Home     Forum     401k     401k Rollovers     Crypto Forum
    Register   Login   Members   Search   FAQs     Recent Posts    



Alternative fuels and global warming

Reply to topic
Money Talk > The Blue Room

Author Thread
efflandt
Senior Member


Cash: $ 80.45

Posts: 401
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Location: Elgin, IL USA
 Reply with quote  

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.
Post Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:31 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
duckman
Member


Cash: $ 3.25

Posts: 16
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Location: Illinois
 Reply with quote  

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.
Post Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:08 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
duckman
Member


Cash: $ 3.25

Posts: 16
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Location: Illinois
 Reply with quote  

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.
Post Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:40 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
duckman
Member


Cash: $ 3.25

Posts: 16
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Location: Illinois
 Reply with quote  

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
Post Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:05 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
duckman
Member


Cash: $ 3.25

Posts: 16
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Location: Illinois
 Reply with quote  

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.
Post Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:09 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
duckman
Member


Cash: $ 3.25

Posts: 16
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Location: Illinois
 Reply with quote  

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.

Post Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
jweschman
Member


Cash: $ 2.20

Posts: 11
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Location: Houston, TX
 Reply with quote  

Duckman is right, the evidence is far from "incontrovertable".

Most real debate regarding global warming these days gets crowded out by the fear-mongerers and all of the thoughtless repetition coming from the "green faithful". To add just a smidgeon of perspective, try...

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/844
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/ostrowski-john1.html
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

And the IPCC certainly has it's share of warts...

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/11/01/nobel-winner-who-is-part-of-the-ipcc-rejects-his-part-of-the-nobel-peace-prize/
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html


Don't get me wrong though. The science may be inconclusive, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels... just in case human activity is causing harmful (that's a debatable term as well) changes in our climate.

Ethanol and biofuel mandates are probably net-losers in terms of climate impact. Not to start an entirely different debate.... but building nuclear power plants and dramatically raising gasoline taxes both make a heck of a lot more sense.
Post Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:38 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
jweschman
Member


Cash: $ 2.20

Posts: 11
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Location: Houston, TX
 Reply with quote  

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.
Post Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:51 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
duckman
Member


Cash: $ 3.25

Posts: 16
Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Location: Illinois
Still more doubt  Reply with quote  

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.
Post Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Tax Liens
Contributing Member


Cash: $ 10.80

Posts: 49
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Location: Greenbrier, TN
 Reply with quote  

There is clear evidence that some coastal areas and low line islands have begun to submerge. The polar ice caps have melted much beyond the expectation of scientist. The best way out is to reduce the enormous consumption of material and energy in various forms to save the planet.
Post Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:39 am
 View user's profile Send private message

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  
  Display posts from previous:      


Money Talk © 2003-2022

Crypto Prices