Home » General Chat » Circular File » Oil is NOT a fossil fuel and AGW is non-science
|
| Re: Oil is NOT a fossil fuel and AGW is non-science |
Mon, 14 July 2008 22:05   |
|
 Adacore |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 2 |
Messages: 156
Registered: February 2005
Location: Shanghai | |
|
I'm not going to dismiss the theory out of hand, but it seems highly improbable. To the best of my knowledge, the location of oil reserves has no correlation with the location of tectonic faults, which is what the theory implies. The first half of the article is citing 19th century (and earlier) scientists - an era when the earth was thought to be just that, earth all the way through, with no molten iron core - so that is almost completely irrelevant.
And don't even get me started on global warming - yes, it's still a theory, but I've yet to see anything that actually refutes the theory: All the evidence I've seen the anti-global warming people produce to refute it has been presentations of irrelevant statistical correlations and bad science to an even worse degree than the pro-global warming groups put out. Also, if it's true that oil is formed not from bioresidue but from minerals in the earth's crust, that would (as implied in the article) make it even worse for global warming, since the the CO2 released wasn't even present in the atmosphere millions of years ago, as it would've been in the case of bio-generated oil.
The publisher (Canada Free Press) is notoriously biased towards hardline conservativism, and known to have published inaccurate articles in the past. That said, it is an interesting theory, and I'll look into it further at some point.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oil is NOT a fossil fuel and AGW is non-science |
Tue, 22 July 2008 01:02 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
Something is definitely very fishy about that article.
Firstly, oil, which contains hydrogen, cannot possibly be produced from calcium carbonate and iron oxide, neither of which contains hydrogen.
Secondly, it is relatively easy for biological products to dehydrate to form oil. This same process is resposible for natural gas, as well as coal, and swamp gas and farts are biologically accelerated versions of it.
Thirdly, whoever wrote that article has no idea what they're talking about in terms of timescale, they wrote millions instead of billions of years when talking about the earth's core cooling down.
Fourthly, at 100 km, I believe the pressure is significantly less than 5 GPa, though I could be wrong.
Fifthly, if this random n00b discredited global warming, then why the hell isn't anyone in any scientific journals talking about it? Why is he only talking to the easily misled public?
Sixthly, anyone who thinks that centripetal acceleration and its associated fictious force from the Earth's rotation is comparable to Earth's gravity needs to be forcibly awarded a Darwin, they're so stupid.
In conclusion, that's either a prank article or someone deliberately trying to mislead the public.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Oil is NOT a fossil fuel and AGW is non-science |
Tue, 22 July 2008 04:47 |
|
| Adacore |
| Chief Warrant Officer 2 |
Messages: 156
Registered: February 2005
Location: Shanghai | |
|
| magic9mushroom wrote on Tue, 22 July 2008 01:02 |
Something is definitely very fishy about that article.
|
Agreed.
| magic9mushroom wrote on Tue, 22 July 2008 01:02 |
Firstly, oil, which contains hydrogen, cannot possibly be produced from calcium carbonate and iron oxide, neither of which contains hydrogen.
|
A very good point. There's a chance he's talking about hydrated oxides though, in which case it could be possible, I guess.
| magic9mushroom wrote on Tue, 22 July 2008 01:02 |
Fourthly, at 100 km, I believe the pressure is significantly less than 5 GPa, though I could be wrong.
|
A quick calculation gives the following (it's completely wrong, but I tried to make it wrong in ways that would only give massive overestimates). If you assume the earth is solid iron with constant density (the metal, not the Stars! mineral - this is around three times the actual density of the earth's crust/mantle), and that gravity remains constant (not an awful assumption, as 100km is only 1.56% of earth's radius), and that you can apply fluid hydrostatics to solid material (you can't, but this ought to overestimate, rather than underestimate the pressure, as in a solid some of the static pressure is relieved due to the structural cohesion):
P = rho * g * h
Where P is pressure in Pa, rho is density in kg/m^3, g is acceleration due to gravity (assumed to be 10 m/s^2) and h is height of the fluid (or, in this case, solid iron) column in metres: 100000 for 100km.
This gives P = 79 * 10 * 100000
So P = 79*10^6 Pa (or 79 MPa, considerably less than 5GPa). This should, unless my limited knowledge of solid statics and geology is completely wrong, be a gross overestimate.
| magic9mushroom wrote on Tue, 22 July 2008 01:02 |
Fifthly, if this random n00b discredited global warming, then why the hell isn't anyone in any scientific journals talking about it? Why is he only talking to the easily misled public?
|
I'm not sure he's claiming to have discredited global warming (or, if he is, it isn't the main point). If what he's sa
...
[Updated on: Tue, 22 July 2008 04:49] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 02 20:54:24 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
