All of us have seen the unusually warm temperatures this winter, I can't even remember where my snow shovel is.

Interesting stats from NOAA that make me think we could see an early striper migration if water temps hold.

Woods Hole: avg. for Jan.: 34 degrees, currently 38 degrees

Portland, ME: avg. for Jan.: 34 degrees, currently 43 degrees

Newport, RI: avg. for Jan.: 37 degrees, currently 43 degrees

These temps are more like what we get in late March or early April.

heres one for ya....

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/natl.html

You can't use just one winter as evidence for global warming, but long-term trends do show definite climate change. Some will argue that it's el Nino or other short-term influences, but those El Ninos are much more frequent because of global warming. They'll also argue if we have some cold weeks or even months, or if a certain local area is colder. They don't understand averages, and also vote for presidents like Bush. This winter might feel pretty comfortable, but the effects on the earth's ecosystems aren't nice.

global warming is inevitable & there is no turning it around. It is the natural way of things. The earth is destined to burn up with the sun. There is evidence though that we may be speeding things up.

I agree that using one winter here in the NE to support the theory is ridiculous. Since out west they have had one of the coldest winters on record.

Just an anomaly, (I have been waiting to use that word)

Wait.
If it gets this cold for a while.
Come April/May
With in a degree of the average!

Quote me on it :D

Well, the news is that this year the official government assessment of the global warming issue will be for the most part that the environmentalist wackos were right all along, and that the situation is very serious.

I'm not expecting Rush Limbaugh to retract his entire career or anything...but perhaps we can get a serious dialogue going.

2007 will be the year this starts to be taken seriously, mark my words...

-spence

thatll be the day that Rush buys into the fact that global warming is a reality.

Well, the news is that this year the official government assessment of the global warming issue will be for the most part that the environmentalist wackos were right all along, and that the situation is very serious.
2007 will be the year this starts to be taken seriously, mark my words...
-spence

The IPCC report on climate change is due out very soon...
thats why... not that this administration will do much... lets hope so!

Anyone who thinks they know more than the climatologists, biologists, etc who've studied this thing for years from a million different angles is a complete idiot. That's not my opinion, it's fact.

1.) regardless of what climatoligists are saying or environmentalists.

all you have to do is.... think about how much TAR roads and parking lots ,
concrete buildings ect. are now on the planet soaking
up the heat of the sun and releasing that trapped heat back into
the planets atmosphere....thats enough to create a change.

2.) nature has a way of changing things up....one year its a forest.
then that forest burns down to the ground from a lightning strike.
now its a grassy field filled with lush vegetation. then a mudslide
happens covering the lush vegitation. then pine seedlings sprout after
a week of windy weather. a forest grows again repeating the cycle.

Anyone who thinks they know more than the climatologists, biologists, etc who've studied this thing for years from a million different angles is a complete idiot. That's not my opinion, it's fact.

Yup..
I will always stress in conversation, I'm a geologist, not a climate guy, or biologist; anything I say is my opinion gleaned from reading what I read and knowing what I know!

come April, the water will be +/- 1 degree-1.5 degrees of the average...
we have this water temp debate almost every year

According to the U.N. the number one man-made cause of global warming is methane from cow farts. How we going to control that? Put a catalytic converter on the cows? :)

According to the U.N. the number one man-made cause of global warming is methane from cow farts. How we going to control that? Put a catalytic converter on the cows? :)


you'd have to genetically alter the grass itself so that it produced hydrogen or oxygen or some other gas...other than methane.
in the digestion tract of cows that have two stomachs BTW
if thats possible.....that is........... :huh: :hihi:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MakoMike
According to the U.N. the number one man-made cause of global warming is methane from cow farts. How we going to control that? Put a catalytic converter on the cows?

Wouldn't that be a cattle-lytic converter?

I forget the actual number, but almost all the top 10 warmest winters on record have occured in the past 15 or so years.

The cause can be debated, whether something is happening or not is fairly tough to argue.

Actually it likes 45 of the 50 warmest years on record have been in the last 50 years.

hey guys, did you know that 75% of statistics are made up on the spot? think about it!!

Actually it likes 45 of the 50 warmest years on record have been in the last 50 years.

Not very difficult to believe when you stop an consider that they have only been keeping records for about 100 years.


Cattle-littic convertor! I love it!:btu:

According to my log, fish showed up about a week and a half early at my Spring spots last year.

global warming is inevitable & there is no turning it around. It is the natural way of things. The earth is destined to burn up with the sun. There is evidence though that we may be speeding things up.

I agree that using one winter here in the NE to support the theory is ridiculous. Since out west they have had one of the coldest winters on record.

I will leave out my opinions and try to focus on facts...

First off the earth will burn up with the sun in billions and billions of years from now when the sun expands prior to dying out. The global warming happening has nothing to due with changes in the sun.

Global warming may be inevitable and part of the ice age cycle, but there is no question it has excelerated over the last 100 years as the level of CO2 has risen. That is not just based on the fact that we have been keeping records that long, but is in rock and ice cores showing conditions long ago.

Human activity adds CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat. Trapped heat warms the globe. The more heat trapped, the more moisture in the air, the more heat is trapped...

The west has had a lot of snow, but not one of the coldest winters on record. Warmer temps mean more snow, due to more moisture (this fact could mean that global warming will trigger an ice age in the end). Some places like San Antonio have had cold temperatures. CLimate change is expected to affected specific localities differently. The global avereage temp, in any case, is going up.

CO2 from cows is an anthropomorphic cause. I won't go into what to do about it...

Anyone who thinks they know more than the climatologists, biologists, etc who've studied this thing for years from a million different angles is a complete idiot. That's not my opinion, it's fact.

I agree and when I see a clear consensus amongst them I'll form a firm opinion.

CO2 from cows is an anthropomorphic cause. I won't go into what to do about it...


Over my head. What is this anthropomorphic cause you speak of?

I agree and when I see a clear consensus amongst them I'll form a firm opinion.

The clear consensus is that change is occurring. How fast and how much is still being worked out.

I believe

We hear a lot about humans causing global warming,
could it be that the Earth is wrming from the inside out?

Seams like I am hearing more about volcanoes becoming active,
especially the Pacific rim area.

After all, there is evidence of a mini ice age that happened across Europe,
that was caused by a super eruption.

From the inside out...
Not like that, no.
BUT if you get a large eruption that puts a lot of dust in the atmosphere then yes it can induce some cooling. What your referring to is the LIA (Little Ice Age)

and we are all just having a discussion here

not professing to be experts....although

we are all fairly expert observationists....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
rain will be increasing due to melting of the ice....

with an increased amount of fresh water available.

it's raining most of july lately..... .... ... .. ugghhh:zup:

1) Anthropomorphic means "man-made", caused by humans
2) Nice points, Zimmy
3) There IS a clear consensus among scientists. When politicians dissent from scientific view, it doesn't count as legitimate lack of consensus.

P.S. Don't worry about forming an opinion, anyway. "Opinion" has no place in the discussion, and is the reason that nothing is being done about a legitimate problem. We're dealing with facts and climatic phenomena, not whether your jeans make you look fat. Whether or not global warming is happening does NOT depend on whether or not the majority feels or agrees that it is happening. If 95% of the population are of the "opinion" that fish dont exist, does that mean they don't exist? No, it is irrelevant. Forming an "opinion" of whether global warming exists is why the problem is still worsening. Similar problem with evolution. It's not a majority-wins thing. It exists. "Opinions" don't trump fact.

Should watch Al gores movie on global warming An Inconvenient Truth.

The global warming happening has nothing to due with changes in the sun.

Human activity adds CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat. Trapped heat warms the globe. The more heat trapped, the more moisture in the air, the more heat is trapped...

CO2 from cows is an anthropomorphic cause. I won't go into what to do about it...

1) I have read several papers that claim that the sun, or more specifically, the increase in the sun's activity has a lot to do with global warming.

2) No question that the gasses trap heat. The question is how much of the gases are due to human activity and how much is due to natural causes, such as the increase in volcanis activity.

3) How "necessary" are cows?

1) Anthropomorphic means "man-made", caused by humans
2) Nice points, Zimmy
3) There IS a clear consensus among scientists. When politicians dissent from scientific view, it doesn't count as legitimate lack of consensus.

Yes there is a clear consensus that the planet is experiencing a warming trend. I dont recall anyone disputing that.

1) I have read several papers that claim that the sun, or more specifically, the increase in the sun's activity has a lot to do with global warming.

2) No question that the gasses trap heat. The question is how much of the gases are due to human activity and how much is due to natural causes, such as the increase in volcanis activity.

3) How "necessary" are cows?

I heard somewhere that Mt. St Helens released more greenhouse gases than mankind has in its existence.

I heard somewhere that Mt. St Helens released more greenhouse gases than mankind has in its existence.
That's just anti-environmentalist disinformation to keep the profits flowing. Complete BS...

Volcanoes do emit a lot of sulphur dioxide I believe, which is nasty but more local in impact.

-spence

with volcanoes, as I said above it is the dust in the atmosphere that impacts the amount of sunlight getting through.
Effects of Mt. St. Helens was far reaching, and events like Krakatoa was global.

As an aside, I've heard of some proposals to induce global cooling by injecting man made dust into the atmosphere!

-spence

Actually it likes 45 of the 50 warmest years on record have been in the last 50 years.

considering that the median number years for NOAA and predecessor data tracking is about 59 years (oldest is 120), that doesn't strike me as nearly enough data to generalize a meaningful trend over the course of a millenia or two or a million.

but to the chattering shrill IDIOTS in this crowd, it's always bush's fault anyways, right?

FWW, I have never outright blamed Bush for this. Clinton #^&#^&#^&#^&ed around with it as well.
I think most educated people would say that something needs to get done that isn't getting done!
You are right, but using the geological, tree ring, ice cores etc.. there are temperature proxy data sets going back several millenia

Baldwin, I disagree slightly, and if you are not a scientist directly working on climate change then you have an opinion of the facts presented, you have to asses your own takes on it, and not take it at face value. Some of that is knowing the who/what/where/when/how of the research. Then making an informed opinion of the facts presented.

funny how things average out over time.

we've had a warm start to the winter, but the next few weeks are expected to be bitterly cold (starting this afternoon).

my take on the weather as it impacts us right now: follow the course of the freakin jet stream.

interesting talk next week regarding this very issue...

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=37764

That's just anti-environmentalist disinformation to keep the profits flowing. Complete BS...

Volcanoes do emit a lot of sulphur dioxide I believe, which is nasty but more local in impact.

-spence

The total amount of overall greenhouse gases emitted by St. Helens maybe BS but denying that volcanic eruptions don't have a global impact is also BS. SO2converts to sulfuric acid aerosols that block incoming solar radiation and contribute to ozone depletion. Last I heard ozone depletion was not merely local in impact

considering that the median number years for NOAA and predecessor data tracking is about 59 years (oldest is 120), that doesn't strike me as nearly enough data to generalize a meaningful trend over the course of a millenia or two or a million.

but to the chattering shrill IDIOTS in this crowd, it's always bush's fault anyways, right?

This isn't difficult to grasp... The data gathered today can tell us what conditions were like many thousands even millions of years ago. Its kinda like we know somethings about dinosaurs although they lived millions of years ago. Climatologists gather data about the climate from long ago, not just the temp it was in 1900.

Its not bushes fault... however, 5 years ago his VP said something along the lines of conservation of fossil fuels is a personal choice and its basically unamerican to suggest people conserve energy. Things must have really changed in the last five years. Guess it was so far in the future that they couldn't predict anything about the way things would be in 2006-7.

Cow farts are created by humans?? I thought they were created by cows?? Goes to show what I know!!

Cow farts are created by humans?? I thought they were created by cows?? Goes to show what I know!!

I blame dairy farmers and their irresponsible quest for profit while producing steaks and milk. :wiggle:

Here is an interesting take on the subject :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

too many cfc's waay back when..

its too late now I say welcome it! Think about it tuna off the beach :humpty:

too many cfc's waay back when..

its too late now I say welcome it! Think about it tuna off the beach :humpty:

And massive droughts across the West/Midwest...
Grain production shifting north to Canada...

Here is an interesting take on the subject :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

Good read. It goes back to what I said earlier. When there is clear consensus amongst the Scientific community I'll form a firm opinion. The only certainty now is that article will be assailed as "anti-environment" propaganda despite any facts it provides.

The total amount of overall greenhouse gases emitted by St. Helens maybe BS but denying that volcanic eruptions don't have a global impact is also BS.
Never said they did. But everything I've read indicates their contribution to greenhouse gases is small compared to human activity.

-spence

i fart on this thread

How many things can you name that man made? rearanged at the molectular level or combined in differant quantities means it was here already in some kinda form.
Water, the only shortage is what we shot into space and let it drift away. its still here just not where we want it.
Weather, i feel we can only affect it slightly but not change it.
my veiws are kinda weird.

"Baldwin, I disagree slightly, and if you are not a scientist directly working on climate change then you have an opinion of the facts presented, you have to asses your own takes on it, and not take it at face value. Some of that is knowing the who/what/where/when/how of the research. Then making an informed opinion of the facts presented."

I have a Masters degree in Biology, and teach Marine Biology, Genetics and Biotechnology, and Evolution. I also read many science journals that have to do with biology, climate, and environmental matters. I'm not forming an opinion based on watching a documentary on the Discovery Channel or reading a newspaper article.
Another point I'd like to make: enough of the whining about what percentage of greenhouse gases is anthropomorphic and what percentage is "natural". If 80% is from natural geological and biological processes, and 20% is man-made, and it's affecting climate in a negative way, wouln't it make sense to try and slow it by whittling away at the 20% that we have control over? Or should we blame nature for the bulk of it, and expect nature to be responsible and repent?
If a drunk driver is swerving at you while you're driving your kids to soccer practice, would you keep straight ahead on your course because the drunk driver would be more at fault for your kids' deaths, or would you try to swerve and avoid the impact?
__________________

Another point I'd like to make: enough of the whining about what percentage of greenhouse gases is anthropomorphic and what percentage is "natural". If 80% is from natural geological and biological processes, and 20% is man-made, and it's affecting climate in a negative way, wouln't it make sense to try and slow it by whittling away at the 20% that we have control over? Or should we blame nature for the bulk of it, and expect nature to be responsible and repent?

Or, if it's happening and even it's all natural should'nt the planet be preparing for the dramatic change in lifestyle we may be forced to endure?

-spence

But...you're right, rockhound, in that we should all make informed assessments of "facts" presented, as all sources are not equally reliable. But, the degree of consensus from scientists from many diverse disciplines lends serious credence to their findings.

I have a Masters degree in Biology, and teach Marine Biology, Genetics and Biotechnology, and Evolution. I also read many science journals that have to do with biology, climate, and environmental matters. I'm not forming an opinion based on watching a documentary on the Discovery Channel or reading a newspaper article.



http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f15/30calslut/irnint.gif

:rolleyes:

1) Anthropomorphic means "man-made", caused by humans
2) Nice points, Zimmy
3) There IS a clear consensus among scientists. When politicians dissent from scientific view, it doesn't count as legitimate lack of consensus.

Anthropomorphic- Does not mean man made. It is same as personification. Giving human like qualities to animals or inanimate objects.


Original Quote
"CO2 from cows is an anthropomorphic cause. I won't go into what to do about it..."
-zimmy

CO2 from cows is a human like cause?

............Indubitably

This just in.....

Cow farts are to blame for global warming. Real estate nearby cow pastures plummets due to dangerous amounts of CO2 due to cow farts.

too late :crying:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNzWfguDjZU

There will never be a consensus on this issue since there's no way to prove (or disprove) that humans are causing global warming, which is the real question. Politicians can't campaign against nature, so the issue is intentionally misrepresented. If you can't prove people are causing it, it's in the same category as the sun burning out and thus not worth discussing.

Greenhouse gas is yet another buzz word that is used to generate an emotional response. Water is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, but you can't win votes by speaking out against water, so you never hear about it.

One of the producers of "An Inconvenient Truth" recently said in an interview that, paraphrasing here, 'The movie is based on science, and you can't disagree with science'. I think that's pretty much all you need to know about that movie.

Maybe we can run around behind them cows with plastic garbage bags tight to their asses, and harvest them farts. Then, we can reduce methane emissions from greenhouse gases, and use them for fuel. Yes, I is an intellectual, not to mention an opinionated one.

Yes, I is an intellectual, not to mention an opinionated one.
It's "I is a intellectual".

If you were one you would have known that.

-spence

what the fark does this have to do with any fishing, other than that this warm weather has extended my season by a few months?

a lot. At the current rate, my property will be water front in 50 years. By that time I will be too old to walk to the spots I fish now. I will set up a lawn chair and have my grandchildren throw out my line for me while I sleep in my chair. Also, Long Island Sound will have warmed enough that blue crabs ( my favorite food source, way more delicious than an old dairy cow...) will have established a substantial population. I will pick crabs on my deck between checking my bait. :cheers:

Anthropomorphic- Does not mean man made. It is same as personification. Giving human like qualities to animals or inanimate objects.


Original Quote
"CO2 from cows is an anthropomorphic cause. I won't go into what to do about it..."
-zimmy

CO2 from cows is a human like cause?

............Indubitably

listen to the chief... its anthropogenic. :smash:


This just in.....

Cow farts are to blame for global warming. Real estate nearby cow pastures plummets due to dangerous amounts of CO2 due to cow farts. This is already true.

speaking of the new shore-line.
I will own water front property too.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g18/parishht/newshoreline.jpg


Even if the U.S. curbs there output of gases,
there are many third world / emerging nations,
that could care less.
This in no way means that we should not curb our output,
I am a firm believer in changing over to ethanol.
At least all the farmers will be able to get a good price for their crops.
We could also put more farmers back to work.

Where did you get the map?
FYI the HIGH estimate is 1+m of sea level rise by 2100.

but to the chattering shrill IDIOTS in this crowd, it's always bush's fault anyways, right?


I missed any posts where anyone said it was bush's faults - so... keep chattering :chatter

When the UN sponsored (I threw that in so everyone can cry about the evil UN) intergovernmental panel on climate change comes out next week in will say that its more than 90% likely that global warming since 1950 has been driven mainly by the buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat trapping gases.

One of the producers of "An Inconvenient Truth" recently said in an interview that, paraphrasing here, 'The movie is based on science, and you can't disagree with science'. I think that's pretty much all you need to know about that movie.

Damm those smart scientists

I missed any posts where anyone said it was bush's faults ...

read a few of the earlier posts more carefully.

I am a firm believer in changing over to ethanol.
At least all the farmers will be able to get a good price for their crops.
We could also put more farmers back to work.

ethanol is a politically convenient FRAUD.

i offer you a bit of original, insightful, reasoned and informed analysis that you won't get anywhere else.

there is no easy fix ... if there was we would have seen it by now.

read on and be enlightened.


President Bush called for an increase in the biofuels usage mandate to 35 billion gallons by 2017. The current mandate increases to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. So, this is a call for a very significant increase in the mandate.

For some perspective, total annual gasoline consumption should grow to around 150 billions by 2017, while total diesel and heating oil usage should grow to about 75 million gallons. So, a mandate for 35 billion gallons by 2017 would represent about 15% of the future total fuel supply (some 225 billion gallons).

Is that realistic? In short, probably not. Existing gasoline-powered vehicles can run up to 10% ethanol, so that could account for about 15 billion gallons of demand. Increases in ethanol demand beyond that would require very significant increases in the number of ethanol-powered cars (which can run on 85% ethanol). However, the lack of widespread ethanol distribution infrastructure and the lower mileage of ethanol-powered vehicles could significantly reduce their desirability/feasibility over the next 10 years. Further, growth in ethanol production to just 15 billion gallons would require the usage of 5 billion bushels of corn – about half of projected corn production (despite expectations for acreage yield increases from improving seed technology). A mandate of 35 billion gallons would require essentially ALL of the projected corn production. Lowering tariffs to Brazilian ethanol could provide some incremental supply, but increasing imports would probably not be viewed as increasing energy independence (although reliance on Brazil is probably safer than reliance on many oil-producing countries) So, I think there are significant barriers to ethanol going above 15 billion gallons (and maybe even getting to 15 billion gallons).

As for diesel, my understanding is that there is no real limit to the amount of biodiesel that can be blended into diesel. And, the distribution infrastructure already exists. And, biodiesel gets similar mileage to regular diesel. So, many of the limits on ethanol production do not pertain to biodiesel. The big constraint is the supply of oil inputs (primarily soybean oil). Even increasing production to about 1.5 billion gallons would require about 12 billion gallons of soybean oil. But, that would use about 1/3 of soybean oil production. Importing other oils (such as palm oil from southeast Asia) could provide some incremental supply, but there are environmental concerns with destroying rainforest to plant palm, and again, relying on other regions may not be viewed as moving toward independence.

Further, both ethanol and biodiesel production use natural gas or electricity which is based on natural gas. Large increases in biofuel production could necessitate imports of liquefied natural gas – increasing dependence on LNG producing regions. So, again, if the goal is energy independence, that could create some contradictions. Further, burning natural gas produces about 75% of the carbon emissions of burning oil – certainly less, but the net reduction may be smaller than realized.

So, I think overall the crop supply (and ethanol distribution and mileage constraints) and natural gas supply put pretty significant limits on biofuel production going much above about 15 billion gallons. The only way to get to anything like 35 billion gallons would be for cellulosic ethanol to become economic. This would involve using enzymes to break down various plant matter (switchgrass, etc.) to produce ethanol. My understanding is that the enzymes are still very expensive and that production costs can be about $4-to-$5 per gallon. There is also environmental concern over control of the enzymes – obviously, the potential for escape of enzymes designed to break down all plant matter could present an environmental hazard. It is certainly possible that the costs of cellulosic ethanol will come down dramatically and that the enzymes can be adequately controlled – but, that is obviously a big question. Cellulosic ethanol would still have the hurdles of lack of ethanol distribution infrastructure, lack of significant numbers of E85 vehicles, lower ethanol mileage, and increasing natural gas usage – however, it would “solve” the lack of adequate crop inputs (corn and soybeans).

The big picture remains that the amount of political support for biofuels is huge and across the political spectrum. The government appears to be willing to highly support all biofuel alternatives – if the economics don’t work, the government may be willing to make them work. In the current (and expected 2007) commodity price environment, biodiesel does not appear to be economic – will the government do what is necessary to make it economic (increase tax credits) in the face of higher crop prices, higher beef prices, higher food/beverage prices, and the requirement for higher taxes/lower spending/higher deficit? The political will certainly appears to be there now.

Where did you get the map?
FYI the HIGH estimate is 1+m of sea level rise by 2100.


Did a google image search.

If ethanol is a "politically convenient FRAUD."
Then explain why it is viable in Brazil?

read a few of the earlier posts more carefully.

Your right, I did.:blush: :hidin:

Damm those smart scientists

I guess I'll clarify what I meant here. There's no less inteligent, more scientifically ignorant statement than believing you are somehow so brilliant that there is no reasonable argument against your position.

The bimbette said this in response to a comment made in Seattle. A school board there passed a motion saying the position on global warming supported by the movie couldn't be taught without also presenting a counterpoint. She vomited the quote in response to that.

I hear Omega Protein is coming out with a movie about the overabundance of bunker and their threat to bathers - small children in particular. It promises to have less of a slant than Inconvenient Truth.

If ethanol is a "politically convenient FRAUD."
Then explain why it is viable in Brazil?

1. brazil uses eco-friendlier local sugar cane which is plentiful, not resource-intensive corn. if you read my earlier post, there is not enough corn in the U.S. to make a dent in our fuel demand and satisfy food/feed needs.

2. brazil has distribution infrastructure, we don't. you can't pipe ethanol, it is corrosive. you have to TRUCK IT here, so you burn oil anyways.

3. brazil has more cars that run on near-pure ethanol, we don't.

4. most people don't realize that MPG is less for ethanol than gasoline.

5. brazilian gals wax their bikinis instead of shaving them (shaving uses up more petrochemical resources).

the mixing of biodiesel into regular diesel has the engineers

scratching their heads... only because with biodiesel it has this affinity to moisture and generally you need to start the diesel vehicles with pure diesel fuel until the motor is well warmed up and then you switch over to the biodiesel.

The origional diesel engine was designed to run on vegetable oil not the refined diesel fuel we know today. Sunflowers are another important crop for biodiesel production! One of the best other fuel sources currently being tested is making fuel from pond scum and or algae which has a phenomenal growth rate.....and it produces huge amounts of fuel as compared to corn ,soybeans or sunflower seeds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunflower roots growth expressed as depth penetration and root density is greater than that of other crops such as maize, sorghum and soybean, ensuring and adequate supply of water and nutrients even with extensive farming methods.

Variations in nitrogen levels
Sunflower generally has a favourable productive response to nitrogen rates, even below 70-100 KG/hectare. This results partly from its large root system, which is important in maintaining required water and nutrient supplies. Furthermore, the main root can often reach a depth of 2 metre, enabling the plant to extract sufficient quantities of water from arid soils. (the roots can grow downwards 6 feet deep)

Ethanol in the midwest has simply been a political earmark. It takes more energy to produce than it delivers...without subsidies there wouldn't be much production.

Hopefully that will all change with some new technology, but it may be a while...

-spence

The best is yet to come as far as car engines.
Compressed air powered vehicles are being developed now. They have 2 large tanks made of carbon fiber. The air powers the pistons and there is no emissions :kewl: 2 bucks in electricity to charge the tanks back up with the onboard compressor or 4 minutes at a gas station. Science is working on all kinds of stuff.

Ethanol provides more benefit in your orange juice.

ethanol is great for the economy- look at how many outboards its ruined which has resulted in new outboards being bought.. look at how much startron seabrite is selling... its great!

good to see this discussion on this site...it is something i think about often...the key for our success as a nation will be to come up with alternative energy...that will eliminate our dependence on the middle east...saving lives...and letting those currupt govenrments sink into the sands...it will also benefit our planet whether we are beyond the tipping point or not...it will also be our only chance to rival the incredible emergence of china in the years to come...our best chance to remain a so called superpower lies in energy...our best resource is our pooled intelligence in coming up with new technology that fuels us into the future...if a politician, whether from the donkey club or the elephant gang, presents this as the most pressing issue facing us as a nation now and into the future then that person wins...and so do we...it amazes me that no one i hear in the public arena presents this as vital...it makes sense whether one is a environmentalist or a hawk...hopefully iraq makes this issue more tangible to the friggin' politicians that keep their heads in the sand...

the politicians are being paid to keep their heads in the sand.

Seems that the Martian ice caps are melting, too.
http://www.climateark.org/articles/2001/4th/stsumars.htm
We humans tend to think that everything happens because of us. Sometimes it just happens. We are still coming out of the last ice-age. Before that event, where did dinosaurs walk?

I think they tracked mud across my living room.

But seriously, recent climate change is taking place much more rapidly than those past events. The dinosaurs ruled the earth for more than 100 million years, ice ages take thousands to recede. I'd rather take the word of multitudes of scientists who study this thing for a living. But, neither I nor anyone else will be able to convince those who choose not to believe. Perhaps much of it is from "natural" causes, and all those scientists are wrong. Perhaps a few politicians who make their money from the oil industry are right.
Perhaps you have a chance of being saved in a car crash by not wearing your seat belt. I'd rather err on the side of safety.

Well, it's pretty scary how political manipulation drives peoples perceptions.

Idiology trumps objectivity all too often.

-spence

Seems that the Martian ice caps are melting, too.
http://www.climateark.org/articles/2001/4th/stsumars.htm
We humans tend to think that everything happens because of us. Sometimes it just happens. We are still coming out of the last ice-age. Before that event, where did dinosaurs walk?

It's called Hubris.

Before that event, where did dinosaurs walk?

Connecticut
But that was 65Million years ago..

1) Anthropomorphic means "man-made", caused by humans
2) Nice points, Zimmy
3) There IS a clear consensus among scientists. When politicians dissent from scientific view, it doesn't count as legitimate lack of consensus.

Anthropomorphic means ascribing human traits or qualities to something non-human. I don't think it ever means man-made or caused by humans.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/29/climate.report.ap/index.html

Evidently scientists do occasionally disagree. Sea level rise by 2100 - is it 5 inches or 5 feet, someone must be right, right?

Maybe neither? Maybe . . . no one knows.

Anthropomorphic means ascribing human traits or qualities to something non-human. I don't think it ever means man-made or caused by humans.

Right, anthropomorphic is like Disney's portrayal of animals with human thoughts and emotion in Bambi. Anthropogenic means man-made. My mistake.

Whoops, that wasn't Vogt's mistake. He was logged on on my computer (student of mine). Just shows ya what happens when you spend work time on fishing message boards. Matter of fact, that's one of the nicer things about work.

If this is global warming....I am going to help speed up the process by purchasing 12 aerosol cans and firing off at once! lol

Dream of California...weather!

Those aerosols were a concern with the ozone layer, not global warming. Turn up your furnace instead.

Got a question,
if we are pumping oil out of the ground,
and water seeps through the ground,
will it not eventually fill the void left by the oil pumped away?

also, are all of the dams, swimming pools, reservoirs and any other
water stopping structure taken into account when sea level rise is calculated?

If I am out of line just do this - :smash:

97% of the water on earth is in the ocean (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/waterdistribution.html), so that's all that matters. Surface fresh water is inconsequential.

You're not out of line.

The volume of the ocean is 1,338,000,000 cubic kilometers. Some people think the relationship between water and CO2 play a large role in the temperature of the earth. As the temperature of the oceans rise, the water can hold less dissolved CO2, so excess is released into the atmosphere. The vapor pressure of the water also increases with temperature, so more moisture is released into the atmosphere. Both of these are 'greenhouse gasses' and may cause the temperature of the earth to increase, which leads to more CO2 and water being released from the ocean, which leads to higher temeratures, and on, and on. Some think this may help explain the highly cyclical nature of the earth's temperature over the millenia.

If you watch the news, what's written above is all a bunch of crap. People cause climate change and the last ice age couldn't have possibly happened since no one was around to drive SUVs and ruin the environment.

Ozone layer? That was sooo 1990's hysteria. Get with the times.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/01/climate.talks.ap/index.html

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.htm (If 'global warming' is real, what could be causing it?)

Link doesn't work

Clearly humans "contribute" to global warming; however, this does not mean that human activity is 100% the cause of global warming. The question is what, if anything, can we do about it?

I think of it this way, if you are ill and the doctor says that 90% of your illness is genetic and you can't do anything about it (example: heart disease) but 10% of your illness is due to factors you can control (diet, losing weight, exersize, stop smoking), you would STILL change the things you can control!

I think the argument over what the causes are, and what proportion of global warming these causes are responsible for is less important than doing what we can to reduce human contribution. I've made a commitment to reduce my fuel burning by at least 20% this year. More is needed of course. But let's not debate what the major cause is, and just do what we can to reduce greenhouse gases. The rest is up to nature.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.htm (If 'global warming' is real, what could be causing it?)

Let me try this again....

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.htm

After jdubya’s re-post of the junkscience.com site, I thought I’d have a look and see just what they have to say. Quite frankly, after reading the webpage several times, I’m still not exactly sure what point they are trying to make. The best I can do is that their thesis runs something along the lines of….”The earth is warming, carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases) play a role, man’s production of greenhouses gases have contributed, but only a little bit, and that’s all in the past anyway and we can do no more damage, plus global warming is a good thing.”

The following quotes (italics) are taken directly from the site:

1) Is the earth warming? Junkscience.com says yes.

“So, just about everyone can agree there has been some warming, at least recently.”
“Regarding contemporary global mean temperature change, is it plausible, even likely, there has been a change of around a half-degree Centigrade since the Industrial Revolution? The short answer is "Yes". The long answer is "Yes, certainly.”

2) Do we believe in the metrics being used? Junkscience says we can’t agree on mean temperature, but then cites mean temperature in their argument.

“Of surprise to most people is that we don't even have an agreement on what we mean by absolute mean surface temperature. In addition to this lack of standardization is that there is a general paucity of data.”
“…we have no reason to believe Earth's mean temperature is not changing, or that it does not do so continuously -- frankly, temperature stasis is a myth.”

3) Is human activity responsible, at least in part, for the current warming of the earth? Junksciece again says yes.

“Does increasing carbon dioxide affect Earth's mean temperature? Yes,”
“…human emission of carbon dioxide has likely had some measurable effect”

4) After spending substantial energy to minimize the role of carbon dioxide as a contributor the global warming (citing solar irradiation and other factors), they attempt to placate us by assuring everyone that the effect of CO2 has run it’s course (you’ll just have to read the article to get their argument).

“This strongly suggests that measurable global mean temperature increment from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide has almost run its course.”
“Before long carbon dioxide emission will have exactly no discernable effect on global temperature.”

5) Now here is the coup de grace. Junkscience, after trying to convince us that there is no evidence that the earth is warming beyond what we might expect naturally, they then wish to convince us that a warmer earth is a good thing! They do this in part by saying a cooling earth would even be worse! Who said anything about cooling or that cooling is in anyway an alternative? Several thoughts occur to me concerning the negatives of a warming earth including rising sea levels, decreased salinity of our oceans, dramatic climate changes, etc. are never mentioned. This simply strikes me as the height of disingenuous gobbledygook.

“Do we believe a warmer world would be worse than a cooler world? No, quite the reverse since a cooler world would make feeding the current population significantly more difficult, far more so the anticipated increasing population of the next generation or so. If there is to be a change in global mean temperature then warmer is distinctly preferable to cooler.”


One parting comment. Whenever I see someone use ad hominem in their arguments, it is clear to me that they wish to bolster a weaker argument by belittling their opponents rather than their opponents’ arguments. Here are three:

“Mike "Hockey Stick" Mann”
“Ozone Al”
And reserved for those who don’t buy into junkscience’s thesis: “a bunch of blind Patagonian Sheep”

Judge for yourself.

I still think that global warming pails in comparison to other threats to the Earth.

Rogue asteroids, super volcanoes (Yellowstone National Park) and
wackos with nukes.

:eyes:

Don't forget psycho squirrels that try to run human drivers off the road.

You mean these guys:

SPAWN and

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g18/parishht/spawn.jpg


PSYCHO

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g18/parishht/psycho.jpg

Yeah, those are the ones.

Rogue asteroids, super volcanoes (Yellowstone National Park) and
:eyes:

Someone's been watching too much discovery channel :D:jump: