'Fossil fuel' theory takes hit with NASA finding

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

'Fossil fuel' theory takes hit with NASA finding

Postby scollon » Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:16 pm

'Fossil fuel' theory takes hit with NASA finding<br>New study shows methane on Saturn's moon Titan not biological <br><br>NASA scientists are about to publish conclusive studies showing abundant methane of a non-biologic nature is found on Saturn's giant moon Titan, a finding that validates a new book's contention that oil is not a fossil fuel. <br><br>"We have determined that Titan's methane is not of biologic origin," reports Hasso Niemann of the Goddard Space Flight Center, a principal NASA investigator responsible for the Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer aboard the Cassini-Huygens probe that landed on Titan Jan. 14. <br><br><br>Niemann concludes the methane "must be replenished by geologic processes on Titan, perhaps venting from a supply in the interior that could have been trapped there as the moon formed." <br><br>The studies announced by NASA yesterday will be reported in the Dec. 8 issue of the scientific journal Nature. <br><br>"This finding confirms one of the key arguments in 'Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil,'" claims co-author Jerome R. Corsi. "We argue that oil and natural gas are abiotic products, not 'fossil fuels' that are biologically created by the debris of dead dinosaurs and ancient forests." <br><br>Methane has been synthetically created in the laboratory, Corsi points out, "and now NASA confirms that abiotic methane is abundantly found on Titan." <br><br>The realization that hydrocarbons are produced inorganically throughout our solar system was a key insight that led Cornell University astronomer Thomas Gold to write his 1998 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels." Gold wrote: <br><br><br>It would be surprising indeed if the earth had obtained its hydrocarbons only from a source that biology had taken from another carbon-bearing gas – carbon dioxide – which would have been collected from the atmosphere by photo-synthesizing organisms for manufacture into carbohydrates and then somehow reworked by geology into hydrocarbons. All this, while the planetary bodies bereft of surface life would have received their hydrocarbon gifts by purely abiogenic causes.<br><br>Gold wryly noted that he was sure there had not been any "big stagnant swamps on Titan" to produce the biological debris that conventionally trained geologists think was required on Earth to produce oil and natural gas as a "fossil fuel." <br><br>"If petroleum and natural gas are abiotic as we maintain in 'Black Gold Stranglehold,'" Corsi commented, "then the 'peak oil' fear that we are going to run out of oil may have been based on a giant misconception." <br><br>Paradigms in science change slowly and with great resistance, he noted, "But NASA has given us today incontrovertible evidence that Titan has abundant inorganic methane." <br><br>"If the scientists have ruled out that biological processes created methane on Titan, why do petro-geologists still argue that natural gas on Earth is of biological origin?" Corsi asked. <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675">www.wnd.com/news/article....E_ID=47675</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'Fossil fuel' theory takes hit with NASA finding

Postby anotherdrew » Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:31 am

just because it's abiotic doesn't mean there's an endless suppply of the stuff. What if it takes several thousand years for the big oil fields to refill on their own by abiotic processes? That'll be nice but no help to us. Even if the supply is endless and can be pumped at double the rate we currently are, or faster.... Is it really going to be such a good idea to pump all that exhaust into the atmosphere?<br><br>One thing's for sure though, nowadays, science is way to slow to consider new ideas, no money get's invested and so little work gets done and the idea sits on a shelf for decades. We really need a more methodical aproach to testing "heretical" ideas in science. And about 20 times more spending per year globaly on basic science and chekcing out ideas like this. <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 6:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'Fossil fuel' theory takes hit with NASA finding

Postby StarmanSkye » Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:57 am

I think there's a very good basis for the abiotic origin of oil -- certainly, it's a more compelling thesis than the organic theory of oil formation for exlaining how hydrocarbon deposits develop as hydrogen and carbon dioxide are exposed to conditions of high temperature and pressure, and found within a modest range of geologic structures. That's not to say that organic matter can't form coal, natural gas, oil-shale and oil deposits through geologic processes involving high temperature and pressure (since evidence of organic materials is often found within many hydrocarbon sources). <br><br>But what's far from certain is whether most sources have an abiotic basis -- OR that these abiotic reserves are relatively abundant or accessible. And too -- even IF oil were abundantly available, would it be smart to keep using it at ever-increasing rates despite what the majority of scientists believe is a major global warming problem? <br><br>One alternative would be to refine hydro-petrocarbon stocks into hydrogen and methane, and convert transportation and electric-generation and pumping-engines into efficient powerplants that can burn these fuels cleanly. Similiar high-efficiency engines can be readily developed to burn coal-processed gas-fuels cleanly also, in addition to powering small to medium-size neighborhood and industrial/production electical needs. A LOT can be done today to address urgent environment and energy needs -- all that's lacking is the imagination and the political will and the leadership, (unfortunately) much of it subverted by powerful interests and a kleptocratic corporatocracy.<br><br>A lot of good points made anotherdrew, on these issues and your other comments about an immense failure within science (and technology) to test new ideas and develop new systems in a timely manner -- which I attribute to a human failure of vision, lack of imagination throughout society, and lack of leadership in government and business. Lack of imagination and leadership both contribute to stasis, limits on creative risk-taking and communication, and entrenchment of status quo values, assumptions, and controlling interests -- leading to political, cultural and financial alliances that resist what is essentially the 'threat' to monopolistic habits of thoughts and franchises of new ideas and systems.<br><br>The 'business' of Science in many ways is like any other special-interest club or bureaucracy, with jealously-guarded 'turf' and status-perks and prestige the stakes of an entrenched hierarchy that is highly resistant to innovation or discoveries that shatter convention -- One of the biggest, modern examples of this is the late 1980s discovery by geophysicist Dr. Louis A. Frank that the earth's water has its origins in a daily deluge of thousands of house-size comets entering the earth's upper atmosphere. This was such a novel, revolutionary concept at the time, going against the accepted theories that Frank, despite being an accomplished scientist who had worked on space-flight experiments and equipment, was ridiculed, ignored, and discounted as a crackpot for years, while earth-scientists and meteorologists and prestigious peer-reviewed publications wouldn't even consider his claims let alone look at his evidence or findings.<br><br>Following are a few amazon reviews that expound on this invisible wall of entrenched beliefs in the scientific community that effectively slow down and impede the pace at which new ideas and discoveries are accepted and built-upon.<br>Starman<br><br>Note: Frank's theory is still controversial, but has been widely accepted into mainstream science discourse and substantially validated by observation and experiments, most recently by<br>Caltech.<br>*****<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1559720336/002-8497862-2949668?v=glance&n=283155">www.amazon.com/gp/product...e&n=283155</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>--quote--<br>From Publishers Weekly<br>If Frank, a University of Iowa physicist, is correct, millions of small comets made of ice and water strike the Earth's atmosphere every year; the continuous influx of cosmic HO, according to this theory, created our lakes, rivers and oceans, and will one day submerge the planet. The existence of small, previously undetected comets was confirmed by Clayne Yates of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in 1988, yet Frank's theory continues to generate sharp controversy. He maintains that small comets could have carried organic materials--the seeds of life--to Earth and may have triggered the extinction of dinosaurs. Frank's credentials are impressive: he helped calibrate the first U.S. lunar probes and has made a number of discoveries in astronomy. Written with Huyghe ( Glowing Birds ), the narrative presents evidence for an intriguing hypothesis as it casts light on the turf wars and professional jealousies that can hinder scientific research. <br>*<br>From Library Journal<br>Frank, a professional physicist, has proposed a hypothesis that the Earth is regularly bombarded by approximately 20 small water/ice comets per minute. He has further speculated on the implications of his theory for the origin of the oceans, the extinction of the dinosaurs, the origins of life on this planet, and much more. Here, he presents the evidence he has assembled and the story of his struggles with various scientific critics of his work. His basic theory may well prove to be true, but his eagerness to claim all sorts of grandiose consequences for his theory appears to be a bit premature. Also, readers should be aware that Frank is not yet supported by a consensus of scientific specialists. Still, as a provocative work in a hotly contested area, the book is recommended for academic and large public libraries.<br>- Jack W. Weigel, Univ. of Michigan Lib., Ann Arbor<br>*<br>Every so often you read a book that changes the way you look at everything because it shows that something we took for granted is wrong. This is one of those books. Frank is not a terrific writer. There are slow passages and sections that are overly detailed and filled with arcane information. However, he is a scientist that stumbled on the origin of water on Earth . . . small comets that are constantly hitting Earth's atmosphere. This is astounding and went against all of the accepted geologic theories of the origin of water on the planet.<br>This book is also about the tunnel vision of scientists and the vicious in-fighting that goes on in academia when the status quo is challenged. There is a truism that scientists don't change their minds; they just die off and are replaced by scientists who believe the new theories.<br>I read this book when it first came out and was mightily impressed. Just recently a newly lofted satellite has proven Frank correct and a Scientific American article detailed the proof and the fact that his nay-sayers are now either eating crow or are marginalized in their continued denial. Highly recommended, especially for those interested in Earth sciences. --1handclapping<br>*<br>Frank explains in wonderful detail the problems that a scientist has when he makes an important discovery outside of his accepted expertise. He is not the first to suffer from this prejudice, nor will he be the last. But, it is important for us to be reminded that science too, often wears blinders and because of this, important discoveries are ignored and it takes decades before we are able to move forward in our knowledge of how things work. -- Brad Fregger<br>--unquote--<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)


Postby wintler » Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:38 pm

Interesting, but not ground breaking, it was always known the methane can be produced abiotically, as it is in volcanoes. That liquid methane is possibly responsible for the 'rivers' seen cut into Titans surface is a little mind boggling!<br><br>But they didn't find any oil, a little point Corsi skips over in the WND article.<br><br>And nobody has found oil on earth without biological markers in it - all the oil we are currently burning is definately of biological origin, its often got fossil fragments in it. There is very likely such a thing as abiotic oil creation somewhere in the universe, but if its the dominant process here on earth..<br><br>a) why aren't we swimming in it, given the abundance of the energy & materials Corsi et al believe are responsible<br><br>b) its obviously damn slow, because the vast majority of oil fields are not filling up again, and thus is irrelevant to a species dependant upon burning 84 million barrels a day of the stuff.<br><br>The geological location of methane is often near or most freq directly above oil, or where oil has been in the past. IF there is abiotic methane production on earth (a very different place to Titan), where and how much? <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Postby smiths » Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:06 am

if it were biological in origin it would seem odd that 90% of it were in one region of the earths crust, as if for a huge span of history the only trees and animals were gathered in the middle east and the caspian sea,<br><br>but its true that in the end its a scientific curiosity question more than anything else because burning fossil fuels fucks the planet, i wish we'd hit the top of the curve 50 years ago <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Posts: 2204
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

scollon: this isn't the knockout you think it it

Postby glubglubglub » Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:43 am

YES: it demonstrates (presumably) abiotic production of methane, but:<br><br>Look up the oxygen concentration of earth's atmosphere vis-a-vis that of titan, and the average temperature (which together give you a sense of the diference in mean lifetime of free methane in both places), and things start looking much less impressive in that result. <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:14 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

take a peak at this:

Postby firstimer » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:03 am

Boitic/Abiotic<br><br>Don't forget that Biotic is only nature's manufacturing process and is usually developed under specific non-repeatable circumstances.<br><br>All "useful anywhere" manufacturing processes are abiotic. Biotic is a limitation in regards to production. It requires specific conditions and adds to overhead. (except in biowarfare)<br><br>The argument over finite or "beyond our perception_of finite origins of fossil fuel" is a short term waste of time especially for those without influence on the means of production of either. (If you want to learn logical analysis study Aristotle)<br><br>Who cares about Peak Oil? we know its not the motivation of Fascists only the rationalization of their opression. It matters not whether peak oil is a fact, we're getting the projected outcomes applied to us anyway.<br><br>I see a world coming where other forms of energy are for a higher class. That is what the Threat of War with Iran is really about.<br>And a class of humans and animals (except for a few) are religated to the world of fossil fuels. Their eminent demise is an illusion used as a means of control. The gradation of access to oil is an efficiency of managment control. There is no longer any such thing as fair access or even coincidental geologic ownership.<br><br>That ended (even as an illusion) with the invasion of Iraq. <br><br>firstimer<br><br>Lets Move on from "Moving On" and get back to class unity.<br>Lets Peek at their oil and say "no you can have it, just give us our scientists back and we'll do fine."<br>Lets learn from our mistakes instead of mistaking what to learn. <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

THIS Jerome corsi?

Postby DireStrike » Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:21 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010">mediamatters.org/items/200408060010</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I've been a little worried about the anti-peak oil sentiments, but if they're getting backing from this guy, I guess it's just disinfo, as I suspected. <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:42 pm
Location: NYC
Blog: View Blog (0)

Return to Energy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest