Why let the truth get in the way of a good environmental fallacy? If you use ethanol at this time, you are contributing to a horribly inefficient process that is wasting resources instead of helping it.

I haven't bought an issue of Popular Science since they came out against food irradiation to combat foodborne illness with an article based on all of Public Citizens unfounded precautionary fearmongering.

Think about it: Popular........Science

The Science that's Popular. Not necessarily the science that's correct..... Just as long as it's popular.

Once lost, I'm afraid, credibility is very hard to get back (at least with me anyway).

All the best,

Aaron

I think most of us agree that corn-based ethanol isn't the answer. However, it will build an infrastructure that will support future biofuels that are more energy intensive. Switchgrass definitely holds a lot of promise.

Determining the 'Green'ness of something is akin to the statements about accountants....

Figures Lie and Liars Figure.

In both cases, the numbers can be twisted to support any point of view one may take on an issue.

To be clear on the environmental fallacy of using ethanol- it has never been the stance of 99% of enviros that corn ethanol made much sense. Early studies did show that it was marginally better than petroleum, but clearly they didn't take into account all land use impacts the new studies do. What mainstream enviros promote above all else is reducing energy use (mass transport eg.) and efficiency (autos, appliances, etc.) That is the obvious first step, not subsidies for politically connected corn farmers.

Once again Mark, I have to agree. Though I don't look at biofuels as a plus for Global warming reasons , it does seem promising from an energy policy stand point [ as long as we get away from corn ]. Our dependence on foreign sources of energy will never go away totally , at least not any time soon . But at least this offers an alternative that might stand a chance of success with improvements in processing technology that come along with more developed infrastucture. Hi Aaron , having worked in the food industry for 28 years , I can tell you that there were alot of different resons why Irradiated meats failed . I don't think that the science behind it had very much to do with it though. The concept was good but people just weren't impressed with the finished product. The same could end up being true of biofuels. The energy efficiency of BF's is only optimized at compreesion levels of 16 to 1 and most cars today operate at around half that. If ethanol is not shown to have some sort of economically redeming value it will probably fail. If the consumer is to "buy" into Bio-fuels then the product must "sell" on multiple levels.

This country jumped onto the corn-based ethanol bandwagon because 1) farmers vote in big numbers and 2) Iowa has the first presidential caucus and Iowa must be pandered to.

It simply makes little sense to turn food into oil. There is probably no net energy gain from corn-based ethanol versus conventional gasoline. Ethanol is one reason the price of food has increased so much in recent years as there is less grain available for food and livestock feed.

Switchgrass holds a great deal of promise as it can be grown on marginal land and needs much less care to grow. Cellulistic ethanol makes more sense, if it lives up to its promises.

Don't forget bio-diesel, which can be a much more practical fuel than ethanol. Bio-diesel can be created from non-food crops, such as algae.

Brazil is nearly independent of any foreign oil, since they have been using sugar cane based ethanol for years. The only problem is that they have had to clear a lot of rain forest to do it. But it is better than using food for fuel, IMHO.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817

The other problem that I see using alternative fuels is that the infrastructure needs to be updated. Currently there are ZERO gas stations offering biofuels within a 100 mile radius of where I live.

If we could safely build and run more nuclear generating plants or use more solar and wind generating plants, I think that electric or gas/ electric hybrid cars are the way to go right now. You don't need a major infrastructure change, since you could plug the car in at home.

http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/

At least that would help people who live in rural areas and those who don't have access to mass transit or biofuel gas stations. The existing infrastructure could be used while we research and develop alternatives.

This is yet another example of the cure being worse than the problem it is supposed to solve. World Climate Report reviewed an article which appeared in Science entitled, "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change."

The study's authors stated: "We calculated that GHG savings from corn ethanol would equalize and therefore "pay back" carbon emissions from land-use change in 167 years, meaning GHGs increase until the end of that period. Over a 30-year period, counting land-use change, GHG emissions from corn ethanol nearly double those from gasoline for each km driven."

And the news isn't much better for other crops:
"From all the biofuels websites, you will discover a crowd that is in love with switchgrass or sugarcane as sources for ethanol production. Well, Searchinger et al. analyzed the situation there as well and concluded "But if American corn fields of average yield were converted to switchgrass for ethanol, replacing that corn would still trigger emissions from land-use change that would take 52 years to pay back and increase emissions over 30 years by 50%". For sugarcane fans, we learn, "Ethanol from Brazilian sugarcane, based on estimated GHG reductions of 86% excluding land-use changes, could pay back the up-front carbon emissions in 4 years if sugarcane only converts tropical grazing land. However, if displaced ranchers convert rainforest to grazing land, the payback period could rise to 45 years".

Read the entire article at: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/03/05/want-to-increase-your-greenhouse-gas-emissions-use-biofuels/#more-313

Why are environmentalists so keen on switching us to biofuels when, according to these studies, they make GHGs worse than fossil fuels? Is their hatred of the oil industry so intense that it blinds them to the pitfalls of green-sounding alternatives? Why are we just learning this now after congressional spending in the billions of dollars to promote ethanol?

Sea ice records being shattered -

Worldwide sea ice is nearly 2 million km2 greater than this time last year. (Three times the area of Texas additional ice.)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Worldwide sea ice is 1 million km2 above normal, and appears headed for a record positive anomaly.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Arctic ice is 1 million km2 greater than this time last year, and is nearly above normal.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

Antarctic ice is 1 million km2 greater than this time last year, and appears headed for a second consecutive record.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg

Switchgrass definitely holds a lot of promise.

How is switchgrass any better? If you can make more money off of switchgrass than corn, then the farmers are going to grow switchgrass instead of corn.

Patrick Henry,

Do you know how expensive oil must get in order for oil containing shale is economically viable?

Mark,

Are there some hard feelings between us? I'm a bit curious why you and none of the other fellow AGW'ers have welcomed me to your camp.

While it may seems a bit odd that I would switch sides, I am honestly switching in order to help prove CO2's role in GW.

I have to say though that it seems most of us can only parrot what others say/write and none except myself seems to know what the scientific method is and how to use it.

Never the less, I am happy to be joining forces with you all, I hope we can come to understand each other better since there is no more want or percieved need to be offensive.

I fear my overly honest posts on the poor science being used by many of us may have caused a rift to dep to fill, but I'm willing to try if you all are.

Kind regards,

Steve

Hi GW Steve,

I think it would be an excellent idea for you to explain who you are in relation to another poster - NGW Steve. There appears to be a bit of confusion.

As far as oil shale goes, I worked on that during the Carter administration. The technology being considered back then would have been an unprecedented environmental disaster. Good thing Reagan got elected and shut that down.

Now there are less destructive technologies being considered, but I suspect that they are still unacceptable from an environmental viewpoint. Ignoring that, the current price of oil does make them economically viable.

One thought on foreign oil. Why in the world would we attempt to reduce our purchase of a finite valuable foreign resource when we can afford it?

Wouldn't it be better to buy up all of their's first, so long as it was affordable?

Also, has any of my fellow AGWer's thought about the idea to build IR detectors that can measure the Watts of different spectra?

We can show conclusively the amount of IR that is being redirected back towards Earth by CO2. The deniers will no longer be able to complain about having no tests that can be repeated.

This can be accomplished by building 1 meter squared IR detectors that measure and record different spectra strengths.

Since CO2 only absorbs and emits certain spectra, and only one is outside the water vapor absorption bands, we can definitively point out the 100% CO2 redirected spectra, and make an educated guess on the partially CO2 redirected spectra.

We would have to build several and then place them in different areas in order to calculate noise. We should at least use a very arid area to prevent water vapor interference, an area that is sometimes arid and sometimes humid, and a humid area. Take measurements of each spectra's strength and time taken. After a period, compile the data and compare the results.

This way we can also calculate how much water vapor is contributing killing two GHG's with one IR meter.

We should also test to see how high different heights produces different effects. This will also help determine the effect of the IR shoulder bands that reach higher than 10 meters. And test at different latitudes for IR strength.

It would be nice to have at least one other AGWer and one Denier/Contrarian part of the project to validate the methods. I will play the impartial role since I was once a Contrarian and motive could be questionable.

Does anyone have any suggestions or comments? Does it sound feasible, have I missed anything? Perhaps Gore can fund it with the money he made from his documentary. Heck he could probably get us lots of funding from the UN since he is a Nobel Laureate.

I like UN money better, since we'll be doing the whole world a favor, and Gore has contributed enough himself already, hasn't he?

Thanks,

Steve

Q: I'm a bit curious why you and none of the other fellow AGW'ers have welcomed me to your camp.
...
A: I have to say though that it seems most of us can only parrot what others say/write and none except myself seems to know what the scientific method is and how to use it.

I believe that "(N)GW Steve" has answered his own rhetorical question.

When and if "(N)GW Steve" ever admits that 21st century science requires more discovery than any one person can make in a lifetime, and therefore that even independent thought requires some willingness to learn from those who have come before, he may find himself a bit less lonely. He might also discover that many of his questions have been answered for decades.

Until then, I hope he will forgive the rest of us for rejecting his claim that he alone genuinely "know[s] what the scientific method is and how to use it".

Even though I belive Global Warming is nothing but a scam to allow the government more control over our personal lives, I believe it is necessary to develop alternat sources of energy. There is enough wind energy within the US to supply more than the power we need. We just need to get serious about building the infrastructure to capture this energy. I have also read that it would only take an area of 25 square miles filled with solar panels to supply the electricity we need. We have no excuse for not building these systems.
The government could mandate a 4 day workweek and mandate that a certain percentage of workers in certain occupations must work remotely from home whenever possible. That act alone could take 25 to 30% of the cars off the road each day. Think what a shock that would be to the oil producers. It would not take very long for the price of fuel to tumble if such a mandate were to happen. Why is the government not making a mandate such as this?
I recently read an article about the Abiotic theory of Oil formation. If this theory were to be true we would never run out of oil and we would never have to worry about CO2 again. Think about how many dinasaurs and plants it would take to manufacture the oil we use each day. When you consider we pump 10's of thousands of barrelss of oil from some oil wells each day and when you consider that some wells produce for 20 or 30 years you will soon realize there is no way a pile of dead dinasaurs and plants could be big enough to produce 100's of millions of barrels of oil from a single well. What if the CO2 in the atmosphere were to settle into the oceans, form calcium carbonate rock, which gradually sinks until it melts in the crust of the earth, and there under extreme heat and pressure becomes converted chemically into petroleum which seaps up through cracks into pools of oil which we then pump out of the ground. The Aboitic theory proposes that oil is constantly forming under the earth's crust from recycled C02. If this theory is true then our burning the oil is just part of a natural cycle which will never hurt the earth and give us a limitless supply of energy. Scientists are finding that many oil wells are refilling themselves such as the wells at Evan's island in the Gulf of Mexico.
When you hear all this hysteria about Global Warming and the Earth running out of energy keep in mind we have plenty of wind and solar energy available. The government can mandate telecommuting and 4 day work weeks. Also remember there may be a limitless supply of oil available. Doesn't this make you wonder why we are wasting our time with ethanol and begging for oil from the Middle East.
Regards,
Daniel;

GW Steve,

According to the DOE, oil shale is economical at $35 to $54/bbl.

- First of a kind mining and surface retorting plants may eventually be economic, providing a minimum 15% rate of return, at sustained average world oil prices above $54.00 per barrel.

- In-situ processes may be economic at sustained average world oil prices above $35 per barrel.

What are we waiting for?

GW Steve,
Switchgrass can be grown on lands not suitable for corn use. NY State has over 1 million acres of pasture land that can be turned into switchgrass WITHOUT the need for massive land use change.(It is already in pasture) Besides it would be better to burn it directly for heating instead of ethanol production. If NY wanted in 4 years it could replace 85% of the residential heating oil currently used. Other NE States could follow suit. The south could get rid of tobacco and worn out cotton fields and do the same.
Again, no switchgrass lobby and the NY Senators husband can't get a consulting job.
Besides that would all require political parties to work together. In an election year? LOL

Hi Paul,

What are we waiting for?

Perhaps the people of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and those who depend on Colorado River water aren't so thrilled about the prospects of a huge environmental mess which would permanently damage the Green River Basin.

Most oil shale is in thin layers - which means disrupting massive amounts of surface area, and potentially contaminating ground water over an huge region.

Patrick Henry,

Most oil shale is in thin layers - which means disrupting massive amounts of surface area, and potentially contaminating ground water over an huge region.

Ever hear of in situ? Cheaper to produce, too.

As an alternative, maybe we could set up wall-to-wall windmills across the Continental Divide. That would be cheap, clean energy. We could cover every ridgeline in the Rockies with windmills and provide unlimited power for the entire country.

You could also saturate the land along the Front Range with windmills and capture all that energy from the Chinooks.

Daniel Jimison

Every time the government mandates anything it screws up something else. The general law is made and the specifics are left to Administrative Law. That means that mid to low level civil servants get to pick and choose what is or isn’t done or covered. This may work nicely for restaurant laws but for anything remotely resembling a hard science it is a disaster. The folks who make the rules and regulations are well meaning but are scientifically challenged and make rules that show a complete lack of understanding of the subject. Instead of science we get social science with political views overriding fact and making rules that become more dysfunctional as time goes by. So please don’t look for sanity or logic when anything is state mandated.

The reason why wind power or solar power is not jumped on is really simple.
The majority of the US population suffers from the the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) Syndrome.
Everybody wants this renewable energy sources but nobody wants it anywhere near them.
Wind power. The towers are erected on hills and people complain that birds get hurt and it looks so bad they don’t want it near them. In NY, towns have passed ordinances preventing building because the will “ruin the scenery” or “hurt the birds”. The greenies come out, protest and suddenly nobody has the intestinal fortitude to say “Start Building”
The US Senators from Massachusetts and Rhode Island are blocking a wind field off the Massachusetts coast because it is in sight of their summer homes. These are the same Senators complaining about our oil dependence and demand we use alternate fuels. Of course if the source of alternative energy comes anywhere near their homes they prevent these alternative energy sources from being built.
Solar- It’s the same except the mere mention of using 25 square miles of the southwest desert would get the Sierra Club, Green Peace and all the other special interest groups together screaming “Ecologic Rape.” The fact that those 25 square miles is less than the size of most cities where these people live is inconsequential. They want the energy without the understanding that they themselves are causing harm someplace. So they talk about it which is much easier than being responsible. They want green…..as long as it doesn’t really happen. It is much easier to picket, complain and ask for donations “for the cause” than to actually solve the problem. Besides if they actually solved a problem they would have to find another cause or a real job contributing to humanity. Talk is so much easier than science.
Please remember most of these groups have absolutely no interest in accomplishing their goal. They want to feel guilty, complain, have something to talk about at their social gatherings, ask for donations, feel the need and power of doing something, and if young enough a great shtick (Yiddish for: a usually comic or repetitious performance or routine) to pick up women. (Hey do we have the old: Power, Ego, Sex and Money thing going again?????)
LOL- This is hypocrisy at its best.

Hi BT,

Did you get a chance to look over Dr. Gerhard Loeberts post: http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/03/coolest_winter_since_2001.html#comments

With all DUE respect, could you please explain where you think he is wrong?

Perhaps you can breakdown his theory, especially his use of quantum physics. I am sincerely interested in what you have to say. No joke.

BT,

Can you tell me how AGW because of CO2 is a theory when t