Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)

- StriperTalk! (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=12)

- - Gobal Warming? (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=37725)

interesting talk next week regarding this very issue...

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...ad.php?t=37764

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 454810)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bassturbed (Post 454817)

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!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BassNuts (Post 454870)

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...it/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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThrowingTimber (Post 454895)

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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakoMike (Post 454893)

Here is an interesting take on the subject :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...it/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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stripersnipr (Post 454838)

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?
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by baldwin (Post 454926)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by baldwin (Post 454926)

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/f1...lut/irnint.gif

:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by baldwin (Post 454786)

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by baldwin (Post 454993)

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefLinesider (Post 454955)

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/g1...wshoreline.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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bassturbed (Post 454817)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheresmy50 (Post 454991)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 455270)

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

read a few of the earlier posts more carefully.

Quote:

Originally Posted by parishht (Post 455262)

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND (Post 455263)

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bassturbed (Post 455307)

read a few of the earlier posts more carefully.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 455271)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by parishht (Post 455321)

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!