| Alternative fuels and global warming |
|
|
|
|
|
efflandt
Senior Member
Cash: $ 80.45
Posts: 401
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Location: Elgin, IL USA |
|
|
|
I have been wondering two things about alternative fuels.
Although, ethanol burns cleanly, what is its real net carbon footprint when you consider diesel fuel necessary to grow and move the corn, and natural gas used to distile it? It still costs more to produce than fossil fuels and has less energy per gallon, so its cost per gallon with reduced taxes and subsidies that suck up more of our taxes is still an illusion, since it requires more gallons. And since it takes corn out of the food chain, increasing the cost of corn, growth of ethanol production is self defeating (would increase its cost). Brazil can do it more efficiently from sugar cane.
Hydrogen burns very cleanly (only byproducts are water and heat). However, it takes more energy to produce than you get out of it (due to inevitable losses), so it does not reduce energy use, just moves it to a different location. It is also more difficult and dangerous to handle.
But then I do not understand why some people think that carbon dioxide could cause global warming. Carbon dioxide encourages plant grow, and plants absorb energy from the sun. Cutting down naturally growing plants to plant more crops for biofuels would leave more bare land exposed to the sun for more of the year, which I would think would increase global warming. But what do I know, I am just an engineer that thinks logically. When I worked at a scout camp one summer (38 yrs ago) it was much cooler in the woods than out in an open field.
|
Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:31 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor

Cash: $ 1357.80
Posts: 6686
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin |
|
|
|
I've read that when all the energy usage is taken into consideration, the most optimistic estimate for ethanol is a 15% savings. Which means it could be worse.
There's no doubt carbon dioxide is increasing. All they have to do is take core samples from glaciers. Atmospheric gases dissolve in water, freeze into ice, and so when melted millions of years later, the percentages of each at that time can be measured. However, what is in doubt and can't be proved yet is whether increasing carbon dioxide is causing rapid climate change or whether climate change is causing more carbon dioxide.
I really don't think there's any doubt that climate is changing. In my own life it seems like the weather is getting weird, and wild. That's consistent with climate change -- more volatility. But what's causing it and can we do anything about it are debatable. I think that much of the evidence suggests that human activities are indeed a factor.
But here's my question: whether we can prove climate is changing and whether it's due to human activities, OR not -- if we're wrong and we do nothing, then we're screwed. By the time all the calamaties predicted come about it's too late. So, what's the worst of the two scenarios? Do nothing and be wrong, or do what we can and be wrong?
~Tim~
Eye Candy : Why Whimsy
|
Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:07 pm |
|
|
duckman
Member
Cash: $ 3.25
Posts: 16
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Location: Illinois |
quote: In my own life it seems like the weather is getting weird, and wild.
I think you are working with a false assumption. Water vapor is the most influential “greenhouse” gas. Also, just like judging great historical moments, your own life span is far too short to measure any global climate change. As far as “we must do something “(even if it is the wrong thing to do) could be more calamitous then doing nothing. Remember, just 3 years ago the global alarmists were saying there would be MORE hurricanes. Not only was the wrong, the global alarmists have reversed themselves and now claim there will be fewer major storms. (man made) Global warming has become a political agenda and an ideology.
|
Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:08 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor

Cash: $ 1357.80
Posts: 6686
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by duckman . Remember, just 3 years ago the global alarmists were saying there would be MORE hurricanes. Not only was the wrong, the global alarmists have reversed themselves and now claim there will be fewer major storms. (man made) Global warming has become a political agenda and an ideology.
But, using your own argument, three years is far too short a time to judge whether there's more or less hurricanes than were predicted. I agree my own observations are entirely subjective and far too short a time to make any conclusiions, but they are over a period of several decades, not just a few years.
It's too bad that global warming HAS become a political agenda and an ideology. Because the majority consensus of responsible scientists is that something IS happening to climate that's mankind-induced, and that consensus should not be disparaged because of the politicians and alarmists that have latched onto it to beat their own drums.
I prefer NOT to use the term "global warming" because what's really happening is "artificially accelerated climate change." And if the scientists are right and the pooh-poohers are wrong, then the human race and indeed all life on the planet is in for a heap of trouble.
~Tim~
Eye Candy : Why Whimsy
|
Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:32 pm |
|
|
duckman
Member
Cash: $ 3.25
Posts: 16
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Location: Illinois |
I am not making conclusions based on three years worth of data or using personal anecdotes. I am showing how inconsistent the global alarmists are. There is scant to no data proving man made global warming and overwhelming evidence that the earth goes through man,many,many natural cycles. Without making a truly world wide effort to do nothing but attempt to damage the atmosphere, mankind has little effect. This planet will survive us being here.
|
Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:40 pm |
|
|
duckman
Member
Cash: $ 3.25
Posts: 16
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Location: Illinois |
quote: "The evidence is incontrovertable" that man-made change is occurring. Your statement is totally unsupportable.
Want some "evidence" that the world is flat?
YOUR statement is unsupportable, otherwise there would be no question of man made global warming
|
Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:05 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor

Cash: $ 1357.80
Posts: 6686
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin |
I provided support for my argument (and it didn't take much effort -- there's so much credible support out there for it.) You provided none for yours. Let the readers decide.
~Tim~
Eye Candy : Why Whimsy
|
Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:35 pm |
|
|
duckman
Member
Cash: $ 3.25
Posts: 16
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Location: Illinois |
Science is about repeatable results, not theories, not speculation, not computer models, not personal anecdotes or a popularity contest on who has the most votes.
http://icecap.us/index.php
This is one of the best sites that debunks (daily) the man made global warming hoax.
|
Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:09 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor

Cash: $ 1357.80
Posts: 6686
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin |
I bookmarked it and I'll check it out when I get a chance.
~Tim~
Eye Candy : Why Whimsy
|
Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:08 pm |
|
|
duckman
Member
Cash: $ 3.25
Posts: 16
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Location: Illinois |
|
|
|
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
quote: Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Topics: Global Warming
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.
To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.
And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.
Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.
Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.
Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.
This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.
Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.
Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.
In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.
As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.
For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.
R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."
Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."
Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."
"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."
In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.
A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.
"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."
But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.
|
Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:04 pm |
|
|
jweschman
Member
Cash: $ 2.20
Posts: 11
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Location: Houston, TX |
I should add that the environmental debate is characterized by some of the same "anomalies" that are now well know in Behavioral Finance. Specifically...
Overconfidence in our ability to understand complex systems - we humans tend to "see" patterns even in data that is completely random. These perceived patterns sometimes lead us to conclusions that we absolutely believe to be true, but that later turn out to have been bogus. The most intelligent, and well-intentioned environmental scientists are just as vulnerable in this as the rest of us. And...
Confirmation bias - once we've formed any opinion, we tend to search out other information or data that will confirm the conclusions we've already reached... and tend to ignore, downplay, or attempt to discredit any information/data/opinions that challenge our existing opinions.
Jeff Eschman
Brazos Financial Advisors
|
Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:51 pm |
|
|
coaster
Senior Advisor

Cash: $ 1357.80
Posts: 6686
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin |
Some very perceptive comments, Jeff. Welcome to the forum.
~Tim~
Eye Candy : Why Whimsy
|
Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:42 pm |
|
|
duckman
Member
Cash: $ 3.25
Posts: 16
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Location: Illinois |
| Still more doubt |
|
|
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2703#more-2703
This doesn’t conclusively prove that man made warming is a hoax, BUT it is just another chink in the armor that shows the conclusions that have been drawn may not be correct.
|
Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:29 pm |
|
|
|