JohnnyDollar wrote...
I was simply saying that I may be inclined to believe with what you stated in your previous post that I have underlined and highlited.cruc1al wrote...
JohnnyDollar wrote...
I never stated oil reserves were infinite, rather that you prove that they are finite. You have given a good argument in regards to oil being finite. Here is the problem though. You don't know for a fact what the oil reserves are. World estimates change over time and often increase. We don't know what world reserves actually are. The usage of oil and the replenishment of it does not prove it will be depleted in 30 years est.cruc1al wrote...
JohnnyDollar wrote...
True, but it also doesbobobo878 wrote...
Just because a resource is not used, thatJohnnyDollar
wrote...
Ridiculing the idea of oil being cost-effectively renewable
assumes that it will always need to be renewable. In the context of
this debate.
does not mean it is infinite.
prove that it is finite.
Edit: Correction, it also does not
prove that is is finite.
Let's make this clear.
Fact 1: At any given time, the amount of oil cannot be infinite because Earth > oil.
Fact 2: Oil reserves replenish slowly in high pressures within Earth's crust.
So, the amount of oil must always be finite at any given time, but if oil reserves are used at exactly the same rate as they replenish, they are infinite for practical purposes. Saying oil reserves are infinite is technically not correct, but just another way of saying that the use of oil in such a scenario is sustainable. The reason it's not technically correct is that it would require the sustainable use of oil reserves to continue for an infinite amount of time.
But, there is a third fact, which is the reason I am inclined to believe there are geologists who claim usable oil reserves may run in some decades out if we keep burning them at the current rate, and that is:
Fact 3: Oil reserves are currently burned more quickly than they replenish because atmospheric CO2 builds up more quickly than it is absorbed by photosynthetic organisms (which become fossil fuels over geological time).
Although I am inclined to believe that the atmospheric CO2 building up from photosythethic organisms concerning the replenishing of our oil reserves is outpaced by our burning of it, that does not provide a compelling enough argument IMO that we will run out of oil in decades because we don't know what the reserves are. Some geoligists have also been stating these similar premises for a long time. They have never been correct. I don't how old you are, but you stated earlier that you read similar statements in school books. These statements are nothing new. If the predictions from the past 50yrs est. from geoligists concerning our oil reserves were correct, then we would be out of oil today.
I agree with you mostly. I never attempted to prove anything but that it is reasonable to believe that there are fully competent geologists (i.e. not some doomsayers) who claim it is a possibility that oil may run out in 30 years, taking into account the fact that oil reserves can be defined as all or only the usable oil reserves.
What I don't agree with is that you say total photosynthesis > total burning, which can only be false because we know CO2 is building UP, not DOWN.
Either way, the critical low pic in most doom sayer's charts is in the late 2nd decade, so we'll see in a couple of years, how it all turns out
.
Retour en haut
