Gobal Warming?

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by baldwin

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.

[ChiefLinesider]

Originally Posted by baldwin

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.

[NaCl H2O]

too late

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by ChiefLinesider

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.


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.

[Sweetwater]

Originally Posted by baldwin

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.

[wheresmy50]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science....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.

[Vogt]

Originally Posted by Sweetwater

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

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.

[spence]

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

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

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.

[fishpoopoo]

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.

[nightprowler]

interesting talk next week regarding this very issue...

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

[BassNuts]

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

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by BassNuts

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.

[MakoMike]

Here is an interesting take on the subject :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...it/nwarm05.xml

[ThrowingTimber]

too many cfc's waay back when..

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

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by ThrowingTimber

too many cfc's waay back when..

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

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

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

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.

[BW from AZ]

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]

"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?
__________________

[spence]

Originally Posted by baldwin

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

[baldwin]

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.

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by baldwin

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.

[parishht]

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




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.

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by parishht

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

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

[parishht]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

Did a google image search.

[parishht]

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

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by parishht

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).

[Raven]

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)