Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Lord Vader, Jan 25, 2011.
Yes they do, "BUT" not the buried fossil fuels.
Magma comes from much deeper.
Earthquakes also leave pathways for things to work their way to the surface.
Running water is constantly eroding the land over which it runs... inevitably resulting in eventually digging something up.
Without man's intervention, stuff is moving all over the place under the water and under the surface.
I'm not saying that it happens nearly as fast as if we deliberately dig a hole straight down... but it would be hard to prove that it couldn't work its way slowly to the surface over time eventually.
I've been slowly phasing over to CFLs for years. I've only had one go out. The newest ones I have, from Sylvania, bill themselves as "Instant On". Not quite true but much better than the old ones. I expect that LEDs or something else will work out better in the future. If I remember correctly, the gov't has banned the sale of incandescent bulbs at the end of 2011.
Fortunately, there is a move to repeal that ban.
Some incandescents, but not all. There is probably a list of styles somewhere, but specialty bulbs like appliance and indicator bulbs will still be available since CFLs aren't available.
LEDs may fill that gap someday also. I've been using LEDs in any application I can where I have to replace a pilot lamp. There are companies who have adapted most small lamp styles to direct LED replacements.
Once again, it's a matter of scale or percentage.
Could what you've said happen? Sure. Oil can and does seep to the surface and coal was first found on the surface too.
Then I guess lightning could also have ignited some of these too.
Now to compare this to what man is doing, would be like comparing my morning coffee cup to the Pacific ocean. Yes they both can hold water, but the amount/scale difference between the two is staggering.
Yeah, I'm closely watching the LED markets for incandescent (and CFL) replacements. Haven't pulled the trigger on any yet as I haven't found quite the right bulbs for my needs--though when something actually dies, I will likely jump.
I recalled when scientists found plant material 2 miles deep under Greenland's ice, revealing that it was much warmer in the past. (Makes me wonder if the "natural" temperature of the planet is supposed to be warmer than it is today.")
Guess this might depend of if you want people to survive.
In the past 4.6 billion years, the earth has "naturally" cycled through various extremes, and had several/many mass extinctions of life.
I went back to your first post that started me down this path for context.
I directly said that man drilling a hole down brings the oil up much sooner... but your original quote was that you didn't see it possible to happen naturally "any other way.".. I was just pointing out some ways that it could happen naturally without man doing anything.
The point was meant to be... that man does affect the environment, but not exclusively... and there's no telling whether the fossil fuel wouldn't come to the surface eventually anyway.
Also, volcanoes do more in a single big eruption than most of the man-made air pollution does over a longer time... so nature will surely do what nature does, independent of whatever effect we have.
And I've also said that I know we affect the environment. Everything on the planet is part of the environment, so you effect it by merely existing. The greater debate, though, is about how much we affect with any specific activity AND if any proposed alternative is really better in the long run.
I'd simply add to that, there seems to be a debate as to whether uninformed people using nothing more than common sense and "received knowledge" know more than a community of scientists who are (hypothetically) using methodology and logic that has been known to yield accurate results far more often than inaccurate ones.
And by uninformed people, I include myself.
"I think" my point was more that nature isn't releasing the fossil fuel carbon back into the atmosphere.
Yes, volcanoes spew great quantities of bad stuff, which may someday be the death of us. Not much we can do.
My earlier point was only man and not any other species is able to release fossil fuel carbon back into the atmosphere, which if finally releases all of it, should return the atmosphere back to a condition of 200-300 million years ago, when the plants that made the fossil fuel thrived so well because of the warmth & levels of CO2.
Yes, I see potential for LEDs. Looking forward to that. One of my friends is remodeling his kitchen and is using LED for under the counter lighting. Looks good. But I think his halogen spots in the ceiling are not very efficient.
I typically count myself in the non-expert category... but not necessarily the uninformed... though I will freely admit the areas of which I am less informed than my opinion might infer.
I think it is fair, though, for the general public to question so-called authority.
The scientist might have graduated top of his class with As... or he might have just barely gotten through school. We really don't know the qualifications of any "expert" that can't readily demonstrate his qualifications.
An artist can draw something... an athlete or musician can perform something... but a scientist could read something from the same journal that I read it from and we might understand it equally as well.
So... it's back to the 9-out-of-10 doctors analogy... Even those 9 doctors that agree, do we know how qualified they are to make a declaration?
I'm not a scientific doubter... but I've seen just in my lifetime several about-faces on some things that the "experts" all came to a consensus only to reverse their stance 10 years later.
I remember... quite vividly how at one time the yolk of the egg was the good part and the white was the bad... then the white was good and the yellow was bad... then eggs in general were bad... and then eggs in general were good.
That's just one thing that experts agreed to completely different conclusions after additional years of study... so it is very prudent to question declarations from the scientific community.
I'm pretty sure there once was a consensus that the earth was flat... and that the earth was the center of the universe as well. We all know how those turned out.
Or how much were they, um, 'compensated' for their declaration?
Well, more evidence of so-called "Global Warming." We just got the 2nd worst snowfall in our history, but considering 1967's wasn't full of wind and drifts, the Blizzard of 2011 ranks as Chicago's worst snowstorm, surpassing 1967's in terms of drifts, winds, and other damage.
Remember when Global Warming wackos maintained that GW would result in fewer snowfalls? Well, now they're saying the opposite.
Snowfalls are a thing of the past. Uh huh.
Colder years ahead.
Even Greenpeace's founder calls warming a "natural phenomenon."
His comments and your post are rather pointless, because all he does is explain the simple meteorological ingredients needed to produce precipitation. Obviously one needs moisture to produce snow, rain, etc. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that.
As I guess your comments seem to be.
Warmer southern waters means more moisture coming north.
If the earth wasn't warming, then there would be less moisture coming north, but I guess these simple facts don't fit your personal agenda, so "discussion" is what ends up being pointless here.
Warmer waters do not mean more moisture is heading north. Furthermore, there can still be plenty of moisture in waters not as cool.
La Niña is a cooling of ocean waters and current (see above link to article), yet here we are with powerful storms that yes, we have seen numerous times before, during the cold decades of the 1970s and other times. So, your contention is baseless.