Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Climate Change - Is it Controversial?



This is more or less the currently accepted scientific model for the
formation of "fossil" fuels. But there is a line of thought that the Earth
is generating methane which is turning into oil. This is promoted in
fundamentalist religious schools, but is not really taken seriously by
geologists according to my geologist friend. However this line of thought
is picked up and believed by some people. The implication would be that oil
wells would eventually replenish themselves.

I would say that the word fossil is generally only used in connection with
fuels which were deposited in the past by living things. I have never heard
it used for uranium, or for many other industrial products produced by
ancient living things such as sandstone. It would make sense to use it for
amber. I have seen some articles which claim that some other types of
mineral deposits could be the result of microbial action. So I would say
that this word is used only for actual fossils, or for ancient biological
origin fuels. Is peat a fossil fuel? Languages are no knows for their
consistency.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Perhaps I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that Robert
Carlson is taking a lot of abuse for having asked a fairly
straightforward question.

Back in the middle of the last century, when I was in grade school,
we were taught that oil, natural gas, and coal (and therefor diamond)
were formed from big fern like plants that grew in abundance long,
long ago. If that's no longer the accepted explanation, I, too, would
be interested in knowing. No particular agenda, just curiosity.