# A New Analysis That Will Not Make BeGreen Happy



## BrotherBart (Jul 16, 2006)

On the way back from buying my Energy Star electric range and dishwasher, both died last week within hours of each other, I heard an interesting factoid on the radio.

Seems that with the jump in gas prices high gas mileage cars are holding their value while SUV values are dropping like a rock. The guy that did the analysis says it has reached the point where you can buy a nice used SUV cheap enough to offset, and more, the difference in gasoline cost to operate it for a long time.

<ducking under the desk>


----------



## HarryBack (Jul 16, 2006)

geez, BB, do you have a death wish? Like waving a red flag in front of a bull, like running with scissors, like saying you are a Republican on Hearth.com   ;-P


----------



## webbie (Jul 17, 2006)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> On the way back from buying my Energy Star electric range and dishwasher, both died last week within hours of each other, I heard an interesting factoid on the radio.
> 
> Seems that with the jump in gas prices high gas mileage cars are holding their value while SUV values are dropping like a rock. The guy that did the analysis says it has reached the point where you can buy a nice used SUV cheap enough to offset, and more, the difference in gasoline cost to operate it for a long time.
> 
> <ducking under the desk>



I don't see any problem with this. Anyone with 1/2 a brain knows that they are not going to take big SUV's and melt them down! So, there is probably little difference made by selling it cheap and buying a high mileage car. The problem was that folks bought them in the first place...now, they have to be used at least until the end of their standard life.

This is one of the interesting dilemas. If I sell my large house and buy a smaller one, then someone is buying my house and using as much or more energy than I do. Same with the car. 

This is why I always keep harping on the big picture - CAFE standards, better efficiency, higher energy taxes, new technologies. Certainly, a single person can make a little bit of difference by conserving - but the big picture is how we all do when put together.


----------



## webbie (Jul 17, 2006)

HarryBack said:
			
		

> geez, BB, do you have a death wish? Like waving a red flag in front of a bull, like running with scissors, like saying you are a Republican on Hearth.com   ;-P



Republicans don't plunge toilets. They have illegal aliens do that for them. :coolgrin:


----------



## MountainStoveGuy (Jul 17, 2006)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> HarryBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




ohhhh nice one. :snake:


----------



## HarryBack (Jul 17, 2006)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> HarryBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



but do I hafta pay them minimum wage?


----------



## begreen (Jul 17, 2006)

No worry BB. There's always a sucker at a white elephant sale. I'll be smiling at them across the gas pump on that rare occasion when I'm filling the Prius.


----------



## saichele (Jul 17, 2006)

This is one I've been laboring over for a while...

We've been driving a 10yr old Explorer with 165K on it, knowing it might go another 5 days or another 5 yrs.  It does great for occasional long haul with kid/dog/christmas presents, etc, or pulling a small trailer.  But it gets about 15 in town and 20 hwy.  

About the best alternatives we've found are the Legacy and Passat wagons, each of which get about 22/30, but are rare in the used market (in the US-dominated midwest).  Based on our usage (4000 town, 4000 hwy), we'd be saving about 150 gallons/yr, but lose at least some of the trailering functionality, and maybe the AWD, which is useful out here.  

Also, people are unloading them fast.  12-14K gets a 2002 or newer with about 50K on it, and likely more bells and whistles.  And while there might be more repairs (FORD stands for something, after all), anybody can do them.  

That's several thou less than the comaparable used legacy or passat, and dramatically less than a new one of either.  So how long does it take to pay off the difference?  Not that long if we start rationing, but quite a while (in car yrs) at $3/gal.

Steve


----------



## Eric Johnson (Jul 17, 2006)

Wasting energy is a shameful thing. Like BG says, don't take the bait--it's about more than your personal bottom line.


----------



## saichele (Jul 17, 2006)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> Wasting energy is a shameful thing. Like BG says, don't take the bait--it's about more than your personal bottom line.



Aren't you Eric Johnson, of the 10 cord a year wood boiler Johnsons? 

Steve


----------



## Eric Johnson (Jul 17, 2006)

More like 15 cords a year, Steve.

I don't consider burning a renewable resource that benefits the forest when you remove it to be wasteful.

Not the same as driving a Suburban when you could accomplish the same thing with a Saturn, at any rate.

Wood and oil aren't even in the same energy category. Thought you'd understand that one, Steve.


----------



## bruce56bb (Jul 17, 2006)

steve, you might consider a malibu maxx. 22/30 mpg with a 1000lb trailer rating.
thanks
bruce


----------



## webbie (Jul 17, 2006)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> More like 15 cords a year, Steve.
> 
> I don't consider burning a renewable resource that benefits the forest when you remove it to be wasteful.
> 
> ...



Well, wood surely puts out a lot more pollution per BTU created.  And the problems we have are not just about energy, but about the waste products from it also. 

Never saw the Gore movie, but the wife brought home the book (same presentation) from the library so I paged through it. One comparison that got me thinking is that our breathable atmosphere is VERY small. The book mentioned, given a desk globe, the atmosphere would be about the thickness of the coat of varish on it!

All these questions are so difficult. If you were going to scrap the Explorer and buy a car with double the mileage, then it might make sense....but passing it on to someone else who might drive it 3X as much as you....I don't see the savings.

In other words, just because I leave NYC or Philly and come up to the hills, does not change the fact that NYC and Philly exist, nor does it change the output of the pollution there. I think it's more like we are all little ants in the colony, and we need a group effort and group change in behavior to really turn things around. It actually has been done....many of our rivers and much or our air is cleaner than in the last 50 years.....this does not include Greenhouse gases, though.

BTW, the news this morning said they were going to start turning poultry rederings (chicken fat) into biodiesel. This presents a new problem to the vegetarians among us.

More trivia - William Clay Ford, Jr. - Ford CEO, is a vegetarian (good article about him in the NYT).


----------



## Eric Johnson (Jul 17, 2006)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Well, wood surely puts out a lot more pollution per BTU created.  And the problems we have are not just about energy, but about the waste products from it also.
> 
> Never saw the Gore movie, but the wife brought home the book (same presentation) from the library so I paged through it. One comparison that got me thinking is that our breathable atmosphere is VERY small. The book mentioned, given a desk globe, the atmosphere would be about the thickness of the coat of varish on it!



That's why environmentalists like Gore resist managing the Western forests to prevent wildfires. I guess that's because fire is "natural" and you sure don't want to upset the natural balance. You don't read much about the negative health/environmental effects of the annual western wildfire season. You do hear a lot about million dollar homes being in jeopardy.

I'll take the truly negligible effects of my rural wood burning over the catastrophic environmental effects of oil/gas exploration, extraction, transportation and use, any day of the week. If you (and Al Gore) are worried about the effects of wood smoke on human health and the planet, how about lobbying for intelligent management of our National Forests?

I'm a vegetarian also, BTW. I don't think that necessarily makes me a good guy.


----------



## saichele (Jul 17, 2006)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> More like 15 cords a year, Steve.
> 
> I don't consider burning a renewable resource that benefits the forest when you remove it to be wasteful.
> 
> ...



Sure, wood and oil aren't in the same category, but they are both energy, and building materials, and a few other things.  

That's 3 or 4 yrs worth of heat to me, but you've made some decisions.  The value of the wood is less than the investment you have in the furnace and the convenience of loading a boiler twice a day in a basement (as opposed to 4 or 5 times in the living room).  Hell, you might be able to deduct it as a business expense.  But if you could heat with 4 or 5 cord in a different unit you're wasting energy.  Cutting/hauling/splitting probably burn gas.  And from a CO2 emissions standpoint, we'd be better off if that cut wood rotted in a hole.  

We actually make a serious effort to 'right size' the vehicle to the task - several days a week carpooling in a VW Golf TDI.  When we have to drive separately I usually drive my MGB (25-30mpg) and wife drives the TDI.  We only use the Explorer to tow, haul more than 2 adults and a car seat, or drag a bunch of stuff around for vacations or something.  So we don't drive a suburban [ever, or even an explorer] when a vw will do.

But we mostly do that because of the bottom line.  If gas were free, we probably wouldn't do that.  

If the wood were free, maybe I'd think of it differently, but I don;t have enough land to even come up with more than a cord or so a yr in perpeturity, meaning there's a dollar value with every cord I burn.  Whether it's gas to scrounge (in the 1993 F150 [about 16mpg all the time]), time and gas to cut/split, or $100/cord to have it dumpd in my yard.  

So we're wasting different forms of energy, but we're both wasting energy.  Energy content of the 'extra' 10 cords - 128 million BTU; the 'extra' 150 gallons - 17.25 million BTU.  

That was a somewhat labored way of saying it's not that I'm not thinking about it, but it might also be possible that a used explorer is a better choice in my case, and a wood furnace a better choiuce in your case. 

Steve


----------



## webbie (Jul 17, 2006)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> I'm a vegetarian also, BTW. I don't think that necessarily makes me a good guy.



And, in the Ford case, that doesn't mean he can save the company! The mention in the article was only when they went on a retreat and he was in charge of the brown rice! Taking it to the Gore movie/book, they do mention that it is one of the small things you can do to save a lot of fuel and greenhouse gases.

I think this (Gore, etc.) goes to prove that no one is perfect - and we are all hypocrites. Surely, Gore lives in a house built with lumber from the managed forests (like most of us do). 

The important thing here is not "who is cool" and who isn't, but rather that we are asking the questions at all. That's where I have to hand it to both Forum participants and Gore. A lot of people have seen the movie and are taking small steps....that is good, whatever we think of Gore.

I don't think there are many people, especially politicians, in the world that WOULD meet our standards......seems if we find one that does 80% good things and 20% bad things (in our opinion), we say "off with his/her head".


----------



## Eric Johnson (Jul 17, 2006)

Steve said:
			
		

> Eric Johnson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



tru.dat

An endless supply of free wood has warped my perspective, but in my case I don't consider it wasteful to burn a lot of wood. It's inconvenient and labor-intensive, but not wasteful. 

No gas for the splitter because I do it all by hand.

I like the idea of using the vehicle appropriate to the task at hand. Hopefully we'll all be doing more of that in the future.


----------



## saichele (Jul 17, 2006)

bruce56bb said:
			
		

> steve, you might consider a malibu maxx. 22/30 mpg with a 1000lb trailer rating.
> thanks
> bruce



Yea, we looked at that, but GM somehow managed to design a v6 with a lower tow rating than a subaru 4-cyl, and onlys slightly more luggage (seats up) space than my VW golf (about 2/3 as much as the subaru and passat).

At least they beat the imports on price...

Steve


----------



## bruce56bb (Jul 17, 2006)

At least they beat the imports on price… 
and fuel economy (22/30 vs 23/28)
and hp (201@5600 vs 173@6000)
and torque (166@4400 vs 221@3200)
etc
etc
etc


----------



## saichele (Jul 17, 2006)

bruce56bb said:
			
		

> At least they beat the imports on price…
> and fuel economy (22/30 vs 23/28)
> and hp (201@5600 vs 173@6000)
> and torque (166@4400 vs 221@3200)
> ...



Yea, but I need the cargo cubes and I'd like the towing ability.  AWD is a definite pro as well.  
I could take an extra second or two getting to 60 in the family wagon.  

The towing thing is baffling (based ont he performance numbers you posted), unless there just aren't any decent anchor points for the hitch.

Ironically, I find what I might be looking for is a modern equivalent of an '92 cutlass ciera mid-size wagon.  v6 preferred.  Anybody got one?  28 mpg hwy, 41 cu. ft. luggage, and optional 3rd row.  0-60 with an egg timer, but if all you're doing is getting to 70 and hitting cruise for 4 or 5 hrs, who cares how fast you get up to 70?

Steve


----------



## bruce56bb (Jul 17, 2006)

steve,i think the rear suspension is the limiting factor on the low trailering rating.


----------



## elkimmeg (Jul 17, 2006)

Yesterday traveling I-95  I was experimenting at different travel speeds 
 At 65  the speed limit everbody passed me I pass no one in 10 miles
70 again I was constantly being passed I passed no one
 75 going along decent but not making up any ground on anybody in front still being passed. I may have passed one other car but hard to tell as it only merged. 

 I quit at 80. I seemed to be keeping up with traffic even passed a few cars But it was like 5 to one passed me to me passing anyone else.  back down to 70 the expirment is done just as I thought n  not too much fuel effecient driving

 On Block Island an island off the coast of RI 15 miles from the ferry location.  The island is about 2or 3 miles wide and 13 miles long
 Never seen so many cars in such a small place other than cities.. I mean one cottage has 7 cars parked in the front yard and lawn only 1/4 mile from the center??? All cars arive via ferry..  the streets are narrow barely 2 lanes whole island has 25mph speed limit
 yet once you get out of the down town even the mopeds are speeding. Mopeds rentals are like 6 to one for every bicycles. As me and the wife peddle one notices the real anoying sound as the pass then that two cycle exhaust fumes The biggest trafic jam was in front of the only gas station purchasing gas at $4.29  Finally on the back roads I saw a cordwood pile.  Boy one would really have to scrounge for wood here most is low bushes.  The best time to enjoy these islands is after  or before peak seasons
 Docked are  boats in the 
$1/4 and up mill class.  Looking around there there is no hint of an energy crisis or  fuel effeciency is not on anyones radar  and noticable a lot of hummers. I don't think many participate here on hearth.com, in the green room. How can one educate so many self serving self centered people?


----------



## HarryBack (Jul 17, 2006)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> I'm a vegetarian also, BTW. I don't think that necessarily makes me a good guy.




If memory serves, Adolph Hitler was also a vegetarian........but I dont understand the relevance here of commenting on our diets versus burning gas and wood, abeit with extreme inefficiency.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jul 17, 2006)

Vegitarians are great. We need more of them. Helps hold the price of beef down a little for the rest of us!


----------



## MountainStoveGuy (Jul 18, 2006)

Glen beck just said "china's coal consumption next year will go up by a trillon metric tons, thats the same as emmissions from 30 billion ford expeditions"


----------



## webbie (Jul 18, 2006)

HarryBack said:
			
		

> .....but I dont understand the relevance here of commenting on our diets versus burning gas and wood, abeit with extreme inefficiency.



My comment was trivia as far as the head of Ford Motor Company, who BTW also claims he is an environmentalist - but is having a tough time with entrenched forces there.

On the Al Gore end, the book and movie both claim one of the main things we can do to reduce greenhouse gases is being veggie. Basically, it means a lot more MPG out of any food and the fuel used to produce it.

So eating meat is inefficient, unless you are hunting or raising your own grass-fed couple of head.


----------



## webbie (Jul 18, 2006)

MountainStoveGuy said:
			
		

> Glen beck just said "china's coal consumption next year will go up by a trillon metric tons, thats the same as emmissions from 30 billion ford expeditions"



The US accounts for 36% of worldwide Greenhouse Gases.
With about 6% of the worlds population.
When Kyoto was agreed, the US signed and committed to reducing its emissions by 6%. But since then it has pulled out of the agreement and its carbon dioxide emissions have increased to more than 15% above 1990 levels.


Chinese citizens each use about 10% the energy as their american counterparts.
With about 20% of the world population, they produce 16% of the Greenhouse gases.
China has signed the Kyoto Treaty and has the goal of getting 10% of energy from renewables by 2010 and more after that.


----------



## MountainStoveGuy (Jul 18, 2006)

I think the comment was directed to enevitable fact that global warming is going to occur and is irreversable at this point in time, i dont think it was pointed at the chinese for being wastfull. We all know us americans are the biggest gluttons on the face of the earth.


----------



## suematteva (Jul 18, 2006)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> Vegitarians are great. We need more of them. Helps hold the price of beef down a little for the rest of us!




Amen


----------



## elkimmeg (Jul 18, 2006)

some Al gore observations  where was all this wisdom during his campaign? Remember he lost to an idiot but had simmilar grades in college as Bush. I can't remember his distinguished military record? IT seems he takes a lot of credit for being enviormently correct after the fact? I always though NASA was responsible for the internet. What browser did he invent? I would agree Anderson was more instrumemtal than Gore.

I did not know if I ate only veggies I would have more energy. and be more energy effecient. I can tell you my wife has cut down on my red meat consumption and more fish. she keeps trying to get me to excersize more. The only excersize I get biking with her is in the neck to see if she can keep up And I have a crap bike I found someone was throwing it away. For some reason she discounts all the excersize I get doing my normal work. and naturally golf is no excersize.  processing 12+ cords of wood a year doesn't count.
Being stilll able to bench press my own weight  multi reps doesn"t count.. She is always scheduling physical exams. Went and did a stress test on a  treadmill 15 minutes later I asked the tech what was the  point. I maxed out the machine.  
 I'm with BB I can enjoy a jucie burger or steak but not as often Smartness is learning to do thinge in moderation. 
I hope members do not think less of me because I drink an occasional beer or two and have a hot dog


----------



## saichele (Jul 18, 2006)

MountainStoveGuy said:
			
		

> Glen beck just said "china's coal consumption next year will go up by a trillon metric tons, thats the same as emmissions from 30 billion ford expeditions"



That's not the real number.  They only mine about 2 Billion tons.  But it's rising by 10% annually.

Steve


----------



## saichele (Jul 18, 2006)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> MountainStoveGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the point is that in 9 yrs from your base year, they pass us in CO2 production.  And combined carbon emissions increase by 65% (ignoring the rest of the world.)

If we were reversed our trend and reduced our emissions by 1%/yr, in 9 yrs the US and China still emit 149% of their base yr emissions.  

So, as MSG pointed out, unless we can get a cap on China's emissions we're hosed anyway.  ours could go down some, but not nearly as fast as theirs are going up.

Steve


----------



## webbie (Jul 19, 2006)

Steve said:
			
		

> I think the point is that in 9 yrs from your base year, they pass us in CO2 production.  And combined carbon emissions increase by 65% (ignoring the rest of the world.)
> 
> If we were reversed our trend and reduced our emissions by 1%/yr, in 9 yrs the US and China still emit 149% of their base yr emissions.
> 
> ...



Wait! So CO2 emmissions are measured per country or continent.....not per person?

We need to get them to cap something that we refuse to cap?

Obviously, they are coming out of mass poverty and will increase their output. But until they get to 50% of what we put out (per person), I think they have the moral high ground (or until 95% even).

The point is not that they have to take action - actually they are doing so in many ways. The point is that we are here in the US pontificating while polluting vastly more! There is something wrong with this picture!


----------



## saichele (Jul 19, 2006)

Guess it depends on how you want to count.  

Per capita, US CO2 emissions peaked in 1973.  And are now basically flat.  And are currently decreasing relative to GDP.  

Per capita, China's CO2 emissions are growing at about 5% per year.  Still much smaller than US, but catching up.  But also dropping realtive to GDP.

Both from the UN - http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/eedrb/data/CN-enemgdp.html

But it's the last sentence from my last post - 
"So, as MSG pointed out, unless we can get a cap on China’s emissions *we’re hosed anyway*.  ours could go down some, but not nearly as fast as theirs are going up. "  Any reduction we make will be more than offset by their increase.

It doesn't necessarily matter where it comes from, but rather how much there is.  There's going to be a lot.  And there's really no way we're going to reduce global emissions to the necessary levels, Kyoto or not.

That is - the argument Gore and others put forward is that because we are emitting excess carbon, as a result of burning fossil fuels and clearing forests, we are adding carbon to the atmosphere faster than it can be reabsorbed.  They look at the historic record, say from Mauna Loa, and determine that we've been doing it for 150 yrs.  

So to keep atmospheric CO2 levels constant, we'd have to drop emissions to early 19th century levels world wide.  We can alter how fast the concentrations are increasing, but not the basic fact that they are increasing.  There's a lot of hand wringing and jockeying for position, but we're on a train going somewhere, and we can change the speed, but we can't stop it or back it up.  So while there are many good reasons to reduce our demand for foreign oil (and many of those solutions also help on CO2), on gloabl warming we can worry about it or we can enjoy the ride.  The outcome will be the same.

How's that for a picker upper early inthe day?

Steve


----------



## WarmGuy (Jul 19, 2006)

Note that burning wood does not contribute to global warming in the same way that burning oil does.  The combustion of the wood releases the same amount of carbon dioxide as was bound up by the growing tree. Also the wood, if not burned, would still oxidize as it decomposed on the ground (slow oxidation instead of fast).  The oil, however, if left underground, is not going to add CO2 to the atmosphere.  

Concerning high MPG cars, realize that depending on your driving, you don't have to spend a lot for a high-mileage hybrid.  Our Toyota echo gets 43 MPG and only cost us $13,000.  

We get good mileage because much of our driving is on the highway, and we drive 55 MPH (we get 39 MPG if we drive 67 MPH).  This is good because gas is about $3.40/gal around here.


----------



## webbie (Jul 19, 2006)

Steve said:
			
		

> Guess it depends on how you want to count.
> "So, as MSG pointed out, unless we can get a cap on China’s emissions *we’re hosed anyway*.  ours could go down some, but not nearly as fast as theirs are going up. "  Any reduction we make will be more than offset by their increase.
> How's that for a picker upper early inthe day?
> 
> Steve



I think per population is the most fair way, because using GNP means that a nation looks better because they are more industrial (and waste more, since GNP is a measure of output- including arms which you blow up, etc.).

So, based on the total per capita output of CO2, including that which is done in our name (China and Mexican plants making goods for the USA is really OUR output, this existed to a very small level in the past, but big now)....do you say we are level or down? I'll do some research, but it is hard to imagine.

(as I suspected, research shows a leveling off, but does not take into account the vast amount produced by China, etc. for our goods. This is not a valid number then.....because of the vast trade imbalance...in other words, we are getting vastly more CO2 from them in goods than we are selling them in Software, etc.)

So, your post seems to say it is black or while - a check box or none. Do you mean to say that this entire situation is NOT a matter of degree? 

The way I see, it doesn't matter at all what China or India does....mostly because we can have little effect on that. 

BUT, we can change our behavior. We can elect a President and INSIST that he tell us what he intends to do (Kyoto for a start, much more later)....

Now, as far as those other countries, since we are the most capable country in the world in terms of R&D and capital, we should develop the technologied for reducing CO2 and pollutants and then sell the machines to the rest of the world. 

If this was (and it is) as important as arming us to the teeth, then we could easily do it. Our state could have almost 50% or more of its electricity just from wind farms, hydro and a few biomass plants....let alone tidal and wave generators. 

These efforts are actuallyu easy once the political will is there. That is what leadership is.


----------



## jjbaer (Nov 13, 2006)

MountainStoveGuy said:
			
		

> I think the comment was directed to enevitable fact that global warming is going to occur and is irreversable at this point in time, i dont think it was pointed at the chinese for being wastfull. We all know us americans are the biggest gluttons on the face of the earth.



Steve,

Don't know if you're old enough to remember but in about 1973, the same scientific community who are now saying "global warming" were at that time crying out the dangers of the coming "global ice age".......it was all the rage in the liberal press.....so......as an engineer and scientist myself, while I do think we should be doing all we can to do things in the most efficient ways we can (which in turn DOES reduce greenhouse gases significantly) I also don't believe everything I see or hear........

Also, I'd like to see a NET assessment of what happens if we increase our temperatures a little.....hey, who knows, we might be able to raise corn for ethanol YEAR ROUND in N. and S. Dakota!!


----------



## begreen (Nov 13, 2006)

Corn is not ideal for ethanol production. Sugar cane or sugar beets have much higher sugar content and are better alternatives. Given the risk of hurricanes in LA perhaps farming sugar cane there is a viable recovery plan.

PS: I's sure you are familiar with many of the scientic communtity assessments of the effect of global warming in the US and world already. Many crop yields may be lower due to higher nighttime temps and of course, less water,  but in case not:

http://www.pewclimate.org/arctic_qa.cfm#7
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282(199909)89:4<1049:TIOGWO>2.0.CO;2-H
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/27/9971
http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2006/063.asp


----------



## jjbaer (Nov 13, 2006)

elkimmeg said:
			
		

> some Al gore observations  where was all this wisdom during his campaign? 're being intellectually honest here about Bush.  here's what you I can't remember his distinguished military record? IT seems he takes a lot of credit for being enviormently correct after the fact? I always though NASA was responsible for the internet. What browser did he invent? I would agree Anderson was more instrumemtal than Gore.
> 
> I did not know if I ate only veggies I would have more energy. and be more energy effecient. I can tell you my wife has cut down on my red meat consumption and more fish. she keeps trying to get me to excersize more. The only excersize I get biking with her is in the neck to see if she can keep up And I have a crap bike I found someone was throwing it away. For some reason she discounts all the excersize I get doing my normal work. and naturally golf is no excersize.  processing 12+ cords of wood a year doesn't count.
> Being stilll able to bench press my own weight  multi reps doesn"t count.. She is always scheduling physical exams. Went and did a stress test on a  treadmill 15 minutes later I asked the tech what was the  point. I maxed out the machine.
> ...



Elk,

You're being intellectually dishonest here with the other forum members who take your word as "gospel"......Here's the truth about Gores academic record (you can find it here:

http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm

and at several other places).  From the article: 

1)  Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. 

2)  "In his sophomore year at Harvard," the Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard).

Now I ask you Elk, what say you to these facts?


----------



## jjbaer (Nov 13, 2006)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Corn is not ideal for ethanol production. Sugar cane or sugar beets have much higher sugar content and are better alternatives. Given the risk of hurricanes in LA perhaps farming sugar cane there is a viable recovery plan.



Begreen,

please address the main fact:  that the same scientific group that is NOW saying "global warming" was THEN saying "Global Cooling"..........you seem to choose to believe whatever they feed you...... 


Also, the comment of "corn in ND" was an example meant to show that just because one variable turns negative (increased temperatures) this one change can have both negative and positive consequences..........all I'm saying is that I want to see the NET effect. Sound reasonable?

Also, please respond to the credibility issue concerning atmospheric scientists who first called for another ice age and are now saying "global warming".....


----------



## begreen (Nov 13, 2006)

This is not an us/them discussion. Surely as a scientist you have made an erroneous hypothesis once in your life? Isn't that what science is all about? But now, after 25 years of concentrated testing, models and real results (aka glacial melt, arctic permafrost melt, greenland icecap melt), the period of hypothesis is over, global warming is here. The only question now is whether we will reach the point of dramatic shutdown of balanced systems in which case the growing of corn in ND is academic and moot.


----------



## jjbaer (Nov 13, 2006)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> This is not an us/them discussion. Surely as a scientist you have made an erroneous hypothesis once in your life? Isn't that what science is all about? But now, after 25 years of concentrated testing, models and real results (aka glacial melt, arctic permafrost melt, greenland icecap melt), the period of hypothesis is over, global warming is here. The only question now is whether we will reach the point of dramatic shutdown of balanced systems in which case the growing of corn in ND is academic and moot.



BeGreen,

There are many notable scientists who say otherwise about global warming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

amongst these are:

Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences:

and

William M. Gray, Colorado State University:

this last one, Dr. Gray...he was the one who predicts the hurricanes each year.....you gonna tell me he and the MIT prof are "crack pots"...?

how about some more from that web site:

Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:

or

Tim Patterson [15], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada:


so...not saying it ISN'T happening, all I'm saying is that the same group who was saying the "sky is falling" in the 1970's with "global ice age" are now saying the "sky is falling" with "global warming" yet there are MANY CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS who say otherwise...that's all I'm saying.  

At least I'm willing to look at BOTH sides but you listen to only one side......

AND, as far as some "crop yields decreasing because of higher night time temps", there are also NEW agricultural areas created because the higher temperatures will allow crops to be planted where they never could before.....but again, you look at only those areas that support your theory....all I'm saying is look at it in totality (i.e., the NET result).


----------



## jjbaer (Nov 13, 2006)

castiron said:
			
		

> elkimmeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





OK, Elk...I'm waiting.........which student is the idiot now...still think it's Bush??  think again


----------



## begreen (Nov 13, 2006)

castiron said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The group of scientists from the 70's are largely retired or dead.  I do not know you. These are not "my" theories. You do not "know" me. Though you do resemble someone I "Frank"ly do know a little about.


----------



## Sandor (Nov 13, 2006)

Oddly enough, Global Warming may plunge Europe into a mini Ice Age. This may happen because the Isothermtic belt of warm Atlantic Ocean waters that travel from from the South, around the equator to the North around England. This Belt is referred to as the Gulf Stream, that produced many Tuna on my fishing tips out of Cape Hatteras. (The same Tuna loaded with Mercury)

Scientist were asounted when they recently discovered that the Isothermic Belt stopped moving for 4 days last year, for the first time!

Castiron, do you know what an Internet Troll is? I suggest you turn down the way overaggressive tone of your postings.


----------



## jjbaer (Nov 13, 2006)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> castiron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Be green,

Your "therapy" is almost over, "Frank" or whoever you are...LOL...at least NOW you're not continuing to delude yourself and you now ADMIT that there WAS a crackpot "global cooling" theory 30 years ago......hey, a few more steps in "castirons reality acceptance program" and you'll be released......

You are however, still not being academically truthful when you try to discard the crackpot "global cooling" theory by saying "many of those scientists from the 70's are dead".  OK..let's say they're all dead.  You seem to think that being "dead" and having been replaced by a "living" group who are now saying "global warming", somehow exonerates this first group while validating this second group ......it doesn't!  But hey, let's say it does, for arguments sake.  Then using your reasoning, you must also acknowledge another "living" group that disagrees with "global warming" and, unlike the global warming group, has NEVER waivered on their belief that their theory may be or is wrong!  That's all I'm saying.

So, what does this all mean:  even though I doubt man is the deciding factor in the slight temperature rises we've seen, I agree that pouring massive amounts of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere is NOT the right thing to do...doesn't mean I believe that CO2 is causing global warming but rather we need to come up with more environmentally friendly ways of producing power, that is, producing power while adding little to nothing to the environment that wasn't already there.  This is validated by my first-hand experience as a former power plant engineer (at a coal and oil fired unit).

In the end however, even ultra clean power production still results in adding heat to the atmosphere since all energy is eventually disapated as heat but, we can at least demand that power production be as clean as possible. 

Isn't it amazing that two people, who are diametric in their beliefs on what is causing global warming, would both be pursuing the same end-game, but for different reasons  Gotta love it!


----------



## jjbaer (Nov 13, 2006)

Sandor said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, Global Warming may plunge Europe into a mini Ice Age. This may happen because the Isothermtic belt of warm Atlantic Ocean waters that travel from from the South, around the equator to the North around England. This Belt is referred to as the Gulf Stream, that produced many Tuna on my fishing tips out of Cape Hatteras. (The same Tuna loaded with Mercury)
> 
> Scientist were asounted when they recently discovered that the Isothermic Belt stopped moving for 4 days last year, for the first time!
> 
> Castiron, do you know what an Internet Troll is? I suggest you turn down the way overaggressive tone of your postings.



Sandor,

The "way over aggressive posts" as you call them are only necessitated because of the liberal, one-sided slant to some of the posts being given here (not yours, but others) like the guy with his Bush/Gore comment where Bush is somehow an idiot compared to Gore...get real...Gore flunked out of divinity school and didn't finish law school......so then when someone like me actually takes time to research the facts, you call me an "internet troll" and "over aggressive".......get real......are you suggesting the truth doesn't matter?  And what about BeGreen where he refuses to even acknowledge contrary scientific opinion on global warming....

Bottom line:  you, Sandor, "search for the guilty (those blogging unsubstantiated facts) and punish the innocent (me who exposes the truth, by calling me an "overaggressive internet troll").  Get real, get a life and be academically honest with yourself and with others.  The truth WILL set you free, Sandor (even if you don't want it to)...LOL


----------



## saichele (Nov 13, 2006)

This smoldering ember flared awfully fast.  

My point is not that Glabal warming doesn;t exist, but that there's virtually nothing to be done about it.  We are as a species goingto continue to produce CO2 in quantities as large or larger than we currently are, and we will continue enriching the atmosphere in CO2.  Even if we roll back to 1990 or 198 levels, we're still enriching the atmosphere.  The "natural" contributions to this process are still a little fuzzy, but humans are certainly contributing.

Which means (assuming there is a cliff) we can change how fast the train runs off the cliff, but not the basic process of running off the cliff.  If we could wave a wand and magically stop emitting CO2, we might still go off the cliff (and cause widespread social upheaval), as we don't really know what the natural processes are.

So yes, in the meantime, I'm cautiously optimistic we can start double cropping inthe upper Midwest.  And maybe have some warmer winters for a while.

Steve


----------



## jjbaer (Nov 13, 2006)

Steve said:
			
		

> This smoldering ember flared awfully fast.
> 
> My point is not that Glabal warming doesn;t exist, but that there's virtually nothing to be done about it. We are as a species goingto continue to produce CO2 in quantities as large or larger than we currently are, and we will continue enriching the atmosphere in CO2. Even if we roll back to 1990 or 198 levels, we're still enriching the atmosphere. The "natural" contributions to this process are still a little fuzzy, but humans are certainly contributing.
> 
> ...



Steve,

Interesting take...that even if we drastically reduce (or stop) CO2 production, that we might still go off the cliff. Note that I said that I AM for reducing/eliminating CO2 and other gases simply because if they weren't there before, we shouldn't be adding to them now. I see it as a two step process: 1) use technology to reduce emissions from cars, power plants, etc to reduce future emissions and 2) use technology to "sequester" CO2 already in the atmosphere. 

Sequestering means using distillation to extract CO2 already in the atmosphere, liquefying or freezing it and dumping it into salt mines or elsewhere to "lock it" into a form that takes it out of the atmosphere. This could "buy us out" of any increases in atmospheric temps that MAY be due to CO2. Some drilling companies in the North Sea area are already doing this.

Another alternative: use space-borne or ground-based mirrors to reflect some solar energy back into space to help cool the earth.

By the way, when I hammered BeGreen to look at ALL sides of an argument, it was because there are "unintended consequences" of even environmentally friendly practices that need to be looked at and you'll only learn about these if you review ALL the data...not just that which supports one "chosen" theory. 

The example is that when aerosol dispersant's and fine (non-soot like) particals were reduced in the atmosphere, we actually increased the solar radiation on the earth and INCREASED the heating effect over what it was. Why is this? Because the aerosol particals reflect some solar radiation...decreasing these particle's increases incident solar radiation that reaches the earth and increases heating. Does this mean I'm for increasing soot and other fine particles? No way....just pointing out the "theory of unintended consequences"...which, by the way, you only see when you look at ALL the data, not just that that BeGreen wants to look at........ If for posting this, people like Sandor want to call me an "Internet Troll", then so be it........ :cheese:


----------



## wg_bent (Nov 13, 2006)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Eric Johnson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL!! well Craig, you'll just have to quit sneeking out to the garage to tap the fuel tank on the car for that friday evening night cap.


----------



## jjbaer (Nov 13, 2006)

castiron said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hello,

I need to qualify my statement that:

"In the end however, even ultra clean power production still results in adding heat to the atmosphere since all energy is eventually disapated as heat but, we can at least demand that power production be as clean as possible".

Comment:  We only add additional heat to the atmosphere if we continue to use fossil fuels since we're pulling these out of the ground, burning them and all the energy ends up heating the atmosphere to a higher level that we would have without burning these.  I don't think solar energy would add to this problem.  Why?  because without solar power, for example, a 1 sq meter patch of ground receives on average about  1 KW/hr of energy which heats the earth.  A solar panel occupying this same 1 sq meter patch of ground intercepts this SAME quantity of solar radiation and turns some of it into electricity and the rest is dissipated as heat.  In the end I think the heating effect is the same as if the panel weren't there so there's probably no (or little) net heating effect.  Not so for coal, oil, natural gas, etc where we pull it out of the ground, burn it and add heat to the atmosphere.

Ok...I know Sandor...that makes me an internet Troll....


----------



## Eric Johnson (Nov 13, 2006)

A troll is someone who hangs around the Ashcan making long, in-your-face gasbag posts with lots of capital characters, but who doesn't contribute to the other forums. Trolls seem to think that they know it all, and anyone who disagrees with them is either a moron or a silly Liberal. Trolls quickly find that there's nobody left to argue with, however, because nobody wants to feed the trolls. Trolls don't understand this. They think they've won all the arguments, leaving everyone else speechless with their brillance. Satisfied that their work is done, trolls move on to the next website.


----------



## jjbaer (Nov 13, 2006)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> A troll is someone who hangs around the Ashcan making long, in-your-face gasbag posts with lots of capital characters, but who doesn't contribute to the other forums. Trolls seem to think that they know it all, and anyone who disagrees with them is either a moron or a silly Liberal. Trolls quickly find that there's nobody left to argue with, however, because nobody wants to feed the trolls. Trolls don't understand this. They think they've won all the arguments, leaving everyone else speechless with their brillance. Satisfied that their work is done, trolls move on to the next website.




Eric,

No...I'm simply responding to what lib gas bags have already said and that morons appear to readily accept with no proof what-so-ever required........then when counter proof is provided by people like me, Liberal morons search for the guilty and punish the innocent by attacking people like me and calling me "Trolls".........

Resorting to "name calling" when someone like me says "wait a minute...that's not a valid argument" is typical of what Liberals do when the facts don't support them.......so they go on the attack and name-call instead...........

I challenge you to move out of the Liberal moron category and address the issues:

1)  someone called Bush a moron compared to Gore....we'll, the facts say otherwise.  Now, without calling me names, please tell me why you think Gore was a better student but keep in mind these facts: he flunked out of Divinity school, didn't finish law school, etc.....

2)  On the global warming issue......please, again, without calling me names, address the "global cooling" fiasco of 30 years ago and the same group now saying "global warming" and then address the contrary opinion (no global warming) that IS supported by very well respected scientists and THEN, after taking all than into account, you can shoot your mouth off and name call...but not before...........

3)  as far as you untrue comment that trolls "don't contribute to the other forums" ...this is again, a load of Liberal lies....... I've contributed to other forums including one detailed initial analysis on how to calcualte heat loss and to put sizing a stove into proper perspective............. 

Any comments or are you going to trash me with more "name calling" rather than addressing the facts?


----------



## webbie (Nov 13, 2006)

Hey, this thead won't die, will it?

I'll have to close it.....hey, cast, if you want a good one for the military, see my recent post about Fighting for our Stoves. I have to analyze it though, the last paragraph seems to be saying that he will only 'defend" against actual attacks...in other words, not be the aggressor.

Hey, cast, you may not enjoy folks with other points of view...but no one is forcing you to come here - and I might say that you are not changing many hearts and minds. Either am I. The Ash Can is simply a place for our regular members to blow off steam...usually on topics at least somewhat related to energy. 

You would (if you care) be much more effective without classifying folks into one of two camps. I mean, my goodness, you called Sandor a liberal! Heck, is Rummy a liberal also?

Ok, now for my final opinion, which is just a rehash of previous. I am not a scientist and in many ways could care less about global warming - it is really a bit too big to get my head around. BUT, there are so many other reasons to take the same actions (national security, energy independence, pollution reduction, etc.) that , IMHO, the point is moot. And, given the tendency of "your side" to talk about mushroom clouds and backpack bombs as imminent threats, I think you are calling the kettle black by questioning actual researched scenarios. After all, the fearmongering which makes you happy contains complete fabrications......so which are more "far out"?

If you think it is OK for 5% of the worlds population to use 25% of it's resources, so be it. I don't. And I see the solution based BOTH on legislation and technology.


----------

