Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 post
Share on other sites

Put 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 post
Share on other sites

An assistant professor of philosophy wants to lock up "deniers":

https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111

I'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 post
Share on other sites

Oh, let the idiots out of the woodwork--by their spoor ye shall know them--and what they represent becomes almost self-refuting.

--Brant

of course, they still must be hosed down and laughed out of town

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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

Almost 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 post
Share on other sites

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

Almost 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

Why not? "Down Below" is not "on Earth."

--Brant

you didn't say enough, Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Almost 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

Why not? "Down Below" is not "on Earth."

--Brant

you didn't say enough, Bob

Either 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 post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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:

clip_image00210.png

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.

mf.gif
Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

clip_image00210.png

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.

mf.gif

An interesting pattern of lows... loosely about every 3.5 years.

All who adapt will prevail. :smile:

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

Here is what Freeman Dyson has to say about global warming:

http://noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman_dyson.php

Dyson 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 post
Share on other sites

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