SH3RL0CK

As for the political aspect of this: If global warming is happening, and the vast majority of scientific evidence suggests that it is, then we need to change the way we do things. Those changes will happen through politics, not science. Scientists don't set policy, politicians do.

 

I believe that part of the discussion should happen in the political forums though, not the science forums.

Well, if we don't have the science right before we start implementing policy, I don't see how the policy set forth by politicians can possibly be correct (take Iraq as an excellent example where poor information led to a bad policy). This is why I suggest moderation (not the status quo iNow seems to believe is my stance) in our actions until we truly understand this global warming mystery.

To be clear... No. I am not.

 

I am simply asking that challenges to the data be specific. It shouldn't be that hard. That's what science is all about.

 

I can appreciate your desire for rock solid evidence, but if you think what we have already is not rock solid, then I'm concerned nothing will ever be good enough for you. It's okay to make the end zone hard to reach, but you can't make it impossible to reach.

 

I say again. The politics and the reaction have nothing to do with the science. If you challenge the science, then be specific and address the questions I posed above.

I am glad you are not asking me to accept on face value all the claims regarding global warming. I can accept the climate has warmed in recent years, I think the data exists for this.

However, how much warming has occurred? How much of this is caused by human activity and how much by other forcings? What will the consequences of this warming be? What can/should we do about it? These are not answered, and herein is the problem.

To take just one global warming claim to keep things simple, if current trends continue, what will the total rise of the oceans be due to icemelt and thermal expansion? 1 mm? 1 m? 100 m? I've heard all these claimed. Of course a 1 mm rise would rightly prompt no actions. But a 100 m would deserve immediate actions. But which of these will happen, though many numbers are claimed, no one really knows.

All I am asking is that we take no involuntary drastic actions until we know for certain (and certainly we don't as clearly demonstrated by other posters) what is really happening. There is very much to be skeptical about. If I will be required...forced...to sacrifice for this, solid proof, not speculations based on incomplete science, is still required.

SH3RLOCK, your point 2 is actually incorrect. While it is true that there were some scientists in the 70s that warned of catastophic cooling, this was by no means a widely accepted idea. There were almost certainly less than 10 papers published supporting the concept.

 

However, the media then as now loves a good apocalypse and blew the story out of all proportion.

JohnB, Though I do not recall it as such, I will accept your statement that global cooling was not as widely accepted in the 70's as global warming is accepted today. Still, it cannot be denied that this false cry of destruction has resulted in a loss of credibility for climatologists. They were wrong then, perhaps they are wrong today.

Inow, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. You are asking me to accept all the claims regarding global warming unless absolutely proved otherwise. I, on the other hand, insist on rock-solid proof on these claims before fully accepting them.

I do not dispute that climate has warmed in recent years, but I remain undecided on the causes and the solutions, especially since there is a wide range of opinion on this, even among ardent supporters of global warming, notwithstanding the seemingly valid criticisms of global warming.

I am especially skeptical since the tactics of some of the ardent supporters of global warming (certainly not all, this is not a personal attack on anyone here) appear to me as no better than used car salesmen, with their urgency for everyone to act now, to spend lots of money (especially by giving it to them), to avoid answers on valid criticisms, to attack their critics, etc.

Because of this, I am not going to radically alter my lifestyle on the basis of unproven and bad science - and I will certainly resist efforts on the part of others to force me to do this. If global warming were absolutely proven, with irrefutable evidence of catastrophe unless humanity does radically change, then I would support such actions. But not until then. Why should we wreck our economy, and the environment (since China isn't going to change, but will gladly build stuff for us and anyone else who will buy, environment be dam*ed) and then perhaps find out we did so for absolutely no reason?

You however are free to change your lifestyle accordingly, and to continue to attempt to persuade others to do likewise.

Inow, I'm afraid you mis-understood my point. It is certain, given the disagreements here, that at least some of the studies are flawed. So how can an interested, but skeptical person as myself know which studies, if any, are correct?

While concerns of politics, economics, bias, etc. doesn't address science, certainly bias, politics, economics, etc. can generate, whether intentional or not, incorrect studies. And it doesn't help that the so-called best scientists of the 70's were (seemingly) so very wrong, yet were so very convinced and had the exact same solution in mind because this implies an agenda of some sort.

To convince me of global warming (or not) and the extent, the causes, the solutions, etc. I need to KNOW which studies are right. I won't be easily convinced because of 1) the disagreements between the studies, 2) the apparently incorrect cries of global cooling in the 70's, and 3) Climatologists and pundits stand to gain financially from this "crisis" at my expense.

The second point really hurts your argument the most because the climatologists seem to be crying "wolf", and removes the ability of the "consensus" of the scientists to convince me. There seemed to be less disagreement about global cooling than there is today about global warming, and these scientists were apparently absolutely wrong.

So I need to have proof that a study is correct, before I will allow myself to get seriously involved which will, most likely, cost me dearly in terms of dollars and freedoms. On the other hand, global warming will not cost me anything if it is not real and may not cost me much if it is indeed real (again, which study is correct?).

But I don't know how you can prove a study to be correct because of the points I mentioned above.

As I understand it, there is disagreement on whether Cro-Magnon man forced out the Neanderthals, or whether there was some interbreeding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

Possible theories for the fate of Neanderthals include the following:

 

1. Neanderthals evolved to a separate species which became extinct (see Neanderthal extinction hypotheses) and were replaced by early modern humans traveling from Africa.[47]

2. Neanderthals was a contemporary subspecies which incidentally bred with Homo sapiens and disappeared through absorption (see Neanderthal interaction with Cro-Magnons)

3. Neanderthals never split from Homo sapiens and most of their populations transformed into anatomically modern humans between 50-30 kya (see Multiregional origin of modern humans).

So, which studies are wrong, exactly?

Perhaps they are all wrong, considering the consensus on global cooling in the 70's along with the same urgent demands for drastic changes to our lifestyle then.

I myself am very skeptical about some aspects regarding the global warming debate, and I agree with some of the aspects. I haven't discussed anything on it as the science is well beyond my expertise since I am not a climatologist.

Its just that there is so VERY much money concerned (with either the carbon taxes or with the consequences of GW, not to mention the vast amounts of taxdollars required for further studies) and so much emotion involved that its very hard for me to imagine that science is the main motivation for most of the scientists and pundits. This doesn't make the science necessarily wrong, but it certainly fuels suspicions.

Bad Idea. As well as the very real risk of electrocution, you also risk falling to your death.

Sh3lock - perception of our reality helps shape that reality.

 

I was listening to talk radio this morning, and someone was doing a piece comparing news stories of the Bear Stearns crash versus Black Tuesday (1929). The media, in comparison, was MUCH more negative about Bear Stearns, despite the fact that we know we're no where near the depression level stagflation.

 

Yet, the media creates the image (because that's what sells) so that's what people believe, and that's what we tend to become.

Its true that perception helps shape reality. But it isn't all powerful and certainly does not have as much influence on the behavior of the public as does real economics.

For example, if the media were claiming that we are in a depression, but I personally have plenty of money, I may become more thrifty but I'm not going to go to an extreme and will still splurge on occasion. Likewise, if all my neighbors have plenty of money, most of them will likely also continue to spend it. After all, if the media were to tell you that you were flat broke, would you believe them or would you believe what you see in your wallet?

whether it's media driven our not, the perception is that we're in a recession, or at least in a period of economic hardship. While this might not result in the great depression, relatively few of us, especially the post baby boomers, have had to deal with economic hardships like the one's were seeing.

... Like the great depression, could this turn into a turn towards 'socialism'?

Hmm, interesting viewpoint and I agree that the perception is that the economy is bad. And I also agree that the country could be turning towards the left and towards more socialism.

But perception isn't reality, and the reality is that the current economic trend is not at all bad (though I will make no prediction on the short-term economic future). Certainly not as bad as in 2001, or in 1991, or the stagflation and gas rationing of the 70's... trust the science, which is basically saying right now the economy isn't great but isn't terrible.

Why would you bother to try to get the gold out of old computers? There is very, very little gold there, and I don't think there is any platinum at all. The gold is only on a very, very small layer on the contacts for PCB board connections. The value of the copper in the wiring, components (coils and transformers) and PCB boards would be worth more, IMO, than the gold (which is to say, not much).

Some would say they already have...that's why we are more than single cell organisms.

Consider creative landscaping. Large windows combined with deciduous trees to assist cooling in the summer and heating in the winter. This shouldn't cost too much.

Eh, Bush is gone in less than a year. Everyone in this administration is going to be out of a job soon, McClellan's probably trying to make a quick buck now while he can and maybe set himself up for employment for the next 4-8 years.

Or maybe he just decided to get his revenge for wrongs, or perceived wrongs, done to him now, rather than a year from now (especially when the book sales and/or revenge would no doubt be less a year from now).

Doesn't strike me as a must-read book, theres lots of other books I'd rather read.

Would this even pass a judicial challenge?

If it did, what are the consequences if the goals are not met?

Your dads manufacturing job sent to China where there are no carbon caps? This would be hypocritical as they would probably consume more carbon to make the product AND would also consume carbon to ship the product to you when you buy it.

How would the law be enforced to ensure that the goals could be met? Could there be electricity rationing? Rations for items you want to purchase (pretty much everything has to be manufactured)? Police with search warrants in your house taking away the inefficient refrigerator and incandescent light bulbs?

If it were enforced, what happens when this really starts to hurt the American voter (Hint, the lawmakers will be climbing all over themselves to repeal the law)?

Seems like this is mere political posturing to me, I suspect the bills sponsors know or hope the bill has no chance at all to pass.

We can breath clean air.

Except for the guy smoking in the car upwind from you

I presume you refer to higher organisms. Though I do not have an exact answer, I would suggest you look up the Komodo dragon. Contained within its saliva, as well as on its skin are bacteria which are lethal to other organisms. However, this bacteria has absolutely no ill effects on the Komodo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komodo_dragon

Komodo dragons also possess virulent bacteria in their saliva, of which more than 28 Gram-negative and 29 Gram-positive strains have been isolated.[22] These bacteria cause septicemia in their victim; if an initial bite does not kill the prey animal and it escapes, it will commonly succumb within a week to the resulting infection. The deadliest bacteria in Komodo dragon saliva appears to be a very deadly strain of Pasteurella multocida, from studies performed with lab mice.[23] Because the Komodo dragon appears immune to its own microbes, much research has been done searching for the antibacterial molecule in the hopes of human medicinal use

One necessary item required to crack any code is having sufficient samples to solve. There has to be a greater quantity of code than possible answers, otherwise you can only solve for the possible answers and not the actual solution.

For example, if the only length of code you have is the character "#" and you have absolutely nothing else, it could be a letter, a word, or a command. If you know it stands for a letter of the English alphabet, then you can only narrow it down to 26 possibilities. However, if you also knew this was a one letter English word, then the possibilities narrow down to the letters A, I or O. Furthermore if you knew it were a pronoun, then you know it is the letter I.

As pointed out by an earlier poster (thank you Cap'n Refsmmat), with a one-pass code, the variables contained within the key exceed the amount of code available. This is not to say that a clever cryptoanalysis would be unable to decipher some information from this code however. Its very length provides a clue to the content of the message, as might the source of the code, the time and conditions the code was sent, etc.

I think the basics is all science can provide at this time.

Diet. Excercise. A healthy lifestyle (e.g. no smoking). Regular medical and dental checkups. Stay stress free and in good mental health. Have good genetics (not really a choice after conception though).

Otherwise, we are merely speculating about what might, or might not be possible.

Well, I agree with you Reaper that this discussion has drifted off topic. Somewhere along the line we switched from direct costs to indirect costs for both corn-based ethanol and petro-based gasoline. This was really my point with the Iraq comments (would we be there if there wasn't any oil in Iraq? If you believe not, then the Iraq war is an indirect cost associated with gasoline.), it was not to create a strawman.

Nevertheless, I am not willing to debate indirect costs such as foreign wars, soil depletion rates, carbon sinks vs. reduction of CO2 emissions, etc...there isn't sufficient actual scientific knowledge about such to really debate and there will always be a "yeah, but...".

I do think that ethanol has recently been very unfairly portrayed..dare I say targeted in a smear campaign?...by the media, as much of what I see in the media (corn-based ethanol production causing mass starvation) are clearly incorrect, sensationalist journalism. I would expect better from professional journalists.

So my final comment is that I do not believe ethanol to be the final solution to our energy problems. Ethanol certainly has problems of its own and I don't mean to make light of them. It certainly cannot replace fossil fuels (at least by itself) in our current energy hungry society, nor would I expect western (or Chinese) society to demand significantly less energy if it means a lower standard of living (and who can blame them, I certainly want a warm house, about 18 to 20C, in the winter).

I do not believe there will be a single solution in my lifetime, but perhaps many approaches will work for the short to medium term? I think until nuclear fusion is solved we will need conservation, wind, solar, nuclear fission, geothermal, bio, etc. as well as traditional fossil fuels to supply the lifestyle society demands.

My belief, based on the links I have provided, is that ethanol is an important part of our current and future energy supply. Corn-based, Sugar-based, and in theory cellulosic-based (I don't think this is commercially available yet) ethanol can reduce (though not eliminate) the need for petroleum-based fuels at costs which are very competitive and without reducing the food supply or raising the costs for food significantly. It is also very clean (compared to petroleum), both in terms of greenhouse gas and in terms of other types of pollution (I'm thinking of oil-slicked beaches here).

Simply put, despite its problems, corn-based ethanol has much, much more positive aspects than negative. As such, we should take advantage of this and at least reduce our dependence on petrol-based gasoline in as much as is feasible by corn ethanol.

That doesn't really follow though. A net positive energy from a source doesn't necessarily guarantee that there will be less emissions, as the most recent studies I posted clearly show.

And it isn't enough that the source has a positive net energy increase, but it must also reliable, in that it minimizes environmental impact and provides at a good enough price (and NOT just money is important when I'm talking about price).Your sources, and indeed as recent studies point out, did not take into account of this.

And second, regarding sugar ethanol, corn ethanol is not quite as good as sugar ethanol, as ethanol from sugar has a larger energy ratio AND as a result doesn't take up as much land. But alas, we cannot grow sugar up in the North, and on top of that, to provide for hundreds of millions of people, even that will inevitably take up more land as the demand for ethanol goes up. More land means that you have to cut down forests or destroy other ecological areas that would otherwise help keep the carbon emissions under control.

Irrelevant. I have already demonstrated we can take the ethanol out of the corn without a significant loss of food, so why not go get it, at least from what we are currently producing?

 

Do you mind providing a source for this, or data? Because all of mine show a positive correlation with ethanol subsidies and rising food prices. It is, however, not surprising that the costs would carry over to other food industries and the like (e.g. less feedstock for animals, etc.)

Correlation does not equal causation, your studies did not provide me with compelling reasons WHY ethanol production results in rising food prices. Especially since my studies show a negligible effect on the actual food production. Perhaps the correlation should be due to the rising crude oil prices which will drive both food prices (since transportation is a more significant cost than the raw corn) and the production of ethanol (since it becomes even more cost competitive).

 

True, but that doesn't appear to be the case right now.

 

 

 

 

 

It's really not that simple though, because corn has a bunch of other uses too, and all of them compete with each other on the market. Corn is not only used as food for humans, but also as a sweetener, feedstock, and even non-food products such as packaging and cellulose. As a result, the demand for ethanol will inevitably use up more land. And, using up more land means that you may have to cut down forests, displace indigenous species (and put them at risk), more fertilizer runoff, more pesticides, etc. Or even, using up land that could otherwise be used for food. You can see this already taking a toll on the Amazon, for example.

Again, see the points above. Why not get the ethanol out of the corn since there isn't a loss of food quality? I always like buy one, get one free sales at the grocery store.

As far as your argument of demand using up more land, since there isn't a significant loss of food value, this argument is not valid. As far as more fertilizer runoff, pesticides, etc, perhaps you would prefer the occasional oil spill? Or Chernobyl? No energy source is perfect, we certainly can't continue drilling forever. The alternative to developing renewable energy sources is an eventual return to the stone age (new urbanism design being, IMO, simply delaying the inevitable without renewable energy), which for some strange reason I do not find appealing .

How efficient ethanol is in comparison to fossil oil is kind of hard to figure. Sources high in sugar produce ethanol more efficiently. Some sources of oil...like what you in the US buy from the Canadian tarsands...take an incredible amount of energy to produce.

I agree. But in the end, I think the price can be used as a proxy for the efficiency since this will take into account to total effort to produce. And price wise, ethanol is cost-effective without a subsidy. Now the costs associated with pollution, government subsidies and Gulf wars, etc. which cannot be directly passed onto the consumer muddy up the numbers, but I do not believe that ethanol production has indirect costs more than global warming, wars in Iraq, etc.

So what are you comparing? Gasoline from light sweet crude is cleaner than ethanol from corn. Corn is about the least efficient ethanol crop though, and light sweet crude is the cleanest oil.

Agreed, but since we get the ethanol from the corn at a positive energy balance and without significant food loss corns efficiency seems quite good to me.

Then there are some crops...switchgrass and hemp...that can help sequester carbon in marginal soils, at least according to some sources. How effective that is will change with soil type and farming methods though. How do you calculate that into the equation?

Since there isn't significant production of ethanol from switchgrass, etc., perhaps this data doesn't exist. At any rate I have not found data for this.

Not really: I hate to break it to you, but you are actually contributing less to global warming by using petrol than biofuels.

 

So, it seems that not only are food prices rising, but they are even worse than fossil fuels .

 

 

 

Needless to say, my money and hopes is totally on solar, nuclear, and geothermal .

While I am certainly all for solar, nuclear, geothermal, et. al., I believe your statement to be incorrect despite your sources cited. The efficacy of production of ethanol is very much disputed today by many reputable scientists. Unfortunately, also by many who have a particular political conclusion (on both sides of the debate) they want their "research" to "prove." See for starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance

from the article:

Figures compiled in a 2007 National Geographic Magazine article [1] point to modest results for corn ethanol produced in the US: 1 unit of current energy equals 1.3 energy units of corn ethanol energy. The energy balance for sugarcane ethanol produced in Brazil is more favorable, 1:8. Over the years, however, many reports have been produced with contradicting energy balance estimates.

For more indepth:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/

this one was generated in 1995 (showing 1:1.3 positive energy balance) and it is my understanding that the production of ethanol has become much more efficient since then. See for example:

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/netenergy/NEYShapouri.htm

generated from data published in 2001 indicating a positive energy balance of 1:1.7.

Clearly this reduces the CO2 released as the fossil-fuel CO2 is, at a maximum 60% (or less when you consider the energy to crack crude oil and otherwise refine petrol to gasoline) that of that of the CO2 released by gasoline. This can be further reduced by using solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, or even burning ethanol, etc. energy to process the grain to ethanol.

Regarding the food prices...well my previous links demonstrate that the current ethanol production has reduced the food supply by about 2% (25% of corn used for ethanol * 9% dietary equivalent lost doing so = 2.25%). I do not believe this is the main cause of the large spike in food prices. It seems more likely to me that the causes of the food price increases are more due to increased transportation (fuel) costs, droughts in Australia and elsewhere, and the rise of China (and increased demand for grain-fed beef, pork, etc.). It may also have something to do with the fact that for generations (not decades), grain prices paid to the farmer were quite flat in real (not adjusted for inflation ) dollars. In fact, todays price of corn, when adjusted for inflation, is very much less than it was in 1974!

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Corn/corn_inflation_chart.htm

Thanks, coreview2. I wonder if this is why Honda is not continuing the Insight production. I am ready to go purchase something soon; what advice can folks offer? SH3RLOCK, it takes fuel to farm the corn.

But since we will be farming the corn anyway, I say lets get the ethanol out of it. Thus, there is no more gasoline used to generate the ethanol than that which would have been used anyway to generate the corn for food.

Swansont,

to answer your question if the pressure is different, I'd say probably not significantly due to leakage (i.e. the balloon was broken in the attempt for a vacuum).

But consider the basic equation:

PV = nRT.

If T increases (hot air), and the volume remains the same, and the pressure is the same (evidenced by the holes in the balloon), then n must be less. Since n is smaller, there are fewer atoms in the balloon and therefore less mass contained within. As such, the balloon becomes more bouyant, and floats.

The irony is that present widely used technology for corn to ethanol production doesn't yet save much in the way of greenhouse gases. This appears to be a transitional technology instead.

Hmm...I seem to recall a study indicating that there was a savings of greenhouse gas since the CO2 in the plant and therefore the ethanol was originally from the air and not from underground. And while it does consume energy to convert corn to ethanol, it likewise costs energy to crack crude oil into gasoline. With the small but certainly positive energy balance of ethanol, I would think this has to reduce the CO2 somewhat. But I'll try to look into this more when I get some time.

I have no intention of calling any serious poster here loony.

Most of the corn used in the USA goes to feed cattle. When converting corn to ethanol, mostly the inedible parts of the corn kernel is consumed. The remaining substance (distillers grain) contains 91% of the dietary equivalent, and is likewise fed to cattle. Since 9% of 25% = 2.25%, this is naturally a reduction of the food supply by only 2.25%, not 25% as seems to be commonly reported in the press. Seems pretty straightforward to me that this is incapable of raising the cost of food significantly considering 1) the potential of the USA to grow more corn to compensate for this drop and 2) the potential (well actually, need considering most of us in the developed world are overweight) to eat less or at least eat less meat.

Lately it seems the media has been running many stories about how the conversion of corn and other grains into ethanol is greatly increasing the costs of food. It seems that because the USA is converting 25% of the corn crop into fuel, most of the world will starve.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121101834.html

This seems like nonsense to me as, after the grain is converted ( http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/overview.htm ), the remaining material (distillers grain) still contains 91% dietary equivalent. Is 9% of 25% = 2.25% of only the US crop going to result in mass starvation? I think not.

Another way I have thought about it (sorry about the non-metric units, but this is the USA): A box of corn flakes contains 20 oz = 1.25 lbs and costs less than $3.00. A bushel of corn = 75lbs and costs less than $5.00. Therefore the direct cost of the corn in a box of corn flakes is less than $0.08, or 2.8%. At this price, you could double the price paid to the farmer (corn at $10 a bushel) and the consumer would probably not even notice the difference of less than 8 cents.

Am I missing some REAL data to indicate that millions of people will starve because of the conversion of corn into ethanol? I cannot find a legitimate study which seems to have realistic assumptions and calculations to indicate this could possibly be the case.

So why (other than the obvious sensationalist attempt to sell more copies , or the loony conspiracy theories ) are so many journalists and editors running the story? Do they not check their facts? And why do so many people seem to buy this fallacy outright?