While it is our fault, nope, it is not China's fault about climate change

Well the whiz community that blames us for Climate change does not blame China. Some massive dust storms are supposed to be proof of climate change yet others are not proof.
Funny how it is our fault. I think not. What do you think?

 

I don't think it is anybody's fault. Fossil fuels are a one time shot of cheap surplus energy that it has taken millions of years to accumulate. With it we have been able to advance technology and society considerably, as well as support a massive explosion in population. Now that fossil fuels are almost gone, the planet will have to go back to a steady state economy, as the population is WAY beyond the level that we will be able to sustain continuous economic growth. I'm not too worried about climate change. It is the symptom of the release of so much energy that has been released from fossil fuels, but I feel confident that when we revert to steady state economy (after an initial decline most likely), the climate will return to its natural cycles.
The painful part will be the transition from a society addicted to continuous economic growth to a steady state economy. It could be relatively simple, or extremely painful, depending on how soon we start the transition.

 

Name one reputable climate scientist who does not add Chinese pollution into their calculations.
Your straw man argument is noted.

 

Are you puzzled by the extreme depth of what is called fossil fuels?

Does it make sense to find oil at 25,000 feet deep?
There are papers saying Earth constantly produces crude oil.

One source of that is this book.

 

Your final snark was not necessary. Watch the video next time.

 

Of course it constantly produces, but at a pace waaayyyyy slower than we consume it. We've used up the vast majority of all the fossil fuels the planet has been able to produce since it has been a planet. There is probably a lot more actually still in the earth, but the energy cost to actually extract it is growing as the easy to find sources dissappear. What used to give us a 30:1 return on energy investment is now below 10:1, and dropping. soon it will get to the point where the cost to actually extract the fossil fuels will exceed the energy we get from it, making the extraction completely pointless.

 

The problem you describe is already being worked on and solved.

 

How’s that?

 

Wait, you started to fool me sounding like an expert on this topic.

 

I'm not an expert, just something I'm very interested in. I havnt heard of any methods that would somehow increase energy returns on investments on fossil fuels. From everything I've looked at, EROI will continue to drop as the fossil fuels become more energy intensive to extract. That's why the big oil companies are beginning to invest more and more in other sources of energy. They see the writing on the wall and don't want to be stuck in an unprofitable industry.

 

ERGO why I said what I said that you questioned me about. Solutions are being worked out now. Actually many years back oil firms were investing in alternatives.

 

Oh, I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about solutions to get at the harder to reach oil.

 

Technically we don't need to extract 'hard to get to oil ' and long term, green house effect or not doing so would be pointless because we are consuming it at a rate greater than it is produced. So doing so just delays the inevitable.

However we already have the technology to produce liquid carbon based fuels from scratch by extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, using complex chemistry, catalytic's and electricity to produce liquid fuels - not petroleum but still burnable. Use green sources of electricity to power the process and you get a carbon 'neutral' fuel cycle. Extract the carbon from the air, produce fuel, burn it and start again.

The problem is cost both up-scaling the process itself to industrial levels and adapting aircraft and marine engines to run on it.

 

I'm wondering, how much energy is involved in the chemistry that you are talking about to make liquid fuels from CO2? Do you happen to know what the ratio between power invested in the process compared to the power potential in the fuels produced? I havn't heard of this method, and I'm curious about it.

 

I think that Climate Change is a nonsensical fundamentalist style religion that denies logic, mathematics, and science.

 

What is "it"? "Climate change" has not been adequately defined. How can one meaningfully discuss a meaningless buzzword?

"Fossil fuels" is also just plain stupid terminology. We do not use fossils for fuel (they don't burn very well). "Hydrocarbons" would be a more accurate term when referring to oil and natural gas. Hydrocarbons do not come from fossils nor have anything to do with fossils. Hydrocarbons naturally form underground, thus they are a renewable source of energy. Coal is an allotrope of pure carbon. We do not know how coal forms nor whether or not it is renewable.

See above. Hydrocarbons are renewable.

Precisely.

No, hydrocarbons aren't "almost gone", as if you know precisely how much of them there is underground anyway. They continue to form underground just as naturally today as they have done in the past. They are not going away anytime soon.

No, it won't. Just keep using hydrocarbons.

Neither am I. In fact, I am not at ALL worried about a meaningless buzzword.

It is a fundamentalist style religion based on a meaningless buzzword, a religion which rejects logic, science, and mathematics.

There is no such thing as "the climate". Earth has MANY climates...

There is no need to transition. We are not running out of hydrocarbons.

 

Let's start with the bolded before we move on to the rest of your comment...

 

Indeed, Earth constantly produces crude oil via a naturally occurring Fischer Tropsch process (intense heat and pressure). Thus, oil is a renewable resource and isn't going away anytime soon.

Oil can be found ANYWHERE on Earth so long as one is able to dig deep enough for it. However, there are limitations as to how deep we can feasibly dig (and digging deeper costs more money), which is why we tend to place oil wells at locations where oil is the closest to the surface.

 

And you know this HOW exactly?

And you know this HOW exactly?

You just got done saying that we've used almost all of it up... now there's "probably" a lot more in the Earth yet??? Welcome to your new paradox...

They have not disappeared.

They are still the most efficient and useful forms of energy. Solar and Wind remain the most expensive and inefficient forms of energy.

 

Dont know the efficiency ratios, the reports I've seen havnt mentioned it. There are a couple of different teams working on different technologies. I'll find the some links and post them.

 

Ummmm...how long do you think it takes oil to form?? You sound like you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Here you go, some links to different processes and technologies. Also look up Wikipedia for a summery of carbon neural fuel production including carbon 'capture';

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...-of-the-air-to-make-gasoline/?sh=3779cf9a13cc

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20214-z

https://technology.nasa.gov/patent/TOP2-160

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12212

 

What makes you think that “they” don’t blame China?

 

Ditto mate

There has been research going on for years into oil from algae

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

 

Yeah there are also books on the “flat earth” theory and how to understand the opposite sex

Doesn’t mean they are right