Wordie Ice Shelf has disappeared

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by kmguru, Apr 4, 2009.

  1. Sawklwrd Banned Banned

    Messages:
    38
    No big deal since hydrogen and carbon are chemical elements and do not come from fossils.

    "It may be supposed that naphta was produced by the action of water penetrating through the crevices of the strata during the upheaval of mountain chains because water with iron carbide ought to give iron oxide and hydrocarbons." -- Dmitri Mendeleyev, chemist, 1877

    "One can, then, conceive the production, by purely mineral means, of all natural hydrocarbons. The intervention of heat, of water, and of alkaline metals -- lastly, the tendency of hydrocarbons to unite together to form the more condensed material -- suffice to account for the formation of these curious compounds. Moreover, this formation will be continuous because the reactions which started it are renewed incessantly." -- Marcellin Berthelot, chemist, 1866

    Energy in general is infinite.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    Regardless of where it came from, most of the carbon on Earth has been (luckily for us) locked up in rocks or buried underground. If we were to release it again by burning, we would effectively recreate the ancient atmosphere, before animals existed. It wouldn't be a nice place to live.

    We won't "run out" of oil, because we will never extract all the oil that exists. We will run into a critical situation of lack of adequate supply to meet demand long before that.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sawklwrd Banned Banned

    Messages:
    38
    How do you know what the ancient atmosphere was like?

    As far as I can tell scientists can't even figure out what the contemporary atmosphere is like.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    We know the composition of the atmosphere, and we can deduce what it must have been like before plants first liberated oxygen, it was high in hydrogen, ammonia, and carbon dioxide.
     
  8. Sawklwrd Banned Banned

    Messages:
    38
    That would be induction not deduction and so you have a problem because you haven't observed or experimented on the ancient atmosphere and observation and experiment are requirements of the scientific method.
     
  9. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    That is not correct, the effects of the early atmosphere were enshrined in geological structures and chemistry.
     
  10. Sawklwrd Banned Banned

    Messages:
    38
    Why don't you think observation and experiment are requirements of the scientific method?

    Dream.

    Humans are ignorant, not omniscient.
     
  11. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    When I said that's not correct, I was referring to the fact that we can do experiments on the composition of the early atmosphere, there are numerous techniques.

    It ain't magic, it's called science.

    Of course, there isn't 100% certainty, but that doesn't mean we have to remain ignorant:

    Calculations favor reducing atmosphere for early Earth
     
  12. Sawklwrd Banned Banned

    Messages:
    38
    Anyone who thinks they know the atmospheric composition of the Earth 200 million years ago let alone 4.6 billion years ago is smoking something. Scientists can't even agree on what it is now.
     
  13. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    We don't know completely, but we can make an educated guess, we can formulate hypothesis and test them against the evidence.
     
  14. Sawklwrd Banned Banned

    Messages:
    38
    I agree. The problem is when you have two groups of scientists who have different hypotheses and get different results, thus debate ensues.
     
  15. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    That's not really a problem, is it? That's how science works.

    On the Global warming debate, the "two sides" aren't really equivalent. On one side are 99% of climate scientists, on the other are a tiny minority of fringe wacko right-wing douchbags.
     
  16. Sawklwrd Banned Banned

    Messages:
    38
    No. That's how science SHOULD work but that's not how it works in actuality.

    How science works in reality is that the more popular side becomes dogma and then engages in censorship and information suppression of the opposing minority view.

    There are many examples of this in the history of science: Geocentrism Vs. Heliocentrism in Ancient Greece (where Cleanthes wanted to force Aristarchos to be put to death by hemlock), the Ptolemaic model vs. the Copernican model (where you had Bruno burnt at the stake and Galileo imprisoned), Edison's direct current vs. Tesla's alternating current (where Edison publically electrocuted elephants with alternating current), and the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party in 1949 declared Mendelian genetics pseudoscientific and had it's advocates like Academician Vavilov killed in concentration camps, etc.

    Contemporary examples would be Fred Hoyle being passed over for the Nobel Prize and it instead being awarded to William Fowler.

    The removal of Halton Arp from Palomar for observing peculiar galaxies, quasars, and discordant redshift, and the doctoring and manufacture of fake Hubble photographs showing no connection between NGC 4319 and it's newborn Markarian 205.

    Or the cabal of professional geologists who seek to censor the use of the word "cold" to describe the mantle.

    Or just this week you had the Italian seismologist who accurately and successfully predicted the L'Aquila earthquake but the dogmatic establishment forced him to remove his warnings from the internet (censorship) directly resulting in the deaths of over 200 people.

    Your ad hominem fallacies are exactly the sort of immature and bad behavior I'm referring to. Anyone who disagrees with you on climate change is "a tiny minority of fringe wacko right-wing douchbags"?
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2009
  17. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    Disagreement is fine, it's the fallacious arguments that have been debunked a thousand times I don't like. For example, statements like, " ...no scientist on Earth is stupid enough to think anthropogenic CO2 has any influence on climate...". That's just false. It's further intellectual dishonesty to hide your lies behind accusations of scientific conspiracy. Certainly, there have been cases in the past where differing and equally valid hypothesis have been discounted out of prejudice, but the science is now too well known. 10-20 years ago, there was cause for valid criticism, but no more.
     
  18. Sawklwrd Banned Banned

    Messages:
    38
    It's not false. Only pseudoscientists believe anthropogenic carbon dioxide has any impact on the Earth's climate. The sun and the Earth's declanation and orbit controls the Earth's climate, not anthropogenic carbon dioxide or even natural volcanic and biological methane which is 10 times more powerful a greenhouse gas then CO2.

    CO2 is less than 0.0384% of the atmosphere; only someone who is completely off their heads could go on about that.

    I don't follow you. You want to suppress criticism and in the same breathe you deny the historical conspiracies to suppress criticism?
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2009
  19. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    It's not either one or the other, it's both. For a long time, only natural sources affected our climate, now a new factor has emerged.


    The important thing is not the total percentage, but the rate of change, and it's connection to climate. Only a total idiot would assume that low numbers= little effect. What is the percentage of matter (much less life) vs. space in the universe? Practically zero.


    I'm not supressing valid criticism, only stupid people with ideological agendas to deny what's right in front of them, for the sake of industry.
     
  20. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    That's not at all true. I've stated here before I work along side Meteorologists and Climatologists. There is still no consensus. The majority of politicians and people working for lobbyist groups such as the IPCC agree it's warming....though they are far louder than their share in the debate.
     
  21. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    There is more of one than the deniers would have us believe.
     

Share This Page