A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nothing good about Ethanol



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old July 4th 06, 11:30 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Dylan Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 530
Default Nothing good about Ethanol

On 2006-07-03, Matt Barrow wrote:

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow wrote:
1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what
portion
is natural?


Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.


Very good!!

Follow-up: What is the most common greeenhouse gas and what is the breakdown
on human vs. natural sources?


Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas. In fact, the greenhouse effect
is necessary for life as we know it in the first place. Without solar
energy being retained by H2O, CO2 and other gases, the Earth would quite
probably be rather frigid (although, if there was no water, it wouldn't
be icy of course!)

The human effect in the grand picture isn't that big (the Earth won't
turn into another Venus) but that's not to say that it won't be
significant. It's not necessary to "destroy civilization" either to have
less effect on the atmosphere. However, there's very strong evidence
(overwhelmingly strong) that the current increase in CO2 concentrations
is caused by us.

Yes, with a rather large delay; IOW, warming CAUSES CO2.


Cite?

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
  #112  
Old July 4th 06, 02:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Matt Barrow[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Nothing good about Ethanol


"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-03, Matt Barrow wrote:

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow wrote:
1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what
portion
is natural?

Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.


Very good!!

Follow-up: What is the most common greeenhouse gas and what is the
breakdown
on human vs. natural sources?


Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas. In fact, the greenhouse
effect
is necessary for life as we know it in the first place. Without solar
energy being retained by H2O, CO2 and other gases, the Earth would quite
probably be rather frigid (although, if there was no water, it wouldn't
be icy of course!)

The human effect in the grand picture isn't that big (the Earth won't
turn into another Venus) but that's not to say that it won't be
significant.


How much is "significant? The IPCC has (IIUC) estimated human influence to
be 0.07C over the next 50 years. During the last 100 years, temps have
increased 0.25F.

It's not necessary to "destroy civilization" either to have
less effect on the atmosphere. However, there's very strong evidence
(overwhelmingly strong) that the current increase in CO2 concentrations
is caused by us.


Cite? And if your statement is correct, why did we have significant COOLING
from 1940 to 1975?

"Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim
Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels
and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2
levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years
ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last
half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this
evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small
increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest
warming?" http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

And

"We are told, however that man-made carbon dioxide is the source of the
global warming problem. As Professor Essenhigh (Robert Essenhigh, Professor
of energy conservation at Ohio State University-MB) asks, "what has carbon
dioxide to do with this"?



He explains, "the two principled thermal-absorbing and thermal-emitting
compounds in the atmosphere are water and carbon dioxide. However – and this
point is continually missed – the ratio of water to carbon dioxide is
something like 30-to-1 as an average value. At the top it is something like
100-to-1. This means that the carbon dioxide is simply ‘noise’ in the water
concentration, and anything carbon dioxide could do, water has already
done." "So," he asks, "if the carbon dioxide is increasing, is it the carbon
dioxide driving the temperature or is the rising temperature driving up the
carbon dioxide"? In other words, the carbon dioxide issue is irrelevant to
the debate over global warming. "



Yes, with a rather large delay; IOW, warming CAUSES CO2.


Cite?


http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/pr...k-ice-core.jpg

Also:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/see...ecoregraph.jpg







  #113  
Old July 4th 06, 03:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Mike Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 206
Default Nothing good about Ethanol

Those graphs don't support your claim that increasing temperature causes
increasing C02. They only show correleation between C02 levels and
temperature.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-03, Matt Barrow wrote:

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow wrote:
1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what
portion
is natural?

Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.

Very good!!

Follow-up: What is the most common greeenhouse gas and what is the
breakdown
on human vs. natural sources?


Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas. In fact, the greenhouse
effect
is necessary for life as we know it in the first place. Without solar
energy being retained by H2O, CO2 and other gases, the Earth would quite
probably be rather frigid (although, if there was no water, it wouldn't
be icy of course!)

The human effect in the grand picture isn't that big (the Earth won't
turn into another Venus) but that's not to say that it won't be
significant.


How much is "significant? The IPCC has (IIUC) estimated human influence to
be 0.07C over the next 50 years. During the last 100 years, temps have
increased 0.25F.

It's not necessary to "destroy civilization" either to have
less effect on the atmosphere. However, there's very strong evidence
(overwhelmingly strong) that the current increase in CO2 concentrations
is caused by us.


Cite? And if your statement is correct, why did we have significant
COOLING from 1940 to 1975?

"Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor
Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2
levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact,
when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450
million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest
period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On
the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent
relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the
past century's modest warming?"
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

And

"We are told, however that man-made carbon dioxide is the source of the
global warming problem. As Professor Essenhigh (Robert Essenhigh,
Professor of energy conservation at Ohio State University-MB) asks, "what
has carbon dioxide to do with this"?



He explains, "the two principled thermal-absorbing and thermal-emitting
compounds in the atmosphere are water and carbon dioxide. However - and
this point is continually missed - the ratio of water to carbon dioxide is
something like 30-to-1 as an average value. At the top it is something
like 100-to-1. This means that the carbon dioxide is simply 'noise' in the
water concentration, and anything carbon dioxide could do, water has
already done." "So," he asks, "if the carbon dioxide is increasing, is it
the carbon dioxide driving the temperature or is the rising temperature
driving up the carbon dioxide"? In other words, the carbon dioxide issue
is irrelevant to the debate over global warming. "



Yes, with a rather large delay; IOW, warming CAUSES CO2.


Cite?


http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/pr...k-ice-core.jpg

Also:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/see...ecoregraph.jpg









  #114  
Old July 4th 06, 10:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Matt Barrow[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Nothing good about Ethanol

Think about what causes natural increases in CO2 (evaporation, etc).

"Mike Noel" wrote in message
...
Those graphs don't support your claim that increasing temperature causes
increasing C02. They only show correleation between C02 levels and
temperature.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-03, Matt Barrow wrote:

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow wrote:
1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what
portion
is natural?

Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.

Very good!!

Follow-up: What is the most common greeenhouse gas and what is the
breakdown
on human vs. natural sources?

Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas. In fact, the greenhouse
effect
is necessary for life as we know it in the first place. Without solar
energy being retained by H2O, CO2 and other gases, the Earth would quite
probably be rather frigid (although, if there was no water, it wouldn't
be icy of course!)

The human effect in the grand picture isn't that big (the Earth won't
turn into another Venus) but that's not to say that it won't be
significant.


How much is "significant? The IPCC has (IIUC) estimated human influence
to be 0.07C over the next 50 years. During the last 100 years, temps have
increased 0.25F.

It's not necessary to "destroy civilization" either to have
less effect on the atmosphere. However, there's very strong evidence
(overwhelmingly strong) that the current increase in CO2 concentrations
is caused by us.


Cite? And if your statement is correct, why did we have significant
COOLING from 1940 to 1975?

"Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor
Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2
levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact,
when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450
million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest
period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee,
"On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the
recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause
of the past century's modest warming?"
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

And

"We are told, however that man-made carbon dioxide is the source of the
global warming problem. As Professor Essenhigh (Robert Essenhigh,
Professor of energy conservation at Ohio State University-MB) asks, "what
has carbon dioxide to do with this"?



He explains, "the two principled thermal-absorbing and thermal-emitting
compounds in the atmosphere are water and carbon dioxide. However - and
this point is continually missed - the ratio of water to carbon dioxide
is something like 30-to-1 as an average value. At the top it is something
like 100-to-1. This means that the carbon dioxide is simply 'noise' in
the water concentration, and anything carbon dioxide could do, water has
already done." "So," he asks, "if the carbon dioxide is increasing, is it
the carbon dioxide driving the temperature or is the rising temperature
driving up the carbon dioxide"? In other words, the carbon dioxide issue
is irrelevant to the debate over global warming. "



Yes, with a rather large delay; IOW, warming CAUSES CO2.

Cite?


http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/pr...k-ice-core.jpg

Also:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/see...ecoregraph.jpg











  #115  
Old July 8th 06, 01:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Roger[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Nothing good about Ethanol

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:18:11 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow wrote:
1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what portion
is natural?


Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.


Mt St Helens produced about 10 Million tons of CO2
Annual production from fossil fuel is about 26 Billion tons.
(Figures from National Geographic)


2) What are the short-term and long-term effect of CO2 concentrations?


It's difficult to separate out long and short term until you define
them. In this case we can now navigate open water across the north
polar cap in the summer. They figure within several decades there
will be no north polar ice cap at mid summer.

This has the possibility of opening up access to even more oil
reserves.

Currently many glaciers in Greenland are receding at over a Kilometer
per year. Although the global average is up only about one degree F
over the last 100 years when you get to more northerly latitudes such
as Alaska and Siberia the change has been more dramatic with 5 to 6
degrees being the norm. That has lead to buildings sinking that were
built on the permafrost and bugs that were never a problem destroying
large tracts of forest.

Short term (likely less than a century and possibly a few decades) we
are looking at ocean levels rising 3 to 5 feet with 20 feet not out of
the question. If all the polar ice caps and glaciers were to melt
(which probably won't happen even long term) we'd be looking at
roughly 200 feet. We are also looking at storms becoming more violent
and with greater frequency.

Long term we are looking at unpredictable weather shifts at the local
level. As the permafrost melts and the peat decomposes there will be
even more CO2 released. Currently the oceans are absorbing (serving
as a sink) for far more CO2 than expected. Long term if the waters
rise about 8 to 10 degrees (takes a long time) the frozen methane
under the ocean floors near the continental shelves will be released
as it was in the Permian extinction which was far greater than the one
around the time of the dinosaur extinction.

AT some point enough fresh water will be released to stop the Gulf
Stream conveyor belt. When that happens NW Europe including the UK
will become much colder.

On the positive side growing green matter is a good sink for CO2 as
are new forests, BUT the forests are a temporary measure.


Ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years plus other
evidence show that global temperature closely correlates with CO2
levels.


And show CO2 levels to be well above the highest found in the cores.


What has this got to do with aviation? Well, most of us GA people make
SUV drivers look like fuel misers.


With our old technology engines the level per engine is high, but when
the total is taken into account it's a tiny drop in the bucket
compared to cars and trucks.

Most airplanes are not fuel economical per distance. The newer ones
and quite a few home builts are although the engines of most would
still be considered polluting.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
  #116  
Old July 8th 06, 01:21 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Roger[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Nothing good about Ethanol

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 08:41:27 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow wrote:
1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what
portion
is natural?


Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.

2) What are the short-term and long-term effect of CO2 concentrations?


Ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years plus other
evidence show that global temperature closely correlates with CO2
levels.


NOTE: The warming PRECEDES the CO2 increases by about 800 years.


Under normal circumstances.
So if this is the case already that means things are already headed
down hill.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


What has this got to do with aviation? Well, most of us GA people make
SUV drivers look like fuel misers.


"Everyone" is in a panic and that will redound to pilots.

What's worse, the questions being asked as wrong if not backasswards.

  #117  
Old July 8th 06, 02:08 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Matt Barrow[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Nothing good about Ethanol


"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:18:11 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow wrote:
1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what
portion
is natural?


Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.


Mt St Helens produced about 10 Million tons of CO2
Annual production from fossil fuel is about 26 Billion tons.
(Figures from National Geographic)


2) What are the short-term and long-term effect of CO2 concentrations?


It's difficult to separate out long and short term until you define
them. In this case we can now navigate open water across the north
polar cap in the summer. They figure within several decades there
will be no north polar ice cap at mid summer.


And I guess that's why Antartica's and Greenland icepacks are INCREASING.


This has the possibility of opening up access to even more oil
reserves.

Currently many glaciers in Greenland are receding at over a Kilometer
per year. Although the global average is up only about one degree F
over the last 100 years when you get to more northerly latitudes such
as Alaska and Siberia the change has been more dramatic with 5 to 6
degrees being the norm. That has lead to buildings sinking that were
built on the permafrost and bugs that were never a problem destroying
large tracts of forest.



What, you just come from watch Algores movie?

Short term (likely less than a century and possibly a few decades) we
are looking at ocean levels rising 3 to 5 feet with 20 feet not out of
the question. If all the polar ice caps and glaciers were to melt
(which probably won't happen even long term) we'd be looking at
roughly 200 feet. We are also looking at storms becoming more violent
and with greater frequency.

Long term we are looking at unpredictable weather shifts at the local
level. As the permafrost melts and the peat decomposes there will be
even more CO2 released. Currently the oceans are absorbing (serving
as a sink) for far more CO2 than expected. Long term if the waters
rise about 8 to 10 degrees (takes a long time) the frozen methane
under the ocean floors near the continental shelves will be released
as it was in the Permian extinction which was far greater than the one
around the time of the dinosaur extinction.

AT some point enough fresh water will be released to stop the Gulf
Stream conveyor belt. When that happens NW Europe including the UK
will become much colder.

On the positive side growing green matter is a good sink for CO2 as
are new forests, BUT the forests are a temporary measure.


Geezlouise!!! Diversify your inputs man!!


  #118  
Old July 8th 06, 07:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
John Godwin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default Nothing good about Ethanol

"Matt Barrow" wrote in
:

What, you just come from watch Algores movie?

Awww, come on. After inventing the Internet, Al went on to conduct
this massive study on Global Warming.

--
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any good aviation clip-art? zingzang Piloting 2 August 11th 05 01:32 AM
We lost a good one.... [email protected] Piloting 10 May 28th 05 05:21 AM
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good Excelsior Home Built 0 April 22nd 05 01:11 AM
HAVE YOU HEARD THE GOOD NEWS! [email protected] Soaring 0 January 26th 05 08:08 PM
Commander gives Navy airframe plan good review Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 July 8th 03 09:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.