Opens can of worms....Global Warming

[fstroupe]

BTW - China is changing it's tune and may sign on to the Kyoto before even us. They may be stubborn but not stupid.

I didn't quote the entire post, only a small, telling, part, but the entire post is relevant.

Now the discussion comes full circle. If you remember, in the beginning, you made fun of us for where we get our science....

You guys need to stop getting your education from news shows (as opposed to actual news - which seems to no longer exist in this country) and biased sites.

lol

and

But yeah....I'm just a scientist with a background in physical sciences. I couldn't possibly know as much as you guys.

Think what you want - use whatever numbers make you feel good.

I contend that you may be a scientist, but you haven't a clue about international politics, your sources being from the "blame America first" crowd. We may be an 800 pound gorilla, but there are a helluva lot of 90 pound weaklings that collectively contribute more than we do.

And you talk as if we've done nothing about it. We are pretty much the only ones that have done anything about it. We've spent the last 40 years controlling the problem. We were the first country in the world to do so.

Kyoto is merely a piece of paper designed for the US to pay to clean up the rest of the world. If I were China, I'd sign it too.

[MantaBase]

Originally Posted by fstroupe

I didn't quote the entire post, only a small, telling, part, but the entire post is relevant.

Now the discussion comes full circle. If you remember, in the beginning, you made fun of us for where we get our science....

andI contend that you may be a scientist, but you haven't a clue about international politics, your sources being from the "blame America first" crowd. We may be an 800 pound gorilla, but there are a helluva lot of 90 pound weaklings that collectively contribute more than we do.

And you talk as if we've done nothing about it. We are pretty much the only ones that have done anything about it. We've spent the last 40 years controlling the problem. We were the first country in the world to do so.

Kyoto is merely a piece of paper designed for the US to pay to clean up the rest of the world. If I were China, I'd sign it too.

What I know about international politics would fill a dixie cup.

I didn't say we've done nothing. I don't "blame the US first". I think of it more like - The US is among the most powerful (if not "the") countries, has the resources to clean up its own mess, and should.

This banter about it killing or economy is - banter. Did the clean water act kill our economy? Did the clean air act kill our economy? Did logging restrictions kill our economy? Did the ESA kill our economy? Did banning ddt kill our economy?

Nope.

And now, you can actually ride a bike to a forest and see a Bald Eagle perched over a lake that is not on fire :)

You make it sound like I'm blaming the US - but acually, it's that I don't care about other countries since I have no power to make any change at all in them. I can only affect (or is it effect?) change in the country I live in.

[Tech Geek Deluxe]

Actually the "green movement" is **political** "because" it has great potential to increase our growth and therefore support our economy and the world economy in various ways. [** Actually it is Political, Economic and Humanism/Religious ... but that would take a Documentary to detail. A Scriptwriter I know of is working on one and they will have it posted on globalpickle.com well before election time.]

This has been my gripe. Science is science, theories are right or wrong. Pollution is messy and damaging. We need to grow up and invent and improve efficient and clean methods to do what we need to do. However to assert a theory as fact and play the world population into believing it to support "growth" as a political economic solution for a debt based economy ... well ... I believe it is criminal.

Green is "in" but for the wrong reasons and disputably bad science.

Oh ... I see the logic ... I just don't agree with manipulation regardless if it is in the best interest of the sheeple ... however; I hope to do very well in "Currencies," "the US Dollar Index" which is at 1980's recession levels ... and new technologies that are waiting for a market explosion to take off in the "Stock Market." [If various agendas that support "Growth Economics" are established mainstream.]

[fstroupe]

You make it sound like I'm blaming the US - but acually, it's that I don't care about other countries since I have no power to make any change at all in them. I can only affect (or is it effect?) change in the country I live in.

No, not at all. (I didn't get to complete my thoughts, I had to leave for work) You told us early in the discussion that you weren't into politics. But, those in power that pushed for Kyoto etc, along with most of the media, do.

I don't care about the other countries either, but I don't want the US punished by signing a treaty that none of the other countries will honor, but will attack us for not honoring. Actually, many of the other countries will be allowed MORE greenhouses gases than they presently produce. I don't care much for Bush, but I will say that he made the right decision with Kyoto.

You are correct that the measures you mentioned didn't kill the national economy. But, many of them did hurt local economies, i.e. the loss of the steel industry in PA...which also hurt the coal industry in WV, much of the NW US is still reeling from the loss of the timber industry (though my part of the country made out big-time due to the foresight of the late senator John Stennis...whose multi-billion dollar pork barrel project of the Tennessee Tombigbee waterway created a huge new timber industry in TN, ALA, and MS), and there still hasn't been an effective replacement for DDT in the agricultural industry.

And, that is another place where the politics come in. No one in Washington wants to sign a bill that will screw their state's local economies....thus committing political suicide. Sure, the dems are paying it lip service now...but let a bill come up that would hurt San Francisco (Pelosi) or Las Vegas (Harry Reid), and see how fast they disappear from the House/Senate/

But, you are quite right, it was all for the best, the big picture was more important. We still aren't where we could be, but we are infinitely away from where we were.

When we passed the first pollution control measures in 1968, it was for the right reasons. They were hard fought, but common sense won out. We are among the least polluted industrialized nations per capita in the world...though that fact would shock most people...our most polluted city is (or was early last year) the 40th most polluted city in the world, with the top 16 being in China. LA will never be much less polluted than it is, due to the lack of upper air currents, etc. The same problem that several of those Chinese cities have, along with Mexico City.

China and India are where we were 1900-1960. We knew that we were really screwing our environment up, but to build your economy, you have to have industry...and putting strict pollution controls on the industry slows down economy growth. Coal is cheap, and burning it cleanly costs a lot of money.

It is one of the reasons that the American steel industry died...but at least foliage is once again growing in PA where the steel mills were.

But, when China and India finally decide to do something about it, at least we already have the technology...though they will probably steal it rather than purchase it.

*******

I have a question, that you science guys may or may not can answer, something I have been thinking about for a while but haven't researched, something you touched on. Does burning ethanol or other bio-fuels produce less greenhouse gases than burning fossil fuels?

I do agree that we should lessen our dependence on fossil fuels now, but more for political/security reasons. I also believe that we should eventually get away from them totally, but at this point in time it isn't practical...ethanol from corn is an energy loser, hydrogen cells produce more greenhouse gases than oil, electric vehicles still require recharging to some extent, people are terrified of nuclear energy and we still don't have an acceptable answer for the waste, etc.

The US is shelling out more R&D dollars right now for alternative energy sources than ever in history. BUT>>>that isn't the answer, it never has been the answer. The answers are always found by corporations looking for profitable ways of solving the problems. If there hadn't been auto fuel mileage regulations along with "the fuel shortage" in the 1970s (the beginning of rising fuel prices), it is pretty doubtful that there would yet be any cars in the US getting more than 25mpg. (I still don't understand the SUV thing, but the day of the >20mpg SUV is slowly passing away).

Brazil (the main country that is eliminating gasoline) is doing it for political and economic reasons, they import 100% of their oil, mostly from Venezuela. They have a serious surplus of sugar cane, as it grows wild there. (I'm sure that you know that sugar cane is a much more efficient way to produce ethanol than corn) Also, though many people have cars, they really aren't a necessity for most people, as there is relatively little automobile travel between Rio, Sao Paulo, and Brazilia, due to the distance between them and the condition of the roads. My friend that lives in Brazilia does own a car and drives it around the city, but mainly because he has been Americanized enough to feel the need. (he grew up in Brazil, but his mother was from Canada, and he has spent time both in the US and Canada) Most everything he needs is within walking distance, and they also have a pretty good public transit system. He just likes owning a car...however much of a piece of crap it is.

I do believe that we also should look at eliminating more greenhouse gases. But, as I stated earlier, I don't believe that the sky is falling, and knee-jerk reactions to the problem is the wrong thing.

[MantaBase]

Originally Posted by fstroupe

You are correct that the measures you mentioned didn't kill the national economy. But, many of them did hurt local economies, i.e. the loss of the steel industry in PA...which also hurt the coal industry in WV, much of the NW US is still reeling from the loss of the timber industry (though my part of the country made out big-time due to the foresight of the late senator John Stennis...whose multi-billion dollar pork barrel project of the Tennessee Tombigbee waterway created a huge new timber industry in TN, ALA, and MS), and there still hasn't been an effective replacement for DDT in the agricultural industry.

Sure - but keep in mind, that at least when it comes to some of these impacts, they were already in the wind and would have happened anyway. There were sites that waterway dumping had become so bad that you could literally light the water on fire (well, not water really). Logging wise - it was inevitable as well - if we had done nothing we would (by now) have nothing. ANyways - I'm in a rush....

I have a question, that you science guys may or may not can answer, something I have been thinking about for a while but haven't researched, something you touched on. Does burning ethanol or other bio-fuels produce less greenhouse gases than burning fossil fuels?

That is actually a very complex question. The simple answer is ethanol produces about the same CO2 from the tail pipe. CO production is lower as is SO2 (which I think is almost nil in a gas car anyway). Other gases I'm not sure.

I can't give you an ultimate answer....

But, its a far more complicated question than it sounds because the production of it apparently requires less energy than fossil fuels do and the CO2 it releases is not from a permanent sink but from an annual one. If we didn't plant more corn to make it, the CO2 at least would be "a wash".

OTOH, while is has a very high octane rating (E85 is ~100 depending on how they made it), it produces less power - thus you use more. Thus it requires more energy to fill the tank.

And on and on.

Ethanol from corn will be pretty short lived IMO. Ethanol in general may fair better - not sure.

Gotta go

[fstroupe]

Yeah, the water and chemical pollution was getting very ridiculous. I can't remember which river actually did burn, was a big deal. The Potomac and the Chicago Shit Ditch (riverman's name for the upper Illinois river) were outright toxic. Both are now safe for swimming.

As far as the ethanol question, that's plenty enough. More than what I asked for, answered some other questions I was wondering about but didn't ask. All pretty much what I had assumed, just hadn't researched. Thanks.

[MantaBase]

Originally Posted by fstroupe

As far as the ethanol question, that's plenty enough. More than what I asked for, answered some other questions I was wondering about but didn't ask. All pretty much what I had assumed, just hadn't researched. Thanks.

Yeah - this is the frustrating part about science in both theory and reality.

If I had just answered your question honestly - and only your question - you would have the wrong answer (although, an answer based in fact).

If I had an agenda (which, we all really do), I could basically of cherry picked whatever I wanted and thrown it up as facts - Facts BTW that have more merit than many I see coming from pundits on either side (but the right side pundits are worse - IME - on this subject).

Allow me to vent here a moment:

Bobby Joe (name of a relative of mine): Will my outhouse location contaminate my well?

Scientist:Well, not knowing where your outhouse is, I can't say for sure. But if it's up gradient from your well, then maybe.

Bobby Joe: OK, so you don't know even something so basic as that. You scientists don't know anything - Limbag was right. You don't even have common sense!

Scientist: just put it down gradient from the well

Time Passes........

Bobby Joe: My well is infected and it's your fault!

Scientist: How so?

Booby Joe: I put my outhouse 5 feet away from the well but down gradient like you said - and the well is contaminated.

_____________________

And folks blame the Scientists and say they have no common sense.

Welcome to America :)

[MantaBase]

Oh - BTW - something you need to keep in mind and know - so you know I am not an end all source - I'm a physical general scientist with a back ground in planetary systems, electron theory, arid environments, geomorph, Martian water and wind issues, and (oddly) mine reclamation and environmental management (I am a state certified environmental manager/agent, pending EPA inspector (basically for lead issues but RCRA issues soon I hope)), and EPO consultant (planetary and maping only). I can model and understand the data. Impressive yes (well, to many folks) - but global warming is not my specialty. I understand the data better than most - and I understand what6 is behind them - but I am not a Climatologist.

[Stormcrow]

Ethanol is an alcohol, and as such it's already partially oxygenated before being burned. Since it has a higher overall oxygen content, it produces far less carbon monoxide, but equally greater carbon dioxide. Ethanol also releases 27% less energy then gasoline if I remember right, so while cheaper it also burns more quickly to get the same energy output as standard gas. For the US, we're only getting a 30% saving by converting corn products into ethanol, when factoring in the energy used to produce it since our infrastructure still relies on imported fossil fuels. Brazil on the other hand, gets a 800% production rate from it's cane sugar ethanol. Fun little map that has the details here: Biofuel Interactive - National Geographic Magazine

Also keep in mind that the more corn we convert to ethanol, the more this is going to rise the cost of just about everything. Corn and corn meal is used in most premade food items, is used in feed for livestock, and corn also exhausts the soil when planted in one spot continuously, so while we have a lot of good land for planting we have to rotate crops and it's more difficult to step up production of corn itself. The US doesn't have the environmental conditions to wean itself off oil completely like Brazil has with just Ethanol.

[RA1D]

there is too much reality in this thread. i think i'll go find more pr0n to d/l