Re: [asa] Re: global warming

No disagreement from me, Christine. I was only commenting on one facet
of the issue. The whole cycle has to be addressed.

But -- assuming a ear of corn IS grown,
and assuming an ethenol plant is available to use it,
I think my comment is correct -- that thre is no net effect on CO2 in
the atmosphere.

jb

On 6/13/08, Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Burgy,
>
> The question of ethanol is more complicated than just
> the CO2 the corn extracts from the air and then
> returns to it when combusted. It involves other
> factors like:
>
> - how much fuel (and what type?) had to be combusted
> to raise and transport the corn?
> - if land was cleared to establish a corn field, how
> much CO2 was released from that process?
> - How much nitrous oxide (a more potent greenhouse gas
> than CO2) was released during the farming process from
> the soil?
>
> Ultimately, the question of ethanol (and any biofuel
> for that matter) depends on what type of feedstock is
> used, and further, what techniques you use to
> grow/produce your feedstocks. Cellulosic and
> algae-based biofuels are arguably the best, both
> because the processes used to make it are typically
> more efficient on a life-cycle basis, and because you
> side-step the food vs. fuel debate (which from my
> viewpoint, isn't really a debate-food that could be
> used for human consumption should NEVER be used as
> fuels while there are still starving people in the
> world).
>
> In short, biofuels will benefit us ONLY if they are
> done right. In that spirit, I am supportive of
> cellulosic and algae-based biofuels (and maybe
> sugar-based), but rather skeptical of corn-based
> ethanol.
>
> In Christ,
> Christine (ASA member)
>
> --- j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6/13/08, drsyme@cablespeed.com
> > <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Is it just me or does it seem obvious that, in the
> > big picture, the answer
> > > to both of these problems is the same? We have to
> > stop burning fossil
> > > fuels.
> > >
> > Yes. Interesting enough, ethanol does not have GW
> > effects. An ear of
> > corn, whether it rots on the stalk, is eaten, or
> > turned into fuel,
> > only returns to the atmosphere what it already used
> > in growing.
> >
> > > Of course the details are not so simple. I
> > suspect that there is not going
> > > to be any one energy source that is going to save
> > us, but we should be
> > > working very hard to find alternative sources, and
> > in the short term we
> > > should be building nuclear power plants until a
> > better source is found. And
> > > we should have started years ago, so we need to
> > get moving on this right
> > > now.
> >
> > I think nuclear cannot be short term, because it
> > takes so long to
> > build. Short term plug in hybrids will make a
> > difference -- enough of
> > a difference is problematic. That means coal
> > generated electricity and
> > nighttime charging.
> >
> > I agree with you that many different energy sources
> > must be brought into play.
> >
> > The best solution, of course, is for one of the
> > thousands of bright
> > young scientists working on this today to come up
> > with a breakthrough
> > solution.
> >
> > It could happen,
> >
> > Burgy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri Jun 13 9:19 , Rich Blinne sent:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jun 12, 2008, at 6:05 PM, David Campbell wrote:
> > >
> > > The real problem is how fast the change is
> > occurring. I don't know of
> > > anything since the end-Paleocene (about 55 million
> > years ago) that
> > > might approach the modern rate of change in
> > temperature and CO2.
> > > Organisms have trouble keeping up or keeping in
> > syc.
> > >
> > > Glenn and I have been discussing off line whether
> > we can attribute
> > > anthropogenic CO2 to the current warming. He kept
> > accusing me of not taking
> > > into consideration certain factors such as changes
> > in solar output and
> > > albedo. If he had read the IPCC reports he would
> > have seen to what
> > > excruciating degrees they took such things into
> > account. Please note that
> > > this is not a personal attack. Due to health
> > reasons he rightly wants to
> > > focus on areas where he has world-class expertise.
> > Nevertheless, he should
> > > realize there are others such as myself who have
> > looked at this in very deep
> > > detail. More importantly so did thousands and tens
> > of thousands of climate
> > > scientists in one of the largest peer review
> > processes in the history of
> > > science. One of the things that YEC and ID has
> > done has been to portray the
> > > scientific enterprise whether it is evolutionary
> > biology or climate science
> > > as not being in as mature or having as much
> > consensus as it really does. In
> > > the case of climate science corporate and
> > hyper-libertarian have also tried
> > > to misportray the science for their own benefit.
> > As one tobacco executive
> > > put it in the Sixties, "doubt is our product".
> > >
> > > Still, I gave Glenn sufficient information that he
> > could determine himself
> > > which is the driving force. Since the exchange
> > didn't involve this list I
> > > showed him with numerous graphs how the surface
> > and the lower troposphere
> > > was warming but the lower stratosphere was
> > cooling. This is counter to
> > > having the solar output being the driving force
> > because it would warm up
> > > both the LS and LT. The same holds for albedo
> > differences. In fact climate
> > > skeptics Roy Spencer and John Christie advance the
> > exact same test on their
> > > web site:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > During global warming, the atmosphere near the
> > surface is supposed to warm
> > > at least as fast as the surface warms, while the
> > upper layers are supposed
> > > to cool much faster than the surface warms.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I showed Glenn precisely this. This is a good deal
> > why the IPCC has put a
> > > greater than 95% (before the Chinese delegation
> > pushed them down to 90%)
> > > confidence that anthropogenic global warming is
> > true. The 90% figure was
> > > agreed to by every government delegation
> > word-for-word including our own.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm inclined to agree with Glenn that running out
> > of oil is the most
> > > pressing issue, though of course conserving oil
> > would probably also
> > > cut back on CO2 emissions.
> > >
> > > I don't disagree with Glenn that the oil supply
> > problem is urgent but I also
> > > contend that anthropogenic global warming is just
> > as urgent and we should be
> > > trying to solve both problems simultaneously. One
> > thing that hasn't really
> > > been stressed much here is how AGW has caused an
> > extremification of the
> > > climate *right now*. Dealing with extremes is
> > often a dangerous thing to do
> > > because it usually involves anecdotal data which
> > often conflates climate and
> > > weather. Fortunately the NCDC has what is known as
> > the climate extreme
> > > index.
> > >
> > >
> > > The U.S. CEI is based on an aggregate set of
> > conventional climate extreme
> > > indicators which, at the present time, include the
> > following types of data:
> > >
> > > 1) monthly maximum and minimum temperature
> > > 2) daily precipitation
> > > 3) monthly Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI)
> > > 4) landfalling tropical storm and hurricane
> > wind velocity*
> > >
> > > * experimentalThe climate extreme index (without
> > the experimental part
> > > because when I look at this I see no discernible
> > trend) looks like this:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/cei/dk-cei.01-12.gif
> > >
> > > Here is the maximum and minimum temperature
> > portions of the index:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/cei/dk-step1.01-12.gif
> > >
> >
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/cei/dk-step2.01-12.gif
> > >
> > > Note that the extremes for the high maximum and
> > high minimum are happening
> > > but not the low maximum nor the low minimum. This
> > gives us another clue of
> > > what is causing the current warming. This is
> > because warm nights are best
> > > explained by CO2 forcing than solar forcing
> > because (duh) the Sun is not
> > > shining at night nor is the earth reflecting where
> > albedo differences would
> > > be significant. Note also all this talk about all
> > the "cooling" going on is
> > > not happening. That's because the local cooling
> > that people notice is not a
> > > significant portion of the area of the United
> > States.
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 13 13:15:51 2008