might be a bit of hinted subtext in the bolded part of a sentence above.
The actual paper (paywalled by Nature) could be used to encourage compliance with the Paris climate accord by suggesting "See it's not as bad as we thought ... we can do Paris"

In reality, if no one does anything, it'll probably never be more than 1.5 °C by 2100 anyway.
Click to expand...

Good to see more sensible papers on CO2. I will read the article when I have more time. I have a subscription.
 
Jack Hays said:
You are correct that 2.2C is still too high.

". . . The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side[FONT="], about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. . . ." [/FONT]

[B][URL="http://www.sciencebits.com/cambridge_union_debate"]Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic[/URL][/B]
Click to expand...

If the sensible scientists turn down the number too fact, the deniers of science will squawk too loud.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Good to see more sensible papers on CO2. I will read the article when I have more time. I have a subscription.
Click to expand...

I got a kick out of this observation in the paper: " The published ranges therefore depended on the researchers’ assumptions about ECS, rather than the evidence." He was speaking about past ECS estimates. This is after he says the IPCC hasn't updated it's 1.5 to 4.5 degree range, and is wasn't much different than a 1979 paper. He points out that by now, the numbers should be refined, but that estimates were always fitting a curve to observation, without ruling out the changes of other variables.

Note: This is what I have said for years!

He refers to Cox's paper: "By contrast, Cox et al. started from climate-model values that are at the upper end of the IPCC range, and used evidence to effectively rule out catastrophically high values: they estimate that there is a 66% likelihood of ECS being between 2.2 °C and 3.4 °C, with less than a 1% chance of it being greater than 4.5 °C (Fig. 1). "

Here is the Cox paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450/figures/4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom