Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Sid Belzberg]

https://twitter.com/Spiro_Ghost/stat...85260109692929

https://twitter.com/Spiro_Ghost/status/1674985260109692929

[Bob Armstrong]

Greenhouse Gases

The Role of CO2

Video -NASA/Article: https://time.com/6291042/nasa-video-...lctg=206908353


What do CT'ers think of this anthropogenicist's view of CO2 (The Naturalist's have posted above contradictory information)?

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Greenhouse Gases

The Role of CO2

Video -NASA: https://time.com/6291042/nasa-video-...lctg=206908353

Article - https://time.com/6291042/nasa-video-...lctg=206908353

What do CT'ers think of this anthropogenicist's view of CO2 (The Naturalist's have posted above contradictory information)?

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Hi Bob,
If you are so worried about CO2 levels, please ask Justin to issue orders to put out all the fires which are raging. As per CNN, the govt. isn't even trying: "It’s expensive to do so, ecologically undesirable, and kind of just messing with nature,” said Daniel Perrakis, a fire scientist with the Canadian Forest Service... Not putting out fires is fulfilling the dreams of the 'climate change anxious/alarmist' arsonists!

[Dilip Panjwani]

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6329878057112

[Bob Gillanders]

Scientists have been warning us about climate change (global warming) for decades. The science is very complicated, but we now have 50 years of data to support the premise that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause. We need to free ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels. Our options include renewables (solar panels, windmills) and nuclear.

The fossil fuel industry is very profitable. It has a strong lobby to continue business as usual until we all come to our senses and develop those alternate energy solutions. Fortunately, there are success stories on development of renewables.

From my favourite blogger, potholer54, this recent video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vInH..._channel=MSNBC

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob G:

Thanks for contributing to the conversation again.....as one of the anthropogenicists!

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Thanks, Bob G. It is essential to have alternate sources of energy, as fossil fuels, including coal, won't last for very long.
It is not necessary, however, to start forest fires, and to not put them out once started, in order to keep climate change in the spotlight...

[Bob Armstrong]

Our Statements on Climate Change

We have been using "The Conversation Format" for our discussion on negative climate change.

The goal is to reach some commonly accepted statements about the issue (Accepted by the various sides on this issue: Anthropogenicists, Naturalists; Others).

We have done quite well, and for a while had 4 statements that qualified.

Then some questions were put re the statements, and we dealt with them. Outstanding (As of April 29, 2023) are some comments by Sid Belzberg on all 4 Statements. So we need to deal with whether any revisions are required due to them (See below after each Statement).

But in the meantime, here are the statements as they currently stand:

"Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)"

(Following a "Conversation Format" protocol)

Statement # 1: Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change". It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the problem. Currently subject of discussion (Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Bob, concerning statement 1, you are presuming there is a "problem." That is not established yet.")

Statement # 2: Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future. (Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Bob, concerning statement 2. - Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years.")

Statement # 3: From 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850]; 1650 is earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem. (Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Bob, concerning statement 3. Given that heart of the early Industrial Revolution started in the UK, where manmade CO2 emissions were significant, it is an excellent platform to analyze the data. Again, no agreement yet about whether there is a problem.")

Statement # 4. For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.
[Note: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.] (Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Concerning statement 4, what is the source of your data and methodology concerning Co2 concentrations PPM in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years? The data you refer to in statement 3 shows that rate of temp. Increase is a modest (.5 degrees per century) before and after manmade CO2 emissions.)

For Sid's more general comments in his post, please refer to it.

Given the recent exchanges between Bob Gillanders (Post # 1415), Myself (Post # 1416) and Dilip Panjwani (Post # 1417), I would propose an additional Statement # 5 for discussion:

Statement # 5. (Proposal) It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite.

OK CT'ers - you can now have a go at any of the 4 statements (Including Sid's outstanding comments), and my new proposal for a Statement # 5. Of course, the best comment is to present a full revised statement as your proposal for a substitution.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal;are finite

When people think of fossil fuels, they often picture dinosaur bones turning into oil, but in reality, the majority of fossil fuels come from the remains of ancient marine microorganisms,

Most organic material that eventually turns into fossil fuels comes from plants, algae, and plankton that lived millions of years ago. When these organisms died, they fell to the bottoms of ancient seas, lakes, and wetlands, where they were buried under layers of sediment. Over time, heat and pressure transformed this material into peat, coal, oil, and natural gas.

Dinosaurs could theoretically contribute to this process, but the amount of organic material from dinosaurs is tiny compared to the huge amounts of plant and marine life that existed in prehistoric times. So, while the idea of our cars running on "dinosaur juice" is popular in the public imagination, it's more accurate to think of fossil fuels as coming from ancient, microscopic sea life and plant matter.

Large oil companies have perpetrated this myth to give the illusion of scarcity and, from time to time, created artificial shortages to accelerate profits with higher prices.

In theory, this is a finite resource, but it is not scarce and likely would take several hundred years to deplete entirely.

[Bob Armstrong]

A very thorough and enlightening review Sid.........thanks........

In the light of your comments, I would like to propose a revision to the second sentence of Statement # 5 as follows:

Statement # 5 (Proposed Revision to 2nd sentence) Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought; but accessibility may be somewhat difficult (the bottoms of ancient seas, lakes, and wetlands).

What do CT'ers, including Sid, think of this revision, to be more accurate on the extent of fossil fuel currently still available.

It is my view that Statements should be very short, and not try to work in a lot of details. We need an "executive summary" approach.

Bob A

[Sid Belzberg]

A very thorough and enlightening review Sid.........thanks........

In the light of your comments, I would like to propose a revision to the second sentence of Statement # 5 as follows:

Statement # 5 (Proposed Revision to 2nd sentence) Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought; but accessibility may be somewhat difficult (the bottoms of ancient seas, lakes, and wetlands).

What do CT'ers, including Sid, think of this revision, to be more accurate on the extent of fossil fuel currently still available.

It is my view that Statements should be very short, and not try to work in a lot of details. We need an "executive summary" approach.

Bob A

Accessibility may be somewhat difficult (the bottoms of ancient seas, lakes, and wetlands)

No, this is also incorrect, for example, the vast oil fields of Saudi Arabia, like most petroleum sources around the world, were formed largely from the remains of ancient marine organisms, primarily microscopic plankton (phytoplankton and zooplankton).

These microorganisms lived in ancient oceans hundreds of millions of years ago. When they died, their remains fell to the sea floor and were gradually buried by sediment. Over millions of years, the intense heat and pressure of being buried under miles of rock and sediment transformed this organic matter into petroleum and natural gas.

This process also led to the formation of source rocks and reservoir rocks, which are critical for the creation of oil fields. The oil generated in the source rocks moves up through the earth and accumulates in reservoir rocks, which are typically porous and can hold large amounts of oil and gas.

So while the public imagination may often link oil with dinosaurs, the truth is that the tiny, often overlooked plankton are the unsung heroes of the fossil fuel world.

table 1 shows that the EIA estimates the world holds 3,357 BBOE in technically recoverable oil and an additional 3,813.7 BBOE of natural gas. Both values are conventional plus unconventional resource estimates. The USGS global undiscovered technically recoverable conventional oil and gas resources are also given, as well as a peer-reviewed unconventional resource estimate by Hongjun Wang and colleagues. The estimates vary but lie in the same ballpark.

Table 1. Various estimates of technically recoverable resources of oil and gas in BBOE.



Global coal resources are estimated to be 860 billion tonnes. In 2019 global coal production and consumption was 7,953 million tonnes (Mt), and it generated 24.2 BBOE of energy, roughly 0.00304 BBOE/Mt. If the estimate of 860 billion tonnes of unproduced coal is accurate, it represents over 2,616 BBOE of energy.

The globe has been producing fossil fuels for a long time, yet technically recoverable resources continue to grow; we can expect resource estimates to increase in the future (also see here). The main reason resource estimates increase is new technology. The projections of energy consumption shown in Figure 3 sum to 3,264.3 BBOE of energy between 2022 and 2050, and the total projected renewable energy production totals 79.3, which is only 2.4% of what is required. The remainder must be from fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants take too long to permit and build, and little hydroelectric generation will be added between now and 2050.

Between natural gas, oil, and coal, we have technically recoverable resources of 9,785 BBOE, or three times as much fossil fuel energy as we will need before 2050. More importantly, we will have a lot left over.


At $119 per barrel of oil, $66 per ton of coal, and $7.28 per MMBTU (as of 6/15/2022) no economic constraints are preventing the development of our abundant natural energy resources. However, the hurdles of political, regulatory, and judicial (as in environmental lawsuits) are currently prohibitive. Global prosperity and energy availability are very strongly correlated; if fossil fuels are curtailed, more people will become impoverished, global health will decline, and it is clear that growth in renewables will not make up the difference.

World governments are clearly on a dangerous and unsustainable path. Fossil fuels are essential to our well-being and survival. People know this and want to buy them; thus, we observe high prices in a time of abundant natural resources. Only the governments stand in the way – our elected officials and the unelected bureaucrats. We need to change our governments radically and quickly. The impact of greenhouse gases is small and may even be beneficial. This is not true of our current governments.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Global prosperity and energy availability are very strongly correlated; if fossil fuels are curtailed, more people will become impoverished, global health will decline, and it is clear that growth in renewables will not make up the difference.

But the good news for the climate-anxious is that fossil fuels are definitely finite, and the happy-go-lucky way we, in our largely climate-indifferent world, are using the same, we may run out of them in a century or so! So not much to worry, Bob A and Bob G... as Sid has pointed out, not much of a global warming is likely in just a century or so...

But, did you hear of the 'shady' idea Biden & Co. have of reducing the sunlight reaching us? You may have to start worrying about solar panels going out of business then, though...
https://www.foxnews.com/media/white-...climate-change

[Bob Armstrong]

Statement # 5

In the light of Sid's post # 1421, and Dilip's Post # 1422, I would propose a revision of the 2nd sentence of proposed Statement # 5 to remove the controversial part challenged by Sid. The proposed full statement now reads:

Statement # 5 (Proposal) It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.

Please note that I have introduced a slight revision by including in renewables "tidal" & "water turbines".

So how are we doing? Are there more revisions CT'ers would like to put forward for Statement # 5 (And take a chance of a landslide of criticism)?

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Arising out of the above:

1. Is "renewable energy" technology less expensive than the technology for fossil fuel extraction?

2. Which source produces energy that is strongest (Most packed per unit)? (Not sure I've worded this quite correctly....someone revise it if it can be made clearer).

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Let me take another try at Question # 2 above:

Alternate Q # 2: Which Source provides the most units of energy per minute per $ 1 cost of production?

Is this better stated?

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)