CO2 Levels Were This High 800,000 Years Ago, So Who’s Responsible?

We will run out of oil one day but it is not today. In the meantime it is the cheapest way to provide energy for the soon to be ten billion people on earth. Solar and wind and all that other silly "renewable" crap won't hack it.
Flash, you oppose real facts because this helps you sleep at night but what is real is real; and in the end even you cannot deny it. You say that soon there will be ten billion people on earth, and you are relying on oil to fuel the needs of ten billion people. this is just wishful thinking on your part with no facts to support it.

Unlike you, I have researched this topic. I have crunched the numbers and the bottom line is self-evident. Many European countries have awakened to this reality. China has declared that they will be off oil by 2025. Italy and France are doing the same. Switching to renewables doesn’t require your approval; but for your own sake, join us and help us make the needed transition.

The numbers below are ten (10) years old.

Flash, do your own Google search and once done come back and post your findings.

The end of the Fossil Fuel era is upon us so what are we going to do next-?


North Sea is running too dry to meet target
Wednesday July 4, 2007
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/energy/story/0,,
2117952,00.html


The real casus belli: peak oil
Tuesday June 26, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2
111529,00.html


Science Panel Finds Fault With Estimates of Coal Supply
Published: June 21, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/business/21coal.
html


Chevron announces that they now have 11.8 years of oil left at current production levels after aquiring Unocal reserves
07/08/05
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/business/worldbu
siness/11unocal.html?pagewanted=2&adxnnl=1&
adxnnlx=1123732924-48wR07Ekayb0gi0r7b8l9Q


An Oil Enigma: Production Falls Even as Reserves Rise
Published: June 12, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/12/business/12RESE.
html?pagewanted=3&hp


"The decline of oil and gas will affect the world population more than climate change"
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/glo
bal.warming/
'>http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/glo
bal.warming/


In January 2001, the U.S.
Department of Energy estimated the world's supply of unexploited oil reserves the world supply of oil will be totally exhausted 35 years from now (June 2003).
http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/oil.html

World oil and gas 'running out'
Thursday, October 2, 2003 Posted: 1245 GMT ( 8:45 PM HKT)

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/glo
bal.warming/
'>http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/glo
bal.warming/


The Oil Crunch
Published: May 7, 2004
The question, instead, is when the trend in oil prices will turn decisively upward. That upward turn is inevitable as a growing world economy confronts a resource in limited supply. But when will it happen?
Maybe it already has.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/opinion/07KRUG.h
tml


Natural gas markets undergo turbulent transition as domestic production declines
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
http://www.statesman.com/business/content/auto/epa
per/editions/tuesday/business_f3edda2474a06071009b.
html


"Texas' oil resource is pretty well picked over," http://www.statesman.com/specialreports/content/sp
ecialreports/energy/0617oil.html
'>http://www.statesman.com/specialreports/content/sp
ecialreports/energy/0617oil.html


Oman's Oil Yield Long in Decline, Shell Data Show
Published: April 8, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/business/08OIL.h
tml?hp


Half of Texas’s oil wells have dried up in the past 40 years and there are very few new ones.
http://www.statesman.com/specialreports/content/sp
ecialreports/energy/0617oil.html
'>http://www.statesman.com/specialreports/content/sp
ecialreports/energy/0617oil.html


Tight Oil Supply Won't Ease Soon
Published: May 16, 2004
Two dollars for a gallon of gas? Get used to it. High fuel prices are here to stay, at least for the near future, because no relief is in sight for tight oil supplies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/16/business/16OIL.h
tml?pagewanted=2&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=10
84724567-pWSKI+RB9bShA5oXGRQi4w


Flash, do your own Google search and once done come back and post your findings.
 
View attachment 274799
Carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun, and higher levels are associated with higher global temperatures and other effects of climate change, such as rising seas and unusual weather patterns.

Plants breath in CO2 and exhale O2.
Animals breath in O2 and exhale CO2

Combustion engines exhale carbon monoxide,

Carbon monoxide is produced from the partial oxidation of carbon-containing compounds; it forms when there is not enough oxygen to produce carbon dioxide (CO2), such as when operating a stove or an internal combustion engine in an enclosed space. In the presence of oxygen, including atmospheric concentrations, carbon monoxide burns with a blue flame, producing carbon dioxide.[11] Coal gas, which was widely used before the 1960s for domestic lighting, cooking, and heating, had carbon monoxide as a significant fuel constituent. Some processes in modern technology, such as iron smelting, still produce carbon monoxide as a byproduct.[12] A large quantity of CO byproduct is formed during the oxidative processes for the production of chemicals.


Burning coal is the real killer :)-
When plants take in carbon, it doesn't go away.
That why plants turn into coal over time and pressure.
And burning the plants not turned into coal releases the stored carbon.
Coal is basically concentrated carbon.


Even I know that.
 
[Q

To prove how wrong you are, I am going to ask for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and I am going to ask for it with perfect confidence that nether you...nor anyone else will be able to provide even one single piece of such evidence...

FLASH...if you had picked the right side...and made your choice based on facts, you would be as skeptical as those of us who have actually looked at the science

FLASH...you picked your side based on politics and as a result, have been duped and are playing the part of a useful idiot...

FLASH...think about that when you are not providing a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and think about why there is no such evidence for you to shove in my face...

You may a little confused. I don't accept that AGW scam.

Sorry...I thought he was using the FLASH as in NEWSFLASH
 
Total oil reserves are estimated to be around 1,800 to 2,200 billion barrels, with about 1,700 billion barrels considered proven reserves. Under such circumstances, most of the remaining oil could be extracted by 2060.
World Annual Oil Production (1900-2018) and Peak Oil (2005-2020 Scenarios)

Total world oil production in 2019 averaged 80,622,000 barrels per day.

Note: production and consumption are one and the same.
(80,622,000 X 365 days= 29,427,030,000 barrels a year)
List of countries by oil production - Wikipedia

Total world oil reserves 2,000,000,000,000 barrels of oil

The world consumes 29,427,030,000 barrels of oil a year

2,000,000,000,000 /29,427,030,000 = 67 years then the wells run dry.

At the “current” rate of consumption the wells run dry in 67 years. The need to switch to renewables must occur way before then, say in the next 20-30 years.

Knowing this, what are we waiting for-?
:)-
 
We will run out of oil one day but it is not today. In the meantime it is the cheapest way to provide energy for the soon to be ten billion people on earth. Solar and wind and all that other silly "renewable" crap won't hack it.
Flash, you oppose real facts because this helps you sleep at night but what is real is real; and in the end even you cannot deny it. You say that soon there will be ten billion people on earth, and you are relying on oil to fuel the needs of ten billion people. this is just wishful thinking on your part with no facts to support it.

Unlike you, I have researched this topic. I have crunched the numbers and the bottom line is self-evident. Many European countries have awakened to this reality. China has declared that they will be off oil by 2025. Italy and France are doing the same. Switching to renewables doesn’t require your approval; but for your own sake, join us and help us make the needed transition.

The numbers below are ten (10) years old.

Flash, do your own Google search and once done come back and post your findings.

The end of the Fossil Fuel era is upon us so what are we going to do next-?


North Sea is running too dry to meet target
Wednesday July 4, 2007
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/energy/story/0,,
2117952,00.html


The real casus belli: peak oil
Tuesday June 26, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2
111529,00.html


Science Panel Finds Fault With Estimates of Coal Supply
Published: June 21, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/business/21coal.
html


Chevron announces that they now have 11.8 years of oil left at current production levels after aquiring Unocal reserves
07/08/05
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/business/worldbu
siness/11unocal.html?pagewanted=2&adxnnl=1&
adxnnlx=1123732924-48wR07Ekayb0gi0r7b8l9Q


An Oil Enigma: Production Falls Even as Reserves Rise
Published: June 12, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/12/business/12RESE.
html?pagewanted=3&hp


"The decline of oil and gas will affect the world population more than climate change"
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/glo
bal.warming/
'>http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/glo
bal.warming/


In January 2001, the U.S.
Department of Energy estimated the world's supply of unexploited oil reserves the world supply of oil will be totally exhausted 35 years from now (June 2003).
http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/oil.html

World oil and gas 'running out'
Thursday, October 2, 2003 Posted: 1245 GMT ( 8:45 PM HKT)

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/glo
bal.warming/
'>http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/glo
bal.warming/


The Oil Crunch
Published: May 7, 2004
The question, instead, is when the trend in oil prices will turn decisively upward. That upward turn is inevitable as a growing world economy confronts a resource in limited supply. But when will it happen?
Maybe it already has.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/opinion/07KRUG.h
tml


Natural gas markets undergo turbulent transition as domestic production declines
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
http://www.statesman.com/business/content/auto/epa
per/editions/tuesday/business_f3edda2474a06071009b.
html


"Texas' oil resource is pretty well picked over," http://www.statesman.com/specialreports/content/sp
ecialreports/energy/0617oil.html
'>http://www.statesman.com/specialreports/content/sp
ecialreports/energy/0617oil.html


Oman's Oil Yield Long in Decline, Shell Data Show
Published: April 8, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/business/08OIL.h
tml?hp


Half of Texas’s oil wells have dried up in the past 40 years and there are very few new ones.
http://www.statesman.com/specialreports/content/sp
ecialreports/energy/0617oil.html
'>http://www.statesman.com/specialreports/content/sp
ecialreports/energy/0617oil.html


Tight Oil Supply Won't Ease Soon
Published: May 16, 2004
Two dollars for a gallon of gas? Get used to it. High fuel prices are here to stay, at least for the near future, because no relief is in sight for tight oil supplies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/16/business/16OIL.h
tml?pagewanted=2&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=10
84724567-pWSKI+RB9bShA5oXGRQi4w


Flash, do your own Google search and once done come back and post your findings.

You are confused. Most of you Moon Bats live in a state of confusion, don't you? We are producing more oil now than we ever had.

One of the big inputs to the price of fuels that you pay at the pump is the stupid taxes the asshole put on top of the fuels . When you buy a gallon of gas then you are also paying for the roads and anything else the government shitholes want to skim it for. The thing about electric cars is that the drivers are filthy welfare queens. They are not paying their fair share of the roads because they are not paying the fuel tax.

Meanwhile fossil fuel is the cheapest form of energy available. When it becomes scare then the marketplace will force alternative sources. We ain't there yet.

None of these worthless alternative sources like wind and solar can compete with fossils fuels without stupid government subsidies. That is stealing. Every wind farm and solar farm in the world would never have been built with an influx of government money and that is despicable. Nobody would ever buy solar panels for their home without the tax credits. Even at that they hardly ever get a payback to make it worthwhile.

By the way, nuclear could be much more competitive if it wasn't for the asshole Environmental Wackos that ran up the cost of permitting to almost two billion dollars a facility. That is two billion dollars over the cost of construction and operations. No wonder it is not economical to build new plants. Liberals fuck up everything, don't they?

As an Engineer I have training and practical experience in Engineering Economics. That is when you determine real world viability. Solar and wind never pass the real world Economics test.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 274423
Twitter
Dino farts?
Fred and Barney?




Actually, I'm not aware that levels were particular that high 800,000 years ago, so if we were at that level then, things aren't that bad now. 800,000 years ago was in the middle Quaternary Period in the late Pleistocene Epoch during a great diversification of mammals, right before the Quaternary ice age as man spread into Europe. Things were way worse about 55-60 million years ago at the start of the Eocene after the PE Thermal Maximum due in part to the Yucatan Impactor + the Deccan Traps.
 
CnnBlxH.jpg
 
Before climate science was hijacked by politics and coerced into a consensus view by the same, there was a fairly sizable body of work that showed that during the past 10,000 years, CO2 levels have been as high, or higher than the present during the various warm periods.

In the later 1980's climate science decided that atmospheric samples derived from ice cores that showed CO2 levels higher than the present were not acceptable and were thus tossed out...samples that showed CO2 levels that were lower than the present were acceptable and kept since they supported the alarmist narrative.

https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CO2-determined-by-temperature-400-ppm-during-Holocene-Flohn-1982.jpg


This article published in Nature showed CO2 levels higher than the present during several periods of the Holocene.

Ice core sample measurements give atmospheric CO2 content during the past 40,000 yr

Holocene-CO2-rose-to-430-ppm-during-the-Early-Holocene-Neftel-1982.jpg


As late as the early 1990's some research was still being published that showed CO2 levels higher than the present..

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Holocene-CO2-641.4-ppm-Schwander-1993.jpg



This more recent paper shows a natural change from 230ppm to 420ppm happening in about 50 years.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...imate_behaviour_and_an_important_role_for_CO2

CO2-Variations-S-Sweden-Pre-Holocene-Steinthorsdottir-2013.jpg



http://21sci-tech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf

A fine example of climate science deleting data that doesn't agree with the consensus.

Jaworowski-1997-CO2-ice-cores.jpg
Holocene-CO2-selection-bias-as-shown-in-Jaworowski-1997.jpg


https://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

Clip: “It is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear correction ‘buffer’ factors constructed from a pre-conceived hypothesis, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity.”

CO2-greenhouse-warming-dogma-Segalstad-1998.jpg


The reason that climate alarmists can't provide data supporting their belief is the simple fact that there is none..
 
View attachment 274423
Twitter
Dino farts?
Fred and Barney?




Actually, I'm not aware that levels were particular that high 800,000 years ago, so if we were at that level then, things aren't that bad now. 800,000 years ago was in the middle Quaternary Period in the late Pleistocene Epoch during a great diversification of mammals, right before the Quaternary ice age as man spread into Europe. Things were way worse about 55-60 million years ago at the start of the Eocene after the PE Thermal Maximum due in part to the Yucatan Impactor + the Deccan Traps.

There was more life on earth in that period than any other.

Yet the Leftards teach us ice shelf’s are good for us.

Just part of their effort to destroy civilization.
 
Before climate science was hijacked by politics and coerced into a consensus view by the same, there was a fairly sizable body of work that showed that during the past 10,000 years, CO2 levels have been as high, or higher than the present during the various warm periods.

In the later 1980's climate science decided that atmospheric samples derived from ice cores that showed CO2 levels higher than the present were not acceptable and were thus tossed out...samples that showed CO2 levels that were lower than the present were acceptable and kept since they supported the alarmist narrative.

https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CO2-determined-by-temperature-400-ppm-during-Holocene-Flohn-1982.jpg


This article published in Nature showed CO2 levels higher than the present during several periods of the Holocene.

Ice core sample measurements give atmospheric CO2 content during the past 40,000 yr

Holocene-CO2-rose-to-430-ppm-during-the-Early-Holocene-Neftel-1982.jpg


As late as the early 1990's some research was still being published that showed CO2 levels higher than the present..

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Holocene-CO2-641.4-ppm-Schwander-1993.jpg



This more recent paper shows a natural change from 230ppm to 420ppm happening in about 50 years.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...imate_behaviour_and_an_important_role_for_CO2

CO2-Variations-S-Sweden-Pre-Holocene-Steinthorsdottir-2013.jpg



http://21sci-tech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf

A fine example of climate science deleting data that doesn't agree with the consensus.

Jaworowski-1997-CO2-ice-cores.jpg
Holocene-CO2-selection-bias-as-shown-in-Jaworowski-1997.jpg


https://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

Clip: “It is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear correction ‘buffer’ factors constructed from a pre-conceived hypothesis, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity.”

CO2-greenhouse-warming-dogma-Segalstad-1998.jpg


The reason that climate alarmists can't provide data supporting their belief is the simple fact that there is none..


The science has been distorted so much by the AGW nutcases that they have lost all credibility.

They knew the science was bogus and that is why we discovered in the Climategate I & II emails that they had to fabricate data.

I would have no trouble believing AGW but there simply is not the data to support it. At least no data that is not subject to distortion.
 
Before climate science was hijacked by politics and coerced into a consensus view by the same, there was a fairly sizable body of work that showed that during the past 10,000 years, CO2 levels have been as high, or higher than the present during the various warm periods.

In the later 1980's climate science decided that atmospheric samples derived from ice cores that showed CO2 levels higher than the present were not acceptable and were thus tossed out...samples that showed CO2 levels that were lower than the present were acceptable and kept since they supported the alarmist narrative.

https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CO2-determined-by-temperature-400-ppm-during-Holocene-Flohn-1982.jpg


This article published in Nature showed CO2 levels higher than the present during several periods of the Holocene.

Ice core sample measurements give atmospheric CO2 content during the past 40,000 yr

Holocene-CO2-rose-to-430-ppm-during-the-Early-Holocene-Neftel-1982.jpg


As late as the early 1990's some research was still being published that showed CO2 levels higher than the present..

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Holocene-CO2-641.4-ppm-Schwander-1993.jpg



This more recent paper shows a natural change from 230ppm to 420ppm happening in about 50 years.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...imate_behaviour_and_an_important_role_for_CO2

CO2-Variations-S-Sweden-Pre-Holocene-Steinthorsdottir-2013.jpg



http://21sci-tech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf

A fine example of climate science deleting data that doesn't agree with the consensus.

Jaworowski-1997-CO2-ice-cores.jpg
Holocene-CO2-selection-bias-as-shown-in-Jaworowski-1997.jpg


https://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

Clip: “It is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear correction ‘buffer’ factors constructed from a pre-conceived hypothesis, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity.”

CO2-greenhouse-warming-dogma-Segalstad-1998.jpg


The reason that climate alarmists can't provide data supporting their belief is the simple fact that there is none..
Thank you SSDD.

Your post confirms the Stomata measurements and high levels of CO2 before man had influence. Even back to 1981 it was known that CO2 fluctuated above 400ppm yet the scare-mongering by the AGW crew went on. Back then they had the facts that disproved Man Made Global Warming. This makes me very sad that science has taken this kind of blow to it's credibility.
 
You are confused. Most of you Moon Bats live in a state of confusion, don't you? We are producing more oil now than we ever had.
Flash, What is not mentioning is the decline in current oil fields. As new oil fields are found old one dry up. Now put that into your predictions

Oil field production decline
Individual oil wells are typically within multi-well oil fields. As with individual wells, the production curves for oil fields vary depending on geology and how they are developed and produced. Some fields have symmetric bell-shaped production profiles, but it is more common that the period of inclining production is briefer and steeper than the subsequent decline. More than half the production usually occurs after a field has reached a peak or plateau. Production profiles of many fields show distinct peaks, but for giant oil fields, it is more common for production to reach and maintain a plateau before declining. Once a field declines, it usually follows an exponential decline.
Oil depletion - Wikipedia

A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
Peak oil - Wikipedia

When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels.
Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?


upload_2019-8-25_10-39-20.png
upload_2019-8-25_10-39-37.png

The Truth Will Set You free
:)-
 
Before climate science was hijacked by politics and coerced into a consensus view by the same, there was a fairly sizable body of work that showed that during the past 10,000 years, CO2 levels have been as high, or higher than the present during the various warm periods.

In the later 1980's climate science decided that atmospheric samples derived from ice cores that showed CO2 levels higher than the present were not acceptable and were thus tossed out...samples that showed CO2 levels that were lower than the present were acceptable and kept since they supported the alarmist narrative.

https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CO2-determined-by-temperature-400-ppm-during-Holocene-Flohn-1982.jpg


This article published in Nature showed CO2 levels higher than the present during several periods of the Holocene.

Ice core sample measurements give atmospheric CO2 content during the past 40,000 yr

Holocene-CO2-rose-to-430-ppm-during-the-Early-Holocene-Neftel-1982.jpg


As late as the early 1990's some research was still being published that showed CO2 levels higher than the present..

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Holocene-CO2-641.4-ppm-Schwander-1993.jpg



This more recent paper shows a natural change from 230ppm to 420ppm happening in about 50 years.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...imate_behaviour_and_an_important_role_for_CO2

CO2-Variations-S-Sweden-Pre-Holocene-Steinthorsdottir-2013.jpg



http://21sci-tech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf

A fine example of climate science deleting data that doesn't agree with the consensus.

Jaworowski-1997-CO2-ice-cores.jpg
Holocene-CO2-selection-bias-as-shown-in-Jaworowski-1997.jpg


https://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

Clip: “It is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear correction ‘buffer’ factors constructed from a pre-conceived hypothesis, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity.”

CO2-greenhouse-warming-dogma-Segalstad-1998.jpg


The reason that climate alarmists can't provide data supporting their belief is the simple fact that there is none..
Thank you SSDD.

Your post confirms the Stomata measurements and high levels of CO2 before man had influence. Even back to 1981 it was known that CO2 fluctuated above 400ppm yet the scare-mongering by the AGW crew went on. Back then they had the facts that disproved Man Made Global Warming. This makes me very sad that science has taken this kind of blow to it's credibility.


Bob, I'm not sure what the claims are here connecting CO2 levels, climate change and man, but I thought it worth pointing out that the Earth has always been going through changes.
  • 750 million years ago after going through our "snowball earth," the atmosphere went through dramatic changes with carbon-13 depletion and accumulated oxygen from the biota allowing ozone to form for the first time making it easier for life to emerge on land.
  • Before that 2.5 billion years ago, we had our first oxygen crisis from cyanobacteria allowing oxygen to combine with iron in the ocean floor heralding in the Huronian Ice Age as all the oxygen combined with methane to remove it as the dominant gas producing CO2 and water thinning the atmosphere and it was volcanic CO2 which actually triggered enough warming to restore photosynthesis. Before that, the air was mostly methane!
  • Since the Ediacaran Period about 600 million years ago, Earth has undergone many severe warming periods beginning with the Avalon Explosion which saw the most primitive sea life explode into the biodiversity that became the Cambrian Explosion. Through the next 550 million years, Earth saw at least five super-warm periods, which all followed mass extinctions and lead to huge bursts of biodiversity, not the least of which was the PETM about 60 million years ago which actually heralded in the Age of Mammals. Temperatures have been on a decline overall since leading into the modern Cenozoic Era of peak biodiversity.
  • If global warming is connected to CO2 production, our climate has been cooling and on a cooling trend for about 55 million years. Since then, we've had six ice ages. Indeed, during the entire Phanerozoic Eon (since life exploded on land) about 550 million years ago, it would appear that atmospheric CO2 was actually at its highest between 150 and 500 million years ago, and while today, we are perhaps about +1° above mean norm, it would appear that in the past, the Earth has been as much as +14° above mean norm. Take from that what you will.
Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
All_Paleotemps.jpg
 
Last edited:
You are confused. Most of you Moon Bats live in a state of confusion, don't you? We are producing more oil now than we ever had.
Flash, What is not mentioning is the decline in current oil fields. As new oil fields are found old one dry up. Now put that into your predictions

Oil field production decline
Individual oil wells are typically within multi-well oil fields. As with individual wells, the production curves for oil fields vary depending on geology and how they are developed and produced. Some fields have symmetric bell-shaped production profiles, but it is more common that the period of inclining production is briefer and steeper than the subsequent decline. More than half the production usually occurs after a field has reached a peak or plateau. Production profiles of many fields show distinct peaks, but for giant oil fields, it is more common for production to reach and maintain a plateau before declining. Once a field declines, it usually follows an exponential decline.
Oil depletion - Wikipedia

A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
Peak oil - Wikipedia

When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels.
Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?


View attachment 275906View attachment 275907
The Truth Will Set You free
:)-


You are very confused about this. We are not at peak production but we are damn close.

Like I said earlier we will run out of oil one of these days but we ain't there yet.

In the meantime fossil fuels are the cheapest energy sources available and it would be stupid to not use them.

We know that the environmental wacko ideas of solar and wind won't produce enough energy to take the place of oil.

I once worked on a NRC permit to expand a nuclear power plant in Texas. I help to write the section to evaluate alternative energy sources, which is required.

To produce as much energy as the nuclear power plant there would have to be a wind or solar field as big as the Texas county that the plant was in.

Probably when we run out of fossil fuels if we don't switch to nuclear then there will be a major population decrease. We sure as hell will not be able to sustain the energy needs of ten billion people with the silly technologies of solar and wind.

In the meantime the last thing we need to be doing is pouring taxpayer's subsides and incentive money into technologies that aren't economical on their own. That is just plain stupid.
 
You are confused. Most of you Moon Bats live in a state of confusion, don't you? We are producing more oil now than we ever had.
Flash, What is not mentioning is the decline in current oil fields. As new oil fields are found old one dry up. Now put that into your predictions

Oil field production decline
Individual oil wells are typically within multi-well oil fields. As with individual wells, the production curves for oil fields vary depending on geology and how they are developed and produced. Some fields have symmetric bell-shaped production profiles, but it is more common that the period of inclining production is briefer and steeper than the subsequent decline. More than half the production usually occurs after a field has reached a peak or plateau. Production profiles of many fields show distinct peaks, but for giant oil fields, it is more common for production to reach and maintain a plateau before declining. Once a field declines, it usually follows an exponential decline.
Oil depletion - Wikipedia

A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
Peak oil - Wikipedia

When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels.
Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?


View attachment 275906View attachment 275907
The Truth Will Set You free
:)-


You are very confused about this. We are not at peak production but we are damn close.

Like I said earlier we will run out of oil one of these days but we ain't there yet.

In the meantime fossil fuels are the cheapest energy sources available and it would be stupid to not use them.

We know that the environmental wacko ideas of solar and wind won't produce enough energy to take the place of oil.

I once worked on a NRC permit to expand a nuclear power plant in Texas. I help to write the section to evaluate alternative energy sources, which is required.

To produce as much energy as the nuclear power plant there would have to be a wind or solar field as big as the Texas county that the plant was in.

Probably when we run out of fossil fuels if we don't switch to nuclear then there will be a major population decrease. We sure as hell will not be able to sustain the energy needs of ten billion people with the silly technologies of solar and wind.

In the meantime the last thing we need to be doing is pouring taxpayer's subsides and incentive money into technologies that aren't economical on their own. That is just plain stupid.

Capitalism is such that when a real profit motive for an alternative energy supply exists on the horizon, an alternative energy supply will exist before we reach that horizon. It won't come from government, or lowest bid government scientists...
 
You are confused. Most of you Moon Bats live in a state of confusion, don't you? We are producing more oil now than we ever had.
Flash, What is not mentioning is the decline in current oil fields. As new oil fields are found old one dry up. Now put that into your predictions

Oil field production decline
Individual oil wells are typically within multi-well oil fields. As with individual wells, the production curves for oil fields vary depending on geology and how they are developed and produced. Some fields have symmetric bell-shaped production profiles, but it is more common that the period of inclining production is briefer and steeper than the subsequent decline. More than half the production usually occurs after a field has reached a peak or plateau. Production profiles of many fields show distinct peaks, but for giant oil fields, it is more common for production to reach and maintain a plateau before declining. Once a field declines, it usually follows an exponential decline.
Oil depletion - Wikipedia

A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
Peak oil - Wikipedia

When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels.
Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?


View attachment 275906View attachment 275907
The Truth Will Set You free
:)-


You are very confused about this. We are not at peak production but we are damn close.

Like I said earlier we will run out of oil one of these days but we ain't there yet.

In the meantime fossil fuels are the cheapest energy sources available and it would be stupid to not use them.

We know that the environmental wacko ideas of solar and wind won't produce enough energy to take the place of oil.

I once worked on a NRC permit to expand a nuclear power plant in Texas. I help to write the section to evaluate alternative energy sources, which is required.

To produce as much energy as the nuclear power plant there would have to be a wind or solar field as big as the Texas county that the plant was in.

Probably when we run out of fossil fuels if we don't switch to nuclear then there will be a major population decrease. We sure as hell will not be able to sustain the energy needs of ten billion people with the silly technologies of solar and wind.

In the meantime the last thing we need to be doing is pouring taxpayer's subsides and incentive money into technologies that aren't economical on their own. That is just plain stupid.

Capitalism is such that when a real profit motive for an alternative energy supply exists on the horizon, an alternative energy supply will exist before we reach that horizon. It won't come from government, or lowest bid government scientists...

Correct!

Capitalism will fix the problem, not stupid government subsidies to corrupt Solyndra executives that just happen to be Democrat campaign bundlers. Obama should have gone to jail for that corruption.
 
So much for stupid solar panels.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Amazon Joins Walmart in Saying Tesla Solar Panels Caught Fire
LOL...

Walmart paid heavily on their insurance on stores that have these on their buildings as fire departments will surround and protect other properties while watching it burn to the ground due to the possibility of electrocution. I can only imagine how many homes would go up in California due to this.
 
So much for stupid solar panels.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Amazon Joins Walmart in Saying Tesla Solar Panels Caught Fire
LOL...

Walmart paid heavily on their insurance on stores that have these on their buildings as fire departments will surround and protect other properties while watching it burn to the ground due to the possibility of electrocution. I can only imagine how many homes would go up in California due to this.


Libtard stupidity has no bounds.

Of course Walmart were dumbasses trying to kiss the ass of the Libtards by putting the stupid things in the first place. Even with government subsidies it was never going to be economical so they did it for the wrong reason.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top