A draft New Zealand Energy Strategy is dominated by the Government’s conviction that climate change (more properly described as “man-made global warming”) is happening and that we must develop renewable energy to save New Zealand from disaster.
The strategy ignores the uncertainties in the evidence claimed to support the belief that man-made global warming is real and dangerous. It cannot explain why, before the days of man-made CO2, the world was warmer during the Middle Ages, Roman and Minoan warm periods. The whole of the Energy Strategy is based on the assumption that the “scenarios” and “projections” of dangerous warming generated by unproven climate models are accurate predictions.
Read the rest of The New Zealand Herald article: ‘Brian Leyland: Powering our future or wrecking the economy?’
Meanwhile, in California controversial legislation is also pending to control energy use, in particular:
“In California, we have 236 pages of state-mandated standards for building energy efficiency, known as Title 24…
…What should be controversial in the proposed revisions to Title 24 is the requirement for what is called a “programmable communicating thermostat” or PCT. Every new home and every change to existing homes’ central heating and air conditioning systems will required to be fitted with a PCT beginning next year following the issuance of the revision. Each PCT will be fitted with a “non-removable ” FM receiver that will allow the power authorities to increase your air conditioning temperature setpoint or decrease your heater temperature setpoint to any value they chose. During “price events” those changes are limited to +/- four degrees F and you would be able to manually override the changes. During “emergency events” the new setpoints can be whatever the power authority desires and you would not be able to alter them….
…The real question poised by this invasion of the sanctity of our homes by state power is — why are we doing this? It seems to me to be the wrong fix for a problem that we don’t have to have. The common sense alternative is to build new power plants so that power shortages don’t occur. Of course, they can’t be coal or nuclear power plants! The coastal elites have their minds set against those undesirables. The state has wasted billions of our dollars on wind generation that hasn’t helped to meet peak loads. For natural gas, offshore drilling should be considered. While we have one liquefied natural gas terminal in Mexico supplying us with Indonesian and, in the near future, Russian, LNG, another receiving terminal to be supplied by Australian LNG was rejected by the State Coastal Commission.
While nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there explicitly a right to set one’s own thermostat to whatever temperature one desires (and is able to pay for), the new PCT requirement certainly seems to violate the “a man’s home is his castle” common law dictum.
Californians have until January 30th to send their opinions and comments on the pending revisions to Title 24 to the California Energy Commission and state legislators.
Read the whole article: ‘Who Will Control Your Thermostat?’ in American Thinker.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Paul – “The strategy ignores the uncertainties in the evidence claimed to support the belief that man-made global warming is real and dangerous. It cannot explain why, before the days of man-made CO2, the world was warmer during the Middle Ages, Roman and Minoan warm periods. The whole of the Energy Strategy is based on the assumption that the “scenarios” and “projections” of dangerous warming generated by unproven climate models are accurate predictions.”
What a load of crap. Even if there was no global warming New Zealand would have to do something as they have very few fossil fuel energy resources. As they very wisely refuse to use nuclear power renewables are the best choice for a country so well endowed with geothermal and wind. They could be completely self sufficient for energy and depend on no other country for energy imports, including oil, with a sensible renewable strategy including electric cars and plug in hybrids and/or small amount of biofuels.
Apart from that the MWP and all the other warming events are completely independent of THIS warming event. We do not have to explain the past events because THIS event we can explain. We are not depending on computer models – we know what is happening, computer models help us assess the risks that we are taking.
Ender,
ever thought about how much lead, copper, and lithium needs to be found to make your renewable utopia workable?
Every electric car needs a significant amount of copper in the electrical circuits, bus bars, and the amount of lead, nickel and lithium for the batteries for storage.
Incidentally “THIS” warming event? Don’t understand that warm is the norm and its the cooling events that are the issues.
(Now let’s wait for the climate puppets to arrive and blather)
Paul – “While nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there explicitly a right to set one’s own thermostat to whatever temperature one desires (and is able to pay for), the new PCT requirement certainly seems to violate the “a man’s home is his castle” common law dictum.”
And yet more libertarian bullshit. Where does it mention in the Bill of Rights (assuming for a moment that I am American) that I cannot keep a ton of C4 at my house for emergencies. Why should the government restrict my rights to own explosives??
Everybody has social responsibilities to live in a society. The wild west notion of free individuals is a myth of dangerous proportions. How would Brisbane residents fared if everyone had this attitude about water?? Everyone is due a share of resources and also responsible for the environmental damage that use of that resource entails. Minimising that damage is also a shared responsibility. Denying it is happening just so you can have more than your share is just irresponsible and ultimately stupid.
Ender – yada yada yada, yawn! There is no shortage of energy or water – just canutian policies and environmental mythology that obstructs nuclear power, the use of 100’s of years of coal reserves, and the construction of desalination plants, with water piped or transported to where it is needed. Money well spent instead of wasting trillions trying to control the climate, without the help of China, using a single factor of unknown magnitude.
These ‘big brother’, measures are only the start to more to come, as the global warming industry sets about destroying civilisation as we know it.
Yet they choose to ignore any of the mounting evidence that climate may be heading for cooler times rather then hotter. See this interesting link re the Sun.
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
Paul, if you are so worried about the efficacy of government spending, why don’t you comment on military spending.
Trillions on controlling the climate? Get out of the sandpit
The Climate Cretins don’t seem to have twigged to the fact that the entire upper half of the IPCC emissions “scarenarios” were blown right out of the water when China signed up for 34 French nuclear power stations. It looks like the Indians will follow suite.
It seems the scarenario makers did not even factor in a rate of technology improvement, in a 100 year projection, no less. Couple this with the fact that the IPCC projected full development on the US urban sprawl model was never a realistic possibility in such crowded nations and the entire emissions range must undergo a major downwards shift.
But don’t hold your breath. It will take blood in the streets before these vested interests get a grasp of reality.
There is no certainty when I drive my car, I will be involved in an accident. I still make sure my seat belt is buckled up every time I’m in the car.
Anthony is right you know. Governments have only wasted about half a Trillion dollars on Kyoto.
US$ 433,469,896,737 +/- a million or so since I copied and pasted
Hyperbole doesn’t help our argument.
Oh my bad. Nine zeros is the Trillion!
Forgive me Paul. I’m on your side dude.
What’s the term after trillion? We’re going to need it pretty soon.
Gazillions? Bazillions? It’s got to have a “z” in it somewhere…
Louis – “ever thought about how much lead, copper, and lithium needs to be found to make your renewable utopia workable?”
Yes Louis however none of the lead, copper, or lithium gets consumed in the process and is re-cyclable.
Won’t even bother commenting in the climate crap you posted. Have you found the experimental evidence for abiotic oil? I would like the experiment where a liquid with the same characteristics as crude oil was made from carbon and hydrogen in the lab.
Paul – “There is no shortage of energy or water – just canutian policies and environmental mythology that obstructs nuclear power, the use of 100’s of years of coal reserves, and the construction of desalination plants, with water piped or transported to where it is needed.”
So in your mind all is well. There are no disappearing species or changing climates just one march of human progress where we can pollute as much as we like and not see any consequences. Even better if we go nuclear we can have the power and give the consequences to future generations when we are safely dead.
So it is to be China that is to lead the Planet into The New Atomic Century, is it?
When the blood starts flowing in the streets, Mr Mott, it will be too late to grasp reality, because That will BE the reality. If it is not too late already.
The people of China are very, very familiar with that particular scenario and sequence of events. As are the people of what used to be Tibet and those who used to live where the Three Gorges Dam is now bringing peace and prosperity.
JG Moebus S/V WayFinder Half Moon Bay, CA USA
Sid – “Yet they choose to ignore any of the mounting evidence that climate may be heading for cooler times rather then hotter. See this interesting link re the Sun.”
The link you provided is from a think tank not a research institution. Solar activity refers to the number of sunspot cycles and there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea of cosmic rays and cloud formation.
If I may be so bold and/or presumptuous to ask: What is the Source of the “Governments have only wasted about half a Trillion dollars on Kyoto.
US$ 433,469,896,737 +/- a million or so since I copied and pasted” quote? Thank you.
It should be born in mind that governments don’t waste money. Governments transfer wealth. Governments have no money to waste or spend; governments either steal it or print it.
Between 98-99% of every dollar or yen or Euro or pound sterling that is spent by a government on anything goes into the pocket of someone either directly or indirectly in the employ of or, more usually, in the favor of that government.
If the money does not go into the right pockets, that government will either be voted out of office or otherwise terminated, sometimes with extreme prejudice, and replaced by one that understands who is supposed to be getting that money that has been either looted from the Treasury/Exchequer/etc, or else stolen from the future by deficit spending.
For the most vivid current example of all this, see the U.S. and the so-called “War” Against so-called “Terrorism.”
JG Moebus S/V WayFinder Half Moon Bay, CA USA
“Solar activity refers to the number of sunspot cycles and there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea of cosmic rays and cloud formation.”
That should have read:
Solar activity refers to the number of sunspot and there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea of cosmic rays and cloud formation.
“There is no certainty when I drive my car, I will be involved in an accident. I still make sure my seat belt is buckled up every time I’m in the car.”
Yeh, but bucking your seat belt is free. Doesn’t cost several trillion dollars. Oh, and bucking a seatbelt is a known solution as opposed to replacing the world’s energy supply with a non-carbon varient.
“there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea of cosmic rays and cloud formation.”
See Figure 3. Some correlation eh?
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
Mark, do you know how much bitching there was about making seatbelts mandatory? Oh the cost, the cost.
Mark – “See Figure 3. Some correlation eh?”
Correlation does not imply causation.
Mark
as Fred Singer often tells us, correlation is not causation. (Except when it suits him).
Mark – “Yeh, but bucking your seat belt is free. Doesn’t cost several trillion dollars.”
Yes it did. The campaign to convince car makers to install seat belts was long and expensive as was the legislation to require all drivers to wear one. Now we take them for granted.
If you are stupid enough to drive a car without a seatbelt then you deserve your place in the Darwin Awards.
stupidity abounds in 2008.
Complain about wind not meeting peak loads, then complain about thermostat controls and efficiency standards to control peak loads. Also complain about wasted money – whats the biggest waste of money in this scenario? Building crap homes with crap heat/cooling systems and creating huge peak loads.
But I should be allowed to chill my home to 18 degrees in summer and 30 degrees in winter dammit! That is freedom! Regulation is evil!
Yep, half a trillion on Kyoto – all wasted – all proven by typing on a blog. Go figure.
Ender
I have indeed pointed to the experimental evidene, published in scientific journals and the papers are on http://www.gasresources.net. You have been pointed to this resource before but you seem to refuse to accept it.
As the saying goes, you can lead a donkey to water,…….
As you resort to ad hominems to further the debate, that is a clear sign that you cannot argue the science.
The only problem I have is thinking that rational argument can sway an irrational belief. It never did, doesn’t now (you are a classic example) and presumably never will.
What amazes me is the amount of time you spend here and heavens know where else – don’t you have a real daytime job?
Ender says the SSRC is a think tank, not a research institution!! Well, well that beggars belief! I invite anyone sufficiently free of the AGW ideology to look at the above site, and judge for yourself.
Good link Mark, but they don’t believe it!
While on the idiocy of governments’ efforts in their titanic struggle against the ‘forces of nature’, the EU has decided to make mercury-containing compact fluorescent lamps compulsory, while at the same time, banning mercury-containing thermometers (which contain a lot less mercury).
(Global Warming Politics:A Hot Topic Blog)
Anthony – this is a politics and environment blog.
Sid Reynolds – be careful with the SSRC – I have a background check on John Casey.
CRF – there is ample evidence for the effect of cosmic rays on climate on long and short time scales – the only question is how big is the effect. Svensmark has provided experimental evidence for a mechanism with a cloud chamber.
Louis – “I have indeed pointed to the experimental evidene, published in scientific journals and the papers are on http://www.gasresources.net. You have been pointed to this resource before but you seem to refuse to accept it.”
No you haven’t. You have pointed to a site where someome made some simple hydrocarbons which is really a task done in factories all over the world. Find me one experiment that shows the path from carbon and hydrogen to crude oil.
“The only problem I have is thinking that rational argument can sway an irrational belief. It never did, doesn’t now (you are a classic example) and presumably never will.”
So all your petroleum geologist peers, the ones that have managed to find some 2 trillion barrels of biotic oil are irrational as well? Have you said this at a meeting of the Geological Society perhaps – I am sure they all would react favourably to such a suggestion.
The only person here with an irrational belief is yourself and no amount of science will pierce the crackpot notions that you adhere to.
“What amazes me is the amount of time you spend here and heavens know where else – don’t you have a real daytime job?”
Well you are here as well so what do you do?
Paul – “CRF – there is ample evidence for the effect of cosmic rays on climate on long and short time scales – the only question is how big is the effect”
Here you go again – where is the ample evidence? Where is the peer reviewed paper that shows clear evidence of cosmic rays and cloud changes. Where is the peer reviewed study that shows the mechanism of cosmic rays modulating cloud cover. Where even is the study that shows that, assuming that cosmic rays do modulate cloud cover, that this extra cloud cover reflects more radiation that it traps.
So can you present such evidence – no you can’t. All you have is some correlations that do not prove causation. I like using that phrase as deniers never tired of using it against AGW. Now you have to take it for your own pet theories. Karma is a beautiful thing.
http://www.lat34.com/surf/laird_hamilton/paddle_out
First read that to get a general outline of how important political decisions which affect the lives of millions are deliberated in California.
For the purposes of California residential electricity and heating – oil, nuclear, and coal*, are effectivily outlawed. That leaves hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, and natural gas, all of which are ruthlessly protested without regard for consequences. Solar and wind power are expensive boutique items used to make the liberals feel like they are good people, they only account for 2% of our energy needs.
Hydro electric provides almost 20% but it’s tapped out, and even the existing dams are under constant bother by the Sierra Club, Friends of Hetch Hetchy, and assorted other mongeral anti civilization pinheads. Nuclear power has been on the decline since Jane Fonda’s movie.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/electricity_resource_mix_pie_charts/index.html
That leaves natural gas which accouts for 41.5% of our electricity, water heating, cooking, and residential heating. Domestic natural gas. We have no terminal to import NG.
I’ve lived here along time. The coastal liberals are always beating us down with senseless ordinaces and most of the time, Valley and Sierra residents just ignore em. For instance it’s illegal for anyone in the state to use or possess fireworks. But every street had at least a couple private party sky rocket displays on New Year’s Eve. It’s standard practice in the Valley. Even the cops look the other way – I mean what are they going to do, put us all in jail?
This programmable communicating thermostat deal, it’s not going to affect people who live in SF, or Marin. Those people don’t even own air conditioners. They don’t need them. The ocean keep them cool. Likewise they never have to shovel snow. They have a perfect temperature regulator – the best on the planet. It’s called the Pacific.
The PCT’s aren’t going to affect homeowners in the Valley or Sierra either – like I said we ignore the liberal crap laws they hand down, and talk smack when we are doing it generally. Right now I am certain there are young enterprizers developing electronic counter measures with the soul intent of defeating the PCT’s FM transmitter. They will be selling them at Denio’s Auction within a week.
The real victims, the people who won’t be able to get around the legislation, the people who will have a built in nanny/watchdog, otherwise known as a landlord, are renters. Renters are going to feel the pinch and won’t be able to easily defeat the PCT due to the fact that they don’t pay the gas bill – it’s included in the rent. Renters are mostly young, single or married, parents struggling to raise the next generation of Californians.
More and more it comes to me that these disjointed and seemingly pointless harassment laws, dictated by the coast ( the complete suite of anti AGW proposals, the open borders and the perpetually increasing minimum wage – which makes it cost effective to hire Mexicans and prohibitively expensive to hire Americans, single occupancy and rent control laws – which ensure that affordable housing will be artifically scarce ) are all developed with one goal in mind.
The goal is to dispose of what the liberals consider excess population.
These same sort of people who block, protest, and generally rail against, the central valley when we want to use the cleaner forms of energy, while exclusively reserving the priveledge of using the worst sorts of energy (by their definition, their criteria, not ours) for themselves, are the same people who will send political double talking hacks, funded to the hilt by Teacher Union money, to Sacramento under the campaign slogan “doing it for the children”.
* (except for Los Angeles, home of the beautiful people who were protesting California’s proposed offshore NG terminal. Ironicly, Hollywood gets a little under half of their electricity from coal fired plants – located out of state naturally. While they are firmly against using clean fuels if it means maring the view from their beach house, they’re not so particular about fouling the air in Arizona or Nevada.)
Ender – here is one for starters:
R. Giles Harrison and David B. Stephenson, Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds Proc Roy Soc A doi: 10.1098/rspa.2005.1628
Galactic cosmic ray changes have been suggested to affect weather and climate, and new evidence is presented here directly linking galactic cosmic rays with clouds. Clouds increase the diffuse solar radiation, measured continuously at UK surface meteorological sites since 1947. The ratio of diffuse to total solar radiation – the diffuse fraction – is used to infer cloud, and is compared with the daily mean neutron count rate measured at Climax, Colorado from 1951-2000, which provides a globally-representative indicator of cosmic rays. Across the UK, on days of high cosmic ray flux (above 3600´102neutron counts.hr-1, which occur 87% of the time on average) compared with low cosmic ray flux, (1) the chance of an overcast day increases by (19 ± 4) %, and (2) the diffuse radiation fraction increases by (2 ± 0.3) %. During sudden transient reductions in cosmic rays (e.g. Forbush events), simultaneous decreases occur in the diffuse fraction. The diffuse radiation changes are therefore unambiguously due to cosmic rays. Although the statistically significant non-linear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. century) climate variations when day-to-day variability averages out.
*Department of Meteorology, The University of Reading
P.O. Box 243, Earley Gate, Reading Berks, RG6 6BB UK
There are others and a paper from 2005 giving independent support to Shaviv’s ‘The Milky Way Galaxy’s Spiral Arms and Ice-Age Epochs and the Cosmic Ray Connection.’
ICE AGE EPOCHS AND THE SUN’S PATH THROUGH THE GALAXY
D. R. Gies and J. W. Helsel
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 4106,
Atlanta, GA 30302-4106; gies@chara.gsu.edu, helsel@chara.gsu.edu
Receivved 2005 January 4; accepted 2005 March 14
ABSTRACT
We present a calculation of the Sun’s motion through the MilkyWay over the last 500 million yr. The integration
is based on estimates of the Sun’s current position and speed from measurements with Hipparcos and on a realistic model for the Galactic gravitational potential. We estimate the times of the Sun’s past spiral arm crossings for a range of assumed values of the spiral pattern angular speed.We find that for a difference between themean solar and pattern speed of p ¼ 11:9 0:7 kms1 kpc1, the Sun has traversed four spiral arms at times that appear to correspond well with long-duration cold periods on Earth. This supports the idea that extended exposure to the higher cosmic-ray flux associated with spiral arms can lead to increased cloud cover and long ice age epochs on Earth.
The Astrophysical Journal, 626:844–848, 2005 June 20
# 2005. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.
So there is evidence for some sort of link between cosmic rays, clouds and climate on long and shorter timescales. It is not ‘proven,’ nor is the magnitude of the effect known.
The main evidence against was the lack of a mechanism – until the Svensmark cloud chamber experiment.
There sre many more cosmic ray papers, both for and against – do your own search.
Ender:
Mark – “Yeh, but bucking your seat belt is free. Doesn’t cost several trillion dollars.”
Yes it did.
————————————————–
Please provide a peer reviewed paper reference that provides evidence of this expenditure.
Paul – “Across the UK, on days of high cosmic ray flux (above 3600´102neutron counts.hr-1, which occur 87% of the time on average) compared with low cosmic ray flux, (1) the chance of an overcast day increases by (19 ± 4) %, and (2) the diffuse radiation fraction increases by (2 ± 0.3) %”
This proves nothing. Has McIntyre looked at these statistics and since when is the UK the globe. Where is the link between cloud cover and climate?
“This supports the idea that extended exposure to the higher cosmic-ray flux associated with spiral arms can lead to increased cloud cover and long ice age epochs on Earth.”
At the risk of being a broken record correlation does not imply causation.
“The main evidence against was the lack of a mechanism – until the Svensmark cloud chamber experiment.”
Which proves nothing except what was known since the Wilson Cloud Chamber was used to detect particles from accelerators until the better Bubble Chamber was invented. It says nothing about the actions of charged particles in the real atmosphere.
Again I am bemused by your insistence that AGW relies on computer models and weak science when you leap to defense of a theory that has not even 5% of the theoretical basis of AGW and relies on vague correlations and yet you completely fail to apply the same standards that you demand of AGW to cosmic ray theory. Imagine if you were defending AGW and I was defending cosmic ray theory.
Why not apply the same standards that you demand of AGW to cosmic ray theory and think about how tenable your position really is.
So have a look at these:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf
“The last decade has seen a revival of various hypotheses claiming a strong correlation between solar activity and a number of terrestrial climate parameters: Links between cosmic rays and cloud cover, 1rst total cloud cover and then only low clouds, and between solar cycle lengths and Northern Hemisphere land temperatures. These hypotheses play an important role in the scienti1c as well as in the public debate about the possibility or reality of a man-made global climate change. I have analyzed a number of published graphs which have played a major role in these debates and which have been claimed to support
solar hypotheses. My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by an incorrect handling of the physical data. Since the graphs are still widely referred to in the literature and their misleading character has not yet been generally recognized, I have found it appropriate to deliver the present overview. Especially, I want to caution against drawing any conclusions based upon these graphs concerning the possible wisdom or futility of reducing the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases.
My 1ndings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and terrestrial climate. Such links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors. The sole objective of the present analysis is to draw attention to the fact that some of the widely publicized, apparent correlations do not properly re9ect the underlying physical data.”
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf
“Abstract: It has been claimed by others that observed temporal correlations of terrestrial cloud cover with ‘the cosmic ray intensity’ are causal. The possibility arises, therefore, of a connection between cosmic rays and Global Warming. If true, the implications would be very great.
We have examined this claim to look for evidence to corroborate it. So far we have not found any and
so our tentative conclusions are to doubt it. Such correlations as appear are more likely to be due to the small variations in solar irradiance, which, of course, correlate with cosmic rays. We estimate that less than 15% of the 11-year cycle warming variati”
All this and not one reference to RC – you will be happy
Mark – “Please provide a peer reviewed paper reference that provides evidence of this expenditure.”
Sure right after you provide one showing that replacing the current fossil fuel industry will cost several trillion dollars.
Paul – “Across the UK, on days of high cosmic ray flux (above 3600´102neutron counts.hr-1, which occur 87% of the time on average) compared with low cosmic ray flux, (1) the chance of an overcast day increases by (19 ± 4) %, and (2) the diffuse radiation fraction increases by (2 ± 0.3) %”
This proves nothing. Has McIntyre looked at these statistics and since when is the UK the globe. Where is the link between cloud cover and climate?
“This supports the idea that extended exposure to the higher cosmic-ray flux associated with spiral arms can lead to increased cloud cover and long ice age epochs on Earth.”
At the risk of being a broken record correlation does not imply causation.
“The main evidence against was the lack of a mechanism – until the Svensmark cloud chamber experiment.”
Which proves nothing except what was known since the Wilson Cloud Chamber was used to detect particles from accelerators until the better Bubble Chamber was invented. It says nothing about the actions of charged particles in the real atmosphere.
Again I am bemused by your insistence that AGW relies on computer models and weak science when you leap to defense of a theory that has not even 5% of the theoretical basis of AGW and relies on vague correlations and yet you completely fail to apply the same standards that you demand of AGW to cosmic ray theory. Imagine if you were defending AGW and I was defending cosmic ray theory.
Why not apply the same standards that you demand of AGW to cosmic ray theory and think about how tenable your position really is.
So have a look at these:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf
“The last decade has seen a revival of various hypotheses claiming a strong correlation between solar activity and a number of terrestrial climate parameters: Links between cosmic rays and cloud cover, 1rst total cloud cover and then only low clouds, and between solar cycle lengths and Northern Hemisphere land temperatures. These hypotheses play an important role in the scienti1c as well as in the public debate about the possibility or reality of a man-made global climate change. I have analyzed a number of published graphs which have played a major role in these debates and which have been claimed to support
solar hypotheses. My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by an incorrect handling of the physical data. Since the graphs are still widely referred to in the literature and their misleading character has not yet been generally recognized, I have found it appropriate to deliver the present overview. Especially, I want to caution against drawing any conclusions based upon these graphs concerning the possible wisdom or futility of reducing the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases.
My 1ndings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and terrestrial climate. Such links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors. The sole objective of the present analysis is to draw attention to the fact that some of the widely publicized, apparent correlations do not properly re9ect the underlying physical data.”
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf
“Abstract: It has been claimed by others that observed temporal correlations of terrestrial cloud cover with ‘the cosmic ray intensity’ are causal. The possibility arises, therefore, of a connection between cosmic rays and Global Warming. If true, the implications would be very great.
We have examined this claim to look for evidence to corroborate it. So far we have not found any and
so our tentative conclusions are to doubt it. Such correlations as appear are more likely to be due to the small variations in solar irradiance, which, of course, correlate with cosmic rays. We estimate that less than 15% of the 11-year cycle warming variati”
All this and not one reference to RC – you will be happy
Ender – we can swap peer reviewed science all day without proving anything. I don’t push the climate/cosmic ray/clouds link as the whole answer to climate change, but there is evidence that a link is real.
This paper suggests s a UV link to clouds rather than cosmic rays:
http://folk.uio.no/jegill/papers/2002GL015646.pdf
Quote RC if you like – I enjoy a good laugh!
As for AGW – it is based on an exaggerated unverifiable modelled climate sensitivity to CO2, and CO2 lagging temperature change in the past. Most feedbacks are assumed to be positive, surface temperature data assumes little in the way of non-climatic influences, flawed climate reconstructions, an underestimation of natural variability., a low solar LOSU, and so on – all of which are being challenged by peer reviewed science, which is ignored by the media – so I publicise it here. Worse still, the AGW case is harmed by those following another agenda, who don’t care what causes climate change, as long as they can use it as a bandwagon in order to achieve their objectives – political, financial, or both. Get past the above – then there is the problem of attempting to reduce CO2 emissions and manipulate atmospheric CO2 – enter Bjorn Lomborg and Prins/Rayner. It’s a no hope situation without a viable alternative to fossil fuels.
Now back onto the energy thread:
http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.1945354.0.0.php
FIRST THE credit crunch, now the energy crunch. Just as household electricity bills go stratospheric the first coal-fired power station to be built in Britain for more than 30 years has been approved by Medway Council in Kent. The £1 billion plant at Kingsnorth, near Ashford, will be coal-burning – and carbon-producing – so is hardly an example to India or coal-rich China on how not to overheat the planet. But it will be built if only for one reason – to keep the lights on in the south of England.
–The Sunday Herald, 6 January 2008
The Marxists, sorry ‘greens,’ are upset:
Campaigners say both would result in more carbon emissions, undermining the Government’s recently agreed targets on climate change.
Dr Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MEP for the South East, said Gordon Brown “has no claim to climate change credentials”.
“This has reinforced my perception that this government seems to be living in two parallel universes,” she told Kent on Sunday.
“In one it has its rhetoric about climate change and its Climate Change Bill, yet in the other universe there is no indication they’re taking it seriously at all.”
A Greenpeace spokesman said: “Both the allowed increases in rail fares and the serious consideration of the first coal-fired power station in more than 30 years are indicative of this government’s incoherence on climate change.
“On the one hand they’re urging us, the public, to turn down our thermostats, to fly less and to drive less and on the other hand they’re allowing train fares to rise and building new runways for airports and new power stations.”
VAST coal reserves in Asia are gaining attention as major energy consumers such as China and India grapple with the reality of oil prices around $US100 a barrel and the risks they pose to their economies. Multibillion-dollar facilities that convert coal to oil are being studied across Asia, while utilities are shelving plans to build power plants that use natural gas or fuel oil because prices of those fuels track the cost of crude.
–David Winning, The Australian, 7 January 2007
I’ve got a great idea.
Let’s agree to have the warmers pilot the use of these so-called alternative modes of energy production, etc. with a deadline of say 5 years out. After that they would no longer have access to:
– ICE driven vehicles
– Power produced by fossil fuels (and nuclear as well as on principle most of them oppose that too).
– New building construction based on the use of cement.
Once they prove that “they” can get by quite happily without these with minimal or no economic pain, then us rationalists can follow their lead.
As if!
Mark – “Once they prove that “they” can get by quite happily without these with minimal or no economic pain, then us rationalists can follow their lead.”
I see Mark, having no arguments left worth anything you bring up this old chestnut. And before you crow too much yes if I were to convert to what you say I should do, I would suffer economic pain. Unilateral action is always more expensive. Single off grid power systems are expensive however many many people run fine off the grid. There are lower emission alternatives to Portland cement however they are more expensive. There are no electric cars available in Australia. The only thing close is the Vectrix scooter which costs $17 500 here.
We do not have to eliminate all fossil fuels, just get their use under about 30% and sequester as much of the CO2 as we can. I do not think that we can sequester much however any is better than nothing. Gasifying coal is OK as the gas is fed to gas turbines that work much better with renewables and it is easier to capture the CO2. Also the same turbines can be fed from gasifying waste biomass or methane from waste dumps or coal seams. The new thin film solar )http://www.nanosolar.com/index.html) and the large scale solar thermal from the Australian AUSRA that includes storage coupled with wind, tidal, wave and geothermal in time can be increased to the required 70%. Most of the power generation infrastructure has to be replaced anyway in this time frame so the economic pain for implementing such technologies are less than us usually estimated. Coupled with efficiency gains that save money the final cost will be a lot less that most people think for an integrated, large scale approach.
BTW how do you think you would get on without the same. Fossil fuels, especially oil, are getting scarce and/or unusable. What are you going to do when petrol is $3.00 per liter?
Also perhaps you should do the same. If you are such an economic rationalist then I assume you object to Medicare, Child Allowance or any other socialist government handouts. I suggest that you should do without any of these for a while and see how you go.
I have an a/c. I understand that because they are high power but only in use for small periods of the year, they have a disproportionate impact on grid operation. I’ve seen some suggestions that each a/c costs over $1,000 in grid management.
I am happy to have my a/c regulated to some extent to account for this.
Building new power stations to meet peaky loads that are only there for a handful of days a year will raise electricity prices for everyone and be inefficient. That sucks. How economic do you think it is to have power stations to meet a 13,000 MW load on several days a year when the average load is about 8,000 MW?
Either a/c should be hit with a tax so that the true costs of their impact on the grid are paid for by the user, or else a/c operation can be regulated.
The national grid is not private property, it is national infrastructure that you need to pay to use. If you aren’t happy with the way ‘big brother’ is regulating your a/c use, then the solution is simple: get a home power supply for $20,000 and go off grid. Otherwise, quit whinging and be thankful that tax i mentioned above isn’t imposed.
about $3,000 per peak kW Steve. In many instances it would be cheaper to purchase and install new efficient air-con than to build the infrastructure required to supply it.
But in the name of ideology we allow free markets to decide whats best for us without question. Not saying free markets are evil, just saying there is a place for intelligent regulation.
Biggsy, there is no reason why a politics and environment blog, when looking at the efficacy of government spending, cannot comment on spending in other sectors by way of reference.
Will 34 nuclear plants make a serious difference to China’s emission projections over this century or not, Moebus?
Spare us your baggage and stick to the topic for once.
Not only is the temperature record failing to support Climate Cretinism, the emissions projections are crashing all around us as well.
“Unilateral action is always more expensive. Single off grid power systems are expensive however many many people run fine off the grid.”
Who says it has to be unilateral? Take all the climate twits and build a power infrastructure out of windmills, solar and backup generators and let them pay a collective rate for the power supplied from said infrastructure. I’m sure that many people will be “losing their religion” once they realize what it’ll cost them.
“Most of the power generation infrastructure has to be replaced anyway in this time frame so the economic pain for implementing such technologies are less than us usually estimated.”
It still comes down to cost/kwh. If your new technologies can compete then great! If not, then there is no reason to impose economic penalties on the masses by blind adherence to these alternate generation sources. And conservation doesn’t enter into it. It’s utilization will be driven by the economics and is available where appropriate regardless of the generation technology, old or new.
“BTW how do you think you would get on without the same. Fossil fuels, especially oil, are getting scarce and/or unusable. What are you going to do when petrol is $3.00 per liter?”
Celebrate!!! After all I’m a “denier” aren’t I and hence must work for an oil company!
“Also perhaps you should do the same. If you are such an economic rationalist then I assume you object to Medicare, Child Allowance or any other socialist government handouts. I suggest that you should do without any of these for a while and see how you go.”
Where did that come from Bender? Is that what people spew when their favourite book is Das Kapital?
“But in the name of ideology we allow free markets to decide whats best for us without question. Not saying free markets are evil, just saying there is a place for intelligent regulation.”
Just silly. Who doesn’t think there is a place for intelligent regulation? The problem is that regulation is rarely intelligent and more often then not is the cause of future problems without having solved the current one, eg. CFLs. See http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/iWeb/Global%20Warming%20Politics/A%20Hot%20Topic%20Blog/EA68FDBB-2CF3-4712-B482-EA83DF58528C.html
Ender
Herewith the original paper describing the experiment.
http://www.gasresources.net/KutcherovKenneyEtAl-2002(Russian).pdf
You are basically are clueless because I stressed spontaneous production of hydrocarbons – you are referring to the Fischer-Tropsch method which is a driven process requiring a lot of energy to create hydrocarbons.
Abstract:
The spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons which comprise natural petroleum have been analyzed by chemical thermodynamic stability theory. The constraints imposed upon chemical evolution by the second law of thermodynamics are briefly reviewed; and the effective prohibition of transformation, in the regime of temperatures and pressures characteristic of the near-surface crust of the Earth, of biological molecules into hydrocarbon molecules heavier than methane is recognized.
For the theoretical analysis of this phenomenon, a general, first-principles equation of state has been developed by extending scaled particle theory (SPT) and by using the technique of the factored partition function of the Simplified Perturbed Hard Chain Theory (SPHCT). The chemical potentials, and the respective thermodynamic Affinity, have been calculated for typical components of the hydrogen-carbon (H-C) system over a range pressures between 1-100 kbar, and at temperatures consistent with those of the depths of the Earth at such pressures. The theoretical analyses establish that the normal alkanes, the homologous hydrocarbon group of lowest chemical potential, evolve only at pressures greater than approximately thirty kbar, excepting only the lightest, methane. The pressure of thirty kbar corresponds to depths of approximately 100 km.
For experimental verification of the predictions of the theoretical analysis, special high-pressure apparatus has been designed which permits investigations at pressures to 50 kbar and temperatures to 1500°C, and which also allows rapid cooling while maintaining high pressures. The high-pressure genesis of petroleum hydrocarbons has been demonstrated using only the solid reagents solid iron oxide, FeO, and marble, CaCO3, 99.9% pure, wet with triple-distilled water.
Natural petroleum is a hydrogen-carbon [H-C] system, in distinctly non-equilibrium states, composed of mixtures of highly reduced, hydrocarbon molecules, all of very high chemical potential, most in the liquid phase. As such, the phenomenon of the terrestrial existence of natural petroleum in the near-surface crust of the Earth has presented several challenges, most of which have remained unresolved until recently. The primary scientific problem of petroleum has been the existence and genesis of the individual hydrocarbon molecules themselves: how, and under what thermodynamic conditions, can such highly-reduced molecules of high chemical potential evolve.
The scientific problem of the genesis of hydrocarbons of natural petroleum, and consequentially of the origin of natural petroleum deposits, has regrettably been one too much neglected by competent physicists and chemists; the subject has been obscured by diverse, unscientific hypotheses, typically connected with the rococo hypothesis(1) that highly-reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high chemical potentials might somehow evolve from highly-oxidized biotic molecules of low chemical potential. The scientific problem of the spontaneous evolution of the hydrocarbon molecules comprising natural petroleum is one of chemical thermodynamic stability theory. This problem does not involve the properties of rocks where petroleum might be found, nor of microorganisms observed in crude oil.
This paper is organized into five parts. The first section reviews briefly the formalism of modern thermodynamic stability theory, the theoretical framework for the analysis of the genesis of hydrocarbons and the H-C system, – as similarly for any system.
The second section examines, applying the constraints of thermodynamics, the notion that hydrocarbons might evolve spontaneously from biological molecules. Here are described the spectra of chemical potentials of hydrocarbon molecules, particularly the naturally-occurring ones present in petroleum. Interpretation of the significance of the relative differences between the chemical potentials of the hydrocarbon system and those of biological molecules, applying the dictates of thermodynamic stability theory, disposes of any hypothesis of an origin for hydrocarbon molecules from biological matter, excepting only the lightest, methane.
In the third section is described a first-principles, statistical mechanical formalism, developed from an extended representation of scaled particle theory appropriate for mixtures of aspherical, hard-body molecules, combined with a mean-field representation of the long-range, attractive component of the intermolecular potential.
In the fourth section, the thermodynamic Affinity developed using this formalism establishes that the hydrocarbon molecules peculiar to natural petroleum are high-pressure polymorphs of the H-C system, similarly as diamond and lonsdalite are to graphite for the elemental carbon system, and evolve only in thermodynamic regimes of pressures greater than 25-50 kbar.
The fifth section reports the experimental results obtained using equipment specially-designed to test the predictions of the previous sections. Application of pressures to 50 kbar and temperatures to 1500°C upon solid (and obviously abiotic) CaCO3 and FeO, wet with triple-distilled water, all in the absence of any initial hydrocarbon or biotic molecules, evolves the suite of petroleum fluids: methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, branched isomers of those compounds, and the lightest of the n-alkene series.
Pasted from
Since then Kenney et al have been able to extend the experiment as previously outlined in a different post I made on another thread.
THIS IS NOT THE FISCHER TROPSCH process Ender which you seem to be believe to be the case.
Now come up with your experimental proof that hydrocarbons can be spontaneously generated from biomass buried at depths typically found at the base of sedimentary basins.
I don’t know what its like where you come from proteus, but where i come from, fluorescent lighting has been around for decades, in the vast majority of non-residential applications including offices, shopping centres, schools, etc, and most residences would have at least one fluoro tube lighting something like a garage or outdoors. Not sure why you think the mercury thing is something new, that the regulators somehow failed to consider.
CFLs, like their larger versions, use less energy and save money. That’s why they get used and promoted, and why this all of a sudden worry about mercury content is a joke. Why weren’t you worried 30 years ago? If this regulation were no good because the risks of mercury content were too high, then surely fluorescents would have been banned long ago for the same reason?
Proteus…
Biggsy clearly thinks there is no place for intelligent regulation e.g. energy efficient buildings, appliances, thermostat control etc.
Ender
replenishinh oil fields
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/2349.asp
“Some strange things are happening in the field of oil exploration. Almost all over the world, in many oil and gas fields (not all) as crude oil and gas is being pumped out at a rate never witnessed before, the reserves are actually getting replenished through some strange phenomenon.
According to sources the phenomenon is especially conspicuous in offshore oil and gas fields.”
Since you live down south of Perth, I wonder is that the Perth I am familiar with or is the Perth you are familiar with on another planet?
Louis – “Herewith the original paper describing the experiment.”
And it is a good paper however they did not produce crude oil and they used pressures and temperatures equivalent to much deeper in the crust than 99.9999% of the biotic oil has been found.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_27/ai_100755208/pg_1
” But the news stories, Kenney says, are written on the premise that “I have ‘developed a thermodynamic argument that demonstrates that the hydrocarbon molecules of natural petroleum cannot evolve spontaneously at the low pressures and temperatures of the near-surface crust of the Earth.’ Such is absolute nonsense. Many geologists would agree. But, Kenney adds, “The fact that the hydrocarbon molecules which comprise natural petroleum cannot evolve spontaneously at the low pressures and temperatures of the near-surface crust of the Earth has been known by competent physicists, chemists, and chemical engineers for over a century. In my article, I only reviewed this knowledge briefly, using the efficient formalism of modern thermodynamics.”
Kenney’s slap in the face to the competence of modern geologists is nor winning him any converts. Even astrophysicist Thomas Gold of Cornell University, who wrote two books on the subject of inorganic oil on Earth, is surprised by the media’s response. There is nothing new about any mix of hydrogen and carbon at pressures of 40 kilobar or so, and temperatures of greater than 800 degrees Celsius, forming oil.”
Most commercial drilling occurs in sedimentary rock where source material temperatures range between 75 and 200 degrees Celsius. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Gold spearheaded a project, which he says also involved Kenney, to illustrate the prospects of abiogenic oil and gas by drilling into crystalline rock in Sweden. But the granite did not yield an economically viable result.”
Here also is a rebuttal of abiotic oil from someone who knows the subject better than me:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/11/4/15537/8056
“Below, a good rebuttal by Dr. John Clarke:
The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world’s liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.
1. The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.
2. The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).
3. The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).
3. The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).
4. Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).
5. The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory.
6. The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).
7. The location of petroleum reservoirs down the hydraulic gradient from the source rocks in many cases (those which are not are in areas where there is clear evidence of post migration tectonism).
8 ) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks (the rare exceptions discussed below).
The evidence usually cited in favour of abiogenic petroleum can all be better explained by the biogenic hypothesis e.g.:
9. Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in igneous rocks (better explained by reaction with organic rich country rocks, with which the pyrobitumens can usually be tied).
10. Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in metamorphic rocks (better explained by metamorphism of residual hydrocarbons in the protolith).
11. The very rare occurrence of small hydrocarbon accumulations in igneous or metamorphic rocks (in every case these are adjacent to organic rich sedimentary rocks to which the hydrocarbons can be tied via biomarkers).
12. The presence of undoubted mantle derived gases (such as He and some CO2) in some natural gas (there is no reason why gas accumulations must be all from one source, given that some petroleum fields are of mixed provenance it is inevitable that some mantle gas contamination of biogenic hydrocarbons will occur under some circumstances).
13. The presence of traces of hydrocarbons in deep wells in crystalline rock (these can be formed by a range of processes, including metamorphic synthesis by the fischer-tropsch reaction, or from residual organic matter as in 10).
14. Traces of hydrocarbon gases in magma volatiles (in most cases magmas ascend through sedimentary succession, any organic matter present will be thermally cracked and some will be incorporated into the volatile phase, some fischer-tropsch synthesis can also occur).
15. Traces of hydrocarbon gases at mid ocean ridges (such traces are not surprising given that the upper mantle has been contaminated with biogenic organic matter through several billion years of subduction, the answer to 14 may be applicable also).
The geological evidence is utterly against the abiogenic postulate. ”
So have a go at rebutting these.
Louis – “Since you live down south of Perth, I wonder is that the Perth I am familiar with or is the Perth you are familiar with on another planet?”
No I think that it is you that inhabits the strange planet if you are going to take as fact an editorial that appeared in the India Times that does not mention by name any fields that are replenishing or include any references to any other articles written by any sort of professional petroleum geologist.
Also it mentions that it is replenishing from biotically formed oil that is trapped in areas so does not support abiotic oil even one tiny bit even if it was 100% factual.
I suggest that you have a good look around and if people are behaving strangely then perhaps you might question the Perth you are inhabiting.
Ender
post above, Since everyone believes oil is fossil fuel, what on earth do you expect them to say? And have a bit of a think about it and figure out how the fossil oil actually got down there in the first place and where it is to be replenishing the oil in sedimentary basins.
You might find underneath the sedimentary basins are crustal rocks (granitoids, gabbroids, etc) and this is where the oil seems to be coming from.
So what Lyellian obfuscation are you now going to invoke this problem?
Rebuttal
Louis – “Herewith the original paper describing the experiment.”
And it is a good paper however they did not produce crude oil and they used pressures and temperatures equivalent to much deeper in the crust than 99.9999% of the biotic oil has been found.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_27/ai_100755208/pg_1
Ender: What on earth do you think hydrocarbons are?
Ender, did you read the following abstract? No because that paper (I hoped you might work out which one it is on Kenney’s site but you apparently haven’t otherwise you would realise that section 5 details the experimental etc etc etc) explicitly details the results of the experiment which I need to again quote here
”
The fifth section reports the experimental results obtained using equipment specially-designed to test the predictions of the previous sections. Application of pressures to 50 kbar and temperatures to 1500°C upon solid (and obviously abiotic) CaCO3 and FeO, wet with triple-distilled water, all in the absence of any initial hydrocarbon or biotic molecules, evolves the suite of petroleum fluids: methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, branched isomers of those compounds, and the lightest of the n-alkene series.
” But the news stories, Kenney says, are written on the premise that “I have ‘developed a thermodynamic argument that demonstrates that the hydrocarbon molecules of natural petroleum cannot evolve spontaneously at the low pressures and temperatures of the near-surface crust of the Earth.’ Such is absolute nonsense. Many geologists would agree. But, Kenney adds, “The fact that the hydrocarbon molecules which comprise natural petroleum cannot evolve spontaneously at the low pressures and temperatures of the near-surface crust of the Earth has been known by competent physicists, chemists, and chemical engineers for over a century. In my article, I only reviewed this knowledge briefly, using the efficient formalism of modern thermodynamics.”
Kenney’s slap in the face to the competence of modern geologists is nor winning him any converts. Even astrophysicist Thomas Gold of Cornell University, who wrote two books on the subject of inorganic oil on Earth, is surprised by the media’s response. There is nothing new about any mix of hydrogen and carbon at pressures of 40 kilobar or so, and temperatures of greater than 800 degrees Celsius, forming oil.”
Ender, Tommy Gold plagiarised the Russian work, as shown in detail on Kenney’s site, which indicates you have not bothered to check out the facts.
Most commercial drilling occurs in sedimentary rock where source material temperatures range between 75 and 200 degrees Celsius. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Gold spearheaded a project, which he says also involved Kenney, to illustrate the prospects of abiogenic oil and gas by drilling into crystalline rock in Sweden. But the granite did not yield an economically viable result
Ender, I suggest you get a copy of Gold’s “The hot deep biosphere” and get your facts right.
Here also is a rebuttal of abiotic oil from someone who knows the subject better than me:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/11/4/15537/8056
“Below, a good rebuttal by Dr. John Clarke:
The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world’s liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.
Where is the experimenetal proof of this Ender
1. The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.
Partly true, but this http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/02feb/vietnam.cfm and the
reason oil companies find oil in sediments is because of the belief that oil is biogenic.
2. The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).
Oil is an excellent organic solvent and if the oil is abiotic and rises up from the mantle to invade sedimentary rocks, then it will incorporate all the biogenic material in those deposits. This is essentially a logical fallacy and does not constitute proof.
3. The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).
Again ages are determined by the sedimentary basins themselves, and abiotic oil invading neoproterozoic rocks will naturally only contain neoproterozoic biomarkers, hence it is interpreted as old.
3. The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).
Same logical fallacy – my cat has four legs as my dog, therefore my cat is a dog.
4. Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).
As Kenny and others note, oil is indeed unstable but no one has shown how biomass at low temperatures can be spontaneously converted to oil. Until they do that, it is mere rhetoric.
5. The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory.
Logical fallacy again – Kerogen with biomarkers.
6. The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).
98.89 of all carbon atoms are C12, while C13 is magnetic, and C14 formed in the atmosphere so it is fairly obvious that abiotic oil will be formed from C12.
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461565837_761577017_-1_1/Isotopes_of_Carbon.html
7. The location of petroleum reservoirs down the hydraulic gradient from the source rocks in many cases (those which are not are in areas where there is clear evidence of post migration tectonism).
But not all cases?
8 ) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks (the rare exceptions discussed below).
Vietnam is one example and the Ukrainian fields another.
The evidence usually cited in favour of abiogenic petroleum can all be better explained by the biogenic hypothesis e.g.:
9. Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in igneous rocks (better explained by reaction with organic rich country rocks, with which the pyrobitumens can usually be tied).
Examples ? None given – argument ignored.
10. Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in metamorphic rocks (better explained by metamorphism of residual hydrocarbons in the protolith).
Possible.
11. The very rare occurrence of small hydrocarbon accumulations in igneous or metamorphic rocks (in every case these are adjacent to organic rich sedimentary rocks to which the hydrocarbons can be tied via biomarkers).
Examples? None cited – dismissed until more data is given.
Mantle derived gases (such as He and some CO2) in some natural gas (there is no reason why gas accumulations must be all from one source, given that some petroleum fields are of mixed provenance it is inevitable that some mantle gas contamination of biogenic hydrocarbons will occur under some circumstances).
Oh so we do allow mantle origins for some of the things found in natural gas –
13. The presence of traces of hydrocarbons in deep wells in crystalline rock (these can be formed by a range of processes, including metamorphic synthesis by the fischer-tropsch reaction, or from residual organic matter as in 10).
Wrong – metamorphism cannot emulate the fischer-tropsch method.
14. Traces of hydrocarbon gases in magma volatiles (in most cases magmas ascend through sedimentary succession, any organic matter present will be thermally cracked and some will be incorporated into the volatile phase, some fischer-tropsch synthesis can also occur).
Oh really? Don’t see too many magmas in the Sydney basin, dolerite dykes not included) or Bowen basin – author seems not to understand geology too well.
15. Traces of hydrocarbon gases at mid ocean ridges (such traces are not surprising given that the upper mantle has been contaminated with biogenic organic matter through several billion years of subduction, the answer to 14 may be applicable also).
Subduction is now recognised as a nonsense.
The geological evidence is utterly against the abiogenic postulate. ”
So have a go at rebutting these.
Ender
I have rebutted all your points above.
Ender, Happy New Year!
Just thought I’d bring to your attention that you are beginning the new year arguing crackpot theories with Louis.
Are you sure that is a worthy way to start a brand new year?
Anthony – you specialise in ‘straw man’ arguments – there is nothing wrong with energy efficiency – nor have I said that there is – there is everything wrong with ‘big brother’ controlling the thermostat, but non of this will have any effect on climate.
My house is built to the latest UK energy efficiency standards – polystyrene slab in the downstairs concrete floors, cavity wall insulation, thick loft insulation, and
double glazing, but ‘big brother’ doesn’t have control of my thermostat.
The law replacing conventional light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs is an example of misguided stupidity in the name of ‘global warming.’ Market forces would dictate which type of bulb people buy – if CFBs are cost effective and equivalent to conventional bulbs, then people will buy them without the need for a ban/law and the conventional bulb would be phased out. Now there is the worry about the content of Mercury in CFBs, a possible link with migraine, and the fact that they are not suitable for some light fittings/situations.
Ender
to cap it off
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum.
J. F. Kenney
Joint Institute of The Physics of the Earth – Russian Academy of Sciences
Gas Resources Corporation, 11811 North Freeway, Houston, TX 77060, U.S.A.
Ac. Ye. F. Shnyukov
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Vladimirskaya Street 56, 252.601 Kiev, Ukraine
V. A. Krayushkin
Institute of Geological Sciences
O. Gonchara Street 55-B, 01054 Kiev, Ukraine
I. K. Karpov
Institute of Geochemistry – Russian Academy of Sciences
Favorskii Street 1a, 664.033 Irkutsk, RUSSIA
V. G. Kutcherov
Russian State University of Oil and Gas
Leninskii Prospect 65, 117.917 Moscow, Russia
I. N. Plotnikova
National Petroleum Company of Tatarstan (TatNeft S.A.)
Butlerov Street 45-54, 423.020 Kazan, Tatarstan, RUSSIA
Steve
Abiotic oil is a crackpot idea? Biogenic oil is better so described unless you can provide the experimental evidence that one can spontaneously generate petroleum from buried biomass.
As oil is metastable (ie at surface temperatures is decomposes) then it surely cannot have been produced at the base of sedimentary rocks since at those temperatures and pressures only methane is stable.
Oh, I forget we have the following sequence of events:
1. Biomass is deposited in sediments
2. Sediments buried.
3. Then a miracle occurs
4. Oil is produced.
That is the crackpot theory.
Louis – “Ender, did you read the following abstract? No because that paper (I hoped you might work out which one it is on Kenney’s site but you apparently haven’t otherwise you would realise that section 5 details the experimental etc etc etc) explicitly details the results of the experiment which I need to again quote here”
Yes I did – they produced some lighter hydrocarbons from temperature and pressures far beyond what is found where oil is found. They did not produce crude oil.
1. “Partly true, but this http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/02feb/vietnam.cfm and the reason oil companies find oil in sediments is because of the belief that oil is biogenic.”
Not partly true at all. 99.9% of current oil is from sedimentary rocks and it is found there because oil is biotic.
2. “Oil is an excellent organic solvent and if the oil is abiotic and rises up from the mantle to invade sedimentary rocks, then it will incorporate all the biogenic material in those deposits. This is essentially a logical fallacy and does not constitute proof.”
So oil rises up from the mantle where it is too hot for it to exist as most of the long chain organic molecules in crude oil break down at high temperatures which is the basis of our refining industry. The sendimentary rocks that fill with hot oil from the mantle then dissolve biomarkers that also break down at the same temperatures. However according to biotic theory the animals and plants that sank to the bottom of shallow seas and were incorporated into sendimentary rocks and then the biomass being converted to oil would explain it far more simply trying to get crude oil from the mantle where it is too hot to exist.
4. “As Kenny and others note, oil is indeed unstable but no one has shown how biomass at low temperatures can be spontaneously converted to oil. Until they do that, it is mere rhetoric.”
No this is the showstopper for aboitic oil. You cannot possibly think that abiotic crude oil exists when the conditions that you believe it is created in is to hot to for it to be created. There is heaps of secondary evidence for biotic theory that needs no leaps of faith such as this one. You cannot explain it other than a pathetic appeal to biotic theory having to prove the end to end production of oil before it is valid which is just you attempt to deflect from the abiotic showstopper.
And no more is needed. You cannot explain the showstopper so abiotic oil is dead even if it was ever alive. The rest of your ‘rebuttal’ would produce howls of derision if you ever presented it to your peers. You are not just a punter on a blog here – you are a professional geologist and if this is your professional opinion then something is sadly lacking. Generations of geologists have worked on the dates for the rocks that you casually dismiss so obviously you only have contempt for the people that founded your profession. How do you go prospecting seeings as you do not accept the dates of the rocks you find minerals in?
The geological evidence is utterly against abiotic oil and nothing you have posted has changed that.
Steve – “Just thought I’d bring to your attention that you are beginning the new year arguing crackpot theories with Louis.”
Abiotic oil is one of the crackpot fantasies that is just a little bit dangerous. It engenders the notion that there is nothing that we need do about Peak Oil as the wells will fill up as we use them. Peak Oil is a serious issue and will lead to widespread disruptions to our fossil fuel based society unless measures are taken to reduce our dependance on oil.
Crackpot ideas like Louis’s do not help and should be slammed down as the psuedo scientific crap that it is.
Ender
Abiotic oil is not one of my ideas but of many scientists.
You will find that AGW will be known historically as another crackpot fantasy by our future generations.
Don’t you just hate it when you cannot torpedo rational thoughts with irrationality? Fortunately for me, and other lateral thinkers, you are not it charge otherwise I would be wondering what Giordano Bruno thought when he was being immolated by the faggots placed under him and set alight some centuries ago.
Put simply – you have not been able to prove your debating position and being unable to do so resort to personal vilification. The hallmark of a bounder and cad.
Louis – “Ender, did you read the following abstract? No because that paper (I hoped you might work out which one it is on Kenney’s site but you apparently haven’t otherwise you would realise that section 5 details the experimental etc etc etc) explicitly details the results of the experiment which I need to again quote here”
Yes I did – they produced some lighter hydrocarbons from temperature and pressures far beyond what is found where oil is found. They did not produce crude oil.
Ender: You cannot produce those hydrocarbons at the P and T where oil is normally found. This is the issue, and like AGW, it might be true if we suspend a few of the well known physical laws.
1. “Partly true, but this http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/02feb/vietnam.cfm and the reason oil companies find oil in sediments is because of the belief that oil is biogenic.”
Not partly true at all. 99.9% of current oil is from sedimentary rocks and it is found there because oil is biotic.
So it is, and you are guilty of the logical fallacy that having 4 legs my cat is a dog.
2. “Oil is an excellent organic solvent and if the oil is abiotic and rises up from the mantle to invade sedimentary rocks, then it will incorporate all the biogenic material in those deposits. This is essentially a logical fallacy and does not constitute proof.”
So oil rises up from the mantle where it is too hot for it to exist as most of the long chain organic molecules in crude oil break down ats high temperatures which is the basis of our refining industry. The sendimentary rocks that fill with hot oil from the mantle then dissolve biomarkers that also break down at the same temperatures. However according to biotic theory the animals and plants that sank to the bottom of shallow seas and were incorporated into sendimentary rocks and then the biomass being converted to oil would explain it far more simply trying to get crude oil from the mantle where it is too hot to exist.
Ender: “So oil rises up from the mantle where it is too hot to exist” – hmm what about pressure Ender? You omitted this crucial parameter, so the rest of your explanation is, as you so eloquently put it, is crap.
4. “As Kenny and others note, oil is indeed unstable but no one has shown how biomass at low temperatures can be spontaneously converted to oil. Until they do that, it is mere rhetoric.”
No this is the showstopper for aboitic oil. You cannot possibly think that abiotic crude oil exists when the conditions that you believe it is created in is to hot to for it to be created.
Ender: your understanding of thermodynamics seems somewhat incomplete. How much gunja have you inhaled with this crap?
There is heaps of secondary evidence for biotic theory that needs no leaps of faith such as this one.
BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE NO PRIMARY EVIDENCE OTHERWISE I WOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF IT BY YOU.
You cannot explain it other than a pathetic appeal to biotic theory having to prove the end to end production of oil before it is valid which is just you attempt to deflect from the abiotic showstopper.
RAMBLING again Ender.
And no more is needed. You cannot explain the showstopper so abiotic oil is dead even if it was ever alive. The rest of your ‘rebuttal’ would produce howls of derision if you ever presented it to your peers.
My peers? Ender, you have no idea how science, real science works.
You are not just a punter on a blog here – you are a professional geologist and if this is your professional opinion then something is sadly lacking. Generations of geologists have worked on the dates for the rocks that you casually dismiss so obviously you only have contempt for the people that founded your profession. How do you go prospecting seeings as you do not accept the dates of the rocks you find minerals in?
Ender, I have not casually dismissed any dates for rocks – you simply have no idea of what you are thinking about.
The geological evidence is utterly against abiotic oil and nothing you have posted has changed that
And that makes you not a liar but ……
Steve, I wasn’t worried about it 30 years ago because I was five year old. Shame on me.
The only thing that really pisses me off about AGW, is, that we can’t talk about the weather anymore, the way we used to. Now, if you mention weather, there is every likelihood that someone will start an argument, despite the fact, that we still can do bugger all about it!
Unless of course you believe the “comp. modeling”!
Louis – “Don’t you just hate it when you cannot torpedo rational thoughts with irrationality? Fortunately for me, and other lateral thinkers, you are not it charge otherwise I would be wondering what Giordano Bruno thought when he was being immolated by the faggots placed under him and set alight some centuries ago.”
No I hate it when I cannot torpedo irrational ideas that have no basis in reality with peer reviewed science and practical experience of approx 100 years of petroleum geology.
Lateral thinking does not involve thinking the opposite of the mainstream and thinking that you are clever. The real wisdom is to recognise what in the mainstream might be correct and what is might be false. What is based on solid science and what is not. You fail to do this. You seem to think that whatever is mainstream is wrong and you are really clever because you think the opposite. Where you really oppressed as a child Louis? This is a pretty late rebellious phase and is as childish.
“Put simply – you have not been able to prove your debating position and being unable to do so resort to personal vilification”
Sorry Louis the only person resorting to this is the one that cannot prove any of his arguments and that is you. Not one of your notions is born out by the evidence.
“Ender: You cannot produce those hydrocarbons at the P and T where oil is normally found. This is the issue, and like AGW, it might be true if we suspend a few of the well known physical laws.”
Yes you can as growing algae and processing it at similar temperature and pressures produce a range of products more similar to crude oil than abiotic experiments.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7241e/w7241e0h.htm
“Petroleum is widely believed to have its origins in kerogen, which is easily converted to an oily substance under conditions of high pressure and temperature (15-17). Kerogen is formed from algae, biodegraded organic compounds, plankton, bacteria, plant material, etc., by biochemical and/or chemical reactions such as diagenesis and catagenesis. Several studies have been conducted to simulate petroleum formation by pyrolysis, some of which used the marine alga Fucus sp. as the base material. Recently, activated sludge and fungi were converted to oily substances at relatively low temperatures as compared with those used in previous experimental simulations. On the basis of these findings, it is assumed that algae grown in CO2-enriched air can be converted to oily substances, and that such an approach can contribute to solving two major problems: air pollution resulting from CO2 evolution, and future crises due to a shortage of energy sources. Use of thermochemical liquefaction of organisms in the production of alternative fuels, would reduce CO2 evolution into the atmosphere since such fuels would indeed be produced from CO2.”
So let summerise.
1. Not one barrel of proven abiotic oil has ever been produced whereas approx 2 trillion barrels of oil found where biotic oil should be has been found.
2. Hydrocarbons similar to oil have been produced using similar temps and pressures to oil forming regions as a part of a program to produce oil substitutes from algae.
3. Crude oil breaks down at temperatures and pressures found in the mantle. If that was not true then our refining system would not work that use high temperatures and pressures (and catalysts) to crack the long chain molecules of crude oil into the smaller fractions that comprise the oil products that we use. So crude oil as we find it cannot possibly be produced in the mantel. Gold and Kenny have no answer to that.
4. the sequence of oil formation as described by you is:
“1. Biomass is deposited in sediments
2. Sediments buried.
3. Then a miracle occurs
4. Oil is produced.”
However step 3 is
Temperature and pressure are applied and oil forms from the lipids and fatty acids in the biomass as evidenced in the lab. Not a miracle.
The miracle is that so much oil has been trapped in favourable conditions like in the region in the Middle East.
5. All oil has biomarkers and none of the surrounding sedimentary rocks are denuded of fossils as if they have been leached out. The entire strata of oil bearing rock has consistant stratas of fossils of the plants and animals that formed the oil and there is no evidence whatsoever that any have leached out into the oil by displaced fossils or biomarkers as would happen if hot crude oil bubbled out of the mantle.
6. All oil so far has be found in sedimentary rocks where there is also no evidence that oil is forming out of the base igneous rocks (you do remember the difference between igneous and sedimentary rocks don’t you Louis?) to refill the oil bearing rocks.
7. There are no oil fields in the world that are presently refilling. All of them with no exceptions yet found reach a peak in production and then decline. This is based on the experience of hundreds of thousands of oil wells drilled and producing oil.
You can hang on to your lateral thinking Louis if thats what you call it. Nothing I say or any amount of science or experience will sway you from thinking the opposite of whatever anybody else thinks. Comparing yourself to giants like Bruno is just pathetic. They challenged orthodoxy with new science not denying science as you are doing just to be the rebel.
I’m the author of the American Thinker piece about California’s thermostat regulation.
The issue is only tangentially related to global warming. Really, it is way to mitigate our failure to build adequate electrical infrastructure like new nuclear power plants. Of course, any excuse will do to increase government power.
As to NZ and Australia, I really can’t inject myself into your internal debates but I can mention China. Here in California we have pollution alerts from Chinese coal emissions!
As to the thermostats, the proposed regulation is coming from within a state bureaucracy. One of the issues under contention is whether or not it fits under the existing legislative authorization. I’m asking my legislators “Did you vote for this?!?!” I can’t do much about overzealous bureaucrats but my elected representatives are much more sensitive to public indignation.
I am dealing with this issue in Oz and I can tell you it has nothing to do with not building adequate infrastructure and everything to do with controlling huge costs required to build unecessary peak load infrastructure which is a massive cost to consumers.
Thermostat control is an easy cost effective way to managed this and will have minimal impact on home comfort.
So your choice – take a few degrees off your a/c on peak times or pay cost reflective tariffs. when its 40 outside, the difference b/w 22 and 26 is not much. Get over it and get on with it.
Joseph, if only new nuclear power plants grew out of the ground for free eh?
Do you really think its a good idea to build new billion-dollar infrastructure to meet peaky load that occurs on a handful of days per year? That can only be economical for the builders if they charge a bomb for the electricity they sell.
Don’t you get it? Prices stay low if power isn’t peaky, and air-conditioners are the main contender for contributing to peaks – they are off much of the time, then all switch on at once on hot days.
Options for managing this:
1. Build more power stations to meet peaky load, meaning that EVERYONE’S power bill goes up (ps. you’d probably build gas to meet such loads, nuclear could never be economic under such circumstances)
2. Ban a/c
3. Put a levy on a/c to reflect the disproportionate economic cost they impose on grid management, so that those without a/c don’t need to pay.
4. allow external control of thermostats – people probably would barely notice that there were some changes to their thermostat settings from time to time to help with grid management, the price of a/c would stay cheap (no levy) and the price of power would not go up unnecessarily. And FFS, you could manually override the setting if you wanted!!
5. (for the individual who doesn’t like control). Buy your own power supply and go off grid and use as much a/c as you like when you like at the temperatures you like.
6. Have brown outs and black outs every time it gets really hot or really cold.
7. Mandate energy performance standards in new homes.
8. Put everyone on time-of-use meters, so that during ‘price events’ (ie on really hot days when the grid is stretched) and the wholesale price of electricity skyrockets, people who want to consume electricity pay the true market price (ie many times more than what they typically pay)
You tell me: which option is best to deal with the challenge that millions of a/c together pose to grid management?
Its very easy to criticise ‘overzealous bureaucrats’ from the sidelines, but what is your solution? You are very big on alarmism and scaring the reader with ridiculously emotive expressions like ‘invasion of the sanctity of our homes’, but where is the actual “thinking” in your article? I assume there must be some, given the name of the publication.
When you look at all the options above, I reckon the thermostat control option looks pretty darn sensible.
Ender
I have just received the latest issue of the New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter and some relevant facts demolishing your beliefs in biotic oil were found. The following is a short quote from a letter to the editor:
“At the recent AAPG Conference in Athens, two items were personally significant. The first, a pleasant surprise, was the apparent wide acceptance of the concept of “deep oil” genesis. The second, a less pleasant surprise, was the amount of apparent support for the concept of an expanding earth”. (P.M. James, Engineering Geologist).
The following is an abstract of a scientific paper presented at the AAPG Conference:
“How Abiotic Petroleum Systems Work: Tectonically Driven Deep Fluid Sources
Alexander A. Kitchka, CASRE NASU, Gonchar Str., 55-B, Kiev 01601 Ukraine,
phone: (+ 380 44) 4861148, kitchka@casre.kiev.ua
Origination, maturation, migration and accumulation of abiotic hydrocarbons are immanently linked to basin dynamics and in such a way to crustal evolution and tectonic differentiation of a basin roots through geological time. A new theoretical concept for abiotic origin of petroleum attributes world’s petroleum reserves to sub-crust evolution of volatile saturated zones (VSZ) characterized by high-density population of juvenile fluid inclusions enriched with hydrocarbons.
Atrophication of rifting leads to transformation of the VSZ into a transition zone at crustal-mantle interface with a regional halo of residual fluid inclusions captured during the latest riftogenic pulses. These post-rift residual fluid halos represent near-vertical domains of high fluid concentrations traced upward along primary and secondary fault zones. The next important stage of VSZ development is corresponded to “primary” petroleum migration, a process similar by analogy with that supposed for sedimentary rocks. Progressive decreasing rock elasticity in the residual post-rift crustal-mantle mixture caused by down warping of a sedimentary basin floor and secondary overheating of fluid inclusions stimulate three dImensional re-fracturing under augmentation of lithostatic loading and propagation of micro-cracks swarms that supply the coalescing fault zones with new flow surges of juvenile fluids. Subsidence rates are a very important parameter governing the mobilization ratio for juvenile fluids. These fluids are periodically accumulated and separated in quasi-stable fractured chambers emerging at the transition interface from unstable frictional faulting to localized quasi-plastic shearing.
Ascending dilational “clouds” diverging from the aforementioned chambers along fault surfaces feed with hydrocarbons temporary traps in the crystalline basement and sedimentary cover. Typically, the temporal traps in the upper crust are associated with active or passive multilevel detachment surfaces enabling lateral migration of juvenile hydrocarbons along suprahydrostatic-circulating fluid systems.”
In addition the mythology of Plate Tectonics has been comprehensively refuted with important implications for oil exploration:
“Hydrocarbons in Deep Oceans: from a New Global Tectonic Perspective
Dong R. Choi, Raax Australia Pty Ltd, 6 Mann Place, Higgins 2615 Australia,
phone: +61262544409, fax: +61262544409, raax@ozemail.com.au
A vast amount of hard evidence has accumulated for the continental nature of the “oceanic crust”; presenting the world deep oceans as one of the future frontiers for hydrocarbon exploration. Recent studies of world oceans based on 66 New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, no. 45, December, 2007 dredgings, drillings, paleogeography, and seismic profiling and other geophysical data falsified all tenets of plate tectonics (spreading, subduction and linear magnetic anomaly). A newly emerging global tectonics invokes vertical block movement interacting with the upward-moving deep mantle materials as a primary cause of tectonic movement at the Earth’s surface.
The new geodynamic picture indicates that the “oceanic crust” underneath the basaltic layer consists of Precambrian and Lower Paleozoic rocks which were locally altered, metamorphosed or oceanized. The present oceans were formed from Jurassic to Paleogene time; before that, the wide area of the present oceans formed lands that had gone through a normal continental history. Published seismic profiles in the continental margins reveal the presence of a well-layered, basin filling,
relatively undisturbed units in the upper part of the “oceanic crust”. This unit is considered to be equivalent to the Proterozoic to Lower Paleozoic sequences on continents, which are in many places represented by shallow water carbonates. Several seismic profiles taken across the northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge show graben/rift structures as commonly seen on lands. The graben has thick sedimentary layers under the younger volcanic fills. A comprehensive analysis of regional geological and geophysical data suggests that this sedimentary unit is an older basin-filling sediment, possible of Mesozoic age (Jurassic to Cretaceous?). The above facts, though fragmentary, warrant further systematic, in-depth study of the deep oceans for hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation.”
Quite clearly the Peak Oil myth can no longer be sustained in light of these new discoveries about the actual geology of the earth’s sea floor and the fact that oil is primarily abiotic.
When the facts change Ender, I change my mind. What will you do?
Here is a bit of a discussion on oil wells and how ludicrous the notion of aboitic oil is.
All information about oil wells and how they work I have obtained from the excellent Oil Drum Tech Talk page where oil industry people post really interesting articles for the education of lay people like myself. You can find this wonderful resource at http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/tech_talk and read it and see that I am presenting the current wisdom of the oil industry.
Lets assume for a minute that abiotic oil is correct and oil is created in the magma and bubbles up into the sedimentary oil bearing rocks. Given this assumption, as oil is not bubbling out of the ground all over the place, the oil reservoirs must be at equilibrium pressure. That is the upward pressure of the oil bubbling out of the magma which is at incredible pressure (through I assume cracks and vents in the lower containment rocks) must be balanced by the down force of the cap rock that surrounds the porous sedimentary or carbonate rock that contains the pool of oil. So consider what would happen when we drill through the cap rock. At once the pressure is released and depending on the pressure within the reservoir, oil shoots up into the black geyser that is beloved of TV shows and movies. However not all oil reservoirs are like this – some ooze oil and some do nothing. However as new oil is pumped into the bottom of the reservoir by the oil coming from the magma this should try to restore the pressure within the reservoir. Depending on the size of the cracks/vents this should happen reasonably quickly and maintain some sort of pressure in the reservoir balancing the upward pressure of the magma with the new pressure of the reservoir with a hole in it.
The problem with this is that this has never yet been observed anywhere in the world in any of the hundreds of thousands of oil wells that have produced oil. What does happen in practice is that the initial pressure gradually declines and less and less oil is forced out and the well finishes its primary recovery phase. Then the secondary recovery is done by pumps. These are the rocking arms that you see dotting the landscape of Texas and Russia. Finally as the reservoir is depleted further tertiary techniques including water flooding and CO2 injection are employed in a desperate attempt to maintain well pressure and oil recovery. This is happening right now at the largest oil field in the world, Gwahar where the water cut is approaching 40%, meaning that the oil coming out has almost as much water as oil and the field is nearing the end of its life. Even with all these recovery techniques over 50% of the oil is left in the ground and is not recoverable by any present method.
Surely the fact that abiotic oil depends on oil being formed in the magma and then, as Louis has insisted, makes its way into the sedimentary rocks where all present oil has been found is totally contradicted by not one oil well in a 100 years behaving like this. If abiotic oil were true, surely one of the thousands of oil wells that have been drilled over the past 100 or so years we have been drilling for oil would have sufficient pressure from the incredibly high pressures in the magma to maintain reservoir pressure and not deplete the way all current oil fields have. Even the most ‘lateral thinker’ would have to conclude this is pretty damning evidence against abiotic oil as Louis has propounded it.
The second one is the biomarkers in oil. These, as Louis has said, are there because the aboitic oil bubbling out of the magma is a organic solvent and dissolves biological matter out of the rock. OK lets have a look at this. So even Louis would agree I am sure in sedimentary rocks that are deposited over time by the action of water, fossils in the lower regions of the rock are older than the ones in the upper regions. This fact is so important is has a whole profession devoted to it called stratigraphy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratigraphy) This is branch of Louis’s own profession geology so I sure the he cannot explain this one away. Stratigraphers can tell almost instantly whether the layers in a rock have been disturbed and what the approx date of the rock is. Now given that oil is formed as Louis says and leaches biomarkers out of the rock then the lower layers of the rock should over time become denuded of fossils as the oil bubbles out and moves upwards through the rock. Bubbling up like it does it would cause a sort of circulation in the reservoir leaching more and more fossils and biomarkers out of progressively higher layers. You could actually tell pretty much how long the oil has been bubbling up by the height up the age column that fossils have been leached out. A competent stratigrapher could see this in an instant.
The only major problem with this is that this has never been observed. Stratigraphic studies such as this http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/1/21 show no evidence of depletion of fossils in lower areas. In fact the whole biostratigraphy is just about always consistent and is therefore able to provide a wonderful record of past life.
Louis prides himself on being a lateral thinker with an open mind. I have provided 2 examples of predictions that abiotic oil theory should have to meet to be accepted as an alternative to the current biotic theory. It fails dismally on both counts. Neither of the two observations that it would predict has ever been observed in the 100 years we have been mining for oil. For the lateral open minded thinker the fact that observation does not match with prediction should consign the theory to the dustbin if the thinker is truly scientific.
Aboitic oil is truly snake oil.
Louis – “I have just received the latest issue of the New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter and some relevant facts demolishing your beliefs in biotic oil were found. The following is a short quote from a letter to the editor:”
Oh god yet another theory for you to hold the opposite view on – plate techtonics now. Tell me Louis current wisdom holds that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Please tell me there is a society dedicated to proving that it in fact rises in the west and sets in the west and you are a member.
Ender,
Actually the Greek historian Herodotus was told by the Egyptian priests of his time that in their ancestors time the sun actually did that, rise in the west and set in the east.
as for your babbling in the prior post to the one I am responding to, I have only one comment – “Creek Job”.
Louis – “as for your babbling in the prior post to the one I am responding to, I have only one comment – “Creek Job”.”
Right so nothing of substance.
Ender
I quote you”
Lets assume for a minute that abiotic oil is correct and oil is created in the magma and bubbles up into the sedimentary oil bearing rocks. Given this assumption, as oil is not bubbling out of the ground all over the place, the oil reservoirs must be at equilibrium pressure. That is the upward pressure of the oil bubbling out of the magma which is at incredible pressure (through I assume cracks and vents in the lower containment rocks) must be balanced by the down force of the cap rock that surrounds the porous sedimentary or carbonate rock that contains the pool of oil. So consider what would happen when we drill through the cap rock”.
I have never said that oil bubbles out of magma. Where did you get that idea from?
You have not read Tommy Gold’s book, you seem not to have read anything on Kenney’s gas resources site (but you do seem to be able to read Russian as the paper I referred to above in an earlier post was written in Russian) so how do you know it was an excellent paper?
Ender,
you do know what a “creek job” is, don’t you?
Louis – “I have never said that oil bubbles out of magma. Where did you get that idea from?”
Did you say this?
“post above, Since everyone believes oil is fossil fuel, what on earth do you expect them to say? And have a bit of a think about it and figure out how the fossil oil actually got down there in the first place and where it is to be replenishing the oil in sedimentary basins.
You might find underneath the sedimentary basins are crustal rocks (granitoids, gabbroids, etc) and this is where the oil seems to be coming from.”
I think you did a few posts back – as far as I read this you said the sedimentary rocks get replenished from the crustal rocks below.
“You have not read Tommy Gold’s book, you seem not to have read anything on Kenney’s gas resources site (but you do seem to be able to read Russian as the paper I referred to above in an earlier post was written in Russian) so how do you know it was an excellent paper?”
No – what is a Creek Job? BTW there is a translation of the paper here. I guess you read it in Russian if you did not know there was an English translation available.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/172376899v1.pdf
Ender,
last pot first:
“as far as I read this you said the sedimentary rocks get replenished from the crustal rocks below.”
I never mentioned magmas, you did. Now if oil is coming from the mantle, that does not mean as high temperature fronts from ascending “magmas” as you think. Rather, it’s based on the identification of deep fracture zones (the origin of which remain problematical) that oil seems to be spatially associated with.
What is a creek job – same as a gully job, depends on whether it’s cattle or sheep.
http://www.gasresources.net/KutcherovKenneyEtAl-2002(Russian).pdf is the Russian paper I referred to. I note that your reference isto Kenney’s site.
Which means that you have not at all read anything on Kenney’s site.
I have some experience dealing with Russian manuscripts as editor of the Aust. Inst. Geoscientists Newsletter, and transposing Russio-English to English is exhausting, mentally.
Ball in your court
“Thermostat control is an easy cost effective way to managed this and will have minimal impact on home comfort.
So your choice – take a few degrees off your a/c on peak times or pay cost reflective tariffs. when its 40 outside, the difference b/w 22 and 26 is not much. Get over it and get on with it. ” Anthony at January 9, 2008 08:05 AM
I agree, consumers must have the choice – let price be the determining factor.
It’s the idea of some remote radio monitoring which is disturbing.
‘Give them an inch’.. etc.
“I agree, consumers must have the choice – let price be the determining factor.”
There you have defined the reason why the markets are useless when it comes to AGW. The price of CO2 now does not reflect it’s real, long term cost.
Chrisgo – don’t worry, you’ll get cost reflective peak prices as well.
Point is, networks need certainty over load going through the lines. Price response is uncertain and may be weak on consecutive hot days. Temperature control, load shifting, load control can be done with minimal impact on amenity but gives the network business certainty.
You’re also assuming consumers respond to price, are able to respond to price, know how to respnd to price etc… I know it comes across big brither like but in this case I think big brother knows best.
Look up some of the ETSA utilities load shedding trials. interesting stuff
“There you have defined the reason why the markets are useless when it comes to AGW. The price of CO2 now does not reflect it’s real, long term cost.”
What cost? And what about the benefits?