[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.62 MB, 250x220, v.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12637802 No.12637802 [Reply] [Original]

>Earth is billions of years old
>At one point it was nothing but molten rock and sulfuric acid oceans
>But apparently 200 years of humans burning shit has put us on the brink of """"destroying"""" the Earth?
Come the fuck on

>> No.12637811

>>12637802
based retard

>> No.12637814

>>12637811
I'm waiting for you to explain why I'm a retard.

>> No.12637816

>>12637802
Earth will be fine. Humans are merely making it uninhabitable for humans. Earth has been uninhabitable for the dominant life forms dozens of times over throughout history.
>what are extinction events
The only thing unique about humans is we're so stupid we're doing it to ourselves, rather than waiting for a volcano or an asteroid to do it for us.

>> No.12637896

>>12637802
The concern is not that we will destroy the earth. This planet will survive.
The concern is that we will make the planet unlivable for us, which is really all that matters.

>> No.12637911
File: 74 KB, 500x500, 1611702915989.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12637911

>>12637816
Take your meds Tysonoid

>> No.12638014
File: 171 KB, 326x281, 1cd8a9430538d3990f0de02d93cacb38.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12638014

>>12637802
What a retarded Zoomer comparison.

There was no living things for millions of years after the Earth was first formed dickhead. It took bacteria millions of years to change all that co2 into oxygen. Billions of years later we arrive. Burning shit is bad, go and smoke your house with BBQ smoke and live in it. In a large biosphere like Earth, burn shit for 200 years and you eventually end up with bad air conditions for all living creatures.

>> No.12638033

>>12638014
How do you turn CO2 into oxygen?

>> No.12638048

>>12637814
Not him, but: we're "destroying" earth for the majority of living species on it. The climate conditions will be practically the same if you look at Earth like a space rock (maybe a 10-20C difference?) but that will annihilate a lot of current species. We're already in the middle of an anthropocene extinction.

Nothing lived on the sulfuric acid rock, and nothing will live on the earth the way we are going to leave it.

>> No.12638056

>>12638033
Forget the bacteria thing because you're obviously missing the obvious, main point. There was nothing alive near the start of the planet BECAUSE of molten rock, mass co2 and mass sulfur.
Continuously burning shit creates bad air quality for all of us living creatures, and can put US on the brink if it continues for another hundreds of years, not the big rock we live on, US.
You penis.

>> No.12638059

>>12637816
What's weird is the framing of the issue. A lot of "save the Earth" and "humans wrecking the Earth" type sentiment. I think this is to rally support in a similar way to starving puppy charity commercials. Instead the frame should be "save humanity" and "humans wrecking humanity" and with that framing it should be obvious that the most pressing issues are not our effects on the environment but the deterioration of human bonds and human culture

>> No.12638074

>>12638059
My god. Save the Earth obviously implies all living things on the Earth. They also mean beauty, eventually the beauty will go too; The forests, clear skies, normal seasons etc.

>> No.12638082

>>12638056
Yeah but how do you turn CO2 into oxygen? Transmutation?

>> No.12638083

>>12638056
Yes but the planet was already hit by an asteroid six miles wide that killed almost everything on the planet. The belief that we could match that or even damage the planet more than that is suicidally stupid.

>> No.12638092

>>12638082
I don't fucking know you giant cock.

Read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

>> No.12638103

>>12638092
Holop it says there that oxygen just appeared and rusted the Earth. How is that possible? Oxygen from where? Oxygen can't just appear out of nowhere.

>> No.12638108

>>12638083
They don't say it's as catastrophic as a six mile asteroid, you pulled that notion out of your ass.

>> No.12638111

>>12638103
Go and get cancer you silly cunt.

>> No.12638125

>>12638111
I thought this was a board for experts?

>> No.12638131

>>12638125
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/origin-of-oxygen-in-atmosphere/

There's your fucking expert. Stupid cunt.

>> No.12638135

>>12638103
Are you being retarded on purpose? You'd better not be.

>The cyanobacteria producing the oxygen caused the event which enabled the subsequent development of multicellular forms.[6]
>A chronology of oxygen accumulation suggests that free oxygen was first produced by prokaryotic and then later by eukaryotic organisms in the ocean. These organisms carried out photosynthesis, producing oxygen as a waste product.[7][8]
>However, oxygenic photosynthesis also produces organic carbon that must be segregated from oxygen to allow oxygen accumulation in the surface environment, otherwise the oxygen back-reacts with the organic carbon and does not accumulate.

>> No.12638145

>>12638135
I think he is a spastic zoomer trolling /sci/, him and his OP.

>> No.12638147

>>12637802
You're right about the fact that the earth will be fine. People just like saying "earth" in reference to earth in it's current, human hospitable state. In that sense, yes it's fucked, i.e. become less hospitable.

>> No.12638153

>>12638082
Please tell me they still teach photosynthesis in schools.

>> No.12638172

>>12638135
No. How do you turn CO2 into Oxygen? These are different substances. Dont tell me "chemical reaction" because there is no fucking way to balance CO2->O2

>> No.12638196

>>12638172
Please be bait. I want this to be bait so bad.
If not, the equation for photosynthesis:
6(CO2)+6(H2O)-> 6(C6H12O6) +6(O2)

>> No.12638199

>>12638172
a chemistry professor somewhere just keeled over and died

>> No.12638209

>>12638196
Holop, so you be saying its not just oxygen that appeared, its ALSO HYDROCARBON!

>> No.12638212

>>12638074
>Save the Earth obviously implies all living things on the Earth
>Vegans want to rip plants out of the ground against their will
Dumbass. They don't care about saving all life. Do you know how many vegetables went extinct in the agricultural revolution? Or even in the last 20 years?

>> No.12638221
File: 8 KB, 249x202, 0760_-_iTJqBcf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12638221

We're on the edge of the domain of validity of Poe's law

>> No.12638222

>>12638196
>6(CO2)+6(H2O)-> 6(C6H12O6) +6(O2)
You added an extra factor of six in your hydrocarbon. It should be
>6(CO2)+6(H2O)-> C6H12O6 +6(O2)

>> No.12638227

>>12638209
Nope, plenty of those were already around. Maybe try a board that's more your speed. Something like >>>/b/

>> No.12638236

>>12638209
What do you think the "primordial soup" looked like? There were hydrocarbons like methane and shit, so that shouldn't be surprising. Regardless, the oxidation event was caused by cyanobacteria which did what plants do now, by the photosynthesis equation shown, producing oxygen. Do you know what a plant is? Do you know what a bacteria is? Think of it as a plant bacteria! This wasn't some spontaneous chemical reaction, this was powered by life.

>> No.12638242

>>12638222
Oh lol I'm retarded. My bad.

>> No.12638248

>>12638236
Not the point, see this?
6(CO2)+6(H2O)-> C6H12O6 +6(O2)
That's 1 glucose molecule for each 6 oxygen molecules.
Thats a lot of glucose. Everybody talks about the oxygen, i want to know what happened to that glucose.
Because IT IS A LOT.

>> No.12638266

>>12638248
Are you fucking with me? It's right in that wiki article that was linked.

However, oxygenic photosynthesis also produces organic carbon that must be segregated from oxygen to allow oxygen accumulation in the surface environment, otherwise the oxygen back-reacts with the organic carbon and does not accumulate. The burial of organic carbon, sulfide, and minerals containing ferrous iron (Fe2+) is a primary factor in oxygen accumulation.[12] For example, when organic carbon is buried without being oxidized, the oxygen is left in the atmosphere.

>> No.12638268

>>12638074
No, they won't. You really think animals and nature can't survive 5, 10 or 15 more degrees? The variance between climate within regions is already bigger.

>> No.12638269

>>12638248
>Where's all the glucose
It went into Americans' diets

>> No.12638272

>>12638248
It's used by the cyanobacteria for respiration, growth and reproduction. To create usable energy and build structures. Just like you respire and plants build their cells.

>> No.12638277

>>12638212
I agree with you. You can ignore my sigh post.

>> No.12638285

>>12638248
Basically, according to this model there should exist on earth as much free carbon (or hydrocarbon) to match the observed amounts of atmospheric oxygen. And since a lot of atmospheric oxygen became bound to iron, aluminium and different minerals, then the corresponding amount of free carbon (as carbon or hydrocarbon equivalent) should be higher than the amount of oxygen.
It means CO2->O2+C means theres as many atoms of free carbon (not bound to oxygen) as there are are molecules of oxygen in the atmosphere, but actually more once you account for the oxygen in minerals.
Theres about 2 tonnes of atmospheric oxygen per square meter, that means theres around 1 tonne of free carbon per square meter on earth, as an average, and likely more if you account for the oxygen bound to iron and minerals.

>> No.12638291

>>12638266
So where is that carbon?

>> No.12638295

>>12638268
A lot of animals won't be able to survive. Look up coral bleaching. But if you're fine with earth being populated only by cockroaches then go ahead.

>> No.12638298

>>12638291
READ NIGGER.

>The burial of organic carbon, sulfide, and minerals containing ferrous iron (Fe2+) is a primary factor in oxygen accumulation.[12]

How many remedial classes did you have to take?

>> No.12638304

>>12638295
Why cockroaches? You can't have an ecology based only on cockroaches. Seems like ecologies that like heat will just expand.

>> No.12638306

>>12638268
I don't think you understand the concept of a global average temperature.

>> No.12638311
File: 427 KB, 1400x922, Usnea.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12638311

>>12638268
>and nature
"Since industrialisation many of the shrubby and leafy lichens such as Ramalina, Usnea and Lobaria species have very limited ranges, often being confined to the parts of Britain with the purest air such as northern and western Scotland and Devon and Cornwall."
http://www.air-quality.org.uk/19.php

That's just the start. Ecosystems are delicate. Beauty includes a massive variance of species doing well in my eyes.

>> No.12638319

>>12638298
>burial of carbon
Burial where? Where do you bury 1 tonne of carbon per square meter? Do you have any idea how much carbon that is?
Thats 1 trillion tonnes of carbon for each million square km. Earth has a surface of 500 million square km. You telling me there are 500 trillion tonnes of carbon buried?

>> No.12638326

>>12638311
I'll add to my post that even though this is air quality and not temperature related. I wouldn't be surprised if average temperature rises and bad air quality rises have correlations.

>>12638268

>> No.12638332

>>12638319
Yes, you dumb motherfucker. Do you understand what timescales this happened over? Of course not, you didn't fucking read it.

Go read that page, the ENTIRE page, then read this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

Make an effort to be less retarded.

>> No.12638335

>>12638306
Life migrates, has always done so. If the middle turns into a desert, the top and bottom will become temperate.

>> No.12638338

>>12638332
So you are saying there are 500 trillion tonnes of carbon buried?

>> No.12638348

>>12638319
Yes.

>> No.12638352

>>12638338
Are you saying you didn't fucking read again?

>> No.12638360

>>12638319
>Where do you bury 1 tonne of carbon per square meter? Do you have any idea how much carbon that is?
>What is depth
>What is oil

>> No.12638365

>>12638348
Awesome bro. Did you know current industry doesnt even mine 10 billion tonnes of carbon a year? It would take 100 years of mining 10 billion tonnes a year to mine 1 trillion tonnes of free carbon (as carbon or hydrocarbon equivalent). And you say there are 500 trillions. So you say theres enough buried carbon to support mining for 500 centuries?

>> No.12638376

>>12638335
So you don't have the foggiest notion of what the global average temperature is or how that affects local temperatures. You might want to look that up. As for "life migrates" that didn't work out very well the last several times the Earth went through rapid climate change and those instances happened orders of magnitude slower than this one.

>> No.12638378

>>12637802
>But apparently 200 years of humans burning shit has put us on the brink of """"destroying"""" the Earth?
Kek. Where do you get that we're going to destroy the earth? The earth will be fine, it's just a lot of the life on it that will be fucked (including humans).

>> No.12638384

>>12638365
Sure, but there won't be any humans alive to mine it long before that point.

>> No.12638385

>>12638335
Higher temperatures dont equal deserts. The poles are technically deserts, the amazon, congo and indonesian forests are hot.

>> No.12638388

>>12638365
Not ALL the carbon went under ground dumbass. All life on Earth is carbon based. A large fraction of the carbon is in biomass.

>> No.12638396

>>12638384
Dont care. Im satisfied with this thread. I know have official basedjack confirmation that coal, gas and oil reserves are enough for 50.000 years IF current model of oxygen formation is also true.

>> No.12638409

>>12638388
That doesnt really change the argument, i dont care if some % is above ground. The point was to account for free secluded carbon.

>> No.12638433

>>12638409
Your point doesn't work if you severely overestimate the amount of free carbon. Use a more proper estimate and you'll realize all your arguments here are stupid.

>> No.12638438

>>12638396
>uses 3 decimal places of precision for counting whole years

jesus christ hans take your autistic engineering meds

>> No.12638450

>>12638388
Quoting wikipedia
>The total live biomass on Earth is about 550–560 billion tonnes C,[1][5] and the total annual primary production of biomass is just over 100 billion tonnes C/yr.[6] The total live biomass of bacteria may be as much as that of plants and animals[7] or may be much less
500 billion tonnes vs 500 trillion tonnes. And that's biomass, not just carbon. So more than 99.9% of this mass of carbon is not in the biosphere.

>> No.12638452

>>12638388
It's not though. The biosphere makes up around 5% of the carbon budget (not counting the lithosphere or fossil fuels).

>> No.12638453

>>12638365
You're looking at this through an anthropomorphic lens. Of course we barely make a scratch on carbon because we don't mobilise our miniscule capabilities to mine something so deep and so worthless as solid carbon. Carbon also exists in so many different forms, compounds, minerals, soil, life and the empty sac that should hold your brain.

>> No.12638456

>>12637802
We aren't destroying the Earth. Simply making it unliveable for the majority of us.

Though I'll be dead before the famines and droughts turn the developed world into Mad Max. So good luck cleaning up my mess!

>> No.12638459

>>12638396
Wrong. You asked specifically about carbon. As of 2000 there were 4,100 gigatons of fossil fuels. You'd know that if you'd bothered to read.

>> No.12638460

>>12638396
Fossil fuels are a fraction of the forms of carbon on the planet you fucking tool. Take a middle school chemistry class or something jesus christ.

>> No.12638461

>>12638433
How am i overestimating it? Im using the theory that 1 molecule of CO2 was turned into 1 molecule of molecular oxygen and 1 free carbon atom. Care to tell me what happened with this carbon atom? It must exist at least 1 atom for each molecule of atmospheric oxygen.

>> No.12638467

>>12638438
Thats 50 thousand years, retard.

>> No.12638473

>>12638461
When was the last time you used regular dirt instead of wood to make a fire?

>> No.12638478

>>12638459
So where is the rest of the carbon? Remember than your own academic theory has stated there has to be at least 1 atom of free carbon for each molecule of atmospheric oxygen.

>> No.12638484

>>12638467
>He doesn't know the difference between a decimal point and a comma
Everyone point and laugh.

>> No.12638487

>>12638473
Thats irrelevant. It makes no difference what i personally did ot did not do.

>> No.12638491

>>12638478
You have to be trolling at this point. Go read, you dumb sonofabitch. All of the answers you're looking for are in those two wikipedia pages you've already been linked.

>> No.12638495

>>12638484
>The convention for digit group separators historically varied among countries, but usually seeking to distinguish the delimiter from the decimal separator. Traditionally, English-speaking countries employed commas as the delimiter – 10,000 – and other European countries employed periods or spaces: 10.000 or 10000.

>> No.12638497

>>12638487
It's really not. Do you understand that soil is a store of carbon? When you talk about "mining carbon" for fuel you're saying "hey, let's fill our engines with literal dirt. That will totally work, right?"

>> No.12638501

>>12638495
>Imagine being so retarded that you didn't differentiate between the integer and decimal values of the digit.
Everyone point and laugh

>> No.12638513

>>12638491
Im not trolling, its not my fault you find the consequences of your beloved theory to be psychologically unsettling.
The theory could not be any simpler, one molecule of CO2 breaks down into one molecule of oxygen and 1 atom of free carbon, that is photosynthesis. You casually accept this process created 1000 trillion tonnes of oxygen but never gave a fuck about what happened to the carbon. Its about 500 trillion tonnes. Insulting me is not an argument.

>> No.12638522

>>12638501
You are embarrassing yourself, there is no universal standard for the decimal separator. Its commasin some countries and points in another.

>> No.12638525

>>12638513
>its not my fault you find the consequences of your beloved theory to be psychologically unsettling.
Lol so you still haven't read anything and you haven't understood what you were told.

Not gonna make it.

>> No.12638526

>>12638450
>>12638461
The Wikipedia lists LIVING biomass. An overwhelming majority of all life that has ever lived is now dead. How many forest fires do you think have occurred within the hundreds of millions of years life has existed? All that goes into the air. If even 0.01% of all the air has carbon in it, in some way, how many tonnes of carbon is that?

>> No.12638528

>>12638268
Retard.
>What is damaging the eco system
Learn how nature works and protects itself. Go watch Our Planet and see the damage humans have caused. Overfishing, deforestation, mass pollution.
Go learn about Coral bleaching and the damage we have caused to our reefs, then go learn about what animals use the corals to survive. Go learn about how many animals are close to extinction due to poaching and destroying their habitats. I don't think you understand how serious it is due to contrarians who just saw extinction rebellion and Greta and thought "lol these are crazy lefties, it's not real". Yes they are fucking crazy but it's real you retard

>> No.12638531

The carboniferous period had average CO2 levels of around 1000 ppm. This was a time of vast forests and wildlife.

That said climate change will probably fuck shit up as we adapt, but we'll survive. Developing countries may suffer from famine and drought, causing the rich world to get serious about enforcing its borders lest they too risk societal collapse. Geoengineering will probably have to be used as a stop gap, in conjunction with new genetically modified crops that can thrive in more extreme climates.

>> No.12638533

>>12638522
>mfw 50.000 =/= 50.000
>mfw I have no face

>> No.12638537
File: 200 KB, 1080x2220, Screenshot_20210128-120825.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12638537

>>12638526
ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?

>> No.12638543

>>12638501
https://www.languageediting.com/format-numbers-eu-vs-us/
>The thousands in Europe
When it comes to formatting numbers, the differences between the European and American systems don’t end with the decimal marker. There’s one more important difference: When writing large numbers (tens of thousands or more), in Europe we use either a dot or a thin space to separate groups of three digits—counting from both the left and the right of the decimal separator.

>> No.12638550

>>12638537
Sure about what? I made many claims, and I fail to see how your screenshot refutes any of them.

>> No.12638556

>>12638543
Lol and you said I was embarrassing myself. How fucking embarrassing is it to realize that the dumb fuckin' way you represent numbers is so bad that you have to work from two different conventions?

>> No.12638560

>>12638526
CARBON CYCLE NIGGER! The carbon doesnt dissapears just because theres a fire.
Why are you so obsessed with handwaving an argument? The math is pretty fucking simple, 1 atom of carbon for each molecule of atmospheric oxygen. Together thats equivalent to 1 molecule of CO2.
Its easy to calculate how much atmospheric oxygen there is, 2 tonnes per square meter.

>> No.12638563

>>12638550
>Living biomass 600-1,000
>Dead biomass 1,200
>The Wikipedia lists LIVING biomass.
Really, you don't, uh... You don't see it?

>> No.12638569

>>12638556
There are no universal conventions. Some countries use commas, some use dots. In an international forum it is impossible to adapt a convention that matches what everyone learned. What you call a mistake is just an expression of your ignorance off the the world beyond the shithole you call your home village.

>> No.12638570

>>12638560
I didn't write that it disappears bro. I wrote it goes into the atmosphere. Lots of it becomes dirt as well. Let's try this. Can you quantify, precisely, what it is that you think you're arguing for? Do it in the following format:
>Fact: ()
>Implication: ()

>> No.12638574

>>12638569
>There are no universal conventions
Just smart ones and stupid ones. Just like people. Care to guess which category you fit into?

>> No.12638575

>>12638563
Recall what I originally responded to, or are you incapable of recollecting your own comments?
>>12638450
See that greentext you posted? It's about living biomass. I made a comment that most biomass is dead... Which your screenshot corroborates.

>> No.12638578

>>12638570
So you are saying there is 1 tonne of atmospheric carbon per square meter? That would equal an atmosphere composed 30% of CO2. You cant be serious about "carbon is in the atmosphere lol".

>> No.12638580

>>12638570
My implication is that there is 1 atom of free carbon for each molecule of atmospheric oxygen.
Free carbon as in NOT CO2.

>> No.12638584

>>12638575
I wasn't the guy you were arguing with, I just wanted to point out that dead bodies don't hang around forever and that wikipedia does in fact list dead biomass as well. You know that decomposition is a thing, right? Or that after that decomposition the carbon is in a different part of the carbon cycle? I assume you didn't think that bodies just stay where they drop forever.

>> No.12638585

>>12637816
>Humans are merely making it uninhabitable for humans.
correction:humans are making it uninhabitable for inadaptable species. humans are the most adaptable megafauna on earth, to the point we can live in almost every single environment on earth. we can eat almost anything and turn otherwise inedible shit into food via cooking, as well as store for famines via preservation. people forget that humans survive TWO extinction events, the second of which we absolutely thrived in.

humans are an extinction animal, we evolved during extinction events, we're thriving in one of our own making right now. a shitload of humans will die because we are in a massive population bubble, but we sure as shit aren't going extinct any time soon.

>> No.12638587

>>12638575
So where is this 500 trillion of dead biomass?

>> No.12638596

>>12638580
That's not the implication. That's the fact. Now quantify what it is you think you're trying to imply with that statement.

>> No.12638603

>>12638587
Who said there's 500 trillion tonnes of dead biomass? Can you quote where that was written? Or even screenshot?

>> No.12638608

>>12638059
>save humanity
my god why has anyone not thought of this before, we should just tell other people to stop hurting other people!

>> No.12638611

>>12638584
You can only get that interpretation of my comment via an uncharitable, bad faith reading. That's nothing close to my argument.

>> No.12638613

>>12638596
My implication is that the existence of 1000 trillion tonnes of atmospheric oxygen implies the existence of 500 trillion tonnes of free carbon, either as pure carbon or as hydrocarbon equivalent (but not as CO2). This mass includes biomass, fossils, forests, soil. Added up=500 trillion tonnes.

>> No.12638616

>>12638611
Uh huh. Maybe just post the correct thing next time. None of that "it's just the living biomass and the majority of everything once living is dead" crap. The carbon isn't locked in dead biomass, it's moved on.

>> No.12638618

>>12638613
Again, that's the fact that you're listing. I'm asking you to list what you think the implication of that is. People aren't saying you're wrong about the existence of that much carbon mass, so why autistically repeat it ad nauseum? What, precisely, are you trying to imply with it?

>> No.12638623

>>12638603
All i wrote is that there are 500 trillion tonnes of free carbon, in all forms except CO2. It makes no difference if in trees, bacteria, a lump of coal or soil.

>> No.12638627

>>12638618
What do you care about the implication? Is that number 500 trillion reasonable to you yes or no?

>> No.12638633

>>12638627
I care about the argument you're trying to make. Autistically repeating a fact doesn't help your argument, it just makes you appear like a retard. State clearly and precisely what you're trying to imply with it. Whether or not I agree with the 500 trillion tonnes is irrelevant. You've made a claim, which we'll take as fact, about the amount of carbon mass on Earth. Now expand on that and make your fucking argument.

>> No.12638637

>>12638627
Remember half an hour ago when you asserted that we could mine and burn 100% of that carbon? Is that the assertion you're working towards again? It's wrong.

>> No.12638645

>>12638633
>>12638637
The argument as i think you already knew because i made iy half an hour ago is that we can mine that carbon. Im claiming there is as much free carbon as there is oxygen to burn it with. Im willing to accept this may be technically impossible if this carbon is buried very deep or something along those lines.

>> No.12638647

>>12638385
He obviously means a hot, saharan desert. No need to be a pedantic autist about it.

>> No.12638653

>>12638645
Here's what you wrote earlier
>It makes no difference if in trees, bacteria, a lump of coal or soil.
You seem to agree that this carbon would exist in many different forms. Do you think we can put a bunch of soil in our engine and drive? You have to quantify how much of this carbon is oil and coal.

>> No.12638658

>>12638647
Yeah but there is no reason higher global temperatures equal hot Saharas. It could mean intensification, even hotter deserts but also more rain in even hotter jungles, or some mix, some jungles turn to desert, some deserts to jungle. Rain still has to fall somewhere.

>> No.12638661

>>12638653
Can we burn soil? Perhaps yes, after processing to separate the organics.

>> No.12638666

>>12638627
Total carbon on earth is 1.85E18 not 5E14 by the way. Not that you seem to be going anywhere intelligent with this.

>> No.12638677

>>12638645
It's not free carbon you slobbering tard. Soil doesn't burn, minerals don't burn, diamonds don't burn, and you can't mine the mantle or the core which is where 99.9% of that carbon is. If fact, the only carbon you can burn for fuel is fossil fuels and biomass which gives you a whopping total of 6,132 gigatons to work with.

Would you like to try again?

>> No.12638678

>>12638666
>1.85E18
Which units did you use? Tons? Kilos?
Mind you i specifically mentioned free carbon or hydrocarbon equivalent.

>> No.12638680

>>12638048
are we though?
or is extinction the common thread of all history?
do you people actually believe in science, or are you all just muh feels? because science shows in every field capable of measuring evidence that the earth has changed, and will continue to change.
it takes such a closed minded, egotistical and arrogant viewpoint to think that human beings could be so powerful as to overwhelm the natural systems that have survived millions of years.
it takes an actual immeasurable amount of ego and arrogance to think we could even know if we're overwhelming the natural systems after we've only been measuring out influence on the environment for the last hundred years (and really only with any accuracy for the last fifty)
and lastly, do you think every extinct species has left behind evidence it lived in the fossil record? do you even understand how species proliferate and how paleontology classifies the different forms of life it tries to document?
>annihilate a lot of current species. We're already in the middle of an anthropocene extinction.
welcome to the constant of life. death.

and before you try to move the goal posts and say, "oh but we do have SOME impact, i'm not pretending we're gods" just take a fucking minute and go read what other people write about global warming. read or listen to how politicians talk about it. read your own post where you attempt to paint this not as a manageable change that we can mitigate helpfully for ourselves, but instead something laughable reminiscent to a "HOLLYWOOD WILL BE UNDERWATER IN 2012!!!"
fucking brainlet bootlickers who call themselves scientists. you're all nothing but snake oil salesmen who profit off of nostradamus-like prophecy. i remember when the big deal in 'science' was food shortages and world starvation. ever hear about that anymore? no? that's right. i wonder how long it will be before a bunch of newfag 'scientists' discover the next hot topic to squeeze taxpayers out of grant money.

>> No.12638682

>>12638661
Assuming that's possible, it's only useful if the output carbon you get produces more energy than the amount of energy you needed to refine it. In other words, if it takes too much energy to turn soil into coal, then it's a stupid approach.

>> No.12638686

>>12638661
With what energy? Fossil fuels will run out before the soil does.

>> No.12638688

>>12638678
same units you're using obviously so tonnes

>> No.12638692

>>12638677
Organic matter in soil does burn. Not when its a low concentration but very dark soils with a high % of carbon do burn and are actively used as fuel.

>> No.12638697

>>12638688
How did you arrived at that number? Im not asking with malice. Please share your source or calculation.

>> No.12638710
File: 92 KB, 410x441, radiative_forcing_agents_present_IPCC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12638710

>>12638680
Yes, we are objectively responsible for climate change caused by global warming. The sun cannot be responsible as the solar intensity is decreasing.

>> No.12638712

>>12638678
Why the fuck would it be free carbon? Have you still not read the carbon cycle wiki page?

>> No.12638716

>>12638692
Wrong. You're thinking of peat which is listed as a fossil fuel.

Would you like to try again?

>> No.12638722

>>12638712
Free carbon as in "not CO2". Could be either pure carbon or organic molecules.

>> No.12638724

>>12638722
>Imagine being this retarded

>> No.12638731

>>12638722
again why the fuck would it only be pure carbon or organic molecules?
Have you still not read the carbon cycle wiki page?

>> No.12638741

>>12637802
>>But apparently 200 years of humans burning shit has put us on the brink of """"destroying"""" the Earth?
>Come the fuck on

its not about destroying the world, it just makes it less habitable for human civilization.

>> No.12638742

>>12638716
Peat is soil but i think you are just playing with semantics now. So ill tell you this again: Can we burn soil? Yes, but only the actual organics in soil. I dont care what name you give to this soil, peat, not peat, not the point. Any soil with organic matter is a potential fuel source, after processing.

>> No.12638752

>>12638731
In which other form would it be? Just say what you want to say.
In which other way would carbon exist if not as organics, pure carbon or co2?

>> No.12638756

>>12638742
You are pants on head retarded. Peat and soil are not the same thing. You have a little over 6,000 gigatons to play with. Not 500,000,000,000 gigatons.

>> No.12638765

>>12637802
>Iron cast is 30 years old
>Leave it out in the rain one day
>It """""""rusts"""""""" in 24 hours??

Come on neighbor.

>> No.12638778

>>12638756
Im not going to play semantics with you. Call it whatever you want.

>> No.12638788

>>12638752
Gee I don't know how about fucking rocks?

>> No.12638794

>>12638756
I dint claim there were 500 trillion tonnes of carbon in peat or soil. I said all sources together sum up 500 trillion tonnes.

>> No.12638797

>>12638752
Oh gee, if only this question had been answered before...
>>12638677
>>12638497
>>12638453

Hmmm.... If only there were some internet resource to find these answers...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

Surely the answer must be somewhere!

>> No.12638801

>>12638788
How is carbon in a rock? You mean coal? Give examples of carbon in rocks not being organics or coal

>> No.12638807

>>12638778
It's not semantics, you retard. Peat is dead moss and soil is humus, minerals, and debris. They are very different things which is why they have separate categories.

You cannot burn soil.

>> No.12638810

>>12638742
See here
>>12638537
The amount of soil that has organics you can extract for fuel are minuscule.

>> No.12638811

>>12637802
Destroying natural ecosystems is not the same as destroying earth. Earth will literally not give a shit whether we destroy it or not.

>> No.12638814

extinction makes me sad whether it's human caused or not, all those animals that once lived and that are one day gone forever

even more existentially dreadful is the likelihood that this has happened countless times on countless other planets -- life arises, lives for a few years and then gets crushed into oblivion again and nothing remains of them

it's unlikely humans will ever escape this planet and in a fraction of time we'll be gone for longer than we were ever here

>> No.12638816

>>12638797
You are confused, im not denying the carbon cycle. Im accounting for the theoretical amount of free carbon on earth.

>> No.12638820

>>12638794
Learn to read dipshit. It doesn't matter what the sources sum up to. You have 6,000 gigatons of carbon to play with. The rest is locked in a form that cannot be used for fuel as you intend.

>> No.12638826

>>12638807
Sure you can burn the organic part ofsoil, if you separate the organic matter. Obviously not the inorganic parts like clay or sand.

>> No.12638827

>>12638816
No, you aren't. Most of that carbon is not free. It's bound in a form that cannot be used for fuel.

>> No.12638835

>>12638826
No, you can't. Go burn some soil for us and upload the video. Let me see you dig up a big shovel full and light it with a blowtorch.

>> No.12638836

>>12638820
And what is that form?
Look im not looking for a confrontation. If you just show me what this non-flammable form of carbon is, that amounts to 500 trillion tonnes, that's perfectly fine. Instead you just insult me or argue about the proper name of a specific form of organics.

>> No.12638842

>>12638827
Like what? Bound how? Give examples if you know them

>> No.12638844

>>12638836
You've already been told six times. Do you have the memory of a goldfish?

>> No.12638848

>>12638835
Strawman, i wrote many times than you can burn organics in soil after separation from inorganic. I never claimed you can straight up burn common soil from the shovel.

>> No.12638850

>>12638842
Chemically, you moron. Minerals, soil, ect. Contain carbon that cannot be released with a net gain in energy. How are you still not getting this?

>> No.12638854

>>12638844
You only said "rocks" "minerals".How convenient. Give a specific example of a rock containing carbon that is not either organic compounds or pure carbon.

>> No.12638859

>>12638848
Oh, so soil isn't flammable then? So you're burning the living and dead biomass that I already included in your 6,000 gigaton budget? So you have 6,000 gigatons of carbon to use as fuel, just like I told you the last 15 times.

>> No.12638860

>>12638801
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary_rock
are you sure you graduated middle school?

>> No.12638866

>>12638850
Chemically how? This is the whole argument. Explain what these "chemicals" are.
Do you know what they are? They are organic compounds. Chains of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen.

>> No.12638873

>>12638854
Are you shitting me? Fucking google it. Here, I'll even do it for you:

https://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+rich+mineral

>> No.12638878

>>12638860
Give a specific example of a rock bearing free carbon that isnt organic compounds or pure carbon.

>> No.12638885

>>12638866
Did you drop out of highschool or something? The carbon makes up part of the chemical structure of the minerals.

>Is a mineral a hydrocarbon?
You're a lost cause.

>> No.12638892
File: 815 KB, 1080x2160, Screenshot_20210128-221650.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12638892

>>12638873
This is your own link. Your own link states graphite and diamond as carbon bearing rocks.
Isn't this exactly what i wrote? Diamond and graphite are carbon allotropes, so pure carbon. PURE CARBON.

>> No.12638894

>>12638878
how about you stop being such a fucking baby and begging for me to spoonfeed you when all you need to do is read for 2 minutes.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate_rock

>> No.12638902

>>12638892
No, that's not what you wrote and those aren't the only minerals that contain carbon. Which part of this is hard for you?

>> No.12638909

>>12638902
probably the reading part lol

>> No.12638910

>>12638885
But i actually checked your link and all the examples of minerals are just allotropes of carbon either pure or mixed with inorganics as in brown coal. This is exactly my point, that all carbon not as CO2 exists either as pure carbon or as organics. These are all the "minerals".

>> No.12638914

>>12638291
In rocks you triple faggot

>> No.12638915

>>12638892
>Google is Wikipedia
Hmmm...

>> No.12638922

>>12638894
Carbonate rocks are not free carbon. It essentially CO2 bound to oxide. The whole CO2 molecule is present in the rock.

>> No.12638929

>>12638902
Which other rocks do you have with free carbon? Your only example is literally carbon allotropes and carbonates, which by definition are not free carbon because they are based on CO2 bound to an oxide.

>> No.12638931

>>12638922
Just a question, do you know what decomposition is?

>> No.12638934

>>12638910
Wow, so you must be like extra retarded. That same wiki page you're on lists 11 types of carbon rich mineral that are not 100% carbon. Let me remind you that in graphite and diamond the carbon is still bound stably to all the other carbon and so will not burn.

>> No.12638941

>>12638914
Like what? Which rocks? You mean coal?

>> No.12638950

>>12638931
That word means different things in different contexts, im not playing a guessing game so say what you mean

>> No.12638958

>>12638929
you'll need to answer this >>12638731 if you want to continue this conversation

>> No.12638971

>>12638934
All the rocks listed in that wiki page are just carbon allotropes. The only minerals not being pure carbon are just a mixture of carbon and inorganics. Essentially brown coal. Its just carbon mixed in with inorganix matter, not as a new chemical but just as a physical mixture. Chemically the carbon exists as nothing but a carbon allotrope.

>> No.12638974

>>12638929
Are you kidding? You didn't read that page at all.

>Evenkites
>Fichtelites
>Hartites
>Simonellites
>Abelsonites
>Hoelites
>Moissanite
>Kratochvilites
>Idrialites
>Carpathites

Now go actually read the page.

>> No.12638980

>>12638971
Wrong. Go read, nigger.

>> No.12638992

>>12638934
Heres and example from your own link:Simonellite
Def. an "orthorhombic-dipyramidal white mineral containing carbon and hydrogen [C19H24]"[6] is called a simonellite.
Literally a hydrogen and carbon chain. Its just another organic molecule, a fuel.

>> No.12638999

>>12638992
Wrong. It doesn't burn.

>> No.12639011

>>12638934
Diamonds are flammable. You can burn them.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/can-diamonds-burn.html
>The best way to do that? Heat — and lots of it. In room temperature air, diamonds ignite at around 1,652 degrees Fahrenheit (900 degrees Celsius), according to West Texas A&M University physicist Christopher Baird. For comparison, a high-volatile coal (coal containing a relatively high amount of easily released gases) ignites at about 1,233 F (667 C), whereas wood ignites at 572 F (300 C) or less, depending on the type.

>> No.12639018

>>12638974
I read it and every single rock in that page is a just an organic molecule. A chain of hydrogen and carbon. And they are all flammable including diamond.

>> No.12639026

>>12638999
Sure they burn. Even diamond burns

>> No.12639028

>>12639011
Do you understand the concept of net energy? The diamonds will not maintain that heat. They don't have enough energy. Furthermore, they aren't combusting. They're oxidizing.

>> No.12639031

Correct me If I'm wrong, but your argument is:
>From the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, assuming it all came from photosynthesis, there should be roughly 5E14 tonnes of carbon which can all be easily recovered as combustible fuel.
Is this your entire argument?

>> No.12639041

>>12638836
Calcite you drooling retard are you literally 12?

>> No.12639055

>>12638971
You know carbon sinks operate with things other than free carbon right?

>> No.12639056

>>12639018
>Imagine being this retarded
No, they're not. Pull up their chemical properties and tell me how many are listed as flammable solids.

>> No.12639066

>>12639026
Wrong. It must suck to be that fucking stupid.

>> No.12639081

>>12639028
Wrong. They are combusting. They produce enough heat to sustain the reaction. Every fuel burns at a differebt temperature, diesel fuel for instance wont burn even if you throw a match on it but in a secluded space heated up it will burn. Diamonds are not different. I mean the concept of burning diamonds for heat in a furnace sounds silly but it can be done. The reaction is exothermic.

>> No.12639085

CO2 could increase by 10 times and humans would be able to inhabit the earth. It wouldn't do much to the temperature, either, because the marginal increase in the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant beyond 100pm. You might have some fast-growing plants and algae, though, which could cause environmental catastrophe.

>> No.12639098

>>12639041
Calcite is carbon dioxide bound to an oxide. Already explained that im talking about free carbon, not carbon dioxide. The whole thread is about the byproducts of the decomposition of carbon dioxide.

>> No.12639106

>>12639085
Sorry but your climate sensitivity numbers are completely wrong. Please don't post blatant lies.

>> No.12639112

>>12639066
Lol you are just going to deny reality now as ab argument? You are straight up going to say that diamonds dont burn even if i could post YouTube videos of burning diamonds?

>> No.12639114

>>12639098
respond to this. >>12639031

>> No.12639124

>>12639098
The decomposition of CO2 does not necessarily result in free carbon or hydrocarbons far from it. For example oil is the result of geothermal cooking of ocean sediments.

>> No.12639127

>>12639081
>They are combusting.
Wrong.

>They produce enough heat to sustain the reaction.
Super wrong.
>Every fuel burns at a differebt temperature
Diamonds are not a fuel

>diesel fuel for instance wont burn even if you throw a match on it but in a secluded space heated up it will burn.
Diesel is a fuel and the combustion reaction is exothermic enough to be self sustaining.

>Diamonds are not different.
You couldn't be more wrong.

>I mean the concept of burning diamonds for heat in a furnace sounds silly
That's because it won't work.
>but it can be done.
Wrong

>The reaction is exothermic.
Not enough to be self sustaining.

Would you like to try again?

>> No.12639135

>>12638836
ROCKS

>> No.12639145

>>12639066
Diamond combustion is exothermic
https://www.jstor.org/stable/73489
>Abstract
The heats of combustion of graphite and diamond have been redetermined in a high precision aneroid calorimeter. It is shown that the result obtained for graphite is consistent with all recently published figures with the exception of that reported by Prosen & Rossini (1944). The latter is significantly higher than any other. The heat of combustion of diamond is in good agreement with that found by Jessup (1938) when this is recalculated to modern thermodynamic standards. When the present results are combined with published data the best estimates for the two heats of combustion are shown to be: graphite -Δ H298.160 = 94042· 8 ± 5· 9 cal/mole, diamond -Δ H298.160 = 94490· 1 ± 16· 7 cal/mole.

>> No.12639163

>>12639127
See this paper. It literally reports that diamonds burn and the energy released in combustion.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/73489?seq=1
The heats of combustion of graphite and diamond have been redetermined in a high precision aneroid calorimeter. It is shown that the result obtained for graphite is consistent with all recently published figures with the exception of that reported by Prosen & Rossini (1944). The latter is significantly higher than any other. The heat of combustion of diamond is in good agreement with that found by Jessup (1938) when this is recalculated to modern thermodynamic standards. When the present results are combined with published data the best estimates for the two heats of combustion are shown to be: graphite -Δ H298.160 = 94042· 8 ± 5· 9 cal/mole, diamond -Δ H298.160 = 94490· 1 ± 16· 7 cal/mole.

>> No.12639173

>>12638453
>we don't mobilise our miniscule capabilities to mine something so deep and so worthless as solid carbon
>what is coal

>> No.12639177

>>12639112
You mean videos of heating diamonds with a blowtorch and letting them oxidize? I've seen them.

You realize that even if diamonds were combustible they wouldn't add much to your 6,132 gigatons of available fuel, right?

>> No.12639184

>>12639177
>yeah i concede your point but what about this other point?

>> No.12639208
File: 311 KB, 1080x2160, Screenshot_20210128-225832.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12639208

>>12639177

>> No.12639218

>>12639184
You mean the original point? Your original point in fact? The point we're still discussing?

>> No.12639223

>>12639098
> byproducts of the decomposition of carbon dioxide
That's exactly what calcite is. You have to be a troll because no one can be this retarded

>> No.12639224

>>12639173
not solid carbon lol

>> No.12639230

>>12639112
>>12639127
>>12639145
>>12639163
>>12639177
>>12639184
>>12639208
Who gives a shit if you can burn diamonds or not? The vast majority of them are in the mantle and completely inaccessible.

>> No.12639238

>>12639223
Calcite does not involve the decomposition of carbok dioxide. Calcite- and other similar minerals, are carbon dioxide bound to an oxide. The carbon dioxide is never dissociated. The chemical bond between the oxide and the carbon dioxide can be broken just by heating the rock, which liberates the carbon dioxide.

>> No.12639242

>>12639238
That is a decomposition reaction that does not generate energy.

>> No.12639243

>>12639238
are you familiar with this term?
>Decomposition
>Decomposition is the process by which dead organic substances are broken down into simpler organic or inorganic matter such as carbon dioxide, water, simple sugars and mineral salts.

>> No.12639249

>>12639224
Anthracite is literally just 98% carbon

>> No.12639251

>>12639230
Changing goalposts already?
Diamond is just one of many rocks containing free carbon. All of them are either a carbon allotrope or an organic compound.
Also show some humility dumbass, you have been an arrogant prick this whole thread. You arrogantly assured that diamonds could not burn, you know nothing.

>> No.12639261

>>12639242
Of course ir doesnt generate energy. Have i ever said it does? No. I said every form of carbon on earth that isnt CO2 (or CO2 bound to another molecule) is just either a carbon allotrope or a hydrocarbon chain. They can all burn.

>> No.12639268

>>12639261
what the fuck even is your argument? do you even remember?

>> No.12639271

>>12639243
Yes im aware of that. Sloppy wording but ok you are talking about decomposition of some formerly living thing like a tree or animal.

>> No.12639277

>>12639271
ok cool, can you answer this?>>12639031

>> No.12639282

>>12639251
>Changing goalposts already?
The irony

>Also show some humility dumbass, you have been an arrogant prick this whole thread
The irony.

This whole thread you've had people reading you wikipedia pages and explaining what words mean. So far you've been right half as often as my broken clock.

Would you like to go back to asserting that soil is flammable because peat is? Or that soil is flammable because if you sieve out the dead biomass and discard the soil you can burn it? Or would you like to address how none of those other carbides are flammable? Or would you like to imply that we can get at the carbon locked up in the core again? You know the core contains 67% of the Earth's carbon, right?

>> No.12639283

>>12639268
My argument has been that the existence of 1000 trillion tons of atmospheric oxygen on earth implies the existence of 500 trillion tons of carbon not bound to oxygen. So no co2, not calcite, just pure carbon allotropes or organic chains.

>> No.12639289

>>12639261
>Imagine being so retarded that you thought you could use a net negative energy reaction for fuel

>> No.12639297

>>12639277
I only agree with half of that sentence. Easily recoverable as fuel? I have no idea, im not going to say that.
Do i believe there are 500 trillion tons of fuel? Yes, but im not saying they are easy to recover

>> No.12639298

>>12639283
>Imagine being this retarded
Also you're lying out your ass. You were claiming it could all be dug up and burned.

>> No.12639303

>>12639283
but you acknowledge that decomposition returns organic material to CO2? >>12639283

>> No.12639309

>>12639297
You're a special kind of stupid.

>> No.12639319

>>12639303
sorry second post linked should be >>12639271

>> No.12639331

>>12639282
You are the one saying diamonds are not flammable. Care to explain that? I literally humiliated you in public by posting a scientific article that reports the heat of combustion of diamond. You wrote i domt know how many times that diamonds could not burn. Arrogantly, without backing up anything. If you had any dignity you would apologize instead of diggging in any further.
And i stand by my comments about soil. The organic matter in soil can burn.

>> No.12639337

>>12639289
But i never claimed you can burn calcite.

>> No.12639344

>>12639331
You're the one saying you have more that 6,000 gigatons of fuel. You're wrong. You've been wrong this whole thread. My broken clock is right twice a day and so far your not up to that mark. Are you going to ignore all the times you got BTFO in this thread? I know reading isn't your strong suit, but just scroll through and feel embarrassed.

>> No.12639350

>>12639337
>"All the carbon bound in minerals can be burned"
>"I never claimed that all the carbon bound in minerals could be burned"
Would you like to try again?

>> No.12639355

>>12639344
>your
You're

>> No.12639357

>>12639303
No, i dont acknowledge that. Sometimes decomposition is not complete and an organism just fossilizes. So in general yes decomposition leads to conversion of carbon to CO2 but not always. This was very common during the carboniferous era, for 300 million years cellulose plants could not be decomposed, just like many plastics today cannot be decomposed.

>> No.12639364

>>12639344
Are you going to apologize or make any actual point?

>> No.12639368

>>12639350
I explained im referring only to free carbon. Must have been in 60 posts already. Not CO2. No, you cant burn CO2.

>> No.12639370

>>12639364
>Apologize
Lol for what? Being right 90% of the time? Sure, right after you fly over here and suck my dick.

>> No.12639372

>>12639283
What the fuck are you even saying? The atmospheric oxygen comes from photosynthesis of volcanic CO2 from the formation of the planet. That photosynthesis also recycles the carbon into carbonate and biomass. Biomass can be buried and metamosphosed into combustibles and more concentrated carbon minerals

>> No.12639374

>>12639368
>I explained im referring only to free carbon
Oh, well in that case you're limited to 6,132 gigatons of carbon for use as fuel. Did you need anything else?

>> No.12639386

>>12639350
Calcite is not free carbon. Calcite is just CO2 bound to an oxide. Its not "some compound of carbon", it is specifically carbon dioxide.
INB4 no, you can't burn dry ice, sodium carbonate (trona), baking soda or assorted solids that contain carbon dioxide chemically bound.

>> No.12639392

>>12639370
>I was right 99.99999999% of the time
For saying diamonds could not burn.

>> No.12639402

>>12639386
You're such a moron. A carbon compound is any molecule containing carbon. It's completely irrelevant that there's more oxygen than you want there to be. You claimed you could burn them all. You're wrong.

>> No.12639403

>>12639372
>recycles into carbonates
Wrong. Carbon is recycle into many forms but not carbonates. Carbonates are formed from carbon dioxide and a metal oxide, not from free carbon or organic chains

>> No.12639404

>>12637802
If anything, global warming is a good thing as it is simply humans battling the entropy of the cooling universe.

>> No.12639405

>>12639392
You're really salty about how BTFO you were in this thread, huh?

>> No.12639406

>>12639374
I told you its not 6000 gigatons but 500 trillion tons

>> No.12639407

>The total carbon in crust of the earth is about 9 × 10^22 g. Continental and oceanic sediments contain 1.2 × 1022 g of organic carbon and 6.4 × 1022 g of carbonate carbon. There is about three times as much organic carbon in claystones and shales as in carbonate rocks and sandstones. The carbon in the oil and gas of petroleum reservoirs totals 1 × 1018 g or about 0.01 percent of the organic carbon in sedimentary rocks.
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-abstract/56/11/2273/104108/Distribution-of-Carbon-in-Crust-of-Earth1?redirectedFrom=PDF

there I found your carbon, did you have an actual point?

>> No.12639411

>>12639403
>Imagine being this retarded

>> No.12639416

>>12639406
And I told you that you're wrong. I even have the data to back it up. It's 6000 gigatons and I was generous enough to give you all the fossil fuels, and all the living and dead biomass on Earth.

>> No.12639423

>>12639402
It is absolutely relevant the presence of oxygen and specifically of carbon dioxide. This lack or presence of oxygen is crucial since photosynthesis breaks down this bond and releases the oxygen in gas form, leaving solid carbon behind. Some rock containing carbon dioxide has nothing to do with a process involving breaking this bond. Carbon dioxide is not a fuel while carbon not bound to oxygen is a fuel. Thr difference is as crucial as the difference between a fuel and a not-fuel

>> No.12639424

>>12639407
inb4 we can dig it all up and burn it

>> No.12639427

>>12639405
>Lalalalalala
This is all you are saying

>> No.12639433

>>12639423
It's not relevant and trying to tie in photosynthesis and which burns better doesn't make it so. You're hitting peak Dunning-Kruger

>> No.12639434

>>12639407
>Continental and oceanic sediments contain 1.2 × 1022 g of organic carbon
This is the only interesting part

>> No.12639439

>>12639434
considering it completely invalidates what you've been arguing for like 2 hours yeah.

>> No.12639440

>>12639416
>The total carbon in crust of the earth is about 9 × 10^22 g. Continental and oceanic sediments contain 1.2 × 1022 g of organic carbon and 6.4 × 1022 g of carbonate carbon. There is about three times as much organic carbon in claystones and shales as in carbonate rocks and sandstones. The carbon in the oil and gas of petroleum reservoirs totals 1 × 1018 g or about 0.01 percent of the organic carbon in sedimentary rocks.
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-abstract/56/11/2273/104108/Distribution-of-Carbon-in-Crust-of-Earth1?redirectedFrom=PDF

> and oceanic sediments contain 1.2 × 1022 g of organic carbon
Thats 10^16 tons of organic carbon

>> No.12639442

>>12639433
>carbon and carbon dioxide are basically the same because it helps my argument

>> No.12639444

>>12639439
How?

>> No.12639445

>>12639386
Why are you obsessed with free carbon? Generally in nature to get hydrocarbons to r free carbon you need to have a process to isolate it like metamorphism. Carbon in very good at binding. Outside of primordial carbon from nucleosynthesis you don't see it a lot

>> No.12639447

>>12639444
it's a whole lot more than the 500 trillion tonnes you were looking for

>> No.12639477
File: 61 KB, 600x584, TIMESAND___Death.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12639477

>> No.12639485

>>12639447
So you mean that my estimate of 500 trilion tons was wrong because it was too small? Ok, i accept that. I mean i actually love that its more than my own estimate.

>> No.12639494

>>12639485
ok, now we've established that, do you have an actual point?

>> No.12639498

>>12639427
The irony. Let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we?

>>12638033
>>12638056
>>12638082
>>12638092
>>12638103
>>12638135
>>12638172
>>12638196
>>12638196
>>12638199
>>12638209
>>12638227
>>12638236
>>12638248
>>12638266
>>12638272
>>12638291
>>12638298
>>12638319
>>12638332
>>12638338
>>12638352
>>12638360
>>12638365
>>12638384
>>12638388
>>12638396
>>12638409
>>12638433
>>12638450
>>12638453
>>12638459
>>12638460
>>12638461
>>12638473
>>12638478
>>12638487
>>12638491
>>12638497
>>12638513
>>12638522
>>12638525
>>12638526
>>12638560
>>12638570
>>12638575
>>12638580
>>12638596
>>12638613
>>12638618
>>12638623
>>12638627
>>12638633
>>12638637
>>12638645
>>12638653
>>12638661
>>12638677
>>12638682
>>12638686
>>12638692
>>12638712
>>12638716
>>12638722
Continued

>> No.12639504

>>12639427
>>12639498
And the rest
>>12638724
>>12638731
>>12638742
>>12638752
>>12638756
>>12638778
>>12638788
>>12638794
>>12638797
>>12638801
>>12638807
>>12638810
>>12638816
>>12638820
>>12638826
>>12638827
>>12638835
>>12638836
>>12638842
>>12638844
>>12638848
>>12638850
>>12638854
>>12638859
>>12638860
>>12638866
>>12638873
>>12638878
>>12638885
>>12638892
>>12638894
>>12638902
>>12638909
>>12638910
>>12638914
>>12638922
>>12638929
>>12638931
>>12638934
>>12638941
>>12638950
>>12638958
>>12638971
>>12638974
>>12638980
>>12638992
>>12638999
>>12639018
>>12639031
>>12639041
>>12639055
>>12639056
>>12639098
>>12639124
>>12639135
>>12639173
>>12639223
>>12639224
>>12639238
>>12639242
>>12639243
>>12639261
>>12639268
>>12639271
>>12639277
>>12639283
>>12639289
>>12639297
>>12639298
>>12639303
>>12639319

Ahh, memories. Look at all those (you)s where you were completely fucking wrong. Big list, huh?

>> No.12639516

>>12639440
>Imagine being so retarded that you thought you could burn ocean sediment
The total amount of carbon is completely irrelevant. Only 6,132 gigatons exist in a form you can burn. Which part of this is hard for you?

>> No.12639519

>>12639494
This has been my point all along. That the theory of generation of atmospheric oxygen implies the existence of free carbon in amounts much larger than expected (your vaunted 6000 gigatons).

>> No.12639521

>>12639442
You're really reaching here. You understand that both of those substances are carbon compounds, right?

>> No.12639527

>>12639516
Wrong.Its at least 500 trillion tons, and much more going by that article saying 10^16 tons.

>> No.12639528

>>12639485
is this you btw?
>>12638478
>>12638513
>>12638587
>>12638613

>> No.12639532

>>12639521
Yes and?

>> No.12639535

>>12639434
>>12639444
>>12639447
>>12639485
You understand that you can't burn ocean water and sediment, right? It means you're wrong because all the carbon you're after is locked up in a form that can't be burned, just like you've been told for this entire thread

>> No.12639540

>>12639528
Yes

>> No.12639542

>>12639527
You really just don't understand anything you're reading, huh?

>> No.12639545

>>12639532
So you claimed you could burn any mineral carbon compound. You're wrong.

>> No.12639546

>>12639535
>Burning seawater
Why are resorting to these dumb strawmen? Burning sea water? Its like you accuse me of something dumb and then say "haha thats so dumb lolol".

>> No.12639550

>>12639545
No, i claimed only free carbon, i specifically said in like 60 posts that not including CO2 or compounds containing CO2. This i have said since the start of the thread.

>> No.12639551

>>12639546
Because that's what you're proposing, idiot. The ocean stores carbon in the form of carbonic acid. You can't access the carbon stored in the oceans or it's sediment for fuel. Get it? I can hold your hand again if you need.

>> No.12639556

>>12639550
Do you know how many hydrocarbons include a carbon and two oxygen atoms? Let's revise that estimate to only include the "free" carbon.

You have 3,510 gigatons of coal. That is all.

>> No.12639558

>>12639551
Again with the CO2 compounds? How many times must i say im not considering carbon dioxide compounds as fuel?

>> No.12639562

>>12639558
You are though. Try reading the things you try to reference.

>> No.12639569

>>12639556
Alcohol contains oxygen but it is not a compound of CO2. Its an organic chain of hydrogen,oxygen and carbon. Just because there is oxygen doesn't mean its CO2 bound to something else, as is the case in calcite.

>> No.12639570

>>12637802
>burning shit has put us on the brink of destroying much of life on Earth
ftfy

>> No.12639574

>>12639562
No im not. Carbon dioxide is not a fuel and im not arguing it is. Neither are compounds containing carbon dioxide like calcite or trona nor is carbon dioxide dissolved in water a fuel.

>> No.12639575

>>12637816
Look up the great oxygenation event.
The first cyanobacteria pumped the atmosphere full of poisonous oxygen that killed almost all life and caused dramatic climate change
Those cyanobacteria still exist

>> No.12639577

>>12639569
>It only counts when I want it to
You have to make a decision here: Either everything with a carbon and two oxygen atoms are taken off the table leaving you with 3,510 gigatons of coal, OR all carbon compounds count, and you have 6,132 gigatons. Which do you prefer? Either way you're wrong.

>> No.12639579

>>12639540
the tone shift is really funny to me

>> No.12639584

>>12639577
Its not a mattee of a carbon and two oxygens existing in a molecule, but if that molecule contains carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. So for example alcohol contains carbon and oxygen, but no part of the molecule is carbon dioxide.

>> No.12639585

>>12639574
Yes you are. You're also ignoring the fact that sand don't burn when you include the sediments in your estimates.

>> No.12639589

>>12639584
So you don't like either option and you're trying to have it all your own way. Sorry princess, it's just not going to work out that way. You've got 6,132 gigatons of fuel. That's the most generous I can be with it.

>> No.12639591

>>12639585
I never said sand is a fuel

>> No.12639593

>>12639589
But im being consistent here. Im not including CO2, that is all. The presence of oxygen in some hydrocarbon chain doesnt mean the carbon exists as CO2.

>> No.12639602

>>12639591
Yes you did when you included ocean sediments in your estimate. This is what I mean about needing to understanding what you read.

>> No.12639607

>>12639593
No, you're arbitrarily including and excluding compounds completely arbitrarily. Do you know what's not arbitrary? The fact that 6,132 gigatons of carbon is available as fuel and the rest is not in a form you can burn.

>> No.12639613

>>12639602
Ocean sediments contain free carbon, that is not saying that ocean sediments ARE carbon. Stop already with the strawmen.

>> No.12639618

>>12639607
Its not arbitrary. Its one compound and one compound only: Carbon dioxide.
Consider for a minute carbon monoxide. Obviously contains both carbon and oxygen, yet it is not carbon dioxide.

>> No.12639625

>>12639613
So you're just completely retarded then, huh? Ocean sediments are sand and pulverised shell. They become sedimentary rock. There is no strawman, you just don't understand what you read.

>> No.12639628

>>12639618
Alright, then you have 3,510 gigatons of coal to burn and nothing else because the rest contains CO2.

>> No.12639632

>>12639519
it's present in Continental and oceanic sediments, claystones and shales, etc. Very little becomes hydrocarbons which can actually be economically extracted. So again do you have an actual point?

>> No.12639636

>>12639625
>The total carbon in crust of the earth is about 9 × 10^22 g. Continental and oceanic sediments contain 1.2 × 1022 g of organic carbon and 6.4 × 1022 g of carbonate carbon. There is about three times as much organic carbon in claystones and shales as in carbonate rocks and sandstones. The carbon in the oil and gas of petroleum reservoirs totals 1 × 1018 g or about 0.01 percent of the organic carbon in sedimentary rocks.
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-abstract/56/11/2273/104108/Distribution-of-Carbon-in-Crust-of-Earth1?redirectedFrom=PDF
Do you read this?
Continental and oceanic sediments contain 1.2 × 1022 g of organic carbon
CONTAIN
SEDIMENTS CONTAIN ORGANIC CARBON
SEDIMENTS "ARE NOT" ORGANIC CARBON

>> No.12639637

>>12639613
As a ground rule free carbon should only refer to graphite or diamond. Combustible carbon rich compounds are either biomass or altered biomass.

>> No.12639642

>>12639585
You understand that sand and shale derived hydrocarbons are where we get a lot of oil and gas right?

>> No.12639654

>>12639519
In no way does the atmospheric oxygen need "free carbon" to form. It comes from CO2

>> No.12639660

>>12639654
Your wording is sloppy so i don't understand you. Rephrase your sentence in a more precise language

>> No.12639673

>>12639636
Do you know what contain means? You can't separate the most carbon rich bits from the other bits, it's mixed sediment. Literally beach sand.

Let's take a look at some of your other numbers.
>The total carbon in crust of the earth is about 9 × 10^22 g
This carbon is unusable as fuel. It's literally bedrock.

>Continental and oceanic sediments contain 1.2 × 1022 g of organic carbon and 6.4 × 1022 g of carbonate carbon
This is sandstone and sand. Not fuel.

>claystones
Not fuel.

>shales
Fuel.

>The carbon in the oil and gas of petroleum reservoirs totals 1 × 1018 g or about 0.01 percent of the organic carbon in sedimentary rocks.
Also Fuel.

Where'd all your fuel go, bro?

>> No.12639677

>>12639642
You mean OIL SANDS, not beach sand. I really hope you knew that.

>> No.12639690

>>12639673
>Continental and oceanic sediments contain 1.2 × 1022 g of organic carbon
This is not sand. These are sediments that contain organic carbon. Im not saying these sediments are organic carbon, just that they contain organic carbon.

>> No.12639752

>>12639690
So does sand. That's why I said it was sand. Because it is. Try to keep up.

>> No.12639774

>>12637802
Can we just agree that the human race is divided into two parts, immensely ignorant fuckwits, like OP, upon whom reason and facts are wasted, and then the rational and educated people who actually possess a responsible outlook.

Can we not agree that it would be better for everyone if the fuckwits, like OP, were sterilized, allowed to live out their lives peacefully, then upon their natural death the rest of the world can get on with repairing the damage their retarded arsefuckery has created?

>> No.12639956

>>12639774
>divided into two parts, the enlightened and the goyem
Brilliant thinking. And likely to leave you deluded

>> No.12641317

>>12637802
>Your very existence required that every single one of your ancestors hundreds of millions of years back down to primordial bacteria, each managed to survive, and to breed, to the next generation.
>The odds of this, that you even exist, are one in several fucking billions.
>But apparently people think a single bullet to your brain is enough to kill you?
Come the fuck on.

Or, you know, alternatively you could learn to understand how one thing has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with the other. You fucking brainlet dimwit retard ass.