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

"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?

"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")

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

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.

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")

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.

("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 :-)

"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

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")