Methane (CH4) comes from many different sources, including the lower crust – which contains lots of carbon and hydrogen. Cornell’s Tommy Gold theorized this decades ago.
The idea that we will run out of natural gas any time in the foreseeable future is absurd. We just need to get rid of the America hating scum in Washington D.C. who are holding back America’s future.
The Natural Gas Supply Association begs to differ:
http://naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp
They aren’t counting methane hydrates in the ocean floor or Arctic.
Earlier this year Japan carried out a pilot project which successfully
extracted methane hydrates from the ocean floor and set fire to it above the ocean surface on site. That’s why I laugh at people who think we will run out of energy. As coal and oil ‘run low’ we simply look elsewhere for alternatives. There are unbelievable quantities down there.
http://www.nature.com/news/japanese-test-coaxes-fire-from-ice-1.12858
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/03/pictures/130328-methane-hydrates-for-energy/
They’ve been crying for decades and been very very wrong.
500+ TCF in the Marcellus alone.
Methane on Titan is definitely from moldy dinosaurs.
Yeah, an I am certain that oil and natural gas on Mars is from moldy martians.
Oil and natural gas on Mars
Fact is, there is no such thing as “fossil fuel”. You cannot turn a carbohydrate into a hydrocarbon without a nuclear process. You would think the genius “scientists” that labeled these substances as “fossil fuels” would have understood this.
“American hating scum” You really are a whacko bird. I see you getting your gun and doing something stupid.
If only we could just let the Malthusian eugenicists form a perfect society by getting rid of provocative people that disagree with them. 😉
“America hating scum” — Yes, I disagree with that characterization as well.
Most scum, at least biological scum, has a definite and beneficial role in our world’s ecological systems, consuming and breaking down organic detritus so that its components can recycle through the biosphere. Slurring scum by equating it with our political leaders is a disservice to scum not only here in America, but throughout the world.
What e said.
Methanogenesis or biomethanation is the formation of methane by microbes known as methanogens.
The bugs win.
Nancy Pelosi confirms that natural gas is not a fossil fuel-
“I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels,” she said at one point. Natural gas “is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels,” she said at another.
Nancy Pelosi, Congressman, former speaker of the house, on NBC Meet The Press
She should know, she has intimate knowledge of swamp life and swamp gas.
I saw Gold give a lecture on this back in the 1990’s. It was an excellent talk.
I have naturally passed gas my whole life and have yet to see one fossil come out with it.
I gave a copy of Gold’s book to my Dad to review (he has a PhD related to organic chemistry). Given his background, I wanted his opinion on it. The Old-man found it one of the most profound theories he has read in a long time.
If anyone here has not read the book, don’t rely on third part reviews to develop your own opinion. Buy a used copy and read it yourself. Gold covers a lot of detail, offering very well reasoned arguments to support his deep earth gas / biosphere theory.
The issue is not whether we run out of natural gas or not, but that burning natural gas puts CO2 into the atmosphere; albiet, half as much as coal. Natural gas is a good bridge to an energy future that depends much less on fossil fuels.
Why should we worry about putting CO2 in the atmosphere, matayaya?
He doesn’t know. He just squaks and squeaks.
You all have made CO2 into a circular argument. I have made many post that touch on the issue. You don’t read what I say. You just look for a word or two to inspire your petty bash. It is not my job to get you to read about why CO2 is an issue. You won’t accept anything I say anyway. Your mind is closed. Forget about me, relax, open your mind a little and go do some independent reading on your own.
He’s a plant hater. He wants to limit their food.
They don’t except your claims yaya because they have largely been debunked. It’s like arguing with an anti-vacs nut. They are not going to change their minds.
Yes, if we keep putting CO2 into the atmosphere at the current rate or faster then future generations will not know what hurricanes or tornadoes are, or deserts as the greening of them will continue apace.
Florida will become just so much more overdeveloped as people get used to its settled climate.
I saw an interviewe recently of King crab and Snow crab fishermen up in Alaska. Crabbing in Alaska is a big important industry. They were all concerned about the increasing acidification of the water there and how it may thin the shells of the crabs. I don’t think we should be flippant about all the possible changes that could occur from climate change. By the way, that acidification is a result of increased CO2 into the water from the atmosphere.
I’m sure these fishermen are concerned. Thats what happen when someone sensitizes people by saying this or that might make you unemployed.
But where is your point?
Wow, you haven’t been following the discussion on acidification of the oceans. You just blow it off without a thought? Lord help us.
Yes the research was a deliberate act to politicize the scare to a new group thus ensuring more research money would roll. After all any group threatened with unemployment for something perceived to be real would demand some action, even if, in reality, none is required.
And it’s raining on the mountains again. Have you noticed how as the clouds get to the highlands it rains?
Okay, matayaya is starting to convince me he is as dumb as you guys say. Ocean acidification? Really?
Oceans are alkaline.
A good friend of mine put it all in perspective…
“30% rise in acidity!? A solution of pH[1] has 100,000,000,000,000 times more hydrogen ions (acidity) than a solution of pH[14]. If I had a solution at pH of 8.5 the hydrogen ion content would be 3.2 x 10exp(-9) M. A 30% increase in hydrogen ion content is 4.2 x10exp(-9)M. Converting this to pH becomes… wait for this… 8.4!!!!! Yes you guessed it, nothing to write home about. It doesn’t sound half as threatening as 30% does it!?! Kinda’ makes a mockery of percentage with respect to pH, doesn’t it. chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryquickreview/a/phreview.htm
Now I know I’m just an evil oil shill lackey, scientificly moronic, ununderstanding, conspiracy driven republican pontificating the tea party line… but… what percentage increase in acidity would be neccissary to lower the pH from 8.3 (start) to pure, neutral, distilled water? pH 7.0
Want a hint? 2000%”
Panic.
And a geological while ago, the earth’s atmosphere had just a bit more CO2 in the air but somehow all the calcium shelled critters in the sea didn’t just fizz away. Odd that.
Funny you should mention the crab fishermen. There was so much sea this winter in the Bering Sea that they were shut out of the fishing grounds.
@Matayapyap .. read this;
http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/307-greenhouse-theory-computer-fail-real-evidence-slays-carbon-science.html
Ok, it is a summation of all same arguments others keep putting forth on this site. We will just have to agree to disagree on which scientist are right. I certainly don’t buy the cooling argument or even the “pause.” I would like hear why the following is wrong. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1110/why-is-earths-upper-atmosphere-cooling
So, according to the “Christian Science Monitor”, your magical CO2, both “traps” heat, and doesn’t “trap” heat. I guess it depends upon the mood of your magic CO2 on any given day. You see, the lower level CO2 molecules are angry, angry at you driving your SUV, so they are “hot” under the collar and hotting things up around here. Meanwhile, the upper CO2 molecules are just “chilling” out and cooling things down up there. Makes perfectly logical sense to me. I don’t see anything wrong with this at all. Especially when considering we are talking about CO2, that heat trapping, heat un-trapping, on any given Sunday, gas…
WHY did they mandate catalytic converters on autos that convert hydrocarbons into CO2? Maybe they should be taken off.
CO2 creates global warming, but wait, hasn’t co2 ppm rising yet global temps have been flat for 20 years. Scientist prove abiotic oil is real. http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoil.html
“matayaya squeaks:
September 18, 2013 at 2:55 pm
You all have made CO2 into a circular argument. I have made many post that touch on the issue. You don’t read what I say. You just look for a word or two to inspire your petty bash. It is not my job to get you to read about why CO2 is an issue. You won’t accept anything I say anyway. Your mind is closed. Forget about me, relax, open your mind a little and go do some independent reading on your own.”
You have offered nothing new. We have heard all these claims before and debunked them with science.
You are an idiot.
Good example of how you don’t read. All I said was that the central issue is what effect the man released CO2 has. Is the answer none, a little, or a lot? The science is an evolving project, getting better all the time. Too soon to be an absolutist. I am just playing devil’s advocate with absolutist. I actually have an open mind about all of it and don’t think it is weakness to change one’s mind as circumstances dictate. .
You are a proven liar. Period.
Since I did my term paper for Thermo/Heat Transfer on global warming I think I have done enough reading on my own.
Shall we go with reality or the games machines aka IPCC computer models?
“The science is an evolving project, getting better all the time.”
hahahahah
That’s why the IPCC computer model are getting so good?
Hahahahahahah! 🙂
Is that “science” like this pile of conjecture?
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-satellite-global-humans.html
Complete unadulterated politicing dressed up as (crap) science! Utterly worthless.
Hey Matayaya, you say “The science is an evolving project, getting better all the time.”
It may be a little too late for that. The same people who now say they need more funding for better climate models are many of the same people who insulted sceptics for years by claiming that the models were accurate and that the science was settled. Now that the scam is becoming more apparent, they are falling back to “Wait, wait, we are still working this out! Give us more time and money!”
Most of the people who post here have been watching the CAGW reports for years. We have seen systematic “adjustments” and recurring basic errors in “peer reviewed science” — overwhelmingly biased to portray the world as being dangerously warming and destabilized by CO2. Even more egregiously, those same self-styled scientists and their supporters have been telling us sceptics that “the time for debate is over”, that “this is simple high school physics”, that “sceptics are in the pay of Big Oil”, and that (this is the worse) “the science is settled!”. At some point it is no longer possible to give the CAGW scientists the benefit of a doubt. They are either self deluded or consciously lying, or both.
We sceptics discount their arguments because
1) the arguments are unscientific and
2) they have proven themselves (by long patterns of action) to be untrustworthy.
Oil is a product of polymerization of natural gas (methane, ethane, propane, etc.) under high pressure and temperature by the reaction of carbonates and water, utilizing cobalt, iron and nickel catalysis. Methane is produced first naturally in the crust, just as on Titan by a similar reaction under catalysis.
Carbonate in various forms is very abundant in the crust, and is further provided in ample supply by the subduction of sea floor “fossils” (that is, seashells) that have accumulated over the eons. The subduction process presents the reagents (water, carbonate, catalyst) to perfect areas of the subduction zone, where heat and pressure are generated which are ideal for methanogenesis, then polymerization.
The carbonate recycling is the epitome of renewable energy. Hydrocarbons are burned, or oxidized, the CO2 generated fertilizes plants and plankton, the plankton and seashells form the sea floor, which subducts. The subduction zone conveys the feedstocks to the ideal temperature/pressure zone, and methane and higher hydrocarbons are generated. Russians have utilized this “abiotic” theory to their advantage, seeking these fault zones where natural gas is being generated. They have moved from net importers of hydrocarbons to exploiting their native sources and exporting oil and gas. These faults are found by deep drilling to where the oil and gas are being generated.
[BTW, the oil and gas oxidize to CO2 whether we burn it or not—this is the real irony in this foolishness. We use it or lose it!]
Unless one, for whatever reason, prefers the mythology (great story it is, by the way!) that hydrocarbons are “fossil fuels”. Of course, this mythology supports economic purposes—good pricing. Lucrative pricing will continue, as long as the perception is that the supply is dwindling. A kind of “virtual” supply/demand curve. “Hurry, pay more, the supply is drying up—hurry!”
On Titan, there is no subduction and/or sea creatures, so the methane and ethane produced are not processed further into polymers (oil). Unless Titan in the past has had vast parades of dinosaurs trampling around—I suppose it is possible?
Where there dino’s on Mars too then? There be oil there…
Most petroleum exhibits stereo chemistry. Which shoots the abiogenic origin of oil in the arse.
I am still curious as to how one can take a carbohydrate and turn it into a hydrocarbon without a nuclear process. Can someone describe this to me?
Animals and plants constantly convert carbohydrates into oils.
Process is at the molecular level, not the atom level.
This was demonstrated by the Russians.Ukrainians 50 or so years ago. Hitler made petroleum abiogenically by a similar process called the Fischer-Tropf process. Water + carbonates + catalyst + pressure + heat.
The very slight stereochemical “signature” is explainable by two processes:
1) Polymerization slightly favors one configuration, due to asymmetrical catalyst surfaces. For example, some crystals crystallize in a right-hand or left-handed configuration naturally.
2) Hydrocarbons are a good solvent for biogenic materials that are produced by anaerobic bacteria. Some oil and gas is produced biogenically that way. As oil and gas percolate upwards, they dissolve other organic molecules which are chiral.
That is a product of where we get our oil from…porous organic material conataining sedimentary storage areas where the hydrocarbons end up.
“[BTW, the oil and gas oxidize to CO2 whether we burn it or not—this is the real irony in this foolishness”
Yea, but man digging it up and dumping it into atmosphere in a relative short amount of time may have undesirable consequences.
And the problem is?
I would certainly hope it is not a problem, but until we know for sure, we better keep trying to find out.
I agree, it should be found out. So until then lets all do the precautionary principle which is to do NOTHING!
No tax, no turning off generators, no carbon credit nonsense.
Maybe you should read this –
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124
Yes it is medical research where fraud, group think, and mistakes are much easier to find. Science in general suffers from this effect. In climate science it appear to be more so.
It is a good way of saying we should all be critical thinkers at all times. We won’t move forward if we don’t keep putting hypothesies out there to test what we know. We learn even when we are wrong, maybe even more. We learn from mistakes. I try to practice critiical thinking with everything I read. I catch things all the time in writers i regularily read that hit a flat note. The key is to graze widely with what you read. Some people put Fox News on the tv and never change the channel. I bet I watch 25 different channels. I look at The Weekly Standard, National Review, NYTmes, Wash Post, Wash Times, Drudge Report, FoxNews, PBS News Hour and more. It is all just people muddling along in their daily baises. There is something to learn from all of them. Nice to be retired to be able to have the time.
This is not about moving forward. This is not about the politic of the moment. This is about logic.
Think about this –
You go to a doctor because you feel a little under-the-weather, a little off color but nothing you can really be definate about. The doctor can not accurately diagnose your condition but is very certain you are ill. So you go to 4 more doctors and they say the same tiny bit off normal. At no time do these doctor do any thorough tests. However all 5 doctor decide you require a radical new treatment that not only is very expensive, but leaves you wheelchair bound. After many years and little in the way of new diagnosis, you’ve been subjected to many more changes in your evermore expensive treatment and you are left bedridden.
I ask you would this be a fair way to be treated? Would this be fair especially if after leaving the 5 doctors you are later advised there is nothing wrong with you.
So, should the whole world’s economic, and social systems been completely trashed, should millions perhapse billion of peoples lives be be put in possible jepardy, all because back in the 1970 and 1980 the climate seemed to be a little off color?
We should and are doing something. Gas millage on vehicles has improved and will continue to do so. I got solar panels on my roof knocking my electric bill down to near nothing. I have a small house and try to live with a small footprint. Doing something can push innovation and actually save money. The only losers are the entrenched industries that resist change.
And if in say 20 years time you find out that CO2 is very easily handled by nature, what then.
Millions of lives are in turmoil because of some unproven theory.
And another thing. How many more $billion of public money is to be wasted on junk like this –
http://www.azcentral.com/business/news/articles/20130917e-car-charger-company-ecotality-files-bankruptcy.html
I agree, not good. I hope the electric car can eventually get its feet on the ground. I wonder how many billions of subsidy went for naught supporting the gasoline engine.
“How much public support went on supporting the gasoline engine. Excellent question, I’ve looked and guess what I found.
No I’ll let you google the answer.
And just to help here’s how you do it
Put http://www.google.com your browsers address bar, and wait for the google screen to appear. On the google screen there’s a box that you can type your inquiry in. Give it a try. Finding the answer you want is a bit tough but your a bright person. Give it a go, knock yourself out.
“How much public support went on supporting the gasoline engine. Excellent question, I’ve looked and guess what I found.
No I’ll let you google the answer.
And just to help here’s how you do it
Put http://www.google.com your browsers address bar, and wait till the google site appears. In the google screen there’s a box that you can type your inquiry in. Give it a try. Finding the answer is a bit tough but your a bright person. Give it a go, knock yourself out.
I agree, it should be found out. So until then lets all do the precautionary principle which is to do NOTHING!
No tax, no turning off generators, no carbon credit nonsense.
Maybe you should read this –
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124
Yes it is medical research where fraud, group think, and mistakes are much easier to find. Science in general suffers from this effect. In climate science it appears to be more so.
No, you are just another rat bastard that I have to subsidize. The only reason you are seeing any savings is because you are stealing from me, forcefully, through the government, who takes my money and gives it to you to do stupid shit like installing sun catchers and polluting our planet through the manufacturing of said sun catchers. If you were willing to foot the bill all unto yourself, that would be one thing, but you’re not, you’re in fact stealing from me. And I very much resent it!
There is NO subduction. Really, none.
How does a LESS dense friable crustal element dive into a MORE dense medium? Sam Carey has a brilliant discussion on this in his Theories of the Earth and Universe, Stanford University Press. 1988, pp. 174-189. In addition, instead of just theorizing as is done in most Geological discussions, save structural geology, petrology, and a few other niches, the arguments against subduction include observational science by including actual studies of proposed subduction zones.
Dan Kurt
Oceanic crust is more dense and dives under continental crust at subduction zones.
re: “…dives under continental crust at subduction zones.”
“…dives under continental crust at subduction zones” into a MORE dense medium that the continental crust is “floating” upon. The subduction is not INTO the continental crust but INTO the mantle which is denser, no? Steven, I urge you to borrow Carey’s book from your nearby university library. The irony of this whole controversy is that Sam Carey made his mark in Geology as a promoter of the Floating Continents and Subduction as a young academic. He was instrumental in its becoming the accepted paradigm. Later in life he changed his mind about the subject sort of like Saul of Tarsus.
Dan Kurt
Dan Kurt
Using that logic, any kind of convection would be impossible. The least dense material is always at the top.
Oceanic crust melts and differentiates as it dives, The lighter material floats up, and the denser material goes down.
Earthquakes and Volcanoes and sea-floor spreading(rift zones) are also figments of the imagination, geez :|]
re: “The least dense material is always at the top.” SG
Ok. At the beginning of the analysis we have the LESS DENSE oceanic crust floating upon the MORE DENSE mantle.
Next, “Oceanic crust melts and differentiates as it dives” SG
That is the hard part: “IT DIVES.” Do you have a mechanism to cause the DIVING. What exactly is PUSHING the less dense, buoyant plate into the more dense mantle. Read Carey.
Dan Kurt
p.s. I am not arguing against sea floor spreading and neither did Carey.
Convection pushes it from behind. It collides with continental crust and the weight of the continental crust above pushes it down.
The material produced by volcanic eruptions also shows that there is a difference between subduction zones and convection cells. Shield volcanoes versus cinder cone volcanoes. Basalt versus silicon. Mantle vs crust.
I have company and cannot take time to further explain, talk amongst yourselves.
Let’s ignore your English language explanations that completely cover up the mechanics.
Y’all are talking about a miles thickness slab of ROCK being pushed against another miles thick slab of rock that is somehow supposed to BEND and/or be crushed into a denser pool of thick molten rock. The energy required is astronomical and is supposed to be driven by lava being forced through the cracks in the ocean bottom.
I suggest y’all go out and find some people who can do the math and decide whether the lava being forced out of the cracks in the ocean bottom could possibly generate even a fraction of the energy required to force several continent sized irregular shapes against another one forcefully enough to bend/break it and make it DIVE!! I say several because there are subduction zones all around the Pacific.
Now think about what this guy has to say and show:
http://davidpratt.info/subduct.htm
Don’t be afraid of data now!! 8>)
“matayaya squeals:
September 18, 2013 at 4:38 pm
Wow, you haven’t been following the discussion on acidification of the oceans. You just blow it off without a thought? Lord help us.”
“Ocean Acidification and Calcifying Clams
Reference
Range, P., Chicharo, M.A., Ben-Hamadou, R., Pilo, D., Matias, D., Joaquim, S., Oliveira, A.P. and Chicharo, L. 2011. Calcification, growth and mortality of juvenile clams Ruditapes decussatus under increased pCO2 and reduced pH: Variable responses to ocean acidification at local scales? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 396: 177-184.
Background
In introducing their study, the authors write that “whether and how ocean acidification will affect marine organisms, ecosystems and the goods and services they provide is currently a topic of great concern,” and in their specific case that concern is directed towards juvenile clams of coastal marine ecosystems, since they say these shellfish “link primary productivity with upper trophic levels” and “are also important economic resources for fisheries and aquaculture.”
What was done
In an experiment designed to test the effects of increased pCO2 and reduced pH of seawater on the calcification, growth and mortality of juvenile Ruditapes decussatus clams, Range et al. conducted a 75-day controlled CO2 perturbation experiment, where the carbonate chemistry of seawater was manipulated by diffusing pure CO2 into natural seawater to attain two reduced pH levels (by -0.4 and -0.7 pH unit compared to un-manipulated seawater), hypothesizing that under these conditions the juvenile clams would exhibit: (1) reduced net calcification, (2) reduced growth of the shell and soft tissue, and (3) increased mortality.
What was learned
At the conclusion of their experiment, the eight researchers say that they found “no differences among pH treatments in terms of net calcification, size or weight of the clams,” disproving the first two of their three hypotheses. Their third hypothesis also proved to be wrong — doubly wrong, in fact — for not only was juvenile clam mortality not increased in the low pH seawater, they say that mortality was significantly reduced in the acidified treatments, which was something they describe as a truly “unexpected result.”
What it means
The Portuguese scientists conclude their paper by noting that life is intriguingly complex and that “the generalized and intuitively attractive perception that calcification will be the critical process impacted by ocean acidification is being increasingly challenged,” citing Widdicombe and Spicer (2008) and Findlay et al. (2009) in this regard. And we note that the results of their own study further contribute to this emerging perception.
References
Findlay, H.S., Wood, H.L., Kendall, M.A., Spicer, J.I., Twitchett, R.J. and Widdicombe, S. 2009. Calcification, a physiological process to be considered in the context of the whole organism. Biogeosciences Discussions 6: 2267-2284.
Widdicombe, S. and Spicer, J.I. 2008. Predicting the impact of ocean acidification on benthic biodiversity: what can animal physiology tell us? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 366: 187-197.
Reviewed 8 June 2011″
I can supply these all day long. How about you, parrot?
That was a good paper, but it is not the final word. The research is growing on this. Acidification of the ocean is a relevant question not to be ignored, especially as CO2 absorbson continues and ocean temperatures continues to rise.
Complete bullshit. Corals evolved in the Cambrian era with CO2 levels 20X of current values.
So us 7 billion people, soon to be 9 can just continue dumping into the sky and go about our merry ways. So reassuring.
Yes, because the CO2 premise is false as proven by the last 2 decades without warming with increasing CO2, which the models totally missed. I thought you believed in science. You don’t even understand the AGW theory. The theory relies on feedbacks to accomplish warming that is supposed to be dangerous. CO2 alone doesn’t cut it.
Isn’t live wonderful.
Quick all that brewing of beer and making of leavened bread makes CO2. Just think every year, the billions and billions of cans, all line up, ready to spray the world with that pollution. Miles of loaves made every year polluting, and blighting the lives of future generations.
Yes, CO2 is good. The BENEFITS are known and confirmed by thousands of experiments. The HARMS have FAILED to materialize. More intense storms, nope, hurricanes, no, acceleration of SL rise, no, etc. Really, it is remarkable, just by chance some of these should have increased. With CAGW the C, the G and the W are all MIA.
CO2 absorbtion and ocean acidification is an old cow debunked in numerous peer reviewed reports. Why the greenies continue to recycle their BS is clear. They stand totally empty handed. (BS. short for Bad Science but in this case “Bull Shit”.
The Cambrian era lasted 44 million years. We are only talking about the last 40 years right now.
So what? Have you already forgotten the papers I showed you? Have another…
“Effects of Seawater Acidification on Phytoplankton Growth Rates
Reference
Berge, T., Daugbjerg, N., Andersen, B.B. and Hansen, P.J. 2010. Effect of lowered pH on marine phytoplankton growth rates. Marine Ecology Progress Series 416: 10.3354/meps08780.
Background
“Marine phytoplankton contribute approximately 50% of the total global primary productivity and play a vital role in global carbon cycling,” according to Beardall et al. (2009); and they say “it is extremely important to understand the impact that global climate change will have on the ecological performance of these organisms,” which is precisely what Berge et al. do with respect to the effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on seawater pH and its impact on phytoplankton growth rates.
What was done
Using the acid (HCl) addition method to lower seawater pH, the authors assessed how growth and production rates were affected in “the most common coastal marine phytoplankton groups (diatoms, dinoflagellates, prymnesiophytes, and cryptophytes).” This they did via experiments conducted in the laboratory with the plankton enclosed within 270-ml sterile polycarbonate bottles that were filled to capacity to avoid gas exchange with the air. Representing diatoms in these experiments was Coscinodiscus granii; representing prymnesiophytes was Prymnesium parvum; representing cryptophytes were Rhodomonas marina and Teleaulax amphioxeia; while representing dinoflagellates were Prorocentrum minimum, Prorocentrum micans, Karlodinium veneficum and Heterocapsa triquetra.
What was learned
Berge et al. write that “our results and literature reports on growth at lowered pH indicate that marine phytoplankton in general are resistant to climate change in terms of ocean acidification, and do not increase or decrease their growth rates according to ecological relevant ranges of pH and free CO2.”
What it means
This finding is very similar to what has been obtained by the great majority of other studies of the ocean acidification phenomenon — not just with phytoplankton, but with all types of marine organisms — as may be seen by perusing the wealth of information we have assembled in our Ocean Acidification Database. Hence, the angst that has been created by climate alarmists over this issue would appear to have little to do with reality.
Reference
Beardall, J., Stojkovic, S. and Larsen, S. 2009. Living in a high CO2 world: impacts of global climate change on marine phytoplankton. Plant Ecology and Diversity 2: 191-205.”
Now STFU, until you provide proof of your claims.
The interesting question is how fast can corals adapt to changes in CO2 levels. Somehow, I doubt it will take 44 million years. 😉
Also,how tolerant they are of CO2 in the first place. Unless there is evidence to support a claim either way, one has to be various cautious about declaring that we’re heading towards a catastrophe.
* Depending on species a coral can live from around 1-1.5 years. They rapidly reproduce. Bottom line is you can have around 100 generations in 100 years.
Nuh-uh is not argument parrot. Where is the science that backs your ridiculous assertions you moron? You have yet to produce one shred of science.
Here is more proof you are an idiot.
“Algal Symbionts Appear to Determine Responses of Calcifying Organisms to Ocean Acidification
Volume 15, Number 5: 1 February 2012
Many are the studies that claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations will lead to a condition described as ocean acidification, where the pH of seawater declines and it becomes ever more difficult for calcifying marine organisms to produce skeletal structures.
However, in a culture experiment with two algal symbiont-bearing, reef-dwelling foraminifers (Amphisorus kudakajimensis and Calcarina gaudichaudii), which was conducted in seawater under five different pCO2 conditions – 245, 375, 588, 763 and 907 ppm, maintained with a precise pCO2-controlling technique – Hikami et al. (2011) found that net calcification of A. kudakajimensis was indeed reduced under higher pCO2, but that calcification of C. gaudichaudii did just the opposite and actually increased with increased pCO2.
This latter result, although seemingly strange, is anything but unusual; for the nine researchers report that various taxa of coccolithophores and sea urchins “show enhanced calcification in environments with higher pCO2,” citing the work of Iglesias-Rodriguez et al. (2008), Doney et al. (2009) and Ries et al. (2009). And they say that “different populations of Emiliania huxleyi have shown decreased, increased, or unchanged calcification in response to higher pCO2,” citing Fabry (2008).
In discussing the findings of their experiment, Hikami et al. say that the upward trend in the calcification of C. gaudichaudii in response to ocean acidification “can probably be attributed to the increase in CO2, possibly through enhancement of symbiont photosynthesis, a phenomenon known as the CO2-fertilizing effect,” citing Ries et al. (2009), although the concept was first described several years earlier by Idso et al. (2000). And in discussing possible causes of the two contrasting types of calcification response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment (positive and negative), they speculate that “the type of symbiont influences the strength of the CO2-fertilizing effect.”
Hikami et al. note, for example, that “Calcarina hosts diatoms as its symbiotic algae, whereas Amphisorus hosts dinoflagellates,” and they state that “both a single-species culture experiment (Wu et al., 2010) and a mesocosm bloom experiment (Engel et al., 2008) have shown that high-CO2 seawater is favorable to diatom growth,” and that “Badger et al. (1998) pointed out that a rise in CO2 may lead to enhanced phytoplankton growth owing to the low affinity of the carboxylating enzyme (Rubisco) for CO2.” Hence, they suggest “it is possible that Calcarina acquires an increased amount of energy from its symbiotic diatoms under high pCO2 conditions, leading to enhanced calcification,” while noting Rost et al. (2006) report that “dinoflagellates use HCO3- as their carbon source, so their rate of carbon fixation may remain unaffected by fluctuating CO2 levels.”
In concluding the report of their study, Hikami et al. speculate that the vastly different impacts of seawater chemistry that they observed “may be attributable to the different types of symbiotic algae hosted by Amphisorus and Calcarina.” And we further speculate that the well-known phenomenon of symbiont shuffling may therefore enable many other calcifying organisms, which currently are negatively influenced by ocean acidification, to ultimately move into the positively-influenced category. See Coral Reefs (Bleaching – Responses: Symbiont Shuffling) in our Subject Index for more information on this intriguing subject.
Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso
References
Badger, M.R., Andrews, T.J., Whitney, S.M., Ludwig, M., Yellowlees, D.C., Leggat, W. and Price, G.D. 1998. The diversity and coevolution of Rubisco, plastids, pyrenoids, and chloroplast-based CO2-concentrating mechanisms in algae. Canadian Journal of Botany 76: 1052-1071.
Doney, S.C., Fabry, V.J., Feely, R.A. and Kleypas, J.A. 2009. Ocean acidification: The other CO2 problem. Annual Review of Marine Science 1: 169-192.
Engel, A., Schulz, K.G., Riebesell, U., Bellerby, R., Delille, B. and Schartau, M. 2008. Effects of CO2 on particle size distribution and phytoplankton abundance during a mesocosm bloom experiment (PcECE II). Biogeosciences 5: 509-521.
Fabry, V.J. 2008. Marine calcifiers in a high-CO2 ocean. Science 320: 1020-1022.
Hikami, M., Ushie, H., Irie, T., Fujita, K., Kuroyanagi, A., Sakai, K., Nojiri, Y., Suzuki, A. and Kawahata, H. 2011. Contrasting calcification responses to ocean acidification between two reef foraminifers harboring different algal symbionts. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 10.1029/2011GL048501.
Idso, S.B., Idso, C.D. and Idso, K.E. 2000. CO2, global warming and coral reefs: Prospects for the future. Technology 7S: 71-94.
Iglesias-Rodriguez, M.D., Halloran, P.R., Rickaby, R.E.M., Hall, I.R., Colmenero-Hidalgo, E., Gittins, J.R., Green, D.R.H., Tyrrell, T., Gibbs, S.J., von Dassow, P., Rehm, E., Armbrust, E.V. and Boessenkool, K.P. 2008. Phytoplankton calcification in a high-CO2 world. Science 320: 336-340.
Ries, J.B., Cohen, A.L. and McCorkle, D.C. 2009. Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification. Geology 37: 1131-1134.
Rost, B., Richter, K.-U., Riebesell, U. and Hansen, P.J. 2006. Inorganic carbon acquisition in red-tide dinoflagellates. Plant, Cell and Environment 29: 810-822.
Wu, Y., Gao, K. and Riebesell, U. 2010. CO2-induced seawater acidification affects physiological performance of the marine diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum. Biogeosciences 7: 2915-2923.”
Your turn moron.
You call me an idiot and moron but you keep sending me these dense scholarly papers to read. I guess you figure I am able to read them. Ok, I read it. Sounds like a good study and it supports your position on acidification. But there are lots of other scientist on the case and it is probably a good idea not to jump to conclusions just yet. My point is simply that it remains an open question that needs further study, not something to be ignored.
You are an idiot. You make claims with no science to back them, and then dismiss science that says you are wrong. My deepest condolences to your parents and teachers.
And again…
“Sea Urchin Babies Unharmed By Mean Old Ocean Acidification, Peer-Reviewed Study Finds
Read here. The left/green coalition has conjured up the boogieman termed “ocean acidification” to instill fear in the hearts of liberal/progressives “elites” that marine life will be adversely affected by greater emissions of human CO2. Based on the ocean acidification fears, Yu et al. conducted research on sea urchin babies larvae immersed in water with lower values of pH to determine its impact on larvae growth and well being.
The research found that sea urchin larvae were not impacted by levels of increasing “acidification” of sea water that some have predicted will represent ocean waters 100+ years from now.
“Yu et al. state that “the observed developmental progression and survival of cultures was within the norm typically observed for this species at this temperature range.” In addition, they indicate that “a lack of developmental deformities at early stages for pCO2 ~1000 ppm has been previously reported for this species…” And they say “there are even reports that survival is increased in this species and its congener S. droebachiensis under some low pH conditions…”…conclude, that “the effects of small magnitude in these urchin larvae are indicative of a potential resilience to near-future levels of ocean acidification.”” [Pauline C. Yua, Paul G. Matsona, Todd R. Martzb, Gretchen E. Hofmanna 2011: Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology]”
Your turn. 😆
Gator, Gator … calm down man … remember, all of the facts and sciencey stuff you are posting is not “the final word” on the subject. Only matayaya can provide to you the “final word” … let’s wait and see what the “final word” is.
/sarc 😉
Man, I didn’t realize they made industrial grade stupidity this freaking strong … They have got to start putting warning labels on idiots like this.
Hey Squid! This parrot’s level of stupid can only be achieved in a self imposed manner. How many times have we heard, “I’m just a layman looking for honest answers”, and then seen the squeaker deny hard facts and science.
These trollbots are wound up by their masters and then turned loose on the rest of us. As annoying as they are, they are a great means of demonstrating to the fence sitters that the alarmists have zero science with which to back their endless howling.
Yea, I’m impressed that Real Science web master hasn’t cut me off. I have been listening to folks like you and Steve for years slinging all sorts of whacko stuff with no way to hit back. It is nice to fianlly have to opportunity for a little push back. You two could use some civilizing.
Nope, already studied in detail, ho to the icecap.us library or WUWT. Ocean acidification is an invention from Greenpeace and WWF after their acid rain scare suddenly vanished.
@Gator, true that man!
I have met many individuals similar to you when I was a University instructor in the early 70s. Big talkers until the mid term and vacent during the second semester. After my second post-doc I went into industry and never taught again but my wife, a sience Ph.D., who taught for years in three different colleges and universities brought home stories of similar personality types as you, matayaya: failures all, logic tight mines all, unalloyed self confidence notwithstanding repeated failures.
Dan Kurt
minds not mines @ Dan Kurt September 19, 2013 at 12:09 am
Industrial Grade Stupid Warning Label as suggested by Squid for Matahari/TOO/LAZ/Appell/et al.
http://depositphotos.com/20422965/stock-illustration-Raster-version.-Human-face-with-Biohazard-sign.-Illustration-on-white-background.html
It would be interesting to hear the thoughs of some of the engineers on this article about wind power. http://aweablog.org/blog/post/correcting-fossil-fuel-industry-misinforma…
http://blog.rmi.org/separating_fact_from_fiction_in_accounts_of_germanys…
I’d be cautious about this claim. I heard about it a few years ago and read about it (along with theories that most hydrocarbons are not fossil fuels) and decided independently (not influenced by academic consensus) that it’s not true. There might be some small percentage of chemically generated methane, but most is released from bio material.
However, I think it is true that the amount of fossil fuels yet untapped would blow the minds of most geology departments. Big companies have amazing techniques to estimate oil and gas deposits, and their maps show magnitudes more than government estimates. (I’ve worked in the petrochemical industry for about two decades)
Soooo…the huge lakes of methane and carbon on Titan, by your logic, must have been generated by biological means. OK. I am a biochemist/organic chemist of some 40+ years in research. (not that this holds any great weight in logical argumentation). I did believe in the “fossil fuel” consensus, until I spent a little bit of thought and research on the subject.
One of the greatest problems with biogenesis is the composition of the sources (substrates). Biological molecules are highly oxidized, and contain substantial amounts of nitrogen and oxygen. Where did all these atoms go? Thermodynamically, it is very unfavorable to reduce carbohydrates, for example, and strip them of their huge load of oxygen.
Methanogenic bacteria (one subject of my research over 15 years), utilize already highly reduced molecules, especially saturated fatty acids, for their energy source, producing methane as a waste product. Animals and plants have a very small percentage of fatty acids in their makeups. H2O is the largest component. There just is not enough of substrate for the amounts of deposits. So yes, some unknown percentage of hydrocarbons, biogenically, is a component of our oil and gas which has gathered right on the surface in the petroleum domes and wells we harvest. Biogenic oil is produced on the surface, abiogenic oil depper down where the heat and pressure are.
My guess is that oil and gas production by natural processes exceeds our consumption. Oil wells that have been depleted in Ohio and Pennsylvania and elsewhere have been refilled since going dry. But this is all a guess. Who knows the balance between consumption and renewal?
We should know the answer to some of these questions in the near future. If the data actually get known, that is.
Excellent comment! … thank you for the valuable information! … great stuff!
As much as I secretly enjoy watching the troll flounder against the superior production of facts and data on this blog by Steve and the contributors, I wonder if it’s time to starve this troll of the attention it craves?
I don’t normally say this, but in the exceptional cases of David Appell and this clown known as matayaya, I would have to concur with you Dave. This is going beyond ridiculous and getting old. It isn’t even much funny anymore.
BTW, it is impossible for the oceans to become “acidified”.
As long as the ocean’s are touching limestone, this is correct. And since I don’t see anything going to change that, I don’t see that it could ever be remotely possible for oceans to become “acidic” or “acidified”. Ocean “acidification” is a complete bullshit, non-starter.
You are assuming extreme numbers, flipping the needle a different direction doesn’t necessarily mean a big number. But, if CO2 absorption triples or quadruples over the next century, it might be an issue. A century is not that long if you consider your grandkids and greatgrandkids.
OK dumbass, let’s run the numbers by you again and see if anything besides alarmism can get through your thick skull…
”
30% rise in acidity!? A solution of pH[1] has 100,000,000,000,000 times more hydrogen ions (acidity) than a solution of pH[14]. If I had a solution at pH of 8.5 the hydrogen ion content would be 3.2 x 10exp(-9) M. A 30% increase in hydrogen ion content is 4.2 x10exp(-9)M. Converting this to pH becomes… wait for this… 8.4!!!!! Yes you guessed it, nothing to write home about. It doesn’t sound half as threatening as 30% does it!?! Kinda’ makes a mockery of percentage with respect to pH, doesn’t it. chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryquickreview/a/phreview.htm
Now I know I’m just an evil oil shill lackey, scientificly moronic, ununderstanding, conspiracy driven republican pontificating the tea party line… but… what percentage increase in acidity would be neccissary to lower the pH from 8.3 (start) to pure, neutral, distilled water? pH 7.0
Want a hint? 2000%”
Your are one stupid fuck.
The neddle is pointing toward acidification, the water is getting warmer, the sea level is rising; and I should trust you that there is nothing to be concerded about?
You stinking pile, either bring facts as I have, or STFU.
You are EASILY the DUMBEST person I have EVER encountered on the Internet.
You should work on your anger management issues.
You should see the Wizard about a brain. 😆
And lastly parrot…
“• “Even if we could get more people to ride transit, transit uses as much energy, and emits nearly as much greenhouse gases, as cars; and the trends suggest that cars will be more environmentally friendly than any transit system in the country by 2025.” -Randal O’Toole, Cato Institute”
So it is not a foregone conclusion that mass transit is better for the environment.
Anyone else care to babysit the spamming moron? I have burgers to grill. Who knows, maybe someday he will actually provide proof of one of his claims. 😆
That is sort of like saying 5 people riding in one car is no more efficient than 5 cars with only one person in each.
Let’s see if dipshit (matayaya) can fathom this:
Firstly, the first 3 meters of ocean contain as much CO2 as all of the atmosphere above it. That’s right, mata-ass-wipe, the first 10 freaking feet of water absorbs more CO2 than all of the atmosphere above it. So, for a 1M by 1M column, it takes only 3M of water to contain all of the CO2 above it, right up to the very tippy tip top of our atmosphere.
What is the average depth of our oceans you ask? Good question! As per information from our friendly folks at NOAA:
There ain’t no way in hell that humans could possibly manufacture enough CO2 to “acidify” our oceans. Not no way, not ever, not even if we dedicated our very existence to nothing but trying to “acidify” our oceans could we ever, and I mean EVER be successful in doing so. I very much doubt that humans are even capable of generating enough CO2 to even measure a change in ocean pH. EVER!
Sorry I got your blood pressue up. It is not just my opinion. I read a lot of different stuff and lots of people are talking about it. My point is not a conclusion, but just that it is a legitimate issue to study and should not just be blown off.
And Gator, stop it! … I am still at work, trying to get a few things done, but I don’t seem to be able to resist the temptation of reading your comments, which, in and of itself is not such a problem … but damn, people are starting to wonder what the hell I keep laughing about … 😆
“matayaya squeaks:
September 18, 2013 at 6:48 pm
We should and are doing something. Gas millage on vehicles has improved and will continue to do so.”
“The new standards had no success in lowering fuel consumption. Quite the contrary — since it now cost less to fill the tank, people drove more. Within a few years, this “rebound effect” doubled average fuel usage. As a result, oil imports increased from 35% of consumption in 1975 to 52% by the year 2000.
The new regulations did accomplish one thing — they killed drivers and passengers in large numbers. By lightening cars and removing material, auto companies were inadvertently discarding the armor that protected motorists in the event of a crash. Similarly, the compressed new models lacked space for impact forces to attenuate before causing damage and injury. Drivers in lightweight cars were as much as twelve times more likely to die in a crash. It was once said about American autos that they were “built like tanks.” Many of the new models from the late ’70s onward more closely resembled go-carts — and proved to be about as sturdy…
According to the Brookings Institution, a 500-lb weight reduction of the average car increased annual highway fatalities by 2,200-3,900 and serious injuries by 11,000 and 19,500 per year. USA Today found that 7,700 deaths occurred for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards. Smaller cars accounted for up to 12,144 deaths in 1997, 37% of all vehicle fatalities for that year. The National Academy of Sciences found that smaller, lighter vehicles “probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993.” The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration study demonstrated that reducing a vehicle’s weight by only one hundred pounds increased the fatality rate by as much as 5.63% for light cars, 4.70% for heavier cars, and 3.06% for light trucks. These rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars, and 14,705 for light trucks between 1996 and 1999.”
The law of unintended consequences. While theories may be fun, they can also be deadly when we ignore reality.
There was a study done in a small town in Iowa where they switched the light bulbs to those compact pig-tails. What they found stunned them because electric bills went up. They found that people never turned them off in places like garages, patios,etc. because they were so cheap to operate. Making anything more efficient doesn’t reduce consumption and it actually increases it. That is one of the biggest fallacies liberals make and not thinking things through.
Jevons paradox. Observed in 1865.
Just think in Europe and the USA those energy efficient bulbs are the main source of electric light. Each and every one of them has a little mercury in them. There are millions of them, everywhere.
Now just think how many have you’ve thrown away. How many everyone will throw away. Do you know where those trashed ones went. Because if they went to land fill, or an incinerator, then that little silver seed of mercury in each one could get into the water, and slowly little silver seed by little silver seed we all get poisoned. The adults will be fine for quite a while, years possibly but babies are badly affected. Nerve and brain damage mostly, then the older children, until the adults finally feel its effect.
Mad as a hatter was an old phrase, maybe it’ll make a come back.
Google mercury poisoning and see what we are doing to ourselves.
But don’t suggest we stop innovating, LED bulbs are coming down the pike that are even more efficient and no mercury. Expensive now, yes, but that will change with economies of scale.
LEDs wow how expensive are the compared to say a tungsten filament bulb?
And doesn’t the making of LEDs involve using some truly toxic methods, and overall the energy used to make LEDs is quite high. And of course they are note exactly recyclable. But I’m sure they’ll get better.
Funny but tungsten filament bulbs were fairly nontoxic and recyclable but a little power hungry. But the power issue was getting sorted just before they were phased out.
Still only a few people in jeopardy as we mercury marinade ourselves before cost effective LEDs hit the market.
Are you not upset by the lack of control over the likelihood of all this mercury entering our biosphere?
Sure I think mercury in the environment is a bad thing, but from what I have seen, LEDs are the next big thing in lighting and at least we won’t continue with mercury for lighting when LEDs get going. You make me want to know more about the manufacturing process, are they really cleaner. They are efficient and last a long long time without giving off much heat. They have trouble using them in traffic lights cause the snow doesn’t melt off them.
You appear to be not that worried about a known hazard to humans especially children of mercury but you appear overly worried about CO2. CO2 is a necessary plant food and yet to be proved to be a hazard to anything.
I strongly suggest you reappraise you thinking. There are many real hazards in this world that we all come into contact with, please for your own good and the good of your family put as much thought into them as you appear to have given to the theoretical hazard called CO2.
I thought highway deaths were down considerably since, say 25 years ago. A lighter car is less safe, especially if hit by a heavier one, but many other factors have made driving safer now. We are safer drivers and there are many features that make cars safer than they used to be. Weight is not the only safety feature.
You THOUGHT!
ROFLMAO!!!
Bring facts, not brain farts idiot.
¿ And this has what? to do with Natural Gas¿
Q: An electric Tesla is driving 80 mph down a highway and slams into the back of a Yaris converted to run on PNG going 45 mph. A large explosion occurs and both cars are reduced to tiny fragments. How big is the crater in the roadbed, which is made of 4″ of asphalt over 8″ of reinforced concrete?
There is so much they’ve done to sink the West. We have dozens of reasons to chase them out.
The current US debt and the failed Fed policies is one of them: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-18/11-minutes-and-652-words-later-hilsenrath-explains-why-bernanke-shocked-everyone
“matayaya squeaks:
September 18, 2013 at 7:59 pm
I agree, not good. I hope the electric car can eventually get its feet on the ground. I wonder how many billions of subsidy went for naught supporting the gasoline engine.”
ROFLMAO!!!!
I feel that it is time for me to make apologies to morons, idiots, fools and parrots for associating them with matayaya. 😆
STILL ROFLMAO!!!
I think I would add to gasoline engines, roads to no where. One of the reasons Detroit failed is that it was a big city designed only for the car. All single family houses strung out to kingdom come. . Lots of roads, pipes and wires strung out long distances to serve lower density. A big city, but sprawled out to make the car the only means of transport. Other big rust belt cities have been more successful at reinventing themselves due in part to being more compact. If electric cars do become successful, it will probably be in these reinvented cities where economies of scale work better.
You cannot be serious. You are beyond stupid. Care to back your latest moronic statement up with any facts?
ROFLMAO!!!!
Remember me?
You asked “How much public support went on supporting the gasoline engine.
And I replied –
“Excellent question, I’ve looked and guess what I found.
No I’ll let you google the answer.”
Do you find the answer?
I intended to raise the issue of subsidies for roads vs public transportation. There are many places around the world where public transportation is so good you don’t need a car.
You specifically asked
“How much public support went on supporting the gasoline engine.”
I was wondering if you ever found the answer to this question?
Did you?
So, against single family houses, and roads for automobiles.
Is this new person perhaps some kind of closet fascist ?
One of those watermelons ?
If you think Detroit failed because it was set up for only car travel, you really are as stupid as Gator has been demonstrating.
“matayaya squeaks:
September 18, 2013 at 8:58 pm
I intended to raise the issue of subsidies for roads vs public transportation. There are many places around the world where public transportation is so good you don’t need a car.”
How many are as large as the US?
The EU first comes to mind. Fly over and you don’t see sprawl. Towns, villages and cities cluster their development where economies of scale are possible. The car does not rule development. They certainly have other problems there, but they are far more energy efficient per capita than we are.
The EU is not a country, dumbass. And they have a much higher population density moron.
Again, you are EASILY the DUMBEST person I have EVER encountered on the Internet.
Who breathes for you?
Aww now you’re not being fair, He just learned a new phrase: “Economies of Scale” LOL:[)
Approximate annual subsidy cost for European public transport €270-290 billion.
The breakdown is in here –
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/transport-subsidies/term_2006_23___transport_subsidies_final_version.pdf
Have you ever tried to F^&^&*((ing drive in France? I Have!
“matayaya squeals:
September 18, 2013 at 9:41 pm
That is sort of like saying 5 people riding in one car is no more efficient than 5 cars with only one person in each.”
No, it isn’t. It’s like saying one coyote riding on a train is more efficient than two in a car.
http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/02/04/coyote-on-portlands-max/
ROFLMAO!
too funny, HEY yaya yadayada The trains will still run no matter how many people (don’t)get on them. AND, they stop at stations every so often, thus vastly increasing the diesel smoke over the case that they made no stops until final destination.
So, yes 100 people riding a train for 30 miles(with stops) IS NO MORE EFFICIENT than 100 people each driving 30 miles nonstop.
squid2112 says:
September 18, 2013 at 3:35 pm
“Fact is, there is no such thing as “fossil fuel”.
I can tell that you’re not Irish. In Ireland, peat has been a popular energy source for centuries. And guess what? Peat is a fossil fuel.
Well, technically a fossil is something hundreds of thousands or millions of years old. Peat is thousands of years old, comprising decomposing plant matter. Few dinosaurs have been found in peat, to my knowledge. I would call peat “compost fuel”. Ain’t semantics wonderful?
BTW, speaking about CO2 “acidification”, it is not the amount of CO2 that matters. Carbonic acid (CO2 in H2O, H2CO3) is too weak an acid to break the ocean’s buffers. The ocean’s buffers are not just composed of limestone, but phosphate and magnesium sulfate buffers and others in solution and out of solution that are resistant to changes in pH up or down. There are not even enough strong acids available (sulfurous acid aerosols, e.g.) that could break the buffers available to the ocean.
Earth is an amazing system, resistant and robust to change.
gofer says:
September 18, 2013 at 7:18 pm
“There was a study done in a small town in Iowa where they switched the light bulbs to those compact pig-tails. What they found stunned them because electric bills went up. They found that people never turned them off in places like garages, patios,etc. because they were so cheap to operate. Making anything more efficient doesn’t reduce consumption and it actually increases it.”
I have one of those twisty things in my hall bathroom, and I leave it on all of the time, like the folks in that Iowa town. Why?
1. Energy efficiency is a consideration in my odd choice. For a given amount of light output, compared with a conventional bulb, a CFL will contribute less heat to my condo on hot Summer days here in the Sacramento metro area.
2. The putative long life of CFLs is shortened considerably by ‘normal’ on-off use.
3. CFLs are more expensive than conventional light bulbs.
4. I’m doing my bit for the environment, by extending the life of that CFL, and minimizing my household mercury pollution, of which the major source is dead CFLs.
In light of the mercury pollution from discarded CFLs, it’s ironic that one of Barry’s rationales for his War on Coal is mercury pollution from conventional coal-fired power plants. Apparently, he is not able to grasp the inconsistency.
bubbagyro says:
September 18, 2013 at 10:29 pm
“Well, technically a fossil is something hundreds of thousands or millions of years old. Peat is thousands of years old, comprising decomposing plant matter.”
Oh yeah? Well James Hansen is a fossil, and he’s not even 100 years old. 🙂
“Oh yeah? Well James Hansen is a fossil, and he’s not even 100 years old.”
But he does emit vast quantities of a foully odoriferous gas pollutant that has caused a catastrophe in climate science.
“Fossil fuel” is in fact a misnomer. Fossil means mineral replacement of the original body.
Ignoring that, coal is certainly a fossil fuel. Indeed, fossils have been found in coal. There is no doubt that coal is of biogenic origin.
re: “There is no doubt that coal is of biogenic origin.” Gamecock
There is doubt. Thomas Gold wrote two books that show why coal may not be of biogenic origin. You may be amused by reading his ideas on the formation of coal.
Dan Kurt
You can see fossil plants in many coal beds.
Maybe these people should know about this. They got fossils in their coal.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/carboniferous/carboniferous.php
And these people must have it all wrong.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Articles1.html#anchor233526
Good find! thanks tomOmason: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html
good data/graphs
Coal, the US’s number 1 fuel is being ignored because of propaganda, prejudice and left-wing activism..
The problem with open minds is that it allows ones brains to seep out. Steve is deadly with a bow and arrow. Silent but deadly.
Coal is black. Thus burning it is racist. Thus it must cease. The Brave New America.