how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[mamooth]

The old belief in peak oil is getting weaker and weaker as more and more reserves are being found...many in places where oil simply shouldn't be. The idea that hydrocarbons are manufactured deep in the earth and moved towards the surface rather than being the result of organic decay is gaining more respect in spite of attempts to keep the peak oil hysteria (and monetary advantage that comes with it) alive.

It's funny, the sheer number of conspiracy theories that some denialists embrace. Even if they're as crazy as the abiotic oil theory. So what if nobody has found any of that abiotic oil which is supposedly present in near-infinite quantities? A lack of evidence is no impediment to the true believer.

 

[Foxfyre]

While it is true that policy that works for a village is not always practical for the city. . . .

What works for a single city is not always practical for the whole state. . . .

What works in one state is not always practical in others. . . .

What works for one small, cohesive, compact country is not always practical for a much larger, more diverse, more spread out, much more heavily populated country. . .

And because it is true that people in all of recorded history, and no doubt prior to that, have gotten some things right and have gotten some things wrong, there is no reason to believe that humans of our time are not getting some things right and some things wrong. . .

There is ever reason to be cautious about what we do and not know re the environment, climate change, and what affects it.

And if we learn nothing at all in our lifetime, no matter what it is, when we don't know what we are doing, doing nothing is almost ALWAYS better than doing something badly that cannot then be undone. And when it is something that impacts the freedom, livelihood, choices, and opportunities of billions of people, doing nothing is far far better than making something permanently worse.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sex symbol? That fits for a supercar, but for the rest of them they are the modern old work horse. And, thanks to the automobile, people actually travel more than 5 miles from their home so actually know that the guys in the next country are pretty much like them.

These people like to imagine us living on top of each other in great towers in centrally located areas. Personally, that sounds like prison to me. I like not having a neighbor in any direction for a quarter of a mile and would increase that distance to a mile if I could afford it. When I go outside I want to see the sky and personally, enjoy setting up my telescope and looking at the stars at night sans overwhelming light pollution.

Never mind the fact that the living arrangements the anti car crowd's dream would require would make literal slaves out of every one of us.

I imagine that your neighbors are of the same mind as you are. That you are too close to them.

However, the world population passed the size that would allow what you want, 100 years ago.

The entire world population could fit into Texas and New Mexico with a population density less than that of San Francisco. We have plenty of room. We just need more freedom for natural human ingenuity to develop resources to accommodate the needs that humankind will have.

 

[itfitzme]

These people like to imagine us living on top of each other in great towers in centrally located areas. Personally, that sounds like prison to me. I like not having a neighbor in any direction for a quarter of a mile and would increase that distance to a mile if I could afford it. When I go outside I want to see the sky and personally, enjoy setting up my telescope and looking at the stars at night sans overwhelming light pollution.

Never mind the fact that the living arrangements the anti car crowd's dream would require would make literal slaves out of every one of us.

I imagine that your neighbors are of the same mind as you are. That you are too close to them.

However, the world population passed the size that would allow what you want, 100 years ago.

The entire world population could fit into Texas and New Mexico with a population density less than that of San Francisco. We have plenty of room. We just need more freedom for natural human ingenuity to develop resources to accommodate the needs that humankind will have.

With all the saguaro cactus you can eat, grown right on your own private 1600 square feet of Chihuahuan desert cactus farm.

 

[Foxfyre]

I imagine that your neighbors are of the same mind as you are. That you are too close to them.

However, the world population passed the size that would allow what you want, 100 years ago.

The entire world population could fit into Texas and New Mexico with a population density less than that of San Francisco. We have plenty of room. We just need more freedom for natural human ingenuity to develop resources to accommodate the needs that humankind will have.

With all the saguaro cactus you can eat, grown right on your own private 1600 square feet of Chihuahuan desert cactus farm.

Doing the math assuming 7 billion people, and if Texas was divided up proportionately, each person would have something just over 1,000 sq ft at ground level. But most of us don't live individually as one person per pad--most of us live with one or more other people so the combined square footage would be pretty spacious. And stacking some residences in apartments and condos would free up a lot more space. I threw in New Mexico because some of the Texas area is water. Most of both New Mexico and Texas is inhabitable though and the combined states would provide a comfortable urban environment for all 7 billion people.

Of course the logistics of providing sufficient food and potable water for that many people in that small an area would not make that feasible. But when you figure what a tiny percentage of the Earth's surface is occupied by Texas and New Mexico, it does put into perspective the issue of room on the Earth and that if we just use our ingenuity and creativity, there are resources for all. Those resources are too often squandered or suppressed, however, when oppressive government and religious systems prevent the people from engaging in free market systems that have solved issues of food, water, transportation, health. Government rarely gets it done. But free people let loose to accomplish what they can, usually do.

 

[itfitzme]

The entire world population could fit into Texas and New Mexico with a population density less than that of San Francisco. We have plenty of room. We just need more freedom for natural human ingenuity to develop resources to accommodate the needs that humankind will have.

With all the saguaro cactus you can eat, grown right on your own private 1600 square feet of Chihuahuan desert cactus farm.

Doing the math assuming 7 billion people, and if Texas was divided up proportionately, each person would have something just over 1,000 sq ft at ground level. But most of us don't live individually as one person per pad--most of us live with one or more other people so the combined square footage would be pretty spacious. And stacking some residences in apartments and condos would free up a lot more space. I threw in New Mexico because some of the Texas area is water. Most of both New Mexico and Texas is inhabitable though and the combined states would provide a comfortable urban environment for all 7 billion people.

Of course the logistics of providing sufficient food and potable water for that many people in that small an area would not make that feasible. But when you figure what a tiny percentage of the Earth's surface is occupied by Texas and New Mexico, it does put into perspective the issue of room on the Earth and that if we just use our ingenuity and creativity, there are resources for all. Those resources are too often squandered or suppressed, however, when oppressive government and religious systems prevent the people from engaging in free market systems that have solved issues of food, water, transportation, health. Government rarely gets it done. But free people let loose to accomplish what they can, usually do.

I was being generous with the available square footage, knowing I was including water covered area.

I looked for some estimate of the amount of fertile land needed to support an individual and found numbers between .07 to .5 hectar.

That is a huge range, from .2 to 1.2 acre per person. I think the low is for like Darfur and the high for US.

 

[PMZ]

With all the saguaro cactus you can eat, grown right on your own private 1600 square feet of Chihuahuan desert cactus farm.

Doing the math assuming 7 billion people, and if Texas was divided up proportionately, each person would have something just over 1,000 sq ft at ground level. But most of us don't live individually as one person per pad--most of us live with one or more other people so the combined square footage would be pretty spacious. And stacking some residences in apartments and condos would free up a lot more space. I threw in New Mexico because some of the Texas area is water. Most of both New Mexico and Texas is inhabitable though and the combined states would provide a comfortable urban environment for all 7 billion people.

Of course the logistics of providing sufficient food and potable water for that many people in that small an area would not make that feasible. But when you figure what a tiny percentage of the Earth's surface is occupied by Texas and New Mexico, it does put into perspective the issue of room on the Earth and that if we just use our ingenuity and creativity, there are resources for all. Those resources are too often squandered or suppressed, however, when oppressive government and religious systems prevent the people from engaging in free market systems that have solved issues of food, water, transportation, health. Government rarely gets it done. But free people let loose to accomplish what they can, usually do.

I was being generous with the available square footage, knowing I was including water covered area.

I looked for some estimate of the amount of fertile land needed to support an individual and found numbers between .07 to .5 hectar.

That is a huge range, from .2 to 1.2 acre per person. I think the low is for like Darfur and the high for US.

You do realize that people are starving in the world today don't you?

 

[itfitzme]

Doing the math assuming 7 billion people, and if Texas was divided up proportionately, each person would have something just over 1,000 sq ft at ground level. But most of us don't live individually as one person per pad--most of us live with one or more other people so the combined square footage would be pretty spacious. And stacking some residences in apartments and condos would free up a lot more space. I threw in New Mexico because some of the Texas area is water. Most of both New Mexico and Texas is inhabitable though and the combined states would provide a comfortable urban environment for all 7 billion people.

Of course the logistics of providing sufficient food and potable water for that many people in that small an area would not make that feasible. But when you figure what a tiny percentage of the Earth's surface is occupied by Texas and New Mexico, it does put into perspective the issue of room on the Earth and that if we just use our ingenuity and creativity, there are resources for all. Those resources are too often squandered or suppressed, however, when oppressive government and religious systems prevent the people from engaging in free market systems that have solved issues of food, water, transportation, health. Government rarely gets it done. But free people let loose to accomplish what they can, usually do.

I was being generous with the available square footage, knowing I was including water covered area.

I looked for some estimate of the amount of fertile land needed to support an individual and found numbers between .07 to .5 hectar.

That is a huge range, from .2 to 1.2 acre per person. I think the low is for like Darfur and the high for US.

You do realize that people are starving in the world today don't you?

Like in Darfur on .2 acres of land? Or in the Texas/New Mexico desert living on 1.2 acres and eating cactus?

 

[flacaltenn]

What is the impact of the new CAFE standards that President Obama put into effect in 2011? Are they the answer? No. Are they an answer? Certainly. Do they need new technology? Prius meets them today.

The primary impact? To cause even more deaths, injuries, and needless suffering than the old CAFE standards caused due to failing structural integrity in cars built to save gas rather than to save their occupants in collisions.

The old belief in peak oil is getting weaker and weaker as more and more reserves are being found...many in places where oil simply shouldn't be. The idea that hydrocarbons are manufactured deep in the earth and moved towards the surface rather than being the result of organic decay is gaining more respect in spite of attempts to keep the peak oil hysteria (and monetary advantage that comes with it) alive.

Even if abiotic oil cannot be found or exploited, there are 400 QUADRILLION cubicft of Nat Gas trapped under the Arctic in the frozen form. If the earth is warming significantly and the feedback theories are correct --- we could save the planet by taking them out before they leech and powering fuel cells with them. The cleanest way to use Nat Gas with LESS GHGas power than the Methane would cause naturally leeching.

We owe it to our children to Drill Baby Drill before the big fuel air bomb ignites..


400,000,000,000,000,000 cubicfeet baby.... and it's not very deep... Not to mention what's in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[Foxfyre]

With all the saguaro cactus you can eat, grown right on your own private 1600 square feet of Chihuahuan desert cactus farm.

Doing the math assuming 7 billion people, and if Texas was divided up proportionately, each person would have something just over 1,000 sq ft at ground level. But most of us don't live individually as one person per pad--most of us live with one or more other people so the combined square footage would be pretty spacious. And stacking some residences in apartments and condos would free up a lot more space. I threw in New Mexico because some of the Texas area is water. Most of both New Mexico and Texas is inhabitable though and the combined states would provide a comfortable urban environment for all 7 billion people.

Of course the logistics of providing sufficient food and potable water for that many people in that small an area would not make that feasible. But when you figure what a tiny percentage of the Earth's surface is occupied by Texas and New Mexico, it does put into perspective the issue of room on the Earth and that if we just use our ingenuity and creativity, there are resources for all. Those resources are too often squandered or suppressed, however, when oppressive government and religious systems prevent the people from engaging in free market systems that have solved issues of food, water, transportation, health. Government rarely gets it done. But free people let loose to accomplish what they can, usually do.

I was being generous with the available square footage, knowing I was including water covered area.

I looked for some estimate of the amount of fertile land needed to support an individual and found numbers between .07 to .5 hectar.

That is a huge range, from .2 to 1.2 acre per person. I think the low is for like Darfur and the high for US.

You do understand that neither I nor anybody else is suggesting we move everybody to Texas and New Mexico? That was an illustration to establish perspective only? You do understand that don't you?

Without making much change at all, however, if we established free market conditions throughout the world so that people would be free to utilize the resources they control and make the most of them, the people of the world could feed themselves quite effectively. Even getting rid of some of the more stupid policy like devoting 90 million acres of prime American farmland for corn for ethanol instead of food products to feed the hungry would help a great deal.

 

[Saigon]

Fofyre -

Can you explain why you would use gas for electricity production and not for transport, given that cheap, clean and efficient technologies are available for electricity, but not for transport?

 

[itfitzme]

Doing the math assuming 7 billion people, and if Texas was divided up proportionately, each person would have something just over 1,000 sq ft at ground level. But most of us don't live individually as one person per pad--most of us live with one or more other people so the combined square footage would be pretty spacious. And stacking some residences in apartments and condos would free up a lot more space. I threw in New Mexico because some of the Texas area is water. Most of both New Mexico and Texas is inhabitable though and the combined states would provide a comfortable urban environment for all 7 billion people.

Of course the logistics of providing sufficient food and potable water for that many people in that small an area would not make that feasible. But when you figure what a tiny percentage of the Earth's surface is occupied by Texas and New Mexico, it does put into perspective the issue of room on the Earth and that if we just use our ingenuity and creativity, there are resources for all. Those resources are too often squandered or suppressed, however, when oppressive government and religious systems prevent the people from engaging in free market systems that have solved issues of food, water, transportation, health. Government rarely gets it done. But free people let loose to accomplish what they can, usually do.

I was being generous with the available square footage, knowing I was including water covered area.

I looked for some estimate of the amount of fertile land needed to support an individual and found numbers between .07 to .5 hectar.

That is a huge range, from .2 to 1.2 acre per person. I think the low is for like Darfur and the high for US.

You do understand that neither I nor anybody else is suggesting we move everybody to Texas and New Mexico? That was an illustration to establish perspective only? You do understand that don't you?

Without making much change at all, however, if we established free market conditions throughout the world so that people would be free to utilize the resources they control and make the most of them, the people of the world could feed themselves quite effectively. Even getting rid of some of the more stupid policy like devoting 90 million acres of prime American farmland for corn for ethanol instead of food products to feed the hungry would help a great deal.

Of course. We were just being metophiric with the whole idea of 1000-1600 sg sq ft of cactus farm. It would take way more than 1600 sq ft.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was being generous with the available square footage, knowing I was including water covered area.

I looked for some estimate of the amount of fertile land needed to support an individual and found numbers between .07 to .5 hectar.

That is a huge range, from .2 to 1.2 acre per person. I think the low is for like Darfur and the high for US.

You do understand that neither I nor anybody else is suggesting we move everybody to Texas and New Mexico? That was an illustration to establish perspective only? You do understand that don't you?

Without making much change at all, however, if we established free market conditions throughout the world so that people would be free to utilize the resources they control and make the most of them, the people of the world could feed themselves quite effectively. Even getting rid of some of the more stupid policy like devoting 90 million acres of prime American farmland for corn for ethanol instead of food products to feed the hungry would help a great deal.

Of course. We were just being metophiric with the whole idea of 1000-1600 sg sq ft of cactus farm. It would take way more than 1600 sq ft.

Ah, but much better to have people living on the cactus farm where nothing much of value grows to free up productive farmland to provide food for the people, yes? Only a tiny percentage of people now have to produce their food where they live when the good farmland is utilized for maximum food production.

That is why I rail so much against the really stupid concepts designed to deal with global warming, even if global warming is happening and is reversible. Ethanol won't reverse it but lessens food supplies and drives up costs. To me that is foolish and counterproductive. It would be practical only if there were not sufficient petroleum supplies to fuel our machines. But we are nowhere near out of the much more effcient petroleum yet and, by the time we do have to transition to something different, I know human ingenuity will have figured something out far more efficient with fewer negative consequences than ethanol to replace it.

We already have government dictating what kind of automobiles we are going to be forced to make and what kind of automobiles it will be legal to drive. We have government dictating what sort of toilets we must use and what kinds of lightbulbs we are allowed to make. If we don't wake up soon, we are at risk of losing the free market system and the consequences will be far more devastating to our quality of life than what is likely cyclical changes in the climate.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Doing the math assuming 7 billion people, and if Texas was divided up proportionately, each person would have something just over 1,000 sq ft at ground level. But most of us don't live individually as one person per pad--most of us live with one or more other people so the combined square footage would be pretty spacious. And stacking some residences in apartments and condos would free up a lot more space. I threw in New Mexico because some of the Texas area is water. Most of both New Mexico and Texas is inhabitable though and the combined states would provide a comfortable urban environment for all 7 billion people.

Of course the logistics of providing sufficient food and potable water for that many people in that small an area would not make that feasible. But when you figure what a tiny percentage of the Earth's surface is occupied by Texas and New Mexico, it does put into perspective the issue of room on the Earth and that if we just use our ingenuity and creativity, there are resources for all. Those resources are too often squandered or suppressed, however, when oppressive government and religious systems prevent the people from engaging in free market systems that have solved issues of food, water, transportation, health. Government rarely gets it done. But free people let loose to accomplish what they can, usually do.

I was being generous with the available square footage, knowing I was including water covered area.

I looked for some estimate of the amount of fertile land needed to support an individual and found numbers between .07 to .5 hectar.

That is a huge range, from .2 to 1.2 acre per person. I think the low is for like Darfur and the high for US.

You do realize that people are starving in the world today don't you?

Mostly because of their own doing either from being led by idiots or not being to sharp.

 

[PMZ]

You do understand that neither I nor anybody else is suggesting we move everybody to Texas and New Mexico? That was an illustration to establish perspective only? You do understand that don't you?

Without making much change at all, however, if we established free market conditions throughout the world so that people would be free to utilize the resources they control and make the most of them, the people of the world could feed themselves quite effectively. Even getting rid of some of the more stupid policy like devoting 90 million acres of prime American farmland for corn for ethanol instead of food products to feed the hungry would help a great deal.

Of course. We were just being metophiric with the whole idea of 1000-1600 sg sq ft of cactus farm. It would take way more than 1600 sq ft.

Ah, but much better to have people living on the cactus farm where nothing much of value grows to free up productive farmland to provide food for the people, yes? Only a tiny percentage of people now have to produce their food where they live when the good farmland is utilized for maximum food production.

That is why I rail so much against the really stupid concepts designed to deal with global warming, even if global warming is happening and is reversible. Ethanol won't reverse it but lessens food supplies and drives up costs. To me that is foolish and counterproductive. It would be practical only if there were not sufficient petroleum supplies to fuel our machines. But we are nowhere near out of the much more effcient petroleum yet and, by the time we do have to transition to something different, I know human ingenuity will have figured something out far more efficient with fewer negative consequences than ethanol to replace it.

We already have government dictating what kind of automobiles we are going to be forced to make and what kind of automobiles it will be legal to drive. We have government dictating what sort of toilets we must use and what kinds of lightbulbs we are allowed to make. If we don't wake up soon, we are at risk of losing the free market system and the consequences will be far more devastating to our quality of life than what is likely cyclical changes in the climate.

What's really at risk is your ability to live irresponsibly, and require of us to clean up after you.

 

[PMZ]

I was being generous with the available square footage, knowing I was including water covered area.

I looked for some estimate of the amount of fertile land needed to support an individual and found numbers between .07 to .5 hectar.

That is a huge range, from .2 to 1.2 acre per person. I think the low is for like Darfur and the high for US.

You do realize that people are starving in the world today don't you?

Mostly because of their own doing either from being led by idiots or not being to sharp.

The opinion that people choose starvation could only be expressed by someone who's never been hungry.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course. We were just being metophiric with the whole idea of 1000-1600 sg sq ft of cactus farm. It would take way more than 1600 sq ft.

Ah, but much better to have people living on the cactus farm where nothing much of value grows to free up productive farmland to provide food for the people, yes? Only a tiny percentage of people now have to produce their food where they live when the good farmland is utilized for maximum food production.

That is why I rail so much against the really stupid concepts designed to deal with global warming, even if global warming is happening and is reversible. Ethanol won't reverse it but lessens food supplies and drives up costs. To me that is foolish and counterproductive. It would be practical only if there were not sufficient petroleum supplies to fuel our machines. But we are nowhere near out of the much more effcient petroleum yet and, by the time we do have to transition to something different, I know human ingenuity will have figured something out far more efficient with fewer negative consequences than ethanol to replace it.

We already have government dictating what kind of automobiles we are going to be forced to make and what kind of automobiles it will be legal to drive. We have government dictating what sort of toilets we must use and what kinds of lightbulbs we are allowed to make. If we don't wake up soon, we are at risk of losing the free market system and the consequences will be far more devastating to our quality of life than what is likely cyclical changes in the climate.

What's really at risk is your ability to live irresponsibly, and require of us to clean up after you.

I trust myself to be responsible a hell of lot more than I trust government to be reponsible. But as usual, the point I was making flew right over your head. But that's your job isn't it? To keep diverting from the point? To derail the subject. To make sure no constructive discussion happens? Isn't that what you have been assigned to do here?

 

[ScienceRocks]

You do realize that people are starving in the world today don't you?

Mostly because of their own doing either from being led by idiots or not being to sharp.

The opinion that people choose starvation could only be expressed by someone who's never been hungry.

I'm talking about whole nations(I.e Hati, Congo, Central African republic, Chad, Sudan, etc) that don't seem to work to end that hunger. People like you give the man a fish and they don't care to learn.

Why not put a sheet of paper with instructions and seed into the next box of food?

 

[itfitzme]

We have government dictating what sort of toilets we must use and what kinds of lightbulbs we are allowed to make.*

What are you refering to exactly? *What specifies "what kinds of lightbulbs we are allowed to make."?

 

[itfitzme]

Ah, but much better to have people living on the cactus farm where nothing much of value grows to free up productive farmland to provide food for the people, yes? Only a tiny percentage of people now have to produce their food where they live when the good farmland is utilized for maximum food production.

That is why I rail so much against the really stupid concepts designed to deal with global warming, even if global warming is happening and is reversible. Ethanol won't reverse it but lessens food supplies and drives up costs. To me that is foolish and counterproductive. It would be practical only if there were not sufficient petroleum supplies to fuel our machines. But we are nowhere near out of the much more effcient petroleum yet and, by the time we do have to transition to something different, I know human ingenuity will have figured something out far more efficient with fewer negative consequences than ethanol to replace it.

We already have government dictating what kind of automobiles we are going to be forced to make and what kind of automobiles it will be legal to drive. We have government dictating what sort of toilets we must use and what kinds of lightbulbs we are allowed to make. If we don't wake up soon, we are at risk of losing the free market system and the consequences will be far more devastating to our quality of life than what is likely cyclical changes in the climate.

What's really at risk is your ability to live irresponsibly, and require of us to clean up after you.

I trust myself to be responsible a hell of lot more than I trust government to be reponsible. But as usual, the point I was making flew right over your head. But that's your job isn't it? To keep diverting from the point? To derail the subject. To make sure no constructive discussion happens? Isn't that what you have been assigned to do here?

I don't