If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
"Ray Andraka" wrote in message news:Lpdpg.52402$ZW3.39236@dukeread04... Dylan Smith wrote: The evidence is conclusive that recent rises in CO2 concentrations (from 280ppm in 1900 to 320ppm now) are entirely caused by human activity. We can see that CO2 levels have only varied between 270 and 290ppm for a good 10,000 years prior to this point. Carbon dating the CO2 in the atmosphere shows that the recent additions of CO2 (i.e. the change from ~280ppm to 320ppm) are from the burning of fossil fuels. More likely, the increase is due to the decrease in forests which absorb the CO2 and release oxygen in exchange. Still it can be traced back to human activity, but not due to emissions...the decrease in the scrubbing capacity due to deforestation is much greater than the small percentage increase in emissions due to human activity. Same is likely true of global warming. It isn't scrubbing and it isn't trees. You need to look a little closer at the science that's coming out of all this study of global warming. The vast majority of CO2 is stored elsewhere, and the problem is that that natural capacity to absorb excess and store it is being depleted. And yes, the vast majority of this is due to human emissions. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message ... "Ray Andraka" wrote in message news:Lpdpg.52402$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? |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol (moved for topic)
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
... The Hockey Stick has got to be the joke of the 90's environuts. The infamous "Hockey Stick" graph was featured prominently in the IPCC TAR Summary for Policymakers. It was important in that it overturned the concept of a global Medieval Warm Period warmer than the 20th century and a pronounced Little Ice Age, both long time (cautiously) accepted features of the last 1000 years of climate history. This caused quite an uproar in the sceptic community, not least because of its visual efficacy. Two Canadians, an economist and a petroleum geologist, took it apon themselves to verify this proxy reconstruction by getting the data and examining the methodology used for themselves. They found that there were errors in the description of data used as published in Nature. Mann et al., the Hockey Stick's creators, published a correction in Nature, noting where the description of the study did not match what was actually done. The Canadians, McIntyre and McKitrick, then proceeded to publish a paper that purported to uncover serious methodological flaws and problems with data sets used. Everything from this point on is hotly disputed and highly technical. All the claims made by M&M have been rebutted in detail by many other climatologists and they insist that these folks are completely in error. This of course fits nicely with the expectations of both sides of the Global Warming issue, the conspiracy theorists as well as the champions of peer review. All the rebuttals have been objected to and the objections denied and the denials rejected. The issues are highly technical and require considerable time and energy to truly investigate. Steve McIntyre has a website devoted to his continued probe of this study and Michael Mann is a contributor to Real Climate which devotes considerable web space to refuting the attacks. In short, M&M raise many specific and technical objections and the climate scientists seem pretty unified in denying the charges. To my knowledge, the worst indictment from the climate science community came from a study led by Hans Von Storch that concluded M&M was right about a particular criticism of methodology but correcting it did not change the study results. If you want to try to evaluate this issue fairly you must read the copious material at the sites mentioned above. You must also be prepared to get into dendrochonolgy and statistical analysis. Where does that leave the rest of us? For myself, I will confess immediately that the technical issues are over my head, I don't know PCA from R^2 from a hole in the ground. But I think the most critical point to remember, if you are researching this in the context of determining the validity of AGW theory, is that this row is about a single study that was published 8 years ago. This is starting to be ancient history. If you feel it is tainted (as I prefer to just assume, because as I said I do not want to put the required effort into unraveling it all for myself) then simply discard it. The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98, ie the handle of the hockey stick is not as straight, but they *all* support the general conclusions that the IPCC TAR came to in 2001: the late 20th century warming is anamolous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand years. Here is a nice superimposition of numerous global, hemispheric and regional reconstructions for the last 2000 years and the last 12000 years together with an average. References are all presented at the bottom of the pages. Regional variations are of course greater than global, so don't be surprised by how wavy some of the lines in there are. Does the 20th century stand out? (Disclosu one of the reconstructions used in those pages is by the same team that did the infamous hockey stick, but it is not the same study. To the best of my knowledge, M&M have claimed no problems with that one, though they have expressed some concerns that span the entire field of dendrochronology). I have read as much about this controversy as I ever will, and I have come to the firm conviction that I do not have the technical background and/or time required to make a scientific judgment on this issue one way or another. That is the best objective opinion I can offer you. I suspect 95% of the people you will come across arguing about this have chosen their position ideologically. And while MBH, in my mind, are in no way guilty of fraud or incompetence until solidly proven to be so (many of the accusations do go this far), the judgement of their research must be approached in reverse: given a reason to doubt, I will not accept it until it is proven to me that the criticisms are invalid. Neither case can I decided for myself until I devote the required time to both the statistical background and the technical details of M&M vs MBH98. So where does that leave me? With the dozens of other proxy reconstructions, some by the same team or involving members, some by completely different people, some using tree rings, some using corals, some using stalagtites, some using borehole measurements, all of which support the general conclusions. And it is that general conclusion which is important to me, not whether or not one Bristlecone pine was or was not included correctly in a single 8 year old study. The general conclusion is: "Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html I also urge anyone worried about this study and what its conclusion means for the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to remember this: the study of the past can be very informative, but it is not explanatory of the present or predictive of the future. The scientific basis for the dangers we face and their cause is about much more than a few tree-rings and the temperature during the Medieval Warm Period. -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
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 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol (moved for topic)
In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck wrote:
snip Where does that leave the rest of us? Ancient literature. England was a big wine producer during the Roman period and for a while after the Romans. England became too cold for wine production about a millenium ago. It is now almost warm enough in England *AGAIN* to produce decent wine. A little more waming and England will be back to the climate of 2000 years ago and once again English wine will be available in the civilized world. Oh the horrors. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol (moved for topic)
wrote in message
news In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck wrote: snip Where does that leave the rest of us? Ancient literature. Why not scientific evidence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png England was a big wine producer during the Roman period and for a while after the Romans. England became too cold for wine production about a millenium ago. Uh, that is supposed to have been the Medieval Warm Period. You have a poor grasp of the facts. It is now almost warm enough in England *AGAIN* to produce decent wine. In specific answer to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, I like to point people he http://www.english-wine.com/index.html -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol (moved for topic)
In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck wrote:
wrote in message news In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck wrote: snip Where does that leave the rest of us? Ancient literature. Why not scientific evidence? Why not the records from the people that were alive at the time? Perhaps the Romans were the pawn's of Big Oil? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png England was a big wine producer during the Roman period and for a while after the Romans. England became too cold for wine production about a millenium ago. Uh, that is supposed to have been the Medieval Warm Period. You have a poor grasp of the facts. You have a poor grasp of reading graphs. According to your graph refenced above (depending on who's data your use), the "little ice age" started about a millenium ago. So what's your problem? As an aside I find it interesting the graph is asymetrical with the positive varience going to +.6 and the negative going to about -1.1 degrees. It makes the positive excursions look impressive. I would also question the placement of zero and the lack of any mention of what zero is supposed to represent. Looking at the same source for a period of 450 thousand years, it looks like we are currently a little on the cool side. From that graph I would be more worried about global cooling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png It is now almost warm enough in England *AGAIN* to produce decent wine. In specific answer to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, I like to point people he http://www.english-wine.com/index.html I'm well aware England is again growing grapes and making wine. I'm also well aware from writting of the times that England grew a lot of grapes during Roman times and up to about the beginning of the little ice age, at which time production just about ceased. It is only in recent time (in terms of centuries) that it has been warm enough to start producing in quantity again. Perhaps you should close your web browser, turn off the computer, and read a few good books, preferably in the original Latin. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol (moved for topic)
("Coby Beck" wrote)
In specific answer to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, I like to point people he http://www.english-wine.com/index.html Alexis Bailly Vineyard - Hastings, MN http://www.abvwines.com/about.htm French winemakers have long held that in order to produce great wine, the grapevines must endure hardship - wind, sleet, snow, drought. Enthusiastically, Bailly adopted the motto, "Where the grapes can suffer." http://www.mngrapes.org/varieties.html "The grape varieties listed on this page all are hardy to at least -20F/-28.9C." http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/199911/16_idelsons_wine/ Minnesota wines - Gopher Grapes Montblack :-) |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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 |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol (moved for topic)
wrote in message
... In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck wrote: wrote in message news In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck wrote: snip Where does that leave the rest of us? Ancient literature. Why not scientific evidence? Why not the records from the people that were alive at the time? Why don't you provide them? "It is not exactly clear why the number of vineyards declined subsequently. Some have put it down to an adverse change in the weather which made an uncertain enterprise even more problematic. Others have linked it with the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII. Both these factors may have had some part to play but in all probability the decline was gradual (over several centuries) and for more complex reasons. " http://www.english-wine.com/history.html#domesday http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png England was a big wine producer during the Roman period and for a while after the Romans. England became too cold for wine production about a millenium ago. Uh, that is supposed to have been the Medieval Warm Period. You have a poor grasp of the facts. You have a poor grasp of reading graphs. According to your graph refenced above (depending on who's data your use), the "little ice age" started about a millenium ago. One thousand years ago was about the peak of the MWP. I think you are the one having trouble reading that graph. The LIA is generally considered to have started around 1400 though it is not well synchronzed globally. So what's your problem? As an aside I find it interesting the graph is asymetrical with the positive varience going to +.6 and the negative going to about -1.1 degrees. It makes the positive excursions look impressive. I would also question the placement of zero and the lack of any mention of what zero is supposed to represent. Relax, put away the tinfoil hat, 0 on these plots is generally a multi-decadal mean centered a few decades ago or thereabouts. The description states "The instrumental data are anomalies from the 1950-80 reference period." Then the bottom and top range are just what the data require, no insidious manipulation... Looking at the same source for a period of 450 thousand years, it looks like we are currently a little on the cool side. From that graph I would be more worried about global cooling. The Milankovitch cycles that controled that saw-tooth pattern would have us very gradually cooling, though the best estimates say we would not be in an iceage for another 30-50Kyrs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png It is now almost warm enough in England *AGAIN* to produce decent wine. In specific answer to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, I like to point people he http://www.english-wine.com/index.html I'm well aware England is again growing grapes and making wine. I'm also well aware from writting of the times that England grew a lot of grapes during Roman times and up to about the beginning of the little ice age, at which time production just about ceased. "It is said that Julius Caesar brought the vine to England. Nice though that story is, some scholars think it apocryphal - wine was certainly brought to Britain by the Romans, but it is less certain whether the vine was grown here, or if it was, whether it was in sufficent quantity to satisfy the local requirement for wine or just as an ornament to remind Romans of home and wealthy Romano-Britons of the source of their civilisation and prosperity." http://www.english-wine.com/history.html#roman It is only in recent time (in terms of centuries) that it has been warm enough to start producing in quantity again. "The period from the end of the First World War to shortly after the end of the Second World War may well be the only time in two millennia that vines to make wine on a substantial scale were not grown in England or Wales. Doubtless, during that time, there were some vines being grown on a garden scale by amateur growers, but for more than 25 years there was a total cessation of viticulture and winemaking on a commercial basis. " http://www.english-wine.com/history.html#20thcentury Perhaps you should close your web browser, turn off the computer, and read a few good books, preferably in the original Latin. Perhaps you should provide some more substance and less bluster. -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Any good aviation clip-art? | zingzang | Piloting | 2 | August 11th 05 01:32 AM |
We lost a good one.... | [email protected] | Piloting | 10 | May 28th 05 05:21 AM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Excelsior | Home Built | 0 | April 22nd 05 01:11 AM |
HAVE YOU HEARD THE GOOD NEWS! | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | January 26th 05 07:08 PM |
Commander gives Navy airframe plan good review | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 8th 03 09:10 PM |