Dear Candidate: What if growth was over?

[CrusaderFrank]

I cannot find a single experiment that take organic material, subjects them to heat and pressure and produces complex hydrocarbons. Yet, the Soviets took water, marble and rust put it under heat and pressure and got complex hydrocarbons.

"Dinosaurs?" Try millions of years of decomposing plant matter, straw man champion.

Nevermind the irony that cons like you cling to Cold War commie science like this to fool yourself into thinking oil comes from God, it would be impossible to debate this issue with you, because it's clear you don't read. You're a charlatan of the most laughable magnitude. I'm fairly convinced you don't even understand the drivel you cut and paste. All you think you know is that traces of methane have been found in space, so that must mean conventional light crude oil must come from the mantle of the Earth. Makes sense. ... Afterall, alcohol has been found in space clouds, so it must be raining new kegs of Duff Beer any day now.

Even if we placate you, faux scientist, and accept your premise (accepted by virtually no body in the scientific community, mind you), it does nothing for your overall argument.

Because all that matters is: Where is it? Big Oil sure would like to know, because they're bankrupting themselves trying to get at what little new finds are left. So, where is the "space" oil, o' great communist sympathizer? In what amount? Please show the forum where this vast amount of Titan-like methane-based sweet crude pools of oil is, so that the global economy can stop panicking and get back on track. I mean, if it's magically produced via an abiotic process, then surely there are massive pools of the stuff you can allude to.

Countdown to obligatory "we just haven't explored enough!!!" goofiness in 10... 9... 8...

Wind bag...

Why does it take "Millions of years" for plants to magically "decompose" into Octane? LOL. We can replicate conditions a nanosecond after the Big Bang but we can't find enough heat and pressure to turn plants into octane...yeah, sounds like ManMade Global Warming science right there

Earth-based hydrocarbons are a natural byproduct of living on a very chemically active planet, with dinosaurs playing no part whatsoever.

Fossil fuels is a lie on par with hemp and refer madness. It's an Industrial strength lie designed to alter your mind and for virtually the same reasons: the less you know, the less you know, the less you know, the more you go along and get along.

I cited the Soviet abiotic oil theory only because it makes far more sense than pressure cooked dinosaurs and has been verified in a laboratory to boot.

And as far as other, more complex hydrocarbons being found through the solar system. I have no doubt at all, none whatsoever, that the "Gas Giants" Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus absolutely reek of the stuff below their surface. They are chemically active and have the heat, pressure and raw materials readily available for processing and they have already been found, albeit it trace amounts (like Earth based CO2) in Jupiters upper atmosphere.

 

[JiggsCasey]

I cannot find a single experiment that take organic material, subjects them to heat and pressure and produces complex hydrocarbons. Yet, the Soviets took water, marble and rust put it under heat and pressure and got complex hydrocarbons.

"Dinosaurs?" Try millions of years of decomposing plant matter, straw man champion.

Nevermind the irony that cons like you cling to Cold War commie science like this to fool yourself into thinking oil comes from God, it would be impossible to debate this issue with you, because it's clear you don't read. You're a charlatan of the most laughable magnitude. I'm fairly convinced you don't even understand the drivel you cut and paste. All you think you know is that traces of methane have been found in space, so that must mean conventional light crude oil must come from the mantle of the Earth. Makes sense. ... Afterall, alcohol has been found in space clouds, so it must be raining new kegs of Duff Beer any day now.

Even if we placate you, faux scientist, and accept your premise (accepted by virtually no body in the scientific community, mind you), it does nothing for your overall argument.

Because all that matters is: Where is it? Big Oil sure would like to know, because they're bankrupting themselves trying to get at what little new finds are left. So, where is the "space" oil, o' great communist sympathizer? In what amount? Please show the forum where this vast amount of Titan-like methane-based sweet crude pools of oil is, so that the global economy can stop panicking and get back on track. I mean, if it's magically produced via an abiotic process, then surely there are massive pools of the stuff you can allude to.

Countdown to obligatory "we just haven't explored enough!!!" goofiness in 10... 9... 8...

Wind bag...

Why does it take "Millions of years" for plants to magically "decompose" into Octane? LOL. We can replicate conditions a nanosecond after the Big Bang but we can't find enough heat and pressure to turn plants into octane...yeah, sounds like ManMade Global Warming science right there

Earth-based hydrocarbons are a natural byproduct of living on a very chemically active planet, with dinosaurs playing no part whatsoever.

Fossil fuels is a lie on par with hemp and refer madness. It's an Industrial strength lie designed to alter your mind and for virtually the same reasons: the less you know, the less you know, the less you know, the more you go along and get along.

I cited the Soviet abiotic oil theory only because it makes far more sense than pressure cooked dinosaurs and has been verified in a laboratory to boot.

And as far as other, more complex hydrocarbons being found through the solar system. I have no doubt at all, none whatsoever, that the "Gas Giants" Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus absolutely reek of the stuff below their surface. They are chemically active and have the heat, pressure and raw materials readily available for processing and they have already been found, albeit it trace amounts (like Earth based CO2) in Jupiters upper atmosphere.

Ever more miss-the-point extrapolation. It's what cons do.

Again, I'll keep hammering you on this question you seem to be running from (and with good reason):

Where is the oil then? In what amount? Show us where? How are new finds going to keep up with rapidly dying existing capacity?

North Sea? severe decline... Russia? Severe decline... Mexico? Decline is so bad, their oil industry is in shambles, and the country has been taken over by drug cartels.... U.S.? been in decline since 1970. ... Indonesia? Severe decline.... Iran? decline... Saudi Arabia? Saying they aren't in decline, but are pumping sea water into their biggest resevoirs in order to push up what's left.

Where is the oil, Frank? ... The global energy industry would kill to know. They already are killing for it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Dinosaurs?" Try millions of years of decomposing plant matter, straw man champion.

Nevermind the irony that cons like you cling to Cold War commie science like this to fool yourself into thinking oil comes from God, it would be impossible to debate this issue with you, because it's clear you don't read. You're a charlatan of the most laughable magnitude. I'm fairly convinced you don't even understand the drivel you cut and paste. All you think you know is that traces of methane have been found in space, so that must mean conventional light crude oil must come from the mantle of the Earth. Makes sense. ... Afterall, alcohol has been found in space clouds, so it must be raining new kegs of Duff Beer any day now.

Even if we placate you, faux scientist, and accept your premise (accepted by virtually no body in the scientific community, mind you), it does nothing for your overall argument.

Because all that matters is: Where is it? Big Oil sure would like to know, because they're bankrupting themselves trying to get at what little new finds are left. So, where is the "space" oil, o' great communist sympathizer? In what amount? Please show the forum where this vast amount of Titan-like methane-based sweet crude pools of oil is, so that the global economy can stop panicking and get back on track. I mean, if it's magically produced via an abiotic process, then surely there are massive pools of the stuff you can allude to.

Countdown to obligatory "we just haven't explored enough!!!" goofiness in 10... 9... 8...

Wind bag...

Why does it take "Millions of years" for plants to magically "decompose" into Octane? LOL. We can replicate conditions a nanosecond after the Big Bang but we can't find enough heat and pressure to turn plants into octane...yeah, sounds like ManMade Global Warming science right there

Earth-based hydrocarbons are a natural byproduct of living on a very chemically active planet, with dinosaurs playing no part whatsoever.

Fossil fuels is a lie on par with hemp and refer madness. It's an Industrial strength lie designed to alter your mind and for virtually the same reasons: the less you know, the less you know, the less you know, the more you go along and get along.

I cited the Soviet abiotic oil theory only because it makes far more sense than pressure cooked dinosaurs and has been verified in a laboratory to boot.

And as far as other, more complex hydrocarbons being found through the solar system. I have no doubt at all, none whatsoever, that the "Gas Giants" Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus absolutely reek of the stuff below their surface. They are chemically active and have the heat, pressure and raw materials readily available for processing and they have already been found, albeit it trace amounts (like Earth based CO2) in Jupiters upper atmosphere.

Ever more miss-the-point extrapolation. It's what cons do.

Again, I'll keep hammering you on this question you seem to be running from (and with good reason):

Where is the oil then? In what amount? Show us where? How are new finds going to keep up with rapidly dying existing capacity?

North Sea? severe decline... Russia? Severe decline... Mexico? Decline is so bad, their oil industry is in shambles, and the country has been taken over by drug cartels.... U.S.? been in decline since 1970. ... Indonesia? Severe decline.... Iran? decline... Saudi Arabia? Saying they aren't in decline, but are pumping sea water into their biggest resevoirs in order to push up what's left.

Where is the oil, Frank? ... The global energy industry would kill to know. They already are killing for it.

Oh, sorry, did you think I worked in the oil exploration business? I don't know what gave you that idea.

Yes, big surprise, the oil fields we've found and have been tapping for 50 years aren't replenishing at a rapid enough clip.

 

[Oddball]

Do you know the primary ingredient in the massive expansion of farm productivity?

Mechanization.

 

[Oddball]

You really are dumber than a bag of hammers, to go along with that sullen Chicken Little disposition, aren't you?

1) First off, technology doesn't stand still. Even though I've already stated this obvious fact, it bears repeating.

2) Nobody knows what the next leap in technology will be...That's why it's a technological leap. The doom-and-gloomery of global population cataclysm pimps like Malthus and Ehrlich have always overlooked this basic fact.

3) The more technologically advanced a society, the lower the birth rate...When coupled with the increased efficiencies better technology provides, a net lower demand on resources, for a given unit of production, results.

4) The arrogance, craziness, insanity and foolhardiness is all at your end, Skippy.

You wish, dildo.

And there has been no example yet of ".When coupled with the increased efficiencies better technology provides, a net lower demand on resources, for a given unit of production, results. " Quite the opposite.

and most of the world hasn't yet figured out the lower birth rate you speak of.

But lastly and mostly you treat the earth as if it was fully expendable simply for the purpose of maxing out human population.

Foolishly immune to the prospect that billions of years of genetic evolution is being irreparably damaged beyond what we and our technology could ever repair.

And this isn't an eco system, it is our life support system.

You act as if we can merely simulate another one if EVERY current trend reverses: population growth, unsustainable consumption, birth rate, technology surpassing instead of always lagging our insatiable demand and lack of discipline.


But then again you are clearly crazy as a LOON.

Once the cheap oil is gone and the cheap nat gas is gone, lights out. Deal with it.

Not only are you dumb as a bag of hammers, you're also exhibiting all three of the classic neuroses of the manic depressive (helplessness, hopelessness, and lack of deservingness) running in overdrive.

Probably best if you keep taking your Paxil and stockpiling canned goods, ammunition and other survival gear in your basement, for the impending doom of modern society.

 

[Oddball]

When coupled with the increased efficiencies better technology provides, a net lower demand on resources, for a given unit of production, results.

Once again, your own economics fail you. First, it's a physical fact of nature that any marginal increase in output requires a greater marginal increase in inputs.

Second, becoming more efficient doesn't lead to us producing the same number of units in a more efficient manner. It leads to us producing more units, increasing inputs.

Izzatso?

Then how is it that internal combustion engines produced today are getting both higher horsepower ratings with lower displacements, and getting higher fuel mileage?

How does that model apply to computing power and Moore's law, where the sizes and resources used to make computers keeps going down while computing power goes through the roof?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you know the primary ingredient in the massive expansion of farm productivity?

Mechanization.

 

[8537]

Do you know the primary ingredient in the massive expansion of farm productivity?

Mechanization.

That's quite simply wrong. I gave you the answer, you just chose to ignore it. If it was simply mechanization, we would expect to see similar improvements in productivity across similar types of production. We don't.

Education is your friend.

 

[Trajan]

OK, now that those two hijacks - one ignorant, the other irrelevant - have come and gone with a whimper, perhaps a serious response please?

Thanks so much.

Again, why couldn't this question be asked of a potential candidate? Especially considering Bernanke just went on national TV a few weeks ago and admitted that expected GDP growth has slowed to a crawl with no end it sight.

if I were you I'd read bernanke statement again, in fact you quoted it...it appears you didn't appreciate the point he made or Oddballs........

why is it everything the dems slam into a wall on something like this, an issue they cannot argue, bribe, bait, blame on another, end run or SOLVE they and their willing participants in the frame-up, the media declare the subject matter 'broken", beyond repair, a paradigm shift has occurred making success impossible there fore ending all hope......"its not our fault the dynamic has changed", the inference being no one can solve it hence, there by inoculating yourself from failure.

Bushwah.

I don't know how old you are but I have been hearing this since Carter.

-Poverty is still here? the system is 'rigged' against the poor
-economy isn't creating jobs? the global economy has changed beyond recognition
-political process not giving them what they want? the system is broken due to polarization and over partisanship ( one way naturally)....
-more minorities in jail than whites? the system is rigged against them
-minorities don't graduate with as many honors or on scale? ....system is rigged against them...

 

[8537]

Why does it take "Millions of years" for plants to magically "decompose" into Octane? LOL. We can replicate conditions a nanosecond after the Big Bang but we can't find enough heat and pressure to turn plants into octane...yeah, sounds like ManMade Global Warming science right there

oh.my.fucking.god.

of course we COULD create that heat and pressure.

Thanks to basic laws of physics, the total energy output of the octane produced would be less than the total energy output required to produce it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why does it take "Millions of years" for plants to magically "decompose" into Octane? LOL. We can replicate conditions a nanosecond after the Big Bang but we can't find enough heat and pressure to turn plants into octane...yeah, sounds like ManMade Global Warming science right there

oh.my.fucking.god.

of course we COULD create that heat and pressure.

Thanks to basic laws of physics, the total energy output of the octane produced would be less than the total energy output required to produce it.

And you don't generate any hydrocarbons in the process either, Oopsies.

Well maybe some methane but that's like driving past any landfill.

 

[8537]

When coupled with the increased efficiencies better technology provides, a net lower demand on resources, for a given unit of production, results.

Once again, your own economics fail you. First, it's a physical fact of nature that any marginal increase in output requires a greater marginal increase in inputs.

Second, becoming more efficient doesn't lead to us producing the same number of units in a more efficient manner. It leads to us producing more units, increasing inputs.

Izzatso?

Then how is it that internal combustion engines produced today are getting both higher horsepower ratings with lower displacements, and getting higher fuel mileage?

Because...hold on now Tom...!!!!.....They are more efficient! I even explained that in my last post!

But the marginal output of one new engine still requires a marginal input of equal or greater amount to produce that output....

and because we produce them more efficiently, we also produce more of them.

How does that model apply to computing power and Moore's law,

It applies perfectly. The addition of one more computer chip still requires the addition of one more set of inputs to produce a computer chip....

and as we become more efficient at computing, we make more computers.

It's almost like I said that in my last post and you didn't bother to understand it.

 

[8537]

And you don't generate any hydrocarbons in the process either, Oopsies.

Well maybe some methane but that's like driving past any landfill.

you COULD create hydrocarbons in the process.

But you can not create more energy without destroying mass.

 

[Oddball]

Do you know the primary ingredient in the massive expansion of farm productivity?

Mechanization.

That's quite simply wrong. I gave you the answer, you just chose to ignore it. If it was simply mechanization, we would expect to see similar improvements in productivity across similar types of production. We don't.

Education is your friend.

Oh, but we have.

Assembly line mechanization has increased output and quality, while reducing the need for human input (on the line anyways, we still need people to design, produce and fix the machines)...Mechanical looms have made the production of textiles virtually idiot proof...Mechanization of agriculture has brought about a situation where America has gone from utilizing over half of the workforce for ag production at the turn of the last century, down to a mere 3% today...And those are just a scant few examples off the top of my head.

You're right...Education is a good thing...You should go get some more of it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And you don't generate any hydrocarbons in the process either, Oopsies.

Well maybe some methane but that's like driving past any landfill.

you COULD create hydrocarbons in the process.

But you can not create more energy without destroying mass.

My limited understanding is that so far, all experiments attempting to convert organic material to hydrocarbons, have failed.

The Soviets started their experiments with organic material and quickly abandoned it in favor of more realistic raw materials until they found that rust, marble and water will generate hydrocarbons.

Go figure.

 

[8537]

Mechanization.

That's quite simply wrong. I gave you the answer, you just chose to ignore it. If it was simply mechanization, we would expect to see similar improvements in productivity across similar types of production. We don't.

Education is your friend.

Oh, but we have.

If only that were so. It's not. Production supported by oil (Nitrogen fixing, for example) has seen a much faster increase in technical productivity than other industries.

Assembly line mechanization has increased output and quality, while reducing the need for human input (on the line anyways, we still need people to design, produce and fix the machines)...

indeed. It's the basis of all endogenous economic growth. But not at the rate of more oil-intensive processes such as nitrogen fixing.


Tell me Tommy, where would agricultural production be without artificial nitrogen fixing? For all your smarts, surely you know, right?

right?

 

[Oddball]

That's quite simply wrong. I gave you the answer, you just chose to ignore it. If it was simply mechanization, we would expect to see similar improvements in productivity across similar types of production. We don't.

Education is your friend.

Oh, but we have.

If only that were so. It's not. Production supported by oil (Nitrogen fixing, for example) has seen a much faster increase in technical productivity than other industries.

Assembly line mechanization has increased output and quality, while reducing the need for human input (on the line anyways, we still need people to design, produce and fix the machines)...

indeed. Not at the rate of more oil-intensive processes such as nitrogen fixing.


Tell me Tommy, where would agricultural production be without artificial nitrogen fixing? For all your smarts, surely you know, right?

right?

All of which is still irrelevant to the fact that it is mechanization which is primarily responsible for the increases of outputs of numerous industries across the board.

Nitrogen fixing merely made the more productive even more so...Also, that doesn't preclude whatever unforeseen new technology will come along, which could/would make nitrogen fixing look like a Mississippi steamboat.

 

[8537]

Oh, but we have.

If only that were so. It's not. Production supported by oil (Nitrogen fixing, for example) has seen a much faster increase in technical productivity than other industries.

Assembly line mechanization has increased output and quality, while reducing the need for human input (on the line anyways, we still need people to design, produce and fix the machines)...

indeed. Not at the rate of more oil-intensive processes such as nitrogen fixing.


Tell me Tommy, where would agricultural production be without artificial nitrogen fixing? For all your smarts, surely you know, right?

right?

All of which is still irrelevant to the fact that it is mechanization which is primarily responsible for the increases of outputs of numerous industries across the board.

you must be having a discussion with someone else. I never denied the power of mechanization - indeed, I even stated that it has led to productivity gains.

In some industries however- ag in particular - Haber Borsch was the primary driver. That's why Ag has seen even greater productivity gains.

Nitrogen fixing merely made the more productive even more so.

Well thanks for explaining that increased productivity comes from increased productivity.

Increased productivity, however, doesn't lead to us being able to add a marginal unit of outpu without a marginal unit of input.

 

[Oddball]

Without mechanization of the farm, a great deal the increased output from nitrogen fixing would rot on the vine....There's simply not enough manpower to gather up, transport and produce the foodstuffs from the increased production.

 

[8537]

Without mechanization of the farm, a great deal the increased output from nitrogen fixing would rot on the vine....There's simply not enough manpower to gather up, transport and produce the foodstuffs from the increased production.

indeed! and without nitrogen fixing, there'd be no reason to increase the manpower or transport the foodstuffs.

You can't get the output levels we achieve without oil-based nitrogen fixing. It's how we completely avoid having to rotate corn crops these days. It's also how we create hundreds of square miles of dead zone in the Mississippi Delta, decreasing food production in one area in exchange for increased food production in several others, but that's a different topic.