I honestly do not believe this is the correct forum for this type of discussion. I can go back to the time I was in college and produce papers written to verify there was a consciences that settled science determined there was going to be an impending ice age. this was repeated in almost every major world paper. It is my understanding that over the period of time you reference, settled science has determined there to have been 3 ice ages and 3 or more incidences of global warming. Sense they all pre dates man to what do you attribute the warming?
"When, over suitable time ranges, the record of temperatures is averaged, what has been found is that indeed things have gotten warmer. (This is pretty well-settled science, and the effort has been undertaken by a number of different and independent groups." I would like to see the list of "independent groups" you refer too. The ones we saw listed are anything but independent. If you look closely at the list of so called scientists that makes up the "settled science" report over 80 % receive money from groups that support that same point of view. I also remember not so long ago many on this list falsified or misstated data to create the elusion of global warming. When a tractor salesman tells me a competitors brand is better I am more inclined to believe it than when he tells me the others brand is worse. The idea of energy conservation would have any effect on the earth biosphere is a joke. If you look closely the effects they estimate are not within the margin of error and would take 100 years to even show up at all. The population is growing and they will need increasing amounts of energy to improve and sustain their lives over the short and long term. AD provides a way to take the waste that will inevitably be generated and convert it in to usable by products. They only way to accomplish significant energy conservation is the plan progressives cam up with at the turn of the century. they were going to sterilize mass portions of the population. George Bernard Shaw was part of this group. If you read Shaw's less well known writings you will find he and his group had very logical justification for there positions, the environment being one of them. I cannot remember who was concerned about low corn prices, but how are the high prices working out for you? Brent One the PhDs not on the list of settled science! ----- Original Message ----- From: David To: For Discussion of Anaerobic Digestion Cc: Jones, Robin (TWP) Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [Digestion] Digestion Digest, Vol 11, Issue 16 Robin, On 7/22/2011 9:32 AM, Jones, Robin (TWP) wrote: Something I have been thinking about for quite some time now. I understand that the whole argument surrounding global warming is that temperatures etc. have changed proportionately to CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere. The hypothesis is that CO2 forms a thermal blanket through which the transmission of heat waves to outer space is retarded. Actually what changes is not always temperature, but rather the amount of energy in various systems. Since weather is an engine powered by that energy, what one gets with increases in greenhouse gases is more weather extremes. You might expect more hurricanes, for example, or an increase in both droughts and flooding (although obviously not likely in the same area). When, over suitable time ranges, the record of temperatures is averaged, what has been found is that indeed things have gotten warmer. (This is pretty well-settled science, and the effort has been undertaken by a number of different and independent groups.) What happens today is weather; what happens over a decade is climate. For most heat to be created the primary starting point is combustion which in most cases produce CO2. Therefore the level of CO2 in earth's atmosphere is proportional to the heat generated by the primary energy source (i.e. Combustion). If this is the case, can't we conclude that global warming is also proportionate to the thermal energy produced worldwide. Here's the thing, returning to biogas, which is that it matters a good deal where the carbon comes from. When we create biogas using organic materials that grew, then what has happened is that carbon was taken out of the atmosphere and returned. When we create heat or power using fossil fuels, then we have essentially dug up pre-historic carbon and added that to the atmosphere. Deforestation has the same effect, even though it liberates carbon that is "historic", carbon that was recently in the atmosphere. Thus, depending on how we build our solar or bioenergy or geothermal (etc.) systems, we may create a carbon debt by using fossil fuels in the construction, or in the creation of the materials used. But if, over time, that system can produce energy without increasing net carbon, then it is better than the alternative. What we have to do as well is find some way to sequester carbon, to get us back to levels that the earth has been enjoying for the last (nearly) half million years. So, no, global warming is not really proportional to thermal energy produced. Certainly the amount of energy we use is an important parameter, but given current technology, what is likely more crucial is the source of that energy, and the source of any associated carbon. If we had space-based solar energy stations beaming power to earth, then we might face a different situation. Considering this hypothesis, shouldn't we be focusing more on conserving energy before we look at alternatives to produce more?... The Kyoto protocol has assisted in quantifying, regulating CO2 footprints as well as reducing them. Conservation is crucial. It's the low-hanging fruit for having a major impact on climate change without major changes to our systems. But it's not either/or, it's both/and. And unfortunately it's not clear how effective Kyoto is or was. I think it's correct to say that in the best instance, the Kyoto protocol helped rather modestly, but it was far from a real resolution of the matter. This is an assessment, not a criticism, however. Kyoto was like the first steps of a child learning to walk. When the child falls down, as of course it must when it is learning, we do not throw up our hands and give up on encouragement. In the same way, it is not hard to point to any number of things about Kyoto-- including the fact that major economies such as the US and China were absent as signatories-- that did not work well. There was a scandal about fake carbon credits, for example, and a number of projects producing some of the more potent greenhouse gases, such as tetrafluoromethane took advantage of flaws in the system. It seems to me that while a carbon market can be poorly designed, and moreover is difficult to get right, it can be a very potent source of good outcomes. Similar market-based efforts have had a good effect on acid rain in the northeastern US. But as well, Kyoto gave us the very interesting model of the Clean Development Mechanism, within which a large number of biogas projects were developed. (If you know about this, briefly, CDM transfers low-carbon technology to the developing world, and savings in carbon equivalent emissions demonstrated by defined processes can then lead to carbon credits, in this case CERs, of one kind or another. It's a bit complex, but that's a fair summary.) Because of the nature of the beast, it is not practical to expect to gain carbon credits from any project that is not able to aggregate a fairly substantial number of small digesters, or which is focused on one or a few really large digesters, but there is a real possibility, if the carbon market can get off its back and some new Kyoto replacement is put in place, that this can be a very important process for many of us on this list. Is the world moving towards regulations on kWhs utilized against output capacity for each specific industry (e.g. a maximum of XkWh's per ton cement, food, mineral etc. produced) failing which these entities would face fines or closure until they comply? God only knows. Some would consider the mere possibility to be anathema, but as I said, if it is well done, it could be a major step in the right direction. Our problems are increasingly and strongly becoming worldwide, and really require global-- unific-- solutions. Yet we as a species have not developed any governmental structures with anything like the scope or power of the problems. I know my thinking is very simplistic; however it would be great to see what the rest of this forum can add to this topic. The consequences of not debating or sharing new ideas on this topic would be dire to all that live on Earth. Well said. d. -- David William House "The Complete Biogas Handbook" www.completebiogas.com Vahid Biogas, an alternative energy consultancy www.vahidbiogas.com "Make no search for water. But find thirst, And water from the very ground will burst." (Rumi, a Persian mystic poet, quoted in Delight of Hearts, p. 77) http://bahai.us/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Digestion mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org for more information about digestion, see Beginner's Guide to Biogas http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/ and the Biogas Wiki http://biogas.wikispaces.com/
_______________________________________________ Digestion mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org for more information about digestion, see Beginner's Guide to Biogas http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/ and the Biogas Wiki http://biogas.wikispaces.com/
