Aaaarrrrgggghhhh
Got the decimal place wrong, it is 73 years.

Aaaarrgghhh again, I must be getting tired or something.

he rate declines and may take 200 years at 1 or 2 barrels a day.
should be
he rate declines and may take 200 years at 1000 or 2000 barrels a day.

Zero on 6 & 10 here today. Lousy sky stick.

"Oil in 1900 = 100 in 2016 approx 10
Coal in 1900 = 80 in 2016 approx 8 to 10"

Utter rubbish. Current EROI for coal is somewhere around 40, up from 30 in the early 1950s.

Current EROI for oil approx 20. Somewhat lower for shale oil.

But what any of that's got to do with your original assertion that "There is not enough economically available fossil fuels to cause the warming that the models predict" is is unclear to me and, I suspect, unclear to you.

If we start to run out of these resources their price will go up which will both increase the EROI and increase supply. Economics 101. Peak oilers always ignore economics 101.

In the meantime...

http://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/08/bp-just-discovered-a-billion-barrels-of-oil-in-gulf-of-mexico.html

Oh and Bazz, that you didn't even attempt to address the issue as to how much fossil fuel we need to burn to get to the levels predicted by the models tells me that you haven't got the faintest idea.

Belly continues to assert that he follows the science:

"How did so many like me who believe the science get it so wrong"

Here's a point I made a while back pointing out that there is all sorts of "the science" and that others who disagree with him also follow "the science".

When I made this point last time, Belly suddenly disappeared from the thread. I wonder what he'll do this time?

"Foxy, Belly, SR and others all claim to be following the science. Here's just one of hundreds of papers I could mention which dispute the consensus ....

Smirnov, 2018 : "The contribution to the global temperature change due to anthropogenic injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, i.e. resulted from combustion of fossil fuels, is approximately 0.02 K now." http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6/meta

(FYG .02K is approx 0.02 celsius)

This and many other papers are saying there is barely any discernible affect on temperatures from CO2.

Do you accept the science? If not why not? And on what basis do you describe people who do accept this science as 'deniers'?"

mhaze given you understand my contempt for any thing you say
Based only on content and nick picking
Have you considered dropping it?

No belly, I'll continue to point out your cant and utter inability to engage in any scrutiny of your views, such as they are.

Follow the science? - you can't follow something you utterly misunderstand.