Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[IPorange]

Judging from the pH side-discussion, logic isn't really one of gs's talking points.

 

[utgibbs]

Judging from the pH side-discussion, logic isn't really one of gs's talking points.

I think gsvol was a Russian linguist in a former life. I'm telling you "dealkanization" looks like the Russian word for "hermetically sealed".

The ethanol debate is all about Capital, namely, powerful grain interests in the Midwest are looking to increase profits (and score some more gov't subsidies, which they are well schooled and adept at doing).

It is doubly ridiculous when every damn diesel engine ever made will run on vegetable oil straight up. We need no new "refineries" (and let me tell you, the inefficiency is incredible. No plant can even predict their output - which as you may have guessed, plays havoc with pricing).

 

[MG1968]

gibbs, you do realize that "every damn diesel engine" would require a whole lot of vegetable oil, don't you? Which means we'd end up at the same point we are now with corn-based ethanol, using food for fuel.

 

[utgibbs]

gibbs, you do realize that "every damn diesel engine" would require a whole lot of vegetable oil, don't you? Which means we'd end up at the same point we are now with corn-based ethanol, using food for fuel.

That's not my point at all, MG.

I'm saying it would be terribly more efficient to just use the infrastructure we have in place now, if the point was to run vehicles on carbon neutral fuels [sic] (of course, pouring petrochemicals on food does not make them carbon neutral.) But we are becoming esoteric regarding something neither of us obviously supports.

The point of ethanol is crony "capitalism" (sic) and the profits a powerful lobby can squeeze out. To date, it has been wildly successful.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

04/18/2011: EPA Publishes National U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released the 16th annual U.S. greenhouse gas inventory. The final report shows overall emissions during 2009 decreased by 6.1 percent from the previous year. This downward trend was attributed to a decrease in fuel and electricity consumption across all U.S. economic sectors.

 

[gsvol]

Judging from the pH side-discussion, logic isn't really one of gs's talking points.

So you think the ehtanol mandates are logical??

PH levels have been near known maximums in Earth's
geological history, it is only natural that they would lower and is no cause for alarm because we know that oceanic life has thrived even better during periods of lower pH levels.

 

[IPorange]

So you think the ehtanol mandates are logical??

PH levels have been near known maximums in Earth's
geological history, it is only natural that they would lower and is no cause for alarm because we know that oceanic life has thrived even better during periods of lower pH levels.

If you find a post where I ever speak positively about ethanol mandates, you let me know because my account will have been hacked.


pH levels were higher in the past. Earth didn't have an atmosphere in the past either. They are both as equally irrelevant to the discussion. If you'd like to drop some dates, we can look at the fauna in the oceans at those times. Could be illuminating.

 

[gsvol]

One quick thing to add - the *only* redeeming factor I see with ethanol blends is that it reduces dependence on foreign oil... But at too high of a price.

In reality fuel ethanol use increases oil imports.

The main point though is; would it not be far more logical to drill our own oil to decrese foreign imports?? Would that not be the 'sane' option?

(my multi quote option seems to not be working today.)

 

[gsvol]

Gs, there are actually some well written points in your last few posts. Wrong. But well written.

Consider a drop in pH in your own body. Clearly you would have to drink a lot of cokes... or just suck in a lot of CO2.

Physiologic pH is 7.4. Acidosis occurs below 7.35. Alkalosis above 7.45.

Let's consider respiratory acidosis (pH still basic, but more acidic than physiologic), how much does your blood CO2 have to increase for you to become acidotic?

Now, take your fleshy ecosystem and apply that to the ecosystem of the ocean. A small 0.10 drop on the pH scale can have disastrous effects on your physiology, but yet you don't see this change as major in ocean life?

Now, you did something rather amusing. You informed gibbs that his statement about pH change in 1750 was ridiculous, since the pH scale wasn't made until the 20th century, so it wasn't measured.

Then. THEN, you cite "factoids" of pH changes from 60 mya to 40 mya and 1708 to 1988. So, which is it, gs? Either reconstruction works, and gibbs can make that statement without your comment on existence of the scale, as it was post dated, or reconstruction doesn't work, and your data post scale inception is bogus.

And, as a final point. Even if your values are true, unbiased values, alkalosis is also a bad thing. The fluctuation, is also a bad thing. Can you think of nothing that might have occurred during earlier time periods that may or may not be a good thing right now? Say, the formation and evolution of life from an aquatic state to a land state?

Simply because conditions fluctuate, doesn't mean things didn't also occur: like extinction, and speciation, and evolution... and extinction. So, sure, let's take the ocean levels back to primordial times, I'm sure that will be conducive to life. But, at least we'll get rid of them "Moslems."

Oh, and gibbs. When gs say's yak butter, he is referring to your baby batter.

Gastric juices are about as asidic as it gets, everything has it's place.

The bottom line is that geolgists have discovered that periods in Earth's history have found the oceans far more 'acidic' than they presently are and during those times, instead of the alarmist mantra of 'mass extinctions' etc, the oceans were actually more healthy.

The radical environmentalist's main claim that the industrial revolution has brought on alarming trends and the cure is for the state to take over control of all energy production and use.

The truth of the matter is that Earth has experienced both warmer and cooler temperatures, co2 levels have been both higher and lower and oceanic pH levels have increased and decreased throughout history with no dire results. (except the ice ages which were pretty tough, at least in the northernmost and southernmost polar regions.)

Do you not agree that the ethanol mandates should be repealed?

 

[milohimself]

In reality fuel ethanol use increases oil imports.

The main point though is; would it not be far more logical to drill our own oil to decrese foreign imports?? Would that not be the 'sane' option?

(my multi quote option seems to not be working today.)

I think we should. I believe "environazis" as you like to think of them usually have plenty of worthwhile input, but this is one area I disagree with them on.

We have to figure out how to ween ourselves off oil at its present consumption, but we also have to make good use of domestic or North American supply.

 

[gsvol]

What am I missing here? How are they measuring fuel efficiency? How does burning a gallon of fossil fuels to make a gasoline-gallon-equivalent quantity of ethanol somehow half the efficiency of ethanol?

I'm not defending corn ethanol, but I am a proponent of basing the attacks on it in sound logic, and I'm not seeing this logic.

From numbers I've seen, you have to burn about 0.9 gallons-equivalent of fossil fuel to get a gallon-equivalent of corn ethanol. So, there is some gain. But, that gain is only about 15%, or less. That is silly when considering the capital expense of the ethanol plant, the cost of harvest, the land use, and the fact that you are diverting FOOD.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

That Berkeley paper says it takes 1 gal of gasoline/diesel to produce 1 gal ethanol. (some argue more if you factor in distribution costs.)

See the logic??

The diversion of food is the most odious aspect of the whole program and the fact that the radical environmentalists presently running the EPA have a free hand in determining amounts of ethanol we MUST use is reminiscent of the Soviet comintern sort of power that IS NOT a good thing for America overall.

 

[gsvol]

I think gsvol was a Russian linguist in a former life. I'm telling you "dealkanization" looks like the Russian word for "hermetically sealed".

The ethanol debate is all about Capital, namely, powerful grain interests in the Midwest are looking to increase profits (and score some more gov't subsidies, which they are well schooled and adept at doing).

It is doubly ridiculous when every damn diesel engine ever made will run on vegetable oil straight up. We need no new "refineries" (and let me tell you, the inefficiency is incredible. No plant can even predict their output - which as you may have guessed, plays havoc with pricing).

'Zagrametozirovan'. ('Za' meaning done from the outside.)

I think diverting veg oil to fuel use is equally as dumb as the ethanol mandates.

Now there are some fleets of trucks converted to efficiently burn natural gas.

Hydrogen fuels hold some promise imo.

There wouldn't be an ethanol debate (and I've seen prescious LITTLE debate) if not for radical environmental groups and their endless counterproductive lawsuits.

As far as grain interests go, Soros has gained control of the third largest corporation of that type in America.

Another downside to the ethanol mandates, besides taking food off the tables of those who can't afford increased prices and diminished supplies (worldwide, not just in this country), is that feed corn has tripled because of federal government subsidies for the ehtanol suppliers who would go out of business without subsidies.

So shelled or ground corn that is the base for most all animal husbandry projects, even in many pet foods, is thusly increased that means in the end your eggs, pork chops, ground chuck and so forth and so on, is going to increase.

There is no way around these facts.

You also mention needing no new refineries, does it make sense for oil being produced domestically to be shipped to foreign countries to be refined???

BTW, modern refineries are much more efficient that those built 50 years ago and we havn't built a new oil refinery in America in going on 40 years to the bes tof my knowledge. (due to the efforts of well funded environazis' lobbying and lawsuits.)

 

[emainvol]

'Zagrametozirovan'. ('Za' meaning done from the outside.)

I think diverting veg oil to fuel use is equally as dumb as the ethanol mandates.

Now there are some fleets of trucks converted to efficiently burn natural gas.

Hydrogen fuels hold some promise imo.

There wouldn't be an ethanol debate (and I've seen prescious LITTLE debate) if not for radical environmental groups and their endless counterproductive lawsuits.

As far as grain interests go, Soros has gained control of the third largest corporation of that type in America.

Another downside to the ethanol mandates, besides taking food off the tables of those who can't afford increased prices and diminished supplies (worldwide, not just in this country), is that feed corn has tripled because of federal government subsidies for the ehtanol suppliers who would go out of business without subsidies.

So shelled or ground corn that is the base for most all animal husbandry projects, even in many pet foods, is thusly increased that means in the end your eggs, pork chops, ground chuck and so forth and so on, is going to increase.

There is no way around these facts.

You also mention needing no new refineries, does it make sense for oil being produced domestically to be shipped to foreign countries to be refined???

BTW, modern refineries are much more efficient that those built 50 years ago and we havn't built a new oil refinery in America in going on 40 years to the bes tof my knowledge. (due to the efforts of well funded environazis' lobbying and lawsuits.)

I am scared. While I don't really agree with the overall tone of this post, I agree with a lot of what's in it. That's twice this week.

 

[utgibbs]

'Zagrametozirovan'. ('Za' meaning done from the outside.) Well, doesn't look like dealkanization at all, I suppose.

I think diverting veg oil to fuel use is equally as dumb as the ethanol mandates.

Now there are some fleets of trucks converted to efficiently burn natural gas.

Hydrogen fuels hold some promise imo. (Yes, but only in a nuclear economy, IMHO.)

There wouldn't be an ethanol debate (and I've seen prescious LITTLE debate) if not for radical environmental groups and their endless counterproductive lawsuits.

As far as grain interests go, Soros has gained control of the third largest corporation of that type in America.

Has he? I'll be honest, I'm not a fan. His bailing out Russia to bring "legitimate capitalism" there simply rings hollow to me.

Another downside to the ethanol mandates, besides taking food off the tables of those who can't afford increased prices and diminished supplies (worldwide, not just in this country), is that feed corn has tripled because of federal government subsidies for the ehtanol suppliers who would go out of business without subsidies.

Absolutely true.

So shelled or ground corn that is the base for most all animal husbandry projects, even in many pet foods, is thusly increased that means in the end your eggs, pork chops, ground chuck and so forth and so on, is going to increase.

There is no way around these facts.

You also mention needing no new refineries, does it make sense for oil being produced domestically to be shipped to foreign countries to be refined???

BTW, modern refineries are much more efficient that those built 50 years ago and we havn't built a new oil refinery in America in going on 40 years to the bes tof my knowledge. (due to the efforts of well funded environazis' lobbying and lawsuits.)

gs, I'm in no way arguing for veg oil to go into diesel engines (I want a LOT fewer engines). I was just pointing out the ethanol push is doubly ridiculous.

 

[gsvol]

I think we should. I believe "environazis" as you like to think of them usually have plenty of worthwhile input, but this is one area I disagree with them on.

We have to figure out how to ween ourselves off oil at its present consumption, but we also have to make good use of domestic or North American supply.

Why do we have to wean ourselves from petroleum at radically accelerated rates in such a short time??

Same goes for severe restriction against coal use.

So then you agree that we should be drilling for oil domestically instead of the radical Obama program that would deny us any further tapping of domestic sources??

If you find a post where I ever speak positively about ethanol mandates, you let me know because my account will have been hacked.


pH levels were higher in the past. Earth didn't have an atmosphere in the past either. They are both as equally irrelevant to the discussion. If you'd like to drop some dates, we can look at the fauna in the oceans at those times. Could be illuminating.

Milo remarked that I thought I thought I was the only 'sane' one in the debate and I said that I thought we could ALL agree that ehanol mandates were insane.

"ALL" would incluce you would it not??

Having said that, you DO support all the arguments, no matter how unsound they are, that the ethanol mandates are based upon.

Did you not read my link that talked about pH levels and the forming of the white cliffs of Dover?

 

[gsvol]

I am scared. While I don't really agree with the overall tone of this post, I agree with a lot of what's in it. That's twice this week.

So you finally completely agreed on the Obama/(Hitlery), Kenya and islamic sharia law question??

If not, then what?

gs, I'm in no way arguing for veg oil to go into diesel engines (I want a LOT fewer engines). I was just pointing out the ethanol push is doubly ridiculous.

OK, gotcha.

However, begs the question, with what will you replace those engines?? Bullet trains perhaps?

 

[utgibbs]

So you finally completely agreed on the Obama/(Hitlery), Kenya and islamic sharia law question??

If not, then what?









OK, gotcha.

However, begs the question, with what will you replace those engines?? Bullet trains perhaps?

A good suggestion. Feet and bicycles too.

 

[TennTradition]

That Berkeley paper says it takes 1 gal of gasoline/diesel to produce 1 gal ethanol. (some argue more if you factor in distribution costs.)

See the logic??

The diversion of food is the most odious aspect of the whole program and the fact that the radical environmentalists presently running the EPA have a free hand in determining amounts of ethanol we MUST use is reminiscent of the Soviet comintern sort of power that IS NOT a good thing for America overall.

I'm well aware that it takes almost a gallon of gasoline equivalent of energy (which comes from fossil fuels) to make a volume of ethanol that is equivalent in energy to a gallon of gas. However, I'm not sure how that halves it's efficiency. Efficiency measured how? It clearly adds inefficiency to the process because there are two thermal combustion efficiencies at play (the original combustion of the fossil fuel to make the energy to make the ethanol as well as the combustion of the ethanol in the engine). But, that doesn't mean the efficiency is halved.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[emainvol]

So you finally completely agreed on the Obama/(Hitlery), Kenya and islamic sharia law question??

If not, then what?

I believe it was the Federal Reserve transparency law

 

[BeecherVol]

Speaking of ethanol.

Ethanol Tanker Overturns, Shuts Down I-24 East - NewsChannel5.com | Nashville News, Weather & Sports

Happened about 1/2 mile from my house.

 

[milohimself]

I think coal power has come a long way since it's had to clean up it's act, so I'm okay with it.

And yes, I'd like to see domestic drilling increased.

The downside is that it would take away incentive to find new forms of energy that would get us off te level of petroleum consumption were on.

Good comment on the hydrogen power. I'm still convinced that it's the future of personal transport.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[TennTradition]

We've got to find a tremendous leap forward in water splitting technology before hydrogen can be the future of transport. Until then, you might as well just burn the methane directly in the car rather than take two efficiency cuts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[fl0at]

We've got to find a tremendous leap forward in water splitting technology before hydrogen can be the future of transport. Until then, you might as well just burn the methane directly in the car rather than take two efficiency cuts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I have heard of research being conducted on use of bio enzymes to catalyze the conversion of H2. Some process similar to photosynthesis.

Whether or not that takes off, I could not say.

 

[gsvol]

A good suggestion. Feet and bicycles too.

So we are going to import coolies to carry all that merchandise to walmarts instead of diesel semis?

Will we have to have a coolie lane on the interstates??

I'm well aware that it takes almost a gallon of gasoline equivalent of energy (which comes from fossil fuels) to make a volume of ethanol that is equivalent in energy to a gallon of gas. However, I'm not sure how that halves it's efficiency. Efficiency measured how? It clearly adds inefficiency to the process because there are two thermal combustion efficiencies at play (the original combustion of the fossil fuel to make the energy to make the ethanol as well as the combustion of the ethanol in the engine). But, that doesn't mean the efficiency is halved.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

According to the Berkeley study it does.

Bottom line is that you aren't gaining enough, if any at all, to justify the mandates.

I believe it was the Federal Reserve transparency law

That is if biggest issue facing this country and I said so in 1968!

Speaking of ethanol.

Ethanol Tanker Overturns, Shuts Down I-24 East - NewsChannel5.com | Nashville News, Weather & Sports

Happened about 1/2 mile from my house.

If I was youins I'd get my dipper gourd out thar and dip me up some of that stuff!! :loco:

I think coal power has come a long way since it's had to clean up it's act, so I'm okay with it.

And yes, I'd like to see domestic drilling increased.

The downside is that it would take away incentive to find new forms of energy that would get us off te level of petroleum consumption were on.

Good comment on the hydrogen power. I'm still convinced that it's the future of personal transport.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Well we don't disagree all that much after all.

Suggestion, you could drop all the personal insults and try to address topics intelligently.

 

[gsvol]

We've got to find a tremendous leap forward in water splitting technology before hydrogen can be the future of transport. Until then, you might as well just burn the methane directly in the car rather than take two efficiency cuts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I have mentioned before a fellow by the name of John Lorenzen who was merely a simple farmer but he used his own wind devises to produce battery stored DC current, (those batteries first built by his father in 1917 and still operable) then used that energy through electrolysis to collect pure hydrogen.

He then ran all his household appliances with hydrogen and he used hydrogen to augment his old early fifties model gasoline using PU truck to get 40 mpg instead of a typical 14 mpg. After the inital cost of installation which was really cheap the way he did it, using junk parts, his whole system opperated for free, as long as the wind blew every once in a while.

If he could do it, just why isn't this in widespread use already? Shore answer it is sort of like Tesla, when the big money guys couldn't figure where to put the meters to charge people for his free energy scheme, they pulled the funding for the project.

Here is a site that addresses what you are saying and has some information about the following post.

H2O - The Mystery, Art, and Science of Water: The Chemistry of Water: Electrolysis

As far back as WWII, the P-51s and P-47s used water injection for the purpose of gaining hydrogen power to enable those planes to reach 500+ mph, incredible speeds for propeller driven planes.

Here is one tribute to John Lorenzen, there are more.

Home Page

I have heard of research being conducted on use of bio enzymes to catalyze the conversion of H2. Some process similar to photosynthesis.

Whether or not that takes off, I could not say.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element, it shouldn't be all that hard to collect and use.

Additionally, I have been in a house that needed no heat source until the outside temperature reached a low of 5%.

I walked into an outbuliding when the outside temperature was 105% and inside it was 72% with all natural sources, no outside energy source needed and they told me that the previous winter when the outside temperature was 5%, the inside of the building never went below 32%, again with no outside energy source needed, it was completely free after low cost installation of the system.

I've read about several systems that do the same sort of thing with the same sort of results, one needed to draw in outside air until the low reached 5% or it would be too warm inside.

There are lots of intelligent things we can do, unfortunately the federal government seems to want to dictate what we do or not and typically they are absolute morons.