| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:40 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
 |
|
On Jun 11, 7:53 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1181530754.649188.284250@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
There appears to have been an editing error
No, just removal of irrelevant material.
|
As you know, my objection was not with the removal,
but with the omission of any indicator that you had
done so.
That could create the false impression that your
remarks addressed material that I had not already
covered in the article to which you replied.
| Quote: |
Perhaps, but try to discuss it on TV.
Thanks for the invite, when do we shoot?
You sound like the Vice President.
|
Go Cheney yourself!
| Quote: |
Why do they call them *vice* presidents,
when it seems to be the presidents
that have the vices?
Carl Sagan had, and didn't let that stop him from
bringing on the warnings about global cooling.
I don't remember him bringing on any such warnings.
Regardless, he is not a climatologists.
Many of the experts touted as experts on the effects of global warming are
not. Quite often, folks who may indeed be qualified to discuss the possible
effects of potential global warming *on their particular field of expertise*
are treated as being experts on global warming and climate change.
...
Today's media doesn't have
the time to properly clarify this, even if it wanted to do so, which it
doesn't, because dirty laundry and doom'n'gloom bring better ratings.
|
This is by no means unique to climate I recall a
Nightline episode many years ago back when California
was widely spraying malathion for medfly eradication.
One of the experts they interviewed was a crop duster
pilot.
| Quote: |
No, I realized that it was a short-term effect, just like
all other well-documented global cooling from major
volcanic eruptions. The longest period of volcanic-induced
global cooling on record lasted less than a decade.
That doesn't stop true believers from falsely claiming that
volcanoes cause global warming by releasing more carbon
dioxide than humans do. But I digress.
What's worse, carbon dioxide isn't even
the most serious problem- it just
has a better publicist. Doesn't mean we
shouldn't try to deduce our output,
it just means we shouldn't get so worried
about CO2 that we forget about
more serious issues.
For one thing, methane is a more effective
greenhouse gas.
|
Sure, but for now there is a lot less of it
being emitted. Should the oceanic methane
hydrates decompose, that will change.
--
FF |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:42 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Jun 11, 8:10 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:53:14 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
For one thing, methane is a more effective greenhouse gas.
/logic off
Humans generate methane by eathing beans. Mexican food often contains a
great deal of beans. Therefore, if we were to bomb Mexico, we could both
eliminate a significant man-made source of methane *and* reduce the illegal
immigration flow.
/logic on
No, we'll just starve them to death by using all the corn they need
for tortillas to make ethanol instead.
Except maybe it will just increase the pressure for them to come
north.
Hey, now I know why Bush is so big on ethanol... ;-)
|
In all seriousness, IMHO, the best potential
biofuels is biodiesel, not ethanol and aquaculture
of algae looks to be a good way to produce it,
without adverse impact on global food farming.
--
FF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:01 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:42:37 -0700, in a place far, far away,
fredfighter@spamcop.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
For one thing, methane is a more effective greenhouse gas.
/logic off
Humans generate methane by eathing beans. Mexican food often contains a
great deal of beans. Therefore, if we were to bomb Mexico, we could both
eliminate a significant man-made source of methane *and* reduce the illegal
immigration flow.
/logic on
No, we'll just starve them to death by using all the corn they need
for tortillas to make ethanol instead.
Except maybe it will just increase the pressure for them to come
north.
Hey, now I know why Bush is so big on ethanol... ;-)
In all seriousness, IMHO, the best potential
biofuels is biodiesel, not ethanol and aquaculture
of algae looks to be a good way to produce it,
without adverse impact on global food farming.
|
Yes, though I have no problem with ethanol from non-foodstuffs that
grow like Topsy (like kudzu, or switchgrass). I also think that
bioengineered bugs that convert sunlight and air to fuel are
interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:03 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:40:18 -0700, in a place far, far away,
fredfighter@spamcop.net made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
Many of the experts touted as experts on the effects of global warming are
not. Quite often, folks who may indeed be qualified to discuss the possible
effects of potential global warming *on their particular field of expertise*
are treated as being experts on global warming and climate change.
...
Today's media doesn't have
the time to properly clarify this, even if it wanted to do so, which it
doesn't, because dirty laundry and doom'n'gloom bring better ratings.
This is by no means unique to climate I recall a
Nightline episode many years ago back when California
was widely spraying malathion for medfly eradication.
One of the experts they interviewed was a crop duster
pilot.
|
Yes, one of the failings of a journalistic education is that it seems
to render one incapable of determining who knows what they're talking
about. Logic is not a required course.
It's a problem (ob sci.space.*) that often comes up in space
reporting, when Gregg Easterbrook and John Pike are cited as
"authorities." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Hedrick
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
<fredfighter@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1181594418.688344.38610@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jun 11, 7:53 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1181530754.649188.284250@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
There appears to have been an editing error
No, just removal of irrelevant material.
As you know, my objection was not with the removal,
but with the omission of any indicator that you had
done so.
That could create the false impression that your
remarks addressed material that I had not already
covered in the article to which you replied.
|
Ahh, OK, I'll try to do better.
| Quote: |
...
Today's media doesn't have
the time to properly clarify this, even if it wanted to do so, which it
doesn't, because dirty laundry and doom'n'gloom bring better ratings.
This is by no means unique to climate I recall a
Nightline episode many years ago back when California
was widely spraying malathion for medfly eradication.
One of the experts they interviewed was a crop duster
pilot.
|
Which *might* qualify him to discuss spray patterns, but doesn't mean he
knows anything at all about what he's spraying.
| Quote: |
...
For one thing, methane is a more effective
greenhouse gas.
Sure, but for now there is a lot less of it
being emitted. Should the oceanic methane
hydrates decompose, that will change.
|
*But*- is the difference being emitted more or less than the difference in
effectiveness? If it's ten times more powerful, but there's 1/4 as much
being emitted, then methane would still be the more serious problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Hedrick
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
<fredfighter@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1181594557.357639.82300@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
In all seriousness, IMHO, the best potential
biofuels is biodiesel, not ethanol and aquaculture
of algae looks to be a good way to produce it,
without adverse impact on global food farming.
|
Those quaint stories showing the few people who have converted their cars to
run on used french fry oil make for great human interest stories. It's not
that easy, of course.
I saw a program on our local PBS station about making biodiesel at home.
While it is a bit more complicated and has some expense, it still costs
less. In the example I saw, with free fry oil, the biodiesel coming out of
the still cost about a dollar a gallon.
Now, if it could make biodiesel out of rendered animal fat, I'd really be
interested. When I build the house I want to build in New Mexico, I'm
considering biodiesel. I'd use it for the equipment, I'd likely get a diesel
vehicle, and the backup generator would use diesel.
Lessee...using solar power to operate the biodiesel still... how does that
affect my carbon footprint? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Jun 12, 2:55 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1181594418.688344.38610@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 11, 7:53 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1181530754.649188.284250@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
There appears to have been an editing error
No, just removal of irrelevant material.
As you know, my objection was not with the removal,
but with the omission of any indicator that you had
done so.
That could create the false impression that your
remarks addressed material that I had not already
covered in the article to which you replied.
Ahh, OK, I'll try to do better.
...
Today's media doesn't have
the time to properly clarify this, even if it wanted to do so, which it
doesn't, because dirty laundry and doom'n'gloom bring better ratings.
This is by no means unique to climate I recall a
Nightline episode many years ago back when California
was widely spraying malathion for medfly eradication.
One of the experts they interviewed was a crop duster
pilot.
Which *might* qualify him to discuss spray patterns, but doesn't mean he
knows anything at all about what he's spraying.
...
For one thing, methane is a more effective
greenhouse gas.
Sure, but for now there is a lot less of it
being emitted. Should the oceanic methane
hydrates decompose, that will change.
*But*- is the difference being emitted more or less than the difference in
effectiveness? If it's ten times more powerful, but there's 1/4 as much
being emitted, then methane would still be the more serious problem.
|
I do not recall the ratios but at present methane has much less
effect on the greenhouse effect than does carbon dioxide.
That can change.
--
FF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:01:45 GMT, simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand
Simberg) wrote:
| Quote: |
Hey, now I know why Bush is so big on ethanol... ;-)
|
I thought Bush was big on hydrogen.
| Quote: |
In all seriousness, IMHO, the best potential
biofuels is biodiesel, not ethanol and aquaculture
of algae looks to be a good way to produce it,
without adverse impact on global food farming.
|
Biodiesel is a much better fuel than ethanol. I think my next car
will be a diesel. However, ethanol is easier to use in gasoline
engines, and there are a few million vehicles on the road now that can
use E-85. Ethanol is also a good replacement for MTBE. In the short
run, we will see more use of the inferior ethanol fuel. It is still
common practice to rotate crops between corn (ethanol) and soybeans
(soydiesel), but it is unlikely that the same engine could use both
biofuels.
| Quote: |
Yes, though I have no problem with ethanol from non-foodstuffs that
grow like Topsy (like kudzu, or switchgrass). I also think that
bioengineered bugs that convert sunlight and air to fuel are
interesting.
|
Where are the Triffids? Eventually, i think we will get more
efficient bio engineered fuel producers, probably very tiny ones such
as green algae, and they may even directly absorb the CO2 given off by
coal fired electric plants.
Personably, I think ethanol is more efficiently made from sugar cane
than corn, and that we should import ethanol from Brazil or where ever
the price is right. (I do live in Iowa.) Producing ethanol also uses
a lot of water, and that is something that is often over looked.
Certainly converting bio waste to ethanol sounds good, but I worry
that the promise of cellulosic ethanol production may be simply
oversold. I'm even more concerned about non-waste biomass being
diverted to ethanol production. I estimate that I get just over 50%
of my home heating from burning firewood. This helps reduce demand
for natural gas and helps keep prices down for everyone else. In
recent years, firewood has become harder to get, as more people are
more competitive in gathering it. Businesses may start stealing from
this supply, to make a value added profit producing ethanol. However,
wood is more efficiently used for direct heating, than for fuel
production. Other concerns could also be raised about growing
switchgrass, etc. for fuel, instead of alternative crops or land use.
As for CO2, I find it not a serious pollutant, and I'd rather address
it by planting more trees and crops, fighting deforestation, etc.,
than by restricting the production of CO2. If/when climate changes,
we will adapt.
Petroleum is wonderful stuff. We should cap many of our domestic
wells and import as much as we can, ideally ALL of it, from any and
all regimes. The last thing we want is to exhaust our secure domestic
oil supply before the world supply. Dependance and co dependance is
not a bad thing. It is just common sense capitalism. I can guarantee
that you do not want to go to war with your long range ethanol fueled
fighters engaging petroleum fueled threats. Nobody likes high oil
prices, but high prices work in our favor. The actual conservation,
reduction of consumption, is done by the poor, not the wealthy. This
means that as oil prices rise, the largest economy, the US, will
continue to receive more of this wonderful stuff, and China and other
nations will get less.
Grain of salt. Can we move on to rockets and space?
Alan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:56 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Jun 12, 4:27 pm, Alan Jones <ala...@nospam.mchsi.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:01:45 GMT, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand
Simberg) wrote:
Hey, now I know why Bush is so big on ethanol... ;-)
I thought Bush was big on hydrogen.
In all seriousness, IMHO, the best potential
biofuels is biodiesel, not ethanol and aquaculture
of algae looks to be a good way to produce it,
without adverse impact on global food farming.
Biodiesel is a much better fuel than ethanol. I think my next car
will be a diesel. However, ethanol is easier to use in gasoline
engines, and there are a few million vehicles on the road now that can
use E-85. Ethanol is also a good replacement for MTBE. In the short
run, we will see more use of the inferior ethanol fuel. It is still
common practice to rotate crops between corn (ethanol) and soybeans
(soydiesel), but it is unlikely that the same engine could use both
biofuels.
Yes, though I have no problem with ethanol from non-foodstuffs that
grow like Topsy (like kudzu, or switchgrass). I also think that
bioengineered bugs that convert sunlight and air to fuel are
interesting.
Where are the Triffids? Eventually, i think we will get more
efficient bio engineered fuel producers, probably very tiny ones such
as green algae, and they may even directly absorb the CO2 given off by
coal fired electric plants.
|
Some algae already have a astonishingly high percentage of
oil, and a fair bit of the rest of the plant is protein. The Aztrecs
harvested algae for food, and it is still harvested for food in
some parts of the world. You can grow algae via aquaculture
on non-arable land to produce both the oil and a sidestream of
protein that can be used in animal feed as a substitute for
Chinese melanine...
| Quote: |
Personably, I think ethanol is more efficiently made from sugar cane
than corn, and that we should import ethanol from Brazil or where ever
the price is right. (I do live in Iowa.)
|
Those are not the only two choices, and I suspect that the
present production cycle is very inefficient. Essentially
corn is all harvested as if it is to be used for feed, kernals
are separated form the cob and dried and then some of it
diverted to making ethanol.
Sorghum grown form molasses can be squeezed in the field,
the juice trucked off and the pulp plowed back in or left
on top of the soil for mulch. Sorghum grows over much of
the same range as corn. I don' t know how much sugar
you get per acre from sorghum vs corn, but wouldn't
be surprised if you got more from sorghum.
| Quote: |
Producing ethanol also uses
a lot of water, and that is something that is often over looked.
|
To some degree, that is because it is made from dried corn
and has to be rehydrated to be fermented.
| Quote: |
...
As for CO2, I find it not a serious pollutant, and I'd rather address
it by planting more trees and crops, fighting deforestation, etc.,
than by restricting the production of CO2. If/when climate changes,
we will adapt.
|
You are assuming a steady change.
Do a google search on ocean acidification,
and also on methane clathrates. The oceans
sequester about half of all CO2 emissions. If
the oceans saturate, that will stop and the
rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 will increase
by a factor of 15. That is one tipping point,
that we are fast approaching.
The oceanic clathrates could start decomposing,
be triggered by the loss of Arctic meltwater (no
ice, no meltwater). That is another tipping point,
a big one.
The potential exists for climate change to take off and
rise much, much faster than presently anticipated--and
nothing remarkable has change for that to happen.
Our present understanding puts that well in the window
of possibility.
| Quote: |
Petroleum is wonderful stuff. We should cap many of our domestic
wells and import as much as we can, ideally ALL of it, from any and
all regimes. The last thing we want is to exhaust our secure domestic
oil supply before the world supply.
|
Agreed. It is the single most important
feedstock for organics such as plastics
and textiles. We don't become independent
of foreign sources by using up all of our own
reserves!
--
FF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Scott Hedrick
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:03 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
<fredfighter@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1181663384.119866.99020@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
I do not recall the ratios but at present methane has much less
effect on the greenhouse effect than does carbon dioxide.
|
I was too lazy to look it up. I think it was as high as 30-1, but I can't
recall the source.
"What does it mean, exact change?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:52 am Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On Jun 12, 3:03 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1181663384.119866.99020@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I do not recall the ratios but at present methane has much less
effect on the greenhouse effect than does carbon dioxide.
I was too lazy to look it up. I think it was as high as 30-1,
|
which?
| Quote: |
but I can't
recall the source.
That can change.
"What does it mean, exact change?"
|
What do you mean by 'exact change'?
--
FF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BradGuth
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack? |
|
|
On May 31, 5:20 pm, "Stan Marsh" <therocket...@softhome.net> wrote:
Our NASA (along with the help of those Jewish Third Reich wizards)
invented crack, as well as many other mind altering, weird and/or
lethal substances. NASA also invented the notions of our having
walked on the moon, although having accomplished such without a
sufficient ticket to ride, nor a viable fly-by-rocket lander, without
rad-hard DNA and without an unfiltered Kodak moment that never once
included nearby Venus, yet otherwise having demonstrated such rad-hard
and thermal tolerant film as having more than sufficient dynamic
range(DR) to spare.
Controlling the past is the one and only alternative for our NASA.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
222 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
