Expensive fantasies

Some of them do it because they think that getting that energy is unsafe. Though they are perfectly willing to have the Brazilians get that energy and ship it to us. I guess the planet is big enough that oil spills off the coast of Brazil don't bother them.

It certainly appears that a few people actually want to hurt the US.

I am not againsed nat gas, I just want to do something. All forms, wind, solar, drilling for more oil/gas, geothermal, and nuke have to be used. It's not the cost, it's the necessity. Quibbling over the cost will sink us in the short term, bury us in the long. Steel yourself, this ain't gonna be free or cheap.

hmm does not show that on this graph...seems it was much cooler then.

But maybe you can present your finding to the white house, UN, and evry other major group that has studied this and come up with the same thing...

It is possible what you said there is right and it is worth more research!

But what you say does depend on the feedback loops all being positive for that to be true.

Depending on positive feedback loops is not the same as saying that we have put lots of carbon in the air (though we have put in a small amount) and that it must have an effect. Without those positive feedback loops there is no reason at all that it MUST have an effect.

Had to use the quote function to figure out what your linked image was...

Oh, yeah... the ol' INfamous "hockey stick" created by splicing proxies together from data that the warmists REFUSED to submit for FOIA requests. Now we're back to the ol' YAD061 data...

Seriously, Pocket... have you ever even tried to look into the facts behind all of that, or do you just blindly adhere to it, close your eyes, cover your ears and yell "la-la-LA-LA-LA" over and over and over...

YAD061. Google it.

And then use Occam's Razor against all of it--you'll find that Peak Oil explains all of the observed behavior as the simplest solution to the entire controversy and, indeed, all of the current stuff going on.

Incidentally, all the recent data shows that America's CO2 output is falling due to a lessening of energy consumption.

Which, in turn, is due to Peak Oil.

The increased cost of oil is mostly due to the exponential rise in exploration and production costs.

That is, right up until the chemical potential energy delivered to market is equal to the chemical energy required to actually produce it (which takes conversion efficiencies into consideration for "getting usable work done"). Once that point is reached, it doesn't matter anymore because you're effectively at zero return on investment. To give you an idea how things have changed, we've gone from a 100-to-1 ROI down to a current average near 10-to-1 ROI. That's bad.

Most folks can not and will not get into details for many reasons. It IS tiresome, I'll grant you that. But we're not talking here about whether some relatively tiny company can afford to pay its employees a "living wage" due to the greed of its owner--we're talking about the basis of the entire world's economy: energy production.

you forgot about the expensive cost of ..doing nothing but speculating on the market to make a buck...a big driver of oil cost today.

I know. But there wouldn't BE a market if it weren't for speculation. If you have or want any kind of retirement pension or whatever, you're a speculator of sorts.

What you don't hear unless you run in the right circles is how MUCH it costs to bring oil online these days compared to The Old Days. You have to factor in EVERYTHING including the military security of an oil-producing region. And almost all wells require the oil to be pumped out (or pushed by way of injector wells). That takes an awful lot of energy and it's exponentially increasing with every new oil field that we find. In short, we've already picked all of the low-hanging fruit. It only gets tougher from here. Period. End of story.

A significant percentage price increase from speculation can ONLY occur due to not enough spare capacity and that, my friend, is solely because the demand curve is greater than the supply curve. Of course, the supply curve of Regular Conventional Oil (RCO) has reached and passed its vertex--we're in terminal decline now and have been fudging the numbers with unconventional oil (heavy, sour, tar sands, NGL's, etc.).

It's simple: net per capita delivered energy is in decline.

Peak oil: the notion that we have already reached the point at which it will always be more expensive to get more oil and that the only thing that will happen from now on is that we will get less of it until it runs out.

There is no way to know if we have reached the hypothetical place in time where this will happen. Tomorrow could the the day that we improve the technology for drilling oil so that it becomes far easier to get it. And while there will be a day when it will run out we have no way to really know when that day will be without actually knowing how much oil there is. Every time we guess then more is found.

Speaking of energy consumption and recessions...

You have heard figures like: "Americans consume 25% of the worlds energy but only consitutes 5% of the population."

Wake up everyone!! That just means that we are PRODUCING more stuff per person. The amount of energy we use is directly related to the amount of productivity we have.

Does anyone think we need to be less productive? We could go back to using horses to plow fields and that would use less energy. We could all triple the amount of time spent washing dishes by hand. We could all go home when the sun goes down and turn off the lights.

Of course all the feedback loops are complete guesses about what might happen. Did you know that in the computer models too many of the feedback loops that are used favor warming. When we take all the possible feedback mechanisms that could be happening and first figure out if they are negative or positive, THEN is the time to plug them into the models.

I think in theory they all could. It is just a question of what numbers are put into the equations.

Some possible examples:

How about increased c02 (a minor greenhouse gas) displaces water vapor (a major greenhouse gas) resulting in an atmosphere that in total has a smaller greenhouse effect.

Warming could increase clouds that would block solar radiation

Evaporation could cool certain parts of the planet that would result in changes that would cause cooling.

Increased c02 could cause plants to grow so fast that they would convert more heat energy into stored energy (thats where all the oil came from).

Increased snowfall could reflect more sunlight.

I don't really know, but the end result is still unknown. And that is the point. But there is a bias in the computer models where those who design such models tend to create them so that they show a warming effect. Computer models are no more than fancy guessing.