iDevonian

I think I may know what the original poster means. Some people abandon their faiths, and simply transition to new ones. Non belief comes in many forms, but the most clear form of atheism is one that is understood. Understanding knowledge and your world view, is greater than simply disbelieving in religion. I would not word it the same as the original poster though, nor do i know if this is what he means.

If the person who wrote the article, stated that there was no acceleration in sea level rise, and the data says otherwise, then the author of the article is wrong.

Originally, you have a molten magmatic earth. However, the white cliffs of dover didnt form for another ~4.3 billions years later or so (pardon my quick math). The ocean plates are mafic and are made of denser materials than the felsic crustal surfaces. Calcium exists in many places, as previously mentioned by other people. It is very common in igneous minerals. So what you have is, the earth forms from igneous minerals, deposited. Billions of years later, calcium is dissolved into the oceans that eventually had formed. Then even further along, you have your microscopic sea critters absorbing it and making calcium deposits. Calcium would be present in "scrapings", water and igneous minerals. How the organisms extract it from their environment is more of a question for biologists. Or earth scientists who happen to be well rounded with the biology of molluscs, or something along those lines. Your questions relate to the origins of biological evolution, when, why and how paleo sea critters began to utilize calcium deposits from their environment. I am not too familiar with this development, but it has always been my general impression that they absorb calcium that has dissolved into the oceans, or consume it when they consume other organisms (such as plants and other arthropods n such).

The cliffs of dover, if im not mistaken are a couple hundred million years old. They are made of tiny shells...coccoliths. Organisms (and plate tectonics n such) created them. If you want to know how organisms make shells or coccoliths or other calcium carbonate structures, then that is something a biologist may be more familiar with. It is likely that the methods used to develop calcium carbonate in organisms today, are the same as they were back then. I just read the post before mine. I personally do not know much about how organisms make their shells, but the person who has posted before me has suggested something that may be the case. It sounds reasonable.

Id use the term "cyanobacteria" with oxygen production. Rather than stromatolites. Thats just me though. Maybe you could turn to astronomy and the formation of heavy elements within stars. Supernovas fuse basic elements to create the variety we see today. They then explode. Also, early earth was extremely hot, a molten ball of magma, so I cant imagine there was any ice on the planet during earths formation. The elements predate earth in age.

We know things will work out fine because they already are working fine as we speak. We know that we have the resources necessary and plenty of time to make the gradual change. My statement was fairly broad too. I wasnt pinpointing a date within any 5 year period.

If you are a scientist, asking for a source for how long it will be for alternatives to take over, is like asking for a source on oil in general. Any and every source that talks about peak oil will tell you exactly what I am telling you now. And again, I have referenced hubberts peak. Go google peak oil. You can find hundreds of professional opinions, 99% of which aim toward the same conclusion. As far as I am concerned, I am a fairly reputable source. I am not a petroleum geologist, but I am a geologist. I have been following these things for years now. I know what the consensus is, and I know why it is. What I am saying is reasonable. Ok, so your scenario marks a 10 year timephrame between the finally of oil use and the transition to alternatives. If these fossil fuels have a time span of hundreds of years, for resources like coal, we are talking about multiple hundreds. You trying to define such an event within a 10 year span, is too specific. Nobody, no reputable source nor expert could ever give you such a specific time frame in which alternatives would take over. So I dont see why you would ask us here and now. Resource use and the depletion of fossil fuels as well as the transition to alternatives is based on all sorts of things. Its very complex and not only is it a difficult question to pin point to an exact decade by geologists, but also to economists, big businesses, the governments behind alternative subsidies. There are a million and one factors that make it near impossible to pinpoint such a date to a specific decade. Especially so soon. Not only that, but because we have multiple kinds of resources aside from oil use, we wouldnt abruptly stop using them all at once (thus resulting in millions dying). We may slow down drastically with one or another, but others would remain. Its like having a car with 18 wheels. If one tire blows out, you dont just stop running. You drive until you get to the shop and you switch wheels. Or you put on your donut temporarily while you get a new wheel. Your scenario is unrealistic. Not only that, it is unreasonable to attempt to find such a specific time in which a full transition would occur. It is far more likely that there will be a gradual transition (as is occurring as we speak and can visibly see) over the next 50-100-150-200 years. Each decade providing newer and more advanced and useful alternatives than the last. Each form of alternative, taking over for the lessening of of fossil fuels while they simultaneously lead to alterations in how we live our day to day lives. Its like global food supply. People arent just going to run out of food and millions instantly die. It is more likely to be gradual. Food is shortened, people starve, but live on with malnutrition, people have less children because they do not have the resources to sustain them...and so, instead of millions dying, what you have are millions simply not being born. In an unnoticeable transition. Ill give you the last word, there really isnt much more to say here. I'd give the transition exactly the time frame i stated earlier. 50-200 years, step by step, small steps, over time. By 200 hundred years from now, fossil fuels should be long gone as the leaders in resource use. While by 50 years, it should be quite clear to everyone that alternatives will be strongly significant providers of their life time. This include you and I now as well. We may be alive in 50 years. When we are old, it will likely be very clear to us that he world is changing. As it always has been. I give these numbers based on peak oil data, coal resource data, the development of alternatives. You can find these reserves and this information on websites like the international energy agency website, or the US energy information administration website. You can also talk to just about any earth scientist. We are all basically on the same page here. These are reputable sources that you seem to be interested in. They seem like common sense sources, but I am providing them anyway.

Alternatives will replace fossil fuels within the timephrame in which they run out (or sooner, as they get low). What do you think we will just sit around twiddling our thumbs while we run out of energy? Obviously we will pick up the slack elsewhere. While what youre saying is true, alternatives do not necessarily need to grow as fast as fossil fuels are depleted. By determining the amount of time we have to use something like oil...150-200 years? We can get an idea of when economic stresses are going to turn into alternative investments. Its possible we may jump to alternatives sooner than that. Though, its like... Here is an example... Lets say I drive down a typical street to work every day. Eventually my fuel begins getting more and more expensive, so I slowly transition into alternatives. I look for hybrids for example. I look for alternative quicker routes. Maybe the turnpike. now, I could start taking alternative routes and the turnpike before I get low on fuel. Its possible. But it is not too likely that I would wait until My car is literally on empty before I begin investing time and money into discovering alternative routes. People will and are doing the same thing. As we speak, these are real life events. Hybrids are becoming more popular, people are more mindful of rising gas prices. People are buying smaller or more gas efficient cars. On larger scales, countries are investing more money and time into alternatives. The transitions though not exactly proportional, are strongly relative to eachother. So, if something like oil runs out in...ill give the strongly liberal number of 300 years, we can safely bet that we arent going to sit around for 400 years without discovering something else to take its place. And eventually, gas will hypothetically become so expensive, or so difficult to get (assuming nobody turns to alternatives), that I would, essentially have no choice but to invest in alternatives. Even lower quality or less efficient alternatives, will inevitably become better investments than overpriced oil. Unless we find a way to manufacture our own oil or something. And its clear we arent going to sit around and do nothing because we are already taking action as we speak, ahead of time. So, I understand what youre saying, but you should also understand what I am saying. They will, likely take over the market within the next few generations, if not sooner (with respect to something like an unleaded or diesel fueled car).

Were talking about alternatives coming to dominate the market. This is inevitable with the demise of significant fossil fuels like petroleum. By discussing the limitations of oil reserves, I am pointing out the future take over of alternatives. You talked about increased production as if it would alter the demise of oil use. I simply stated that production really has no bearing on reserves. Just because production increases over the span of 3 years, doesnt mean that it will continue to increase over the span of 100 years. This is because the reserves do not magically grow over time with increased production. If anything, increased production due to technological advances, combined with increased production by necessity with population growth, really only decreases the time before it runs out, and decreases the time before alternatives will be pressed harder, and ultimately will take over the market. You said, and I quote "Ok. So "oil production going up since 2009" is not at odds with your statement that "Oil production in the US has been on the decline for some time now". Got it." Now I am saying, if I roll a ball down a 100 foot hill, and while rolling down the 100 foot hill, it hits a pebble and rolls back up the hill about 3 inches...just because it bounced up 3 inches, doesnt mean it will magically fly all the way back up the hill. Just because I turn on the Air conditioner in my house for 5 minutes during the summer...doesnt mean that my house will cool indefinitely. Rather, the cooling will stop, and inevitably with the summer, my house will become warm again. This is why oil production going up for 3 years, really isnt at odds with my statement that production in the US has been on the decline for some time now. Just as if you we were to say, a ball bouncing a couple inches back up the hill, doesnt contradict my statement that the ball is in reality rolling down hill. So, my response is relative to yours. And ultimately, production is still in a sense, independent from reserves. Reserves around the world are very limited in size and usefulness for production. Unless you believe that mankind will simply figure out a way to live without energy, we will make the transition (more than we already are now). Also, for the record, i consider a couple of generations, "the near future". If my grandchildren live to see it, id consider it very near. Maybe you feel that, that is a long ways away. If you do, i suppose that is fine.

If you just google information on oil reserves, just about any source will tell you what I am telling you now. And I have told you to do that. Google peak oil, google hubberts peak. Go pick up a book on petroleum resources. Its not that hard. And no, oil production going up since 2009 doesnt mean anything. Since when has oil production rising within 3 years somehow transformed the amount of available and efficiently acquirable oil? Again, thats like...the winter time coming around in december and someone saying "oh! its colder this month than it was last month! It must mean global cooling!" Better yet, just because you are referring specifically to production rather than production and overall reserves, your analogy is almost like...if you were to cut on the air conditioner in your household, and to then proceed in calling it global cooling. It doesnt make any sense. If you cant understand that, its not my problem.

Oil being on the decline and near depletion is evidence enough for alternatives taking over in the near future. It is either that, or the extinction of humanity. Also, oil production rising from 2009 is not the same as oil production rising as a whole. That would be like December coming around and people claiming that the planet is cooling. And no, that isnt moving the goal post. A couple of generations is the near future. A couple of generations is in part, within our lifetime. Unless you consider only 5 years to be the near future or something along those lines.

We already know that alternatives are a solution. They are the solution and inevitably have to be (thus is the nature of limited fossil fuels). We are already using alternatives as well, so we know that we can, should we need to. Also, I am not arguing anything, these are not arguments. I am simply telling you what is. They are factual statements. Oil production in the US has been on the decline for some time now. The worlds leading oil producers like Saudi likely will be out of luck in just a generation or two. And realistically, I dont think there is any scientist on earth who believes that with further research and funding, we couldnt make alternative fuel extraction and use, more efficient. I am not saying you are too ignorant to understand. I am just saying, if you dont think that alternatives will inevitably overtake fossil fuels within a couple generations, then realistically, you are the one who should be providing me evidence. Because there is no credible research in the world that points at something like America somehow becoming energy efficient based on oil production from the gulf (only in a dream world). Gas production is currently booming which is great. Coal production for our country in particular also ought to be capable of providing production of electricity for generations to come. However petroleum resources, which we use in just about everything we do, is greatly limited. I never said alternatives would be able to equal up to the greatness of current fossil fuels in efficiency (not that I dont believe they will with time). What I am saying is, fossil fuels are...limited. Not only are they limited but they are...very limited. We have no choice but to accept alternatives, even less efficient ones. If you put money in the bank each day, at that rate you would become a millionaire at some time. If we were to make a proper analogy to petroleum production, with our production and reserves being depleted...you would be increasing your funds at an accelerated rate toward millionairism. You would be getting rich so fast that everyone would be investing in your development. How about that... Also, just because you may be dying in 50 or 100 years, doesnt mean you wont have children or grand children. By ignoring the inevitable, all you are doing is putting more weight on their shoulders, more than is already on your own.

If oil is on the decline in various nations and nations are struggling in their production, or their production comes from reserves of a limited capacity that at present rate would deplete them within a hundred years...and you still believe that they wont be replaced in the near future, then I cannot help you. Also, in this small span of time, you have not really researched what I had mentioned in my above post. If I asked you how long you believe Saudi Arabias oil reserves will last at present depletion rates, what would you say? The answer is within hubberts peak (the book). I imagine based on your response here though that you dont know how much oil they have. It is more limited than most people like talking about. These nations arent developing alternatives just for the fun of it. If you are living in the US, look at the news today. Have you not seen the constant fighting over alternatives, the rising gas prices and insistent struggle over the production of these fuels? The gas industry is our current exception. Nuclear is an alternative with a lifespan far longer than fossil fuels. I am saying that it too will, undoubtedly overtake fossil fuels in the energy it provides. They already are replacing fossil fuels as we speak. Not a day goes by in which investments in their production is not increasing worldwide. When will they be used for greater energy production than fossil fuels? I'd say, at least here in the US, it is likely that we will see alternatives overtake oil based energy simply because the US doesnt have any oil (within our lifetime). Thats a start. I would define "near future" as being within the next 150 years or so. If you think about it, how long has the world truly been using these resources at high capacity? What 50 years? How long has it been since the industrial revolution? And already we can see their limits before us and already the US and the EU are running out. It should be quite obvious to anyone, that they wont be here long. If, within 50 years we are already complaining about how little oil we have. My grandparents are likely to live longer than peak/optimal uses of something like oil, let along 2 or 3 generations worth of people.

Google peak oil. Google, Hubberts peak. You can also read about advancements of alternatives around the world, be them with solar power http://en.wikipedia...._power_in_Spain Wind http://en.wikipedia....ower_in_Denmark Of course, nuclear power is a big one...I dont even really need to defend it because its all over the news on a daily basis. Hydro etc. You can just take a trip to europe anytime and see them driving smaller cars. They dont exactly do this by choice. Also, if you think about it, it takes hundreds of millions of years for the earth to develop fossil fuels. It only takes a decade for mankind to whipe out a mountain with bulldozers and drills. They are a temporary solution. Us having this conversation now is evidence of that. The constant bickering on the news about getting off of foreign oil in the US. Its constantly on the news because it simply needs to be done. The US doesnt have enough oil to run its own population, if it does on this very day, it wont within our lifetimes. Countries like Saudi and China do have big reserves, but they also are pumping it out of the ground so fast, or they have a billion people depending on it. And its not just for oil in our cars, its for everything. We use petroleum for all sorts of products in our everyday lives. As time goes on, fossil fuels will slowly but surely fade out, as they are already. We see development and investments in hybrid vehicles. Investments in "solar and biofuels" as the administration constantly states. And while here in the US, the industries arent miraculously booming, they are being developed. The transition is occurring as we speak.

There is plenty of evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future. By the nature of what fossil fuels are, it will not be long before we have no option but to move on.

Hm. Trilobites prospered in the cambrian. I often find orthoceras from the ordovician. Cephalopods. The silurian had a lot of shallow marine invertebrates. eurypterus, arthropods and myriapods. ah...the devonian...tiktaalik is pretty popular. The mississippian and pennsylvanian had a lot of large insects and...lots of plants. Synapsids in the permian, dinosaurs throughout the mesozoic. Triassic lystosaurus, Jurassic archaeopteryx, cretaceous t-rex http://microecos.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/img_2207.jpg Im not too familiar with fossils between the end of the cretaceous to the early holocene. Eventually you get into all of the archaic homo sapiens. There are a fair number of them.

Well, If there is any place to go, if youre interested in experiencing the fossil record first hand. It is to the burgess shale in british columbia. I think its great that you have seen the k-t boundary. To get an idea of the entire fossil succession, you will just need time. The fossil record is very detailed with countless fossils. The more time you spend looking into it, the more detailed your view will become. Good luck. And yes, well...I have worked with rocks of just about all ages (except really ancient Hadean rocks). The devonian with its tetrapod transitionals, in my opinion is an interesting time. The fossils are quite impressive.

The number of holes equates to the number of operations, the number of events in which human error can occur with regards to things like cement and casing, spills, leaks, seeps, blowouts, and typical accidents that may be present on rig locations (and yes, they all do exist, as we all know. Not a day passes by in which rig hands arent discussing safety matters and continual accidents that occur around the nation). We are also talking about things like deforestation, clearing paths through forests for pipelines (and erosion from this), spills and accidents with vehicles transporting resources to and fro, on Site spills, accidents with pressurized hozes used for cement jobs...rigs even burn down from time to time (it is all too common). And as for your second comment. I didnt say we should stop driving cars and watching tv. I just said, with these kinds of operations, accidents happen. These operations are far from environmentally friendly. That is all I am saying. If these operations did not exist, then we wouldnt have to worry about contaminating the ground water, and we realistically wouldnt even be having this conversation right now. Even something as simple as a typical Sonoco gas station, in many cases results in ground water and environmental contamination release. If something as simple as a basic gas station is likely to have a release of contaminants to the earth, there is really no doubt in my mind (or anyone elses for that matter) that these operations do in fact harm the environment. However, just because sonoco gas stations have oil spills, it is subjective to claim that because of this, we should stop using gas stations. Likewise, just because rig operations may damage the environment, it doesnt necessarily mean we should get rid of...what is it...30% of US gas based electrical production? Its all subjective. I am all for using a gasoline car and burning gas powered lights. But theres no way I would let one of those rigs sit near my water table.

Yes of course. The ediacara biota. You should also specify, if youre interested in fossils of animals that are from the pre cambrian, or if youre interested in just fossils in general. The oldest fossils date long long before the cambrian. The ediacara biota existed during the ediacaran period. Their fossils consist of...things that would be expected. Arthropods, cnidarians, stromatolites, different types burrowing organisms, like worms etc. Many of the organisms were just...very very simple in structure. No complex digestive system or anything like that. Just simple animals that just kind of hang out like plants. However, complex systems existed as well, marking pre cursors to cambrian arthropods and various invertebrates. Organisms like algae have fossils dating back...over 3.5 billion years ago. So yes, they were present prior to the cambrian as well. Id recommend looking at wikipedia. On wiki pages, for living organisms, there is a geologic timescale on the page that you can reference. https://en.wikipedia.../Ediacara_biota https://en.wikipedia...ki/Stromatolite https://nonfinito.fi...77-ediacara.jpg

Of course I too am a fine supporter of the theory. It is quite clear that we have all evolved (from the perspective of a geologist with some experience in paleo). In my opinion though, especially with some of the most recent discoveries with respect to our DNA and its functionality (the junk dna studies in particular). I believe that our understanding of evolution is not full proof or the "whole picture". Much of our DNA and its functionality is still not fully understood. I believe random mutation and selection do indeed lead to evolution of species, though I believe there may be other other genes, acting in ways which may lead to more productive alterations, beyond merely the purely random changes. Of course, there are also genes (regulatory) that manipulate groups of other genes, that when altered, lead to the alteration of many genes. This would create larger jumps in DNA functionality change. Also, yes natural selection does in a sense, guide mutations, but I to what extent mutations may follow suit with the environment, I think is something that may have a few secrets with it. Just my opinion.

First we need proper english with words that are fully typed out. Its painful just reading this, let alone responding to it.

Even with sufficient cement and casing works, I still would not suspect this work to be environmentally friendly. The sheer number of boring holes and the vast amount of fluid used in the entirety of these operations is going somewhere. It doesnt just dissapear, and it is challenging to treat. Granted, the effects are probably very minor, but over time, with thousands of wells drilled, it is near impossible not to contaminate local aquifers. Realistically though, there are far worst things that harm people in this world that are being overlooked. I am not against hydraulic fracturing, though people do have a point when they complain about contamination of local wells. And yes, in many cases, cement jobs may be poor or casing may be damaged, which would be the ultimate issue, however, if it werent for an interest in fracturing, there wouldnt be faulty cement jobs and casing to begin with. It is inevitable that human error will lead to cement and casing issues. Also, by disturbing the gases within these beds, they are enhancing the proportions of gases migrating into local aquifers. Not that gases like methane will kill you, though your water may be flammable, which isnt really a good thing. Aside from that, there are also issues of erosion. The gas pipes used to transport recovered methane need paths built for them, and often create a great deal of erosion and runoff into local streams and reserviors. This increases the amounts of metals found in water, which can kill whatever uses that water to survive. These are all things that have happened and have been documented. Ultimately, fracking harms a minority in support of providing for the majority. Just like any other fossil fuel recovery operations, or even any fuel recovery in general. Also, the extent at which fractures split the rock is...seemingly impossible to fully understand. Bedding above the marcellus is not as impermeable as it is. Fracking undoubtedly enhances the mobility of gases trapped within the bed and likely frees much of it beyond areas limited to the boring.

Geology is more than just structural geology. I am sure other "ologies" cross around in other fields as well. We have environmental geology, hydrogeology, paleontology etc. Our views in geology often encompass the world as a whole. Other sciences do as well though. It is just a matter of what your specialty is. A geologist may be a geophysicist or a hydrogeologist, or a mineralogist, but a single individual cannot be an expert in all of these, even if the field covers them all. A single human cannot be an expert in all aspects of all fields. As a geologist though, I do look at a grand picture, personally.

I work as a geologist, so I do not know much about identification of bacteria. However, there are drinking water standards provided by the EPA through state environmental agencies. Within those standards, we often test for fecal coliform within ground water. If you are truly concerned about what you may be drinking, I would contact a local environmental firm and ask them if they could get your water tested at an accredited laboratory. You can test by state wide health standards.

I agree with John Cuthber. The graph clearly shows both an acceleration and increase in Global sea level. This persons graph contradicts their own words.