In the super long run, what would happen if people didn't burn fossil fuels? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15023852
It would take a really long time but in the super long run, fossil fuels happen when the life process sequester carbon into a solid or liquid form. Burning it is the only way to release it.

If a life fork didn't pull it out and burn it, after enough time, most of the carbon owukd be sequestered, resulting in either the end of life on earth or a reduction to really small organisms that can't effectively sequester carbon.
#15023865
Hong Wu wrote:It would take a really long time but in the super long run, fossil fuels happen when the life process sequester carbon into a solid or liquid form. Burning it is the only way to release it.

If a life fork didn't pull it out and burn it, after enough time, most of the carbon owukd be sequestered, resulting in either the end of life on earth or a reduction to really small organisms that can't effectively sequester carbon.


Yeah that's right. Also it may be said that since the size of the biosphere is proportional to the carbon available to it then the biosphere today is considerably smaller than in the ages past. This is the deep reason why the biological arms race that produced the super size animals of the Mesozoic Era did not just rerun after the permian extinction. The steady loss of carbon to the depths of the earth increasingly diminishes the quantity of raw materials for building big animals.
#15023892
Dear god, science education is truly shitty these days, and the Dunning-Kruger effect means all these people without a sodding clue think they know enough to opine about science on the internet.

@Hong Wu
In the very long term, the carbon cycle for the earth includes carbon deposited on the sea floor as organic matter or carbonate rocks, subsumed at plate boundaries under the earth's crust, and eventually expelled in volcanic eruptions (this is the mechanism proposed to have ended the "Snowball Earth"). It's also possible for geological changes to release oil or gas deposits.

But if you think that the current rate of deposit of fossil fuels is a problem in any form, then tell us what it is, and how many millions of years it would be before you think it would cause "a reduction to really small organisms that can't effectively sequester carbon" - which, from your context, means "sequester as a fossil fuel". Remember, for example,

Oil, the lifeblood of U.S. transportation today, is thought to start with the remnants of tiny organisms that lived millions of years ago

https://www.livescience.com/3400-chemis ... e-oil.html

and that methane is produced by bacteria.

@SolarCross
since the size of the biosphere is proportional to the carbon available to it

Evidence for this, please
the biosphere today is considerably smaller than in the ages past

Evidence for this, please

the biological arms race that produced the super size animals of the Mesozoic Era did not just rerun after the permian extinction

The Permian extinction was before the Mesozoic, not after.
#15023896
SolarCross wrote:Yeah that's right. Also it may be said that since the size of the biosphere is proportional to the carbon available to it then the biosphere today is considerably smaller than in the ages past. This is the deep reason why the biological arms race that produced the super size animals of the Mesozoic Era did not just rerun after the permian extinction. The steady loss of carbon to the depths of the earth increasingly diminishes the quantity of raw materials for building big animals.


What are you on about? We had large animals because there was more oxygen as a percentage of the mixture of air in the atmosphere than there is today.

There is also an idea called Cope's rule. However, it's a bit inconclusive. Ther's evidence that supports it, and evidence that disproves it. Basically the rules say's, the more time you have to evolve, the larger you'll get. However, when a mass extinction event happens, it's usually the larger animals that die first. This basically resets the growth in size of animals. YOu then have wait another number of millions of years for animals to get large again, but then they will get extinct again. Again, this concept is always under debate. Never proven or disproven.
Last edited by Rancid on 06 Aug 2019 15:13, edited 1 time in total.
#15023904
@Rancid
Not all.
Insects primarily grew larger due to oxygen, and this can happen now BTW.
https://www.wired.com/2010/11/huge-dragonflies-oxygen/

However, for Dinosaurs, Oxygen was only one of many factors, with their bone structure playing a much bigger role in their size than Oxygen.
Generally speaking, the overall environment of a species determines its size, it can't all be attributed to a single thing.

Afterall, we still have giant creatures roaming around today, underwater sure, but still.




Regarding the OP.
Nothing will happen, the carbo cycle will continue.
Scientists warn about the excess carbon in the air and global warming not because it will "kill the planet", rather because it's directly and indirectly harmful to us.
#15023910
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Evidence

Carbon is the basis of all organic chemistry. Proteins, fats, sugars, DNA, enzymes etc are all made of carbon. The biosphere takes in new carbon by stripping it from atmospheric CO2 otherwise it is just recycled internally as one creature eats another.

Image

We are actually in a situation of atmospheric CO2 depletion across geologic time.

All that oil in the ground could become flora and fauna again but first the carbon there must be returned to the atmosphere as CO2.

Of course the anti-biology crew with their infinite genders and morbid hatred of white people don't want that.
#15023924
Hong Wu wrote:It would take a really long time but in the super long run, fossil fuels happen when the life process sequester carbon into a solid or liquid form. Burning it is the only way to release it.


No, burning it is not the only way to release it.

If a life fork didn't pull it out and burn it, after enough time, most of the carbon owukd be sequestered, resulting in either the end of life on earth or a reduction to really small organisms that can't effectively sequester carbon.


No, because carbon moves in a cycle.

I do not expect a reply from you. You seem reluctant to argue with leftists.

——————————

@SolarCross

Your evidence does not show that the size of the biosphere is proportional to the amount of atmospheric CO2.
#15023938
Pants-of-dog wrote:Your evidence does not show that the size of the biosphere is proportional to the amount of atmospheric CO2.

I said the size of biosphere is proportional to the quantity of carbon available to it. Available as in actually using, if that wasn't clear. If the biosphere were to grow in mass then it would need new carbon from either the atmosphere or from the earth. Recycling its existing carbon resources by one creature eating another doesn't allow the biosphere to grow.

The atmosphere is depleted of carbon dioxide, just 0.04% by volume. So the only other place to get substantial quantities of co2 is the earth, as in oil and coal deposits. But as is those deposits are in an inedible form and so needs to be combined with oxygen to make a gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide.

That CO2 can be harvested by plants and turned into fats, oils, proteins etc.
#15023941
SolarCross wrote:I said the size of biosphere is proportional to the quantity of carbon available to it.


Not quite. You argued that biosphere sizes are directly affected by the amount of carbon available.

Where is the evidence?

Available as in actually using, if that wasn't clear. If the biosphere were to grow in mass then it would need new carbon from either the atmosphere or from the earth. Recycling its existing carbon resources by one creature eating another doesn't allow the biosphere to grow.

The atmosphere is depleted of carbon dioxide, just 0.04% by volume. So the only other place to get substantial quantities of co2 is the earth, as in oil and coal deposits. But as is those deposits are in an inedible form and so needs to be combined with oxygen to make a gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide.

That CO2 can be harvested by plants and turned into fats, oils, proteins etc.


Where
Is
The
Evidence?

Edit:

We could try an experiment. We take a whole bunch of people who think carbon is awesome and we need more if it, and we out them in an airtight room. We then seal it and fill it with CO2.

After a few hours, we can take the people out and see if they are bigger.
#15023959
anasawad wrote:@Rancid
Not all.
Insects primarily grew larger due to oxygen, and this can happen now BTW.
https://www.wired.com/2010/11/huge-dragonflies-oxygen/

However, for Dinosaurs, Oxygen was only one of many factors, with their bone structure playing a much bigger role in their size than Oxygen.
Generally speaking, the overall environment of a species determines its size, it can't all be attributed to a single thing.

Afterall, we still have giant creatures roaming around today, underwater sure, but still.




Regarding the OP.
Nothing will happen, the carbo cycle will continue.
Scientists warn about the excess carbon in the air and global warming not because it will "kill the planet", rather because it's directly and indirectly harmful to us.


ok
#15023981
Pants-of-dog wrote:We could try an experiment. We take a whole bunch of people who think carbon is awesome and we need more if it, and we out them in an airtight room. We then seal it and fill it with CO2.

After a few hours, we can take the people out and see if they are bigger.

Yeah this is why commies make bad governors. Psychosis is not a desirable trait for those in a leader caste.
#15023998
SolarCross wrote:Yeah this is why commies make bad governors. Psychosis is not a desirable trait for those in a leader caste.


Are you saying that they would not benefit?

You are, of course, correct. CO2 is toxic to animals. So an atmosphere high in CO2 would actually have little animal life even if it had more plant life. The current increase in CO2 is happening at the same time as massive deforestation, so even this benefit is being nullified by human impact.

Also, sheer mass is not the best way to look at the health of a biosphere. You would want to look at biodiversity and other factors.
#15024011
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you saying that they would not benefit?

You are, of course, correct. CO2 is toxic to animals. So an atmosphere high in CO2 would actually have little animal life even if it had more plant life. The current increase in CO2 is happening at the same time as massive deforestation, so even this benefit is being nullified by human impact.

Also, sheer mass is not the best way to look at the health of a biosphere. You would want to look at biodiversity and other factors.

Nice try but the current level of CO2 is only 400ppm. CO2 doesn't even start to cause problems until it is at 10,000ppm and then that is only drowsiness. Suffocation does not occur until 70,000ppm.

Filling a small room with dangerous levels of CO2 is easy to do, and actually all you are really doing is denying oxygen rather than killing with CO2.

But a planetary atmosphere is a completely different thing.
#15024034
SolarCross wrote:Nice try but the current level of CO2 is only 400ppm. CO2 doesn't even start to cause problems until it is at 10,000ppm and then that is only drowsiness. Suffocation does not occur until 70,000ppm.

Filling a small room with dangerous levels of CO2 is easy to do, and actually all you are really doing is denying oxygen rather than killing with CO2.

But a planetary atmosphere is a completely different thing.


You completely ignored my points, focused solely on a joke from a previous post, and still have not supplied any evidence for your claims.

Let us do this one step at a time.

Is deforestation occurring? Yes or no?

Yes. However, climate change was originally intro[…]

Earth/humans were anti-money, but not all aliens w[…]

So. according to you @Hindsite , anyone who is ag[…]

Chinese Imperial Bonds 1911

Communist China refuses to pay the imperial bonds[…]