3 phases to CC

HarveyH55 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

duncan61 wrote:You are distorting the information Tmiddles.IBDM and ITN are trying to claim that you believe CO2 ...

No Duncan if you'll review the above post it's actually off topic. We were discussing what GFM had posted from IBDs site. That particular issue doesn't get into CO2 at all.

No Twiddles, Duncan started the thread, so he Knows what topic we are discussing. If you want to go off topic, start your own thread. I do understand, that nobody every post in the threads yous start, but you never know, maybe James will.

.3 The warming must be detrimental to the planet

The United States lost an average of 384,350 hectares (949,750 acres) of forest each year between 1990 and 2010.
https://education.seattlepi.com/rates-deforestation-reforestation-us-3804.html

HarveyH55 wrote:...If you want to go off topic, start your own thread. ...

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

duncan61 wrote:...3 phases...AGW/CC
.1 ...more CO2
.2 ...warmer
.3 ...detrimental...

.4 is that the cause of more CO2 is human's burning fossil fuels.

The "more CO2" portion is RQAA

The second portion is debunked... Debunked: Hydrocarbons are Fossil Fuels...

tmiddles wrote: GFM decided that he wanted to introduce this old and tired objection to the nature of oil and gas.

IBdaMann wrote:...gfm7175 merely explained how and where hydrocarbons form....

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...gfm7175 merely explained how and where hydrocarbons form....

No he did not. He linked to your website which states they are formed underground. There is no explanation there either.

tmiddles wrote:
You both pretended you'd be prepared to debate this but now you have nothing to say.

tmiddles wrote:
"Oil and Natural Gas are formed in another dimension and pass into the Earth's mantel via a wormhole at the Earth's core."

tmiddles wrote:
Just a useful a quote as your site IBD.

tmiddles wrote: He linked to your website which states they are formed underground.

IBdaMann wrote:...clarify why fossils near the surface simply do not meet any of the requirements...

"Hydrocarbons require intense heat (well in excess of 200°C/400°F) and pressure (in excess of 5 atm) to form. We know this because we have replicated the process in labs, called the Fischer-Tropsche "

"Hydrocarbons can be formed from carbon and hydrogen under intense heat ...."

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...clarify why fossils near the surface simply do not meet any of the requirements...

There is no need to even address fossils as a solution if you've solved the mystery as to where oil and gas come from.

tmiddles wrote:
It would be a bit like if someone discovered who actually shot Kennedy you really don't even need to get into why it wasn't Lee Harvey. You can just solve the case!

tmiddles wrote:
As you have opted not to present your rebuttal here but to instead link to a page on your site I guess I'll have to be selective on your behalf. From you page:

"Hydrocarbons require intense heat (well in excess of 200°C/400°F) and pressure (in excess of 5 atm) to form. We know this because we have replicated the process in labs, called the Fischer-Tropsche "

This is true if you are working with Hydrogen and Oxygen gases as your starting point. So your statement should read:

tmiddles wrote:

"Hydrocarbons can be formed from carbon and hydrogen under intense heat ...."

So you are claiming this is happening right now?

tmiddles wrote:
Where? How long does it take?

tmiddles wrote:
Do you have any data on current formation of oil and gas naturally?

tmiddles wrote:
Your page only addresses your objection to fossil fuels and describes a process for man made hydrocarbons (Fischer-Tropsche).

Into the Night wrote:
I we can make hydrocarbons in an hour or two in the lab using conditions found naturally underground, there is no reason the same reaction wouldn't be taking place underground.

tmiddles wrote: So you are claiming this is happening right now?

tmiddles wrote: Where? How long does it take?

tmiddles wrote: Do you have any data on current formation of oil and gas naturally?

tmiddles wrote:Your page only addresses your objection to fossil fuels and describes a process for man made hydrocarbons (Fischer-Tropsche).

IBdaMann wrote: [I]am not "watching" anywhere deep within the earth's crust so I'm not sure ...I remained focused on what I was debunking....

tmiddles wrote: This is what's interesting because I of course accuse your team of the "Nothing can be known" stance.

30) Abuse of opinion
a) Assigning bogus opinion to someone and attacking him for it. (pulling a "TMiddles")

tmiddles wrote: Anything you'd call a "valid data set" involved? Anything at all of any kind?

tmiddles wrote: I certainly think abiotic oil is a possibility though most geologists lean toward the fossil fuel explanation and you know me, I like to follow the crowd of experts.

tmiddles wrote: I'm really sure that Venus is incredibly hot at ground level. But you are not.

30) Abuse of opinion
a) Assigning bogus opinion to someone and attacking him for it. (pulling a "TMiddles")

IBdaMann wrote:
Data is not required once you have science.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: He linked to your website which states they are formed underground.

I appreciate your feedback. I have taken you up on your suggestion to add more explanation of the Fischer-Tropsche process and to clarify why fossils near the surface simply do not meet any of the requirements for forming hydrocarbons.

I invite you and everyone else to review the revised DEBUNK of hydrocarbons somehow having something to do with fossils.

Once again, thank you for your input and I remind everyone that all suggestions are appreciated.

.

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: He linked to your website which states they are formed underground.

I appreciate your feedback. I have taken you up on your suggestion to add more explanation of the Fischer-Tropsche process and to clarify why fossils near the surface simply do not meet any of the requirements for forming hydrocarbons.

I invite you and everyone else to review the revised DEBUNK of hydrocarbons somehow having something to do with fossils.

Once again, thank you for your input and I remind everyone that all suggestions are appreciated.

.

Fossil remains are often found when digging up coal. They find some pretty good ones, mostly intact in Canada, every few years. We use to find them in America too, but think it cost too much to report them, since mining gets shut down, until the col;age kids milk the clock for months, doing their science thing. Fossil fragments show up occasionally in the oil fields as well. Crude oil is a complex mixture of nasty crap, which needs sorted out, before we can pump it into our gas tanks at the 7-11 store.

I don't believe there is only one way to do anything. Synthetic processes are generally short cuts. We want to make stuff simple.quick, cheap, and in huge volume, to improve profits. The Fischer-Tropsche process can produce fuel, but it's not crude oil, similar to what we pump out of the ground either. Crude oil contains hundreds of organic compounds, not all are useful as fuel or lubricants. Just too many similarities in the assortment of organic compounds found in living organisms, and crude oil, to completely dismiss the possible relationship. Regardless, 'fossil fuels', was used to describe oil and coal, a long time ago, politically correct or not, precisely accurate or not, doesn't really matter.

Fossil remains are often found when digging up coal.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: He linked to your website which states they are formed underground.

I appreciate your feedback. I have taken you up on your suggestion to add more explanation of the Fischer-Tropsche process and to clarify why fossils near the surface simply do not meet any of the requirements for forming hydrocarbons.

I invite you and everyone else to review the revised DEBUNK of hydrocarbons somehow having something to do with fossils.

Once again, thank you for your input and I remind everyone that all suggestions are appreciated.

.

Fossil remains are often found when digging up coal. They find some pretty good ones, mostly intact in Canada, every few years. We use to find them in America too, but think it cost too much to report them, since mining gets shut down, until the col;age kids milk the clock for months, doing their science thing. Fossil fragments show up occasionally in the oil fields as well. Crude oil is a complex mixture of nasty crap, which needs sorted out, before we can pump it into our gas tanks at the 7-11 store.

I don't believe there is only one way to do anything. Synthetic processes are generally short cuts. We want to make stuff simple.quick, cheap, and in huge volume, to improve profits. The Fischer-Tropsche process can produce fuel, but it's not crude oil, similar to what we pump out of the ground either. Crude oil contains hundreds of organic compounds, not all are useful as fuel or lubricants. Just too many similarities in the assortment of organic compounds found in living organisms, and crude oil, to completely dismiss the possible relationship. Regardless, 'fossil fuels', was used to describe oil and coal, a long time ago, politically correct or not, precisely accurate or not, doesn't really matter.

Harvey, please quit lying.

Fossil remains are often found when digging up coal.

Coal seams are very old peat bogs. Common knowledge. When you lie like this, have to dismiss everything else you say.
I could get into the best places to find fossils in the US with you, but you lie.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I we can make hydrocarbons in an hour or two in the lab using conditions found naturally underground, there is no reason the same reaction wouldn't be taking place underground.

Hmmm "there is no reason" doesn't sound like you have anything other than a theory? It's happening right now correct?

tmiddles wrote:
How about an example?

tmiddles wrote:
And Typo corrected, thanks ITN.
"This is true if you are working with Hydrogen and Carbon elements as your starting point. So your statement should read:"

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: [I]am not "watching" anywhere deep within the earth's crust so I'm not sure ...I remained focused on what I was debunking....

Your language was consistent up until now. You made a very clear claim on your website:
"Hydrocarbons, ....are produced...miles deep in the crust where the petroleum and natural gas result from a natural Fischer-Tropsche reaction."

It is a unequivocal statement answering the question : "Where does oil come from" and an explanation for ALL oil and gas in the ground.

tmiddles wrote:
This is what's interesting because I of course accuse your team of the "Nothing can be known" stance.

tmiddles wrote:
Yet here you seem to know something.

tmiddles wrote:
Anything you'd call a "valid data set" involved? Anything at all of any kind?

tmiddles wrote:
I certainly think abiotic oil is a possibility though most geologists lean toward the fossil fuel explanation and you know me, I like to follow the crowd of experts.

tmiddles wrote:
What's odd is you and ITN making factual statements where usually you do not.

tmiddles wrote:
Now being really sure of something (we never get to be 100%) is something I fully embrace.

tmiddles wrote:
For example: I'm really sure that Venus is incredibly hot at ground level. But you are not. So again, this "knowledge" is odd coming from you.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Data is not required once you have science.

Wow! So not only do you claim that the abiotic oil theory is correct you're claiming it's a scientific certainty that rises above the need for research. We all just KNOW it's true!!

tmiddles wrote:
Funny your language does sound quite a bit like the dogmatic claims made by AGW proponents you accuse of being religious.

tmiddles wrote:
Data is not required once you have science. ~ IBD

I guess you're not being "omniscient" since your claim is just indisputably true because it's "science"?

tmiddles wrote:
What was the definition of science you like to use? "Science is a set of falsifiable theories."

So your statment reads:

Data is not required once you have falsifiable theories. ~ IBD

tmiddles wrote:
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

HarveyH55 wrote: Fossil remains are often found when digging up coal.

HarveyH55 wrote: I don't believe there is only one way to do anything. Synthetic processes are generally short cuts.

HarveyH55 wrote: So basically, you are saying that Fischer-Tropshe is the only possible way to form hydrocarbon compounds.

HarveyH55 wrote: There is absolutely, positively, no other way?

HarveyH55 wrote: Sorry to be skeptical... But, I think you are wrong on that one, and seems a little unlikely for underground production, in volume.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: So basically, you are saying that Fischer-Tropshe is the only possible way to form hydrocarbon compounds.

... of which we are aware, yes.

The chemistry term for the process is called the Fischer-Tropsche reaction.

The process to create hydrocarbons in a lab is called the Fischer-Tropsche process and uses the Fischer-Tropsche reaction.

HarveyH55 wrote: There is absolutely, positively, no other way?

I'm sure that there would be some sort of award in it for you if you can come up with a better way to produce hydrocarbons ... but I don't believe there is another known method at the present time.

I don't know what else to tell you.

HarveyH55 wrote: Sorry to be skeptical... But, I think you are wrong on that one, and seems a little unlikely for underground production, in volume.

Being skeptical is a good thing. Maybe your skepticism will motivate you to think of a simple "Harvey Method" that will make everyone wonder why they didn't think of that.

I would ask you to do a quick re-read of This Writeup and to watch the two short videos (less than five minutes for both combined) and let me know if you disagree with anything in there.

.

HarveyH55 wrote:You do realize that lab processes and results, are usually considerably different from the way nature does stuff?

HarveyH55 wrote: We have sort of a limited life span, and sort want to see the fruit of our labor, before we expire...

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:You do realize that lab processes and results, are usually considerably different from the way nature does stuff?

That is briefly touched-on in the second video but yes, we humans arrange very specific lab conditions which yield very specific and repeatable results. The earth has varying random conditions in different places which keep changing from geological activity and which produce varying length hydrocarbon chain distributions.

So, yes, the specific conditions in the earth will differ from any particular lab setup. No dispute there.

HarveyH55 wrote: We have sort of a limited life span, and sort want to see the fruit of our labor, before we expire...

I detect a belief on your part that the creation of hydrocarbons takes a "very long time." Why do you believe that it takes any longer than the chemical reaction in the lab process? Watch the (second, I believe) video which is just over one minute ... without sound. What it depicts is the chemical bonding and the formation of hydrocarbon chains on the catalyst. Why would you believe that that process takes a long time? I'm not saying that I know how long it takes in the earth or what the typical rate of hydrocarbon production is. In fact, I don't believe anyone knows. I'm just wondering why I should believe that it differs from the speed of the Fischer-Tropsche reaction which allows us to produce batches within a couple of hours.

Oh, and if you do think of a different way to produce hydrocarbons, I will gladly co-author the paper with you. You can bank on that.

.

HarveyH55 wrote:Your locked into the 'can be only one' crap, that's no different than climatology and CO2 global warming.

HarveyH55 wrote: All living things, are a huge assortment of ready made hydrocarbons, which are readily broken down, and changed. Crude oils isn't just a few hydrocarbon compounds, there are literally thousands. We also know that bacteria can break down dead crap, into burnable crap, like alcohol and methane. As well as quite a few other things, also found in crude oil.

HarveyH55 wrote: It never has to be either/or, there can be several different ways to get to the same results.

HarveyH55 wrote:
So basically, you are saying that Fischer-Tropshe is the only possible way to form hydrocarbon compounds. There is absolutely, positively, no other way? Sorry to be skeptical... But, I think you are wrong on that one, and seems a little unlikely for underground production, in volume. But then again, i'm skeptical about global warming and ozone holes as well... Probably why the cult guy hasn't sent a personal invitation...

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: So basically, you are saying that Fischer-Tropshe is the only possible way to form hydrocarbon compounds.

... of which we are aware, yes.

The chemistry term for the process is called the Fischer-Tropsche reaction.

The process to create hydrocarbons in a lab is called the Fischer-Tropsche process and uses the Fischer-Tropsche reaction.

HarveyH55 wrote: There is absolutely, positively, no other way?

I'm sure that there would be some sort of award in it for you if you can come up with a better way to produce hydrocarbons ... but I don't believe there is another known method at the present time.

I don't know what else to tell you.

HarveyH55 wrote: Sorry to be skeptical... But, I think you are wrong on that one, and seems a little unlikely for underground production, in volume.

Being skeptical is a good thing. Maybe your skepticism will motivate you to think of a simple "Harvey Method" that will make everyone wonder why they didn't think of that.

I would ask you to do a quick re-read of This Writeup and to watch the two short videos (less than five minutes for both combined) and let me know if you disagree with anything in there.

.

You do realize that lab processes and results, are usually considerably different from the way nature does stuff?

keepit wrote:
The miller-urey experiment didn't prove any more about the beginnings of life on earth than the fischer-tropshe reaction proves about oil.

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:You do realize that lab processes and results, are usually considerably different from the way nature does stuff?

That is briefly touched-on in the second video but yes, we humans arrange very specific lab conditions which yield very specific and repeatable results. The earth has varying random conditions in different places which keep changing from geological activity and which produce varying length hydrocarbon chain distributions.

So, yes, the specific conditions in the earth will differ from any particular lab setup. No dispute there.

HarveyH55 wrote: We have sort of a limited life span, and sort want to see the fruit of our labor, before we expire...

I detect a belief on your part that the creation of hydrocarbons takes a "very long time." Why do you believe that it takes any longer than the chemical reaction in the lab process? Watch the (second, I believe) video which is just over one minute ... without sound. What it depicts is the chemical bonding and the formation of hydrocarbon chains on the catalyst. Why would you believe that that process takes a long time? I'm not saying that I know how long it takes in the earth or what the typical rate of hydrocarbon production is. In fact, I don't believe anyone knows. I'm just wondering why I should believe that it differs from the speed of the Fischer-Tropsche reaction which allows us to produce batches within a couple of hours.

Oh, and if you do think of a different way to produce hydrocarbons, I will gladly co-author the paper with you. You can bank on that.

.

Your locked into the 'can be only one' crap, that's no different than climatology and CO2 global warming. Fischer-Tropsche converts the raw elements into hydrocarbons, and is fairly specific.

HarveyH55 wrote:
All living things, are a huge assortment of ready made hydrocarbons,

HarveyH55 wrote:
which are readily broken down, and changed.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Crude oils isn't just a few hydrocarbon compounds, there are literally thousands.

HarveyH55 wrote:
We also know that bacteria can break down dead crap, into burnable crap, like alcohol and methane.
Bacteria can produce higher energy chemical bonds, but only by taking energy from somewhere else (like the photosynthetic nature of some bacteria found in some lakes).

Alcohol is not a hydrocarbon. It contains oxygen. Methane is a hydrocarbon. Some bacteria produce it when breaking down longer hydrocarbons or carbohydrates, both of which can be burned.

[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
As well as quite a few other things, also found in crude oil.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It never has to be either/or, there can be several different ways to get to the same results.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's a huge planet, with a lot of different things going on.

HarveyH55 wrote:
We occupy a very small portion of the surface, and apparently, it's only been for a brief period of time so far.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I know the IPCC has bored down pretty deep, and pulled up some impressive ice core samples.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Don't think anybody has done the same through dirt and rock, beyond looking for oil.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Dead stuff doesn't create hydrocarbons, because they are made of hydrocarbons. Every living thing on the planet, is made up of hydrocarbons. Don't need to whip ip a fresh batch to burn. Every hear about 'recycling'? Nature is pretty good that way...

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
So basically, you are saying that Fischer-Tropshe is the only possible way to form hydrocarbon compounds. There is absolutely, positively, no other way? Sorry to be skeptical... But, I think you are wrong on that one, and seems a little unlikely for underground production, in volume. But then again, i'm skeptical about global warming and ozone holes as well... Probably why the cult guy hasn't sent a personal invitation...

What's to prevent oil formation within the Earth due to Fischer-Tropsche reactions?

The hydrogen is there.
The carbon is there, in the form of carbon dioxide.
The tremendous pressures area there.
The iron to act as a catalyst is there.

Are you trying so rationalize it away because of the volume involved?

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Dead stuff doesn't create hydrocarbons, because they are made of hydrocarbons. Every living thing on the planet, is made up of hydrocarbons. Don't need to whip ip a fresh batch to burn. Every hear about 'recycling'? Nature is pretty good that way...

Nope. They are made of water, carbohydrates, proteins, and a few trace compounds and elements.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
So basically, you are saying that Fischer-Tropshe is the only possible way to form hydrocarbon compounds. There is absolutely, positively, no other way? Sorry to be skeptical... But, I think you are wrong on that one, and seems a little unlikely for underground production, in volume. But then again, i'm skeptical about global warming and ozone holes as well... Probably why the cult guy hasn't sent a personal invitation...

What's to prevent oil formation within the Earth due to Fischer-Tropsche reactions?

The hydrogen is there.
The carbon is there, in the form of carbon dioxide.
The tremendous pressures area there.
The iron to act as a catalyst is there.

Are you trying so rationalize it away because of the volume involved?

Where did I ever claim there could be one, and only one process?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Obviously a metaphysics question, for which the only response would be speculation and argument. I.m not a philosopher, debater, or a Twiddles.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Dead stuff doesn't create hydrocarbons, because they are made of hydrocarbons. Every living thing on the planet, is made up of hydrocarbons. Don't need to whip ip a fresh batch to burn. Every hear about 'recycling'? Nature is pretty good that way...

Nope. They are made of water, carbohydrates, proteins, and a few trace compounds and elements.

I knew a guy like him. By stating infinite possibilities he wanted to say that we can't know enough.

James___ wrote:
It's like my son (IBDM) saying "fossil fuels" don't exist. Many fossils have been found in tar pits next to oil fields.

James___ wrote:
The oil fields are the result of the decomposition of biomass.

James___ wrote:
Think ancient peat bogs and moraines.

James___ wrote:
In time, vegetation became crude oil.

James___ wrote:
And when they leak bitumen to the surface, they can create tar pits.

Into the Night wrote:

Bitumen is coal. That is carbon, not a hydrocarbon.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Bitumen is coal. That is carbon, not a hydrocarbon.

At the La Brea tar pits where many fossils have been found, the bitumen came from the oil field next to it. Bitumen is also used for asphalt.