Perhaps the argument needs to be framed more specifically, since your statement goes both ways (even if one assumes some petroleum came from fossils, it does not follow that all petroleum comes from fossils).
I guess the question really should be, what kind of predictions can we make about natural petroleum that would indicate either its biotic or abiotic origin, what kind of ratio exists between biotic and abiotic deposits, and for abiotic petroleum, what is the world-wide rate of regeneration.
In any case, nobody seriously asserts that organic molecules must come from biotic sources -> trolling by calling it "non-organic organic oil" is missing the point and ignoring the proof. Good arguments may be made that abiotic oil is scant, or just as limited in regeneration as biotic oil, but simply stating that you can't get something "organic" from something "non-organic" is a false assertion.
Looks like a bit more than simply pressurization -> the analog to buried dead fish and trees seems a bit faint. The steps listed out by CWT:
1) high temp and pressurized, mixed with water; 2) lowering of the temp and pressure, flashing off water and minerals; 3) again high temp and pressurized; 4) lowering of the temp and pressure, then centrifuge to separate water.
It seems like if this was the genesis of "fossil" fuels, we'd be able to make some predictions as to what kind of markers we'd see in natural petroleum deposits. Not sure if anyone has really taken a look at that.
It also notes that this process only breaks down longer molecular chains into smaller ones, which wouldn't explain longer chained natural petroleum, unless you also buy into the fact that mantle zone methane could percolate up and condense into longer chains in an abiotic fashion. Granted, a lot of folk out there don't have a problem with the theory of *some* abiotic oil, they simply assert that it is in scant, non-commercially viable quantities.
Thank you for the reference, CWT looks like it's doing some really interesting work!
Actually, abiotic petroleum relieves a lot of the pressure of the doomsayers simply because of vast scale of natural petroleum compared to the predicted biomass for "fossil" fuel. People thought the 70s, 80s and 90s were going to be "peak" oil, and a lot of people lost their shirts betting on ever increasing petroleum prices. My rough guess is that "peak" scares are ways of increasing petroleum profits.
Insofar as carbon-worriers, they've got a lot more to learn about a) the benefits of a warm world and b) the negative feedback effects of water vapor.
I think in the end, natural petroleum gives us a good hundred, maybe two hundred years of cheap energy to get on the ball with nuclear and fusion (and yes, one day we'll even run out of hydrogen, as abundant as it is). I'll be as supportive of "green" tech as the next guy as soon as it becomes commercially viable on its own without government subsidies or anti-competitive taxes placed on its competitors.
I was trying to make the same point -> comparing timber to oil is a valid analogy when talking about "peaks", because they are both renewable resources with capacity constraints. I think the real question, though, is when will we "peak", and what will that do to civilization. Far out enough, our prospects look pretty good (after all, we survived the wood "peaks" of the past).
If anything, the "peak" question is a Rorschach test -> pessimists will see it as impending doom because ancient civilizations went through collapses, optimists will see it as hope for the future because humanity survived those collapses.
"C14 results from a high-energy reaction of the nitrogen nucleus, N14, with a high-energy cosmic ray particle."
How many of those particles should we find, as a percentage, of any given biological mass? 1%?.0001%? Does that account for the quantities of He found accompanying natural petroleum deposits?
Taking just one example from the line of argument, the discovery of biological remnants in oil deposits is used as an assertion that the oil itself is of biotic origin. But if, in fact, the "unconverted" remnants (be they spores, leaves, bones) are such proof, by what mechanism did they avoid conversion? One would expect that if they were subjected to the same pressures and temperatures, they'd be converted as well.
The alternative explanation is that they are contaminants, not markers of origin.
Seriously, can you find me a single laboratory experiment that was able to apply pressure and temperature to a dead animal, and create petroleum?
Mod parent up. The fact that we've had predictions of doom in the past that we've survived is actually a fairly good reason for optimism when it comes to challenges of the future.
Apparently it was Saturn's moon, Titan, that was observed to have hundreds of times more hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on earth:
Methane atmospheres on other moons and planets, and "organic" molecules found in comets and other extra-terrestrial bodies seems to provide us at least some concrete examples of hydrocarbons without the prior presence of life. Asserting that this theory is bunk seems a bit of a stretch.
I know they've synthesized hydrocarbons using non-organic materials in a laboratory...has anyone ever compressed a dead fish or tree and created petroleum in a lab? I'd be very interested if anyone has a citation for that.
"In 1970 the Russians started drilling Kola SG-3, an exploration well which finally reached a staggering world record depth of 40,230 feet. Since then, Russian oil majors including Yukos have quietly drilled more than 310 successful super-deep oil wells, and put them into production."
It's also quite possible that petroleum products do not come from buried organic material, but are created as methane is synthesized deep beneath the earth's surface, and it combines into more complex hydrocarbons as it percolates up. The Russians have been working this theory, very successfully, for decades. "Fossil" fuels may not really be made out of fossils at all.
I was asserting the right of women to vote in the 1920s. During world war II, of course, women were dominant in all sorts of work forces across the country as the men went off to war, and when the war was over, there was another readjustment period as "traditional" life tried to reassert itself. When companies finally figured out they could reduce wages by increasing the workforce, the whole "equality in the workplace" stuff gained enough momentum to turn just about every american family into a two working parent household.
Of course, whether or not you want to use the yardstick of the 1920s or the 1970s, it's hardly a suitable defense for sharia law and the muslim oppression of women - if indeed it's just a matter of time before muslim women are emancipated from their oppressors, what's the timeline? 2020? 2070?
1. How many civilian building and civilians have been killed by the armed forces of non-Moslem countries in the countless wars and battles of the 20th century?
I'll ask a better question -> how many civilian buildings and civilians have been killed by the armed forces of non-moslem countries because someone insulted someone? I'll be the first to critique any and all other religions who have warred upon others, from Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Zoarasterians, and even godless Communist atheists. But killing people because of a cartoon?
2. How long have our civilised Western countries had equal employment for women, the right for women to vote, laws around female equality etc.?
In the US, around the 1920s. I guess this begs the question though -> do those who profess sharia law assert that this is a desirable thing, or that it should be fought tooth and nail? And if they do believe in eventual equality between men and women, where is the plan for getting there?
Is it really okay to insult an entire group of people for the sake of pissing-off a small portion of their population?
Is it really okay for a small portion of their population to kill civilians because they feel insulted?
This is people looking for an excuse to be bigoted while hiding under the guise of free speech.
No, this is a clear expression of bigotry and violence while hiding under the guise of "religious sensitivity". You cannot have freedom of speech or expression if simply being offended is grounds for limiting speech or expression.
The long and short of the matter is this -> people are being taught the lesson that a small group, threatening violence, can stifle free speech and criticism of their beliefs. This is a dangerous lesson for the world to learn, with consequences far beyond people being offended.
It's about a tantrum after somebody asks you not to do something, so you go ahead and keep doing it, and make sure you're a big pest about it.
Sort of like how we ask people to stop blowing up buildings, killing civilians, denying women equal rights, and imposing sharia law everywhere they can, and they have a tantrum about it and try to be a big pest about it?
Something is wrong with your moral equivalence meter.
First and foremost, Facebook's T&Cs outranks free speech. It explicitly states: You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user. You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.
Then they had better remove every muslim, christian and jewish page there, not to mention scads of other religions whose holy books are fully of bullying, intimidation, harrassment, hateful content, threatening content, pornographic content, nudity, graphic and gratuitous violence, and yeah, incites of violence. (And yes, there are bibilcal, toranic and quranic references for ALL of those, just dare me to find specifics:) )
Look, if Facebook wants to be the equivalent of Barney the Dinosaur insofar as not allowing content, fine...but falling back on their T&C only shows how arbitrary they're being. They've clearly decided that hateful, violence spewing muslims are okay, but anyone who might bully, intimidate, or be hateful of said violence spewing muslims is just fine.
You have yet to show how Peano axioms contradict themselves
I was using Hilbert's as an example of that.
Ah, so they are proven consistent, then!
Parse a bit closer -> either intuition (faith), or the acceptance of Gentzen's proof (faith). The fact that there is an ultrafinitism faction that has a reasonable argument (despite perhaps fewer numbers in that faction).
the only objection is philosophical
Exactly. The magic of math is that once you study it enough, it eventually comes down to philosophy, not simply deterministic logic:) I thought it was beautiful that a atheist mathematician could find faith at the end of his journey the same way that a devout theologian studying the bible could lose faith at the end of his journey. It seems no matter what we study, we often end up learning the opposite of what we may have thought at the beginning. The symmetry is beautiful:)
That page says that Peano axioms have been proven consistent.
From TFWA, ZFC used as a proof of Peano is problematic because ZFC is itself questionable:
"There are many known proofs that Peano arithmetic is consistent that can be carried out in strong systems such as Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory. These do not provide a resolution to Hilbert's second question, however, because someone who doubts the consistency of Peano arithmetic is unlikely to accept the axioms of set theory"
Only in the sense that you've made the axiomatic definitions ahead of time. A set of axioms which defines a given theory of mathematics, has not been found that does not eventually lead to some sort of contradiction. The trivial claim may be falsified within a given framework, but a given framework has not been found that does not falsify itself.
For all practical purposes the Scientific Method has proven itself a very useful tool for doing science; but even so, it's just a tool.
Well said, no disagreement there.
ReallyPlease show how Peano axioms [wikipedia.org] contradict themselves, then? Go on, I'm waiting.
From TFL you provided:
"The vast majority of contemporary mathematicians believe that Peano's axioms are consistent, relying either on intuition or the acceptance of a consistency proof such as Gentzen's proof. The small number of mathematicians who advocate ultrafinitism reject Peano's axioms because the axioms require an infinite set of natural numbers."
It is about denying the results of science, because you don't want to agree with them.
The fact that you think this is not applicable to all humans is hubris, pure and simple. Your assertion that you're somehow above this is exactly the point of TFA -> that kind of rationalization (oh noes, it couldn't possibly be me who is irrational) is what leads to cognitive dissonance.
You're the one accusing science of not working.
Not at all, I'm merely stating that asserting that you somehow always stay on the side of science, while others you disagree with do not, is simply an assertion, not the truth.
Science works, but not everybody who thinks they're accepting scientific results really are. To think that you don't fit into that category is the perfect example of the rationalization of the irrational.
the scientific method - is not applicable to, for example, mathematics.
True, but I'm not sure if that supports your assertion.
One might reasonably argue that much of mathematics is art, not science. Much of mathematics, because it is purely conceptual, cannot be falsified...it defines its own axioms, and "pure" models. You can show any system of mathematics that we've ever devised as inconsistent with itself at some point, after all.
Science is systematic study of something.
Anything can be systematically studied, but that doesn't make it science. I can go through the Quran, Bible, Book of Mormon and The Amazing Spider Man, page by page, systematically, thoroughly, and with great thought, and it still doesn't make it science.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly -> it's quite possible to have organic molecules with an abiotic origin. Organic != of biotic origin.
Perhaps the argument needs to be framed more specifically, since your statement goes both ways (even if one assumes some petroleum came from fossils, it does not follow that all petroleum comes from fossils).
I guess the question really should be, what kind of predictions can we make about natural petroleum that would indicate either its biotic or abiotic origin, what kind of ratio exists between biotic and abiotic deposits, and for abiotic petroleum, what is the world-wide rate of regeneration.
In any case, nobody seriously asserts that organic molecules must come from biotic sources -> trolling by calling it "non-organic organic oil" is missing the point and ignoring the proof. Good arguments may be made that abiotic oil is scant, or just as limited in regeneration as biotic oil, but simply stating that you can't get something "organic" from something "non-organic" is a false assertion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
Looks like a bit more than simply pressurization -> the analog to buried dead fish and trees seems a bit faint. The steps listed out by CWT:
1) high temp and pressurized, mixed with water;
2) lowering of the temp and pressure, flashing off water and minerals;
3) again high temp and pressurized;
4) lowering of the temp and pressure, then centrifuge to separate water.
It seems like if this was the genesis of "fossil" fuels, we'd be able to make some predictions as to what kind of markers we'd see in natural petroleum deposits. Not sure if anyone has really taken a look at that.
It also notes that this process only breaks down longer molecular chains into smaller ones, which wouldn't explain longer chained natural petroleum, unless you also buy into the fact that mantle zone methane could percolate up and condense into longer chains in an abiotic fashion. Granted, a lot of folk out there don't have a problem with the theory of *some* abiotic oil, they simply assert that it is in scant, non-commercially viable quantities.
Thank you for the reference, CWT looks like it's doing some really interesting work!
Actually, abiotic petroleum relieves a lot of the pressure of the doomsayers simply because of vast scale of natural petroleum compared to the predicted biomass for "fossil" fuel. People thought the 70s, 80s and 90s were going to be "peak" oil, and a lot of people lost their shirts betting on ever increasing petroleum prices. My rough guess is that "peak" scares are ways of increasing petroleum profits.
Insofar as carbon-worriers, they've got a lot more to learn about a) the benefits of a warm world and b) the negative feedback effects of water vapor.
I think in the end, natural petroleum gives us a good hundred, maybe two hundred years of cheap energy to get on the ball with nuclear and fusion (and yes, one day we'll even run out of hydrogen, as abundant as it is). I'll be as supportive of "green" tech as the next guy as soon as it becomes commercially viable on its own without government subsidies or anti-competitive taxes placed on its competitors.
I was trying to make the same point -> comparing timber to oil is a valid analogy when talking about "peaks", because they are both renewable resources with capacity constraints. I think the real question, though, is when will we "peak", and what will that do to civilization. Far out enough, our prospects look pretty good (after all, we survived the wood "peaks" of the past).
If anything, the "peak" question is a Rorschach test -> pessimists will see it as impending doom because ancient civilizations went through collapses, optimists will see it as hope for the future because humanity survived those collapses.
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
"C14 results from a high-energy reaction of the nitrogen nucleus, N14, with a high-energy cosmic ray particle."
How many of those particles should we find, as a percentage, of any given biological mass? 1%? .0001%? Does that account for the quantities of He found accompanying natural petroleum deposits?
Well, even for economically viable fields, the evidence is quite clear that natural petroleum is of abiotic origin:
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
Taking just one example from the line of argument, the discovery of biological remnants in oil deposits is used as an assertion that the oil itself is of biotic origin. But if, in fact, the "unconverted" remnants (be they spores, leaves, bones) are such proof, by what mechanism did they avoid conversion? One would expect that if they were subjected to the same pressures and temperatures, they'd be converted as well.
The alternative explanation is that they are contaminants, not markers of origin.
Seriously, can you find me a single laboratory experiment that was able to apply pressure and temperature to a dead animal, and create petroleum?
Mod parent up. The fact that we've had predictions of doom in the past that we've survived is actually a fairly good reason for optimism when it comes to challenges of the future.
Apparently it was Saturn's moon, Titan, that was observed to have hundreds of times more hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on earth:
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMCSUUHJCF_index_0.html
Strange, considering the dearth of biological life forms there.
How many radioactive isotopes should we find in a dead dinosaur, on average?
Methane atmospheres on other moons and planets, and "organic" molecules found in comets and other extra-terrestrial bodies seems to provide us at least some concrete examples of hydrocarbons without the prior presence of life. Asserting that this theory is bunk seems a bit of a stretch.
I know they've synthesized hydrocarbons using non-organic materials in a laboratory...has anyone ever compressed a dead fish or tree and created petroleum in a lab? I'd be very interested if anyone has a citation for that.
Q: Is methane organic?
Q: How is it that various moons in the solar system have methane atmospheres?
Were there dinosaurs and buried plant life out on the moons of Jupiter long, long ago?
Here's a shred for you:
"In 1970 the Russians started drilling Kola SG-3, an exploration well which finally reached a staggering world record depth of 40,230 feet. Since then, Russian oil majors including Yukos have quietly drilled more than 310 successful super-deep oil wells, and put them into production."
http://www.icdp-online.org/front_content.php?idcat=695
It's also quite possible that petroleum products do not come from buried organic material, but are created as methane is synthesized deep beneath the earth's surface, and it combines into more complex hydrocarbons as it percolates up. The Russians have been working this theory, very successfully, for decades. "Fossil" fuels may not really be made out of fossils at all.
I was asserting the right of women to vote in the 1920s. During world war II, of course, women were dominant in all sorts of work forces across the country as the men went off to war, and when the war was over, there was another readjustment period as "traditional" life tried to reassert itself. When companies finally figured out they could reduce wages by increasing the workforce, the whole "equality in the workplace" stuff gained enough momentum to turn just about every american family into a two working parent household.
Of course, whether or not you want to use the yardstick of the 1920s or the 1970s, it's hardly a suitable defense for sharia law and the muslim oppression of women - if indeed it's just a matter of time before muslim women are emancipated from their oppressors, what's the timeline? 2020? 2070?
I'll ask a better question -> how many civilian buildings and civilians have been killed by the armed forces of non-moslem countries because someone insulted someone? I'll be the first to critique any and all other religions who have warred upon others, from Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Zoarasterians, and even godless Communist atheists. But killing people because of a cartoon?
In the US, around the 1920s. I guess this begs the question though -> do those who profess sharia law assert that this is a desirable thing, or that it should be fought tooth and nail? And if they do believe in eventual equality between men and women, where is the plan for getting there?
Is it really okay for a small portion of their population to kill civilians because they feel insulted?
No, this is a clear expression of bigotry and violence while hiding under the guise of "religious sensitivity". You cannot have freedom of speech or expression if simply being offended is grounds for limiting speech or expression.
The long and short of the matter is this -> people are being taught the lesson that a small group, threatening violence, can stifle free speech and criticism of their beliefs. This is a dangerous lesson for the world to learn, with consequences far beyond people being offended.
Sort of like how we ask people to stop blowing up buildings, killing civilians, denying women equal rights, and imposing sharia law everywhere they can, and they have a tantrum about it and try to be a big pest about it?
Something is wrong with your moral equivalence meter.
Then they had better remove every muslim, christian and jewish page there, not to mention scads of other religions whose holy books are fully of bullying, intimidation, harrassment, hateful content, threatening content, pornographic content, nudity, graphic and gratuitous violence, and yeah, incites of violence. (And yes, there are bibilcal, toranic and quranic references for ALL of those, just dare me to find specifics :) )
Look, if Facebook wants to be the equivalent of Barney the Dinosaur insofar as not allowing content, fine...but falling back on their T&C only shows how arbitrary they're being. They've clearly decided that hateful, violence spewing muslims are okay, but anyone who might bully, intimidate, or be hateful of said violence spewing muslims is just fine.
Fail.
Oh, I understand it just fine, you're just not too good at using it :)
Think harder, it might help.
I was using Hilbert's as an example of that.
Parse a bit closer -> either intuition (faith), or the acceptance of Gentzen's proof (faith). The fact that there is an ultrafinitism faction that has a reasonable argument (despite perhaps fewer numbers in that faction).
Exactly. The magic of math is that once you study it enough, it eventually comes down to philosophy, not simply deterministic logic :) I thought it was beautiful that a atheist mathematician could find faith at the end of his journey the same way that a devout theologian studying the bible could lose faith at the end of his journey. It seems no matter what we study, we often end up learning the opposite of what we may have thought at the beginning. The symmetry is beautiful :)
From TFWA, ZFC used as a proof of Peano is problematic because ZFC is itself questionable:
"There are many known proofs that Peano arithmetic is consistent that can be carried out in strong systems such as Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory. These do not provide a resolution to Hilbert's second question, however, because someone who doubts the consistency of Peano arithmetic is unlikely to accept the axioms of set theory"
"certainly isn't", "not" - so what you're really saying, after applying demorgan's, is:
"That certainly is a rationalization for believing in scientific results or anything."
Which, was exactly what I'm saying, which is exactly what the article was talking about :)
Sorry, GW, you shot and missed again :)
Only in the sense that you've made the axiomatic definitions ahead of time. A set of axioms which defines a given theory of mathematics, has not been found that does not eventually lead to some sort of contradiction. The trivial claim may be falsified within a given framework, but a given framework has not been found that does not falsify itself.
Well said, no disagreement there.
From TFL you provided:
"The vast majority of contemporary mathematicians believe that Peano's axioms are consistent, relying either on intuition or the acceptance of a consistency proof such as Gentzen's proof. The small number of mathematicians who advocate ultrafinitism reject Peano's axioms because the axioms require an infinite set of natural numbers."
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_second_problem
The fact that you think this is not applicable to all humans is hubris, pure and simple. Your assertion that you're somehow above this is exactly the point of TFA -> that kind of rationalization (oh noes, it couldn't possibly be me who is irrational) is what leads to cognitive dissonance.
Not at all, I'm merely stating that asserting that you somehow always stay on the side of science, while others you disagree with do not, is simply an assertion, not the truth.
Science works, but not everybody who thinks they're accepting scientific results really are. To think that you don't fit into that category is the perfect example of the rationalization of the irrational.
True, but I'm not sure if that supports your assertion.
One might reasonably argue that much of mathematics is art, not science. Much of mathematics, because it is purely conceptual, cannot be falsified...it defines its own axioms, and "pure" models. You can show any system of mathematics that we've ever devised as inconsistent with itself at some point, after all.
Anything can be systematically studied, but that doesn't make it science. I can go through the Quran, Bible, Book of Mormon and The Amazing Spider Man, page by page, systematically, thoroughly, and with great thought, and it still doesn't make it science.