Bullet to the head of the AGW hoax?

[citizenzen]

I'm just happy to see that palerider has solved Global Warming.

What will he do with his Nobel Prize money?

I'd start polishing up that speech if I were him.

 

[Pidgey]

The problem today is that oil companies, for the most part, are still looking for oil based on the theory that most oil is biological. When that outdated theory is finally put to rest and the search begins in earnest for abiotic oil, the entire picture may change radically very quickly.

Ya' think? And just where were you planning on looking? Deeper? I guess the first two things that come to mind when considering that are: porosity (the bubbles in the Swiss cheese) and permeability (how well said bubbles communicate with each other). In order for there to be oil and gas in a layer of rock that CAN be recovered, you have to have ENOUGH porosity and permeability. The... uhh... deeper you go, the greater the pressure and, therefore, the less actual open volume (bubbles) there is in said rock. That the temperature of the actual rock actually goes up significantly as you go closer to the core plays in with the actual density and, therefore, those two aspects of rock. That said, if you're going to be seeing any appreciable evidence of ongoing abiotic methane production, you'd be more likely to see it aplenty near active fault lines like the San Andreas. If that's not working out for ya' then you'd be better to give up on the idea and try to think of better ways to spend what energy we have left as we descend into the Olduvai Gorge.

 

[palerider]

Ya' think? And just where were you planning on looking? Deeper? I guess the first two things that come to mind when considering that are: porosity (the bubbles in the Swiss cheese) and permeability (how well said bubbles communicate with each other). In order for there to be oil and gas in a layer of rock that CAN be recovered, you have to have ENOUGH porosity and permeability. The... uhh... deeper you go, the greater the pressure and, therefore, the less actual open volume (bubbles) there is in said rock. That the temperature of the actual rock actually goes up significantly as you go closer to the core plays in with the actual density and, therefore, those two aspects of rock. That said, if you're going to be seeing any appreciable evidence of ongoing abiotic methane production, you'd be more likely to see it aplenty near active fault lines like the San Andreas. If that's not working out for ya' then you'd be better to give up on the idea and try to think of better ways to spend what energy we have left as we descend into the Olduvai Gorge.

Try that argument with the russians. I suppose they could consume days providing you with mountains of anecdote, and observed evidence to contradict your suppositions.

 

[palerider]

I'm just happy to see that palerider has solved Global Warming.

What will he do with his Nobel Prize money?

I'd start polishing up that speech if I were him.

Hell, if they will give one to algoe, we all deserve them. But do feel free to offer up something more than an impotent ad hominem if you must join the conversation.

 

[palerider]

Have I mentioned that gasoline powered cars cause smog? Or is smog naturally occurring also?

smoke and fog. I am sure that the substance can be found naturally since both smoke and fog are naturally occuring.

 

[GenSeneca]

Hell, if they will give one to algoe, we all deserve them. But do feel free to offer up something more than an impotent ad hominem if you must join the conversation.

That's all he's got and he's not afraid to use it!

 

[dahermit]

smoke and fog. I am sure that the substance can be found naturally since both smoke and fog are naturally occuring.

Especially in Los Angeles and Mexico City. All naturally occurring.

 

[palerider]

Especially in Los Angeles and Mexico City. All naturally occurring.

You asked if it was naturally occuring. Turns out that it is. Now you want to quibble over where? Had you thought as far as the first order consequences of your statement, you wouldn't have come off looking like a goober.

 

[Pidgey]

Try that argument with the russians. I suppose they could consume days providing you with mountains of anecdote, and observed evidence to contradict your suppositions.

Good god, where do you get that crap?

Quotes like this:

"Russian test drilling in areas of known impact sites has been very productive. Application of the abiotic oil theory has helped Russia to not only meet its own energy needs but also become one of the world's largest exporters of petroleum."

...are... well... let's just say that they're kinda' curious in light of the bulk of the current Russian megaprojects like Salym, South Priobskoye, Sakhalin I, Salym Exp, Talakan Phase I, Sakhalin II, Vankorskoye, Verkhnechonsk Phase I, Yuzhno-Khylchuyuskoye, Yu Korchagin, Prirazlomnoye, Uvatskoye, Talakan Phase II and V Filanovsky

Uvatskoye is a quartzite field.

So... why isn't "abiotic" oil represented SOMEWHERE in the current Russian megaprojects? Why are they all depositional in nature?

 

[dahermit]

You asked if it was naturally occuring. Turns out that it is. Now you want to quibble over where? Had you thought as far as the first order consequences of your statement, you wouldn't have come off looking like a goober.

Conservative answer to all environmental problems. Pick one: 1)It occurs naturally. 2)It is not happening. 3)It is good for you. Dodge, dodge, dodge. Now, if you have some link that shows the smog that engulfs Los Angeles and Mexico City, et. AL., is caused by other than automobiles, I will be glad to listen. In the mean time, I concede that you are a master(de)bater.

 

[citizenzen]

But do feel free to offer up something more than an impotent ad hominem if you must join the conversation.

You want more from me than you're willing to give yourself. The title of the thread shows how much you truly want to add to the conversation: nothing. And I'm supposed to believe that the scientific community has been on the wrong track because they just failed to overlay two graphs? Please.

I searched "Global Warming + long wave radiation" and found citations to numerous studies that proved the exact opposite of what you claim: greenhouse gases are increasing absorption of infrared (long wave) radiation. Yet you expect me to believe that through all these studies, nobody put two graphs together and discovered that Global Warming was a myth?

So... I conclude you're a crackpot. You can join the esteemed list of people who think they've created cold fusion in their garage, increased gas mileage 500% with common kitchen products, or seen Jesus in their french toast.

If you really think that this "discovery" means anything, there are thousands of avenues to pursue it further. I urge you to follow up on them and not just publish your findings in an obscure political forum.

Please let us know how the peer review goes.

 

[palerider]

You want more from me than you're willing to give yourself. The title of the thread shows how much you truly want to add to the conversation: nothing. And I'm supposed to believe that the scientific community has been on the wrong track because they just failed to overlay two graphs? Please.

The scientific community has not been wrong at all. Chemists, physiscists,et. al have stated all along that no credible claim for anthropogenic global warming can be made. It is in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics.

I searched "Global Warming + long wave radiation" and found citations to numerous studies that proved the exact opposite of what you claim: greenhouse gases are increasing absorption of infrared (long wave) radiation. Yet you expect me to believe that through all these studies, nobody put two graphs together and discovered that Global Warming was a myth?

You did a search. Congratulations. You found studies. Hooray. Lets see the data. Lets see the actual measurement of outgoing long wave radition (the basis for AGW climate change) showing less outgoing long wave radition in the CO2 spectrum.

And no, I don't expect that someone hasn't put them together. I suspect that they have been put together many times and promptly shreded.

So... I conclude you're a crackpot. You can join the esteemed list of people who think they've created cold fusion in their garage, increased gas mileage 500% with common kitchen products, or seen Jesus in their french toast.

Considering that you have no support for your claim or your conclusion, pardon me if I don't worry about it very much. Like all of your ilk, you are tall on talk, and eagerly reference computer simulations, but lack hard, observed data to support any of your claims.

 

[citizenzen]

The scientific community has not been wrong at all. Chemists, physiscists,et. al have stated all along that no credible claim for anthropogenic global warming can be made. It is in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics.

Huzzah! Your second Nobel Prize in just one thread! Your moms should be quite proud.

You did a search. Congratulations. You found studies. Hooray. Lets see the data.

Go find it. You got a computer. Like I said... it's there, if you care to look.

And no, I don't expect that someone hasn't put them together. I suspect that they have been put together many times and promptly shreded.

Because that evil Al Gore is lookin' to take over the world... and put frickin' laser beams on shark heads.

Like all of your ilk...

Another deliciously snarky use of the word "ilk". It's a tad over done, but still a fan favorite.

 

[palerider]

Huzzah! Your second Nobel Prize in just one thread! Your moms should be quite proud.

Impotent ad hominem in lieu of some evidence to support your claim. How unsurprising.

Go find it. You got a computer. Like I said... it's there, if you care to look.

And still no evidence is forthcoming and a suggestion that I go out and find evidence to support a claim that you can't find evidence to support. Again, unsurprising.

Because that evil Al Gore is lookin' to take over the world... and put frickin' laser beams on shark heads.

Logical fallacy in lieu of evidence to support your claim. Once more. Unsurprising. (red herring and appeal to ridicule by the way)

Another deliciously snarky use of the word "ilk". It's a tad over done, but still a fan favorite.

And still no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. And yet once again, completely unsurprising.

You and your ilk are very predictable. Make claims you can't support, reply with all manner of excuses when challenged to support your claims and hurl ad hominems as if they represented actual argument. Let me know if you ever grow up enough to actually discuss the subject.

 

[citizenzen]

And still no evidence is forthcoming...

I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything. Whatever you wish to believe is fine with me.

I was merely pointing out that the issue is more complex than merely overlaying two graphs, patting oneself on the back and claiming the problem solved.

But I suppose I should even attempt to disavow you of that notion either. So you go with that. I'm sure it's a big hit at your tea bagger parties.