/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16013748]

I found this on /pol/. Can anyone here debunk their claims?

[Anonymous No.16013753]

>more co2
>more plants
It's literally correct though

[Anonymous No.16013756]

>>16013753
The argument here is that the transition from one type of biodiversity to another type of biodiversity happens too fast such that mass extinction of the former will collapse ecosystems before they can adapt.

[Anonymous No.16013765]

>>16013748
It literally pollutes the air. It takes years off of lives. What kind of stupid question is this? Do you enjoy breathing exhaust fumes?

[Anonymous No.16013786]

>>16013748
>I found this on /pol/.
That's because you posted it there.
To answer your question, abiotic oil is possible but if you look at the age of the Earth and how much oil would have been produced over that time period, the entire planet should be under a sea of oil deeper than Everest if it is renewable at a rate of our consumption. That's clearly not the case, and unless it is hiding deep inside the Earth where it is useless, using it faster than it is produced essentially makes it non-renewable.
My question to you is why you posted this? There was zero reason to mention /pol/ but you did, likely because you have an ideological axe to grind against them and think if you go around shitting up other boards while pointing at /pol/, you can convince everyone else to join your ideological cult. You're not the first to try this. You won't be the last. Other than some degree of annoyance, all of you have failed and in most cases, end up making your ideology look worse for producing people who resort to such obvious tactics.

[Anonymous No.16013792]

>>16013748
>I found this on /pol/
Take it back there.

[Anonymous No.16013798]

>>16013765
CO2 doesn't pollute the air.

[Anonymous No.16013917]

>>16013792
you're only upset because the claims made in OP are irrefutable

[Anonymous No.16014056]

>>16013748
They are the ones making claims, thus there is a burden on them to prove their claim.
When geologists claim FFs are not renewable, they define renewable as a resource that restores itself within a human lifetime or some similar if arbitrary timescale. Thus they point to the geologic forces that produce FFs as being the product of thousands to millions of years. The sole exception being natural gas, which we can capture in small amounts from landfills.

[Anonymous No.16014068]

>>16014056
Uhh. No. The climate change activists are the ones asking for change. THEY are the ones that should back up their claims.

[Anonymous No.16014090]

>>16013786
Are you also going to tell >>16014068 that being a retard makes his ideology look bad or is that too straightforward? Will you find another way to get extra mad at people who don't deny climate change over this? How do you think those mental gymnastics make you look?

[Anonymous No.16014110]

>>16013748
It's retarded start to finish. Fossil fuels are called fossil fuels because they come from underground. The fact that whoever made that image (you) didn't understand that is already a bad start. Fossil fuels are not renewable because the amount of fossil fuels we have used will not be replenished by the time we finish the initial supply. It takes too long to form. Next, it's not formed in the mantle. That claim has been floated forever with no evidence whatsoever. The paper retards like you link to "prove" this reads like a fan fic and has no evidence to support it. Further we know that fossil fuels have a biological origin because of the ratio of carbon isotopes, which is also how we know that fossil fuel emissions are responsible for the change in our atmosphere (pic related). Gas is not the cleanest energy source unless you do some very creative accounting and ignore CO2. CO2 is not a fertilizer. That's like saying sugar is a protein or that oxygen has a lot of calories. Carbon dioxide has not caused a greening of the Earth, but humans have. Link related.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/

We have been seeing an acceleration in the rate of extinction that is well over the background level. Clearly a "life explosion" is not going to happen.

This post will be ignored because /pol/tards have no interest in the truth or even having a good faith debate.

[Anonymous No.16014111]

>>16013748
What is their to debunk? Fischer-Tropsch process produces hydrocarbons from CO and H_2
n CO + (2n+1) H_2 = C_n H_{2n + 2} + H_2 O
You may think this costs a lot of energy, but this reaction releases energy.
The only challenging part is to accumulate hydrogen. But there are many renewable ways to do this, such as solar-driven electrolysis of water.
The crude way to get the H2 is to just burn trees. Grow trees, they pull CO2 out of the air, burn them, and the exhaust can be used to create synthetic fossil fuels.
As for whether this happens totally naturally in the earth, it could, but we don't know enough
Nature produces natural gas / methane / CH4 abiotically, because we see it in huge quantities in space
Climate change is obviously a fraud. You can look at something as simple as the billionaires that take private jets to Davos to lecture the public - each such private flight uses more energy than an American uses in electricity in their lifetime
So those billionaires obviously don't believe what they are lecturing about, they just want to preserve their power after the Federal Reserve pyramid scheme collapses, and their best plan for doing that is to lock people down over "climate" and other lies

[Anonymous No.16014116]

>>16013792
/pol/ > /sci/ if you disagree you should go back to preddit

[Anonymous No.16014118]

>>16013748
The claim that fossil fuels are not biological remnants or fossils is simply implausible given the relative molecular abundance of petrol is exactly what we'd expect from buried primordial forests, down to even the trave elements and aromatic fractions.

I support burning all fossil fuels but this claim is indefensible.

[Anonymous No.16014121]

>>16013917
It's irrefutable in the sense that no amount of evidence it's wrong will convince you. Now go back.

[Anonymous No.16014123]

>>16013786
>There was zero reason to mention /pol/ but you did, likely because you have an ideological axe to grind against them and think if you go around shitting up other boards while pointing at /pol/, you can convince everyone else to join your ideological cult. You're not the first to try this. You won't be the last. Other than some degree of annoyance, all of you have failed and in most cases, end up making your ideology look worse for producing people who resort to such obvious tactics.
Bro what if it was actually /pol/ pretending to be a guy pretending to be /pol/ in order to get you to hate that guy
What if you're the OP and you made this thread solely to then be able to post this in order to complain about someone who doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.16014125]

>>16014116
If you agree, why are you on /sci/ rather than /pol/?

[Anonymous No.16014128]

>>16014111
>those billionaires obviously don't believe what they are lecturing about
Some of them legitimately do lol, they're chemistry flunkies.

Anyway synthetic hydrocarbons will be the standard long before we run out of oil; that's simply the industrial trajectory.

[Anonymous No.16014135]

>>16014125
Im on both retard

[Anonymous No.16014138]

>>16014135
Why spend time on the inferior board? It's not like /pol/ is slow. You should go there 100% of your time.

[Anonymous No.16014141]

>>16014138
/sci/ is more specialized that's all, otherwise the overlap in themes/posts is pretty big

[Anonymous No.16014145]

>>16014111
>>16014128
You net negative energy if you have to produce the initial CO and H. The only way you can do it economically is by using syngas which means that your setup is an elaborate way to lose energy produced by biofuels. Biofuels are essentially inefficient solar power since photosynthetic efficiency is a tiny fraction of solar panel efficiency and because you lose most of that energy when you burn it.

[Barkon No.16014157]

>>16013798
For us it does, unless you somehow use CO2 as an electron acceptor? Fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.16014158]

>>16013786
>To answer your question, abiotic oil is possible but if you look at the age of the Earth and how much oil would have been produced over that time period, the entire planet should be under a sea of oil deeper than Everest if it is renewable at a rate of our consumption.
How about actually checking the numbers on this? The world consumes approximately 1 cubic mile of oil per year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Cubic_Mile_of_Oil
The volume of the earth is 260 billion cubic miles. So if it has been producing 1 cubic mile of oil per year, then after 4 billion years this is still under 2% of the total volume.
It's also possible that the reaction slows down when reservoirs are effectively full. But this shows that even if the process ran at this rate for the earth's full lifetime, we would not necessarily be under a deep lake of oil

[Anonymous No.16014160]

>>16014141
>otherwise the overlap in themes/posts is pretty big
Thanks to retards who don't get the concept of a containment board.

[Anonymous No.16014162]

>>16014116
You go back.

[Anonymous No.16014163]

>>16014145
I'm not the one proposed the fischer-tropsch, nor am I advocating using fossil fuels as a primary power source when petrol is exhausted (100+ years if it ever happens). I'm pointing out that all applications which still require hydrocarbons are equally or better served by synthetic hydrocarbons.

I have never discussed or advocated for biofuels in any sense or context whatsoever, even in current year.

[Anonymous No.16014168]

>>16014145
Yeah of course you lose some energy in the conversions, but fossil fuels are dense and reliable.
Instead of cars with electric batteries, we can continue using combustion cars. We don't have batteries for aviation yet, so this method can be used for jet fuel.
The main thing we are currently missing is the hydrogen economy. Storage tanks, transcontinental pipelines, etc. Lithium batteries are more efficient but hydrogen is so basic to our universe, it's begging to be used.

[Anonymous No.16014171]

>>16014068
I agree climate activists need to back up their claims.
My problem is the first statement is false. FFs come from decayed ancient life which has been chemically transformed in the earth’s crust. Geologist have made a solid argument. Anything that deviates from what Geological standard model of FF origins needs evidence. Geologists do not claim FFs are renewable or come in any appreciable amount from the mantle.

[Anonymous No.16014172]

>>16014163
Doubtful. Gaseous hydrocarbons are replacing liquid hydrocarbons left and right. Natural gas is easier to get at than oil or coal, and if we were to move away from fossil fuels completely we'd likely use electricity to power most things and purified syngas for high power applications like rockets or jets. It's just more efficient.

[Anonymous No.16014175]

>>16014068
>The climate change activists are the ones asking for change.
They're trying to prevent change. They are trying to conserve the climate. Oil shills should explain why changing the climate is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.16014178]

>>16014168
>but fossil fuels are dense and reliable.
>Instead of cars with electric batteries, we can continue using combustion cars.
Yeah, if you want to lose a bunch of energy. Grow biofuels over an area and you'll net, at most, 6% of the solar energy. Solar panels would net 20%, which is already more than three times the energy. Now we need to store it. Biofuels are an inherent store of energy (ignoring harvesting, transportation, storage, and distribution) so we still have 6%, the electricity needs to be stored in batteries. Many different types of chargers and batteries exist, but most of them get neat 80% efficiency when used together. That's 6% compared to 16%. We'll ignore transmission losses since we ignored so many losses from biofuels. The wood must now be gassified and converted into liquid hydrocarbons, let's be generous and say the process is 100% efficient. Now we need to use the energy. Electric engines are typically more than 90% efficient so we're left with 14.4% of the solar energy that hit that field. How are biofuels doing? After a very generous 33% conversion rate from the ICE it was burned in we're only left with 2% of the energy. Clearly solar is a more efficient use of land and biofuels are only useful when they're essentially free.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency

[Anonymous No.16014180]

>>16014171
Every statement in that picture is false.

[Anonymous No.16014182]

>>16014160
Or maybe because most users are actually common to both boards ?

[Anonymous No.16014193]

>>16014182
They are, but they aren't supposed to be. /pol/tards are the lowest form of life except for maybe yeasts and debating against yeast is more satisfying.

[Anonymous No.16014225]

>>16014193
/pol/tards are still much more productive and influencial than /sci/ users

[Anonymous No.16014226]

>>16014225
Lol no. Maybe in the sense that you'd make good compost with enough straw, but I'd still rather use yeast for that. It would be cleaner.

[Anonymous No.16014245]

>>16014225
Be productive and influential on /pol/ then

[Anonymous No.16014246]

>>16014226
The recent AI controversy comes straight from pol, the "dignify AI" thing also comes from pol, most posts in this board come from pol because scientific and political themes themselves overlap. I don't understand /sci/ users who pretend to look down on /pol/tards, it just makes you sound like a /lit/ user also known as plebbit faggot.

[Anonymous No.16014254]

>>16014246
>/pol/ is better because muh useless toy AI
*yawn*

[Anonymous No.16014260]

>>16013748
>CO2 is a fertilizer
Okay OP, by that logic we should stop taking it out of the soil then.
More CO2 will in fact probably not cause the net amount of life to go down on Earth. It will however cause many forms of life that we are used to and depend on to die out due to ocean acidification (this causes many zooplankton to be unable to develop properly and die out, which would have a massive impact on the food chain). So yes there might be a "life explosion" but with the stipulation that there will very likely be a mass human dying
>oil and gas are not "fossil fuel"
While the notion that they come from decaying dinosaurs is highly inaccurate, fossil fuels due form from mostly dead plant matter. They are not formed in the mantle
>>16014246
/pol/ users including you weren't here before 2016 until you were led here by reddit. Being banned from reddit for saying "nigger" still makes you a redditor

[Anonymous No.16014272]

>>16014260
you are a homosexual

[Anonymous No.16014279]

>>16014246
>He thinks /pol/tards have better than a high school equivalent education.
Lol no. You and your friends are all subhumans and I would say your only use was to make compost if there weren't so many superior options. As of now your life is worth a last resort when I have too much carbon in my pile and no other way to get nitrogen, but you could make something more of yourself if your tried. I assume.

[Anonymous No.16014281]

>>16014272
You are immature compost.

[Anonymous No.16014283]

>>16014272
>popsci magazine makes hyperbolic claim to sell newpaper
>therefore all information regarding this topic is wrong
I don't understand why you need to force yourself to think in such a dishonest way, you can acknowledge problems regarding global warming and disagree that the apocalypse is coming tomorrow you know? I know /pol/tards are used to hivemind thinking and believing anything on a flashy enough jpeg but I encourage you to think every now and again.

[Anonymous No.16014284]

>>16014281
I have lived through more failed climate apocalypse predictions than years you've been alive.

[Anonymous No.16014285]

>>16014283
Global warming/climate change/cow fart apocalypse is a hoax and I'm not willing to meet halfway on something that's absolute bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16014287]

>>16014284
You have misunderstood what you have been told about the climate because you are a subhuman. You would not survive my compost pile, which again, is your only real chance at being productive.

[Anonymous No.16014288]

>>16014285
Nobody cares what you think. You're basically mobile compost.

[Anonymous No.16014289]

>>16014285
I know, it's actually not worth changing your mind especially if you're not going to respond to the central point of the statement I just made. I made it for an onlooker to read and come to their own conclusion

[Anonymous No.16014302]

>>16014288
Actually, it only matters what I think, because I will not eat the bugs.

[Anonymous No.16014304]

>>16013748
"renewable" by any useful means is more a statement of if we can obtain more than is being used or if we can expect any growth in supply within our lives. If it's going to take thousands of years or more, then it's not "renewable" even if there is a mechanism to produce more

[Anonymous No.16014305]

>>16014302
>will not eat the bugs
>supports policy that will make eating bugs inevitable
What's your endgame

[Anonymous No.16014306]

>>16014302
Your worth is, at most, $70 per ton, compost. I assume you weight 300lbs so your worth is $10.50. personally, I wouldn't pay that much for your life, but that's the upper limit.

[Anonymous No.16014309]

>>16014305
The only inevitability is the total genocide of climate cultists.

[Anonymous No.16014311]

>>16014309
Internet fatass threatens violence
Few worried

[Anonymous No.16014312]

>>16014309
The irony. How are you going to accomplish that from my compost pile? Are you going to decompose at me until I die?

[Anonymous No.16014314]

>>16014312
You have no chance of killing me, which is why you make up stories about cow farts causing the apocalypse.
I, however, can easily kill you.

[Anonymous No.16014320]

>>16014314
Come to my house and say that to my face. The nearest neighbor is miles away and they have no interest in your screams. You wanted to "genocide the climate cultists", right? All we need to get that started is you nutting up at trespassing on my land.

[Anonymous No.16014323]

>>16014320
Great, give me your address.

[Anonymous No.16014328]

>>16014323
You won't show up. Go to Fish Haven, Idaho and post again when you're here. I wouldn't advise trespassing on random people's land around here. I'm not the only one who would use your fat ass for compost.

[Anonymous No.16014331]

>>16014328
You're a nogunz, soi-chugging urbanigger, and your neighbors all hate you.

[Anonymous No.16014334]

>>16014331
Where'd all that big talk go, compost? Did you just figure out that a real word confrontation different than an internet argument? Come on down and see how trespassers are dealt with here.

Protip: we don't call the cops.

[Anonymous No.16014338]

>>16014334
I know you don't, you wouldn't want your pet niggers getting in trouble when they stab your retarded commie ass to death.

[Anonymous No.16014340]

>>16014338
This is exactly why I called you a subhuman fit only as a last resort for compost. You aren't capable of doing shit and on top of it you're stupid as hell. What happened to "genocide of the climate cultists"? Did you realize that that would be hard work and decide to be fat in your parents' basement instead?

[Anonymous No.16014357]

>>16014302
They're not going to stop private ownership, silly. Just because you're not the one owning things doesn't mean no one is. This is the end game of capitalism. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[Anonymous No.16014358]

>>16014311
Well, you know what they say, high fructose corn syrup made Americans fat, high caliber assault rifles made Americans threats again

[Anonymous No.16014361]

>>16014358
I have never heard that and I would take my chances against an armed American vs an unarmed weightlifter.

[Anonymous No.16014364]

>>16014180
>OIL & GAS ARE NOT "FOSSIL FUELS"
False. By definition they are fossil fuels
>THEY ARE RENEWABLE HYDROCARBONS
False. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons which form too slowly to be considered renewable.
>FORMED IN THE EARTH'S MANTLE
False. Fossil Fuels are only formed in the crust.
>GAS IS THE CLEANEST ENERGY SOURCE
False. Nuclear is the cleanest energy. An argument can be made for Solar, but depends on unknown aspects of the solar waste stream at the end of life.
>CO2 IS A FERTILIZER
True
>NOT A POLLUTANT
False. By definition, it is a pollutant.
GLOBAL WARMING AND MORE CO2
MEANS LIFE EXPLOSION
True
>NOT EXTINCTION
False. It is impossible to know with certainty how affecting the environment will accelerate or decelerate extinction of a population. But it foolish to assert the effect will be zero for every species and population.

[Anonymous No.16014464]

>>16014340
Project harder, if you're a climate cultist, that makes you a marxist, you means you look like this.

[Anonymous No.16014476]

>>16014464
You expect a compilation of /sci/ users to look any better?

[Anonymous No.16014480]

>>16014476
No, only the right wing ones.

[Anonymous No.16014483]

>>16014480
Is that why your poor grasp of causality has led you to adopt a right-wing stance? Insecurity about your looks?

[Anonymous No.16014484]

>>16014157
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a constituent part of the atmosphere and without it plants would not grow and animals would therefore not exist.

[Anonymous No.16014488]

>>16014464
>everyone that disagrees with me is a Marxist
>why does every other board think /pol/ is retarded?

[Anonymous No.16014489]

>>16014483
Did you troon out because you're a communist, or are you a communist because you trooned out?

[Anonymous No.16014491]

>>16014464
You are a pussy. You are unwilling to nut up and your only worth is as compost. Kill yourself in a pile of straw, you worthless subhuman.

[Anonymous No.16014492]

>>16014488
climate hysteria is a marxist ideology, so yes

[Anonymous No.16014493]

>>16014489
The premise is false.
Did you know that virtually 100% of the scientific community and 80% of the general public is dysgenic Marxist troons? If you dispute a single part of that statistic you may want to review your own reasoning.

[Anonymous No.16014496]

>>16014492
>Imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.16014497]

>>16014488
>everyone that disagrees with me is a Marxist
It's just very likely. Don't deny the implications of your gay opinions anon

[Anonymous No.16014498]

>>16014493
t. compost

[Anonymous No.16014499]

>>16014492
Marxism hysteria is a retard ideology

[Anonymous No.16014500]

>>16014492
I think Marxists also breathe anon, you should stop doing that if you're not a cultural marxist

[Anonymous No.16014501]

>>16014491
I wouldn't even trust your corpse as compost, there's no telling what effect all the synthetic estrogens you leftytroon faggots inject yourself with would have on the soil.

[Anonymous No.16014502]

>>16014498
Oh, I'm not the compost; I'm informing the compost that he has declared science to be Marxist and the sole purview of tattooed antifa super soldiers. He is, by his own admission, woefully out of place here. This is a troon board.

[Anonymous No.16014503]

>>16014500
>I think Marxists also breathe
not for long, thankfully

[Anonymous No.16014505]

>>16014501
Woah, look out. Internet tough guy over here. He wasn't willing to come down for a real confrontation, but if you're on the internet you'd better look out.

Kill yourself. Become compost.

[Anonymous No.16014506]

>>16014502
t. compost

[Anonymous No.16014507]

>>16014157
Shut up Namefag
>>16014484
>pol•lu•tion - the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.
There is no exception if the pollutant is already present in the atmosphere prior to being classified as a pollutant. Water can be a pollutant if a human defines an environment as lacking water. You’re not making a useful argument.

[Anonymous No.16014508]

>>16014502
There's nothing scientific about your cow fart doomsday cult.

[Anonymous No.16014512]

>>16014507
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.16014514]

>>16014503
You are a void of a person, a lack of cognition made flesh, running on pure emotion and magical thinking, prone to lashing out violently whenever the cognitive dissonance becomes too great, which is more and more frequently as you leave reality further behind. You are truly subhuman. If humanity is to survive, your maladaptive strain must be removed.
>>16014508
That's not what scientists say.

[Anonymous No.16014519]

>>16014503
Leftsisters 8 of us died...
It's fucking over

[Anonymous No.16014523]

>>16014514
greta isn't a scientist thoughever

[Anonymous No.16014525]

>>16014523
She is as much of a scientist as you are compost.

[Anonymous No.16014529]

>>16014116
Nuh man, it feels like average /pol poster is either a bot or 90 iq dimwit, their speech resembles dog barking, btw I support some (or even many) common /pol opinions.

[Anonymous No.16014532]

>>16014523
You keep showing that same capacity for illogic. >Scientists say X (because X is science)
>Therefore, anyone who says X must be a scientist???
An entire worldview stuck together by fee-fees

[Anonymous No.16014534]

>>16014503
>kruger
How the fuck did this aryan got here?

[Anonymous No.16014537]

>>16014523
Alright this is the part where you link a paper from a scientist that shows global warming isn't real

[Anonymous No.16014538]

>>16014537
No such thing exists. That's who nobody ever links it.

[Anonymous No.16014539]

>>16014514
>You are a void of a person, a lack of cognition made flesh, running on pure emotion and magical thinking, prone to lashing out violently whenever the cognitive dissonance becomes too great, which is more and more frequently as you leave reality further behind. You are truly subhuman. If humanity is to survive, your maladaptive strain must be removed.
Holy hell, man, calm down, he didn't even post something really edgy yet.

[Anonymous No.16014541]

>>16014539
Become compost.

[Anonymous No.16014542]

>>16014162
this meme has been made on twitter/reddit

[Anonymous No.16014546]

>>16014512
Here’s your (you)

[Anonymous No.16014547]

>>16014539
He doesn't have to show us the depths he's capable of. I've already seen it in every other emotion-driven automaton just like him.

[Anonymous No.16014550]

>>16014546
>>16014547
t. compost

[Anonymous No.16014551]

>>16014547
>>16014541
Disgusting

[Anonymous No.16014553]

>>16014550
Friendly fire?

[Anonymous No.16014554]

>>16014551
No argument from the compost.

[Anonymous No.16014557]

>>16014553
Nope. You're only fit for compost. Keep up, subhuman.

[Anonymous No.16014558]

>>16014550

[Anonymous No.16014561]

>>16014553
Probably, but that anon is kinda disgusting and very disappointing.

[Anonymous No.16014563]

>>16014553
I dunno, I'm starting to think he just generally considers humans unfit for anything but compost. He's a plant supremacist.

[Anonymous No.16014565]

>>16013748
Magma has huge amounts of dissolved H2O and CO2. That's why volcanic eruptions even happen. These gases will naturally form hydrocarbons when they escape the magma but remain under pressure at depth. It's a predictable consequence in the C-H-O system.
>What about the oxygen?
That finds much lower energy states in mineral lattices than in carbonyl or hydroxyl groups. This is why almost half of the weight of the crust is oxygen! Oxygen can go fuck off because carbon and hydrogen are made for each other when it comes to polymerization under pressure.

[Anonymous No.16014566]

>>16014563
My god. It goes deeper than I thought. Stop big plant and big compost!

[Anonymous No.16014571]

>>16014558
>>16014561
>>16014563
>>16014566
t. compost. You basement internet warriors would only burn if you ever saw sunlight. Come be part of my compost pile and you'll never need to feel worthless again.

[Anonymous No.16014572]

>>16014565
Volcanoes don't release as much carbon dioxide as humans. Find a new talking point.

[Anonymous No.16014582]

>>16014571
I wish you could understand, but you’d have to pull your head out of the cavity you find yourself inside.

[Anonymous No.16014584]

>>16014582
I don't care if you understand. Your only purpose is as raw material for my soil.

[Anonymous No.16014588]

>>16013748
well, technically it is renewable, it just takes many millions upon millions of years
however, we are ice age creatures - we do not want a global forest

[Anonymous No.16014638]

>>16014571
Holy shit man, it's scarry, take meds.

[Anonymous No.16014642]

>>16014638
Be compost.

[Anonymous No.16014670]

>>16014537
You can actually look at every paper published about climate pseudoscience and see that none of their models have ever been correct, but they don't care, because it isn't about science, its about trying to convince you to eat bugs.

[Anonymous No.16014675]

>>16014670
Prove it. Post even one model that didn't match its predictions. You can't because you are a useful idiot who will eat the bugs and pretend they're steak.

[Anonymous No.16014691]

>>16014675
Okay, now go play with your gigantic L.

[Anonymous No.16014696]

>>16014691
>All I have is maliciously altered data to back my point.
Post something that isn't from the competitive enterprise institute or any other paid shill farm.

[Anonymous No.16014702]

>>16014691
>look at my cherrypicked 4 balloon datasets and compare them to some global estimate

[Anonymous No.16014709]

>>16014691
The number of models that exist don't correlate to the number of models that are routinely used
Your own graph shows a model that actually does trend with this data btw, you bunked your own post
Also I know you don't understand what the graph you just posted says otherwise you probably would not have posted it, as a consistent ~0.3C raise every year is already absurdly high

[Anonymous No.16014713]

>>16014709
>one of the models was only mildly hyperbolic, that means we all need to eat bugs now

[Anonymous No.16014715]

>>16014713
All of the models you posted were altered by the competitive enterprise institute because they were paid to shill propaganda.

[Anonymous No.16014716]

>>16014713
Why is it that fascists revel in the obscene? Supposedly a stronger disgust reaction correlates with conservatism, but they seek it out and rub everyone's faces in it. Is it some sort of perverse masochism that drives them? Is it projection?

[Anonymous No.16014722]

>>16014675

[Anonymous No.16014726]

>>16014713
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020EA001281
Anyway here's the actual paper with the actual graph here
Blue is what was observed and black is the average of the models.
Where the fuck did you get that graph lmao

[Anonymous No.16014727]

>>16014722
>Imagine being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.16014729]

>>16014726
He got it from propagandists and doesn't understand the issue because his informational literacy is shit.

[Anonymous No.16014734]

>>16014110
>This post will be ignored because /pol/tards have no interest in the truth or even having a good faith debate.
100 posts later. Called it.

[Anonymous No.16014741]

>>16014691
>>16014713
>>16014726
Hey don't worry about responding, I already searched for it on TinEye, I know you just found it on Twitter
You have to go back

[Anonymous No.16014747]

>>16014726
All you did is zoom out to an absurd extent.

[Anonymous No.16014750]

>>16014747
I see a lot of gray under the blue, friend.
In your picture, does it have any models under the actual data collected? Your data is clearly doctored why are you even bothering at this point. You were wrong, you can try again with another study but I recommend you actually read it first this time

[Anonymous No.16014755]

>>16014747
>1975 to 2025 (50 years) is zoomed out compared to 1980 to 2015 (35 years)
I literally cannot imagine being as retarded as you.

[Anonymous No.16014761]

>>16014755
says the guy who thinks cow farts are going to cause the apocalypse in two weeks (updated from two weeks ago)

[Anonymous No.16014765]

>>16014761
>in two weeks
Who said that? Are they currently in the room with us?

[Anonymous No.16014767]

>>16014761
So you think that 35 is greater than 50? You need to be medicated. I know "take your meds" is a meme, but for real, you need them.

[Anonymous No.16014776]

>>16014765
you sound vaccinated tbph

[Anonymous No.16014777]

>>16014765
>>16014767
He fundamentally cannot live in reality. He lives in a fantasy world populated with enemies that are as abundant as they are easily defeated by his masculine wit and strength. The failure of his real, actual life fundamentally broke his brain.

[Anonymous No.16014783]

>>16014765
Yes, it's what you've been saying every two weeks for the past 50 years.

[Anonymous No.16014788]

>>16014776
>newsmedia surely didn't try to swindle people by being alarmist with health before the vaccine

[Anonymous No.16014789]

>>16014777
That's why he should take his meds.

>>16014776
>>16014783
Hear that, retard? You need meds.

[Anonymous No.16014790]

>>16014788

[Anonymous No.16014793]

>>16014790
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.16014796]

>>16014789
Lay off the HRT

[Anonymous No.16014797]

>>16014796
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.16014798]

>>16014790
I know you're still angry at your mom for making you get the shot but I'm sure you'll forgive her
Anyway it's getting late I think you should get some sleep for school tomorrow

[Anonymous No.16014809]

>>16014798
vaxx status?

[Anonymous No.16014814]

>>16014809
I got 2 COVID shots in 2020 I think
I mean you're already severely brain damaged from your flu vaccines and so am I apparently so I don't think it could hurt that much right

[Anonymous No.16014823]

>>16014814
>these flu shots aren't giving me nearly enough blood clots, better double jab the covid mRNA cocktails

[Anonymous No.16014824]

>>16014823
Are you illiterate?

[Anonymous No.16014828]

>>16014823
>doesn't deny that he's been vaccinated
lmao
Sorry bro they already got you, you might as well rid the world of your impure blood now

[Anonymous No.16014881]

>>16014702
Would like to present your own balloon data set?

[Anonymous No.16014886]

>>16014755
Not to be that guy, but I think this difference is explained if the models start in 1975 vs 1980. In other words both presentations of the models are correct, but one started earlier and ran longer which emphasizes deviations from actuals.

[Anonymous No.16014892]

>>16014886
In other words, starting conditions matter. You are running computer models after all.

[Anonymous No.16014930]

>>16013748
probably true, but how do these accessible abiotic oil reserves take to refill?

[Anonymous No.16014949]

>>16014886
>>16014892
You're wrong. The difference is that one is actual data and the other is malicious misinformation. You are disingenuous for pretending you don't understand the issue.

[Anonymous No.16014953]

>>16014158
>>16013786
Btfo

[Anonymous No.16014956]

>>16014953
>Imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.16014961]

>>16014145
>Biofuels are essentially inefficient solar power since photosynthetic efficiency is a tiny fraction of solar panel efficiency
Imagine only looking at raw sunlight - > gas tank efficiency to determine which energy source is superior?
Breakthroughs in synthetic biofuels won't rely on ungodly amounts of exotic materials like solar does, and won't require us to scrap the billions of petrol and diesel engines that already exist as an investment of time and energy.
Solar and batteries have their place in the energy mix of the future, they can have huge impacts on domestic consumption spiking.

[Anonymous No.16014963]

>>16014507
>if I redefine terms to completely insane relativistic levels, then anything can be pollution
Meds

[Anonymous No.16014971]

>>16014260
>fossil fuels due form from mostly dead plant matter
Only coal
Not gas

[Anonymous No.16014981]

>>16013748
Imagine being at the shockingly stupid fuck end of the bell curve, far enough to believe this kind of tripe.

[Anonymous No.16014986]

>>16014961
>Imagine only looking at raw sunlight - > gas tank efficiency to determine which energy source is superior?
That's how you determine how much land you need, retard.

>Breakthroughs in synthetic biofuels won't rely on ungodly amounts of exotic materials like solar does,
Solar doesn't require "ungodly amounts of exotic materials"

>and won't require us to scrap the billions of petrol and diesel engines that already exist as an investment of time and energy.
They're all garbage and none of them are worth keeping. Even the energy they embody is trivial.

Get your GED.

[Anonymous No.16015107]

>>16014949
Hey man. You can criticize the butterfly effect all you want. Doesn’t mean anyone is being malicious. I’m also not being obtuse about this. I’ve run computer models before, and start year can have huge effects on outcomes.

>>16014963
And you are an idiot. Running a computer model with different start criteria is standard stress testing. If your model can’t run forward under a variety of starting conditions, it’s probably worthless.

[Anonymous No.16015110]

Oh wow /sci/ next you will say water is not a renewable resource too!

[Anonymous No.16015125]

>>16015107
>the butterfly effect
Lol, what? I would love to hear your justification for how the butterfly effect is related at all.

>Running a computer model with different start criteria is standard stress testing. If your model can’t run forward under a variety of starting conditions, it’s probably worthless.
Are you high? The models function just fine with whatever parameters you put in, they just don't match real data because the only parameters that output the proper data depend on the actual starting conditions. That's how a physical model works. You can compute any trajectory you want using a model for trajectory like Newtonian physics, but only one set of parameters will tell you where your projectile will strike.

[Anonymous No.16015142]

>>16015125
> The models function just fine with whatever parameters you put in
That’s my point too if you would pull your head out of your ass. Maybe some climate models do require a specific start year, but choosing 1980 is just as arbitrary as choosing 1975. And really the model must be adaptable. To use your artillery analogy, the model ought to be able to model a shell fired at 100 meter altitude and 200 meters altitude, and even if they are targeting the same bunker a kilometer away, yes there is one correct answer for both, but it’s not the same answer for both.

And just FYI, the butterfly effect is in all high complexity coupled systems.

[Anonymous No.16015148]

>>16015142
The models work just fine as long as you put in the proper parameters. They aren't keyed to 1980 or whatever you mistakenly think.

>And just FYI, the butterfly effect is in all high complexity coupled systems.
And how does that relate in any way to data being altered to fit a narrative?

Did you just binge watch the discovery channel and now you feel smart?

[Anonymous No.16015155]

>Unironically trying to post a /pol/ text only image off as fact
Are you retarded? It doesn't need to be "refuted" because it's not evidence.

[Anonymous No.16015158]

>>16015155
Based.

[Anonymous No.16015167]

>>16015148
> They aren't keyed to 1980 or whatever
And I didn’t claim that. I made it quite clear REPEATEDLY the start year should be arbitrary. And if for any reason a climate model does require a specific start year, it is just as arbitrary to choose 1975 as 1980 as the required start. If you really think choosing one vs the other is actually malicious manipulation, I’m expecting you provide receipts. Your entire discussion since I chimed in here:>>16014886 has been trying to strawman my discussion with you, and you have been exceptionally rude since then. I don’t know who pissed in your wheaties, but you need to calm down fucktwit.
> data being altered to fit a narrative
WTH? That’s your argument. Not mine. I’ve been clear since the beginning, if you change starting conditions before you run the model, you get a different data set.
So why don’t you pull your own lard ass out from the couch and learn something.

[Anonymous No.16015173]

>>16015167
>I made it quite clear REPEATEDLY the start year should be arbitrary
This is already done.

>If you really think choosing one vs the other is actually malicious manipulation
The models haven't been altered, retard it's the observational data that's been tampered with.

Big just-binge-watched-discovery energy. and you still haven't said why you think the butterfly effect is relevant.

[Anonymous No.16015182]

>>16015173
Fine. I’m done with you too.

[Anonymous No.16015184]

>>16015182
Great. Try to be less of a retard in the future.

[Anonymous No.16015188]

>>16015184
You spent half an hour unable to comprehend me. Take your ego, sit on it and spin.

[Anonymous No.16015190]

>>16015188
You spent half an hour spewing unrelated gibberish and failing to understand that issue. Take your ego, sit on it and spin.

[Anonymous No.16015201]

>>16013748
Yeah that's true in the context of low carbon levels, the fucking retard engineer tier logic is that it's always monotone
Using your grill? perfectly safe and acceptable
Burning 100 mega billion shit loads of carbon so taylor swift can see her boyfriend? completely unacceptable.
Carbon isn't bad, rich people are bad.

[Anonymous No.16015317]

>>16014691
Appeal to WORDSWORDSWORDS

[Anonymous No.16016421]

>>16015317
you're only upset at that pic because it proves that global warming is a hoax

[Anonymous No.16016446]

>>16013748
Depends on your definition of renewable and pollutant. By the same logic nukes are good for everyone and rape leads to new life.

[Anonymous No.16016447]

>>16016421
See
>>16014696
>>16014702
>>16014709
>>16014726

[Anonymous No.16016461]

why compost people when you can eat them instead?

[Anonymous No.16016464]

>>16016461
Because my field always needs more compost, but I have plenty of food.

[Anonymous No.16016485]

>>16016447
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s only the two satellite data sets, right? And the “cherry picked” balloons seem to correlate well enough there’s no reason to doubt they all measure the same thing?

[Anonymous No.16016493]

climate denial is a religion thats hard to break. scientific reasoning is not important, only the 'faith' in selected 'facts' that fit the narrative. amusingly they are being used in exactly the way they accuse climate scientists of being!

[Anonymous No.16016494]

>>16014691
Debunked 8 years ago. When will you stop posting this nonsense?
https://skepticalscience.com/republicans-favorite-climate-chart-has-serious-problems.html

[Anonymous No.16016503]

>>16016485
There's only two in that picture. We have a lot of datasets from various sources. So many that it's laughable to pick just 6.

>And the “cherry picked” balloons seem to correlate well enough there’s no reason to doubt they all measure the same thing?
Depends on what you mean. They were clearly picked to reflect the same trend, which is clearly supposed to be lower than the models predict, but they all still show an increase in global temperature over time, confirming that global warming is happening. Even when the shills try to rig the game they end up losing.

[Anonymous No.16016505]

>>16013786
OP on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.16016525]

>>16013765
LMAO, you are a complete ignorant moron.

[Anonymous No.16016538]

>>16014503
Thanks to the CIA most of those immigrants are filled to the brim with hate against the US. All that planned of course. The elites want is to impose a totalitarian regime using any pretext, and they will hire the cartels to kill anybody who refuses to give up their weapons, all that while US troops are far away fighting for globohomo.

[Anonymous No.16016545]

>>16014492
Not surprised, those demons must be hanged right next to all woke billionaires and bankers. Zero tolerance for postmodernist trash.

[Anonymous No.16016554]

>>16014489
ironic that the actual working class hates them and are hated by them.
Which specific working class do they think they mean?

[Anonymous No.16016562]

>>16013748
Someday we’ll get the name and face of the people who make this shit and we’ll tear them apart in the streets

[Anonymous No.16016565]

>>16016493
we were all raised on the same homosexual climate hysteria propaganda you were, the difference is that normal people remember things older than the current thing, and therefore none of the climate hysteric's predictions have ever come to pass

[Anonymous No.16016566]

I wonder if there were people like this back when tobacco was the culture war.
>smoking is actually *good* for your lungs, cough cough
>all the doctors telling me to stop have been paid off by big oxygen

[Anonymous No.16016567]

>>16016566
except you would be the retard buying the doctor recommended tobacco, just like you took a dozen clotshots

[Anonymous No.16016574]

>>16016567
If you want to let off some tard steam, look for the nearest brick wall, it'll be more your speed.

[Anonymous No.16016581]

>If you want to let off some tard steam, look for the nearest brick wall, it'll be more your speed.

[Anonymous No.16017050]

>>16013748
Petroleum can form a lot more rapidly than is commonly suggested. Most elementary school level texts will say it takes "millions of years" which is a complete lie. Petroleum like products can be extracted from fresh organic matter in less than an hour with minimal equipment.

[Anonymous No.16017164]

>>16016562
We're preparing for that too. It's called "Day of the rope". Tick tock lefties.

[Anonymous No.16017339]

>>16013748
well if you calculate the square meters of farm land, agains the average need of kg of humansies, you have to assume that 60-90% of the biomass gets pressed into crude oil or benzine or disel.

[Anonymous No.16017343]

>>16017339
i calculated wtih untroched cherreies or brokoll, not potatoes or weathen or corn.

[Anonymous No.16017471]

>>16013748
Then we change their air so they can't breathe it and thrive when they die

Bam new life development explosion, to bad for monkeys

[Anonymous No.16017506]

>>16017050
Dumbest lie ever. Post your source.

inb4 it's just methane

[Anonymous No.16017531]

>>16017506
Fischer-Tropsch process you ignorant nigger. The US Navy has been looking at using excess power from carrier nuclear reactors to make jet fuel for years now.

[Anonymous No.16017565]

>>16017531
>He doesn't understand the difference between extraction and synthesis
Are you underage or a dropout?

[Anonymous No.16018253]

>>16014542
And like every other leftist meme, it was copied from a /pol/ meme.

[Anonymous No.16018705]

>>16017531
you don't even need to get that complicated to produce hydrocarbon fuels from plants. the sneed oils in the goyslop aisle at the grocery store are perfectly good fuels, people have been using them as fuel sources for thousands of years

[Anonymous No.16018743]

>>16014110
>Fossil fuels are not renewable because the amount of fossil fuels we have used will not be replenished by the time we finish the initial supply. It takes too long to form.

This is backward reasoning.

[Anonymous No.16018747]

>>16014283

The only difference between the s o y ence and the "popsci magazine" is that the former is even more disgraceful.

[Anonymous No.16019076]

>>16018743
No, it's the definition of renewable. If I have a magic water bottle that refills itself once a month, but it only holds a one day supply of water as my sole source of water, then that water is not renewable. I will be dead before it fills up again.

[Anonymous No.16019163]

>>16018253
Because like every other /pol/ meme it was projection

[Anonymous No.16019168]

>>16018253
>>16019163
Actually though, you only see a tiny portion of leftie memes that are specifically intended for you to see, probably after you first tried to accuse them of what you yourself are guilty of because internet brownshirts, like their real-life counterparts, are always the aggressors. So it makes sense that these memes will follow a particular trajectory.

[Anonymous No.16019368]

>>16014110
>This post will be ignored because /pol/tards have no interest in the truth or even having a good faith debate.
200 posts later. Called it.

[Anonymous No.16019401]

As for the first part, it definitely can be true for natural gas, but its unlikely true for oil. There is no evidence of oil on other planets. Hydrocarbons, yes, but nothing resembling crude oil.

[Anonymous No.16019405]

I stopped giving a shit about the climate when Biden blew up the Nordstream pipeline and no one cared. Why should I change a damn thing about my daily life if Biden can dumb 20 years worth of Methane emissions into the atmosphere overnight?

[Anonymous No.16019422]

>>16019405
t. Russian

[Anonymous No.16019432]

>>16019422
>t. Russian

[Anonymous No.16019829]

>>16019422
>Putin blew up his own Pipeline as a 5d chess move
ngmi

[Anonymous No.16019841]

>>16019432
>>16019829
t. Russians.l

[Anonymous No.16020281]

>>16019841
>>16019422
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.16020354]

>>16019076

Of what use are definitions contingent on rate of consumption?

[Anonymous No.16020930]

>>16020354
Is this a real question? The answer is incredibly obvious if you put just an iota of thought in.

[Anonymous No.16020932]

>>16020281
>>>/ruski/

[Anonymous No.16021054]

>>16018747
>the only thing more disgraceful than wild speculation is presenting the data as is
Spoken like a true /pol/tard

[Anonymous No.16021664]

>>16021054
>/pol/ lives rent free in my head.
why are you on the science board if you're obsessed with politics?

[Anonymous No.16021828]

>>16021054

The collection, the organization, and the presentation of "data" is nothing but speculation.

[Anonymous No.16021885]

>>16020354
If you have a full cistern with 1000 gallons of water that collects an addition gallon of water per day but you use two gallons per day, what will eventually happen to your water supply?

[Anonymous No.16021910]

>>16013748
In the US we use 19,000,000 barrels of oil per day. Every single day, day after day and we have for 60 years. To claim it's a renewable resource is to live in fairy land.

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-states/oil-consumption

That is a lake of oil on the order of Lake Ontario in the United States alone.

[Anonymous No.16022111]

>>16021885

Defining "renewable" as contingent on rate of consumption is absurd. It says nothing about the thing defined. In your example, consumption could be reduced by 50% on the last gallon and the water would "become renewable", presumably indefinitely, or it could then increase to the initial rate and "cease to be renewable"...until the rate is reduced again to a "renewable" level. Nonsense.

[Anonymous No.16022120]

>>16014090
You unironically use the phrase climate change and dare to use ad hominem attacks on others? Do you understand that 20,000 years ago a mile thick ice covered North America? You know that carbon has been in the atmosphere at concentrations of thousands of ppm during glacial periods, right? You have not read the literature and you believe only what others tell you, you are either a useful idiot or an awful scientist.

[Anonymous No.16022133]

>>16014514
>Scientists say!

I am a physics professor at a high ranking midwestern university and this phrase would never be uttered by a competent researcher, not even a supervised undergraduate teaching assistant. Either make an argument for your claims or cease your senseless drivel.

[Anonymous No.16022136]

>>16014726
We have 600 million years of glacial ice core data, no need to start from 1980. Unless you are trying to obfuscate the truth, of course.

[Anonymous No.16022184]

>>16022111
Not sure why you're hung up on the definition of the word renewable when the real topic being discussed is if abiogenic oil production is happening and if so, does the rate of production exceed our rate of consumption. If not, the fact that it is constantly being produced doesn't matter since it is used faster than it is produced. The only saving grace would be if there is so much in reserve that we'll never run out before moving on to other energy sources. As others have pointed out, that's unlikely as the volume of space required would be enormous and obvious. So that leaves us with it used to produce slower but has increased and just so happens to now be what we need for our current and future consumption. Well, at least that would be the discussion if you were being autistic over word definitions or maybe you simply want to derail the thread because somehow it doesn't match some narrative your ideology requires. I suspect it's actually the former and you're autistic and this is the only place left that tolerates your behavior.

[Anonymous No.16022189]

>>16022184

If there were no consumption at all, would you say that the amount of oil would therefore be infinite?

[Anonymous No.16022233]

>>16022189
The amount of time it would take to consume it would be infinite. If our use of oil were renewable then use would not exceed production. Our use does exceed the production which means it's not a renewable resource and oil consumption is unsustainable.

[Anonymous No.16022236]

>>16021910
>"Peak oil soon!" Says increasingly desperate man, having said the same thing since the 1970's

[Anonymous No.16022250]

>>16022233
>The amount of time it would take to consume it would be infinite

So this is a discussion of the rate of consumption alone, as I said. What does this have to do with the actual oil?

[Anonymous No.16022266]

>>16022250
Are you stupid? It determines whether we can use it indefinitely or whether we need to switch to alternate power sources. Guess what? We need to switch to different power sources.

How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?

[Anonymous No.16022279]

>>16022266

The rate of consumption has no Ontological properties, i.e. it can be randomly increased or reduced. Moreover, it says or determines nothing about the oil.

[Anonymous No.16022283]

>>16022279
What point do you think you're making?

>it can be randomly increased or reduced.
And we know that it needs to be reduced so we don't run out. How inbred are you?

[Anonymous No.16022293]

>>16022283

"Running out of oil" is a hypothetical event whose actuality can only be ascertained by Geology. If, for example, oil is abiotic, Logically, there is most likely a lot more of it then previously assumed. Such determination is only possible through Geology, not through measuring the rate of consumption.

[Anonymous No.16022299]

>>16022293
Nope. We've been studying the issue for years. Oil is not abiotic which we know by measuring the ratio of carbon isotopes. Further, as anon pointed out, if oil was replenished at the rates we use it then it would be obvious because of the volume of oil we use.

You're just mad that you got BTFO and that your inbred ass doesn't understand the concepts of "renewable energy" and "sustainability".

[Anonymous No.16022301]

>>16022299

All of this is backward reasoning.

[Anonymous No.16022306]

>>16022301
No it isn't. You're just mad that you got BTFO and that your inbred ass doesn't understand the concepts of "renewable energy" and "sustainability".

[Anonymous No.16022308]

>>16022306

Bot?

[Anonymous No.16022314]

>>16022308
Nope. I just don't care to put effort into talking to retards. You're asserting that I'm a bit because you're mad that you got BTFO and that your inbred ass doesn't understand the concepts of "renewable energy" and "sustainability".

[Anonymous No.16022319]

>>16022314

Your idiocy notwithstanding, recall, for example, that the biotic hypothesis was imposed by the oil companies themselves to enforce artificial scarcity.

[Anonymous No.16022330]

>>16022319
>Muh conspiracy!
So explain why the carbon isotopes indicate a biotic origin. Oh you can't? Sounds like abiotic oil is a garbage theory with no support.

[Anonymous No.16022342]

>>16022330
Well carbon based lifeforms, maybe they ain't carbon based or come from any other type of source but in the exemplary case that is biological in nature is due to carbon based lifeforms

[Anonymous No.16022349]

>>16022330

Pardon? Why should I contribute to backward reasoning, one way or the other? Rather, I ask you to explain why "carbon isotopes" are enough to confirm the biotic hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.16022352]

>>16022349
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41396-021-00971-5

[Anonymous No.16022355]

>>16022342
Nope, the ratios would be very different if only part of the carbon came from lifeforms.

[Anonymous No.16022364]

>>16022352
>The oldest and most wide-ranging signal of biological activity (biosignature) on our planet is the carbon isotope composition of organic materials preserved in rocks.

The article begins with an assumption, then backwardly reasons it.

[Anonymous No.16022368]

>>16022364
Lol no. Cope harder.

[Anonymous No.16022372]

>>16022368

Anyway, they seem to be pulling the plug on the "climate" hysteria. You'll be relieved soon.

[Anonymous No.16022385]

>>16022372
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.16022733]

>>16014145
Duck curve and power storage make synfuels viable. There is no discernible difference in operating costs when running a green/nuclear power plant at max capacity. You use a synfuel plant as a load bank and go full send on your power source.

[Anonymous No.16022965]

>>16022733
You can, but battery farms and other storage schemes will take less land. Either way we move away from fossil fuels so both are good.

[Anonymous No.16022977]

>>16013765
do plants?

[Anonymous No.16022999]

>>16022977
They don't. That's why the tree ring temperature proxy record deviates from the actual temperature.

[Anonymous No.16023788]

>>16013765
Define pollution.
Anything that has a negative impact on your ability to stay alive? If so, your mere existence is pollution; you breathe out CO2, can harbor diseases, consume resources etc, all of these reduces everyone else's ability to live.

The logical end point of the suicidal offshoot of liberalism that is environmentalism is the extermination of humanity, possibly even life itself.

[Anonymous No.16023791]

>>16013786
He said it to wind leftist twats like yourself up. I often claim CO2 is not a greenhouse gas with the same goal in mind.

I do so because you people refuse to allow yourself to be convinced that a free market is the solution to all problems, including climate change if it even exists.

[Anonymous No.16023796]

>>16014175
It's a good thing because it's a byproduct of the good thing that is economic growth.

Economic growth is the byproduct of innovation driven by market forces. Innovation is what allows you to work the same amount of time but get higher pay.

The reason you do not get higher pay is the fault of government, which creates inflation. Inflation siphons away your extra productivity into welfare and cronies bank accounts.

Anyone who defends government defends this injustice.

[Anonymous No.16023805]

>>16023788
>>16023791
>>16023796
Dumbest person ITT

[Anonymous No.16023860]

>>16023805
Carry on defending the state. It's the one stealing your income through taxation and inflation, not me.
I'm sure it really means it when it claim a desire of stopping climate change.

[Anonymous No.16023869]

>>16023860
Your really need to go back
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.16024512]

>>16023860
>It's the one stealing your income through taxation and inflation
that only happens to people who have jobs, not college children. college children have daddy to pay their bills, they don't work.

[Anonymous No.16025727]

>>16024512
Thats partially their parents fault for coddling them instead of teaching the true facts of reality.
>sorry son i couldn't afford to send you to college, i had to send most of my income to uncle sam so he could send it to israel or hand it over to negro welfare queens
would solve the problem

[Anonymous No.16026841]

>>16025727
the people who clamor for welfare are never the ones who pay it

[Anonymous No.16028387]

[Anonymous No.16028770]

>>16028387
based

[Anonymous No.16028841]

>>16028387

Indeed.

[Anonymous No.16028869]

>>16028387
all that matters is whether oil is consumed faster than it naturally forms, and whether it can be formed by any other means

[Anonymous No.16028879]

>>16028869
I hope the scientists working for the Saudi Kingdom will find a way to store solar energy in hydrocarbons at industrial scale, that will close the cycle.

[Anonymous No.16028883]

>>16028879
interesting

[Anonymous No.16028886]

>>16025727
>Sorry son, it's a reality in our current society that education is a privilege reserved for the rich whilst we pay to fund genocidal imperialist wars for their profit in regions of the world we will never see in order to prop up right-wing governments, and they're telling you the problem is the single mother next door on food stamps
That's bound to steer people away from socialism!

[Anonymous No.16029008]

>>16014175
Not arguing the changing climate is good but the benefits of burning oil make it a very easy problem to ignore or just accept the cost and move on with engineering of solutions in advance and do what you can to mitigate FF usage. If you really want to stop fossil fuels consumption are you willing to start the political party to basically tell people:
>no you can't have more in fact I'm going to personally cut your standards of living to a fifth or less of what they are.
>I'm going to force you to live in walkable cities.
>I'm going to force you to eat more expensive and lower quality food.
>I'm going to force you to give up automobiles, freedom of movement, and increase energy costs by an order of magnitude.
>I'm also going to force all other countries to abide by the same principles.

[Anonymous No.16029664]

>>16028879
>what is ethanol

[Anonymous No.16030741]

>>16013748
>I found this on /pol/
Stopped reading there. Go back

[Anonymous No.16031841]

>>16029664
Thats illegal in their religion

[Anonymous No.16031846]

>>16029008
thats why it was so critical to slow economic/population growth.
it was even feasible that a politician could be elected with such a platform
of well too late now. elites have completely discredited themselves.

[Anonymous No.16031857]

>>16013748
God this talking point is getting old real fast. It's deliberately obtuse and treats things as a binary choice between "thing is good and we need all of it" or "thing is bad and we need 0 of it" which is not how real life works.
Water is good. Water is necessary for life. Water is required by crops to grow.
It does not mean you want mass flooding, because TOO MUCH is a bad thing.

I wish the NPCs over at /pol/ would update their instructions already

[Anonymous No.16031858]

>>16014523
Greta has never claimed to be a scientist, she has only ever told people to listen to them.

[Anonymous No.16031927]

>>16013748
>scientist worried about CO2 release aggresive algae in ocean, to get rid of it
>plants on solid ground suddnly stops having fertilizer

[Anonymous No.16032025]

>>16031858
how would she know if they were worth listening to given that she couldn't even graduate high school?

[Anonymous No.16032028]

>>16031857
The difference between an adequate amount of water and a flooding is clear.
The difference between CO2 at 400ppm and CO2 at 600ppm? Not so much.

[Anonymous No.16032036]

>>16031857
Sorry, can't take seriously the opinion of anyone who believes in the boogeyman.

[Anonymous No.16032263]

>>16031846
>thats why it was so critical to slow economic/population growth.
I think this is ineffective, our economic models are based on population growth and people want their prospects to get better, not worse. If I've learned one thing in my life, people are primarily self interested rather than simple expressions of good or bad. Unironically Trump is the sort of politician you get when years of neglect are set in who are in effect a political wrecking ball. Also the method of slowing population growth seems to have a more marked impact on higher economic classes that are also more productive and competent. I am concerned we will be incapable in 100 years of the sort of complex work we currently do in the west. Not sure what the practical solution is otherwise, maybe it's a roll the dice and deal with population decline and all its numerous problems but I doubt people will have the will to continue on that path in democracies when it hits their pocket book especially with the availability of tight oil.

[Anonymous No.16032380]

>>16013786
>entire planet should be under a sea of oil
isn't that the case with same planets or moons with lakes full of hydrocarbons?

[Anonymous No.16032389]

>>16013786
Chemistry doesn't work at fixed rates. Reaction rates depend on concentrations. Its completely plausible that as the oil reservoirs fill, the conversion process ceases at it reaches equilibrium.

[Anonymous No.16032522]

>>16032389
No it isn't.

[Anonymous No.16032533]

>>16032522
NTA, but yes, it is, and that's what literally occurs on earth with photosynthesis and constant natural hydrocarbon burning. The fossil record similarly demonstrates the impact of hydrocarbon buildup and carbon scarcity periods.

[Anonymous No.16032698]

>>16032533
Lol no. Petroleum doesn't make itself faster just because you want it to.

[Anonymous No.16033178]

>>16032698
Of all of the oil fields that have ever been exploited so far, the number of them that have run dry is zero. Some of them have been pumping oil for over 150 years. Its not a resource thats running out.

[Anonymous No.16033255]

>>16033178
Non sequitur. Try harder, retard.

[Anonymous No.16034341]

>>16033255
oil isn't running out and it never will be running out

[Anonymous No.16034344]

>>16034341
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.16034587]

>>16034344
Name a single oil field that has depleted.

[Anonymous No.16034609]

>>16034587
NTA but the oneus is on you to prove it as there is a litany of evidence that wells and their fields produce less oil and after a certain point and become uneconomical to operate due to large declines in productivity leading to their abandonment. If oil really was infinite why are there so many abandoned wells? Here is an example of a conventional well that was tapped 1970s and it's production over a fourth year time frame, this is typical for a given well.

[Anonymous No.16034725]

>>16034587
You have failed to prove it.

[Anonymous No.16034738]

>>16014158
>counting the molten magma below earth's crust as part of the total volume
you're retarded
>2% of earth's volume
There's astronomically less oil than that either way

[Anonymous No.16034744]

>>16034609
This the crux of it honestly, even if you believe that oil is a "renewable resource" in some sense, it doesn't matter if it's renewed at a significantly slower pace than it's being consumed.
It's the same with fresh water or fertile land for agriculture, no doubt the quantity available would recover if you left it alone for some time, but we aren't doing that.

[Anonymous No.16034746]

>>16034744
That means it's not a renewable resource

[Anonymous No.16034757]

>>16034609
>and after a certain point and become uneconomical to operate
That has never happened to any oil field ever

[Anonymous No.16034758]

>>16034757
Lol ok, retard. Would you like to try to prove that?

[Anonymous No.16034767]

>>16034757
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_wells
>Orphan, orphaned, or abandoned wells are oil or gas wells that have been abandoned by fossil fuel extraction industries. These wells may have been deactivated because of economic viability, failure to transfer ownerships (especially at bankruptcy of companies), or neglect and thus no longer have legal owners responsible for their care.
>A well is said to reach an "economic limit" when its most efficient production rate does not cover the operating expenses, including taxes.[5] When the economic limit is raised, the life of the well is shortened and proven oil reserves are lost. Conversely, when the financial limit is lowered, the life of the well is lengthened.[6] When the economic limit is reached, the well becomes a liability and is abandoned.

[Anonymous No.16034803]

>>16034767
>en.wikipedia.org
so you're pretty much admitting you have no idea what you're talking about so you looked up the first result on google.

[Anonymous No.16035220]

>>16034803
Ironic coming from someone who insists wells are never abandoned. What source would you prefer?

https://www.doi.gov/orphanedwells

https://www.wilderness.org/articles/blog/what-world-orphaned-oil-well

https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/federal-orphaned-well-program

https://www.edf.org/orphanwellmap

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c03268

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9583604/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/abandoned-oil-and-natural-gas-wells-pollute-the-environment-across-louisiana

[Anonymous No.16035569]

>>16035220
Reddit spacing

[Anonymous No.16035659]

Tohle místo je teď moje toaleta.

[Anonymous No.16035969]

>>16035220
those are all fake news organizations which constantly tell all sorts of lies. there are no oil fields which have ever run dry. not one. keep on desperately searching on google as long as you want, you will never find an example of what you're looking for.