Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Mar 13, 6:22 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the
books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that there
is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers all over the
world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the money.

So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real or not,
I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be done by humans
to "save the planet" from global climate change.

And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or "build more
wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do that (unfortunately)
have a negligible impact on our energy production needs. No matter how
much everyone wishes for it, we're not going to escape our need for big-box
power plants that run on fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless
we're willing to largely dismantle modern society.

And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit that
you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the theory in the
first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels are going to rise --
and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but how will humans adapt to it?
That is a more logical place to direct our intellectual and financial
efforts, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Nuclear power is an energy generation option, but not politically
feasible in the US.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:cOhCj.74411$yE1.5053@attbi_s21...
Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the
books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that there
is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers all over the
world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the money.

Actually, surveys indicate that while some "geo-scientists" agree, the
number are not nearly what Dan Luke would like to believe.

Also, the number of cases of fraud and deliberate misrepresentation are all
on the "shrill" side of the debate (Like Dan's "refutation" by a
:geo-scientist" that used a key number that was off by a factor of 2000.)

Also, Jay Maynard is right in that the overwhelming majority of
"geo-scientists" get paid by the very people that are pushing for quick and
irreversible decisions that give them unlimited power.

Think of them as the ancient highpriests tickling the ear of Pharaoh.

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:22:00 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the
books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that there
is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers all over the
world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the money.

Except if you are in the US where the administration has been rabidly
anti global warming and adamantly against changing the way we operate.
Here, until very recently being pro global warming was definitely not
the place to be if you wanted your research grants.


So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real or not,
I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be done by humans
to "save the planet" from global climate change.

And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or "build more
wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do that (unfortunately)
have a negligible impact on our energy production needs. No matter how
much everyone wishes for it, we're not going to escape our need for big-box
power plants that run on fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless
we're willing to largely dismantle modern society.

Neither are all or nothing approaches nor would they require
dismantling society as we know it. In some areas wind and solar
(passive AND photovoltaic) are viable resources and in some areas
they are a lost cause. Coal fired plants can use carbon sequestering
along with stack gas washing to produce clean energy from coal and
contrary to claims there is a pilot plant in Florida that found the
recovery to be profitable rather than an extra expense.

My daughter heats a house three times the size of ours with passive
solar. Yes they have to supplement with natural gas but they use a
fraction of what we do in this small home. Plus they have far colder
temperatures and a lot more wind at 9000 feet in the Colorado Rocky
mountains.

If we all just practiced conservation there would be no need for new
power plants and we could eliminate the need for importing crude to
use in auto fuel. That part is simple math. Raising the fleet
average to 30 MPG would be far more than sufficient to make us
independent of foreign oil for fuel. With 120 million family homes
switching the incandescent lights to CFLs would eliminate the need for
roughly some where between 4 and 6 electric generation plants. That
would free up part of the electric grid so it could be used to power
electric cars which at current rates for most of the country
(excluding California) make the cost of operating one a fraction of a
gas powered car.

Just those two simple items would cover a major portion of the CO2
reductions that scientists say are needed. Add to that carbon
sequestering and we'd probably make it with plenty of room to spare.
We could increase our standard of living for less than we pay now.


And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit that
you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the theory in the
first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels are going to rise --
and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but how will humans adapt to it?
That is a more logical place to direct our intellectual and financial
efforts, IMHO.

IF sea levels did rise by 10 feet it'd displace about half the earth's
population. Rainfall patterns would change drastically and weather
would be subject to far wider swings in temperature and precipitation
than we see now. Now that would really be expensive... for the
survivors.

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

In article Roger writes:

So, will you be scrapping the Debonair and ceasing flying to help do
your part? Each gallon/hour is about 18.5 pounds of CO2 per hour added
to the atmosphere.
Strange you should mention that:-))

Efficiency...Efficiency.

Go Diesel!

Also I only fly a fraction of what I used to, but I will readily admit
that is not by choice. I'm serious about the diesel. If I get back
into flying and the engine becomes available the Deb will become a
diesel if the current IO-470N holds out long enough for the major..
The new engines are far more fuel efficient than out current aircraft
engines and the new diesels have far less particulates in the
emissions. OTOH the US currently has some rather poor quality diesel
fuel compared to the EU.

A good answer for improving efficiency. Other advantages are that
Diesel engines don't spew lead into the atmosphere like running on
100LL does. But, clearly I am a fan - I drive a turbo-diesel car.
However, the current price of Diesel aircraft engines is a pretty
big dis-incentive.

The Diesel fuel is not really an issue to us, since the FAA apparently
doesn't approve use of Diesel fuel in aircraft, so we have to burn Jet-A
instead. Not quite as good performance in the gallons/hour category, but
still lots better than avgas, and a lot easier to get at an airport.


Current operational const of the Deb (Including insurance is about
$130/hr. At 13 hours total (6.5 each way) that works out to $1,690
round trip. By road it's about 1,300 miles each way for a total of
2600 @ 73.9 cents a mile or $1921.40 or $231 cheaper not counting
meals for two days plus lodging. Of course, going commercial, shopping
for airfares, and scheduling ahead we could do it for less than $800
for the two of us.

This is the total cost, but if you are making the decision, you are
really deciding on the marginal cost of the trip, you already have the
car and the airplane. By marginal cost, the car operates for a lot less
than the airplane.

If you are concerned about global warming, you are also needing to
consider the marginal cost of operating either vehicle. The car gets
46 mpg, and I presume the Debonair gets a lot lower mileage (and has
higher startup and shutdown fuel costs operating at each end of the
trip). Since they both burn gasoline, the CO2 emissions are pretty
much determined by the gallons of fuel burned.


From a practical standpoint/approach we (as a society) aren't going to
eliminate the energy usage, but we can conserve to the point of making
a substantial difference. If our current fleet average (cars AND
trucks) averaged 30 MPG we wouldn't even have to import crude for
motor fuel.

And we might discover that turbo-diesels are fun to drive, as well.

If we are serious about CO2 emissions, we should be building nuclear
power plants, and equipment to recycle the spent fuel (which still has
most of its energy left).


Buying indulgences doesn't solve the problem.

Agreed.


Alan

In article Bertie the Bunyip writes:
(Alan) wrote
So, will you be scrapping the Debonair and ceasing flying to help do
your part? Each gallon/hour is about 18.5 pounds of CO2 per hour
added to the atmosphere.


Really? I stink at chemistry, but I can't see how 6 pounds of gas oline
can release 18.5 pouunds of CO2. Still, the point is valid even if the
numbers arenot. OTOH, if he sells the Debonair someone else will pollute
with it.

Gasoline is about 84 percent carbon by weight. Thus, a gallon of
gasoline at 6 pounds has 6 * .84 = 5.04 pounds of carbon. Each carbon atom
weighs about 12 atomic mass units. It combines with 2 oxygen atoms at 16
atomic mass units each to form a CO2 molecule weighing 44 atomic mass
units. Thus 12 units of carbon by weight forms 44 units of CO2 by weight.
This has the weight increasing by a ratio of 44/12 or about 3.667 times as
much. Remembering that the weight of the carbon is .84 times the weight of
the gasoline, we get .84 * (44 / 12) = 3.08 pounds of CO2 for each pound of
gasoline, or 18.48 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline.

Diesel fuel is very slightly more carbon by weight, more like .85, but
diesel engines deliver almost twice the useful work for the same amount
of fuel, so one comes out way ahead using them.


Buying indulgences doesn't solve the problem.

True. What's needed is a change in the fuel used. Various things have
been tried but the biofuel thing is not going to work unless the
tecnhology is developed to make a viable fuel out of things like corn
stalks. IOW using the waste of crops already grown. There;s little point
in cutting down forest to make them, is there? NASA ran a Musketeer on
hydrogen in the 70s. could be practical for cars, but I can't see it
working for airplanes unless fuel cell technology take s few farily
large leaps. Airplanes are getting to be more efficient, of course.
though there are some anteeks that can still put any modern to shame..

As you point out, current biofuels are limited in production, and
are expensive to produce.

I think we need inexpensive electric cars recharged by inexpensive
nuclear generated power -- if the cost of the car and the use is low
enough, people will not object to using one car with limited range
for the local trips which are the majority of their driving. Then
use the turbo-diesels for the long trips.


What does this have to do with airplanes? Well, we probably can't
build useful electric airplanes - so it seems that we really need to
stop burning airplane fuel for surface transport and uses.

Alan

Well, an interesting thread...
First, I am not against the theory that burning fossil fuels is
speeding up climate change... Entirely possible, and even likely...
Second, climate change in the warm direction has been going on
continuously between 15,000 and 20,000 years, now... This started when
a 1,500,000 year roughly period of glaciation came to an end... The
Laurentian Ice Sheet finished melting some 13,000 years ago that was
across the Northeast of this continent - including my Michigan...

So, that raises the question, why did the climate change when there
was no human activity to 'cause it'?
That is unknown, but the most likely answer is a miniscule change in
solar output... We know that there is an 11 year cycle, and a 22 year
cycle, and a 60 some year cycle, and so on... What we don't know is
that maybe there is a 1.5 million year cycle...
Or it could be that a carbon/soot containing asteroid strike put
enough black particles in suspension in the atmosphere that it
absorbed a fraction of a percent more of solar infrared, warming the
air and triggering the change...
Or it could be that a large body passed close to the earth and tugged
its orbit closer to the sun by a tiny fraction of one percent...
Or it could be that the earths core changed rotation just enough to
slightly increase the production of magma and ground heat...
Or the earth's tilt changed (it perturbates around the mean) or that
the earth's orbit around the sun changed also suffers perturbations
Whatever it was/is, it happened roughly 20,000 years ago... It has
been going on since then with the usual perturbations and nothing
that man does is going to change global warming in the forseeable
future...

But, I can tell you what I am going to do about global warming..

WARNING - AIRPLANE PORN FOLLOWS -
Tree huggers and Al's posse, best avert their eyes..

After I am finished at the office at noon I am going to the airport
and gasp start two engines count em and go out and wildly blow
enough dino dung out the exhaust to send the climate to temperatures
that might even bring the dinosaurs back... T. Rex will worship me...
And I will continue to do this as long as I have breath and enough
money to by fuel...

denny

On 2008-03-14, Roger wrote:
If we all just practiced conservation there would be no need for new
power plants and we could eliminate the need for importing crude to
use in auto fuel. That part is simple math. Raising the fleet
average to 30 MPG would be far more than sufficient to make us
independent of foreign oil for fuel.

That's not conservation, that's deprivation.

Raising the fleet average to 30 MPG would require replacing a large portion
of the fleet with European-style econoboxes. Simple physics will tell you
that that's going to dramatically lower fleet safety, especially in light of
the massive numbers of large commercial trucks that would still be needed to
transport goods. (Getting rid of those would *really* wreck the economy in
short order.) There's also the minor matter of the mission profiles of many
folks, who a European econobox simply won't fit.

With 120 million family homes switching the incandescent lights to CFLs
would eliminate the need for roughly some where between 4 and 6 electric
generation plants. That would free up part of the electric grid so it
could be used to power electric cars which at current rates for most of
the country (excluding California) make the cost of operating one a
fraction of a gas powered car.

It would also generate a booming market in hazmat remediation, as common
household accidents that would result in lamp breakage turn into major
environmental disasters...not to mention simply disposing of them when they
finally do burn out.

As for the electric car, let me once again use those two magic words:
"mission profile". I'll consider one when I can get one that will go 400
miles on a charge, while hauling four people and a substantial amount of
stuff, and recharge in 10 minutes so I can go 400 more. My current vehicle
will do that quite easily, and I bought it because I need that capability.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote:

Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the
books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that there
is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers all over the
world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the money.

Actually, surveys indicate that while some "geo-scientists" agree, the
number are not nearly what Dan Luke would like to believe.

Well, look who's back.

What surveys?

Also, the number of cases of fraud and deliberate misrepresentation are all
on the "shrill" side of the debate

Yep. Your side.

(Like Dan's "refutation" by a :geo-scientist" that used a key number that
was off by a factor of 2000.)

Reference?

Are you talking about the ol' Perfesser?

Do post that one again, please!

Also, Jay Maynard is right in that the overwhelming majority of
"geo-scientists" get paid by the very people that are pushing for quick and
irreversible decisions that give them unlimited power.

Baloney. You're making an accusation of mass professional corruption. You
can't back it up.

Think of them as the ancient highpriests tickling the ear of Pharaoh.

Right. Science is religion. Where have we heard that one before?

http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:cOhCj.74411$yE1.5053@attbi_s21:

Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe
that virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is
cooking the books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that
there is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers
all over the world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the
money.

Bull****. the opposite is true you fjukking retard.


Bertie

Denny wrote in news:f37acdc7-54eb-461f-b3cd-
:

Well, an interesting thread...
First, I am not against the theory that burning fossil fuels is
speeding up climate change... Entirely possible, and even likely...
Second, climate change in the warm direction has been going on
continuously between 15,000 and 20,000 years, now... This started when
a 1,500,000 year roughly period of glaciation came to an end... The
Laurentian Ice Sheet finished melting some 13,000 years ago that was
across the Northeast of this continent - including my Michigan...

So, that raises the question, why did the climate change when there
was no human activity to 'cause it'?


Getting hit by an act of nature is one thing. Sticking a gun in your mouth
is another.

But, I can tell you what I am going to do about global warming..

WARNING - AIRPLANE PORN FOLLOWS -
Tree huggers and Al's posse, best avert their eyes..

After I am finished at the office at noon I am going to the airport
and gasp start two engines count em and go out and wildly blow
enough dino dung out the exhaust to send the climate to temperatures
that might even bring the dinosaurs back... T. Rex will worship me...
And I will continue to do this as long as I have breath and enough
money to by fuel...


Me too, but finding another way would be a lot of fun as well. Seen the
rubber band powered airplane?


Bertie