So are we running out of Fossil Fuels or Not?

[mik]

Originally Posted by chamb0

We can and should deal with more than one problem at once, especially with a major one which will be aggravating some of our other intractable issues like poverty, disease, resource scarcity and resulting conflict, growing enough food etc.

humans don't work like that , ignorance is good for those that control/make their living off the weak , this is how it has always been for thousands of years.

plays music......... thats how we roll .

[Dr Terry]

What Al Gore & the rest of his climate change religion followers have done, very cleverly, is to combine & confuse so-called carbon pollution with real pollution, i.e. chemicals & gases from industry & the automotive world.

The air we breathe & our waterways have had some pretty awful stuff put into them over the years, especially in the earlier parts of the 20th century. Things like raw sewage, acid & alkaline chemicals & all types of toxic gases. I remember as a kid in the 50s, the dirty smoke coming from chimneys in the factory areas, not to mention steam trains. Pre-1980s, cars used to spew out vast quantities of hydrocarbons & oxides of nitrogen etc.

The various bits of anti-pollution legislation introduced over the past few decades has led to an improvement in many of these areas. Take a look at Sydney, the air is much clearer than during the 1950-70s & the water in Sydney Harbour is cleaner today than anyone alive can remember. We even see dolphins & whales visiting up-river regularly.

Carbon dioxide is a natural, non-toxic, non-polluting gas, plants need it just like animals & humans need oxygen. The use the term "carbon pollution" is a gross distortion of science, but to the followers of this new religion, it's music to their ears. If anything, an in increase in carbon dioxide or any increase in temperatures (real or imaged) would lead to increased agricultural production, which would in turn help solve another real world problem, 3rd world starvation. As for rising sea levels, give me break, check the tidal charts over the last century, we are talking millimetres.

Getting back to fossil fuels, they are obviously a finite resource, but nobody knows the timeline. A few centuries possibly, but by time that technology & human resourcefulness will have triumphed. Humans are very adaptive creatures. BTW "peak oil" was just another Greenie scare campaign.

Dr Terry

[Dr Terry]

Originally Posted by NAK302

image

Love it.

Dr Terry

[Eaturbo]

If you consider how old the earth is and how long we have been using fossil fuels (approx 100 years) than one would say yes we are running out of fossil fuels. Anything that starts full and is being consumed eventually must run out, anyone want to argue that simple fact. To bury our head in the sand and say well that's bad luck for them in the future is backward thinking. It's better to put an end date on viable supply and work to this giving time and enough money to plan for other alternatives. While some machines might run on other fuel sources like electricity, Aero planes and cargo ships will most likely need to run on fossil fuel for a long time to come. Any investment into other ways to run things on non fossil fuels will only extend the length of time we have the availability to use fossil fuels where other power sources are not practical. I don't see how people can stand there and argue that we will never run out of fossil fuels.

[fred1922]

like all scams follow the money. Gore and the Flannery types have gotten VERY wealthy.

[Dr Terry]

Originally Posted by Eaturbo

If you consider how old the earth is and how long we have been using fossil fuels (approx 100 years)

100 years for petrol & diesel, but maybe many 100s of years for coal & other fuels which just fuel boilers etc.

Dr Terry

[FormulaFG]

I like to think of the the old supply and demand rule of thumb; If the demand is high and the supply is short the price goes up.

You'll know when its starting to run out because the price will get to a point where the average person can no longer afford it. That will also be the point where the average person switches to something else, which will probably be controlled by the same oil companies.

[StealthAu]

Originally Posted by fred1922

like all scams follow the money. Gore and the Flannery types have gotten VERY wealthy.

People, governments, corporations and all in between will milk anything they can for money, in doing so peoples opinions are persuaded, some for and some against.
pseudoscience dominates in the media, both for and against.
More people decide what they believe based on this. Some for some against, yet most on both sides don't know any of the facts.
The scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying climate and our effects on it, they're not arguing.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by Dr Terry

What Al Gore & the rest of his climate change religion followers have done, very cleverly, is to combine & confuse so-called carbon pollution with real pollution, i.e. chemicals & gases from industry & the automotive world.

The air we breathe & our waterways have had some pretty awful stuff put into them over the years, especially in the earlier parts of the 20th century. Things like raw sewage, acid & alkaline chemicals & all types of toxic gases. I remember as a kid in the 50s, the dirty smoke coming from chimneys in the factory areas, not to mention steam trains. Pre-1980s, cars used to spew out vast quantities of hydrocarbons & oxides of nitrogen etc.

The various bits of anti-pollution legislation introduced over the past few decades has led to an improvement in many of these areas. Take a look at Sydney, the air is much clearer than during the 1950-70s & the water in Sydney Harbour is cleaner today than anyone alive can remember. We even see dolphins & whales visiting up-river regularly.

Carbon dioxide is a natural, non-toxic, non-polluting gas, plants need it just like animals & humans need oxygen. The use the term "carbon pollution" is a gross distortion of science, but to the followers of this new religion, it's music to their ears. If anything, an in increase in carbon dioxide or any increase in temperatures (real or imaged) would lead to increased agricultural production, which would in turn help solve another real world problem, 3rd world starvation. As for rising sea levels, give me break, check the tidal charts over the last century, we are talking millimetres.

Getting back to fossil fuels, they are obviously a finite resource, but nobody knows the timeline. A few centuries possibly, but by time that technology & human resourcefulness will have triumphed. Humans are very adaptive creatures. BTW "peak oil" was just another Greenie scare campaign.

Dr Terry

Yes, excellent points.
Of all the toxic crud the world still dumps into our environment, CO2 is arguably the most innocuous.

[Tom Tucker]

Guys,

Look up the amount of proven reserves in the world currently. Then look at current daily consumption of around 90 millon barrels per day. You then realise that without factoring in variables like accuracy of proven reserve data, future discoveries and changes in consumption, we have until 2050 until the world is in serious trouble.

I'm talking actual data here, not speculation. Nobody can say with certainty "we have centuries left".

[ivorya]

Originally Posted by Dr Terry

What Al Gore & the rest of his climate change religion followers have done, very cleverly, is to combine & confuse so-called carbon pollution with real pollution, i.e. chemicals & gases from industry & the automotive world.

The air we breathe & our waterways have had some pretty awful stuff put into them over the years, especially in the earlier parts of the 20th century. Things like raw sewage, acid & alkaline chemicals & all types of toxic gases. I remember as a kid in the 50s, the dirty smoke coming from chimneys in the factory areas, not to mention steam trains. Pre-1980s, cars used to spew out vast quantities of hydrocarbons & oxides of nitrogen etc.

The various bits of anti-pollution legislation introduced over the past few decades has led to an improvement in many of these areas. Take a look at Sydney, the air is much clearer than during the 1950-70s & the water in Sydney Harbour is cleaner today than anyone alive can remember. We even see dolphins & whales visiting up-river regularly.

Carbon dioxide is a natural, non-toxic, non-polluting gas, plants need it just like animals & humans need oxygen. The use the term "carbon pollution" is a gross distortion of science, but to the followers of this new religion, it's music to their ears. If anything, an in increase in carbon dioxide or any increase in temperatures (real or imaged) would lead to increased agricultural production, which would in turn help solve another real world problem, 3rd world starvation. As for rising sea levels, give me break, check the tidal charts over the last century, we are talking millimetres.

Getting back to fossil fuels, they are obviously a finite resource, but nobody knows the timeline. A few centuries possibly, but by time that technology & human resourcefulness will have triumphed. Humans are very adaptive creatures. BTW "peak oil" was just another Greenie scare campaign.

Dr Terry

Agree with lots of your pts Dr Terry however Back when males were beating women over the head and dragging the gals back to their man cave for some lovin, the earth science would have been in some sort of equilibrium.
Move forward a couple of thousand yrs, We've had to remove tree's for fuel and housing, we've also pumped most of the captured Carbon out of the ground to use as fuel.
Unfortunately a tipping pt will occur when the natural mechanisms in carbon storage cannot keep up with what is being pumped into the environment, this being our problem.
Does anyone know what will happen?? No, prob not but scientists have looked into ice cores to estimate what had happened many thousands of yrs before our cave man friends.

I look at it this way, are you proactive or reactive?? Immunize your children or wait for them to get ill.

Unfortunately, with climate and earth science, you can't react, change when it's to late.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Tom Tucker

Guys,

Look up the amount of proven reserves in the world currently. Then look at current daily consumption of around 90 millon barrels per day. You then realise that without factoring in variables like accuracy of proven reserve data, future discoveries and changes in consumption, we have until 2050 until the world is in serious trouble.

I'm talking actual data here, not speculation. Nobody can say with certainty "we have centuries left".

Coal and gas as well?

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Tom Tucker

Look up the amount of proven reserves in the world currently. Then look at current daily consumption of around 90 millon barrels per day. You then realise that without factoring in variables like accuracy of proven reserve data, future discoveries and changes in consumption, we have until 2050 until the world is in serious trouble.

I'm not too concerned. We've already figured out how to convert CO2 into fuel, its just a matter now of scaling the tech up in a cost-effective manner.

[Tom Tucker]

Originally Posted by superyob

Coal and gas as well?

Just crude oil. Coal and especially gas reserves are huge.

Exploration and development is currently shifting to LNG.

I agree we will adapt but think that anyone who believes our consumption of fossil fuels hasn't had significant associated consequences is severely mistaken

[Tom Tucker]

Originally Posted by b0son

I'm not too concerned. We've already figured out how to convert CO2 into fuel, its just a matter now of scaling the tech up in a cost-effective manner.

That's grossly simplified, but you're right in principle. Currently, the energy required and cost involved makes converting one form of energy into another unfeasible. None of that stuff is new. The Germans ran their WWII war machine on synthetic fuel, but it still hasn't taken off to this day.

The quest for environmentally neutral, abundant and economically feasible energy is the holy grail of science. Let's hope it's achieved before the planet is irreparably ruined.

[CJR09]

Originally Posted by Tom Tucker

Exploration and development is currently shifting to LNG.

Its quite interesting this one as the main by-product of its use as a fuel is Co2...

Ironic?


Although it has no other nasties if combusted completely...

[zipping]

Whatever your views and mine are there will be lukewarming at best the flip side is the benefits in standard of living that energy production and technology provides. The undeniable truth is pre the industrial revolution before we knew what to do with oil, pollution was a far greater problem, poverty was rampant, people were not educated and most people lived/worked for a landlord, life expectancy was much lower, medicine undeveloped, racism was rampant, women discriminated against etc etc.

Without the industrial revolution most of us would still be slaves to agriculture.We should bear this in mind as we listen to the coalphobic greenies’ jubilation over the slapdown of Indian company Adani.

Greens would rather we keep it in the ground condemning emerging economies like India to lower living standards. Worse than that is that they are saying that our forefathers should not have dug, not have explored, should not have been ambitious, should have not learn. Total opposite to human nature.

[Dr Terry]

Originally Posted by StealthAu

The scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying climate and our effects on it, they're not arguing.

They most certainly are arguing.

Many scientists who promote this religion rely on governments for their income. Any who stand up for they what believe are soon pilloried & out of a job.

The problem with the whole man-made "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever they wish to call it this week, is that none of it has gone thru normal rigorous scientific process which any new theory goes thru. The whole lot of it based on a movie backed by a failed US politician & various left-wing media groups with no proper scientific analysis. The IPCC has been riddled with that much internal rigging & scandal it's a joke.

Dr Terry

[Dr Terry]

Originally Posted by ivorya

Agree with lots of your pts Dr Terry however Back when males were beating women over the head and dragging the gals back to their man cave for some lovin, the earth science would have been in some sort of equilibrium.
Move forward a couple of thousand yrs, We've had to remove tree's for fuel and housing, we've also pumped most of the captured Carbon out of the ground to use as fuel.
Unfortunately a tipping pt will occur when the natural mechanisms in carbon storage cannot keep up with what is being pumped into the environment, this being our problem.
Does anyone know what will happen?? No, prob not but scientists have looked into ice cores to estimate what had happened many thousands of yrs before our cave man friends.

I look at it this way, are you proactive or reactive?? Immunize your children or wait for them to get ill.

Unfortunately, with climate and earth science, you can't react, change when it's to late.

Unfortunately I don't think that there has ever been any "equilibrium" in the history of the world. It has always seen changes (often drastic) one way or the other & mostly without any human input.

If you calculate how much carbon is put into the atmosphere thru natural sources, such as bush fires, animal gaseous excretions & volcanic eruptions, especially before humans existed, the atmosphere has always been getting carbon dioxide pumped into it. Way back in time the atmosphere was a poisonous sulphur mix & then we saw extremes in humidity & temperature which arguable killed off the dinosaurs etc. Any debate over whether we have 400 ppm or 600 ppm % CO2 is almost irrelevant compared to that.

This whole argument is based around how much of the various changes in the atmosphere are affected by human intervention. Also how much does such a small change in carbon dioxide content affect climate.

As I said in my earlier posts, any changes to world temperatures & sea levels are so minor, I think we are better to turn our attention to real world problems like 3rd world starvation & real pollution of air & waterways.

Dr Terry

[Grunter]

Interested to know what do the peak legit scientific bodies (i.e. would this be CSIRO/ICS, etc.) have to say on climate change? Debunk, agree, somewhere in the middle?

[GasoLane]

The CSIRO is a Gov organisation, so I would think that they would have to agree somewhat with the current Gov line or loose a lot of funding, as Dr Terry mentioned.

Originally Posted by Dr Terry

Many scientists who promote this religion rely on governments for their income. Any who stand up for they what believe are soon pilloried & out of a job.

As former PM John Howard said in a speech back in 2013 in London
"The ground is thick with rent-seekers. There are plenty of people around who want access to public money in the name of saving the planet."

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-pol...20131105-2wzza

[ivorya]

Originally Posted by Dr Terry

Unfortunately I don't think that there has ever been any "equilibrium" in the history of the world. It has always seen changes (often drastic) one way or the other & mostly without any human input.

If you calculate how much carbon is put into the atmosphere thru natural sources, such as bush fires, animal gaseous excretions & volcanic eruptions, especially before humans existed, the atmosphere has always been getting carbon dioxide pumped into it. Way back in time the atmosphere was a poisonous sulphur mix & then we saw extremes in humidity & temperature which arguable killed off the dinosaurs etc. Any debate over whether we have 400 ppm or 600 ppm % CO2 is almost irrelevant compared to that.

This whole argument is based around how much of the various changes in the atmosphere are affected by human intervention. Also how much does such a small change in carbon dioxide content affect climate.

As I said in my earlier posts, any changes to world temperatures & sea levels are so minor, I think we are better to turn our attention to real world problems like 3rd world starvation & real pollution of air & waterways.

Dr Terry

We also need to look further, we have shifted this by eliminating ways of carbon capture. How much deforestation has occurred? Other mechanisms are now just being studied, Carbon storage in the oceans - Great effect that, more acidic waters etc.

Fluctuations will always occur in natural cycles, it's just when you push to far one way, it'll never get back

Swings and roundabouts in the conversation.
In fact, H20 is also considered a Green House Gas, this hasn't even been mentioned.

As I said earlier, it's about being proactive or reactive

[Grunter]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

The CSIRO is a Gov organisation, so I would think that they would have to agree somewhat with the current Gov line or loose a lot of funding, as Dr Terry mentioned.


As former PM John Howard said in a speech back in 2013 in London
"The ground is thick with rent-seekers. There are plenty of people around who want access to public money in the name of saving the planet."

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-pol...20131105-2wzza

That's where I'm getting confused.

I looked through the CSIRO first thinking they would most likely be anti climate change due to their funding. The Gov line is to deny there is climate change, but the CSIRO reports on the items that appear to relate to a changing climate?

Link: http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Oand...014-SoC-Report

Apart from the CSIRO, are there any big world scientific groups that would be considered legit that are for or against? Or is it a case of supporters/deniers only putting forward info to support their claims. Also if there are legit reports (both arguments), which ones are peer reviewed?

On JH's comments, the other side of the coin would be those industries whose interests dictate that they oppose any view on climate change that could lead to changes that impact their profitability.

[cheap]

Step back a examine the change in wording and look to where this is leading to.

At first it was Global Warming, specifically Anthropogenic Global Warming, human impact/contribution to global Warming. Countless models, countless billions spent, countless failed predictions. The planet stubbornly refuses to do what the models say it will do.

As people got wise to the failure of AGW, it morphed into Climate Change, which is a proven naturally occurring phenomena and no one (including Tony Abbot) disagrees with.

However controlling/managing Climate Change is totally meaningless, it is a bit like trying to change the Earths rotation because people want more sunlight and less night time.

Then there is the CO2 is a pollutant discussion, taken literally, everyone is polluting by virtue of breathing. "CO2 is a pollutant", this is the nirvana of taxation, taxing people for the air that we breath!

[Grunter]

Putting any possible man made causes aside, if the climate is changing (by natural processes), would there not still be a need to look at the possible effects and plan for it?

[Dr Terry]

Originally Posted by Grunter

Putting any possible man made causes aside, if the climate is changing (by natural processes), would there not still be a need to look at the possible effects and plan for it?

This is very true, but how do you stop the Al Gore types from tilting the argument to his way of thinking & profit-taking.

Unfortunately much of the world is governed by noisy minorities for their own purposes.

Dr Terry.

[bobthebilda]

I think people have to be delusional in not thinking that we are not going to hit a major crisis sometime in the near future. There may be a lot of charts that show oil supply has been increasing over the last few years or even decades, but this increase hasn't been from the easy oil that the Saudis pump out of the ground after driving a fence post in. Its been increasing due to digging up tar sands in Canada, drilling shale rocks in the US or expanding further into offshore waters or even the Arctic. These products are classified as oil, but some cant even be used for the likes of transport fuels.

Next, we are never going to run out of oil. At some point it just doesn't become feasible to bring it up anymore. Take for example the 750,000 barrels a day that comes down the Alaskan pipeline. The supply down that pipeline has been diminishing for years, due to the oil slowly running out. But they aren't going to keep pumping oil down it until the last drop. At some point (they say around 250,000 barrels a day), they wont be able to pump that oil down the pipeline. There will still be a lot of oil in Alaska, but it wont be seeing the light of day. The same goes for a lot of oil projects that were started in the 70's or even 80's (and the big discoveries have been very few are far in between in the last 40 years or so).

The other issue for people like us in Australia, is it doesn't matter about the worlds oil production, it matters about the worlds oil exports. Saudia Arabia for example may produce 10 million barrels a day, but the also use nearly 3 million a day (and that is growing). If their production drops 10%, they aren't going to forgo the use of their air cons, which use electricity from oil powered power stations, they are going to take 1 million barrels out of exports (which equates to an almost 15% drop in their exports).

Lastly, its not just the CO2 from using fuel that is causing issues. This has simply started the chain reaction. As the lands in Russia, Canada etc, heat up, and the ice melts, it is releasing far greater quantities of methane from organic matter that has been frozen for millions of years. Not only are the quantities far superior to carbon emissions from fuel use, by methane has a much worse effect on climate change than CO2 does.

Sadly your all screwed, I just cant give you an exact date on when you will be. The human Psyche wont allow for the earth to be saved, we all must have jobs, we all must consume etc. If we aren't digging our own graves, its quite certain we are actively playing a major destructive path for our children.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Tom Tucker

That's grossly simplified, but you're right in principle. Currently, the energy required and cost involved makes converting one form of energy into another unfeasible.

The system I saw used solar power, and like any new technology, as adoption of the tech grows and incremental development refines the tech, the cost will come down.

If someone in the 70s had said the majority of us would have solar panels on our homes, we would have laughed....

[b0son]

Originally Posted by bobthebilda

But they aren't going to keep pumping oil down it until the last drop. At some point (they say around 250,000 barrels a day), they wont be able to pump that oil down the pipeline. There will still be a lot of oil in Alaska, but it wont be seeing the light of day.

Shale oil was uneconomical, until it was. Prices go up, industries/individuals absorb increases, previously unviable sources become viable.

We don't just use oil for our cars. Its feed stock for synthetic chemicals, plastics, etc. We will simply become better at recycling, and won't be nearly as wasteful as we currently are.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by Eaturbo

If you consider how old the earth is and how long we have been using fossil fuels (approx 100 years) than one would say yes we are running out of fossil fuels. Anything that starts full and is being consumed eventually must run out, anyone want to argue that simple fact. To bury our head in the sand and say well that's bad luck for them in the future is backward thinking. It's better to put an end date on viable supply and work to this giving time and enough money to plan for other alternatives. While some machines might run on other fuel sources like electricity, Aero planes and cargo ships will most likely need to run on fossil fuel for a long time to come. Any investment into other ways to run things on non fossil fuels will only extend the length of time we have the availability to use fossil fuels where other power sources are not practical. I don't see how people can stand there and argue that we will never run out of fossil fuels.

Not sure WTF you are talking about??

Not a single person posted we (as a world) would never run out, we as, us here right now, will probably never run out, unless you plan on living another 2-300 years.