Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 120 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

*sighs* .. Oil does not come from dinosaurs. 

Crude oil on earth comes from the buildup and compression of marine plankton, starting at the bottom of the sea, and takes millions of years to get to the deposits we can use. It is an excruciatingly slow process operating on geological timescales.

Coal comes from forests, ancient forests. Forests so ancient they predate all the living things that are able to consume dead trees. Back when trees were new, their corpses would just pile up.

But whatever, if we're going for full on gleeful ignorance lets at least make it interesting. My money is on hollow earth pixies pooping petrol.

So are you basing that on the idea that because most oil pumped up has biomarkers in it that show that sort of organic material? The water in my well at times has bacteria in it as well as minerals. Should I therefore conclude that water has an organic and mineral origin or that in the water table surrounding it, the water is in contact with organic and mineral deposits?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no natural "oil table" created by magical unknown physical processes that just happen to have been polluted with bits of dead oceanic biomass.

Even if it was a thing, and it's assuredly not, it still doesn't make it ok to burn the magic oil in atmosphere without a care in the world.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

So are you basing that on the idea that because most oil pumped up has biomarkers in it that show that sort of organic material? The water in my well at times has bacteria in it as well as minerals. Should I therefore conclude that water has an organic and mineral origin or that in the water table surrounding it, the water is in contact with organic and mineral deposits?

Given that we find water in the interstellar medium, and that all Earth's living organisms need it, why would anyone conclude that organic processes produce it? We also find precursor organic molecules in the interstellar medium. Even if you posit an endless abiotic source for carbon fuels, the climate change discussion doesn't change. It's not the availability of combustible carbon that's limiting our future, it's the availability of a habitable environment in the face of moving that carbon from the ground to the sky.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Given that we find water in the interstellar medium, and that all Earth's living organisms need it, why would anyone conclude that organic processes produce it? We also find precursor organic molecules in the interstellar medium. Even if you posit an endless abiotic source for carbon fuels, the climate change discussion doesn't change. It's not the availability of combustible carbon that's limiting our future, it's the availability of a habitable environment in the face of moving that carbon from the ground to the sky.

May I remind you that it was you who asked for a citation when I opined that oil was of an abiotic origin? If you don't think it has any bearing on the climate change discussion (which I agree with) why did you ask for it? Far be it from you to pass up on a strawman argument especially if it is a low hanging one I suppose. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

May I remind you that it was you who asked for a citation when I opined that oil was of an abiotic origin? If you don't think it has any bearing on the climate change discussion (which I agree with) why did you ask for it? Far be it from you to pass up on a strawman argument especially if it is a low hanging one I suppose. :)

Your credibility has bearing on any discussion you're in, as does mine.

ETA: There is also a difference between erecting straw men and knocking them over.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Your credibility has bearing on any discussion you're in, as does mine.

The moment you asked for a citation my credibility was immaterial, so again a strawman.

In any case oil is oil regardless if it has bits of organic material in it or not. Since it would appear that it can be formed abiotically, the question leads to how fast that process can happen and therefore how much can be released into the atmosphere by all sources to achieve a balance point at whatever ppm is set as the ideal. Personally I think we could probably go up to 500 ppm safely as it would promote even more plant growth and make it easier to feed the earth's population. That is of course just my own thinking and I am sure there are some that would disagree that even at 410 ppm it is already too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

The moment you asked for a citation my credibility was immaterial, so again a strawman.

In any case oil is oil regardless if it has bits of organic material in it or not. Since it would appear that it can be formed abiotically, the question leads to how fast that process can happen and therefore how much can be released into the atmosphere by all sources to achieve a balance point at whatever ppm is set as the ideal. Personally I think we could probably go up to 500 ppm safely as it would promote even more plant growth and make it easier to feed the earth's population. That is of course just my own thinking and I am sure there are some that would disagree that even at 410 ppm it is already too much.

There is no balance point !

Burning oil does not form a part of any natural cycle. If it wasn't for us, it would never be burnt!

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abiogenic petroleum origin is a body of hypotheses which propose that petroleum and natural gas deposits are mostly formed by inorganic means, rather than by the decomposition of organisms. Thomas Gold's deep gas hypothesis states that some natural gas deposits were formed out of hydrocarbons deep in the Earth's mantle. Theories explaining the origin of petroleum as abiotic, however, are generally not well accepted by the scientific community, and are rejected by most researchers and scientific theories on the subject.

 

 Glasby, Geoffrey P. (2006). "Abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons: a historical overview" (PDF). Resource Geology. 56 (1): 85–98. doi:10.1111/j.1751-3928.2006.tb00271.x.

Earlier studies of mantle-derived rocks from many places have shown that hydrocarbons from the mantle region can be found widely around the globe. However, the content of such hydrocarbons is in low concentration.[2] While there may be large deposits of abiotic hydrocarbons, globally significant amounts of abiotic hydrocarbons are deemed unlikely.[3]

Sherwood Lollar, B.; Westgate, T.D.; Ward, J.D.; Slater, G.F.; Lacrampe-Couloume, G. (2002). "Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs". Nature. 446 (6880): 522–524. Bibcode:2002Natur.416..522S. doi:10.1038/416522a. PMID 11932741. S2CID 4407158.

 

Seems this theory has been tried, tested and proven unworthy.. (sorry I can't figure out how to get rid of this blue background.)

Edited by Finite
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

The moment you asked for a citation my credibility was immaterial, so again a strawman.

In any case oil is oil regardless if it has bits of organic material in it or not. Since it would appear that it can be formed abiotically, the question leads to how fast that process can happen and therefore how much can be released into the atmosphere by all sources to achieve a balance point at whatever ppm is set as the ideal. Personally I think we could probably go up to 500 ppm safely as it would promote even more plant growth and make it easier to feed the earth's population. That is of course just my own thinking and I am sure there are some that would disagree that even at 410 ppm it is already too much.

You're now attempting to resurrect your straw man. Could you explain how the creation rate of carbon fuels below the Earth's surface affects the habitable ecosphere's ability to soak it up? If it doesn't, your use of the word "balance" is nonsense.

We're currently averaging 415ppm and look to reach 500 in the next few decades.  If you define 500 as the safe limit, we're going to shoot significantly past it, even if we start pressing the brake pedal now. There are positive feedback elements in this problem. Once engaged, it may be impossible to stop them.

CO2 vs photosynthesis is a two dimensional relationship in a problem space of far more dimensions. The increase in plant production with C02 is nitrogen limited and nutritional value declines if CO2 levels rise too high. Natural plant growth (forests, prairies, etc) looks to increase only in the short term until nitrogen availability limits productivity gains. There's also the issue of temperature and precipitation.

As with Covid-19 treatments, lab results don't necessarily match real world results.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2021 at 9:40 PM, Moondira said:
On 6/17/2021 at 4:55 PM, Luna Bliss said:

Cherry Garcia ice cream...that stuff is evil...

My favorite 😁

Mine as well, although Rocky Road and Butter Pecan are a close 2nd.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, though the ice cream discussion may appear as a derail, it is not.  This is because as climate change destroys our habitat then our refrigeration will be in short supply, and so we must eat as much ice cream as possible NOW!   :)

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, here's a more complete quote.

Quote

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme801/node/486

  • The world will run out of oil in 10 years."
    • - U.S. Bureau of Mines (1914)
  • "The world will run out of oil in 13 years."
    • - U.S. Department of the Interior (1939 and 1950)
  • "The world will run out of oil and other fossil fuels by 1990."
    • - Paul Erlich, Limits to Growth (1973)
  • "The world will run out of oil in 2030, and other fossil fuels in 2050."
    • - Paul Erlich, Beyond the Limit (2002)

... <skipped several paragraphs> ...

The reality is not that we are "running out of oil," but rather that we are transitioning from a period of easily-accessible oil at low prices to an era of increasingly unconventional production, which has higher costs. Companies will not try to develop these unconventional resources unless consumers are willing to pay the price (economic and environmental) or governments heavily subsidize oil production or consumption. So far, the world has found a way to consume plenty of $100 per barrel oil. At some point, unconventional oil exploration will get so expensive that consumers will look to lower-cost alternatives. Oil will price itself out of the market before the world truly runs out. The increasing popularity of hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, bicycle transportation in urban areas and even natural gas vehicles are examples of such a shift, even if government policies are required to affect the decisions that consumers make.

So, the US Government predicted in 1914 that the world would run out of oil in 10 years, which computes to 1924.  It is now 2021, and we're not anywhere close to out of oil yet.  

I agree with the author that "Oil will price itself out of the market before the world truly runs out."

I agree with the author that "The increasing popularity of hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, bicycle transportation in urban areas and even natural gas vehicles are examples of such a shift, even if government policies are required to affect the decisions that consumers make."

The shift in technologies seems to be working out well; the market is taking care of the details with help from government incentives and disincentives.

As for climate change more broadly, yes, I agree it is happening.  I am optimistic that all will work out okay and that 100 years from now, we'll look back and see what we got right and what we got wrong.  I agree it is complicated, which is why I think the Government's role is to create incentives and disincentives and let the market handle the details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 120 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...