What If We Burned All The World's Fossil Fuels?

Post Reply New Topic

I've decided to post his thread in the science section, not this politics section.

This is no longer a political issue. It's a science issue and the science is settled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxJc2csvpLY

It's real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg

Most likely we’d just choke out oxygen breathing (aerobic) organisms. The logic: fossil fuels have carbon waste, freestanding carbon easily combines with oxygen to form CO2 which isn’t just a greenhouse gas, it’s also a poison to aerobic animals’ lungs. We would choke ourselves to death well before runaway warming took place. Welcome back Cyanobacteria, you’re once again the most dominant life on Earth...assuming our run away warming doesn’t eventually turn the Earth into New Venus.

We won't burn all of them, but we will burn all the ones that can be extracted profitably. To know the consequences, just wait and see.

It’s a non-renewable resource, humans will take it all, that which is unprofitable today becomes profitable when the ‘easy’ sources are depleted. Don’t believe me? Read up on ‘fracking’, it’s been known to engineering since the 60s but only started being used the last decade as light sweet crude (easy oil) has been harder to come by.

There are hard limits. Noöne will extract any fossil fuel for energy when the extraction takes more energy than the fuel releases when burned. Nothing will make that profitable. Of course, some might still be extracted for purposes other than energy, provided some other energy source has been found that is cheap enough to make that profitable.

Man made global warming is a myth. It has a negligible effect on our atmosphere. When you say that the science is settled. It really is not because the voices of most of the scientist who disagree with this myth are being silenced. Here is a link to the list of 31,487 American scientist that disagree with the man made global warming theory. Global Warming Petition Project

The theory is a false flag. In reality the world faces a very real threat, a type of extinction level event that will destroy around half the worlds population - around 4 billion souls. It will not come overnight but when it comes it will be slow and agonizing. We are in the middle of an Ice Age. It is called the Pleistocene Ice Age. It began around 2.6 million years ago and will continue for several more million years in the future. Within an Ice Age there are very cold periods called Glacial Periods that last around 100,000 years followed by warm periods called Interglacial Periods that last around 10,000 years. We are currently in an Interglacial Period called the Holocene Interglacial. It began around 11,650 years ago, so we are living on borrowed time. The handwriting is on the wall. The earth will slide back into the cold glacial period. Probably not within my lifetime or that of my children or grandchildren. But the cold is coming. The small amount of extra heat generated by mankind will have a minuscule effect on this upcoming Glacial Period. Cold represents a starved earth condition. This can be easily seen by comparing life (quantity and diversity) at the poles with the life that abounds at the equator. Life on earth thrives under warm conditions.

And when you consider the Peak Oil theory, also consider the Russian-Ukrainian Theory of Deep Abiotic Petroleum Origin.

when I was a kid in church [early 70s], our preacher predicted that by the time we were old, the world would be aflame in excess heat, thirsting due to widespread potable water shortages and beset by ruinous storms, which would bring about omnipresent plagues and pestilences. in that place was the first time I heard the phrase, "This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper." [t.s. eliot] I hope to heaven i'm not there when it all happens and I am glad I don't have any kids that will be there.

First the Pleistocene was an era that ended ~10,000 bp, we're now in the Holocene, the retreat of N. American and European ice sheets mark that boundary. Also of note, there is no agreed upon standard to which constitutes an 'ice age', some claim it's when there's any ice sheets (even those on the poles), others claim it's when the ice sheets have extended past 15 degrees of the poles, and yet others claim an ice age is when ice sheets extend all the way to the tropics (Capricorn and Cancer, ~67 degrees from the poles). What we do know though, is there is no current cooling trend, at all, let alone one with a positive feedback loop that could take us back to the ice age. Glaciers aren't forming, they're melting, and that's just a plain fact. Also 'interglacial' is a very outdated term, ~1920's, when our understanding of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly and resulting Little Ice Age were only known through source text: i.e. some dude in 1350 said it was really cold, and some other dude around the same time wrote in his journal it was really cold too. The terms used now are: stadial and interstadial, which unlike 'interglacial' is not based off of hearsay evidence (someone way back when said it was cold/warm) but are based off actual science, namely measuring the oxygen isotopes of ice core samples.

Edit: the 'scientists' that claim there is no global warming are doing so exclusively for a fat paycheck from the energy industry. Average wage for climate scientist among non-profits, government agencies, and the few companies attempting to provide alternative fuels is ~50k-60k a year in the states, you can triple that degree's earning rate by ignoring any scientific method and just regurgitating the sound bite of an energy lobbyist. In essence that 1.5% of scientists that don't agree aren't scientists, they're highly paid lobbyists that sometime in their past got a science degree. A scientist is someone who follows the evidence, the full evidence, and only the evidence; someone that will sell the evidence and truth down the river for some cold hard cash is an opportunist, not a scientist.

This is a graph of global temperatures shows the last eight climate cycles within the Pleistocene Ice Age based on a Temperature Reconstruction using deep sea sediment cores. (Raymo, 2005)



The figure is from an article by Lisiecki and Raymo, Paleooceanography, 2005 a comparison of global temperatures based on 57 ocean sediment cores recording changes in Oxygen 18 isotope in ocean sediments with marine isotope stages inferred from this record.

This is a link to a similar but more recent article. An 800-kyr record of global surface ocean δ18O and implications for ice volume-temperature coupling

One of the tactics used by proponent of the Man Made Global Warming Theory is "ad hominem" attacks. It is an attack directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. This is a form of bullying. After years of abuse from bullying in school I am very familiar with bullying. So let me make this quite clear. I am a scientist. I have a degree in Physics from a major university. I am not a lobbyist and I haven't received once cent from any energy industry.

Title text – [After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before.

By the way, the author is a physicist, too, among other things.

why is denial of climate change exclusively a right-wing thing?

Probably because it can be used to justify government intervention to try to prevent it. But hey, you can acknowledge global warming and still defend people’s inalienable right not to give a crap and to keep refusing to do anything about it, or even to keep profiting from activities that worsen it. That’s liberty.

^^^and eventually death.

Great, you can make all the claims you want about your accreditation, I'll go by what you've stated, which is not science, it's a 40 year outdated synopsis of the Ice Age. So I'll just ask you some questions and you can throw the noose around your own neck.

You claim you're a scientist, and since scientists base their work on evidence, do you have any evidence the ice sheets are expanding and thus we're currently still in the ice age as you claim?

You claim life thrives under warm conditions. That's a pretty big broad claim, how do you explain the 100 million year Cryogenian period where bacteria proliferated under a fully frozen Earth?

You claim we're in an interstadial period (interglacial if it's the 1970's), yet all the stadial/interstadial periods we can measure occurred when the Earth had glaciers extending 40+ degrees from the poles. As far as research has determined the absolute glacial minimum (lowest the ice sheets retreated) of the last ice-age occurred 1.87 million years ago, and the ice sheets only retreated to modern day Minnesota in N.America and the Jutland in Europe, which is still 45 degrees from the north pole. Currently all northern ice sheets are within 5 degrees of the pole. So the question is: can we even still consider ourselves in an ice-age if 90% of the ice from the last MINIMUM has melted, or 95% of the last maximum?

The stadial/interstadial periods do last ~100,000 to ~10,000. Do you even know why that is? **Hint, hint, it has nothing to do with climate science, or geology. If you know the answer to that question, you can answer the following question: If we're at the most extreme part of a Milankovitch phase (which there's evidence we are), that means the Earth is at it's farthest eccentricity and maximum tilt, that would dictate the Earth should be getting colder, why then is it getting warmer?

And as an amusing follow up: Venus used to be like Earth, with a climate very similar, albeit with no evidence of water. How then, did Venus turn into a ~450 C hellhole? If you're truly a physicist, and one that actually paid attention in class you'd know there's only one plausible explanation.