Ethanol in my gas tank?

"Lanny Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>
>> You may carp about how Brazil did it, but in that time, what have we (the
>> US) done to help the situation, besides somehow deciding it was a good
>> idea
>> for everyone and his brother to drive really unnecessary, really huge,
>> really gas-guzzling behemoths.
>
> Sarcasm noted, with total agreement. The ONLY way out of this is drastic
> global reduction of fossil fuel use.
>
> I hope you saw Nova tonight, Eric, or can catch a rerun.

I always TIVO it--one of my favorite programs. Haven't had a chance to
watch it yet, though I had noticed it looked interesting.


> Someone should prop the First Moron's eyelids open, Clockwork
> Orange-style, and make him watch this Nova episode over and over until
> he gets it.

Agreed, although I think there's little chance it will ever sink in. That
would require him to actually care about something other than his friends'
greed and his own personal dogma and ambition. By the way, I prefer
Bumbler-in-Chief.

Eric Lucas

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Lanny Chambers > wrote:
>
>>I hope you saw Nova tonight, Eric, or can catch a rerun.
>
> An interesting show. And very scary. But I found myself
> challenging them on many of the points as it aired. To be fair they
> answered many of them as it continued. But I still wonder how well
> accepted this dimming theory is? And if, as they said, it suggests
> that the computer models for global warming were perhaps 50% off,
> admitting that their models are highly assumption-limited, why
> should we believe a further retuned model might not turn out to be
> 2x lower (or, scarily, 2x higher)?

Remember the argument in the 70s over whether we were seeing global warming
or global cooling? Our understanding of the earth's climate has come a long
way since then, but I think this is a clear indication that there are major
factors that we have absolutely no handle on.


> I guess the main takeaway message I get is that their is still a
> fair amount of uncertainty, though we obviously are having an
> effect. Better to err towards (true) conservatism *and do something
> about it*!

In general, I agree with you, but given Britain's recent concession that
Kyoto is unachievable, I'm not sure what we can do that will not require
major personal sacrifice from most of the developed world--because that just
ain't gonna happen. I think the science fiction stories of the Cold War era
that posited that the human race would do itself in with its own aggression
got it all wrong. The human race is going to do itself in with its greed
and unwillingness to give up even minor concession in its ever-improving
lifestyle in order to save the planet from climatic destruction.


> But can we seriously get a collective will and do something in 10
> years? Sorry, I fear no chance.

Agreed. I'm constantly amazed at some things I've learned about changes
that other countries have made. Brazil's switch to ethanol is one, Spain's
decision to foster wind power is another, as is France's decision to foster
nuclear power. In each case, these countries just made a decision that they
were going to buckle down and change something, and they did it. That will
never happen in the US. I don't know whether it's our size or what, we just
don't seem to be able to make a major decision.

> Best bet may be to intentionally USE global dimming as a remedy.
> Find non-toxic particulates and seed the upper atmosphere to create
> more clouds to reflect more light to balance global warming. A very
> scary proposition given the likelyhood of us getting it totally
> wrong and the law of unintended consequences ...

Agreed, I think we still know way too little about our climate to try
something like that. In such a situation, the unintended consequence is
almost certainly a major disaster.

Eric Lucas

>
>Is that practice still widespread? When I was in Queensland a
>while back talking to people who did cane harvesting, they said
>that burning off the leaves wasn't done much anymore.


Good question.

http://www.sucrose.com/harvest.html

says that it is, but I don't know how old the page is. There may be
some local restrictions for various reasons. Perhaps I've seen one too
many fancy car adverts :-)



Boz

On 2006-04-21, Robert Boswell > wrote:

>>Is that practice still widespread? When I was in Queensland a
>>while back talking to people who did cane harvesting, they said
>>that burning off the leaves wasn't done much anymore.
>
> Good question.
>
> http://www.sucrose.com/harvest.html
>
> says that it is, but I don't know how old the page is. There
> may be some local restrictions for various reasons. Perhaps
> I've seen one too many fancy car adverts :-)

There was one area in QLD where I did seen cane fields being
burned off (it's a very impressive site). My neices in-laws
run a cane harvesting business, and in the region they work
nobody burns cane fields anymore.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I wonder if I should
at put myself in ESCROW!!
visi.com

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:44:54 -0000, Grant Edwards >
wrote:

>> http://www.sucrose.com/harvest.html
>>
>> says that it is, but I don't know how old the page is. There
>> may be some local restrictions for various reasons. Perhaps
>> I've seen one too many fancy car adverts :-)
>
>There was one area in QLD where I did seen cane fields being
>burned off (it's a very impressive site). My neices in-laws
>run a cane harvesting business, and in the region they work
>nobody burns cane fields anymore.


I wonder if it is connected to the harvesting method? Sugar cane
leaves are apparently wickedly sharp. Is it areas with some kind of
automated cutting that don't bother and where manual labour is used
they have to burn the leaves off for safety reasons? ( just guessing
wildly at this point you understand ! )

Boz

(Dave) wrote:

>In article >, Lanny Chambers > wrote:
>
>>I hope you saw Nova tonight, Eric, or can catch a rerun.
>
>An interesting show. And very scary. But I found myself
>challenging them on many of the points as it aired. To be fair they
>answered many of them as it continued. But I still wonder how well
>accepted this dimming theory is? And if, as they said, it suggests
>that the computer models for global warming were perhaps 50% off,
>admitting that their models are highly assumption-limited, why
>should we believe a further retuned model might not turn out to be
>2x lower (or, scarily, 2x higher)?

The problem as I understand it is that there are huge amounts of CO2
sequestered compared to the amounts in the atmosphere. In such a
scenario, it is extremely tricky to make a reliable prediction,
because even small errors completely change your results. Not all
mechanisms take CO2 out of these big reservoirs, some put it *in*.

And while scientific groups might make estimates about the error in
their models by comparing the differences models, these other models
probably are making the same mistakes about ununderstood effects.

>I guess the main takeaway message I get is that their is still a
>fair amount of uncertainty, though we obviously are having an
>effect. Better to err towards (true) conservatism *and do something
>about it*!

But the danger is that if perversely, the observed trends turn around,
and human intervention turns out to eventually cool the planet, (gosh,
I hope not; it is already unbearable enough here in North Florida in
winter,) something that has been raised as a possibility, there may be
a great credibility problem.

I am a democrat, but I do not really blame Bush that much for holding of
on acting on weak evidence, just for stacking scientific boards with his yes-
sayers, instead of putting all the considerable scientific power of the US
onto finding out the truth.

>But can we seriously get a collective will and do something in 10
>years? Sorry, I fear no chance.
>
>Best bet may be to intentionally USE global dimming as a remedy.
>Find non-toxic particulates and seed the upper atmosphere to create
>more clouds to reflect more light to balance global warming. A very
>scary proposition given the likelyhood of us getting it totally
>wrong and the law of unintended consequences ...

I cannot agree more.

Leon
--
Leon van Dommelen Bess, the Miata Bozo, the Miata
http://www.dommelen.net/miata
The only thing better than a white Miata is two white Miatas

The burning is a trade-off with the harvesting method and cost. The
leaves have to be removed from the stalk and the tops cut off. If
your labor is cheap, you can do all that by hand. If your labor is
more expensive, you burn the field and you only have to cut the stalks
and trim the top of the cane and you can use combines or more expesive
manual labor.

Problem is, you better harvest withing 2 days, because you just killed
the plant and the sugar content of the plant is dropping just sitting
inthe field.

I used to live in Lafayette, LA and I always found it ironic that the
city busybodies had banned the burning of yard waste so I was forced
to fill containers and clog up the land fill. At harvest, all the
farmers around tow would lite the fields and smoke the whole town. I
thing they waited until the wind was blowing in the right direction
when they did this.


On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:11:21 GMT, Robert Boswell
> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:44:54 -0000, Grant Edwards >
>wrote:
>
>>> http://www.sucrose.com/harvest.html
>>>
>>> says that it is, but I don't know how old the page is. There
>>> may be some local restrictions for various reasons. Perhaps
>>> I've seen one too many fancy car adverts :-)
>>
>>There was one area in QLD where I did seen cane fields being
>>burned off (it's a very impressive site). My neices in-laws
>>run a cane harvesting business, and in the region they work
>>nobody burns cane fields anymore.
>
>
>I wonder if it is connected to the harvesting method? Sugar cane
>leaves are apparently wickedly sharp. Is it areas with some kind of
>automated cutting that don't bother and where manual labour is used
>they have to burn the leaves off for safety reasons? ( just guessing
>wildly at this point you understand ! )
>
>Boz

In article >, (Leon van Dommelen) wrote:
(Dave) wrote:

>and human intervention turns out to eventually cool the planet, (gosh,
>I hope not; it is already unbearable enough here in North Florida in
>winter,)

!!!
Try living in Rochester, NY!
I'm at least for local warming, if not global!

In article >,
(Leon van Dommelen) wrote:

> >Best bet may be to intentionally USE global dimming as a remedy.
> >Find non-toxic particulates and seed the upper atmosphere to create
> >more clouds to reflect more light to balance global warming. A very
> >scary proposition given the likelyhood of us getting it totally
> >wrong and the law of unintended consequences ...
>
> I cannot agree more.

And remember, it's apparently global dimming and the resulting cooling
of the Atlantic ocean that's causing the monsoon to fail, year after
year, from the Sahel to south Asia. We *already* know it's a bad
idea--intentionally causing even worse famine is unthinkable. Or at
least one hopes so.

--
Lanny Chambers
'94C, St. Louis
http://www.hummingbirds.net/alignment.html

In article >, Lanny Chambers > wrote:

>And remember, it's apparently global dimming and the resulting cooling
>of the Atlantic ocean that's causing the monsoon to fail, year after
>year, from the Sahel to south Asia. We *already* know it's a bad
>idea--intentionally causing even worse famine is unthinkable. Or at
>least one hopes so.

I agree in principle. But I can imagine a science fiction scenario
where it (GH effect) gets so bad we are left no choice but to try
something like this atmospheric engineering. With, I'd bet, some
benefits here, some huge catastrophies there. Let's hope this is
just SF.

As to the "apparent" cause, I'd leave it at that. I do some
modeling in my engineering work, and even have worked with
meteorological modelers a bit way back when. I found this
broadcast to be far from compelling as to the causality of the
dimming and monsoon. It's easy to model something that happened.
That does not prove-in a model. It's far harder to predict what
will happen next.

But again, I think we need to do something about our energy
consumption and emissions.

Now where were we on the ethanol in the gas tank???