Relpy to Don: On The Origin Of Oil
in [Design]
|
Prev: quantizer for LT Spice
Next: ESD protections
From: Rich Grise on Google groups on 19 Apr 2010 18:03 On Apr 18, 4:14 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > The evidence for anthropogenic global warming certanly does involve > simulating... ^^^^^^^^^^^^ EXACTLY! IT'S ALL FABRIATION! SLOMAN ADMITS IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cheers! Richard the Dreaded Libertarian, posting by way of Google ;-)
From: krw on 19 Apr 2010 18:41 On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:32:57 -0700 (PDT), angryScientist <abebarker(a)mad.scientist.com> wrote: > >I don't believe everything I was taught in school. I do hold >everything I have been taught up to the light of skepticism. Taking >the stance of devils advocate for a moment I will assume everything I >have been taught is wrong and I must come up with a new explanation. If you believe nothing you've been taught how do you evaluate what you see? How would you ever do science if you have no standards? >So.... > >How would nature get all that carbon underground? It's not very far underground. Much is on the surface. >Carbon dioxide is slightly soluble in water, anyone who drinks soda >pop can attest to that. So when it rains there are millions of gallons >water seeping into the ground carrying who knows how many tones of >carbon dioxide with it. I think man has a minuscule capability of >sequestering carbon dioxide compared to nature. ?So? >I have heard that Russia has a technology to turn carbon dioxide back >into long carbon chains, or fuel. That brings me to my next question; >How could nature do the same thing? Simple. Photosynthesis. Even plants can do it. You kinda need energy to push a bolder up hill, though. ...more than it took for it to roll down. <...>
From: angryScientist on 19 Apr 2010 20:06 I don't believe everything I was taught in school. I do hold everything I have been taught up to the light of skepticism. Taking the stance of devils advocate for a moment I will assume everything I have been taught is wrong and I must come up with a new explanation. So.... How would nature get all that carbon underground? Carbon dioxide is slightly soluble in water, anyone who drinks soda pop can attest to that. So when it rains there are millions of gallons water seeping into the ground carrying who knows how many tones of carbon dioxide with it. I think man has a minuscule capability of sequestering carbon dioxide compared to nature. I have heard that Russia has a technology to turn carbon dioxide back into long carbon chains, or fuel. That brings me to my next question; How could nature do the same thing? If we have water carrying carbon dioxide deep underground we would then need some way to strip the oxygen from the carbon in order for the carbon to bond with other carbon. Perhaps a catalyst of some kind could be used... Wait a minute, underground there are all sorts of minerals of almost every type. Not to mention electricity that flows through the ground (Granted the electric flow through the ground is minuscule but it is there and it could do some thing, to one degree or another). Catalyst would be plentiful in that situation. What if there are pure metals, like calcium, that would strip oxygen from the carbon dioxide and let the carbon concentrate in small pockets in those deep underground water ways. That to me would make more sense of how the carbon gets deep underground rather than having miles of dirt being thrown on top of a forest or something. I have heard of oil fields being sucked dry of oil only to have someone come back decades latter to check it and find even more oil in the previously depleted well. So perhaps an oil cycle is sitting on top of the water cycle and is renewable, depending on whether other elements underground are consumed or not. If something like calcium metal, for instance, were oxidized then the supply of it could be consumed and be nonrenewable. As for bio markers, I don't doubt that some kind of algae could live in underground waterways. Or, perhaps as the water seeps through the surface soil it picks up soluble products of decomposition. I'm sure bacteria could contribute also. I don't know for sure. I am not claiming to know what actually happens underground. I do claim that we don't really know for sure yet. Hell, we act like we just came out of the dark ages or something.
From: angryScientist on 19 Apr 2010 20:10 I don't believe everything I was taught in school. I do hold everything I have been taught up to the light of skepticism. Taking the stance of devils advocate for a moment I will assume everything I have been taught is wrong and I must come up with a new explanation. So.... How would nature get all that carbon underground? Carbon dioxide is slightly soluble in water, anyone who drinks soda pop can attest to that. So when it rains there are millions of gallons water seeping into the ground carrying who knows how many tones of carbon dioxide with it. I think man has a minuscule capability of sequestering carbon dioxide compared to nature. I have heard that Russia has a technology to turn carbon dioxide back into long carbon chains, or fuel. That brings me to my next question; How could nature do the same thing? If we have water carrying carbon dioxide deep underground we would then need some way to strip the oxygen from the carbon in order for the carbon to bond with other carbon. Perhaps a catalyst of some kind could be used... Wait a minute, underground there are all sorts of minerals of almost every type. Not to mention electricity that flows through the ground (Granted the electric flow through the ground is minuscule but it is there and it could do some thing, to one degree or another). Catalyst would be plentiful in that situation. What if there are pure metals, like calcium, that would strip oxygen from the carbon dioxide and let the carbon concentrate in small pockets in those deep underground water ways. That to me would make more sense of how the carbon gets deep underground rather than having miles of dirt being thrown on top of a forest or something. I have heard of oil fields being sucked dry of oil only to have someone come back decades latter to check it and find even more oil in the previously depleted well. So perhaps an oil cycle is sitting on top of the water cycle and is renewable, depending on whether other elements underground are consumed or not. If something like calcium metal, for instance, were oxidized then the supply of it could be consumed and be nonrenewable. As for bio markers, I don't doubt that some kind of algae could live in underground waterways. Or, perhaps as the water seeps through the surface soil it picks up soluble products of decomposition. I'm sure bacteria could contribute also. I don't know for sure. I am not claiming to know what actually happens underground. I do claim that we don't really know for sure yet. Hell, we act like we just came out of the dark ages or something.
From: angryScientist on 19 Apr 2010 20:27
I don't believe everything I was taught in school. I do hold everything I have been taught up to the light of skepticism. Taking the stance of devils advocate for a moment I will assume everything I have been taught is wrong and I must come up with a new explanation. So.... How would nature get all that carbon underground? Carbon dioxide is slightly soluble in water, anyone who drinks soda pop can attest to that. So when it rains there are millions of gallons water seeping into the ground carrying who knows how many tones of carbon dioxide with it. I think man has a minuscule capability of sequestering carbon dioxide compared to nature. I have heard that Russia has a technology to turn carbon dioxide back into long carbon chains, or fuel. That brings me to my next question; How could nature do the same thing? If we have water carrying carbon dioxide deep underground we would then need some way to strip the oxygen from the carbon in order for the carbon to bond with other carbon. Perhaps a catalyst of some kind could be used... Wait a minute, underground there are all sorts of minerals of almost every type. Not to mention electricity that flows through the ground (Granted the electric flow through the ground is minuscule but it is there and it could do some thing, to one degree or another). Catalyst would be plentiful in that situation. What if there are pure metals, like calcium, that would strip oxygen from the carbon dioxide and let the carbon concentrate in small pockets in those deep underground water ways. That to me would make more sense of how the carbon gets deep underground rather than having miles of dirt being thrown on top of a forest or something. I have heard of oil fields being sucked dry of oil only to have someone come back decades latter to check it and find even more oil in the previously depleted well. So perhaps an oil cycle is sitting on top of the water cycle and is renewable, depending on whether other elements underground are consumed or not. If something like calcium metal, for instance, were oxidized then the supply of it could be consumed and be nonrenewable. As for bio markers, I don't doubt that some kind of algae could live in underground waterways. Or, perhaps as the water seeps through the surface soil it picks up soluble products of decomposition. I'm sure bacteria could contribute also. I don't know for sure. I am not claiming to know what actually happens underground. I do claim that we don't really know for sure yet. Hell, we act like we just came out of the dark ages or something. |