More Fossil Fuel Being Created In Hawaii

Discussion in 'General Science' started by Glenn Holland, Jan 13, 2015.

  1. Glenn Holland

    Thread Starter Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    353
    110
    It is well known that fossil fuels like coal were made by vegetation being drawn into the geologic strata and baked by heat from magma for millions of years.

    However there's a fresh supply of coal being made in Hawaii right now:



    Once the lava stops flowing and cools off, geologists will be taking core samples to see what 2015 vintage coal looks like. :D
     
  2. LDC3

    Active Member

    Apr 27, 2013
    920
    160
    Actually, it's making charcoal, not coal. Charcoal is made by the incomplete combustion of organic matter; which is happening under the lava.
     
  3. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,981
    388
    Watch out now......that carbon is potentially highly toxic and a environmental menace to this planet.

    According to some scientists and politicians, when this toxin combines with oxygen or nitrogen, it becomes the most imminent danger to mankind.

    But be assured......with the right kind of education and regulation, we can convince the masses not to combine these materials.

    So with a little effort and sacrifice, we can save the planet for future generations. For the children.

    But the true miracle is that for the first time ever.....we and our children will live guilt free lives forever.

    This is our gift to the world.

    Only in this way can we really achieve true freedom and justice and equality for all.
     
    Rolland B. Heiss likes this.
  4. Glenn Holland

    Thread Starter Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    353
    110
    Considering the huge volume of natural greenhouse emissions like this Hawaiian volcano/lava flow, worrying about man made emissions of CO2 is literally a waste of time and money.

    For millions of years, natural forces have shaped the surface and atmosphere of the planet and the resulting changes are beyond our control. Therefore pollution regulations should focus on eliminating truly toxic emissions instead of the idea of controlling greenhouse gases and climate change.
     
  5. LDC3

    Active Member

    Apr 27, 2013
    920
    160
    I thought dihydrogen monoxide was the most dangerous compound.
     
  6. LDC3

    Active Member

    Apr 27, 2013
    920
    160
    Actually, the amount of carbon dioxide from volcanoes is less than the amount from man-made sources.

    Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.
     
  7. Glenn Holland

    Thread Starter Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    353
    110
    Actually dihydrogen monoxide is the biggest greenhouse gas and it traps a lot of heat.

    Therefore you should strive to get rid of as many man made sources of dihydrogen monoxide vapor as possible and you should start with simple things like:
    • Just put only enough dihydrogen monoxide in your dog's drinking bowel to satisfy your dog's thirst.
    • Put plastic bags around your trees and shrubs to trap dihydrogen monoxide emissions.
    • Take showers and wash dishes only with cold dihydrogen monoxide.
    • Drink cold coffee.
    • Engage in activities that don't produce sweat and perspiration.
    • Hold your breath and exhale less often.
     
  8. Glenn Holland

    Thread Starter Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    353
    110
    I don't believe those numbers.

    One severe volcanic explosion can throw 1000s of tons of debris in the atmosphere and wipe out 1000s of square miles. If that were true, man made emissions in Los Angeles would be a Hell of a lot worse than if an active volcano (like the one in Hawaii) went off right in the middle of the city.
     
  9. LDC3

    Active Member

    Apr 27, 2013
    920
    160
  10. Glenn Holland

    Thread Starter Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    353
    110
    I don't believe all the autos and industry in the world can release 33 billion tons of CO2 because they don't use enough fossil fuel to generate that amount in the first place.

    If that number were correct, there would be a Hell of a lot more ships and railroad cars transporting oil and coal. Furthermore, all the vehicles in Los Angeles don't put out anywhere near the amount of toxic emissions as that Hawaiian volcano. The volcano also emits an extremely hazardous smoggy vapor called "Vaze" that can irritate lungs and burn skin for 10 miles downwind from the Kilauea area.
     
  11. wayneh

    Expert

    Sep 9, 2010
    12,093
    3,032
    That's all moot now. The new OCO satellite data clearly shows human activity is a pimple on the ass of natural CO2 production. AGW is not supported by the data. Any data.
     
  12. LDC3

    Active Member

    Apr 27, 2013
    920
    160
    First, I didn't restrict myself to just the cars in LA. Second, I was only looking at CO2 emissions.
    World Coal Production is about 7800 million tonnes per year. If the coal is 50% carbon (which is really low), it produces 14300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.
    In the US in 2004, natural gas produced about 5.3 billion tons a year of CO2 emissions, while coal and oil produced 10.6 and 10.2 billion tons respectively.
    I don't know what AGW is.
     
  13. wayneh

    Expert

    Sep 9, 2010
    12,093
    3,032
    Anthropogenic Global Warming. I won't say more as I don't think AGW discussions are allowed here.
     
  14. Glenn Holland

    Thread Starter Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    353
    110
    So if fossil fuels are a serious threat to world climate and we must stop using them, then what's the alternative?

    So called "alternative" energy isn't large enough to meet current demand and it may consume more energy to produce it in the first place. Will solar cells produce more energy than required to make them? Deriving hydrogen from water requires electric power from some source. Few alternative energy sources are carbon free and low carbon fuels are also low energy.

    Despite conservation, energy demand keeps going up and most people don't want more nuclear plants. So we're in the proverbial case of being between a rock and hard place.
     
  15. WBahn

    Moderator

    Mar 31, 2012
    17,716
    4,788
    Let's consider the information in just the title. If volcanic emissions are between 0.15 and 0.26 billion tonnes and that is 0.03% of natural emissions, then natural emissions total out to between 500 and 867 billion tonnes, making fossil fuel use account for between about 3% and 6% of all CO2 emissions.
     
  16. LDC3

    Active Member

    Apr 27, 2013
    920
    160
    True, 65% of the natural source is the ocean, which also captures it from the atmosphere. Release and catch, catch and release. It's just a vicious cycle. It certainly doesn't influence global warming.
    The problem with man made CO2 emissions is that it is continuously being added to a balanced environment, making it unbalanced. It takes time to re-balance the environment, meanwhile more CO2 is added.
     
    Brownout likes this.
  17. LDC3

    Active Member

    Apr 27, 2013
    920
    160
    I don't know what the alternative is.
    I just know that everyone needs to be part of the solution and not waste resources.
     
  18. stormbay

    New Member

    Dec 25, 2014
    22
    3
    There is only one logical alternative to the use of fossil fuels which no one will like, but is a fact and will happen no matter what anyone says or does.

    The removal of 99% of humans from the planet and that would include all urban humans, who are the most destructive wasteful and abusive of life. Nothing else will work, because ideological humanity is to greedy self orientated and expecting some one else to do something and not them.

    We could start by using vegetable oils to begin with as we transition to electric energy. But it's way to late for that to occur, as no one will do anything to change and that's where we are at now, way to late to take any action by decades.
     
    LDC3 likes this.
  19. Glenn Holland

    Thread Starter Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    353
    110
    Regarding stormbay's comment, advances in computers and robotics will in fact render the vast majority of humans economically obsolete and there won't be any practical or economic need for people to reproduce. Accordingly, there's no need for consuming more and more resources.

    However human reproduction is based on emotions -not on any practical or economic reasoning and many people are continuing to have children without any consideration about whether their offspring will have gainful employment. Furthermore, the global economy in based on the cancer cell model of endless population growth and consumption. To make matters worse, humans are now viewed as a throw away commodity and a source of disposable labor. Therefore, reducing population is not in the interest of the global economic institutions such as the multinational corporations.

    If you're skilled in some form of science, technology, engineering, etc., your children will probably be able to adapt to these advancements and have a productive life. However, for parents without any technical skills, the chances for their offspring surviving is next to nothing.

    It's a classic case of "Technological Darwinism".
     
  20. stormbay

    New Member

    Dec 25, 2014
    22
    3
     
Loading...