fossil fuel

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > fossil fuel

Page 1 of 2

fossil fuel11-10-2020 06:16
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I would like some clarity on the term fossil fuel.I am sure the phrase was coined as the first oil deposits were formed in the Earth from old swamps and dead bodys that became hydrocarbons under pressure and had stored sunlight.I am aware we can make synthetic oil and fuel.I personaly have no issue with the term no one is claiming we are burning rocks duncan61
11-10-2020 17:23
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	duncan61 wrote: I would like some clarity on the term fossil fuel.I am sure the phrase was coined as the first oil deposits were formed in the Earth from old swamps and dead bodys that became hydrocarbons under pressure and had stored sunlight.I am aware we can make synthetic oil and fuel.I personal have no issue with the term no one is claiming we are burning rocks Guess you could Google it, as well as I could. Fossil, is just a world that word that refers to something very old. Fossil fuels probably came from the coal industry, as fossil remains are sometimes found, when digging up coal. This is a debate forum, and some people play the game, non-stop. Some things get taken ultra-literally, as a way to win the 'game'. Some things get reduced to the most absurd, ridiculous meaning, as a way to to win the 'game'. Little annoying, for those, who aren't even playing in the debate game. It's just a strategy to seize power, and control over the debate. It is a 'debate' forum, so we have to learn to make allowances, ignore some of the silly strategy, or simply find a new forum. Been lots of people, who have taken that option. It's tough finding forums, were the rules, aren't enforced with an iron fist, but it's not just anything goes either. Fossil fuels is a term that's been used for a very long time. I remember hearing as a child, and have since it used in books written, before I was born. Whether it's strictly accurate, doesn't really matter, is established, and pretty much anyone who speaks English, knows what it refers to. Any other claims, are just foolish debate game strategy.
11-10-2020 18:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	duncan61 wrote: I would like some clarity on the term fossil fuel.I am sure the phrase was coined as the first oil deposits were formed in the Earth from old swamps and dead bodys that became hydrocarbons under pressure and had stored sunlight.I am aware we can make synthetic oil and fuel.I personaly have no issue with the term no one is claiming we are burning rocks A fossil is a plant or animal that has been turned to stone, or the image of one in stone. Typically it is sedimentary stone such as limestone. There is no fuel made from fossils. Fossils don't burn. Fuel such as oil or natural gas do not come from fossils, are not fossils, and have nothing to do with fossils. Yet despite this, schools often still teach fuels come from fossils. Fuel such as coal may have fossils embedded within it, but these do not burn either. They are impurities that leave clinker in the furnaces that must be removed. Coal is basically pure carbon. Fossils are not an element. The use of the term 'fossil fuels' presupposes that these are limited fuels and that it takes millions of years to form. Oil and natural gas are actually renewable fuels and only take a few hours to form. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 11-10-2020 18:47
11-10-2020 20:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	The use of the term 'fossil fuels' does matter. Liberals use it to try to shut down or control the energy markets under false pretenses.
11-10-2020 21:31
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: I would like some clarity on the term fossil fuel.I am sure the phrase was coined as the first oil deposits were formed in the Earth from old swamps and dead bodys that became hydrocarbons under pressure and had stored sunlight.I am aware we can make synthetic oil and fuel.I personaly have no issue with the term no one is claiming we are burning rocks A fossil is a plant or animal that has been turned to stone, or the image of one in stone. Typically it is sedimentary stone such as limestone. There is no fuel made from fossils. Fossils don't burn. Fuel such as oil or natural gas do not come from fossils, are not fossils, and have nothing to do with fossils. Yet despite this, schools often still teach fuels come from fossils. Fuel such as coal may have fossils embedded within it, but these do not burn either. They are impurities that leave clinker in the furnaces that must be removed. Coal is basically pure carbon. Fossils are not an element. The use of the term 'fossil fuels' presupposes that these are limited fuels and that it takes millions of years to form. Oil and natural gas are actually renewable fuels and only take a few hours to form. The organic matter that left the impression, or void, to later be filled with limestone, must have went some place... Matter is neither created or destroyed... Where did it go? It got changed to something. A lot of the same carbon-based molecules found in crude oil, is also found in living matter.

11-10-2020 22:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	HarveyH55 wrote: Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: I would like some clarity on the term fossil fuel.I am sure the phrase was coined as the first oil deposits were formed in the Earth from old swamps and dead bodys that became hydrocarbons under pressure and had stored sunlight.I am aware we can make synthetic oil and fuel.I personaly have no issue with the term no one is claiming we are burning rocks A fossil is a plant or animal that has been turned to stone, or the image of one in stone. Typically it is sedimentary stone such as limestone. There is no fuel made from fossils. Fossils don't burn. Fuel such as oil or natural gas do not come from fossils, are not fossils, and have nothing to do with fossils. Yet despite this, schools often still teach fuels come from fossils. Fuel such as coal may have fossils embedded within it, but these do not burn either. They are impurities that leave clinker in the furnaces that must be removed. Coal is basically pure carbon. Fossils are not an element. The use of the term 'fossil fuels' presupposes that these are limited fuels and that it takes millions of years to form. Oil and natural gas are actually renewable fuels and only take a few hours to form. The organic matter that left the impression, or void, to later be filled with limestone, must have went some place... Matter is neither created or destroyed... Where did it go? It got changed to something. Typically eaten by something else, like worms or bacteria. Most of any critter is water. That water simply is part of the water cycle, you know, evaporation from oceans and lakes, rain, flow back to oceans and lakes. The fact that we or any other critter walks around with some makes no difference. HarveyH55 wrote: A lot of the same carbon-based molecules found in crude oil, is also found in living matter. Circular argument. It is not possible to determine where a carbon molecule has been. Oil is not a fossil. It is a liquid. It is renewable. It is created by the Earth itself. All you need is a source of carbon such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, lots of heat, and lots of pressure, and be done in the presence of iron (all natural conditions found underground). See the Fischer-Tropsche process for an idea of this type of chemical reaction. Oil is found well below any fossil layer. It is renewable. Drained wells can be capped and they are refilled after a while, ready to drain again. It happens to come closest to the surface near plate edges, especially where spreading action is taking place. Look at the major oil fields and you see this is quite true: The Mideast. The North Sea. The Alaskan North Slopes. The deep waters off the coast of the SOTC. The Caribbean and on up into Texas, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania. Oil can occur anywhere you care to drill, if you go deep enough, or never tapped it before, such as the shale oil fields in the Midwest United States. The Russians drilled the deepest hole so far, in the middle of Siberia and far away from any plate edge, and yet they still found oil. No fossils down there. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-10-2020 01:19
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Thank you team.
12-10-2020 01:33
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Well, you should know by now, I don't play debate game. Petroleum, was first found on the surface... It's all speculation, and plenty of room for more than one way to produce petroleum. It's a silly game to play, so have at it. We don't tome travel, nor do we live thousands of feet underground, to observe. Winning/losing a silly game online, just isn't that important to me. You can have a participation trophy, if that what you really need...
12-10-2020 05:13
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	HarveyH55 wrote:Fossil, is just a world that word that refers to something very old. Actually no. Words for "very old thing" are "artifact," "relic" and "antique." A fossil is something that provides information about the life form that formed it. An impression affords us some information about the shape of the life form that created it. A bone fragment provides some information about the life form from which it came. A carbon atom does not, nor does a hydrocarbon molecule. HarveyH55 wrote: Fossil fuels probably came from the coal industry, as fossil remains are sometimes found, when digging up coal. Sure. There can be fossils among coal. They just aren't coal themselves. Fossils represent impurities in coal. Take out the fossils and other impurities that don't burn and you have pure carbon that burns very well. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2020 05:20
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	IBD and ITN, Can you give an explanation of why your definition of fossil fuel and google's definition is so different. Hopefully you realize that an answer like "google is summarily dismissed" isn't even close to an answer.
12-10-2020 07:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	keepit wrote: IBD and ITN, Can you give an explanation of why your definition of fossil fuel and google's definition is so different. Because Google doesn't define what a fossil is or what a fuel is. They are a search engine. Google defines no word but 'Google'. keepit wrote: Hopefully you realize that an answer like "google is summarily dismissed" isn't even close to an answer. That is the answer. Deal with it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-10-2020 09:17
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	I don't have to deal with it. Your belief that google isn't valid has you blocked. You're the one that has to deal with that.
12-10-2020 12:45
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Play nice children or its the naughty corner time.CO2 was over 500ppm yesterday but in my car this morning it was a record low of 333ppm till I lit a smoke.
12-10-2020 13:35
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Do I understand it right that earth itself is like a giant Fischer-Tropsche reactor? Does it also captures CO2 from the air and uses it to produce oil or it uses sources that are under the ground? Also how long has this process been going on? Is it self regulating? Should not we already have oil all over the ground poisoning osceans , rivers, lakes , wells etc? Did we saved the nature by burning the oil?
12-10-2020 16:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	Xadoman wrote: Do I understand it right that earth itself is like a giant Fischer-Tropsche reactor? Does it also captures CO2 from the air and uses it to produce oil or it uses sources that are under the ground? Also how long has this process been going on? Is it self regulating? Should not we already have oil all over the ground poisoning osceans , rivers, lakes , wells etc? Did we saved the nature by burning the oil? Everything needed to make hydrocarbons is in the earth, especially the high heat and pressure. https://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/193 . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

12-10-2020 18:49
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	In case somebody wants to become a rich man and starts drilling in the backyard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole Those guys went down 12000 meters ( 40000 ft) and still did not found oil. They found hydrogen though. Another unexpected discovery was a large quantity of hydrogen gas. The drilling mud that flowed out of the hole was described as "boiling" with hydrogen.
12-10-2020 19:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	keepit wrote: I don't have to deal with it. Yes you do. keepit wrote: Your belief that google isn't valid has you blocked. Google isn't data. It's a search engine. keepit wrote: You're the one that has to deal with that. No, YOU have to deal with it. Trying to show that Google is data is invalid. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-10-2020 19:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Xadoman wrote: Do I understand it right that earth itself is like a giant Fischer-Tropsche reactor? Yes. Xadoman wrote: Does it also captures CO2 from the air and uses it to produce oil or it uses sources that are under the ground? No. CO2 is already in the ground. It is not captured. It is part of the CO2 that's everywhere. Xadoman wrote: Also how long has this process been going on? As long as there has been an Earth. Xadoman wrote: Is it self regulating? Yes. If CO2 or CO is starved, or if too much hydrocarbons, the reaction slows. Any CO2 in the atmosphere also permeates into the ground. Xadoman wrote: Should not we already have oil all over the ground poisoning osceans , rivers, lakes , wells etc? Did we saved the nature by burning the oil? No. The oil is formed underground. It will generally stay there until someone drills down to get it. Some oil does break through to the surface. Those sit in pools. They do not poison anything. Digging a well next to an oil seep is not a good idea. You should be at least 100 ft away, depending on the size of the seep. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-10-2020 19:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Xadoman wrote: In case somebody wants to become a rich man and starts drilling in the backyard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole Those guys went down 12000 meters ( 40000 ft) and still did not found oil. They found hydrogen though. Another unexpected discovery was a large quantity of hydrogen gas. The drilling mud that flowed out of the hole was described as "boiling" with hydrogen. False authority fallacy. The Russians found oil by drilling deeply under Siberia. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-10-2020 20:38
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	My concern is about the rate at which the earth produces oil. Oil guys are desperately seeking new locations to drill and they also abandon old wells if they are depleted. It seems to me that it took millions and millions of years for oil to form and we have already burned a large part of it( that is accessible) within a century. Imagine what happens to civilization when there will be oil shortages in the future. Diesel engine is the heart of current civilization.
12-10-2020 21:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Xadoman wrote: My concern is about the rate at which the earth produces oil. A lot faster than we can use it. Xadoman wrote: Oil guys are desperately seeking new locations to drill Oil guys make money by selling oil they've pumped. It's not desperation. It's profit. Xadoman wrote: and they also abandon old wells if they are depleted. No, they don't. They cap them for awhile, then open them back up and pump again. Xadoman wrote: It seems to me that it took millions and millions of years for oil to form Nope. It forms faster than we can use it. Xadoman wrote: and we have already burned a large part of it( that is accessible) within a century. No. Oil is renewable. Xadoman wrote: Imagine what happens to civilization when there will be oil shortages in the future. The market will decide. You won't. Oil is CHEAP{ right now. That means there is plenty of it. Same with coal. Same with natural gas. We are awash in oil. There is no shortage. Shortages can and do occur, but that' not because we are running out of oil, it's because of distribution problems, such as when OPEC tried to dictate oil prices in the 70's (they lost big on that one!). Xadoman wrote: Diesel engine is the heart of current civilization. Debatable. A lot of electricity is generated from natural gas, coal, hydroelectric, nuclear, etc. Mobile power systems (like cars, trucks, ships, and aircraft) use different fuels, though they tend to be oil based products (like diesel oil, kerosene, or gasoline). The diesel engine is a popular engine because of its flexibility, simplicity, and readily available fuels. They can run on used french fry oil, stuff fractioned from an oil processing plant, even some kinds of vegetation oils. Aircraft use gasoline or kerosene. Cars tend to use gasoline, with some being diesel oil. Trucks are generally favoring diesel oil. Most locomotives are diesel-electric, burning fuel to run a generator that in turn powers the traction wheels. So what do you consider the 'heart of civilization'? The truck? The ship? The aircraft? The locomotive? Why do you consider this the 'heart' and nothing else? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-10-2020 22:46
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Xadoman wrote: My concern is about the rate at which the earth produces oil. Oil guys are desperately seeking new locations to drill and they also abandon old wells if they are depleted. It seems to me that it took millions and millions of years for oil to form and we have already burned a large part of it( that is accessible) within a century. Imagine what happens to civilization when there will be oil shortages in the future. Diesel engine is the heart of current civilization. What these guys don't get is that's one reason why renewable energy is pursued. Even if the South China Sea and the Middle East, etc., allows for another 150 years, when supplies run low, what will they cost? At the present population growth rate, how much energy will 50 billion people consume? The good news is that there is not enough fresh water to support that many people so that won't happen.
13-10-2020 02:14
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	James___ wrote: Xadoman wrote: My concern is about the rate at which the earth produces oil. Oil guys are desperately seeking new locations to drill and they also abandon old wells if they are depleted. It seems to me that it took millions and millions of years for oil to form and we have already burned a large part of it( that is accessible) within a century. Imagine what happens to civilization when there will be oil shortages in the future. Diesel engine is the heart of current civilization. What these guys don't get is that's one reason why renewable energy is pursued. Even if the South China Sea and the Middle East, etc., allows for another 150 years, when supplies run low, what will they cost? At the present population growth rate, how much energy will 50 billion people consume? The good news is that there is not enough fresh water to support that many people so that won't happen. Fresh water falls from the sky (if you bothered to leave you basement once in awhile). There will never be a fresh water shortage. Fresh water shortage, is an eco-scam, like global warming. Just fear mongering, to get people on the left (liberal, democrat, socialist) all panicky and hysterical. It's a means to control, and covert new 'cult' members.
13-10-2020 02:30
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: James___ wrote: Xadoman wrote: My concern is about the rate at which the earth produces oil. Oil guys are desperately seeking new locations to drill and they also abandon old wells if they are depleted. It seems to me that it took millions and millions of years for oil to form and we have already burned a large part of it( that is accessible) within a century. Imagine what happens to civilization when there will be oil shortages in the future. Diesel engine is the heart of current civilization. What these guys don't get is that's one reason why renewable energy is pursued. Even if the South China Sea and the Middle East, etc., allows for another 150 years, when supplies run low, what will they cost? At the present population growth rate, how much energy will 50 billion people consume? The good news is that there is not enough fresh water to support that many people so that won't happen. Fresh water falls from the sky (if you bothered to leave you basement once in awhile). There will never be a fresh water shortage. Fresh water shortage, is an eco-scam, like global warming. Just fear mongering, to get people on the left (liberal, democrat, socialist) all panicky and hysterical. It's a means to control, and covert new 'cult' members. And yet Australia has invested billions in desalination plants. Their droughts have a more significant impact. Maybe we Americans can learn from Aussies? I've not heard of Kiwis having a drought. Any chance we could learn something from either New Zealand or Australia? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn2r0K7vnSU
13-10-2020 10:17
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Could it be that desalination is a better choice than collecting and storing rain water? It's consistent, reliable, and convenient. Rain may be seasonal, and a whole lot, all at once. Our rainfall tends to brief, but intense. Or most immediate concern is to manage flooding, over saving fresh water. Fresh water tends to stagnate and foul, if stored for long. Also evaporates... Use it soon, or lose it.
13-10-2020 12:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James___ wrote: Xadoman wrote: My concern is about the rate at which the earth produces oil. Oil guys are desperately seeking new locations to drill and they also abandon old wells if they are depleted. It seems to me that it took millions and millions of years for oil to form and we have already burned a large part of it( that is accessible) within a century. Imagine what happens to civilization when there will be oil shortages in the future. Diesel engine is the heart of current civilization. What these guys don't get is that's one reason why renewable energy is pursued. Even if the South China Sea and the Middle East, etc., allows for another 150 years, when supplies run low, what will they cost? Why would supplies run low? Renewable energy is renewable. Both oil and natural gas are renewable forms of energy. James___ wrote: At the present population growth rate, how much energy will 50 billion people consume? The good news is that there is not enough fresh water to support that many people so that won't happen. You forget that people are also assets, not just liabilities. They will create the fresh water to use if nothing else. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-10-2020 12:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	HarveyH55 wrote: James___ wrote: Xadoman wrote: My concern is about the rate at which the earth produces oil. Oil guys are desperately seeking new locations to drill and they also abandon old wells if they are depleted. It seems to me that it took millions and millions of years for oil to form and we have already burned a large part of it( that is accessible) within a century. Imagine what happens to civilization when there will be oil shortages in the future. Diesel engine is the heart of current civilization. What these guys don't get is that's one reason why renewable energy is pursued. Even if the South China Sea and the Middle East, etc., allows for another 150 years, when supplies run low, what will they cost? At the present population growth rate, how much energy will 50 billion people consume? The good news is that there is not enough fresh water to support that many people so that won't happen. Fresh water falls from the sky (if you bothered to leave you basement once in awhile). There will never be a fresh water shortage. Fresh water shortage, is an eco-scam, like global warming. Just fear mongering, to get people on the left (liberal, democrat, socialist) all panicky and hysterical. It's a means to control, and covert new 'cult' members. Quite right. The biggest problem with fresh water supplies is that it is not uniform. Desert areas receive less fresh water, for example. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-10-2020 12:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James___ wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: James___ wrote: Xadoman wrote: My concern is about the rate at which the earth produces oil. Oil guys are desperately seeking new locations to drill and they also abandon old wells if they are depleted. It seems to me that it took millions and millions of years for oil to form and we have already burned a large part of it( that is accessible) within a century. Imagine what happens to civilization when there will be oil shortages in the future. Diesel engine is the heart of current civilization. What these guys don't get is that's one reason why renewable energy is pursued. Even if the South China Sea and the Middle East, etc., allows for another 150 years, when supplies run low, what will they cost? At the present population growth rate, how much energy will 50 billion people consume? The good news is that there is not enough fresh water to support that many people so that won't happen. Fresh water falls from the sky (if you bothered to leave you basement once in awhile). There will never be a fresh water shortage. Fresh water shortage, is an eco-scam, like global warming. Just fear mongering, to get people on the left (liberal, democrat, socialist) all panicky and hysterical. It's a means to control, and covert new 'cult' members. And yet Australia has invested billions in desalination plants. Their droughts have a more significant impact. Maybe we Americans can learn from Aussies? I've not heard of Kiwis having a drought. Any chance we could learn something from either New Zealand or Australia? ...deleted Holy Video... No need. Most of America has plenty of fresh water. Nothing wrong with desalination plants. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-10-2020 18:52
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	Google has various definitions of data. Their less technical definition has data as information such as information publishes about any number of things. Sort of circular but google publishes data.
13-10-2020 19:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	keepit wrote: Google has various definitions of data. Google does define any word except 'Google'. keepit wrote: Their less technical definition has data as information such as information publishes about any number of things. Sort of circular but google publishes data. Google does not publish data. They are a search engine. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

13-10-2020 23:12
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Using water from underground aquifers that have been formed during millions and millions of years is not sustainable. Jakarta has sinked 2.5 meters during two decades because of nonsustainable water usage. I am sure that this kind sinking happens in other places too but the rate is not so fast and therefore not as notable as in Jakarta.
14-10-2020 06:41
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Xadoman wrote: Using water from underground aquifers that have been formed during millions and millions of years is not sustainable. Jakarta has sinked 2.5 meters during two decades because of nonsustainable water usage. I am sure that this kind sinking happens in other places too but the rate is not so fast and therefore not as notable as in Jakarta. OMG.Jakarta is a tropical rainforest.How can you possibly know it is sinking or is the ocean rising.You people are unbelievable.Everything is fine stop making things up duncan61
14-10-2020 20:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Xadoman wrote: Using water from underground aquifers that have been formed during millions and millions of years is not sustainable. It is completely sustainable. Aquifers are replenished by rainfall, just like rivers and creeks. Xadoman wrote: Jakarta has sinked 2.5 meters during two decades because of nonsustainable water usage. I am sure that this kind sinking happens in other places too but the rate is not so fast and therefore not as notable as in Jakarta. You are making shit up again. Argument from randU fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-10-2020 20:33
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	We get sink holes in Florida, been happening a lot lately. These aren't those pothole in the road Californians and New Yorkers crying about all the time. Cars fall in them, several house have fall into them. No exaggeration at all, they get to to be pretty big, so go deep too. Is this the 'sinking' Al Gore predicted for Florida? We certainly aren't losing any beach front property, other than the usual storm related. Most of them don't make the news, unless someone gets kill, or a tourist drives their car into one, even with the road blocked off. Must that GPS stuff.
14-10-2020 21:55
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	There's a sinkhole not far away from where I live... The funny thing is that my dad and I used to drive right over where it is located, as it used to be a segment of the gravel road that goes through the area. Now, since the towel was finally thrown in on filling it up again and again and again, it is now sunk away and filled with water and the road was re-routed around the sinkhole. Honestly, there shouldn't even be a road through there to begin with because any bit of rain causes the road to flood over, and the water goes right up to the side of the road even during dry-spells...
15-10-2020 03:33
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: We get sink holes in Florida, been happening a lot lately. These aren't those pothole in the road Californians and New Yorkers crying about all the time. Cars fall in them, several house have fall into them. No exaggeration at all, they get to to be pretty big, so go deep too. Is this the 'sinking' Al Gore predicted for Florida? We certainly aren't losing any beach front property, other than the usual storm related. Most of them don't make the news, unless someone gets kill, or a tourist drives their car into one, even with the road blocked off. Must that GPS stuff. So you're saying that Florida, like the US is decaying from the inside? With enough sinkholes, there won't be a Florida. And those aren't a problem, are they? After all, if one opens up under where you live, not a problem. You probably won't live to complain about it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/19/florida-sinkhole-reopens-two-years-after-it-swallowed-a-sleeping-man-and-killed-him/ As for Florida's coast line; https://floridadep.gov/rcp/beaches Yes Harvey, Florida's beaches are maintained by dredging sands off the coast and replenishing the beaches. I haven't lived in Florida in about 20 years but reading about this or hearing it on the news was normal. How have you missed it? @Ya'alls, they close the beach when it's being replenished. They basically spray sand on the beach. I lived in Jacksonville which is on the coast. Still, inland Florida would need to know about dredging operations so they can avoid going to that beach. Edited on 15-10-2020 03:48
15-10-2020 06:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	HarveyH55 wrote: We get sink holes in Florida, been happening a lot lately. These aren't those pothole in the road Californians and New Yorkers crying about all the time. Cars fall in them, several house have fall into them. No exaggeration at all, they get to to be pretty big, so go deep too. Is this the 'sinking' Al Gore predicted for Florida? We certainly aren't losing any beach front property, other than the usual storm related. Most of them don't make the news, unless someone gets kill, or a tourist drives their car into one, even with the road blocked off. Must that GPS stuff. Nah. Just all that limestone under Florida. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-10-2020 11:05
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	James___ wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: We get sink holes in Florida, been happening a lot lately. These aren't those pothole in the road Californians and New Yorkers crying about all the time. Cars fall in them, several house have fall into them. No exaggeration at all, they get to to be pretty big, so go deep too. Is this the 'sinking' Al Gore predicted for Florida? We certainly aren't losing any beach front property, other than the usual storm related. Most of them don't make the news, unless someone gets kill, or a tourist drives their car into one, even with the road blocked off. Must that GPS stuff. So you're saying that Florida, like the US is decaying from the inside? With enough sinkholes, there won't be a Florida. And those aren't a problem, are they? After all, if one opens up under where you live, not a problem. You probably won't live to complain about it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/19/florida-sinkhole-reopens-two-years-after-it-swallowed-a-sleeping-man-and-killed-him/ As for Florida's coast line; https://floridadep.gov/rcp/beaches Yes Harvey, Florida's beaches are maintained by dredging sands off the coast and replenishing the beaches. I haven't lived in Florida in about 20 years but reading about this or hearing it on the news was normal. How have you missed it? @Ya'alls, they close the beach when it's being replenished. They basically spray sand on the beach. I lived in Jacksonville which is on the coast. Still, inland Florida would need to know about dredging operations so they can avoid going to that beach. All normal Florida beach restorations. Beach front properties still above water, and doing fine. Some buildings over a hundred years old. Your idol, Al Gore, got it wrong...
15-10-2020 19:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	HarveyH55 wrote: James___ wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: We get sink holes in Florida, been happening a lot lately. These aren't those pothole in the road Californians and New Yorkers crying about all the time. Cars fall in them, several house have fall into them. No exaggeration at all, they get to to be pretty big, so go deep too. Is this the 'sinking' Al Gore predicted for Florida? We certainly aren't losing any beach front property, other than the usual storm related. Most of them don't make the news, unless someone gets kill, or a tourist drives their car into one, even with the road blocked off. Must that GPS stuff. So you're saying that Florida, like the US is decaying from the inside? With enough sinkholes, there won't be a Florida. And those aren't a problem, are they? After all, if one opens up under where you live, not a problem. You probably won't live to complain about it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/19/florida-sinkhole-reopens-two-years-after-it-swallowed-a-sleeping-man-and-killed-him/ As for Florida's coast line; https://floridadep.gov/rcp/beaches Yes Harvey, Florida's beaches are maintained by dredging sands off the coast and replenishing the beaches. I haven't lived in Florida in about 20 years but reading about this or hearing it on the news was normal. How have you missed it? @Ya'alls, they close the beach when it's being replenished. They basically spray sand on the beach. I lived in Jacksonville which is on the coast. Still, inland Florida would need to know about dredging operations so they can avoid going to that beach. All normal Florida beach restorations. Beach front properties still above water, and doing fine. Some buildings over a hundred years old. Your idol, Al Gore, got it wrong... Our waterfront level hasn't changed either. Those buildings in Seattle are pretty old too. Just news from the other corner of the nation. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-10-2020 03:04
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	No sea level rise here either and half the ice has gone.The global doom crew are in trouble

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate fossil fuel:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Using fossil fuel is mass murder.!?	33	04-02-2024 08:12
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
World Reliance on Fuel Derived from the Ground.	34	20-10-2022 04:00
Fossil fuels	149	19-04-2021 01:39
fossil fuel	13	13-01-2021 09:35