Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
BlackDragonShadow
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 03:47:00 -
[1]
Is it possible that there isn't enough fossil fuels left to damage the atmosphere to catastrophic levels? I never thought about that and wonder what you think.
|
Tef42
Gallente Monsters
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 04:21:00 -
[2]
Originally by: BlackDragonShadow Is it possible that there isn't enough fossil fuels left to damage the atmosphere to catastrophic levels? I never thought about that and wonder what you think.
Only one way to find out
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 04:32:00 -
[3]
We'll find out soon enough.
EVE issues|Mining revamp|Build stuff|Make ISK |
Taedrin
Gallente Golden Mechanization Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 04:42:00 -
[4]
What do you mean by "damage" the atmosphere? Do you mean the removal of the atmosphere, or a reduction of the atmospheric pressure? Or do you mean a change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere?
Fossil fuels produce mostly inert chemicals when combusted (mainly carbon dioxide and water). I suppose "dirty" fuels like coal also produce some other pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide. I suppose you could burn as much of these fuels in a heavily populated area as possible and cause mass asphyxiation. Over a long period of constant burning of these fuels in a heavily populated area you could cause health complications through smog.
As for the green house effect - who knows? Politicians, scientists and your average layperson (such as myself) have been arguing about whether humans have a significant effect on global climate change or not for years now.
|
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 04:44:00 -
[5]
It depends on what you define as a fossil fuel. Do you mean just oil? Are you taking coal into account (If not we have a long, long time to go). Then there is the whole matter of methane hydrate which hasnt even been tapped yet. On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod! |
LUH 3472
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 04:53:00 -
[6]
......srsly
|
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 05:38:00 -
[7]
The true horror that is coal. And this is just the tip of the iceberg on what coal actually is. There're many articles on the effects of coal on nature and the world, which are being ignored because it's cheaper to burn coal (and die from it) than to use alternatives.
What are the effects of man on nature? Devastating but how devastating is yet unknown. Time will tell how these 2C, that the G20 have pledged themselves to, will effect the world. One thing is certain, however, skiing on natural snow will, soon, be impossible, giving corporations the chance to manufacture artificial snow, and thus raking more profit.
Look at it on the bright side, corporate profit is really important, because when we've cleared the world of all the forests and have killed the seas we can always eat money.
|
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 05:48:00 -
[8]
Originally by: LUH 3472 ......srsly
no long illegible post
which everyone ignores?
the power of troll is weakening
in you
you should poast some more
because we will be very disappointed in you
...srsly
|
ceaon
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 08:37:00 -
[9]
Originally by: BlackDragonShadow Is it possible that there isn't enough fossil fuels left to damage the atmosphere to catastrophic levels? I never thought about that and wonder what you think.
the only problem the co2 dont damage the ozone area you hairspray does
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
EvE FTW |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 09:04:00 -
[10]
Running out of fossil fuels without a sustainable replacement is a far more serious issue than any amount of global warming. We'd fall back to pre-industrial technology rather permanently. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
|
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 09:34:00 -
[11]
The question is nonsense.
Oil is a renewable resource.
Humanity is incapable of damaging the atmosphere.
|
Sera Ryskin
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 09:47:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Mr Reeth Oil is a renewable resource.
Uh, what? This is a troll post, right? Please tell me you don't really believe that... ==========
Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 09:54:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Sera Ryskin
Originally by: Mr Reeth Oil is a renewable resource.
Uh, what? This is a troll post, right? Please tell me you don't really believe that...
Well, it's not really wrong. Oil *will* renew itself, given time. It just takes a couple million years. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 10:17:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Mr Reeth on 21/07/2009 10:24:46 For some reason westerners are completely unaware that there are actually TWO theories regarding the creation of "fossil" fuels.
One theory is, as everybody knows, that living things died, got buried, and turned into fuel.
The other is that these fuels are produced in the Earth's crust.
Here's an article for your reading pleasure.
And here's a quote from the article.
Says Dr. J.F. Kenney, a long-time research on the origins of hydrocarbons:
"For almost a century, various predictions have been made that the human race was imminently going to run out of available petroleum. The passing of time has proven all those predictions to have been utterly wrong. It is pointed out here how all such predictions have depended fundamentally upon an archaic hypothesis from the 18th century that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolved from biological detritus, and was accordingly limited in abundance."
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 10:38:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Mr Reeth Edited by: Mr Reeth on 21/07/2009 10:24:46 For some reason westerners are completely unaware that there are actually TWO theories regarding the creation of "fossil" fuels.
One theory is, as everybody knows, that living things died, got buried, and turned into fuel.
The other is that these fuels are produced in the Earth's crust.
Here's an article for your reading pleasure.
And here's a quote from the article.
Says Dr. J.F. Kenney, a long-time research on the origins of hydrocarbons:
"For almost a century, various predictions have been made that the human race was imminently going to run out of available petroleum. The passing of time has proven all those predictions to have been utterly wrong. It is pointed out here how all such predictions have depended fundamentally upon an archaic hypothesis from the 18th century that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolved from biological detritus, and was accordingly limited in abundance."
Now if your link had any scientific source links, it'd would even be worth considering as being credible, despite the vivid coloring. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 10:51:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Now if your link had any scientific source links, it'd would even be worth considering as being credible, despite the vivid coloring.
It sited a book and a number specific doctors and scientists.
Are you not even open to the possibility that a theory from the 1700's might be wrong?
But I guess if it were true it would mean that the oil companies were unfairly charging high prices and buying the opinions of media and some scientists. And I guess that is just silly.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 11:00:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Abrazzar on 21/07/2009 11:03:24
Originally by: Mr Reeth It sited a book and a number specific doctors and scientists.
Same do the creationists, yet they have zero credibility.
Edit: When it comes to reality, I do not care about possibilities. Either it is or it isn't. If it is real, there will be verifiable evidence and scientific proof. As long as there isn't anything like that, it's meaningless. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 11:35:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Same do the creationists, yet they have zero credibility.
You criticize the article for not having sources then when I point out that it does, you say it doesn't matter?
Originally by: Abrazzar
Edit: When it comes to reality, I do not care about possibilities. Either it is or it isn't. If it is real, there will be verifiable evidence and scientific proof. As long as there isn't anything like that, it's meaningless.
I understand that as a general rule. But it really doesn't apply in this case. There is evidence. And the evidence for oil and natural gas being a product of inorganic chemistry deep within the Earth exists and is sound.
And many researchers are saying that it is impossible that organic matter can turn into oil. They claim the math just isn't there to support this magical transformation. You do know that there is methane and helium in space right? Do you think there were dinosaurs in space too? Everyone is, naturally, entitled to their own beliefs and opinions. If you want to continue believing that oil, coal and natural gas come from decayed organic matter under pressure for millions of years, go ahead, you may be right. I don't claim to know with 100% certainty. But rejecting an idea based solely on the fact that it was not in your elementary school science book is pure idiocy.
Here's another article, just for fun.
|
Hornix
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 11:50:00 -
[19]
31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
|
Victriferusianus
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 11:51:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Victriferusianus on 21/07/2009 11:52:36 More information about abiogenic petroleum with citations also: Abiogenic petroleum Seems like abiogenic petroleum theory is not favoured by many scientists today. |
|
Victriferusianus
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 11:57:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Hornix 31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
That's just sad. Stop living in the dream world where our actions have no consequences. Pretty much all scientific studies agree that we are causing the global warming. It would be nice to think that this is not the case, but it is. We'll soon accidentally the whole planet. |
Doctor Penguin
Amarr Heavy Influence Atropos.
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 11:57:00 -
[22]
Oh come on, I have a GCSE in Dual Award Science and I know that bilogical molecules + heat + pressure + time = hydrocarbons. The real reason that we keep thinking oil will run out in the near future is because we're idiots and rarely factor in that more oil will be discovered, more efficiencies will be made and because you went to university doesn't make you psychic. ________________________________________________
Originally by: CCP Soundwave Get out Mindstar, or I'll punch you in the ovaries. |
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 12:05:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Victriferusianus Edited by: Victriferusianus on 21/07/2009 11:52:36 More information about abiogenic petroleum with citations also: Abiogenic petroleum Seems like abiogenic petroleum theory is not favoured by many scientists today.
Some good info in there. And while the theory is obviously not a popular one at the moment. There is still research being done and the article makes it clear that there is actually a debate on the issue rather than it being the product of some fringe group of quacks.
|
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 12:13:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Victriferusianus
Pretty much all scientific studies agree that we are causing the global warming.
This is just not the case.
|
Victriferusianus
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 12:27:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Mr Reeth
Originally by: Victriferusianus
Pretty much all scientific studies agree that we are causing the global warming.
This is just not the case.
I am pretty sure it is. I remember reading about a big review of something like 3000 scientific articles about climate change and our part in it, and the vast majority, (maybe 2500 or something?) concluded that we are causing it. However I couldn't find the review article with quick search so if someone has a link to it or some other big review, please post it. |
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 12:39:00 -
[26]
Is this it?
Global warming is a scam. The evidence is so overwhelmingly against it that they don't even call it global warming anymore. Didn't you get the email to refer to it as "climate change" now?
Even the instrumentation they use to gather data gets tampered with or placed in suspicious locations.
|
Victriferusianus
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 13:09:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Mr Reeth Is this it?
Global warming is a scam. The evidence is so overwhelmingly against it that they don't even call it global warming anymore. Didn't you get the email to refer to it as "climate change" now?
Even the instrumentation they use to gather data gets tampered with or placed in suspicious locations.
Thanks for the insteresting link. I skimmed through some of the many articles mentioned and linked in the report. All of the ones that I checked had a major flaw: they were not published in peer reviewed journals or conferences. So it is not a review of the current state of the art in climate change study and I am still looking for a real review of the recent scientific literature. |
VanNostrum
The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 13:23:00 -
[28]
Originally by: BlackDragonShadow Is it possible that there isn't enough fossil fuels left to damage the atmosphere to catastrophic levels? I never thought about that and wonder what you think.
it is not possible that there isn't enough fossil fuel to damage the atmosphere to catastrophic levels.
As a petrolum and natural gas engineer I have to inform you that there is a big danger that can wipe out human race along with most of the species on earth: methande hidrate.
Methane Hidrate is mostly methane gas trapped on ocean beds. Unlike petroleum or natural gas it is not contained in a closed environment like a reservoir. The methane gas is simply frozen under the extreme pessure caused by the weight of the water above. Once you try to extract it, it melts at an incredible rate causing a chain reaction, and a large volume of methane gas can get released into the atmosphere. Methane gas is 26 times better in storing heat in atmosphere than CO2. There is more hidrate on ocean floors than all the fossil fuels ever extracted by drilling.
Some petroleum companies successfully extract this hidrate, however danger comes from the ocean temperatures dropping due to global warming. Above a critical temperature this methane gas will be released into the atmosphere at a very short amount of time, heating the atmosphere causing a mass extinction like in PûTr extinction event (The Great Dying) where 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct 251 million years ago, it is the only known mass extinction of insects. It is believed that a "methane burp" could have released 10,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent - twice as much as in all the fossil fuels on Earth - increasing global temperatures by about 6 ¦C (10.8 ¦F) near the equator and more at higher latitudes.
There is no guarantee this kind of "burp" won't happen. And if anything there is more methane to burp out than ever before, since there's much more methane stored over the last 251 million years, meaning the results would be much more devastating than the P-Tr event.
|
Iasius
Mercurialis Inc. Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 13:37:00 -
[29]
Cows are responsible for 18% of all greenhouse gases. Those 1.5 billion cows emit more gases more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.
It also takes 990 litres to produce one litre of milk.
Cow emissions
The Environmental Protection Agency in the USA is considering an emission tax for the bovine fiends.
EPA Moo Tax
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. ~Saint |
Daxel Magmalloy
Caldari UK Corp
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 13:54:00 -
[30]
This has got to be a troll. Nevertheless it's amazing how it is bringing out all the igorance lol. Global warming has simply fallen out of fashion to make way for a more accurate description of climate change. They are not the same thing though.
Anyway if the climate change skeptics are wrong, and we end up mutilating the only planet that supports human life beyond repair, we can always just all move to teh moon and start again right ? I mean, it's only the planet we all (ostriches included) live on, right?
Damn, people are stupid. Personally I believe that if we are idiotic enough to ignore all the (continuously growing) evidence of catastrophic climate change then we deserve what we get. And reading this thread doesn't give much hope tbh!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |