Nothing good about Ethanol

"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.


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.

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.

"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?


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.

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

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

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

"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!!

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
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.

Regarding the environmentalists' concern over CO2, here are some facts
nobody argues with:





1. Atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi (pounds/in./in.).



2. Earth's radius is about 4,000 miles.



3. CO2 constituted about 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere in 1950--.



4. CO2 now constitutes more like 0.06 per cent of the atmosphere.



From #2 we calculate that the Earth's surface area is 0.8 billion billion

square inches. And from #1 that the atmosphere weighs 11.9 billion billion
pounds. This is 6 million billion tons. Now take fact #3; 0.04 per cent is
2,400 billion tons of CO2. Half (the change since 1950) is 1,200 billion
tons. Let's call this fact #5:



5. There were 2,400 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1950; 3,600
billion tons now, give or take a psi or two--.



6. Human activity currently releases 6 billion tons of CO2 per year.



7. Non-human activity (oceans, trees, Pinatubo, Mauna Loa, etc.) releases
200 billion tons of CO2 per year--.



Now compare fact #5 with fact #6. Simple division tells you that if every
molecule of human-released CO2 at the current rate of production stayed in
the atmosphere, it would take another 200 years for the post-1950 change to
be matched. Or looking at it backward, since minus 200 years takes us back
to before the Industrial Revolution, it means that if every CO2 molecule
from every factory, car, steam engine, barbecue, campfire, and weenie roast
that ever was since the first liberal climbed down out of a tree right up
until today was still in the atmosphere. It still wouldn't account for the
change in CO2 since 1950.



Fact #7 has been going on for a long time, a lot longer than any piddling
200 years. Comparing #5 and #7 means it takes about 12 yearsfor the average
CO2 molecule to be recycled back out of the atmosphere.



Given the above, here are some conclusions that nobody can argue with and
still claim to be a reasoning creatu



8. Human activity, carried out at the present rate indefinately (more than
12 years) cannot possibly account for more than 6 per cent of the observed
change in CO2 levels.



9. Entirely shutting off civilizationor even killing everybodycould only
have a tiny effect on global warming, if there is any such thing--.



That leaves two questions that no one knows how to answer:



Q-1. Why do all these supposedly educated, supposedly sane people want to
end civilization?



Q-2. Since humanity can't possibly be causing the CO2 level to go up, isn't
it time to start wondering about what is?



L. Van Zandt, Professor of Physics,

Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana