The Political Thread

[Spikes]

Haven't read all the climate change posts, but I will.

Ive just finished 'em. Phew......

[Recrewt]

What do you mean by 'normal reporting'? And there'll always be emphasis on accuracy! It brings up the point about constant refinement mind-though it doesn't change the overall picture I'd say. 

M   

The majority of people do not spend their time reading scientific research papers (myself included) and rely on 'normal reporting' i.e. through journals, magazines, websites and the press that summarise the research.

I think we are over-analysing this now but my point was that the earth is very big and very old and the climate is always changing.  Accurately measuring the climate is hard enough i.e. how many measuring stations do you need to confidently say you have measured the atmosphere at any point in time?  To then try and model the future changes in the climate is monumentally difficult.  Small changes in the accuracy of your data can also have big effects on climate change models.

Accurate ice core data = Sample A, Depth 500 meters, CO2 300 ppmv
Inaccurate ice core data = Sample A, Depth 500 meters, 40,000 years old (+-4000 years)

[The Legendary Shark]

I don't deny the greenhouse effect - it's what keeps us warm at night and maintains the surface of Venus at the temperature of hot lead.

.

I don't deny that burning hydrocarbons releases CO2. My question was what the effect of discovering that the creation of oil was an on-going process - something forced up from the unknown depths rather than a more or less surface phenomena. There's a lot of CO2 in the magma, right? Under great pressure and heat. All that cooking, all those elements, all that time. Anything could be happening down there to replenish those oil wells in which this phenomena has been observed. I think that if this were found to be the case then it would add greatly to the problem.


.

Rain on comets? Well, I'm sure that happens *somewhere* in the universe.  If hydrocarbons appear on worlds as dissimilar as Titan and Earth then isn't it reasonable to ask what similarities there are that might lead to the same substance instead of assuming one process for one world and another for the second? Earth has an abundance of surface life whilst Titan (so far as we know) does not. Both Earth and Titan have warm pressurised interiors. Both have atmospheres and receive sunlight. Of course, there may be a very many ways of producing hydrocarbons - and if we can discover one then maybe we can kill two birds with one stone and cycle CO2 between gas and fuel over and over again. Who knows?

.

And no, I don't know how fossil fuels are formed (with the exception of peat) and neither, I suspect, does anyone else.

.

And Jim - calm down, mate! In the final analysis mine is just one mind amongst 7 billion - what I think doesn't matter a damn and doesn't change anything at all.  What I think is what I think and what you think is what you think - it's the differences that interest me the most. I love engaging with the minds of others - especially the people here who are all vastly more educated than me.

.

I should really stop posting on this thread - I'll never get a tin hat on over my foil helmet

[Hawkmumbler]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel

Petroleum and natural gas are formed by the anaerobic decomposition of remains of organisms including phytoplankton and zooplankton that settled to the sea (or lake) bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions, millions of years ago. Over geological time, this organic matter, mixed with mud, got buried under heavy layers of sediment. The resulting high levels of heat and pressure caused the organic matter to chemically alter, first into a waxy material known as kerogen which is found in oil shales, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis.
There is a wide range of organic, or hydrocarbon, compounds in any given fuel mixture. The specific mixture of hydrocarbons gives a fuel its characteristic properties, such as boiling point, melting point, density, viscosity, etc. Some fuels like natural gas, for instance, contain only very low boiling, gaseous components. Others such as gasoline or diesel contain much higher boiling components.
Terrestrial plants, on the other hand, tend to form coal and methane. Many of the coal fields date to the Carboniferous period of Earth's history. Terrestrial plants also form type III kerogen, a source of natural gas.

Time it took to google. 5 seconds. And this is taught in GCSE classes now. So no. Not such a mystery after all.

[Professor Bear]

Jim - calm down

This is far and away the craziest statement you've made.

[The Legendary Shark]

Yep, that's pretty much what they taught me at school.  They didn't teach me about the oil wells that replenish, though.

[Hawkmumbler]

OK, i'm done. Thats the damn stupidest thing i've read all day.

[TordelBack]

Everyone pile on the Shark! 

But while jumping do remember that if they do nothing else,  Sharky's different views of things are an encouragement to examine what we each know (or think we know), and structure a counter argument, even if only in our heads.  There are few better ways of improving your own understanding of something. I know I've seldom come away from even the apparently-daftest discussions with TLS without learning or realising something new.  And sometimes he's convinced me with his polite persistence (although never on the present topic, I hasten to add).

Keep your pectoral fins up, Shark, you keep things interesting.

[Hawkmumbler]

Alternative opinions are all well and good. But at the end of the day, opinions are just that without proof.

[Professor Bear]

Personally, I believe that the Holocaust happened.

Over to you, Sharky.

[Richmond Clements]

Personally, I believe that the Holocaust happened.

Over to you, Sharky.

Pffft. According to paid historians.

[The Legendary Shark]

Hawkmonger - I posted a link earlier to the New York Times reporting a scientist from Wood's Hole talking about replenishing oil wells. Russian oil companies have known about and used this phenomena for decades.

.

Thanks, Tordels - it's a joy to debate with people like yourself (and many others on this board, I have to say) who don't take my (sometimes simply impishly) contrary views personally. I'm not out to convince anyone of anything - I mean, how could I in all honesty claim other people are wrong without allowing for the possibility of being wrong myself?

.
I also learn a lot from these debates and my thoughts often evolve because of them - although mostly not in directions most of you would agree with!

[The Legendary Shark]

So now I'm a Holocaust denier? Really? Maybe I eat babies and rape pensioners and vote EDL as well?

.

I'm not usually one to take umbrage but I do feel rather upset to be accused, however obliquely, of denying the murders of so many Jews, Gypsies, Communists, mental patients and other undesirables simply because I'm not convinced about certain received wisdom. As far as I'm concerned, as soon as such ad hominim attacks begin any further discussion is pointless.

.

I'm quite ashamed - but prepared to accept that it was just a (very tasteless) joke.

[Ancient Otter]

Hawkmonger - I posted a link earlier to the New York Times reporting a scientist from Wood's Hole talking about replenishing oil wells. Russian oil companies have known about and used this phenomena for decades.

The article of the title says "Geochemist Says Oil Fields May Be Refilled Naturally", if this a major possiblility, surely the oil companies would be all over it instead of the huge investments in fracking and shale oil?

[The Legendary Shark]

I'm sorry for the above outburst.

.

It just cut me quite deeply, is all - given that one of the main reasons I question and challenge government is to prevent similar holocausts occurring again. How many times have you read me quoting, mis-quoting and paraphrasing Pastor Martin Niemoller ("First they came for the Communists...") on this very thread?

.

Anyway, that's my excuse and I hope you'll forgive me.