Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:52:52 UTC No. 16250531

this adds a new wrinkle to the drake equations. life needs to evolve to become intelligent enough to develop combustion engines powered by organically stored CO2 before the ambient atmospheric CO2 runs out.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 15:30:55 UTC No. 16250934

This is retarded

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 18:03:14 UTC No. 16251171

>>16250934
No it isn't, life needs CO2 to survive, carbon based life is the only type known to exist. When CO2 runs out, thats then end of life on Earth or on any other planet

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:58:39 UTC No. 16251414

>>16250934
If you find carbon based life retarded, you can start fixing the situation yourself. Get a rope, chair, and do a flip

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:07:50 UTC No. 16251440

>>16250383
Source for the image and your claims?

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:55:17 UTC No. 16251536

>>16251440

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:57:48 UTC No. 16251542

>>16251536
>no sources
>posts soijaks
How boring

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:59:27 UTC No. 16251545

>all of the CO2 gets consumed before intelligent life can develop and the life on the planet dies out due to CO2 starvation

Tell me you are a retarded virgin teenager without telling me you're a faggot. Literally never happened, can't happen, and you're literally a fucking cock addict retard....literally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:03:11 UTC No. 16252351

>>16250383
Not only does intelligent life need to develop, but it needs to develop a culture that includes some sort of large scale combustion the rereleases stored CO2 back into the atmosphere, thats the only way to prevent eventual CO2 starvation.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:18:10 UTC No. 16252371

>>16251542
It snot disputed that CO2 levels in prehistory were far higher than modern levels. Where do you suppose the carbon that was sequestered as coal and oil came from?
You shouldn't require a source for the idea that no CO2 = the end of life on Earth (save for chemosynthesising subterranean microbes)

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 10:57:46 UTC No. 16252520

>>16252371
Once again, post the fucking sources

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 11:14:43 UTC No. 16252540

>>16252520
https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-earth-082420-063026

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:58:47 UTC No. 16253085

>>16252520
you can always tell someone is emotionally unhinged because they think using profanity makes their posts somehow count more. try capslock too net time, schizo

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:26:52 UTC No. 16254374

>>16250383
Theres a very narrow range of atmospheric CO2 portions which would allow carbon based life to eventually develop. The atmosphere probably needs to be more than about 5% but less than about 10%. There also needs to be water present. The Drake equations are really kind of lame, they dramatically overestimate how easy it is for life to form, but what do you expect considering the equations were developed by people who had zero training in biology past what they learned in high school.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:10:19 UTC No. 16254483

>>16253085
>waah mommy someone said a bad word

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 17:48:36 UTC No. 16255042

>>16250383
>the only way possible
no
>>16252351
What about constant wildfires?

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:37:03 UTC No. 16255203

>>16255042
they're not as wild as you think they are

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:45:27 UTC No. 16255220

>>16250383
Retard take

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:14:22 UTC No. 16256180

>>16254374
Astronomers are incredibly egotistical, they all presume they're experts in everything. The JWST fiasco and the HST disaster before that put some numerical boundaries on how much they overestimate their intelligence by.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:36:40 UTC No. 16257102

>>16254483
you lack the ability to control your emotions, you're and emotional person, not a rational person and because of that you're unable to think scientifically

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:40:03 UTC No. 16257109

>>16257102
>mom come pick me up, the discussion has become emotional

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 20:01:56 UTC No. 16257138

>>16250383
>>16250531
this can only happen before evolution of microbes re-releasing carbon from bead organic matter
also volvanoes exist
carbon cycle is a thing you moron

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 20:04:23 UTC No. 16257145

>>16257138
Nah
Carbon still gets sequestered to this day in peat bogs which are too anoxic for carbon to decompose, and also as calcium carbonate shells in sea creatures which becomes sediment when they die.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 07:08:31 UTC No. 16257819

>>16257145
If carbon can't be stored in organic matter for hundreds of millions of year at a time, where does the carbon in petroleum come from? is oil abiotic?

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 07:21:08 UTC No. 16257830

>>16257819
>If carbon can't be stored in organic matter for hundreds of millions of year at a time
But it can? Anoxic zones exist in the ocean too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brine_pool

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 08:23:25 UTC No. 16257859

>>16250383
I thought that most carbon was sequestered as calcium carbonate.

I do remember reading that the partial pressure for carbon dioxide during the last ice age was close to the limit where the turnover number for RuBisCO was not sufficient to maintain plant life.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:24:21 UTC No. 16258042

>>16257859
>I thought that most carbon was sequestered as calcium carbonate.
It is, but it's also prohibitively expensive to release that carbon into the atmosphere. Compare this to hydrocarbons which allows you to acquire plenty of money whilst releasing the carbon.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:17:10 UTC No. 16258089

>>16257859
>>16257859
>I do remember reading that the partial pressure for carbon dioxide during the last ice age was close to the limit where the turnover number for RuBisCO was not sufficient to maintain plant life
Correct. Below 150ppm, photosynthesis is not possible. Levels dipped to 180 during one of the more recent glacial maxima. See the bottom right of Picrel.

Until humans started releasing CO2 in vast quantities, the planet was in the grips of a carbon famine, the inevitable result of millions of years of net carbon sequestration. Yes, there is a carbon cycle, but as climate death cultists are only too eager to point out, carbon sequestration (including natural forms of sequestration like peat bogs and carbonate deposits) remove carbon from the cycle.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:32:21 UTC No. 16258100

>>16250383
>how many times has this cycle been repeated out in the universe?
who knows, we don't even know how vast the cosmos is, only that which we can observe

>all of the CO2 gets consumed before intelligent life can develop and the life on the planet dies out due to CO2 starvation
is this pattern of evens why there aren't any aliens?
Again, who knows. All we know is that on earth that has never happened. We literally have a sample of N=1

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:36:26 UTC No. 16258251

>>16258089
Retard take

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:09:43 UTC No. 16258444

>>16258251
Everything I said is factual. You always reply with "Retard take" when you faced with incontrovetible facts. That you dislike my interpretation of the facts is immaterial. If you had a better take, you would offer it.
I see through you, death cultist.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:11:28 UTC No. 16258447

>>16258444
Cope

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:22:34 UTC No. 16258467

>>16258447
Not an argument. I accept your concession to the incontrovetible fact that carbon has been on an inevitable decline tens of millions of years in the making which, without humans to release sequestered hydrocarbons, must inevitably end in the death of all life on Earth, save for chemosynthesising bacteria deep in the rock or around hydrothermal vents.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:27:39 UTC No. 16258475

>>16250383
>>planet of the right size forms in the goldilocks zone around a star of the right type
>>16250934
This.

OP literally describing how he thinks the world began by comparing it to fairy tale conditions that don't happen anywhere in the real world outside of fairy tales and he thinks it's science.

>yeah, it just formed in the right goldilocks conditions purely by accident and coincidentally, just because

It really doesn't matter what sort of conclusions you're coming to when your foundation is so wrong, any sort of conclusion you make will be uninformed and just retarded.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:47:45 UTC No. 16258504

>>16257819
>is oil abiotic?
yes

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 19:07:43 UTC No. 16258530

>>16250383
>how many times has this cycle been repeated out in the universe?
It's impossible to tell without knowing how common life is

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 20:08:53 UTC No. 16258648

>>16255203
Its about that time of year again, soon environmentalists will be burning the wilderness again as a means of trying to forward their totalitarian political agendas

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 20:28:54 UTC No. 16258680

>>16255203
Did any of the climate alarmist fear-mongering politicians ever apologize for spreading lies about that to further their agenda?

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 22:50:47 UTC No. 16258855

>>16257109
you literally proved the anon right, dummy

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 22:52:18 UTC No. 16258857

>>16258475
>it just formed in the right goldilocks conditions purely by accident and coincidentally
I don't understand, among the trillions of planets out there, is that impossible to happen?

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 22:53:19 UTC No. 16258859

>>16258504
>yes
oh, you're one of those, eh? I had a petroleum geology professor once who also believed in that.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 00:01:28 UTC No. 16258974

>>16258859
ever worked with supercritical fluid extraction?

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 03:52:31 UTC No. 16259265

>>16253085
RETARD

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 17:32:03 UTC No. 16260058

>>16250531
Thats true, however in our solar system all of the planets with CO2 atmospheres are in the goldilocks zone.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 17:35:03 UTC No. 16261512

what is it about the roughly 1000 watts per square meter zone that causes planets to have primarily CO2 in their atmospheres?

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 08:10:13 UTC No. 16262588

>>16261512
Solar winds blowing away most lighter gasses?

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 22:03:21 UTC No. 16263404

>>16262588
its weird that the hydrogen all ends up at the center of the solar system and the heavier gasses and the mineral end up in orbit.

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 23:22:09 UTC No. 16263486

>>16258859
It's a somewhat common belief in petroleum engineering
>t. oilfag, shitposting from far north

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 23:46:25 UTC No. 16263518

>>16250383
>Number of planets orbiting stars is like 10^22
That’s a fuckhuge number, life is probably very plentiful in the universe. Consider also that life on Earth appeared very early on after the planet’s formation (meaning it’s probably not an unlikely event).

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 17:43:35 UTC No. 16264574

>>16263404

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 06:44:47 UTC No. 16265573

>>16263404
given the abundance of heavy elements in our solar system it seems likely that the sun's core harbors mineral wealth in extraordinary amounts

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 07:56:08 UTC No. 16265627

>>16258859
>>16263486
one thing that's always stuck in my head about this is the fact the Kola Superdeep Borehole hit... hydrogen. so much it was "boiling out" of the drilling mud. this, drilled from out of/under craton from the fucking Archean.

if, at depth, the pressures and temperatures allow for hydrogen reduction of carbonates to methane and hydroxides/oxides, you have your abiotic process for carbon fixing.

we need to dig more holes.

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 12:12:11 UTC No. 16265844

>>16265627
Retard take

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 12:17:18 UTC No. 16265850

>>16265844
Where does the methane on Titan come from? Is that also fossil fuel?

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 12:35:09 UTC No. 16265862

>>16265850
Why aren't rectangles squares if squares are rectangles?

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 12:42:11 UTC No. 16265871

>>16263404
It's more that anything that collides with the sun ends up being converted to hydrogen in short order.

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 13:20:34 UTC No. 16265912

>>16265862
So hydrocarbons can occur abiotically, glad you have conceded the point.

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 18:51:30 UTC No. 16266367

>>16265912
Yeah, retard. Simple hydrocarbons can, oil cannot. Why aren't rectangles squares if squares are rectangles?

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 22:07:49 UTC No. 16266746

>>16266367
>oil cannot
why not? whats your proof that it can't?

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 22:23:11 UTC No. 16266762

>>16266746
You don't even understand the difference between oil and hydrocarbons. Do you have any idea how long it would take me to teach you even the most basic chemistry?

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 03:10:32 UTC No. 16267081

>>16266762
the difference between squares and rectangles doesn't make squares not rectangles.

just because it's not where crude oil comes from doesn't mean complex hydrocarbons can't form from the simplest ones abiotically - they can and do. that includes all the major components of oil, from alkanes to napthenes to aromatics. "oil cannot" is simply, chemically, incorrect.

literally all it takes is some process to deprotonate methane and you've got your mechanism to form chains, which can themselves react, deprotonate, and consolidate into yet more complex hydrocarbons. this is why Titan has ethane lakes and forms propane in its atmosphere. we don't know how complex the hydrocarbons on Titan get because it's so hard to examine the surface (anything heavier than methane condenses out of the atmosphere), but it's likely plenty complex. and (likely) not biotic.

now, from a philosophy of science standpoint, biotic petroleum has been the consensus explanation on Earth since long before methanogenic serpentinization was discovered, but abiotic processes like the latter are the consensus explanation for any extraterrestrial methane detections within the ice line.

it will be interesting to see which consensus explanation wins, because they are currently at odds with each other. petroleum origin is the less flashy subject, so it might just not be important enough to reexamine (deposit prediction is fucking abysmal in every formation model), but planetary scientists have a much better potential sample size - and they absolutely despise biotic explanations for anything.

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 03:22:58 UTC No. 16267105

>>16267081
>doesn't mean complex hydrocarbons can't form from the simplest ones abiotically
yes it does, ethane exists in comets, ethane is a complex hydrocarbon. there is nothing preventing complex hydrocarbons from forming once the simple one is present in quantity, the chemistry is all there.

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 05:34:59 UTC No. 16267250

>>16267105
Do comets have intense heat, pressure and variety of minerals within them, comparable to deep within the fluid an dynamic mantle of the Earth?

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 15:47:21 UTC No. 16267705

>>16267105
did you even read the post? he's agreeing with you

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 15:50:12 UTC No. 16267708

>>16267081
>>16267105
Retard takes.

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:19:08 UTC No. 16267744

>>16267708
>>16265844
>this is the best rebuttal i have
forget takes, you're just fully retarded

i don't even believe in abiotic oil. you're fucking embarrassing.

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 05:27:21 UTC No. 16268546

>>16265912
petroleum can form anywhere where there is enough pressure for supercritical fluids to form

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 01:36:07 UTC No. 16269781

>>16267105
It would be incredibly ignorant to presume that heptane and octane can't for in the same sort of abiotic natural processes that produce methane and ethane

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 14:20:49 UTC No. 16270335

>>16269781
>>16268546
Retard takes.

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 22:14:42 UTC No. 16270830

>>16267250
Yes

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 22:27:15 UTC No. 16270847

>>16251171
Ever heard of a thing called the Carbon cycle? You might find it interesting

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 01:16:08 UTC No. 16270974

>>16250383
The sun is also getting brighter, which means if you put in 5000 ppm today you would cause all life to go extinct.

You're also neglecting the fact that life can adapt so long as the change isn't too quick.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 04:44:08 UTC No. 16271081

>>16265627
Could that hydrogen seeped from mantle, where it remained ever since Earth's formation?