Nothing good about Ethanol

On 2006-06-29, Matt Barrow wrote:
Which is a good thing. CO2 makes plants and trees grow.

And cars and power plants are way down on the list compared to natural
sources.

Human CO2 is something like only 3% of global CO2 emissions.

It's not absolute quantities in this context that are important - it's
the relative addition of man made CO2. If (as an example) the Earth's
system could keep a steady concentration of CO2 for a natural output of,
say, 100 units - and man made sources then started adding just 1 unit,
instead of a steady concentration (all things being equal) you start to
get an increase of 1 unit per unit of time.

The evidence is conclusive that recent rises in CO2 concentrations (from
280ppm in 1900 to 320ppm now) are entirely caused by human activity. We
can see that CO2 levels have only varied between 270 and 290ppm for a
good 10,000 years prior to this point. Carbon dating the CO2 in the
atmosphere shows that the recent additions of CO2 (i.e. the change from
~280ppm to 320ppm) are from the burning of fossil fuels.

It may all be well if we increased the carbon dioxide sinks by 3% also,
but generally the kind of activity that leads to the burning of fossil
fuels also leads to a reduction in the CO2 sinks.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith wrote:

The evidence is conclusive that recent rises in CO2 concentrations (from
280ppm in 1900 to 320ppm now) are entirely caused by human activity. We
can see that CO2 levels have only varied between 270 and 290ppm for a
good 10,000 years prior to this point. Carbon dating the CO2 in the
atmosphere shows that the recent additions of CO2 (i.e. the change from
~280ppm to 320ppm) are from the burning of fossil fuels.

More likely, the increase is due to the decrease in forests which absorb
the CO2 and release oxygen in exchange. Still it can be traced back to
human activity, but not due to emissions...the decrease in the scrubbing
capacity due to deforestation is much greater than the small percentage
increase in emissions due to human activity. Same is likely true of
global warming.

Ray Andraka wrote:
More likely, the increase is due to the decrease in forests which absorb
the CO2 and release oxygen in exchange. Still it can be traced back to
human activity, but not due to emissions...the decrease in the scrubbing
capacity due to deforestation is much greater than the small percentage
increase in emissions due to human activity. Same is likely true of
global warming.

Just FYI, the impact of deforestation on atmospheric CO2 content is
discussed he
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Ray Andraka wrote:
More likely, the increase is due to the decrease in forests which absorb
the CO2 and release oxygen in exchange. Still it can be traced back to
human activity, but not due to emissions...the decrease in the scrubbing
capacity due to deforestation is much greater than the small percentage
increase in emissions due to human activity. Same is likely true of
global warming.

Just FYI, the impact of deforestation on atmospheric CO2 content is
discussed he
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160

Interesting...especially the comments! (Many sound like someone just
finished a High School book report :~) )

"Ray Andraka" wrote in message
news:Lpdpg.52402$ZW3.39236@dukeread04...
Dylan Smith wrote:

The evidence is conclusive that recent rises in CO2 concentrations (from
280ppm in 1900 to 320ppm now) are entirely caused by human activity. We
can see that CO2 levels have only varied between 270 and 290ppm for a
good 10,000 years prior to this point. Carbon dating the CO2 in the
atmosphere shows that the recent additions of CO2 (i.e. the change from
~280ppm to 320ppm) are from the burning of fossil fuels.

More likely, the increase is due to the decrease in forests which absorb
the CO2 and release oxygen in exchange. Still it can be traced back to
human activity, but not due to emissions...the decrease in the scrubbing
capacity due to deforestation is much greater than the small percentage
increase in emissions due to human activity. Same is likely true of
global warming.

It isn't scrubbing and it isn't trees. You need to look a little closer at
the science that's coming out of all this study of global warming. The vast
majority of CO2 is stored elsewhere, and the problem is that that natural
capacity to absorb excess and store it is being depleted. And yes, the vast
majority of this is due to human emissions.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
...

"Ray Andraka" wrote in message
news:Lpdpg.52402$ZW3.39236@dukeread04...
Dylan Smith wrote:



It isn't scrubbing and it isn't trees. You need to look a little closer at
the science that's coming out of all this study of global warming. The
vast majority of CO2 is stored elsewhere, and the problem is that that
natural capacity to absorb excess and store it is being depleted. And yes,
the vast majority of this is due to human emissions.

1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what portion
is natural?

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

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.

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

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"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.

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

Don't think so. SUVs have us outnumbered by what, several tens of thousands
to one?


--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-07-03, Dave Stadt wrote:
What has this got to do with aviation? Well, most of us GA people make
SUV drivers look like fuel misers.

Don't think so. SUVs have us outnumbered by what, several tens of thousands
to one?

This is of course how I personally rationalise my use of planes that get
half the gas mileage of a Hummer!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. net...

"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.

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

Don't think so. SUVs have us outnumbered by what, several tens of
thousands to one?

In that case, we need to use guerilla tactics.