R
Raveninghorde
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
How do you explain the EUs drive for bio fuels?
Conclusive physical evidence for AWG?
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
How do you explain the EUs drive for bio fuels?
J
James Arthur
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Raveninghorde said:
Bill's also wrong about ethanol in the USA--we got it from Mr. Albert
Gore, as a cure for AGW:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci....f61b16a42fcce0cc?hl=en&tvc=1#f61b16a42fcce0cc
(see discussion starting at message 56)
=================
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design, alt.energy.homepower
From: James Arthur <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:05:56 GMT
Local: Fri, Jul 18 2008 11:05 am
Subject: Re: OT Hydrogen economy, not?
No! It started as an environmentalist / sustainable /
alternative energy / anti-global-warming thing.
Al Gore invented it:
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OVP/speeches/farmj.html
"I was also proud to stand up for the ethanol tax exemption
when it was under attack in the Congress -- at one point,
supplying a tie-breaking vote in the Senate to save it. The
more we can make this home-grown fuel a successful,
widely-used product, the better-off our farmers and our
environment will be." --Al Gore, Speech, Dec. 1, 1998
In the 2000 edition of his book "Earth In The Balance":
"by tripling U.S. use of bioenergy and bioproducts
by 2010, we can keep millions of tons of greenhouse
gases out of the air...."
=================
Cheers,
James Arthur
Z
z
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
On Feb 6, 8:01 pm, [email protected] wrote:
=
we are burning fossil carbon and producing carbon dioxide. the amount
of carbon dioxide we have produced since the beginning of the
industrial revolution can be calculated, and it is equal to about
twice the increase of carbon dioxide in the air. the time curve of the
increase of carbon dioxide in the air parallels the time curve of the
combustion of fossil carbon. the isotope composition of the carbon in
the carbon dioxide in the air resembles that produced by burning
fossil carbon. the drop in oxygen in the atmosphere corresponds to
that caused by the burning of fossil carbon forming carbon dioxide.
how much more evidence do you need, to reasonably eliminate the
hypothesis that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is disappearing but there
is another, completely unknown and unpredicted source of carbon
dioxide, that fits the above criteria but is completely unrelated?
this is a serious question; if you guys would specify what particular
conclusive piece of evidence you are looking for which is not being
supplied, then we could supply it. in the absence of that, you are
just a two year old going "no no no no!"
=
we are burning fossil carbon and producing carbon dioxide. the amount
of carbon dioxide we have produced since the beginning of the
industrial revolution can be calculated, and it is equal to about
twice the increase of carbon dioxide in the air. the time curve of the
increase of carbon dioxide in the air parallels the time curve of the
combustion of fossil carbon. the isotope composition of the carbon in
the carbon dioxide in the air resembles that produced by burning
fossil carbon. the drop in oxygen in the atmosphere corresponds to
that caused by the burning of fossil carbon forming carbon dioxide.
how much more evidence do you need, to reasonably eliminate the
hypothesis that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is disappearing but there
is another, completely unknown and unpredicted source of carbon
dioxide, that fits the above criteria but is completely unrelated?
this is a serious question; if you guys would specify what particular
conclusive piece of evidence you are looking for which is not being
supplied, then we could supply it. in the absence of that, you are
just a two year old going "no no no no!"
R
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Thanks!
Rich
B
[email protected]
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Hunter-gatherer populations live pretty good lives. The planet could
support a few million hunter-gathers.
Engineering the population crash that gets our numbers down to that
kind of level isn't difficult either - it's just business as usual.
B
[email protected]
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Actually my inventions are quite profitable
Not the ones you condescend to post here.
B
[email protected]
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Jim Thompson considers anything he can't understand inane. It's a
rational attitude from his rather narrow point of view - he can't tell
the difference between propositions that don't make sense to him
(because he doesn't know anything about the subject) and propositions
that wouldn't make sense to anybody.
Sadly, he doesn't seem to understand much outside of electronics.
B
[email protected]
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
It isn't all that evident in the Netherlands. The French never miss an
opportunity to subsidise their farmers at Europe's expense, so their
government has presumably got into the act.
B
[email protected]
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Al Gore was Vice-President in 1998, and no less interested in the
farming vote than Dubbya has been more recently. The ethanol
initiative - what ever it was - doesn't seem to have been on anything
like a large enough scale to do any serious damage.
There are biofuels that do make sense - Brazil's ethanol from sugar
cane apparently does reduce fossil carbon emissions - and there
schemes to exploit plants that grow on marginal land (that is useless
for growing food) which make even more sense, if they can be ever made
to work.
J
James Arthur
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Mssrs. Gore and Clinton proposed, promoted, laid out and passed
a plan that corn ethanol production be exactly what it is today.
Bush supported, and carried out their plan.
This paper cited by Martin in the earlier discussion
says ethanol from cane sugar is a loser too:
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRethanol.2005.pdf
"Until recently, Brazil had been the largest pro-
ducer of ethanol in the world. Brazil used sugar-
cane to produce ethanol and sugarcane is a more
efficient feedstock for ethanol production than corn
grain (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996). However, the
energy balance was negative and the Brazilian gov-
ernment subsidized the ethanol industry. There the
government was selling ethanol to the public for
22c / per l that was costing them 33c / per l to pro-
duce for sale (Pimentel, 2003). Because of serious
economic problems in Brazil, the government has
abandoned directly subsidizing ethanol (Spirits Low,
1999; Coelho and others, 2002)."
Corn and cane ethanol: two examples of AGW-hysteria going
awry, with "fixes" for it wreaking the exact opposite, at
great cost in lives and treasure.
James Arthur
D
Don Klipstein
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
England is now currently producing grapes and even wine.
I do agree that the Norse farmed in Greenland. I think that if someone
has the inclination to do so, they could farm on warmer parts of southern
and western Greenland nowadays - though fishing is a lot more profitable.
The areas of Greenland that the Norse farmed are actually green nowadays.
I find past decade warmer than height of MYP by splicing smoothed
HadCRUT-3 or smoothed HadCRUT-3v (latter is good enough for The Register
in their "A Tale of Two Thermometers" atrticle) onto Loehle's "Corrected
Global Temperature Reconstruction" at almost any time where both exist.
Loehle is favored by denialists and skeptics of AGW.
Specific location, and sediments sound to me like bottom of the ocean -
sounds to me prone to a lag of decades.
Specific country. NASA's GISS does produce graphs for how the USA and
the world have fared in terms of surface temperature since 1880. USA had
some region-specific warming in the 1920's and 1930's.
Shows that nature is actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere since the
late 1950's (fossil fuel consumption accounts for more carbon than the
atmosphere gained) but atmospheric CO2 is rising anyway.
How good are Arctic air temperature records that far back? 2 of the 3
most major determinations of global surface temperature exclude most of
the Arctic due to insufficiency of data. The other one (NASA's GISS)
relies heavily on interpolation to consider the polar areas and is "more
warming" than HadCRUT and NCDC because the Arctic is warming more than the
rest of the world.
And why does this slide have Arctic temperature and solar activity
curves stopping in the late 1990's? I suspect the reason is that the
Arctic warmed a lot in the past decade while solar activity did not
increase.
Can you cite the personal attack from me? You did not do so here!
- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
D
Don Klipstein
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Although that is a global extinction event associated with cooling, Bill
is citing others associated with warming.
- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
D
Don Klipstein
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Where do you get that? From provably bad numbers in the "mhieb" site?
From similar bad numbers in the "Great Global Warming Swindle" movie?
(Their errors are in comparing gigatons of carbon from fossil fuel
burning to gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, while a CO2 molecule has
3.66 times as much mass as a carbon atom has.)
<SNIP what was said after talking about carbon and CO2>
Atmospheric CO2 gain is actually less than fossil fuel burning would
account for - nature is actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Fossil fuel burning (and cement production) accounts for a goodly 6-plus
gigatons of carbon or 22-plus gigatons of CO2 annually and has done so at
that rate since the mid 1990's, rising to about 7.5 gigatons of carbon
(27.5 gigatons of CO2) annual rate around 2005, with preliminary figures
for 2007 or so getting to about 8 gigatons annual carbon usage (29.3
gigatons annual CO2 contribution).
Atmosphere annual CO2 gain since 1995 has averaged about 4.8 gigatons of
carbon content (17.6 gigatons more CO2 per year).
http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequere/co2/carbon_budget.htm
- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
D
Don Klipstein
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
But what about the annual increase of atmospheric CO2 - which since 1995
or so has averaged about 17.6 gigatons per year while fossil fuel burning
accounts for more than that?
HadCRUT-3v is good enough to be cited favorably by The Register in their
"A Tale of Two Thermometers" article attempting to dispute AGW
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/).
Have a look at a graph of HadCRUT-3v, in the following link actually
provided by The Register in that article:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
Why did you pick 1908? HadCRUT-3v has 1908 being 3rd coldest year on
record since starting with 1850, behind 1911 and 1909.
Although 2008 was coolest since 2000, it was .881 degree C warmer than
1998 according to HadCRUT-3v.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
J
JosephKK
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Poxy hell. I own a copy of IS_SPICE/386-4. The year is about right,
i may even have an original paper copy of that issue.
D
Don Klipstein
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
In <f23687cf-a62b-4424-a3b9-bc8988720084@h16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
I expect sea level changes to be mere millimeters per year until we get
enough warming to actually do major damage to Greenland's ice sheet.
I suspect that the upward bounce that I expect after 2030-2035 or so to
about 2070 or so to fall short of accomplishing such. It appears to me
that global surface temperature as high as 3 degrees C above 1951-1980
or 1961-1990 average may not do only minor damage to Greenland's and
Antarctica's ice sheets.
What I see being the problem is if we get any warmer - it appears to me
that 4 degree C warming that was peak of the interglacial period before
the current one accomplished serious melting of Greenland's ice sheet. If
we burn enough fossil fuels to get atmospheric CO2 to what it was
before our fossil fuels were formed or maybe even so much as past 800 ppmv
or so (maybe needing as much as 1200 ppmv), we could achieve 7-8 degree C
warming that would melt down the ice sheets of both Greenland and
Antarctica. That would force people and businesses in currently-coastal
areas to move about 200 meters uphill, and land area above water to
decrease quite a few percent.
As for methane claptrates - I suspect we will end up minimg them for
fuel use when natural gas supply dwindles enough to spike the price up
bigtime. Sounds to me like more CO2 rather than "clathrate gun" - but
it appears to me that humans will more than avert the next ice age and end
up melting at least Greenland's ice sheet and force many millions of
people and a lot of industry to move about 7 meters uphill.
And should there be much time with Greenland being green all over
and the Arctic losing most of its year-round ice cover while Antarctica is
ice-covered, watch out for weather zones shifting a hundred or two km
northward, maybe more in "The Americas", and more-northern nations having
a lot of land too cold to farm to become greater agricultural powers. USA
will need "American Ingenuity" continuing to exist with likely
precipitation pattern shifts that will probably disfavor a lot of American
land that is "a little north of subtropical". Many Americans will also
have to cut back watering their lawns - I hope some American breeds a
strain of lawn grass that stays green when things go semi-arid.
(It appears to me that in the past several decades almost half of
Augusts in Philadelphia have almost or over half their rainfall in a
single stretch of 8 hours or less, and July and September are only a
little better than August with distribution-over-the-month of monthly
rainfall in/around Philadelphia. I doubt global warming would improve
this situation!)
- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
I expect sea level changes to be mere millimeters per year until we get
enough warming to actually do major damage to Greenland's ice sheet.
I suspect that the upward bounce that I expect after 2030-2035 or so to
about 2070 or so to fall short of accomplishing such. It appears to me
that global surface temperature as high as 3 degrees C above 1951-1980
or 1961-1990 average may not do only minor damage to Greenland's and
Antarctica's ice sheets.
What I see being the problem is if we get any warmer - it appears to me
that 4 degree C warming that was peak of the interglacial period before
the current one accomplished serious melting of Greenland's ice sheet. If
we burn enough fossil fuels to get atmospheric CO2 to what it was
before our fossil fuels were formed or maybe even so much as past 800 ppmv
or so (maybe needing as much as 1200 ppmv), we could achieve 7-8 degree C
warming that would melt down the ice sheets of both Greenland and
Antarctica. That would force people and businesses in currently-coastal
areas to move about 200 meters uphill, and land area above water to
decrease quite a few percent.
As for methane claptrates - I suspect we will end up minimg them for
fuel use when natural gas supply dwindles enough to spike the price up
bigtime. Sounds to me like more CO2 rather than "clathrate gun" - but
it appears to me that humans will more than avert the next ice age and end
up melting at least Greenland's ice sheet and force many millions of
people and a lot of industry to move about 7 meters uphill.
And should there be much time with Greenland being green all over
and the Arctic losing most of its year-round ice cover while Antarctica is
ice-covered, watch out for weather zones shifting a hundred or two km
northward, maybe more in "The Americas", and more-northern nations having
a lot of land too cold to farm to become greater agricultural powers. USA
will need "American Ingenuity" continuing to exist with likely
precipitation pattern shifts that will probably disfavor a lot of American
land that is "a little north of subtropical". Many Americans will also
have to cut back watering their lawns - I hope some American breeds a
strain of lawn grass that stays green when things go semi-arid.
(It appears to me that in the past several decades almost half of
Augusts in Philadelphia have almost or over half their rainfall in a
single stretch of 8 hours or less, and July and September are only a
little better than August with distribution-over-the-month of monthly
rainfall in/around Philadelphia. I doubt global warming would improve
this situation!)
- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
D
Don Klipstein
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Why did you even say salt mine? Salt domes are a kilometer or two
underground. Humans tend to get salt from more convenient sources than
salt domes!
- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
D
Don Klipstein
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Proper beer, just like red wine, is intended to be consumed at room
temperature, and is not artificially pressured with carbon dioxide.
Beer at freezing temperatures loses what ever flavour it had, which
probably makes American beer more palatable!
You're talking about the major-brand mass-marketed "pisswasser", good
mainly for effects occurring after whatever effects on taste buds.
Meanwhile, USA is quite good at importing enough beer to keep some
American breweries up-to-snuff at making the stuff.
- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
D
Don Klipstein
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
I think that Sloman exaggerated the inefficiency of corn, but I do find
corn to be a poor choice in comparison to a couple better alternatives -
sugar cane and switchgrass!
Switchgrass has been mentioned a lot as being good for producing
ethanol, and it grows as a weed even on semi-arid land that is too arid to
profitably farm anything except beef cattle. Horses don't do well by
eating it.
Brazil makes good use of sugar cane for biofuel ethanol.
Meanwhile, USA has its biofuel program apparently designed by lobbyists
from corn farming corporations, corn farming areas and Archer Daniels
Midland so as to require biofuel to specifically be ethanol made from
American-grown corn.
It appears to me that USA has a corn lobby and lacks a switchgrass
lobby!
- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
R
Raveninghorde
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
As always you avoid the question.
The EU has a 5.75% bio fuel obligation for 2010 and a 10% bio fuel
obligation for 2020.
You blamed Bush for the US bio fuel plans. Who do blame for the EU
plans?
Similar threads
