Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[TurninTurtle]

I seriously doubt that man is having a significant effect on climate.

There are some things that really should be of greater concern. We've used the oceans as big toxic waste dumps for centuries. Kill off life in the oceans and you will succeed in killing all life on the planet.

A few degrees difference isn't going to be what kills the ecosystem.

We have evidence that in the past Alaska and Antartica were prime farmland BECAUSE THE EARTH WAS WARMER.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I see two things that need clarifying:

1. Do you in fact think that humanity is actually having a material effect, or not, on climate?
2. Can you explain how it is you've got your head so far up your ass about what we can or cannot do about #1?

Actually, the only thing that needs clarifying is your diagnosis.

I understand why getting your head handed to you each time you attempt to make yourself feel better by cutting and pasting claptrap from some warmist loon website, but why keep punishing yourself?

In any case, your second weird-o is answered. And the answer is that without doing things that no nation is willing to do, because no one except warmist loons actually believe this stuff, nothing whatsoever can be done about human contribution to CO2.

But that's ok, because it doesn't appear that is much harm done by human emissions in any case, unless you think a warmer, more productive planet is a problem.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Actually, the only thing that needs clarifying is your diagnosis.

I understand why getting your head handed to you each time you attempt to make yourself feel better by cutting and pasting claptrap from some warmist loon website, but why keep punishing yourself?

In any case, your second weird-o is answered. And the answer is that without doing things that no nation is willing to do, because no one except warmist loons actually believe this stuff, nothing whatsoever can be done about human contribution to CO2.

But that's ok, because it doesn't appear that is much harm done by human emissions in any case, unless you think a warmer, more productive planet is a problem.

Possibly the most impenetrable denier fortress I've recently encountered.

Most garden-variety AGW deniers of measurable IQ have retreated to "skepticism" of some sort, because of the ever-decreasing credibility of outright denial... yet you stand fast. And you're not stupid, I can see that. Interesting.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

At 700 meters plus, yes, thermal expansion is the only thing that impact surface sea levels. What else are you suggesting? More water down there? (hint: it's already all water) Perhaps it isn't me that needs a quick refresher on basic science.

You know, it's funny, but only one of us was using the short term deep ocean results from these papers to make a decision about whether future sea level rise was a concern.

Do you feel analyzing a short a short-term linear trend in thermal expansion in part of the ocean is the best way to measure risk?

Can you think of any other reasons besides sea level rise that it might be important to understand changes to heat content in the deeper ocean? (Hint, it was why those papers were brought up in the first place.)

Do you feel when calculating a total, it is best to add just one part, or include all the parts?

Do you feel that surface heating is instantly transported to ocean depths, so these depths have experienced all the changes that they will from any recent warming?

You may also want to read up on whether a linear trend is appropriate over century scales for this problem.

[newhaul]

Here's one idea to reduce co2 considerably without much effort on anypnes part. 1.23 pounds of co2 in each gallon of gas burned is directly attributed to the ethanol in it ( e10 ).
12.23 pounds per gallon of pure ethanol.
How much carbon dioxide is produced by burning gasoline and diesel fuel? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Also we all know that adding ethanol reduces fuel economy.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

For many of us the question is not how much remaining fossil fuels there are, but whether it is prudent to burn them.


https://carbonbubble.info/

They can already make hydrocarbon fuels out of thin air. It's just very expensive to do so.

Holy Grail of Fuel? Scientists Make Synthetic Gas from Air and Water

Many of us feel that the world needs to commit much larger resources to developing economical, sustainable, non-carbon energy sources. But there is no reason for expending such efforts if it is unneeded. That is really the reason behind the arguments of this thread: Is business-as-usual going to work out well for us, or do we need to explore outside our comfort zone?

It is a very important question for those interested in calculating the rate of Earth's temperature increase, and thus how much time we may have left before, say, the Greenland icecap melts, or Miami floods, or the Sahel becomes too hot to live in.

Greenland isn't melting its growing
https://www.skepticalscience.com/gre...aining-ice.htm
This is a different link than I posted a few yes ago

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here's one idea to reduce co2 considerably without much effort on anypnes part. 1.23 pounds of co2 in each gallon of gas burned is directly attributed to the ethanol in it ( e10 ).
12.23 pounds per gallon of pure ethanol.
How much carbon dioxide is produced by burning gasoline and diesel fuel? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Also we all know that adding ethanol reduces fuel economy.

I think you didn't include some of the important comparisons:

Burning a gallon of gasoline produces: 19.64 pounds of CO2.
Burning a gallon of E10 gasoline produces somewhat less: 18.95 pounds of CO2.
Burning a gallon of pure ethanol produces a fair amount less: 12.23 pounds of CO2.

But as you point out, it also has an impact on fuel economy.
To really compare, it would be necessary to know at least two more things: how much is fuel economy reduced, and how much energy (and thus emissions) did it take to produce those gallons (it takes energy to produce either gas or ethanol). The latter depends both on the crop grown, where and how it is grown, and the process used to produce the ethanol.

Older processes used with corn were very inefficient. There have been some advances. For instance, this paper including life-cycle analysis (total emissions to produce and use, but not obvious whether it includes impact on fuel economy) claims that cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass could produce 94% fewer total emissions than gasoline, but that it requires careful treatment of all parts of the process.

Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass

As a side benefit, switchgrass can be grown successfully on marginal lands that are not productive for agriculture, thereby reducing the competition between fuel crops and food.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by mr_f

I think you didn't include some of the important comparisons:

Burning a gallon of gasoline produces: 19.64 pounds of CO2.
Burning a gallon of E10 gasoline produces somewhat less: 18.95 pounds of CO2.
Burning pure ethanol produces a fair amount less: 12.23 pounds of CO2.

But as you point out, it also has an impact on fuel economy.
To really compare, it would be necessary to know at least two more things: how much is fuel economy reduced, and how much energy (and thus emissions) did it take to produce those gallons (it takes energy to produce either gas or ethanol). The latter depends both on the crop grown, where and how it is grown, and the process used to produce the ethanol.

Older processes used with corn were very inefficient. There have been some advances. For instance, this paper including life-cycle analysis (total emissions to produce and use, but not obvious whether it includes impact on fuel economy) claims that cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass could produce 94% fewer total emissions than gasoline, but that it requires careful treatment of all parts of the process.

Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass

Here's one other thing that wasn't mentioned at all the co2 from t ethanol is c14 so really throws a wrench in everyone's measuring.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Greenland isn't melting its growing
https://www.skepticalscience.com/gre...aining-ice.htm
This is a different link than I posted a few yes ago

This post has confused me. That is a very different link.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by mr_f

This post has confused me.

Dont you know ice sheet growth is a sign of a warming climate?

It turns out that the two phenomena — a growing ice sheet and warming-related melting — are not mutually exclusive.
...
More snow accumulation is, counterintuitively, a sign of global warming

http://www.livescience.com/52831-ant...l-warming.html

You have every right to be confused so I'll go easy on you.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Dont you know ice sheet growth is a sign of a warming climate?

Antarctica Is Gaining Ice, So Why Is the Earth Still Warming?

You have every right to be confused so I'll go easy on you.

Hey reef. As funny as I find it, I don't really intend to start another "pissing contest" but did you read the link he posted?

Did I accidentally install a chrome extension that replaces all naysayer sources with skepticalscience? (Which actually would be a pretty funny extension to create.) Or did he post a link that directly refuted his point? Maybe he is trying to trick you again.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Hey reef. As funny as I find it, I don't really intend to start another "pissing contest" but did you read the link he posted?

Did I accidentally install a chrome extension that replaces all naysayer sources with skepticalscience? (Which actually would be a pretty funny extension to create.) Or did he post a link that directly refuted his point?

Sorry i presumed you had read all related articles. My bad.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Sorry i presumed you had read all related articles. My bad.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Who says I didn't. (I not only have read the article you posted, I am also aware that Greenland and Antartica are two different places.)

That is an interesting debate strategy on newhauls part. Post an article that says the opposite of what you intend. Then hope that the other side of the debate will be so adamant in their belief that you are wrong about everything that they keep following links until they find one that says what you intended in the first place. Might actually work with some folks on here. I should try it.

[TurninTurtle]

Ethanol has less BTU of energy per gallon than gasoline so you end up burning more to get the same work done. (like moving a car down the road)

10% ethanol in gas reduces mileage enough that you end up with MORE CO2 produced for the same trip.

Thanks EPA for helping increase global warming.

Oh wait... we weren't supposed to notice that.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

Ethanol has less BTU of energy per gallon than gasoline so you end up burning more to get the same work done. (like moving a car down the road)

10% ethanol in gas reduces mileage enough that you end up with MORE CO2 produced for the same trip.

Thanks EPA for helping increase global warming.

Oh wait... we weren't supposed to notice that.

That and the increased maintance due to the effects of alcohol on gaskets and seals and fuel lines.