Global Warming - scientific consensus - media misled us

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Global Warming - scie

I've thought about applying for a grant ... If anyone knows where I can apply for such a grant, please leave me a link.

http://www.nserc.gc.ca/index.htm

I'm inclined to be a little doubtful about your third project there, the micro-channelled fuel zapper. You're telling me I could get 320 miles per gallon in my 1993 Camry with this device? Have you done the energy calculation, i.e. how many Btu in a gallon of fuel versus how many Btu it takes to keep a few thousand pounds of car going at highway speeds? And what's up with the claim about water in the fuel enhancing combustion? Water and gasoline don't mix very well, and if you do try to mix them they'll separate pretty quickly as soon as you stop agitating them. You'll need a blender in the fuel tank to keep them emulsified.

 

[razorgrade]

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Dec05/Adams1202.htm

[I found a new news outlet!]

The propoaganda that led the public to believe that global warming is not real is guilty of conspiracy in the greatest crime of all time against the planet earth.


By definition, a "scientific consensus on global warming" is the view of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. That view is now this:
"Human-induced global warming is occurring and it is presently necessary to take action to curtail production of greenhouse gases."

But Americans don't know there is one, and so they don't feel the urgency they would if they did know. Therefore, their greenhouse gas reductions are not going to occur.

quote:
"the percentage of Americans who believes a scientific consensus exists is still disturbingly small, around 50% (PIPA 2005). This is a remarkably small percentage considering an unassailable scientific consensus has existed for well over a decade. That progress in understanding has been extremely slow is due, in no small part, to the efforts of the energy industry to misinform the public. "


Read more at the link!
Karlin

just like the number of people who believed that Columbus would fall off the edge of the earth !

most of us would not be here today if he had

 

[Jersay]

just like the number of people who believed that Columbus would fall off the edge of the earth !

So why is the world getting warmer?

Why are we having more natural disasters?

Global warming, because of pollution, known fact.

 

[Karlin]

As far as global warming goes, sure, its got to be having an effect to pump some 150 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year for 100 years.

But there is that other big issue - bad air toxic pollution from emissions.

We want to reduce the pollution, as well as the greenhouse gasses that cause global warming.
How? Simply Reduce emissions!! - there are two reasons we cannot deny anymore. Take your pick but you cannot deny the problem is there and the solution is to reduce fossil fuel emission. It is not unreasoanble.

Kill two bad birds with one stone - Reduce Fossil Fuel Emissions

If we have it wrong about global warming, we are still getting a huge benefit to our health by reducing the pollution. Emissions are harmfull and we have let industry make a bundle by letting them get away without cleaning up after themselves.

We can tell that we are not making any progress in making significant progress in fighting global warming until we hear our politicians start to say "Fossil Fuels" as being the focus of what needs to be reduced.
We do not hear that we must "Reduce the Use of Fossil Fuels" Watch for it, they just won't finger the primary problem product.

 

[Freethinker]

We want to reduce the pollution, as well as the greenhouse gasses that cause global warming.
How? Simply Reduce emissions!! - there are two reasons we cannot deny anymore. Take your pick but you cannot deny the problem is there and the solution is to reduce fossil fuel emission. It is not unreasoanble.

Kill two bad birds with one stone - Reduce Fossil Fuel Emissions

It seems insane that we are not doing more. Add one more benefit. Economics. We will save money if we burn less fuel.

The problem is that people generally only act in their own short term interest. I think we can only get movement with more gas taxes and more tax rebates on fuel efficient cars. The european car fleet probably has 50% + fuel economy advantage over the North American fleet because of expensive gas.

 

[jimmoyer]

Just finished watching a 60 Minutes CBS show on
global warming this sunday night Feb 19.

1979 showed the polar cap into Canada.
Now very receded.

I think our only chance is some leadership and some
inventor to find short term profit in oil independence.

Pitting capitalists and government and environmentalists
against each other is no solution.

 

[I think not]

The US has been increasing it E85 use. It is now available in about 43 out of 50 states. For those who don't know what E85 is, it's 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. GM, Ford and Chrysler has been spitting out E85 use vehicles at a rate of 1,000,000 per year. By 2015 it is etsimated that 50% of autos in the US will run on E85 and that's good news in my book.

 

[Freethinker]

The US has been increasing it E85 use. It is now available in about 43 out of 50 states. For those who don't know what E85 is, it's 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. GM, Ford and Chrysler has been spitting out E85 use vehicles at a rate of 1,000,000 per year. By 2015 it is etsimated that 50% of autos in the US will run on E85 and that's good news in my book.

Not the solution. It takes more energy to create ethanol than you get out of it.

http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

• Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.

 

[jimmoyer]

But ethanol production has 3 benefits, getting
better at prices than regular gas, and as a farm subsidy,
and one more angle at oil independence.

And that's what keeps the ethanol program thriving.

 

[I think not]

Freethinker

That's old news, here's your update:

The US Department of Agriculture reports a net energy balance for ethanol production of 1.67. In other words, for every one unit of energy used to produce ethanol and its accompanying co-products, 1.67 units of energy results. However, the US Department of Energy reports that petroleum refining can actually have a negative energy balance. For example, every unit of energy expended in gasoline production is reported to result in only 0.79 units of energy in the form of gasoline.

http://www.cleanairchoice.org/outdoor/E85Background.asp

 

[Freethinker]

Energy reports that petroleum refining can actually have a negative energy balance. For example, every unit of energy expended in gasoline production is reported to result in only 0.79 units of energy in the form of gasoline.

You know that doesn't make any sense. If it takes more energy to refine gasoline than you get out of it. Then the system should grind to a halt, since petroleum is the dominant energy system.

E85 on the other hand can use more energy on the input side than on the output, since it is fringe system. A system that only exists because of massive subsidies.

Also you don't think there is a slight information source, conflict from the department of agriculture through which flows Billions in Ethanol subsidies?

Let's look for more information sources...
Here is another newer study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm

6 units of energy into producing 1.

 

[jimmoyer]

Actually the ethanol market is productive
because:

1. acts as a farm subsidy
2. lowers somewhat oil dependence
3. allows competitive prices at the pump
4. economy of size and technology is getting better

 

[I think not]

Freethinker

I tend to believe it is viable for two main reasons, it has become cost efficient to the extent that auto manufacturers and gasoline stations market the alternative fuel. In others words there appears to be a market for it.

 

[Freethinker]

Re: RE: Global Warming - scientific consensus - media misled

Actually the ethanol market is productive
because:

1. acts as a farm subsidy
2. lowers somewhat oil dependence
3. allows competitive prices at the pump
4. economy of size and technology is getting better

1: Why are subsidies a good thing? They generally encourage innefficiency. Why not grow something that is actually economically sustainable? Or do something else if more growing isn't necessary. Why not subsidize textiles, steel, the auto industry etc.?

2: It only lowers oil dependence if it has positive net energy output, which is somewhat in dispute.

3: ???? It cost more than a gallon of gas to produce, and contains less energy, it can't be competitive unless it is subsidised.

4: Fine and dandy if it can stand on it's own, as it is now it is huge corporate wellfare scheme.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2002/08/28/164174.html

• When you add up all the targeted government subsidies for ethanol, including federal price supports, a generous federal excise tax exemption worth more than 5 cents a gallon at the pump, various tax credits, and subsidized grain exports, the taxpayer tab amounts to more than $7 billion over the last 16 years. (And ethanol still costs more than regular gasoline.) These government giveaways are on top of the abominable $200 billion farm bill signed into law by President Bush, which will pay farmers some $4 billion a year to grow more corn for subsidized ethanol production. It's not the small family farmers that reap the rewards. It's the suits at ADM, whose every $1 of profits earned by ethanol operation is estimated to cost taxpayers $30. This corporate bilking of the public, and the Beltway collusion that enables it, ought to be criminal.

 

[jimmoyer]

Freethinker, I had a feeling you
were going to come up with info on that matter.

Interesting. I don't know enough to consider either
side of the ethanol industry having the final word.

And what of Alberta's shale oil, is that not like
some of the economics of ethanol where both become
more competitive as the price of oil goes higher ?

 

[Freethinker]

Re: RE: Global Warming - scientific consensus - media misled

Interesting. I don't know enough to consider either
side of the ethanol industry having the final word.

And what of Alberta's shale oil, is that not like
some of the economics of ethanol where both become
more competitive as the price of oil goes higher ?

I am not familiar with any massive ongoing government subsidy in Alberta. When prices get to a certain level it become profitable to extract, when oil drops so does production.

Billions that are spent subsidising ethanol this can easily mask the real truth of the net energy production. If you have billions to throw around, put them into research. If subsidies are needed only put them in at the pump level, so we can see the real cost per gallon.

In the end it is not my country spending my tax dollars on this, so I really don't care that much. It just seems unlikely to have any real impact.

How about converting coal to methanol. The USA has enough to last a century, and the conversion process is supposed to be much cheaper than ethanol, but no billion dollar subsidies for the Agro belt.

 

[I think not]

Freethinker

I believe in the end a multitude of technologies will make a difference, nuclear, ethanol, wind, solar etc.

The coal deposits in the US will also make a huge difference in my opinion. The FutureGen Project comes to mind. Check it out:

Department of Energy - FutureGen

 

[Mulder]

I'll try to answer 'Jersays' questions as best I can:

So why is the world getting warmer?

If you can believe it the Earth is entering an interglacial period, which means it is warming naturally and is the main reason for glaciers shrinking and the reduced snow pack on north and south extremes of the planet.

Why are we having more natural disasters?

As the Earth warms, its' oceans warm up also, which provides most of the energy for tropical weather like hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones. Interesting to note that as the Atlantic Ocean warms up the east coast, this means hurricanes can travel further north, as did hurricane Juan which was a category 2 when it reach Atlantic Canada.

Also, the back and forth nature of El Nino and La Nina in the Pacific create thier own set of unique weather phenomenon. In time we'll learn more about how the warming of the Pacific affects these, but more likely it will produce more intense El Ninos when they occur.

Global warming, because of pollution, known fact.

Not entirely, Earth has cooled and warmed many times on it's very own. Mankind is just speeding up this process this time around, so we'll have to see how our fair planet reacts. Be prepared!!