Once upon a time, all tar came from pine trees. — frank

Yeah dude, let's pretend you weren't trying to correct unen suggesting tar isn't a product of fossilised plants. :roll:

think it's more that under pressure, fossilized organic material produces oil and coal. — frank

No, this is again wrong. Pressure and heat cause the fossilisation of plant matter. It's not that plants fossilise and then under pressure turn into coal.

I asked Google whether coal is a rock or not and got two answers:

Why coal is considered as rock?

Being composed of carbon, coal forms a carbonaceous deposit. Having been transported and accumulated in a single deposit it is sedimentary. Having undergone metamorphosis and petrification it is a rock. Consequently it is reasonable to classify coal as a carbonaceous sedimentary rock.
Oct 12, 2015

Why is coal not a rock?
Coal differs from every other kind of rock in that it is made of organic carbon: the actual remains, not just mineralized fossils, of dead plants. Today, the vast majority of dead plant matter is consumed by fire and decay, returning its carbon to the atmosphere as the gas carbon dioxide.
Jan 23, 2020

To repeat the point: the term "fossilization" is tricky.

I consider a fossil to be "a plant or animal whose tissue has been completely replaced by mineral substances; no part of the animal remains in the fossil--only the form". Petrified wood, or petrified dinosaur bones are mineral replacements of the original tissue. The original tree or theropod is altogether absent--gone, missing, kaput.

Coal and oil can be called fossils, but in fact the original tissues of the organisms are present, albeit transformed. If they were actual "fossils" they could not be used as fuel.

So, "fossil fuels" are a handy figure of speech, but they do not actually describe coal and oil.,

No, this is again wrong. Pressure and heat cause the fossilisation of plant matter. — Benkei

I don't think so. Let's all follow BC's lead and grow a sense of humor. :razz:

Being composed of carbon, coal forms a carbonaceous deposit. Having been transported and accumulated in a single deposit it is sedimentary. Having undergone metamorphosis and petrification it is a rock. Consequently it is reasonable to classify coal as a carbonaceous sedimentary rock.
Oct 12, 2015 — BC

Yes, I guess that's true. I just don't normally think of coal as a rock. Have you ever been through West Virginia and seen the huge bands of coal in the cliffs beside the highway? Awesome.

I asked Google whether coal is a rock or not and got two answers — BC

Coal is a sedimentary rock. This isn’t controversial.

Coal and oil can be called fossils, but in fact the original tissues of the organisms are present, albeit transformed. — BC

Coal and oil are fossil fuels. Also not controversial.

Not sure why you’re muddying the waters on something pretty well understood. No one claimed oil is made from “dead dinosaurs.”

"The theory that fossil fuels formed from the fossilized remains of dead plants by exposure to heat and pressure in Earth's crust over millions of years was first introduced by Andreas Libavius "in his 1597 Alchemia [Alchymia]" and later by Mikhail Lomonosov "as early as 1757 and certainly by 1763".[23] The first use of the term "fossil fuel" occurs in the work of the German chemist Caspar Neumann, in English translation in 1759.[24] The Oxford English Dictionary notes that in the phrase "fossil fuel" the adjective "fossil" means "[o]btained by digging; found buried in the earth", which dates to at least 1652,[25] before the English noun "fossil" came to refer primarily to long-dead organisms in the early 18th century.[26]

"Aquatic phytoplankton and zooplankton that died and sedimented in large quantities under anoxic conditions millions of years ago began forming petroleum and natural gas as a result of anaerobic decomposition. Over geological time this organic matter, mixed with mud, became buried under further heavy layers of inorganic sediment. The resulting high temperature and pressure caused the organic matter to chemically alter, first into a waxy material known as kerogen, which is found in oil shales, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis. Despite these heat-driven transformations, the energy released in combustion is still photosynthetic in origin.[4]"

Wikipedia on fossil fuels.

Not sure why you’re muddying the waters on something pretty well understood. No one claimed oil is made from “dead dinosaurs. — Mikie

No one HERE claimed oil is made from dead dinosaurs. Go ask 100 people in Walmart; some of them will say that oil came from dead dinosaurs.

As long as we are talking about fuel, "fossil fuel" is not at all confusing. If people start talking about fossilized animals and plants while they are also talking about fuel, the water turns muddy. If you were to be covered up with a lot of muddy water, the suspended solids would settle on your esteemed carcass and over eons would turn you into a very small glob of petroleum, depending how fat your are. Unfortunately, by the time your are petrol the species will have long since become extinct and the successor species will probably use photosynthesis.

There aren't any fossils in fossil fuels.

The Oxford English Dictionary notes that in the phrase "fossil fuel" the adjective "fossil" means "[o]btained by digging; found buried in the earth", which dates to at least 1652,[25] before the English noun "fossil" came to refer primarily to long-dead organisms in the early 18th century.[26] — frank

So you were right. The rest of us were wrong.

Go ask 100 people in Walmart; some of them will say that oil came from dead dinosaurs. — BC

Fair enough. But people also can’t locate the US on a map, so…

Yes, the propaganda, and willful ignorance and complacency, are all strong. If enough people get on the same page, then we will still face the issue that in many democratic nations there is little to choose between candidate parties, and in totalitarian nations, well...revolution will be required. It's not really looking good for a stable future, whatever happens.

Agreed. The stupidity, denial, and ignorance displayed on this thread alone is itself indicative of a wider problem.

Propaganda, misinformation, and human unwillingness to face reality may very well destroy the species — from climate change, yes, but also from things like nuclear proliferation.

But I try to stay optimistic. Younger people give me some hope.

Worth repeating:

It is fossil fuels that are the problem. NOT cows. — Agree to Disagree

Livestock, including cows, are a significant contributor and significant problem. They add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Your embarrassing ignorance notwithstanding.

Point out the fault in this logic:
- Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
- Cows eat the plants.
- The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere. — Agree to Disagree

You really can’t see it, huh?

Well see if you can point out the fault in this logic (I’ll make it easier):

- “Atoms of carbon” are taken up by plants. Those plants get fossilized.

- We burn those plants.

- We release those atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.

Thus, it’s a cycle and burning fossil fuels doesn’t add any carbon to the atmosphere.

That still too hard? Alright: more cows, more land is needed to raise cows. Millions of hectares.
———

Still not one response to this.

But I try to stay optimistic. Younger people give me some hope. — Mikie

:up: Optimism is the only attitude worth taking; pessimism brings about its own prophecies...and complacency is capitulation by default. Denial is the worst of all...

Point out the fault in this logic:
- Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
- Cows eat the plants.
- The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere. — Agree to Disagree

Your picture of the carbon cycle is OK as far as it goes, but 3 things are missing:

a) A small minority of cows are grazed on grass alone. Most cows are fed hay or grass, but are "finished"(weight and fat are added) on grains. Grain requires quite a bit of added energy input in the form of fertilizer and fuel. Carbon dioxide is the by-product of raising corn, wheat, and soybeans for feed.

b) Grass-fed cows digest their food by fermentation; a by-product of this fermentation is methane, which the cows belch in large quantities, Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

c) The land on which feed for cattle is produced could produce those crops for humans--corn, wheat, soybeans, oats, etc. The ratio of grains to meat (pound for pound) is 6:1 -- it takes 6 pounds of feed to produce one pound of meat. Chicken is much more efficient, 1.5:1--1 1/2 lbs of feed for 1 pound of chicken. Pork is in-between beef and chicken -- 3:1.

I am not a vegetarian, btw. I like meat.

Grass-fed cows digest their food by fermentation; a by-product of this fermentation is methane, which the cows belch in large quantities, Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. — BC

https://www.goodmeat.com.au/environmental-sustainability/biogenic-carbon-cycle

Cows (and other ruminant animals like sheep) are often linked to climate change because they emit methane, a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG).

But the fact is, this methane is part of a natural – or biogenic – carbon cycle, in which the methane breaks down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water after about 12 years. Grass then absorbs the CO2 through photosynthesis, cows eat the grass and the cycle continues.

The next 2 paragraphs are counter-intuitive, so take time to think about them

With stable livestock numbers, the amount of methane produced actually balances the methane that breaks down from the atmosphere.

The next paragraph is my summary of the situation:
With stable livestock numbers the total amount of methane in the atmosphere from cows remains at the same level. This is because the amount of methane added to the atmosphere each year equals the amount of methane removed from the atmosphere each year (by breaking down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water). So if livestock numbers stay the same then the methane produced by livestock does not cause additional global warming (the methane from cows is not increasing).

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/831959

But yeah, keep quoting the “good meats” company website. Solid (and apparently only) source.

Try broadening your horizons. It won’t help your denial, but it’ll at least inform you a little more regarding your obsession with cows.

Please read this webpage to see information about your points (a) and (c)

https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein

Look especially at the sections about
- grain-finished versus grass-fed
- Inedible feed to edible protein
- Not competing for land

But yeah, keep quoting the “good meats” company website. Solid (and apparently only) source.

Try broadening your horizons. It won’t help your denial, but it’ll at least inform you a little more regarding your obsession with cows. — Mikie

I gave you 3 sources in total. The other 2 are NOT meat companies

This one is The University of California, Davis
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle

This one is CSIRO: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is an Australian Government agency responsible for scientific research.
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein

Have you tried doing the maths?

Which points can you prove are wrong?

You’ve repeatedly quoted a meat company.

Which points can you prove are wrong? — Agree to Disagree

You mean your point that cows don’t add any emissions because of the “biogenic cycle”? I’ve addressed this now 3 times. I even reposted it. You’ve ignored it. Not a surprise, given that it shows how ludicrous your position is, but still stands.

Thus, it’s a cycle and burning fossil fuels doesn’t add any carbon to the atmosphere. — Mikie

The carbon in fossil fuels accumulated over a long time and has been locked away from the atmosphere for a long time. Burning fossil fuels adds carbon to the atmosphere and this carbon accumulates because it stays in the atmosphere for a long time. Fossil fuel carbon is not part of the biogenic carbon cycle.

You’ve repeatedly quoted a meat company. — Mikie

I gave you 2 other sources which are NOT meat companies. What don't you like about these 2 sources?

This one is The University of California, Davis
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle

This one is CSIRO: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is an Australian Government agency responsible for scientific research.
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein

The carbon in fossil fuels accumulated over a long time and has been locked away from the atmosphere for a long time. — Agree to Disagree

And forests hold carbon too— some for a long time. Clearing them to make room for livestock adds carbon to the atmosphere. This isn’t hard stuff.

What don't you like about these 2 sources? — Agree to Disagree

That they have nothing whatsoever to do with the problem of emissions from livestock, which is significant.

Emissions from livestock production are expected to continue rising as the global population nears 10 billion by midcentury and diets shift to incorporate more meat. (Consumption of meat from ruminant animals like cattle is expected to increase by about 90% by 2050.) If current trends for food demand and production continue, emissions from the food system alone would likely push global warming beyond 1.5° C, even if all non-food system emissions were immediately eliminated. Consumption of dairy and meat, particularly from cattle, is expected to account for over half of future warming associated with the food system, with emissions from meat production alone contributing 0.2–0.44°C of warming by the end of the century.

if livestock numbers stay the same, eventually (in about 12 years), the methane produced by livestock will not contribute additional global warming.

From “goodmeats.”

Clue: the keyword here is “if.” (That’s not happening.)

Here again it’s worth pausing in awe of an individual’s capacity to believe they know something that scientists, who have dedicated their entire lives to studying a topic, don’t know— or have apparently overlooked. Like, for example, maybe if we keep repeating “biogenic carbon cycle” a thousand times, we won’t have to worry about meat production anymore!

Emissions are increasing from livestock? “Biogenic carbon cycle.” Bam. Problem solved. Scientists worried for nothing.

What don't you like about these 2 sources?
— Agree to Disagree

That they have nothing whatsoever to do with the problem of emissions from livestock, which is significant. — Mikie

The first source from The University of California, Davis
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle
This webpage address actually has "biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle" in the address.
You obviously haven't read it because it is about emissions from livestock

The second source from CSIRO: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein
This webpage has a section on methane

You obviously haven't read it because it is about emissions from livestock — Agree to Disagree

I said it doesn’t address the problem of livestock emissions. It doesn’t address the problem at all, in fact.

It’s also a highly suspect source. Just go to the about section. You’re not getting a full story there.

if livestock numbers stay the same, eventually (in about 12 years), the methane produced by livestock will not contribute additional global warming.

From “goodmeats.”

Clue: the keyword here is “if.” — Mikie

IF you look then you will see that not all of the sources are meat companies.

IF you read the sources then you might learn something.

IF you can do the maths then you would see that the claim is true.

Clue: the keyword here is “IF”

I said it doesn’t address the problem of livestock emissions. It doesn’t address the problem at all, in fact. — Mikie

It talks about livestock emissions and whether these emissions are actually a problem.

The "problem" is that you won't look at anything that you don't agree with.