Over 650 scientist challenge the UN OPCC and herr Gore!!

[TennTradition]

Hey TT, could you give us the quick and dirty version of what this is about and what you expect from it? (no, I won't hold you to the second part. Just a learned guess will do fine)

OK...this is long..my apologies...I know these long posts can be thread killers....


It is exciting to me because DDCF has made it possible, for the first time as far as I can tell, to conduct a large-scale, highly-involved study of energy innovation systems.

The study isn't going to really examine specific technologies - or make recommendations in that respect - instead, it is focused on evaluating, assessing the performance of, and making recommendations for the energy innovation infrastructure in the US (and also where possibilities exist for international cooperation in the innovation stream).

The specifics are still being held under wraps as far as any official results go - and mainly because there is still a lot of research going on. But, in general, there are some aspects that will get a fair amount of consideration.

The over-reaching questions are what combination of demand-side macro-pricing and supply-side technology supply innovation schemes must be applied for energy innovation. There are currently both demand-side (e.g., cap-and-trade legislation of lieberman-warner, waxman, etc.) and supply-side attempts out there (Energy bill, economic stimulus). But, the issue is that it is hard to imagine a demand-side scheme working very well unless there is an effective innovation system in place, which there isn't. Compared to biotech, IT, etc. ... energy is absolutely horrible at corporate investment into R&D. So, this means that getting an effective supply-slide system in place first would be very important.

How to do this in a technology-neutral and flexible way such that we do not lock into specific technologies too early are key questions when looking at how to structure the innovation system. Congress must find a way to stay out of this so that we don't have more ethanol fiascoes.

One general system that I have seen proposed (Bonvillian and Weiss) would be:

Classify energy technologies according to likely pathways of launch (e.g., experimental technologies, disruptive technologies into niche markets, secondary innovations with uncontested launch, component innovations with contested launch, or energy efficiency).

Match policy packages to pathways of technology launch.

Do a gap analysis of innovation system (this is where Lester's study will be very useful, in my opinion).

Plug gaps between existing institutions for stimulating innovation in energy technology.

So, the key question is how does one plug these gaps that Lester's and others' studies will identify. Bonvillian and Weiss suggest that a combination of approaches will be necessary, all aimed at avoiding a federal command-and-control perspective. Examples include an ARPA-E framework like DARPA used to spread money to promising sectors in a technology neutral way (though I will say that critics argue an ARPA model will not work here). Also, they propose a wholly-owned government corporation that will:

share the financing of carefully monitored demonstrations of technology,

encourage and provide incentives to industry consortia,

speed scale-up,

finance energy efficiency gains, etc.

I've talked more about Bonvillian and Weiss here than Lester's study - but that is mainly because their results (published in a book) are out and Lester's aren't. But, Lester and his research team are at the point now that they are looking seriously at these technology pathways and thinking hard about the merits of the launch model proposed by Bonvillian and Weiss as well as other innovation models. It would surprise me if Lester's study concludes that an ARPA-E model should be applied - instead, I see the wholly-owned government corporation approach being combined with leaning on well-coordinated regional innovation clusters.

As far as the prospects - this is a huge problem. America is a "covered wagon culture" as the old saying goes. We're really good at deciding we don't like where we're at and moving into a new area and making great things happen there. We're not so good at coming back across the mountains and bringing lessons learned in the new area to improve our old neighborhood (i.e., energy). When this is paired with an industry as huge as energy (2 trillion dollars or so), you are presented with a significant challenge.

The energy industry and its investors are so used to having such a low R&D investment (I think that it is around 3% historically), I think that the government will need to be willing to make significant investments - though many here may argue with me on that. I think that the key is to act quickly on supply-side innovation schemes, because if demand-side legislation is passed in the current economic situation without a supply-side system in place, we are going to have some big problems.

 

[TennTradition]

How about ice core samples that indicate historic CO2 levels???

My point was that we have this great historical evidence, but it is not from a period like today where large-scale CO2 emissions are taking place in addition to the natural ocean-emissions due to temperature increases. My point is that the inputs to the game have changed, so we can't ONLY look at the historical record.

There you go with one of their favorite scary buzz words; "greenhouse effect."

How about the "Greenland effect?"

As for me I don't have any problem with Greenland becoming again a place where people can have gardens in their back yards, polar bears notwithstanding.

It is true that in almost any scenario there are losers and winners. However, this largely becomes a question of adaptation and pace-of-change. The scientific thought is that we will continue to warm faster than we ever had - and CO2 concentrations will likely be higher than they have ever been (and continue increasing). So, as we warm, some areas will win - with the northern land-masses increasing in grain-growing efficiency, etc. However, people don't live in Greenland anymore. And, faster than they can adapt, the asian delta regions where millions of people live will begin to be encroached upon by rising oceans (I will concede here, according to the theory...which is not fact). It is all an issue of what adaptation is reasonable and attainable in the time-scale of the changes, and what "bads" are we willing to accept for the "goods."

I don't know about dropping some sort of green pill but I still don't see why extreme pressure would be needed to bring about a chemical reaction that would have the carbon bind with the oxygen and hydrogen and resemble gasoline.

It isn't that the extreme pressure is required for the reaction to happen, my thought is that it is likely required for such a reaction to be favored such that a heavy-chain product like gasoline would actually be favored. Also, it is likely that very high temperatures would be needed to overcome not only the barriers to break the initial carbon-carbon bonds and oxygen-hydrogen bonds, but a high temperature is also required to form the new bonds that would link the carbons together to form gasoline at any appreciable rate (rather than waiting for this to take a few thousand years or more to happen).

You have not heard of the Kyoto Protocols???

It is my understanding that Kyoto doesn't tell how, it tells what levels you must meet as a signatory and ratifying nation. I don't see how energy solutions would pass through the UN - but your energy solutions must meet an emissions target (that you have agreed to). I was separating energy policy from a technology standpoint from emissions policies - but I understand that they are not completely independent...some technologies would not be chosen under emissions pressures from something like Kyoto (which is getting ready to go away anyway...though it will be replaced with a new protocol...which the US may just be a member of).

Well if you are commuting back and forth to work less than a hundred miles a day, hydrogen storage isn't that big of a problem.

It is unlikely (and not very efficient) for each person to make only the hydrogen he/she needs. So, the bigger problem is storage and transportation on an total-market-scale. It is apparently a pretty significant challenge.

Anything and everything he says.

I'll check it out...

 

[gsvol]

There are currently both demand-side (e.g., cap-and-trade legislation of lieberman-warner, waxman, etc.) and supply-side attempts out there (Energy bill, economic stimulus).

But, the issue is that it is hard to imagine a demand-side scheme working very well unless there is an effective innovation system in place, which there isn't.

How many Union of Concerned Scientist members are on Lester's team. I would expect those to lean heavily toward Waxman et al.

Congress must find a way to stay out of this so that we don't have more ethanol fiascoes.

Have any of the quotas for ethanol use been rolled back or rescinded???

That bit of insanity was more than a fiasco it was just too absurd for words.

I think that the key is to act quickly on supply-side innovation schemes, because if demand-side legislation is passed in the current economic situation without a supply-side system in place, we are going to have some big problems.

Shout it from the roof tops!!!:good!:

 

[TennTradition]

How many Union of Concerned Scientist members are on Lester's team. I would expect those to lean heavily toward Waxman et al.

I would say that UCS folks do lean that way, but I don't think that Lester would have any UCS folks directly on his team - though I don't know that for a fact. With the proximity between Kendall Square and Harvard Square, who knows...

I will say that as cap-and-trade legislations go, the Waxman bill has some very attractive aspects, especially when compared to the Inslee bill. Lieberman-Warner + Waxman in committee could lead to a decent bill...that is, if you're into that kind of thing .

Have any of the quotas for ethanol use been rolled back or rescinded???

I'm not sure what the last big Energy bill did because it wasn't fully enacted, but as far as I know most ethanol subsides are still in place....as far as fuel standards, I'm also pretty sure they are there. This has to get fixed. Saying that you have to use ethanol in and of itself isn't horrible, but you've got to fund and encourage the right sources or else it's useless (and detrimental).

 

[hndog609]

OK...this is long..my apologies...I know these long posts can be thread killers....

If you're bringing worthwhile information (something you excel at) don't ever feel a need to apologize for a lengthy post.

(let's hope the perverts don't get too carried away with that statement)

 

[TennTradition]

If you're bringing worthwhile information (something you excel at) don't ever feel a need to apologize for a lengthy post.

(let's hope the perverts don't get too carried away with that statement)

:hi: ..... we'll just sweep that under the rug

 

[gsvol]

I still take exception to your statement;

This statement is a complete joke. This is yet another attempt by Inhoffe to obscure the real discussion with a politics.

That statement is less of a joke than the IPCC report.

Congress holding hearings and passing patently bad legislation isn't political???

Isn't any real discussion something that considers all the facts??? Or is it just a discussion of moving forward one particular political agenda??

My point was that we have this great historical evidence, but it is not from a period like today where large-scale CO2 emissions are taking place in addition to the natural ocean-emissions due to temperature increases. My point is that the inputs to the game have changed, so we can't ONLY look at the historical record.

I thought your statement indicated we didn't have data from before the industrial revolution, my bad if I misunderstood you.

I didn't attempt to say we should look only at the past but I must stress if we are going to look at computer generated visions of the future that we be sure we are entering accurate data.

I understand the graph of the increase in human population, but we can't ignore how much energy efficiency has also improved.

I understand the graph about how much the globe has warmed over this past century but we can't ignore that the Earth is recovering from a mini ice age.

We also have to face the fact or correct the misunderstanding that CO2 emissions just started with the industrial revolution. The ever improving technologies brought about by the industrial revolution have seen the per person CO2 emissions decline.

It is true that in almost any scenario there are losers and winners. However, this largely becomes a question of adaptation and pace-of-change. The scientific thought is that we will continue to warm faster than we ever had - and CO2 concentrations will likely be higher than they have ever been (and continue increasing).

How well does the nature of the Earth play into controlling the cycle. Are there natural limits that can't be exceeded because of physics?

So, as we warm, some areas will win - with the northern land-masses increasing in grain-growing efficiency, etc. However, people don't live in Greenland anymore. And, faster than they can adapt, the asian delta regions where millions of people live will begin to be encroached upon by rising oceans (I will concede here, according to the theory...which is not fact). It is all an issue of what adaptation is reasonable and attainable in the time-scale of the changes, and what "bads" are we willing to accept for the "goods."

Well, there you have it.

And still I have no problem with Greenland becoming livable again.

It isn't that the extreme pressure is required for the reaction to happen, my thought is that it is likely required for such a reaction to be favored such that a heavy-chain product like gasoline would actually be favored. Also, it is likely that very high temperatures would be needed to overcome not only the barriers to break the initial carbon-carbon bonds and oxygen-hydrogen bonds, but a high temperature is also required to form the new bonds that would link the carbons together to form gasoline at any appreciable rate (rather than waiting for this to take a few thousand years or more to happen).

I don't understand why higher temperatures would be needed if one could closely duplicate the molecule and if that sort of chemical reaction could actually occur then it would require thousands of years.

The Naval reports about the John Andrews experiment and demonstration is something I've always found intriguing, nothing to obsess over though.

It is my understanding that Kyoto doesn't tell how, it tells what levels you must meet as a signatory and ratifying nation. I don't see how energy solutions would pass through the UN - but your energy solutions must meet an emissions target (that you have agreed to). I was separating energy policy from a technology standpoint from emissions policies - but I understand that they are not completely independent...some technologies would not be chosen under emissions pressures from something like Kyoto (which is getting ready to go away anyway...though it will be replaced with a new protocol...which the US may just be a member of).

Very little doubt the US will be a member with our current POTUS and democrat/socialist legislature.

Some big problems with the last Kyoto, while America is saddled with perhaps unrealistic goals, for the two biggest polluters, China and India it's business as usual.

Picture three sets of rail road tracks, on two you have old smoke belching stream engines pulling freight cars at top speed, on the third track you have a hand car reminiscent of a scene from "Oh Brother Where Art Thou."

What is America without any heavy industry, a third world country?? That seems to be where some would take us.

We regulated our steel industry out of business with environmental regulations and another problem with that is that some countries aren't above cheating on standards. I know for a fact that some Brazilian steel imported into the US didn't meet the standards it was said to meet.

Picture all the school buildings that collapsed in the big earthquake in China, do you want to duplicate that in America??

It is unlikely (and not very efficient) for each person to make only the hydrogen he/she needs. So, the bigger problem is storage and transportation on an total-market-scale. It is apparently a pretty significant challenge.

Not if you think on a smaller scale. (Just what Amory Lovins says is one of our major problems.)

A company, or lots of small companies could sell, install and maintain systems for one dwelling or several working in cooperation that would supply all their energy needs for home and transportation. The technology is certainly there, that has been proven.

I'll check it out...

Rocky Mountain Institute "Solutions Journal."

RMI library.

This isn't my first rodeo, I first became interested in 'climate change' back in the '60s when the 'imminent ice age' scare was on.

I have to admit the 'ice age' scare is far more frightening than the 'global warming' scare.

Throughout history though, mankind has made far more
idiotic decisions based on emotion that based on logic and even when based on contemporary logic of the time, big mistakes have been made by making moves too quickly.

I've operated on the 'if you don't know, ask someone who does.' I learned a whole lot about the topic and to say that information in the public public domain contains a more than ample amount of disinformation is putting it very mildly, much of that has been introduced into public education also.


I used to get the Rocky Mountain newsletter for about fifteen years starting in the mid seventies.

It's depressing to compare what intelligently could be done and a lot of what we are proposing to do.

Even the discussion as a whole is skewed which leaves us with ethanol mandates and other idiotic rules.

I would say that UCS folks do lean that way, but I don't think that Lester would have any UCS folks directly on his team - though I don't know that for a fact. With the proximity between Kendall Square and Harvard Square, who knows...

I will say that as cap-and-trade legislations go, the Waxman bill has some very attractive aspects, especially when compared to the Inslee bill. Lieberman-Warner + Waxman in committee could lead to a decent bill...that is, if you're into that kind of thing .

NOT!

(The UCS 'leaning' comment is probably the understatement of the day, to put it mildly.)

I'm not sure what the last big Energy bill did because it wasn't fully enacted, but as far as I know most ethanol subsides are still in place....as far as fuel standards, I'm also pretty sure they are there. This has to get fixed. Saying that you have to use ethanol in and of itself isn't horrible, but you've got to fund and encourage the right sources or else it's useless (and detrimental).

I disagree about demands for ethanol use, it is horrible in and of itself.

What has it done to world food supply????? This program has had a very bad effect on food prices and availability and will be magnified greatly in the future if it isn't stopped yesterday if not sooner.

Not only do you have voluminous bills, (loaded with pork for political insiders and little inserts that increase central government control of everything while eliminating what decisions may be made by individual citizens) such as the energy bill, you have (for all practical purposes unregulated) federal agencies who on a daily basis make more regulations such as the proposed EPA regulation to tax milk cows at $175 per year and beef cattle at $85 per year!!!!!

Aren't milk and beef expensive enough for you already???

If you're bringing worthwhile information (something you excel at) don't ever feel a need to apologize for a lengthy post.

(let's hope the perverts don't get too carried away with that statement)

I hope you aren't implying it is somehow perverted to try to increase the attention span of the sound byte generation that seems to have rendered them all attention span deprived??

 

[TennTradition]

I thought your statement indicated we didn't have data from before the industrial revolution, my bad if I misunderstood you.

Yeah, you must have misunderstood..I was actually referring to the ice-core samples when I was talking about the historical record of CO2 lagging temperature - but noting that these effects were not observed during a period of massive, sustained CO2 release from sources that are not in equilibrium with sinks.

I didn't attempt to say we should look only at the past but I must stress if we are going to look at computer generated visions of the future that we be sure we are entering accurate data.

I think that this is generally why the models are used to model past data and if this is accomplished successfully, they are then used to forecast future results. But, they are models, and have inherent uncertainty (which is reported in the IPCC assessment reports as well as the literature from which those reports are drawn).

We also have to face the fact or correct the misunderstanding that CO2 emissions just started with the industrial revolution. The ever improving technologies brought about by the industrial revolution have seen the per person CO2 emissions decline.

That is interesting (and a little surprising considering our massive consumption as a people...but I'll take your word for it). The important point, though, is to take into consideration what the source of this CO2 is. Before the industrial revolution, would you not say that most if not all of this CO2 release was from burning of cellulose-containing materials like wood? If so, then this is a quasi-equilibrium process on the time scale of climate change. The wood that is burned quickly grows back as trees, re-capturing the CO2 that was just released. So, this wouldn't lead to an increase in CO2 concentrations over a longer term...same thing with forest fires.

How well does the nature of the Earth play into controlling the cycle. Are there natural limits that can't be exceeded because of physics?

As for the earth, I would say that there is some uncertainty there. It is hard to imagine the earth opening up a large CO2 sink unexpectedly, but I guess it could happen.

As for natural limits, there are some that I can name - and probably others I'm not thinking of. Given a set CO2 increase, there is only so much temperature increase that the earth will have, as a matter of physics. It would not be an out-of-control increase, for example, that would lead to "explosion" of the earth (as stupid as that sounds). Also, there is a natural limit to how high CO2 concentrations can get - the atmosphere can only hold so much CO2 at a given temperature before it will condense out to form CO2 lakes. But, that is a very, very high concentration compared to what we are concerned about and we would all die from CO2 asphyxiation before that would happen I would think (and no, I'm not suggesting that would actually happen).

And still I have no problem with Greenland becoming livable again.

But, do you have problems with hundreds of millions of people being displaced from their lands and way of life and the resulting tension, wars, etc.? I would say that if Greenland is livable, those regions most likely would not be. If the transition happened very slowly, then maybe that would be OK - but it probably wouldn't happen slowly enough.

I don't understand why higher temperatures would be needed if one could closely duplicate the molecule and if that sort of chemical reaction could actually occur then it would require thousands of years.

If the material you are starting out with is already the right chain length, and just needs to have some hydrogens and oxygens put at the right place, then it is possible it wouldn't require that high of a temperature or that long of a time. This would be because, perhaps, most of the important bonds that would require this sort of temperature/time have already been formed in whatever source you used to obtain the "green pellet", for example, coal. The reason so much time is required is because some of these reactions have very high activation barriers, so the reactions are slow - or require super high temperatures. In some cases, if the temperature is too high, the reactions are not favored anymore...so you have to rely on very long times and very slow reactions. Without knowing what the starting material is, though, any speculation is fairly useless on my part.

Some big problems with the last Kyoto, while America is saddled with perhaps unrealistic goals, for the two biggest polluters, China and India it's business as usual.

It's hard to imagine an effective system for global emissions reductions without China and India on board - but it's also hard to imagine them on board without the US on board.

I have to admit the 'ice age' scare is far more frightening than the 'global warming' scare.

If man hangs around long enough...we will have to face a real ice age unless we can earth-engineer our way out of it, that would seem to be a given. And, I agree, these prospects are even worse. The thought that we are probably at least 50,000 years away from this makes me feel better.

I've operated on the 'if you don't know, ask someone who does.'

Sounds like a good strategy to me.

I disagree about demands for ethanol use, it is horrible in and of itself.

What has it done to world food supply????? This program has had a very bad effect on food prices and availability and will be magnified greatly in the future if it isn't stopped yesterday if not sooner.

Ethanol in and of itself is not a horrible thing - like I said, it depends on its source. If you are going to rely on corn-based ethanol (which we have done, currently do, and have subsidized almost exclusively), then it is obviously a problem as you note and as I was trying to point out in my original post. However, if you can turn to cellulose-based ethanol or ethanol from algae may be more successful strategies that don't put these kinds of pressures on food/grain markets. Even scientifically corn-based ethanol doesn't make sense from an energy balance...you invest all of the money in the process for anywhere from zero to about 8% more energy than you put in during processing (and the corresponding lack of reduction in emissions).

 

[gsvol]

Well thanks for your efforts that help facilitate an intelligent and informed discussion, I will put forth an effort to be more succinct in the hopes of being more helpful myself.

It's almost enough for me to rearrange my files from chronological order into subject matter order.
(as if I were writing some historical review of the twentieth century)

Here is a blast from the past;

two ice ages having apparently occurred in the face of carbon levels in the atmosphere 16 times greater than that of today, millions of years before mankind’s appearance on earth

Argue the facts of the link provided!!!

Yeah, you must have misunderstood..I was actually referring to the ice-core samples when I was talking about the historical record of CO2 lagging temperature - but noting that these effects were not observed during a period of massive, sustained CO2 release from sources that are not in equilibrium with sinks.

"not in equilibrium with sinks??"

Not sure I understand your rhetoric??

I think that this is generally why the models are used to model past data and if this is accomplished successfully, they are then used to forecast future results. But, they are models, and have inherent uncertainty (which is reported in the IPCC assessment reports as well as the literature from which those reports are drawn).

Theory and uncertainty are germane to the discussion, I agree.

That is interesting (and a little surprising considering our massive consumption as a people...but I'll take your word for it). The important point, though, is to take into consideration what the source of this CO2 is. Before the industrial revolution, would you not say that most if not all of this CO2 release was from burning of cellulose-containing materials like wood? If so, then this is a quasi-equilibrium process on the time scale of climate change. The wood that is burned quickly grows back as trees, re-capturing the CO2 that was just released. So, this wouldn't lead to an increase in CO2 concentrations over a longer term...same thing with forest fires.

Coal, peat, camel and elephant dung and other heating fuels have been used for thousands of years, yes.

NO, there are large portions of the Earth that have NOT been reforested.

You are using technical terms that tend to snow me, keep it simple, what does 'quasi-equilibrium process' mean???

Bottom line, we don't really know what caused the last mini ice age or the warming period before that but we can be fairly certain that the industrial revolution was coincidental and not causal.

How can the tying into marxist theology be beneficial to the discussion??

As for the earth, I would say that there is some uncertainty there. It is hard to imagine the earth opening up a large CO2 sink unexpectedly, but I guess it could happen.

Guess so, guess not, still in all still guesses and not known science.

As for natural limits, there are some that I can name - and probably others I'm not thinking of. Given a set CO2 increase, there is only so much temperature increase that the earth will have, as a matter of physics. It would not be an out-of-control increase, for example, that would lead to "explosion" of the earth (as stupid as that sounds). Also, there is a natural limit to how high CO2 concentrations can get - the atmosphere can only hold so much CO2 at a given temperature before it will condense out to form CO2 lakes. But, that is a very, very high concentration compared to what we are concerned about and we would all die from CO2 asphyxiation before that would happen I would think (and no, I'm not suggesting that would actually happen).

I'm glad you aren't going down that path, I never have though you insane.

When you speak of 'explosion of earth', how does volcanic activity affect global atmospheric conditions and how well can we predict those events?

(It would be nice to have a thread of theoretical theories revived from the radical '60s, everyone had to have their own, there was the Yeti theory, the tree control theory, as proposed by some of my friends which were a couple of my favorite, and then there was my own, the 'big space rock' theory which I would be glad to expound upon.)

What your statement does though, is bring into play the effect of volcanic activity on Earth and it's effect on global temperature, we do know that plays into the equation and I've seen no studies that include that element of predictable effect in any equation.

We do know that this has affected global atmospheric events in the past and may now be affecting what is happening to affect sea temperatures by way of subsurface volcanoes.

But, do you have problems with hundreds of millions of people being displaced from their lands and way of life and the resulting tension, wars, etc.? I would say that if Greenland is livable, those regions most likely would not be. If the transition happened very slowly, then maybe that would be OK - but it probably wouldn't happen slowly enough.

That's already happening and you overstate the rising of sea levels. I disagree, the change would be slow and over hundreds of years, not some scary scenario as predicted by the alarmists!!

If the material you are starting out with is already the right chain length, and just needs to have some hydrogens and oxygens put at the right place, then it is possible it wouldn't require that high of a temperature or that long of a time. This would be because, perhaps, most of the important bonds that would require this sort of temperature/time have already been formed in whatever source you used to obtain the "green pellet", for example, coal. The reason so much time is required is because some of these reactions have very high activation barriers, so the reactions are slow - or require super high temperatures. In some cases, if the temperature is too high, the reactions are not favored anymore...so you have to rely on very long times and very slow reactions. Without knowing what the starting material is, though, any speculation is fairly useless on my part.

Are you talking about diamonds or zircons??

You have an ample supply of H2O and also carbon, the trick is to chemically add the carbon to the H2O to form a combustible mixture to form an energy source.

It's hard to imagine an effective system for global emissions reductions without China and India on board - but it's also hard to imagine them on board without the US on board.

Who goes first? I'm not into committing hari kari to claim the high moral ground.

If man hangs around long enough...we will have to face a real ice age unless we can earth-engineer our way out of it, that would seem to be a given. And, I agree, these prospects are even worse. The thought that we are probably at least 50,000 years away from this makes me feel better.

In looking at the past, 50,000 year looks to be an unrealistic expectation as far as expecting another ice age, if we look at real history, 5,000 or less looks to be more realistic than 50,000.

It might be realistic to suppose our sun could nova and we would all be toast, bottom line is we don't know when that will happen but if we can't learn to control solar activity, astronomy tells us that eventually our sun will explode and we will be burnt cinders.

Sounds like a good strategy to me.

Don't ask me, I'm with Socrates, I know nothing.

Ethanol in and of itself is not a horrible thing - like I said, it depends on its source. If you are going to rely on corn-based ethanol (which we have done, currently do, and have subsidized almost exclusively), then it is obviously a problem as you note and as I was trying to point out in my original post. However, if you can turn to cellulose-based ethanol or ethanol from algae may be more successful strategies that don't put these kinds of pressures on food/grain markets. Even scientifically corn-based ethanol doesn't make sense from an energy balance...you invest all of the money in the process for anywhere from zero to about 8% more energy than you put in during processing (and the corresponding lack of reduction in emissions).

Well we are in complete agreement on this point, it would make much more sense to drill on the north slope and other areas if we are going to use that approach.

Glad we have agreement on that.

The ethanol legislation has to be among, if not the most idiotic legislation ever in the history of our nation if not in the history of the world.


It reminds me of a famous painting in a famous place under which many great men have sat and the title under the painting states; "Roman Senators, just having past legislation and now about to pass gas!?"

 

[gsvol]

The results are still about a year out,

I'll bring in some other perspectives.

Here are some results from a year ago.

Other perspectives are all important.

Scientists call on UN Climate Committee to admit they are
wrong and renounce Global Warming
[snip]

The UN’s Climate Committee leadership and policies were today challenged by four scientists, including one Nobel Peace Prize winner, from around the world to admit that CO2 centred Global Warming theories are now disproved by observations and to renounced that theory and associated ‘devastating policies’ which are weakening the world economy and increasing food shortages and destruction of forest across the planet.

Their bombshell letter includes a graph by Joseph D’Aleo, (Certified Consultant Meteorologist, Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), and Executive Director Icecap.us) based entirely on official figures which shows that while CO2 has risen dramatically for the last ten years world temperatures have been falling contrary to the UN (IPCC) predictions.

The writers directly challenge the IPCC to produce observational evidence for the UN’s CO2 driven Global Warming theories which are now being used to justify anti-CO2 measures and taxes all over the world:

“If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it” the scientists challenge.

Media are welcome to publish the graph and letter and extracts therefrom.

The letter: Dr. Rajendra Pachauri Chairman Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change c/o World Meteorological Organization 7bis Avenue de la Paix C.P. 2300 CH- 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland

IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food – maize as biofuel – has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].

Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognized will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?

We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.

Yours sincerely,

Hans Schreuder Piers Corbyn Dr Don Parkes Svend Hendriksen

Read what it says!! They present a compelling, perhaps irrefutable argument that the UN IPCC conclusions are the exact opposite of the truth from a scientific approach!!!!

From a political standpoint then instead of needing immediate action, we need to clean up the political mess we have already committed.