And you are basing your statement on what Fox?
Your admitted inability to understand the technical details? And since you don't understand it then we must assume that it is all not credible?
You say so constantly, Foxfyre.
We really should wait 500 years or better more until we could think of doing far reaching and sweeping social changes and policies.
Walter Hinteler wrote:You say so constantly, Foxfyre.
We really should wait 500 years or better more until we could think of doing far reaching and sweeping social changes and policies.
No Walter, but I certainly think we deserve good information on whether radically altering our lifestyle, giving up stuff that we enjoy, possibly stalling our economy, maybe overlooking more useful things that would make our lives better, and/or maybe dooming hundreds of millions of people to more generations of crushing poverty before we sign onto an environmental religion that so many credible and well credentialed scientists are convinced is bogus and/or at the very least useless and/or at the worst destructive.
Foxfyre wrote:Seems to me that analysis of average temeratures in any eight years or any fifty years or even any hundred years in the grand scheme of things can only inform us whether we are in a warming or cooling trend. To assume that we know enough to know for sure whether the current relatively short term trend is unprecedented or even unusual should raise questions on credibility.
Okay. Make my "500 years" in that case "more than 100 years".
parados wrote:And you are basing your statement on what Fox?
Your admitted inability to understand the technical details? And since you don't understand it then we must assume that it is all not credible?
It is pretty obvious to me that you don't understand the technical details much better than I do, Parados. So it might be time for you to take a long, hard look at this whole AGW religious doctrine too and try to discern who is preaching the real deal and who is leading us down the figurative primrose path.
Already for instance, I've seen arguments that there is little practical benefit from bio fuels and that, if there is a plentiful supply of petroleum left for our use during this interim, those will be an extremely expensive and inefficient use of our resources. For me it is an annoyance when I see that the price of corn at the grocery store has doubled in a very short time as more and more corn is being diverted to ethanol production due to our most recent ambitious energy bill.
That annoyance to me could signal a genuine hardship for somebody less financially blessed than I am however modest my blessings are in that department.
If we humans are in fact not causing or are even capable of causing significant changes in our climate, I prefer to use our resources for things that actually make things better instead of being useful fools that make the environmental religionists feel righteous.
Oh, it's in your cite, ican. You didn't read part 2, did you? Thought not. Incomnplete in your research, as always. And Tamino is a far, far better statistician than those who disagree with him. Or you.
Thank you for posting that ACRIM graph, ican. I was going to, but since you beat me to it, I presume you find it satisfactory for discussion.
You realize, of course (well, you may realize, if you took note of the date on the ACRIM website, these things are never guaranteed with you and your data), that it was last updated 9/07. As the graph itself notes, this was "approaching next minima", i.e. it wasn't there yet. We've seen from the solar data that that minimum ended January 24, at least five months after the ACRIM data and maybe six, depending on when in September (or maybe even August, depending on when they stopped compiling data and started processing it). We've also seen from other satellites that there was a pretty long tail off to the minimum of cycle 23. So since the ACRIM data looks to be still at the start of the tailoff and in any case doesn't include most of the minimum, it's probably still going to go down.
EVEN IF IT DOES NOT GO DOWN ANY FURTHER, AND THE PROBABILITIES ARE THAT IT WILL, you will notice that the upward trend as calculate to somewhere around September has declined immensely and is now calculated to be just abit more than a tenth of what people like Willson and Mordvinov were using in their calculations of upward trend (well, it's about a ninth if you want to get very picky). That's ONE TENTH. oh, all right, ONE NINTH. AT MOST. And that's the ACRIM calculation BEFORE the minimum was reached. That's one part in 25,000, and that ain't very much.
And most probably, looking at the data from the other satellites that we do know,the ACRIM readings thru the minimum when they come in, are going to be as close to zero as to be indistinguishable, or below (and we're talking slope of the actual data here that's been observed since September, not any differences in composites over the past).
Whatever data you use, whichever composite you use, the actual results are showing that the people a couple years ago who were doing papers about upward trends were very far off, even considering the very small amount of possible trend they were talking about (that includes you, ican).
Which means that the instrumental record shows that solar variability, if a plus value exists at all, is still only going to account for a fraction of the increase in global mean temp., and a much smaller fraction than the most bullish observers thought it did. As I think it was Tamino said, it's only going to be at most the same as the forcing from human power generation, which is pretty small.
Let us not damage the environment.
Let us learn to teach others.
"I hear and I forget.
I see and I remember.
I do and i understand"-- Chinese proverb
Fox, the thing is, most of the recommendations that those who realize AGW is real make, make very good economic sense, now and in the long term. And they coincide with the long term interests of this country, even in the vanishingly small probability of AGW not happening.
First off, the concept of "abundant reserves" of fossil fuels is something of a misnomer. "Available reserve" is a variable, in the first place, not a constant. Reserves are in different kinds of geological formation, and exist under many different conditions. What is "available" depends on what technology you have to use to extract them in each case, and how much it costs to use that tech. The increase in reserves that are easily and cheaply extractable that drillers have been finding is less than we are extracting. There are a lot more reserves available, but they cost a lot more. That was the case with the ones that I think Okie brought up. They exist, but oil has to be somewhere around $100 a barrel for it to be feasible to exploit them.
I can't locate a quote, but I seem to remember denialists around the millennium talking about oil being a hundred bucks a barrel if anti warming measures were put in place. Here we are, no such measures, and the instability caused by our war in Iraq and rising worldwide demand has already put us there.
The strain on our pocketbooks is only starting. The gas pump is only the beginning of it. Agriculture is mostly mechanized, and fertilizers and insecticides which are inextricably tied to mechanized agri are petroleum-based. Food prices worldwide are just beginning the $3.00-a-gallon-likely-soon-to-be-$4-thank-you-very-much-George-Bush rise. If you do any dealing at all with overseas manufacturers you know they've already started to raise prices (energy is only a part of that coming raise, to be sure, but it is part) and that's gonna hit us much harder.
Demand is only going to rise. The cost of Mideast oil to us is only going to go up. We use something on the order of 1.6 times as much energy per dollar of GDP as other industrialized countries. Which is why we need to make wiser use of that energy. That's both economic sense and CO2 sense.
Increased CAFE standards for vehicles are feasible now. Many Japanese cars already can meet the standards the Bush administration postponed until 2020. The technology exists. Use it.
Conservation and wise use of the technology that exists now would enable us to get much more out of our energy dollar, which would reduce dramatically the need for more power generation. It also reduces our dependence on foreign oi, which screws the US economy, and reduces our carbon footprint.
Biofuels is a Bush boondoggle, to get the big agribusiness campaign contributions, and the farm state vote. It's been obvious for at least several years that corn or soybeans are really dumb choices, good only for enriching far state fat cat pocketbooks. Sugar cane, on the other hand, makes sense. Except Brazil grows it, not us. Biofuel uses the pulp, which is waste anyway. Put your trash to use is wise policy, I'd say. Someone posted an article here a few pages back about deforestation in Brazil, which made mention of the fact that Brazil gets about 40% of its fuel needs from biofuel, and that comes from about 2% of its agricultural land. That makes good economic sense, but it doesn't fatten Republican wallets, so it's unlikely to find much traction in this administration. But it is also not a Mideastern source, so it makes a lot of political (as well as green) sense to explore it.
Energy saving appliances and bulbs save several times their extra initial cost over their lifetime, and consume large fractions of our energy use. We subsidize oil companies, who are already making record profits. If we're gonna subsidize anyway, why not subsidize consumers (and companies too, for that matter) for the higher initial costs, which are a stumbling block for many who look at the state of their wallet today and don't have the economic cushion to look at costs five years down the road. Cuts down the carbon footprint, cuts down reliance on foreign sources of energy.
As we keep telling you, it's plain common sense, even if you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming.
username wrote:
...
Thank you for posting that ACRIM graph, ican. I was going to, but since you beat me to it, I presume you find it satisfactory for discussion.
...
As I think it was Tamino said, it's only going to be at most the same as the forcing from human power generation, which is pretty small.
You made numerous statements in this post that I didn't copy. Do you have links that I can go to in order to confirm the truth of those statements?
If you do, please post those links.
Foxfyre wrote:parados wrote:And you are basing your statement on what Fox?
Your admitted inability to understand the technical details? And since you don't understand it then we must assume that it is all not credible?
It is pretty obvious to me that you don't understand the technical details much better than I do, Parados.
I am curious how you can judge that since you admit you don't understand the technical details. Please cite where I got it wrong.
Quote:For me it is an annoyance when I see that the price of corn at the grocery store has doubled in a very short time as more and more corn is being diverted to ethanol production due to our most recent ambitious energy bill.
The corn you buy in the grocery store isn't the same type of corn being used for ethanol production. Sweet corn is the corn you eat as corn. Field corn is used for feeding animals and making corn products like corn sweetener.
geez, ican, do I really have to explain everything to you. If you are considering a system of explanation, and you want to see if it's valid, one thing you do is check to see if its predictions agree with the actually observed data. To test that, you have to use the hypotheses that system uses and the math it uses to see if its predictions work. You "accept it, for the sake of argumment" to see if it works. Tamino uses the ACRIM hypotheses and math and shows that it does not in fact account for the rise in temp. He's not accepting the ACRIM composite, he's showing that, using its own concepts, it doesn't , as a measure of solar varibility, explain what's going on with temperature rise.
Having trouble with short-term memory, ican? Most of the stuff I was talking about is on the ACRIM graph you posted. The 07 data that are in come from VIRGO and are on the graph that Parados and I have posted. SCROLL BACK, DAMMIT. I'm not gonna do everything for you. What else is bothering you?
parados wrote:Foxfyre wrote:parados wrote:And you are basing your statement on what Fox?
Your admitted inability to understand the technical details? And since you don't understand it then we must assume that it is all not credible?
It is pretty obvious to me that you don't understand the technical details much better than I do, Parados.
I am curious how you can judge that since you admit you don't understand the technical details. Please cite where I got it wrong.
Again I can read opinions about those technical details. Nuff said.
Quote:For me it is an annoyance when I see that the price of corn at the grocery store has doubled in a very short time as more and more corn is being diverted to ethanol production due to our most recent ambitious energy bill.
The corn you buy in the grocery store isn't the same type of corn being used for ethanol production. Sweet corn is the corn you eat as corn. Field corn is used for feeding animals and making corn products like corn sweetener.
Well it's also obvious that you've never lived in Kansas or Texas or Oklahoma or New Mexico, places where they really know corn.
In other words, when the corn harvest comes in here, it is field corn that most often shows up in the super markets because most of us prefer the larger ears and kernals and field corn just plain makes better roasting ears and a lot of us think it has a more pleasing texture and just plain tastes better. A fresh barrel of field corn roasting ears goes fast while the cellophane wrapped sweet corn goes begging in the produce department.
Most of the farmers around here plant the first two or three rows for folks to come pick for free or for a nominal fee and then the stalks along with the rest of the corn are harvested for cattle feed or whatever.
But the corn--all corn--is much more expensive right now than it was not all that long ago and that is also beginning to show up in the price of pork and beef too.
Given that oil is more efficient than ethanol as an energy source, I vote that we keep using oil for vehicle and heating fuel for the near future and go back to raising food to feed people.
corn price going up - "rice rustlers" in the paddies ! will "coorn rustlers" be next ?
Quote:Ian MacKinnon in Bangkok
April 5, 2008
Page 1 of 2
RECORD prices for rice, Asia's food staple, have triggered a novel phenomenon in central Thailand - rice-rustling, with fields being stripped as they are about to be harvested.
"I've never heard of it happening before, that people have stolen rice," said Lung Choop, who grows rice on his smallholding in Samblong village. "But it's happening now because rice is so expensive. I guess I'll have to guard my own distant fields when they're ready."
Across Asia, high prices have prompted countries to ban exports amid fears shortages could provoke food riots.
complete article :
RICE RUSTLERS
Global warming can be reduced if- only-if-
Germans- Brazilians, Indians and chinese make an effort.
Forget about other consume-oriented citizens.
Fox, I think you're right about corn vs. ethanol, but not necessarily about ethanol from other sources. It makes more sense , economically and carbon-ly, to keep farm food land for food rather than converting it. But poking around the internet, it seems that in Jan'06 in Brazil a consumer filled his car with (sugar cane waste) ethanol for $29 USD, while gas would have run him $36. And since then gas has increased by at least a third, and probably more. So the gap is probably wider (costs to produce cane have probably risen as well, but since you could probably use ethanol for most of the Brazilian machinery, most likely not as much). Apparently at least half the cars in Brazil can run on either or both, so the technology is certainly there. And "Fortune" magazine two years ago suggested that cellosic ethanol refineries were coming which could make ethanol from practically any plant material, not just sugar cane waste, but things like corn husks and prairie switchgrass. Haven't heard anything more about that, but it's to be considered.
user wrote :
Quote:it seems that in Jan'06 in Brazil a consumer filled his car with (sugar cane waste) ethanol for $29 USD, while gas would have run him $36.
we stopped over for a day in rio in march '06 . BIG - and i mean BIG - ads by GENERL MOTORS all over rio advertising their ETHANOL using cars .
and the ethanol is made entirely of waste sugarstalks that previously had been burned - a double winner imo .
apparently hawaii may want to re-activate it's sugar-cane fields to use the waste in power stations currently using imported oil - so we were told when visiting hawaii in '04 .
farmers wre looking forward to harvesting again - the fields had gone to waste because of low sugar world prices .
Foxfyre wrote:
Well it's also obvious that you've never lived in Kansas or Texas or Oklahoma or New Mexico, places where they really know corn.
In other words, when the corn harvest comes in here, it is field corn that most often shows up in the super markets because most of us prefer the larger ears and kernals and field corn just plain makes better roasting ears and a lot of us think it has a more pleasing texture and just plain tastes better. A fresh barrel of field corn roasting ears goes fast while the cellophane wrapped sweet corn goes begging in the produce department.
You are too precious Fox. Believe me. If you have ever tasted field corn you would know it isn't what they sell in the super markets.
I grew up on a farm and know the difference between the two. We planted corn every year. My brother still owns the farm and will be planting corn, field and sweet. Both are planted in a field by the way. He will get quite a kick out of your explanation of corn.
Farmers often plant one turn of the planter with sweet corn at the edge of a field. We did it all the time. Even cooked in sugar water, field corn is hard to eat. My mom did that one time when she picked from the wrong rows.
wiki has a good explanation of the problems of making cellulosic ethanol
Quote:Pretreatment
Although cellulose is the most abundant plant material resource, its susceptibility has been curtailed by its rigid structure. As the result, an effective pretreatment is needed to liberate the cellulose from the lignin seal and its crystalline structure so as to render it accessible for a subsequent hydrolysis step.[10] By far, most pretreatments are done through physical or chemical means. In order to achieve higher efficiency, some researchers seek to incorporate both effects.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
