Global Warming vs. Terrorism

On the news this morning was a report linking American forest fires to global warming.

0 Replies

Thats par for the course now plainoldme. Global warming is now the cause of all natural catastrophes, including hurricanes, floods, droughts, hot spells, cold spells, tornadoes, and now forest fires. I probably left something out, but yes, all natural disasters are now caused by global warming. Thats a fact, plainoldme. We never had any of these things ever before to the extent they are happening now, plainoldme. This should be very obvious to everybody and it is all supported by scientific evidence. If something isn't done now, it is only going to get worse, probably much much worse.

0 Replies

Okie -- You believe in superstition. I bet you have never taken responsibility for anything in your life and that is the primary reason why you don't accept the evidence ALL AROUND YOU for global warming.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

This link shows ethanol produced the equivalent of about 300,000 barrels per day in August, 2005.

http://www.ethanol.org/PressRelease10.24.05.htm

Admittedly, the production will grow, Parados, but if you consider the fact that only a minor percentage of that figure is net gain, in other words, I don't know the exact figure but I would guess maybe 200,000 barrels or more are consumed in producing the ethanol. Add to this the fact that perhaps ethanol does not produce the equivalent mpg in vehicles. At least it does not in mine.

I am all for ethanol if it proves its efficiency in the market place, but I do not see it as the magic bullet, and I am not enthusiastic about subsidizing an inefficient industry.

Where did you get your 200,000 figure? It takes no ethanol to produce ethanol. You can do it completely with diesel fuel and coal.

You do realize that a barrel of ethanol is not equivalent to a barrel of oil. You only get about 21 gallons of gasoline from a barrel of oil. You get 42 gallons of ethanol from a barrel of ethanol.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Where did you get your 200,000 figure? It takes no ethanol to produce ethanol. You can do it completely with diesel fuel and coal.

You do realize that a barrel of ethanol is not equivalent to a barrel of oil. You only get about 21 gallons of gasoline from a barrel of oil. You get 42 gallons of ethanol from a barrel of ethanol.

Depending on which study you accept, ethanol shows a net gain or a net loss in energy. Several studies show a net gain, and I've picked the following site that seems to argue your point of view:

http://www.ethanol.org/documents/NetEnergyBalanceissuebrief_000.pdf

From this document, if I am interpreting the figures correctly, it takes roughly 60% of the amount of energy contained in the ethanol produced to produce the ethanol. Granted, the energy used to make ethanol may come from other forms of energy, such as coal, natural gas, etc, but bottom line if you translate it all into an equation of ethanol, if you produce about 300,000 barrels of ethanol, it would take roughly an equivalent of 60% or that quantity, or roughly 180,000 barrels of ethanol, leaving a net gain of only 120,000 barrels of ethanol production per day.

It would be interesting to know what the net gain of energy is involved with producing useable forms of energy, such as gasoline, from oil pumped out of the ground, but I am guessing it is far better than the ratio involved with ethanol. And in the case of natural gas, it seems the ratio would be exceptionally attractive. Coal may not be quite as attractive because of the mining and transportation required to bring the coal to the point of producing energy, but I am guessing it is still far better than ethanol. I did a quick search on the web, but was unable to find the data for oil, natural gas, or coal, but I am sure the information is probably available somewhere.

0 Replies

Okie- Of course, Kyoto does not work. It is clear that the European scolds, who try to be oh so superior to the USA since they envy our unmatched personal GDP averages, are failing in their promises to live up to the Kyoto targets.

I am sure that you are aware that the Senate of the US voted 95-0 NOT to accept Kyoto as far back as July 1997 mainly because the "developing countries of China and India did not have to go along with the Kyoto Protocol because they were "developing".

Only two of the countries in the EU have met their Kyoto targets. One of them is Germany who, according to the New York Times profited from the shutdown of old inefficient Coal Fired Plants in the old East German section. HOWEVER, this will be a shortlived celebration since German Industry is building eight huge polluting coal fired power plants.

0 Replies

Bernard, I am aware of Kyoto being soundly shut out in Congress, so I find it humorous when Democrats criticize Bush for not pushing Kyoto, when they themselves voted against it. Actually, it is more than humorous, it is pathetic and it clearly illustrates the blatant hypocrisy.

0 Replies

Now, Okie, American Forest Fires are being linked to "Global Warming"!!

Complete Idiocy.

Charles Krauthammer, in an article "Environmentalists testing the limits to our credulity" wrote:

We have been lectured incessantly on how prideful man is spewing tons of fossil fuel carbon dixoide into the atmosphere causing global warming. We've been told further that this desecration of nature will ultimately wipe out winter, turn Kansas to desert and put Long Island under water.

Now comes the exact opposite climatic event- a monster snowstorm--and that too, is caused by our sinning against Gaia?

Yes, holds the news variation in environmental scolding. Global warming is now the cause NOT JUST OF WARMING BUT OF ALL WEATHER 'EXTREMES' I.E. CALAMITIES. HOW? WARMING INCREASES WATER EVAPORATION, ADDING MOISTURE AND ENERGY TO THE ATMOSPHERE MAKING FOR MOR RAIN AND STORMS AND MIRABLE DICTU,"MORE SEVERE DROUGHTS" AS WELL.

Huh, exact opposites again? Yes, writes the Times WIlliam Stevens :In cases where the atmosphereic circulation conspires to keep rain away from a given area.

So global warming has now become a theory of everything, or at least everything bad: rain, snow, heat, cold, storms, drought. You name it."

end of quote

It is clear to me, Okie, that not only have the purveyors of the theory of Global Warming NOT proved that the end is near and that the temperature may not rise more than one degree world wide by 2050 in which case there will be more than enough technological development to make the one degree rise mean very little, they have not shown that, if thier panic solutions were followed( When one looks at the large numbers by which the hypocrites in the EU are not meeting their Kyoto guidelines, it is clear that they are NOT FOLLOWING THE PANIC SOLUTIONS) the cost of following Kyoto guidelines would be immense and WOULD NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM LAID OUT BY THE PANIC MONGERS>

0 Replies

First, this whole anti-ethanol campaign is the product of the supporters of Lyndon LaRouche. Wow! What a source!

Second, since when is Charles Krautheimer an authority on climate?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:
Where did you get your 200,000 figure? It takes no ethanol to produce ethanol. You can do it completely with diesel fuel and coal.

You do realize that a barrel of ethanol is not equivalent to a barrel of oil. You only get about 21 gallons of gasoline from a barrel of oil. You get 42 gallons of ethanol from a barrel of ethanol.

Depending on which study you accept, ethanol shows a net gain or a net loss in energy. Several studies show a net gain, and I've picked the following site that seems to argue your point of view:

http://www.ethanol.org/documents/NetEnergyBalanceissuebrief_000.pdf

From this document, if I am interpreting the figures correctly, it takes roughly 60% of the amount of energy contained in the ethanol produced to produce the ethanol. Granted, the energy used to make ethanol may come from other forms of energy, such as coal, natural gas, etc, but bottom line if you translate it all into an equation of ethanol, if you produce about 300,000 barrels of ethanol, it would take roughly an equivalent of 60% or that quantity, or roughly 180,000 barrels of ethanol, leaving a net gain of only 120,000 barrels of ethanol production per day.

It would be interesting to know what the net gain of energy is involved with producing useable forms of energy, such as gasoline, from oil pumped out of the ground, but I am guessing it is far better than the ratio involved with ethanol. And in the case of natural gas, it seems the ratio would be exceptionally attractive. Coal may not be quite as attractive because of the mining and transportation required to bring the coal to the point of producing energy, but I am guessing it is still far better than ethanol. I did a quick search on the web, but was unable to find the data for oil, natural gas, or coal, but I am sure the information is probably available somewhere.

Energy can not be created or destroyed. To create stored energy requires energy. Ethanol is basically an energy storage system.

A battery requires more energy than it holds to charge it because some energy is lost in the conversion. That doesn't mean that it requires 120% of the battery to charge it nor does it mean we shouldn't use batteries. It doesn't take 60% of ethanol to create ethanol. It takes 60% of the energy in ethanol perhaps but that doesn't equate to 60% of ethanol. A BTU is a poor choice of measuring energy stored since it ignores the conversion equation to turn it into mechanical energy. Something that stores 100 BTUs but is 10% efficient would be worse than something that stores 50 BTUs and is 50% efficient.

Lets assume we can charge batteries with electricity produced from hydroelectric power. If we aren't charging the battery the electricty is lost because you can't store it any other way. So, in reality you aren't losing electricity by converting it to a battery you are saving what would otherwise be lost. We save 50% of the hydroelectric power by putting it into a battery vs 0% by not putting it there. By converting the energy to a stored system we get a lot more potential energy than if we don't.

0 Replies

Since when is Plain Ol Me an expert on anything? I would suggest that Plain Ol Me should be able to rebut anything from a person that is NOT an expert ( Mr. Krauthammer). Here it is, Ms. Plain Ol Me--Anyone who is an expert in Literature should be easily able to rebut Mr. Krauthammer. Plain Ol Me will not find any problems or mistakes in Mr. Krauthammer's essay. First of all, it is factual. Secondly, even if there were mistakes in his essay, I am sure that Plain Ol Me could not do it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, Okie, American Forest Fires are being linked to "Global Warming"!!

Complete Idiocy.

Charles Krauthammer, in an article "Environmentalists testing the limits to our credulity" wrote:

We have been lectured incessantly on how prideful man is spewing tons of fossil fuel carbon dixoide into the atmosphere causing global warming. We've been told further that this desecration of nature will ultimately wipe out winter, turn Kansas to desert and put Long Island under water.

Now comes the exact opposite climatic event- a monster snowstorm--and that too, is caused by our sinning against Gaia?

Yes, holds the news variation in environmental scolding. Global warming is now the cause NOT JUST OF WARMING BUT OF ALL WEATHER 'EXTREMES' I.E. CALAMITIES. HOW? WARMING INCREASES WATER EVAPORATION, ADDING MOISTURE AND ENERGY TO THE ATMOSPHERE MAKING FOR MOR RAIN AND STORMS AND MIRABLE DICTU,"MORE SEVERE DROUGHTS" AS WELL.

Huh, exact opposites again? Yes, writes the Times WIlliam Stevens :In cases where the atmosphereic circulation conspires to keep rain away from a given area.

So global warming has now become a theory of everything, or at least everything bad: rain, snow, heat, cold, storms, drought. You name it."

end of quote

It is clear to me, Okie, that not only have the purveyors of the theory of Global Warming NOT proved that the end is near and that the temperature may not rise more than one degree world wide by 2050 in which case there will be more than enough technological development to make the one degree rise mean very little, they have not shown that, if thier panic solutions were followed( When one looks at the large numbers by which the hypocrites in the EU are not meeting their Kyoto guidelines, it is clear that they are NOT FOLLOWING THE PANIC SOLUTIONS) the cost of following Kyoto guidelines would be immense and WOULD NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM LAID OUT BY THE PANIC MONGERS>

0 Replies

It seems Mr Krauthammer doesn't know the difference between climate and weather.

Snow storms require weather conditions that would not occur if it is colder. Myabe Mr Krauthammer has never heard the phrase, "it's too cold to snow"?

Do you know what the jet stream is or how it is affected by the seasons? It appears that Mr Krauthammer doesn't.

Forest fires are linked to global warming because an earlier snow melt means a longer burning season. Maybe Mr Krauthammer doesn't realize different seasons have different rainfall amounts.

Those dang scientists testing Mr Krauthammer's credulity. How can something come down if it is going up? How can more rain one place mean less in another? Don't scientists realize when it rains it rains everywhere?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

It seems Mr Krauthammer doesn't know the difference between climate and weather.

Snow storms require weather conditions that would not occur if it is colder. Myabe Mr Krauthammer has never heard the phrase, "it's too cold to snow"?

Do you know what the jet stream is or how it is affected by the seasons? It appears that Mr Krauthammer doesn't.

Forest fires are linked to global warming because an earlier snow melt means a longer burning season. Maybe Mr Krauthammer doesn't realize different seasons have different rainfall amounts.

Those dang scientists testing Mr Krauthammer's credulity. How can something come down if it is going up? How can more rain one place mean less in another? Don't scientists realize when it rains it rains everywhere?

Krauthammer puts you to shame, Parados. What you fail to see is that Krauthammer has simplified the logic by explaining it in easily understood terms. He clearly understands overall warming might cause unexpected effects depending on where you are, conceivably droughts and floods, I say conceivably. The theory to get there is circuitous and perhaps even torturous. People that have some common sense see the scientific hoops needed to jump through to get to the desired conclusion, Parados. Krauthammer is simply saying he doesn't buy it all.

Yes, maybe floods and droughts could be caused by global warming. The only problem is, these have been happening since time began, Parados.

0 Replies

That's nice okie. And I don't buy yours, or Bernards or Mr Krauthammers lack of science. Feel free to keep touting unscientific items and claiming they trump science. They don't.

0 Replies

I have, unfortunately missed the scientific references made by Mr.Parados.

I am very much afraid that Mr.Parados knows very very little about science. I will refer to Mr. Krauthammer's article again and invite Mr. Parados to display his scientific knowledge by rebutting Mr. Krauthammer's references. I am fairly certain that Mr. Parados will not do so because, if his past posts are any criterion, he cannot rebut.

Here are the SCIENTIFIC sources used by Mr. Krauthammer in his article cited previously:

quote:

"Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas points out that in Northern Europe over the last thousand years, the increased devastation and occurence of storms is closely linked to cooler rather than warmer temperatures. Sublime conditions occured during the 10th -12th centuries( roughly 1 degree C warmer than now) In the 13th century, when a cooling began that lasted centuries, storms and sea flooding in the area around the North Sea increased dramatically in severity and frequency"

I will wait for Mr. Parados to rebut the scientific opinion expressed above, but I am fairly certain that all I will get is an unreferenced and ignorant response, if any at all.

I am sure you have observed the phenomenon, Okie. When they can't rebut an argument, they either make personal attacks or behave as if they had not been thoroughly shown up by an argument against their claims.

0 Replies

Krauthammer is an unpleasant, biased sort of person. Resemble anyone we know?

0 Replies

Okie- Do you see that when Mr. Parados reads( I think he reads but given his apparent lack of understanding of simple ideas, I am not sure) Mr. Krauthammer's article on anomalies in the climate buttressed by statements from one of the world's leading Climatologists, he doesn't know what to do. Here is the quote from Dr. Baliunas again.

"Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas points out that in Northern Europe over the last thousand years, the increased devastation and occurence of storms is closely linked to cooler rather than warmer temperatures. Sublime conditions occured during the 10th -12th centuries( roughly 1 degree C warmer than now) In the 13th century, when a cooling began that lasted centuries, storms and sea flooding in the area around the North Sea increased dramatically in severity and frequency"

Now all Mr. Parados has to do is to show SPECIFICALLY how and why Dr. Baliunas' points are in error.

Don't hold your breath, Okie!!!

0 Replies

Krauthammer is rarely right on anything. He is a very biased conservative, who evidently doesn't value his credibility very much. I guess that is why the right likes him so much.

0 Replies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okie- Do you see that when Mr. Parados reads( I think he reads but given his apparent lack of understanding of simple ideas, I am not sure) Mr. Krauthammer's article on anomalies in the climate buttressed by statements from one of the world's leading Climatologists, he doesn't know what to do. Here is the quote from Dr. Baliunas again.

"Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas points out that in Northern Europe over the last thousand years, the increased devastation and occurence of storms is closely linked to cooler rather than warmer temperatures. Sublime conditions occured during the 10th -12th centuries( roughly 1 degree C warmer than now) In the 13th century, when a cooling began that lasted centuries, storms and sea flooding in the area around the North Sea increased dramatically in severity and frequency"

Now all Mr. Parados has to do is to show SPECIFICALLY how and why Dr. Baliunas' points are in error.

Don't hold your breath, Okie

0 Replies

It is pretty sad that Bernie has to resort to spamming.

0 Replies

Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know