Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

CynicalContrarian · 01-15-2017 11:40 PM

Joke of it all is.
We'll never control the sun. So we'll never control the climate.
Never mind volcanic activity or magnetic field shifts.
We can control pollution of course, yet it seems the focus for some reason is not on pollution...

As for abiotic oil.
I don't even recall the last time I read a serious account of "peak oil".

amity · 01-19-2017 07:12 AM

(Figured it was better to talk about this in this thread rather than opening a new related thread)
I see the mainstream news are ramping up the climate change stuff in the last couple of days.
"2016 was like totally the hottest year in the world ever bitches!"
This is being reported as fact across almost across the board.
I'm intrigued to see when the real science comes out about this, rather than the EU backed Copernicus group that published this study.
One interesting article (from a year ago) which bucks the narrative was somewhat surprisingly featured on Forbes, which I would expect is in the pocket of the Establishment on most matters, so am not sure how this article got past the editor.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...fe0f323c6b
Thoughts?

Simeon_Strangelight · 01-19-2017 07:29 AM

(01-19-2017 07:12 AM)amity Wrote: (Figured it was better to talk about this in this thread rather than opening a new related thread)
I see the mainstream news are ramping up the climate change stuff in the last couple of days.
"2016 was like totally the hottest year in the world ever bitches!"
This is being reported as fact across almost across the board.
I'm intrigued to see when the real science comes out about this, rather than the EU backed Copernicus group that published this study.
One interesting article (from a year ago) which bucks the narrative was somewhat surprisingly featured on Forbes, which I would expect is in the pocket of the Establishment on most matters, so am not sure how this article got past the editor.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...fe0f323c6b
Thoughts?

Steve Forbes is a multi-millionaire who publishes plenty of contrarian things in his magazine and even more on the site.

I would not call him a globalist - he is just a rich guy who is allowed to say plenty of truths. Though his net worth is reputedly higher than the official 400 mio. $ - he did some investments in Greece during the crisis where he boasted to have bought properties for pennies on the dollar.

You will find quite a few articles on climate change, but also on other topics which are against the mainstream, because strictly speaking Forbes Magazine is not mainstream.

Also Steve Forbes only touches on some points, but avoids others smartly. I think that he personally does what he wants in life, prefers to not go in opposition to the big boys, but is wild enough to do what he wants.

MOVSM · 01-20-2017 09:12 AM

komatiite · 01-20-2017 09:37 AM

(01-20-2017 09:12 AM)MOVSM Wrote:

I guess that guy is in the running for Trump Science Advisor. He was actually mailed a bomb by The Unabomber and it fucked up his eye and hand. I wonder why the Unabomber targeted him, I read his manifesto and he seemed to solely despise Leftists. This prof seems pretty conservative.

Also sorry Zel no rebuttal on the abiotic Oil because I was actually out on a drilling rig this week drilling for biotic oil Smile

I actually am going to buy that book that Newark posted and see the main arguments. I don't get too worked up about "THE TRUTH" because I'm just some random guy. Just generally curious. Will report back soon!

Simeon_Strangelight · 01-20-2017 11:28 AM

Oil is oil - drilling for abiotic oil is identical to supposed "fossil" biotic oil.

And don't worry - they would rather kill thousands of scientists before admitting that oil is not created out of dinosaur poop.

weambulance · 01-20-2017 02:34 PM

Maybe there's a good answer to this I just don't know because I'm not that well versed in oil geology and chemistry, since I'm really a metal ore geochem guy:

How can you tell the difference between biogenic oil and abiogenic oil without some sort of observable intermediate phase?

We know coal comes from compressed and cooked plant matter because lignite is that intermediate phase. Lignite sometimes has remnant plant structures that anyone can see and some minor structures persist into bituminous coal. Is there some analogue in oil?

Abiogenic oil doesn't seem implausible to me. We know hydrocarbons don't have to come from biological remnants because there are hydrocarbons in space. But as I say, I am hardly an expert on oil and the evidence for the biogenic hypothesis.

However, I also don't see why both hypotheses couldn't be right. Hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons whether they came from organics or inorganics, and crude oil can vary pretty significantly from deposit to deposit. Bury the right chemical mush in the right conditions for long enough and maybe you get oil whether you started with microorganisms or just carbonates and water.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark · 01-20-2017 04:20 PM

(01-20-2017 02:34 PM)weambulance Wrote: We know coal comes from compressed and cooked plant matter because lignite is that intermediate phase. Lignite sometimes has remnant plant structures that anyone can see and some minor structures persist into bituminous coal. Is there some analogue in oil?

Per Gold's theory, coal (not lignite) is also abiotic while lignite is biotic.

I would have to re-read part of the book (I read it in detail well over a decade ago) to talk about it in detail. I loaned out my copy some years back and it was promptly lost. Gold even delves into theory how some earthquakes are created, which ties into his theory.

My Dad also has a copy. I bought it for him to ask his opinion on it (the Old Man has a PhD in a discipline of organic chemistry). I wanted him to critique Gold's assertions on how he thought the chemistry worked in creating oil and coal.

Note: I came across Gold's book because it was referenced in a book I was reading at the time, called 'Black Gold Stranglehold'. I do NOT recommend reading Black Gold Stranglehold... the science and logic behind it was badly flawed... overall a poorly written book.

edit: My Dad also worked his way through college (after the GI bill ran out) working for the Bur. of Mines as a surveyor (test drilling for natural resources like oil and coal) and putting out coal mine fires. So he had additional experience in the field.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark · 01-20-2017 04:28 PM

Steve Forbes is a multi-millionaire who publishes plenty of contrarian things in his magazine and even more on the site.

Also Steve Forbes only touches on some points, but avoids others smartly. I think that he personally does what he wants in life, prefers to not go in opposition to the big boys, but is wild enough to do what he wants.
[/quote]

Back in my younger days, I had a Forbes For President sticker on my car. At the time, he was the only guy in the Republican field talking about policies that would have really helped out a guy my age at the time (other stuff besides his proposal for a 17% flat income tax). Instead the party nominated Bob Dole who got pounded into dust by Bill Clinton.

Items that Forbes championed are now policy today, despite the far Left wanting to kill them (i.e. Health Savings Accounts).

weambulance · 01-20-2017 05:14 PM

I take pretty significant issue with the idea that coal is abiogenic while lignite is biogenic. We have a whole range of coal grades we can find, it's not just an either-or situation, and everything about coal is very consistent with accepted, predictable sedimentary and metamorphic processes.

I find abiogenic oil much more plausible than abiogenic coal for a whole host of reasons.

Here's something Gold said about coal:

Quote:“The coal we dig is hard, brittle stuff [but] it was once a liquid, because we find embedded in the middle of a six-foot seam of coal such things as a delicate wing of some animal or a leaf of a plant. They are undestroyed, absolutely preserved, with every cell in that fossil filled with exactly the same coal as all the coal on the outside... The fact that coal contains fossils does not prove that it is a fossil fuel; it proves exactly the opposite. Those fossils you find in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. How could you take a forest and mulch it all up so that it is a completely featureless big black substance and then find one leaf in it that is perfectly preserved? That is absolute nonsense.”

What I see here is a man who doesn't understand either fossilization or sedimentation.

MOVSM · 01-21-2017 10:59 AM

(01-20-2017 09:37 AM)komatiite Wrote: I wonder why the Unabomber targeted him, I read his manifesto and he seemed to solely despise Leftists.

Wasn't unabomber about rejecting progress? And this guy is a computer expert, and not the regular kind, but esoteric parallel computing.

Simeon_Strangelight · 01-21-2017 12:38 PM

weambulance

What I see here is a man who doesn't understand either fossilization or sedimentation.

About that - mainstream geologists have sometimes a hard time accepting various concepts like petrification and the current dogma of geological changes over millions of years. I was watching once a documentary on catastrophism (up until the end 19th century the main perception of how our geological changes are done - essentially not much happening, then massive changes within a few days, weeks and then nothing - according to them there are massive indications that for example the Great Canyon was simply created in a few weeks of massive tectonic changes and floods and then quickly dried off).

Back to the topic - in the documentary you had two geologists taking a trip into a mountainous area in South America to a spot where they had an immense number of petrified sea shells and other fossils lying about in the open - in the full rain and weather they have had like this for quite some time. Then one of them joked: "Do you really think that those fossils would be lying around for millions of years in the rain and weather in this very condition?"

That's science for you - the smarters just laugh and shake their heads.

Simeon_Strangelight · 01-21-2017 05:29 PM

Someone asked me about a starting point of researching the issue - here my response. I studied it extensively a couple years back - isn't difficult to make up your mind. Evidence is overwhelmingly clear that it is a con:

Otherwise a good starting point is:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/

There are good documentaries I saw with plenty of alternative climatologists.

Here a bunch of links I have at the ready - some may not work, but have fun - there is no lack of evidence, just a lack of reason. I also had once a great site that was closed now that hat dozens and dozens of quotes by politicians and "scientists" which said that even if the science is all bogus, then they can use the money for education of the world population (less for you useless eaters, more for them).

Also don't call it Climate Change - use their own term Global Warming that they used and changed as it became clear that Earth is not going to warm.

Also this site is cool:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02...rmism.html
Many don't know that Earth cooled from the 1950s to 70s and the globalists back then started to dabble a bit in the propaganda pushing global cooling. Then it was quiet and they started with the warming in the 1980s and in earnest in the 1990s.

[Image: The+Big+Freeze.jpg]

komatiite · 02-18-2017 09:30 PM

Zel I see you often cite WUWT -- interesting post today on how the abiogenic oil theory is off
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/18/o...come-from/

Simeon_Strangelight · 02-19-2017 04:11 AM

(02-18-2017 09:30 PM)komatiite Wrote: Zel I see you often cite WUWT -- interesting post today on how the abiogenic oil theory is off
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/18/o...come-from/

That article does not disprove with 100% certainty abiotic oil formation, but I'll admit that algae are a likely source of it - and there is a lot of it.

Still - what about coal liquification? We have thousands of times more coal than even the acknowledged oil reserves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction

We could keep the oil age running just on coal for thousands of years, but while the methods are used around the world, they are not overly loudly mentioned.

Personally I don't think that crude is truly necessary in the future. There is so much suppressed technology that should have eliminated the combustion engines, that we could be here for weeks finding ever more information on it.

Note that most of the so-called concerns speaking against coal liquification are utterly and fully CLIMATE CHANGE GLOBAL WARMING BASED!!!!!

So we can't have crude out of coal, because of the global warming scam! Abiotic oil or not - the scam will continue.

DarkTriad · 02-19-2017 09:48 AM

(01-13-2017 06:17 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote: There are many others who rather shut up and take the money.

A few venture off into their own businesses offering long-term climate prognosis based on solar activity which is far more accurate than the current dogma. Companies for example are buying that.

Science in our times is utterly agenda driven - not only climate related, but also medicine, engineering (suppressing anything that endangers the petroleum combustion engine), psychology, gender-science (!!!!!), even bloody geology is concerned (they suppress again the true origin of crude oil or the field of catastrophism vs eon-long-geological changes).

In the future you will have generations looking over our disgustingly manipulated science and wonder how mankind was so expertly manipulated. At least in the past you have honest excuses for bloodletting or agenda-driven changes like astronomy (earth center of the solar system vs sun). Now you cannot even let backwardsness and lack of a scientific method count - now you simply have to admit that science is manipulated and the people are swallowing it all.

These ARE our new astrologers and High Priests. They tell us what everything means and how we should act, think and feel.

DarkTriad · 02-19-2017 09:51 AM

(01-15-2017 11:40 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote: Joke of it all is.
We'll never control the sun. So we'll never control the climate.
Never mind volcanic activity or magnetic field shifts.
We can control pollution of course, yet it seems the focus for some reason is not on pollution...

The focus isn't controlling pollution, the focus is controlling US. A worldwide carbon tax would give the people in charge the ability to meddle in every aspect of every persons life in every nation on the planet.

DarkTriad · 02-19-2017 10:00 AM

(01-21-2017 05:29 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote: Someone asked me about a starting point of researching the issue - here my response. I studied it extensively a couple years back - isn't difficult to make up your mind. Evidence is overwhelmingly clear that it is a con:

Otherwise a good starting point is:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/

There are good documentaries I saw with plenty of alternative climatologists.

Here a bunch of links I have at the ready - some may not work, but have fun - there is no lack of evidence, just a lack of reason. I also had once a great site that was closed now that hat dozens and dozens of quotes by politicians and "scientists" which said that even if the science is all bogus, then they can use the money for education of the world population (less for you useless eaters, more for them).

Also don't call it Climate Change - use their own term Global Warming that they used and changed as it became clear that Earth is not going to warm.

Also this site is cool:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02...rmism.html
Many don't know that Earth cooled from the 1950s to 70s and the globalists back then started to dabble a bit in the propaganda pushing global cooling. Then it was quiet and they started with the warming in the 1980s and in earnest in the 1990s.

Also this is funny - the same "scientist" being for cooling in the 1970s and for warming in the 2000s. Now it is easier, because "change" means that they always win and you lose.

My favorite is the double talk they give explain the Medieval Warm Period (we went through a period, prior to large populations and pollution that was so warm they were growing grapes in Northern England...and nothing bad happened). The current consensus is essentially "It happened, but it didn't happen". Agenda driven frauds!

DarkTriad · 02-19-2017 10:02 AM

I'm not an expert on climate change, but I am a expert on lies, scams and hustles, and this has all the hallmarks.

Simeon_Strangelight · 02-25-2017 03:13 PM

Hehe.

komatiite · 02-25-2017 03:59 PM

(02-19-2017 04:11 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:
(02-18-2017 09:30 PM)komatiite Wrote: Zel I see you often cite WUWT -- interesting post today on how the abiogenic oil theory is off
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/18/o...come-from/

That article does not disprove with 100% certainty abiotic oil formation, but I'll admit that algae are a likely source of it - and there is a lot of it.

Still - what about coal liquification? We have thousands of times more coal than even the acknowledged oil reserves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction

We could keep the oil age running just on coal for thousands of years, but while the methods are used around the world, they are not overly loudly mentioned.

Personally I don't think that crude is truly necessary in the future. There is so much suppressed technology that should have eliminated the combustion engines, that we could be here for weeks finding ever more information on it.

Note that most of the so-called concerns speaking against coal liquification are utterly and fully CLIMATE CHANGE GLOBAL WARMING BASED!!!!!

So we can't have crude out of coal, because of the global warming scam! Abiotic oil or not - the scam will continue.

Zel I have been digging around for info on the Fischer Troph coal liquefaction process-- all arguments aside on how Coal is abiotic or biogenic, do you know where to find a basic economic run down on it? I have seen some ratios (one ton of coal yields 1.25 bbl oil, not sure of the oil quality, is it equivalent to a barrel of 40 degree API sweet?) or what the cost per bbl to make it is? Is it actually competitive to 50 dollar oil or do you need 110 dollar oil for it to be competitive?

Hell_Is_Like_Newark · 02-25-2017 04:35 PM

(02-25-2017 03:59 PM)komatiite Wrote: what the cost per bbl to make it is? Is it actually competitive to 50 dollar oil or do you need 110 dollar oil for it to be competitive?

Coal to liquids I can't help you with, but I can offer some insight on gas (natural) to liquids. Two companies are out there that have built large plants: Shell and Sasol. Both had plans to build GTL plants in the USA, but shelved the projects when the price of oil collapsed. Per industry literature, the price Brent crude needs to be above $60 per bbl for these plants to be profitable.

There are smaller players who have developed 'micro channel GTL' plants that are meant to be deployed on oil rigs and remote oil fields. Right now about 40% of all the gas drilled in the USA is burned off.. wasted, because there is no pipelines to transport it. If the gas can be turned into say light fuel oil, it could then be utilized.

Exxon partnered with Gigamethanol for a process that turns natural gas into methanol then into gasoline. In methanol form, it can be mixed with crude and shipped through a pipeline. This was planned for Alaska where the Alaskan pipeline has spare capacity due to reduced oil production.

Captain Gh · 02-25-2017 06:23 PM

(01-15-2017 02:10 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote: You can probably now create crude out of CO2 and water, but still no organic reproduction.

There's a guy I used worked with who was big on conspiracies... and he told me there's a urban legend about a man who made his car run on water and something else, don't remember, but it was very cheap and homemade. Dude started making videos about it... and wanted to write a book on it. Dude apparently disappeared so fast it's not even funny! Always believed it! That's a cartel not to mess with since there's Billions & Billions involved. They'll let you babble about Feminism & liberal to a certain point (Case in point Milo) - but say something Oil ... well you know!

komatiite · 02-25-2017 06:32 PM

(02-25-2017 04:35 PM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:
(02-25-2017 03:59 PM)komatiite Wrote: what the cost per bbl to make it is? Is it actually competitive to 50 dollar oil or do you need 110 dollar oil for it to be competitive?

Coal to liquids I can't help you with, but I can offer some insight on gas (natural) to liquids. Two companies are out there that have built large plants: Shell and Sasol. Both had plans to build GTL plants in the USA, but shelved the projects when the price of oil collapsed. Per industry literature, the price Brent crude needs to be above $60 per bbl for these plants to be profitable.

There are smaller players who have developed 'micro channel GTL' plants that are meant to be deployed on oil rigs and remote oil fields. Right now about 40% of all the gas drilled in the USA is burned off.. wasted, because there is no pipelines to transport it. If the gas can be turned into say light fuel oil, it could then be utilized.

Exxon partnered with Gigamethanol for a process that turns natural gas into methanol then into gasoline. In methanol form, it can be mixed with crude and shipped through a pipeline. This was planned for Alaska where the Alaskan pipeline has spare capacity due to reduced oil production.

Yeah I actually had a meeting about a year ago with a small company trying to sell microchannel GTL, I can definitely see it taking off. There is so much stranded gas either in oil fields as solution gas or simply older gas wells in legacy fields where the nearest gas plants are being decommissioned due to lack of throughput, and are now uneconomic despite having remaking reserves of over a BCF in cases. I've also seen systems where you can put in portable cogen systems where, if nearby power grids exist, can convert the gas directly into usable electricity for the grid. As more and more wells sit in suspension due to infrastructure/marketing problems that render them uneconomic, there will be big opportunities to try and market this stranded gas -- the capex involved will pay out and eventually cover the liability of well abandonment if this technology can decrease in cost in the next few years!

Hell_Is_Like_Newark · 02-25-2017 06:35 PM

(02-25-2017 06:23 PM)Captain Gh Wrote: There's a guy I used worked with who was big on conspiracies... and he told me there's a urban legend about a man who made his car run on water and something else, don't remember, but it was very cheap and homemade.

The water car! ARRRRRGGGGG! This nonsense gets dragged up now and again since the 1970s.

To get work out of a substance, you need to have it go to a lower energy state. In the gas of say methane CH4 + O2 = CO2 + H2O & Energy (heat). Water is already at a low energy state compared to free hydrogen and oxygen. For a heat engine to work, water would have to move to a new physical state, that emits energy (exothermic), that frankly doesn't exist in this universe.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread:		Author	Replies:	Views:	Last Post
	Possible scientific basis for crazy cat lady syndrome?	MMM	10	1,503	03-18-2019 07:07 PM Last Post: CynicalContrarian
	Olympic Cyclist Kelly Catlin Dead at 23 by Suicide	Max RNR	22	3,604	03-12-2019 11:45 PM Last Post: Delta
	Attractive and Successful 27yo NYC Woman Commits Suicide	RIslander	95	11,526	02-04-2019 10:32 AM Last Post: Tom Brady

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Climatologist Chooses "Career Suicide" for "Scientific Integrity"
Author	Message