Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[utgibbs]

@gsvol:

And, as the Sahel indicates, we might get increased yields in the lab, but the real world has some other things to say.

 

[gsvol]

@gsvol:

And, as the Sahel indicates, we might get increased yields in the lab, but the real world has some other things to say.

You chart represents a single grain in the sands of
time, even then if you transpose a chart of global
temperature during your time span, you will find
that temp doesn't follow co2 lvels.

If you take the same two charts over hundreds or
thousands of years it renders your whole thesis to
be ridiculously unable to hold water from a rational,
logical point of view.


Global Warming Hoax | raquelokyay.com

Undoing all the misinformation and damage that
climate change fear mongers have created will be
a difficult task, indeed. Unless you are of the
mindset that government ought to control energy
consumption via taxation and redistribution of
wealth, than you understand the enormous fraud
that has taken place and continues to take place
across the globe today.
-------------------------------------

IPCC ignores the potential for positive feedback
due to increased CO2.
There is clear evidence of productivity benefits
to plant life due to CO2 enrichment.

IPCC temperature models contain major
inadequacies and fail to simulate basic
weather conditions.

The IPCC fails to document the Medieval Warm
Period, which occurred about 1,000 years ago
and the Roman Warm Period in the 1st century
AD.
Exaggerated estimates of recent warming relied
on discredited surface-station temperature data.

The IPCC failed to adequately account for changes
in the technology used by temperature stations
over the years and adjustments to raw data
compounded measurement errors.
Temperature history provides no evidence for
CO2 induced global warming, and in fact, the
evidence argues against it.
No obvious global trend of an increase in glacier
melts in recent years.
No evidence of a sudden change in temperature
at the end of the 19th century.
Increases in aerosols diffuse solar radiation from
reaching the earth’s surface.

The IPCC’s claims of “unprecedented” warming
are untrue.
Late 20th century warmth is no different from
warming in the 1930s and 40s when CO2
concentration was less than today.
Temperature predictions made by NASA’s James
Hansen in 1998 failed to materialize to date.
Nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented
about current level of earth’s warmth.

Alarmists are determined to ignore criticism
and accusations of fraud, and are moving
forward with the same contentious and
economically disastrous agenda. Never mind
that the science doesn’t match the detail or
that the rhetoric doesn’t match the facts,
for these progressives, one way or the other,
controlling the masses, and redistributing
wealth is more important than admitting fault
for bad analysis and bad policy.

The above is just one excerpt, everyone
should read the whole article and try to
absorb the real physical science vs the
political science behind the whole equation!

 

[gsvol]

Gs, how is it immaterial? And how will the benefits occur when co2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

When I said 'small effect' I was referring to the effect
co2 has on global temperature and when you factor
in the small amout human activity represents of the
total co2 amount, that makes the whole agenda and
the insane policies that follow, 'immaterial' from a
purely scientific point of view.

Example; even the most avid environmentalists, as
represented by obambi and the radicals that control
the EPA, will admit their most draconian co2 controls
will have a negligible affect on temperature over an
extended period!!

Even the IPCC admits that.

The media that promotess the political agenda on
an almost daily basis conviently overlooks that
little factoid. (and many others)

In making any decision one must consider; 'is it
worth it?'

When considering the plan of obama and the epa
has for reducing America's co2 emissions to that
of 1900 the answer is a resounding; NO!

Now obama says he won't sign any spendig bill
that reduces epa budget while slyly blaming
the republicans for shutting down the government.

Then why do we see rising levels at all?

Notice I said 'cushion', I didn't say it would equal out.

For one thing plant growth will lag somewhat.

For another thing the oceans breathe co2 in and
out over extended periods, so much that it far
exceeds the use of co2 by Earth's flora.

All this doesn't negate the fact that increased
co2 levels is good for plant growth.

Other things that we know are that the oceans
cover 70% of Earth's surface (not counting lakes
which also are a factor) and the vast majority
of volcanoes on Earth are sub-oceanic.

Recent studies show that those subocean volcanoes
emit co2 in far far greater amounts than we had
previously guestimated.

In short much more study needs to be done before
enacting radical measures and any radical measures
should be incumbent upon China and India and not
just America.

Any of that make any sense to you or are you just
going to religiously hold on to your indoctrinated
opinion??

 

[IPorange]

You've made slightly more sense than ever before, actually. I would argue with you on your conclusions and with your volcano factoid, but you are accurately describing the carbon cycle. I'm glad I was able to teach you something over the last few years.

 

[utgibbs]

@gsvol:

You are getting some things together. The "exchange" of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere is huge, and our oceans are the largest CO2 "sink".

Unfortunately, that means the oceans are slowly becoming fizzy water. Acidification coupled with rising surface water temperatures is doing our coral reefs - the rainforests of the ocean - no good at all.

 

[gsvol]

You've made slightly more sense than ever before, actually. I would argue with you on your conclusions and with your volcano factoid, but you are accurately describing the carbon cycle. I'm glad I was able to teach you something over the last few years.

Thanks, you've taught me it's pretty hard to
deprogram the young who have been indocrtinated
all their life by green propaganda.

@gsvol:

You are getting some things together. The "exchange" of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere is huge, and our oceans are the largest CO2 "sink".

Unfortunately, that means the oceans are slowly becoming fizzy water. Acidification coupled with rising surface water temperatures is doing our coral reefs - the rainforests of the ocean - no good at all.

There you go again adding another lie to the
big lie.

CO2 DOES NOT cause acidification nor does it
harm coral reefs.

Since you brought up coral reefs, the enviros
decried offshore oil platforms, citing the
disastrous effects it would have.

What really happened is that coral loved to
build reefs underneath the platforms and
became a fish magnet, thus increasing
sea life rather than diminishing it.

This same story is played out over and over
again, usually what the radical enviros predict
is the opposite of what really happens.

Fizzy water?? You sound like your reading some
of Al Gore's third grade indoctrination material. :birgits_giggle:

 

[utgibbs]

There you go again adding another lie to the
big lie.

CO2 DOES NOT cause acidification nor does it
harm coral reefs.

I guarantee, gsvol, I have forgotten more about the chemistry of CO2 decreasing pH of solutions than you know.

The 19th century still called carbon dioxide "carbonic acid" gsvol.

Why don't you measure the pH of a newly opened bottle of Coca-Cola and some sugar water and tell me the difference.

You were doing so well too.

 

[NEO]

I guarantee, gsvol, I have forgotten more about the chemistry of CO2 decreasing pH of solutions than you know.

The 19th century still called carbon dioxide "carbonic acid" gsvol.

Why don't you measure the pH of a newly opened bottle of Coca-Cola and some sugar water and tell me the difference.

You were doing so well too.

3am on a friday night and your clearly sober.

WTF man?

 

[utgibbs]

3am on a friday night and your clearly sober.

WTF man?

I'm waiting on my polypin delivery from a UK brewery I just love.

 

[milohimself]

(you still don't represent the general consensus)

Aaaaand that should wrap it up. gs thinks he's one of the sane few in a world overrun by crazies.

 

[gsvol]

I guarantee, gsvol, I have forgotten more about the chemistry of CO2 decreasing pH of solutions than you know.

The 19th century still called carbon dioxide "carbonic acid" gsvol.

Why don't you measure the pH of a newly opened bottle of Coca-Cola and some sugar water and tell me the difference.

You were doing so well too.

:mf_surrender:

Human co2 emisssions will decrease the ph level of the
oceans by 0.00001% over the next thousand years.

How many coke bottles would it take to fill the oceans??

The water in the Blue Grotto contains more salt than
the water found in the Great Salt Lake in Utah, hell,
even the water at Daytona Beach doesn't taste like
sugar water.

Churn that yak butter white boy!!

Aaaaand that should wrap it up. gs thinks he's one of the sane few in a world overrun by crazies.

EPA's days as 'rogue agency' are numbered | Examiner Editorial | Editorials | Washington Examiner

In the House, 19 Democrats joined the Republican
majority in a decisive 255-172 vote to defund the
EPA's attempt to circumvent Congress and begin
its own cap-and-trade program.

The measure was introduced by House Energy and
Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton of
Michigan. A companion measure introduced in the
Senate by Sen. Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican
who is the ranking minority member of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee, fell just
short of the votes needed for passage, despite
support from three Democrats.

Supporters of the EPA effort should think twice
before cheering the outcome of the Senate vote
because, while the regulatory initiative is safe for
now, the prospects for its long-term survival are
dim, prompting Politico to headline a recent story,
"EPA holds on for dear life." The reason the outlook
is so grim for the EPA on this issue is the fact that
a growing number of congressional Democrats have
had enough of being threatened by executive
branch political appointees.
--------------------------

Shortly after the House vote last week, Rep.
Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif. -- who opposed the
Upton measure -- told Politico that a growing
number of his Democratic colleagues were
beginning to view the EPA as a "rogue agency."
He added, "I think the president's out of step on
this one, and he's going to have to get his agency
under control."

Despite the setback last week, Inhofe was
upbeat because on the four separate votes that
were held on his proposal and three alternatives,
a total of 64 senators voted to restrain EPA to
one degree or another. Inhofe promised to bring
the issue back to the Senate in the near future
and noted: "When all is said and done, a bipartisan
majority in the Senate issued a sobering message
to EPA: Its cap-and-trade agenda is wearing thin,
suggesting it's time to reverse course to put
Congress back in charge of America's energy
policy."

After the next election the sane people will again
be in control of the American government.

Bank it!! :yes:

 

[utgibbs]

:mf_surrender:

Human co2 emisssions will decrease the ph level of the
oceans by 0.00001% over the next thousand years.

How many coke bottles would it take to fill the oceans??

The water in the Blue Grotto contains more salt than
the water found in the Great Salt Lake in Utah, hell,
even the water at Daytona Beach doesn't taste like
sugar water.

Churn that yak butter white boy!!

Not sure where you got that doozy from since we've already lost 0.2 pH since 1750. And we only really got going in the last 50 years.....

I forget the meaning behind: "Churn that yak butter white boy!!" I know there is some significance in it being yak butter, but I can't remember specifically what it is.

 

[gsvol]

Not sure where you got that doozy from since we've already lost 0.2 pH since 1750. And we only really got going in the last 50 years.....

I forget the meaning behind: "Churn that yak butter white boy!!" I know there is some significance in it being yak butter, but I can't remember specifically what it is.

Let's seperate the factoids from the yak butter.

Oceans are acidfying at an alraming rate, yak butter.

Since 7.0 is neutral on the pH scale, going from 8.2
to 8.1 really shouldn’t be called acidification. factoid.

If it’s happening at all , it’s a case of the ocean
becoming slightly less alkaline, not more acidic,
factoid.

The ocean is alkaline and model predictions suggest it
will never become acidic, factoid.

The World’s oceans are a buffered system. When
the concentration of dissoled CO2 in all of its forms
become high enough CaCO3 is precipicated out of
the ocean onto its bottom forming limestone deposits.
So the amount of carbon in the ocean is limited.
Very roughly speaking, if the amount of carbon in
the atmosphere is 1, the amount of dissolved carbon
dioxide in the ocean is 50, and the amount of carbon
in limestone rocks is 250. So it is impossible for the atmosphere to be a driver of the ph level. factoid.

We've lost 0.2 ph since 1750, yak butter.

Since the pH scale wasn’t invented till the 20th
century, no one made measurements in 1750,
factoid.

Increased co2 will kill coral reefs, yak butter.

Gas bubbles trapped in late Cretaceous amber prove
that co2 levels back then were over ten times higher
than present, factoid.

The Late Cretaceous was a time of teeming coral
reefs and extensive limestone deposits, the white
cliffs of Dover were formed then, factoid.

Cretaceous' takes is name from the Latin for 'chalk',
factoid.

Coral reefs can only grow in the photic zone of the
oceans because zooxanthellae algae use sunlight,
CO2, calcium and/or magnesium to make limestone,
factoid.

The calcification rate of Flinders Reef has increased along with atmospheric CO2 concentrations since
1700, factoid.

As the atmospheric CO2 concentration has grown
since the 1700's coral reef extension rates have
also trended upwards. This is contrary to the
theory that increased atmospheric CO2 should
reduce the calcium carbonate saturation in the
oceans, thus reducing reef calcification, factoid.

In lab experiments it has been found that rather
than killing reef forming corals, co2 is used by the
coral as food, increasing growth, factoid.

The effects on calcification rates for 18 species
tested were either negligible or positive up to 606
ppm CO2. Corals, in particular seemed to like more
CO2 in their diets, factoid.

The great barrier reef is dying, yak butter.

That is an out and out lie, factoid.

Below see chart:

Actually the GBR responds well to all three of the
following conditions, higher sea level, warmer temps
and increased co2 concentrations, factoid.

There is no geological precedent for these co2 levels,
yak butter.

Average annual pH reconstructions and measurements from various Pacific Ocean locations: factoids.

60 million to 40 million years ago: 7.42 to 8.04
(Pearson et al., 2000)

23 million to 85,000 years ago: 8.04 to 8.31
(Pearson et al., 2000)

6,000 years ago to present: 7.91 to 8.28
(Liu et al., 2009)

1708 AD to 1988 AD: 7.91 to 8.17
(Pelejero et al., 2005)

2000 AD to 2007 AD: 8.10 to 8.40
(Wootton et al., 2008)

Is yak butter something to fear??

No, not if you use factoids when taking a yak
butter bath.

Unfortunately bed wetters respond favorably
to yak butter and don't want to use factoids
because they're just looking for a reason to
wet their pants in the first place.

We really should do a bed wetter census more often
Gibby, thanks for the yak butter!! :wavey:

ps; CO2 + H2O = carbonic acid.

 

[utgibbs]

Where was yak butter?

The ocean is alkaline, but has dropped in pH. That is a process of acidification. pH is a log scale remember, so that is a relative big drop. Moreover, it is already well established this has not helped shell-forming marine life, especially corals, at all.

I'm not telling you how to post, but if you broke up your rants into bite sized morsels, they may go down better.

Again, what is the significance of yak butter. I can't remember.

 

[gsvol]

Where was yak butter?

The ocean is alkaline, but has dropped in pH. That is a process of acidification. pH is a log scale remember, so that is a relative big drop. Moreover, it is already well established this has not helped shell-forming marine life, especially corals, at all.

I'm not telling you how to post, but if you broke up your rants into bite sized morsels, they may go down better.

Again, what is the significance of yak butter. I can't remember.

Oh, I thought you would bring up jellyfish taking
over the oceans.

In which case I was going to say, the oceans
are fine, the jellyfish have taken over
Washington.

Why not call it dealkalinization instead of
acidification??

At least until it gets to a neutral 7.0.

Semantics aside, unless we suspend the laws
of physics, the oceans will never become acidic.

Of course one has to suspend many laws of
physics to believe the IPCC.

The present trend is nothing new, this has been
going on as long as we have had oceans and the
pH level has been far lower at times than now with
no catastrophic effect, just as the temperature has
been higher and actually life was better on Earth
in that temporary state of affairs.

And it has not been established that increased
co2 levels has been detrimental to shell fish and
corals, on the contrary, the opposite has been
established.

As a matter of fact increased oceanic co2 levels
don't come from the atmosphere, most likely it is
caused by the 30,000 active subocean volcanoes
that release far more co2 than we had previously
estimated. (remember, increased co2 levels =
increased sedimentation)

That is uncharted territory.

The significance of yak butter?

Goes to gross national happiness.

Sort of depends on the individual, it might have
different signifcance to a yak herder in Bhutan
than to a wall street banker in NYC.

 

[utgibbs]

Oh, I thought you would bring up jellyfish taking
over the oceans.

Why not call it dealkalinization instead of
acidification??

At least until it gets to a neutral 7.0.

Semantics aside, unless we suspend the laws
of physics, the oceans will never become acidic.

Of course one has to suspend many laws of
physics to believe the IPCC.

The present trend is nothing new, this has been
going on as long as we have had oceans and the
pH level has been far lower at times than now with
no catastrophic effect, just as the temperature has
been higher and actually life was better on Earth
in that temporary state of affairs.

And it has not been established that increased
co2 levels has been detrimental to shell fish and
corals, on the contrary, the opposite has been
established.

As a matter of fact increased oceanic co2 levels
don't come from the atmosphere, most likely it is
caused by the 30,000 active subocean volcanoes
that release far more co2 than we had previously
estimated. (remember, increased co2 levels =
increased sedimentation)

That is uncharted territory.

The significance of yak butter?

Goes to gross national happiness.

Sort of depends on the individual, it might have
different signifcance to a yak herder in Bhutan
than to a wall street banker in NYC.

Okay, now I need to know what Bhutan has to do with yak butter. I can't remember. However, GNH indices would be far better than GDPs.

dealkalinization - looks like a Soviet word to me, gs. Are you sure you want me using that? Looks like the Russian word for "hermetically sealed."

 

[IPorange]

Any lowering on the pH scale is acidification. It's a logarithmic scale for the number of hydrogen ions in a given quantity. It isn't consequential what the baseline pH of a substance is (acidic, neutral, or alkaline) as to whether it is acidifying or not. That's a weird bone to try and pick, gs. Diversionary, I guess.

Also, neutral pH in the seas is no more a good thing than a neutral pH in your blood and body.

 

[gsvol]

Any lowering on the pH scale is acidification. It's a logarithmic scale for the number of hydrogen ions in a given quantity. It isn't consequential what the baseline pH of a substance is (acidic, neutral, or alkaline) as to whether it is acidifying or not. That's a weird bone to try and pick, gs. Diversionary, I guess.

Also, neutral pH in the seas is no more a good thing than a neutral pH in your blood and body.

Semantics, shemantics, nothing to be alarmed
about.

Have you ever seen pictures of a water hole in
the desert with skulls of animals who have drunk
from the bad water strewn about??

That's because the water is too alkaline, or
deacidified if you insist.

We know that in Earth's history that the pH
levels in the oceans have been ten times as
acidic, or less alkaline in real terms with no
detrimental effects, no mass extinctions etc.

We know that the co2 levels of the ocean and
the atmospere have been ten times higher, again
with no detrimental effect.

We know that the atmosphere has been degrees
warmer on Earth, even in recent history, speaking
in geological terms, again with no detrimental effect.

THEREFORE;

Should we not repeal the ethenol mandates?

Should we not repeal the incandescent light
bulb mandate??

BUT; (for the sake of argument and we should
be terribly alarmed as you say)

Should we not nuke China and India, after all
they are both building new coal fired electrical
plants at the rate of one per week each??

Your scare tactics may work on impressional
school children (a form of pedophelia in a way)
and the uneducated masses (even if they may
be skeptical) but it isn't reality.

In reality the Earth has gone through these
cycles repeatedly without any help from man.

One thing is for sure, windmills and electric
cars isn't going to work.

News from the John Muir Trust

Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir
Trust, the U.K.’s leading wild land conservation
charity, said: "This report is a real eye opener
for anyone who's been wondering just how much
power Scotland is getting from the fleet of wind
turbines that have taken over many of our most
beautiful mountains and hillsides. The answer
appears to be not enough, and much less than
is routinely claimed.”

Stuart Young, author of the report, said, “Over
the two-year period studied in this report, the
metered windfarms in the U.K. consistently
generated far less energy than wind proponents
claim is typical. The intermittent nature of wind
also gives rise to low wind coinciding with high
energy demand. Sadly, wind power is not what
it's cracked up to be and cannot contribute
greatly to energy security in the UK."

1. During the study period, wind generation was:

* below 20% of capacity more than half the time;

* below 10% of capacity over one third of the
time;

* below 2.5% capacity for the equivalent of one
day in twelve;

* below 1.25% capacity for the equivalent of just
under one day a month.

The discovery that for one third of the time wind
output was less than 10% of capacity, and often
significantly less than 10%, was an unexpected
result of the analysis...

The data above didn't come from anti-wind studies
it came from a group that was pro wind energy.

At least this particular group has the integrity to
report the truth instead of making up lies.

 

[trevols81]

After the next election the sane people will again
be in control of the American government.

Bank it!! :yes:

Not if Trump is the candidate.

 

[gsvol]

Not if Trump is the candidate.

YIKES!! :no:

DRILL BABY DRILL!

At the UN, where the fruits are nutty and the
nuts are fruity!!

New UN treaty would give 'Mother Earth' same rights as human beings - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

The bid aims to have the UN recognize the
Earth as a living entity that humans have sought
to "dominate and exploit" — to the point that
the "well-being and existence of many beings"
is now threatened.

Bolivia, the nation that is drafting the document,
recently passed a law giving "...bugs, trees and
all other natural things..." the same rights as
humans.

Bolivia's Law of the Rights of Mother Earth,
passed last December and signed into law in
January, gives 11 "rights" to the planet, including:

They include: the right to life and to exist; the
right to continue vital cycles and processes free
from human alteration; the right to pure water
and clean air; the right to balance; the right not
to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular
structure modified or genetically altered.

Controversially, it will also enshrine the right of
nature “to not be affected by mega-infrastructure
and development projects that affect the balance
of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities”.

“It makes world history. Earth is the mother of all”,
said Bolivia's Vice President Alvaro García Linera,
according to a post at Infinite Unknown.

“It establishes a new relationship between man
and nature, the harmony of which must be preserved
as a guarantee of its regeneration,” he reportedly
said.

Although the wording of the proposed treaty has
yet to evolve, Edwards writes the general structure
will likely mirror Bolivia's Law of the Rights of Mother
Earth, which Bolivian President Evo Morales enacted
earlier this year.

:wacko:

 

[gsvol]

Aaaaand that should wrap it up. gs thinks he's one of the sane few in a world overrun by crazies.

I don't appreciate the constant silly
personal swipes at me, especially since
you are supposed to be an impartial monitor.

But one thing I think we can all agree upon,
including gibbs and, whether he be imposter
or idiot, and including the other idiots
who may consider themselves to be sane.

That is, the ethanol mandates are stupid and
counter productive mo matter whether you
believe in climate change or not.

It is shown here that one burns 1 gallon
of gasoline equivalent in fossil fuels to
produce 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent as
ethanol from corn.

When this corn ethanol is burned as a
gasoline additive or fuel, its use amounts
to burning the same amount of fuel twice to
drive a car once.

Therefore, the fuel efficiency of those
cars that burn corn ethanol is halved.

The reverse of UN’s disastrous “oil for food” program: Ethanol uses 40% of US Corn Crop | Watts Up With That?

(click link to see hockey stick WORLD food
price chart.)

Alternatve title, 'cornholing the future.'

When certain information proves challenging
to entrenched political or ideological
commitments it can be easy for policy makers
to ignore, downplay or even dismiss that
information.

It is a common dynamic and knows no political
boundaries. Global Dashboard catches the
Obama Administration selectively explaining
the causes for increasing world food prices:

“The increase in February mostly reflected
further gains in international maize prices,
driven by strong demand amid tightening
supplies, while prices rose marginally in
the case of wheat and fell slightly in the
case of rice.”

“In other words, this is mainly about corn.
And who’s the biggest corn exporter in the
world? The United States, And where is 40%
of US corn production going this year?
Ethanol, for use in US car engines.”

(not to mention that feed corn for farm
animals has tripled, but then this fits
the radical nazi vegan agenda as well, since
it drives up the price of meat at the market.)gs

So here we having wailing and gnashing of
teeth by the usual suspects over global food
prices, and they are using this as an example
of the supposed “climate change drive food
prices” link. Of course there isn’t any link
in this case. It’s the corn stupid.

The simple solution: stop burning food for
fuel, drill for more oil, work on alternate
energy system that actually might work,
like thorium based nuclear power.

There is a new car in the works, called the
Unicorn, it runs on daydreams with insane
additives!!

This brings forth the question; "just what
is the 'climate change agenda' and what is
it's end purpose???

That question is a valid, sane question, no
matter whether you think, incorrectly, that
co2 is a polutant or not.

It is a valid question, sane question,
whether you think climate changes and global
temperature trends are driven by human
energy use or not.

It seems to me that those promoting the
idea that climate change is driving up
food prices are using insane policies
to drive up food prices.

I suppose this all boils down to what
one considers to be the definition of
sanity.

I would think sanity has something to do
with actual logic and certainly not
illogical theories and/or that don't stand
up to the light of day, given the least bit
of intelligent scrutiny.

And BTW milo; KMA!

It has been said that one should not attribute
to malice what simple stupidity or incompetence
can explain.

It your case milo, I can write off your malice to
simple stupidity and/or incompetence (particularly
on impartial monitoring question) but in the case
of the purveyors of the climate change agenda
and the useful idiots that promote the same, I
cannot.

They have too much information at their disposal
not to have an agenda that is malevolent at it's
core.

Now milo, argue some of those points or just ****!!

 

[milohimself]

I already said I'm not an "impartial monitor" in this forum.

And, nothing to say here. I think ethanol blends are stupid.

The only thing in there that's not quite right is the efficiency bit, Oregon mandates an E10 blend on all pumps the majority of the year. I've had probably 6-8 different cars since that became mandated and have always paid very close attention to fuel economy. I'd say it has affected efficiency about 3-5% on all cars ranging from small econoboxes to large premium fuel-guzzling SUV's. That also includes a few weeks in a handful of E85 cars that were maybe the tiniest bit worse than that.

 

[milohimself]

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.

 

[fl0at]

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.

 

[TennTradition]

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