Is it possible that man's burning of fossil fuels in itself, the recycling of carbon.?

Question

What is oil? It is countless dead things that once roamed the surface of the earth. To be more specific, it is carbon that once played a role in earth's life cycles. Over time a vast proportion of it became locked up in the earth's crust. You might say that life cycles were decaying, just as the second law of thermodynamics predicts. Enter man, like a honeybee, pollinating flowers, he unlocks these vast stores of life giving carbon, replenishing the earth.

History is pretty clear on the matter. It is widely accepted that in prehistoric times carbon dioxide was substantially more plentiful in the atmosphere. At these times, there is no question life was thriving. Our planet was able to support the largest creatures to ever walk the earth.

People who promote the AGW theory are grossly ingnoring the live giving qualities of CO2 to our own peril.

Why were CO2 levels so high in the past. Simple, there was more in stock. Further, it was not the cause of the warming, but rather the result

Answer 1

First all oil comes from plants. It is how plants capture the sun's energy and store it in the seeds. Like olive oil and many others , even grass seed . Our fossil fuel came from plants not animal and the plants are continuing . The CO2 recycling by plants is just how GOD made it...

Answer 2

Co2 is a very useful industrial gas that provides many things we use in our daily lives. On asking friends that work in that industry I found out that it is so rare in the atmosphere that the only way they can capture sufficient for industrial use is through stack scrubbers on the output side of processes that produce Co2. Truth is that Co2 scrubbers have been in use in industry for over a hundred years. Why, because they are profitable to the companies that install them in their process. They sell the collected Co2 to air products companies that then sell it for use in other industrial and commercial products. Some common commercial uses you might encounter in your daily life are:

Carbonated soft drinks (the fizz and bubbles are Co2)

Dry ice that is used at parties and such to keep things cool longer than regular ice and leaves no water behind.

Fire extinguishers for use on electrical or gas fires.

As a refrigerant in small portable refrigerator and air conditioning systems as a greener substitute for dangerous Freon.

Co2 is a needed but rare part of the planets atmosphere that is needed for all green plants to live and grow as one of the plants major foods. The plants eat the carbon atom and release the two oxygen atoms for us and other animals that use it to live on.

One of the dumbest things the AGW promoters have suggested is the idea of collecting and sequestering Co2 in underground reservoirs. One clear piece of knowing real science instead of voodoo science the AGW promoters use is this. Each Co2 molecule contains one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. The plants use it for food and we humans and our animal companions need that oxygen to breathe. If we sequester that Co2 under ground we remove oxygen from the air we breath which means we will eventually run out of it as the idiotic AGW promoters wish and then they will bring the sequestered material back up and sell us the oxygen atoms to keep us alive.

So the scam is looking generations ahead in ways to profit now and profit more in the far future from those who follow media hype and do not look for truth and facts. As one great man once said, there is a new sucker born every minute so I will never starve.

Answer 3

It is actually a FACT that we are currently on the down cycle of a cyclical temperature fluctatuation.  There are many models that show that, in less than 10000 years, the blink of an eye in historical measures, the entire eastern and western seaboards will be completely COVERED with glacial ice.  Every single northern city area will be crushed to rubble, destroyed under hundreds and thousands of feet of solid ice.

We should be rejoicing in the fact that we are actually contributing, even so slightly, less than 1%, towards the continuance of warmer temperatures, pushing that fate off maybe a few years.  Just think of all the creatures that we are saving from extinction, potentially several generations, before the ice claims their habitats.

During its hot phases, the earth has historically been a lot warmer than it is now.  Prehistoric fossils show most of the planet covered with dense jungles and rain forests.  And what is the life-giving food that they depend on for such growth?  CO2.

We know that there is recent evidence that parts of the Sahara are being reclaimed -- naturally -- by vegetation at its edges, all thanks to CO2.

We should be thankful that parts of the arctic are melting.  Just think of all the life that will finally be reborn in those areas, all the plants, all the animals, dormant for all these years, finally able to breathe into existence again.  The cure for cancer and other disease may even wait under that ice, in some long-lost bacteria.

Change is always a good thing.  Nature provides change.  Global warming is a natural cycle that precedes global cooling.

It's sad when people give themselves pretentious godlike abilities to "control and affect the universe", when in fact our rather pathetic presence is considerably insignificant and far outshined by even the most microscopic organisms like bacteria.

What's scary is that a religion based on that fantasy has taken hold worldwide, and that we're all being forced to drink their poisoned Kool-Aid, even if we disagree with the religion.

Answer 4

Sure burning fossil fuels recycles carbon into carbon dioxide which may eventually get turned into plants or shells.  So what?

The problem is that we are vastly accelerating whatever natural process might have done the same thing and dumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere very rapidly.  High CO2 in the past was both a result of global warming (because it was released from solution in seawater) and also a cause (because more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more warming).

The salient question is what effects the rapid release of CO2 in the atmosphere will have.  THAT'S why people are worried about it.  Sure, do it over 1,000,000 years and the Earth will adjust.  Do it over 200 years and you're asking for trouble.  Humans can adjust, at the cost of trillions of dollars and probably millions, if not billions, of lives lost.  

I don't understand why people can't see that something that's done on geologic time scales may be easier to handle than something that's done over human lifespans.

Answer 5

Sure, but....

The problem is the relative speed of nature burying the carbon, and our "recycling" it as CO2.

Look at this graph.

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/qu...

The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels. The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels by using "isotopic ratios" to identify that CO2.  The natural carbon cycle buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast.  That's a problem.

Man is upsetting the balance of nature.  We need to fix that.  The fact that it's been warmer in the past means nothing.  We're no longer nomads that can fold the tents and move.  The man made warming now happening will cause great damage to our modern technological society.

Answer 6

Simple answer is YES!

I can NOT argue with your statements.

You also state AGW as a 'theory', which it is.

Any science would prove it wrong.

A theory however, does NOT make fact.

This will not stop the myth from continuing however, since there is far too much money to be made out of this scam yet.

I do find it interesting to see how many people have been conned by this farce, including some of the 'TOP CONTRIBUTORS' on this subject.

Answer 7

There is a school of thought that suggests that the BEST thing we can do is pump more and more CO2 into the environment, speeding up the mass extinction. The reasoning behind that is that after each of the previous 5 mass extinctions - more diversity has evolved.

Life will not end on this earth because of global warming. However it would make life for humans much more difficult. Wipe out humans and you'll probably help biodiversity simply because there will no longer be a species so dominant as us on the planet.

"Our planet was able to support the largest creatures to ever walk the earth". True, but it didn't support human life.

Answer 8

I could not agree with you more!

It does seem to me that you have the same problem as me (and all proper scientists).

That is that we do NOT have a vested interest to protect, and can actually sort through the bullshit, and have the capability of rational thinking.

I would like anyone to attempt to explain how an invisible gas that exists in the atmosphere at 17 ounces per ton and is the one gas which is required for life to exist on our planet, is a problem of any kind whatsoever.

Also, man's contribution(according to what may be somewhat over exaggerated figures anyway), is still only 0.8% of that total(or 2.3 ounces per ton of the atmosphere).

To put it into perspective, that makes man's burning of fossil fuels to be 0.0072% of total CO2 contribution to our atmosphere by weight.

This is using 27 billion tons/year as an example, you could adjust the figures accordingly for whatever you believe the current usage is, but it will NOT change much.

I have spent the last three weeks crunching numbers and creating a web page, to explain all of this, although it is not quite ready for publication yet I will leave a comment with the address so anyone can see how these figures are derived.

I only hope that science will prevail.

Science does NOT lie!

Answer 9

It is funny that you compare oil drilling to bees pollinating flowers.  You should be a political speech writer.  I like the way that you are thinking and bring up some interesting points.  Just don't forget to put unbiased thinking into both aspects of the global warming issue.

Answer 10

You are correct in stating that CO2 levels result  from, but don't cause, temperature change.  When temperatures rise it's a natural result to have carbon levels rise.  When temperatures cool, carbon levels will fall.  Carbon follows, never leads temp. change.  I wish more people understood this.

Recycling carbon is essentially part of the result of burning fossil fuels.  In the dinosaur age there were higher levels of CO2, as has been determined from dating ice core samples.  Now, the level is lower.  We could burn all of the fossil fuels left on earth and still not have any real impact on the environment.

Answer 11

Possibly but the problem is where it's going, before it was in the ground now it's in the atmosphere.