Brant Gaede Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Abiotic oil is no more than hypothetical. Regardless, there is so much oil available for extraction the only thing that matters is competing cost of extractions and conmingled politics. This will be true no matter if abiotic oil is real or not. The only practical reason to consider the idea is to help figure out methods of extraction--hundreds of years from now.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Still waiting on Keystone XL approval speaking of politics it won't happen until Obamba is no longer dictator in chief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 BP is "before the present," although it is also associated with "British Petroleum." If it appears where one might see AD or BC you may correctly presume it is a *time* designation, before the present, which gets religion and ethnicity out of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 15, 2014 Author Share Posted March 15, 2014 Good article:http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbines-health.htmPut the wind turbines three or four miles out to seas. No one out there to be bothered by the sound. Note this: Wind turbines in Naraganset Bay were quashed by pinko stink liberals who did not want their view of the ocean spoiled. Among them the late Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 An assistant professor of philosophy wants to lock up "deniers":https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111I'm thinking that torture might be worth considering too.Commenter Helen Stream nailed it:...And to the author of this article, why should you not be considered to be deceitful yourself on this, when you cite the discredited '97% of scientists agree' claim in the link as an affirmation of the truth of CAGW and of the criminal culpability of sceptics?The 97.1% is only 97.1 % of the 4014 accepted for assessment---those who agreed , not specifically with the consensus on CAGW, but with the vague wording specifically designed to be impossible for anyone to disagree with ---namely that there is some warming and that humans are responsible for some of it, whether via CO2 or other factors.Cook et al extrapolated that to a claim that 97.1% of scientists agree with the CAGW consensus.A reasonable person would see that, as 'research' designed to get a good number by making it impossible for anyone to not agree with that statement?They may as well have asked, 'Does night follow day?' and then claimed big numbers of agreement or consensus.It was 97% of only 75 abstracts ---and even then apparently they had wrongly included in it a bunch of very famous sceptic scientists who ----the whole world knows---- don't believe in CAGW and have confirmed that.And one of the authors narrowed it down even further, saying...[ 'Among the relatively few abstracts (75 in total) falling in these two categories, 65 (87%) endorsed the consensus view.' ]That's 87%, not 97.1%.It's the warmist scientists you seek to protect by criminalising dissent, who are the ones engaged in contrivance and deception ---red herrings to divert attention from the facts that their models don't work, and the science is crumbling.Any reasonable person would conclude that you yourself are practising to deceive when you end your piece with this sly exhortation to jail dissenters , that belongs in some totalitarian regime backed by gulags----but never in a democracy....You say...[ ' I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.' ]-----J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Oh, let the idiots out of the woodwork--by their spoor ye shall know them--and what they represent becomes almost self-refuting.--Brantof course, they still must be hosed down and laughed out of town Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 I like to fart in the tub, I am sure that contributes to Eva's keeling curve of dissolved gases in the oceans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 of course, they still must be hosed down and laughed out of townIf only it were so easy.Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Hougen Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Apparently, there are non biogenic sources of methane (natural gas) as described here, but most methane is believed to generated by biological processes. However, the fact that methane can be generated biologically or non biologically without waiting for millions of years means that there are self-replenishing sources of energy that humans could exploit.Darrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 19, 2014 Author Share Posted March 19, 2014 Apparently, there are non biogenic sources of methane (natural gas) as described here, but most methane is believed to generated by biological processes. However, the fact that methane can be generated biologically or non biologically without waiting for millions of years means that there are self-replenishing sources of energy that humans could exploit.DarrellAlmost all the hydrogen on Earth is bound up in other compounds, especially water so there cannot be much abiotic methane cooking Down Below.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Apparently, there are non biogenic sources of methane (natural gas) as described here, but most methane is believed to generated by biological processes. However, the fact that methane can be generated biologically or non biologically without waiting for millions of years means that there are self-replenishing sources of energy that humans could exploit.DarrellAlmost all the hydrogen on Earth is bound up in other compounds, especially water so there cannot be much abiotic methane cooking Down Below.Ba'al ChatzafWhy not? "Down Below" is not "on Earth."--Brantyou didn't say enough, Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 19, 2014 Author Share Posted March 19, 2014 Apparently, there are non biogenic sources of methane (natural gas) as described here, but most methane is believed to generated by biological processes. However, the fact that methane can be generated biologically or non biologically without waiting for millions of years means that there are self-replenishing sources of energy that humans could exploit.DarrellAlmost all the hydrogen on Earth is bound up in other compounds, especially water so there cannot be much abiotic methane cooking Down Below.Ba'al ChatzafWhy not? "Down Below" is not "on Earth."--Brantyou didn't say enough, BobEither the hydrogen in the depths combined with oxygen or other element to form compounds of the free hydrogen leak up through the cracks into the open air and combined with other elements on the surface. The Thermodynamics of hydrogen is to spontaneously form compounds. Free hydrogen gas does not like running around without the companionship of other ions. Yes. abiotic methane is possible and if there is any loose carbon nearby one of the alkanes (of which methane is the simplest) will form. In the presence of heat and pressure such a combination is likely. On the other hand formation of very complicated polymers such as petroleum is not particularly likely. I will have to do some research on the entropy of the various chemical compositions. If the entropy of the complicate molecules is lower than that of the simpler molecules of hydrogen (H2 in particular) then thermodynamically abiotic petroleum is unlikely.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Global Warming? What Global Warming?Posted: 31 Mar 2014 10:14 AM PDT(John Hinderaker)Steve is, I believe, cloistered as he plows through the IPCC’s latest report on the baleful consequences of “climate change.” Meanwhile, alarmist headlines are everywhere. But more sophisticated observers are asking, global warming? What global warming?At Watts Up With That, Christopher Moncton adds the just-reported HadCRUT4 numbers to the dataset of datasets, which shows zero warming this millennium:We are, of course, living in a relatively cool era. Global temperatures are colder now than they have been around 90% of the time since the end of the last Ice Age. That being the case, it is likely that it could get warmer in the future, for reasons having little or nothing to do with human activity. In that event, my prediction is that humans will thrive, as we have during every known historical warm era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Global Warming? What Global Warming? Posted: 31 Mar 2014 10:14 AM PDT (John Hinderaker) Steve is, I believe, cloistered as he plows through the IPCC’s latest report on the baleful consequences of “climate change.” Meanwhile, alarmist headlines are everywhere. But more sophisticated observers are asking, global warming? What global warming? At Watts Up With That, Christopher Moncton adds the just-reported HadCRUT4 numbers to the dataset of datasets, which shows zero warming this millennium: We are, of course, living in a relatively cool era. Global temperatures are colder now than they have been around 90% of the time since the end of the last Ice Age. That being the case, it is likely that it could get warmer in the future, for reasons having little or nothing to do with human activity. In that event, my prediction is that humans will thrive, as we have during every known historical warm era. An interesting pattern of lows... loosely about every 3.5 years. All who adapt will prevail. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I recommend everyone take a peek at a geologist’s one hundred thousand year temperature chart. Match warmer temperature periods to what happened to humans and other species. We thrived during warm periods. The truth may also jump out at you, which is that we are in a thousand years old spike within a generally downward dip in climate. No one can guarantee that will continue but clear thinking with more of the facts certainly gives a scientist an edge over people who twist a hypothesis to prove a preconceived notion. Rush Limbaugh made the point the other day that every model that shows man made global warming is a computer model that was deliberately constructed and tweaked to prove a philosophical or monetary point. The global warmists get the grant money. The owners of greenhouse energy companies like Al Gore want to trick you into buying their products. The philosophical totalitarians want to tell everyone else what to do. None of them want continued freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 One should try to give the ardent AGW Alarmists [AL's] a chance. Give them a break. Don't arrive predictably at the assumption that every AL is an anti-mind, anti-freedom collectivist. (I tell myself). Let one first approach GW objectively, and after try to see it from the AL's point of view. But, constantly for me, it keeps coming back to:"How?" how the hell do these guys know with such certainty?-- but also,"Why?" why do so many scientists, pols and public ~desire and want~ AGW to be true?Premises and motives fascinate me most, therefore some unsurprising notions as to the "why":So much vested interest (reputation and wealth); instant social acceptance; "the majority ('consensus') is always right"; being included in the hugest power bloc, perhaps ever; social/statist Nannyism; a mystical fancy of Gaia-ic Perfection; man, the Capitalist-despoiler; a new religion; the new totalitarianism; - etc etc..There's plenty there to pick from, for everybody. Plenty too, for philosophers and psychologists to analyze.(And oh yes, some genuine fear of the prospect of a warming Earth dooming mankind) .My take out, over all: Largely, AL's are not people who exactly honor, or have confidence in the mind (their own included), and who care much for individual liberty."How?". How does even the most eminent scientist begin to grasp the gigantic scale and scope of forces, time and space - the ultimate drivers of 'climate change' - and emerge triumphantly with The One Answer? The most factually informed of scientists is not necessarily an accomplished conceptualist, while a glimmer of an understanding of Global Warming and Cooling I believe requires the highest level of a conceptual mentality.The physical presence of man, in the grand scheme of things, is pretty much puny - his mind is not. Why do AL's exaggerate the first, and diminish the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 (edited) One should try to give the ardent AGW Alarmists [AL's] a chance. Give them a break. Don't arrive predictably at the assumption that every AL is an anti-mind, anti-freedom collectivist. (I tell myself). Let one first approach GW objectively, and after try to see it from the AL's point of view. Tony, your comment is a good jumping-off place, with questions that deserve answering. I am going to answer this in the other Global Warming thread, "Scientific Fraud becoming endemic?" Edited April 5, 2014 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Tony wrote: But, constantly for me, it keeps coming back to: "How?" how the hell do these guys know with such certainty? They don't. Catastrophic human caused global warming is a secular leftist political religion. The weather for the next ten days can't even be accurately predicted. -- but also, "Why?" why do so many scientists, pols and public ~desire and want~ AGW to be true? ...because there's a lot of government money in it. And parasites always go after government money, because they can't actually produce anything useful themselves and can only survive by feeding off of others. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted April 6, 2014 Author Share Posted April 6, 2014 Here is what Freeman Dyson has to say about global warming: http://noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman_dyson.phpDyson is a contemporary of the late Richard Feyman. Dyson is not in his 90's but in his prime he was a physicist in the same class as Feynman. In fact he proved that Feynman's formulation of quantum field theory was mathematically equivalent to that of Julius Schwinger. Feynman, Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga won the nobel prize in physics in 1965 for their work in quantum field theory. These physicists got rid of the infinities for q.f.t. and laid the basis for the later standard model of fields and particles. Freeman Dyson has always been a bit of a rebel and a contrarian and is considered somewhat of an athropomorphic global warming skeptic. He thinks some of the model based predictions made by the I.P.C.C. are absurd. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now