Climate Science

[TimG]

And how does your consulting work with the oil companies play into this, I wonder? They too, of course, are "rent seekers and carpet baggers." Was your job to enlighten them, and to encourage them to avoid public-funded profits in the name of the larger principles? Why do I doubt this?

Why should they? The are for profit corporations and I don't want them to be given special deals by the tax payer any more than I want special deals for windfarm operators. The difference is the tiny subsidies given to oil companies could be taken away and it would not affect their business that much. Take away the subsidies from the wind farm operators and they go out of business. That is why sources like wind and solar are useless today. Edited September 27, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

Like I said... AGW is one of the three most powerfull factors driving energy research right now.

No it is not. It is government money that forces to come up with an 'AGW spin' in order to get a share of the spending. There are more effective ways to use that R&D money if the government was not so obessed about CO2.

Even CO2 concerns are totally bogus (and Im not sure it is), I wouldnt care, because the phenomenon is extremely usefull and important.

You should care because bad policies put in place because of a phoney fear can cause harm long after people realize they have been had.

[dre]

Why should they? The are for profit corporations and I don't want them to be given special deals by the tax payer any more than I want special deals for windfarm operators. The difference is the tiny subsidies given to oil companies could be taken away and it would not affect their business that much. Take away the subsidies from the wind farm operators and they go out of business. That is why sources like wind and solar are useless today.

The difference is the tiny subsidies given to oil companies

Again. Youre refusing to acknowledge all the indirect costs, and the fact that government/public was a massive player in developing the fossil fuel economy from the very beginning. If you were to add up the total tax payer expenditures related to the oil sector since its inception you would be looking at TRILLIONS of todays dollars. There is WAY more to this than you think. Youre ignoring most of the government action that oil companies are the beneficiaries of.

[bloodyminded]

Again. Youre refusing to acknowledge all the indirect costs, and the fact that government/public was a massive player in developing the fossil fuel economy from the very beginning. If you were to add up the total tax payer expenditures related to the oil sector since its inception you would be looking at TRILLIONS of todays dollars. There is WAY more to this than you think. Youre ignoring most of the government action that oil companies are the beneficiaries of.

Exactly, thank you.

[dre]

No it is not. It is government money that forces to come up with an 'AGW spin' in order to get a share of the spending. There are more effective ways to use that R&D money if the government was not so obessed about CO2.

You should care because bad policies put in place because of a phoney fear can cause harm long after people realize they have been had.

There are more effective ways to use that R&D money if the government was not so obessed about CO2.

Most of that money simply wouldnt be there without AGW. Its not a matter of it being spent differently.

You should care because bad policies put in place because of a phoney fear can cause harm long after people realize they have been had.

Most of the policies are not bad. AGW has sparked massive investment in nuclear energy, clean coal, electric motors, batteries, wind, solar, more efficient vehicles and all kinds of other things. WAY more progress is being made than before. Ill take it.

[RNG]

Again. Youre refusing to acknowledge all the indirect costs, and the fact that government/public was a massive player in developing the fossil fuel economy from the very beginning. If you were to add up the total tax payer expenditures related to the oil sector since its inception you would be looking at TRILLIONS of todays dollars. There is WAY more to this than you think. Youre ignoring most of the government action that oil companies are the beneficiaries of.

I worked in the oil industry all virtually all my life. What great government/public expenditure? Unless you are one of those who consider a tax cut as giving money. The money doesn't belong to the government. It is either mine or a companies. The government just takes money away.

The only government funded energy industry funding I am aware of was the US government funded a research project to improve octane ratings of fuel during the second world war when it became hard to produce the good gas that high powered aircraft engines needed. This resulted in the infamous leaded gasoline.

[dre]

I worked in the oil industry all virtually all my life. What great government/public expenditure? Unless you are one of those who consider a tax cut as giving money. The money doesn't belong to the government. It is either mine or a companies. The government just takes money away.

The only government funded energy industry funding I am aware of was the US government funded a research project to improve octane ratings of fuel during the second world war when it became hard to produce the good gas that high powered aircraft engines needed. This resulted in the infamous leaded gasoline.

Iv already outlined many of the ways that public money has gone to the oil industry, and yes... if you give tax breaks to one sector and not another it absolutely DOES ammount to a subsidy.

The only government funded energy industry funding I am aware of was the US government funded a research project to improve octane ratings of fuel during the second world war when it became hard to produce the good gas that high powered aircraft engines needed. This resulted in the infamous leaded gasoline.

Thats just flat out revisionism. Leaded gasoline was used since the 1920's. They needed something to reduce pre-ignition in internal combustion engines. Heny Ford wanted to use ethanol, but the oil industry didnt like that because ethanol is an ACTIVE additive... meaning it displaces gasoline. Adding 10% ethanol to gas would have meant 10% less gasoline sales. So the oil industry chose lead instead because lead is a passive additive.

The government finally had to FORCE the oil industry to stop using lead in the 70's after they had done massive ammounts of damage with it. Again! The perfect choice to replace it was ethanol... but again the oil industry balked on it because it displaces gasoline. They chose to use things like heavy ethers, zylene, benzene, toluene. MTBE's. After the oil industry caused acid rain and polluted ground water with those things they were eventually banned as well. Now they finally use ethanol... a century later.

Anyhow... Leaded gas did NOT result from government action during the second world war

[RNG]

Iv already outlined many of the ways that public money has gone to the oil industry, and yes... if you give tax breaks to one sector and not another it absolutely DOES ammount to a subsidy.

Thats just flat out revisionism. Leaded gasoline was used since the 1920's. They needed something to reduce pre-ignition in internal combustion engines. Heny Ford wanted to use ethanol, but the oil industry didnt like that because ethanol is an ACTIVE additive... meaning it displaces gasoline. Adding 10% ethanol to gas would have meant 10% less gasoline sales. So the oil industry chose lead instead because lead is a passive additive.

The government finally had to FORCE the oil industry to stop using lead in the 70's after they had done massive ammounts of damage with it. Again! The perfect choice to replace it was ethanol... but again the oil industry balked on it because it displaces gasoline. They chose to use things like heavy ethers, zylene, benzene, toluene. MTBE's. After the oil industry caused acid rain and polluted ground water with those things they were eventually banned as well. Now they finally use ethanol... a century later.

Anyhow... Leaded gas did NOT result from government action during the second world war

You are half right. According to Wiki, leaded gas was developed in 1935. So my second year chem prof lied to me. I did read the original paper and the research was funded by the US government.

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

[RNG]

Plus I do not believe a tax break is a subsidy. I think taxes are an anti-incentive.

[dre]

You are half right. According to Wiki, leaded gas was developed in 1935. So my second year chem prof lied to me. I did read the original paper and the research was funded by the US government.

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

Thats not correct either. Leaded fuel was discovered in 1921 in at the GM research labs in Dayton Ohio. GM, Dupont, and Standard Oil (Aka Exxon) started marketing it and selling it in 1924, under a co-owed company the three created called Ethyl Corp.

Edited September 27, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

Most of that money simply wouldnt be there without AGW. Its not a matter of it being spent differently.

In other words, you are arguing that governments are unable to identify strategic objectives and pursue them. They are completely capitive to 'armageddon-of-month' crowd and only care about being seen to 'do something'. Being effective is not something the government can do.

This is exactly the reason why governments should not get involved in 'picking winners' through subsides.

Again. Youre refusing to acknowledge all the indirect costs, and the fact that government/public was a massive player in developing the fossil fuel economy from the very beginning. If you were to add up the total tax payer expenditures related to the oil sector since its inception you would be looking at TRILLIONS of todays dollars.

You are throwing around claims which I do not believe you have any data to support. You simply accept it as 'true' because it has been repeated so many times by political activists interested in promoting their pet causes. And even if it was true at was also obvious at the time that fossil fuels would allow humans to more with less. The trouble with renewables is they require people spend more and get less out of it. That cost will harm the economy.

There is WAY more to this than you think. Youre ignoring most of the government action that oil companies are the beneficiaries of.

Whatever. I do not accept the argument that military spending, roads or other types of government spending represent a subdidy to oil because these mononies would have been spent anyways. Subsidies are tax benefits, fees or moneys paid to the producers, distributors or consumers. Nothing more. Edited September 27, 2010 by TimG

[RNG]

Thats not correct either. Leaded fuel was discovered in 1921 in at the GM research labs in Dayton Ohio. GM, Dupont, and Standard Oil (Aka Exxon) started marketing it and selling it in 1924, under a co-owed company the three created called Ethyl Corp.

Well damn, you're right again. So both my chem prof and Wiki lied to me.

[TimG]

Adding 10% ethanol to gas would have meant 10% less gasoline sales. So the oil industry chose lead instead because lead is a passive additive.

This is nonsense. Adding ethanol REDUCES gas milage and INCREASES the amount of gas sold. This is a well known fact.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5882696_effect-ethanol-gas-mileage.html

E85, for instance, reduces fuel economy by 7 to 8 miles per gallon when compared to gasoline, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Edited September 27, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

This is nonsense. Adding ethanol REDUCES gas milage and INCREASES the amount of gas sold. This is a well known fact.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5882696_effect-ethanol-gas-mileage.html

Not only are you wrong but youre misunderstanding what youre reading. You WILL get less MPG from ethanol blended gasoline simply because it has a lower energy density by about 35%, so it will INCREASE the ammount you purchase of that certain blend. But it decreases the ammount of pure gasoline sold (by displacing it with ethanol), which is why the oil companies resisted it for so long.

Im not talking about the ammount of blended fuel sold, Im talking about the ammount of refined petroleum.

And btw... Your article mentions e85 but thats not whats used today. Most fuel is about 10% ethanol which only reduces fuel economy by 3.2 percent.

If we DID actually use E85 the ammount of petroleum burned in cars would go down even more.

Edited September 27, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

---

Edited September 28, 2010 by TimG

[RNG]

And to the best of my knowledge it is still debatable whether corn ethanol is a net savings when you look at input energy requirements. Brazilian sugar cane ethanol works, various bio-diesels work, but corn ethanol is a big questionmark, other than US government pork bills from rural states.

[dre]

Do some math:

Comparisons for a 1000 mile trip:

Assume 25 mpg for pure gas.

Gives 22 mpg for E90.

Gives 18 mpg for E85.

1000/25 = 40 gallons pure gas.

1000/22 = 45 gallons E90 = 41 gallons of pure gas.

1000/18 = 55 gallons E90 = 47 gallons of pure gas.

QED. Using ethanol INCREASES the amount of gasoline consumed and it gets worse with E85!

This is a perfect example of how incompetent governments are when it comes to picking winners and why they should not be subdizing energy production.

LOL. Youre math is completely bogus.

Its just flat out wrong. You cite a reduction from 25 to 18 for E85 and a different in fuel burned on your trip of 40 VS 55... which is probably fairly close. But then you claim that 55 gallons of E85 only has about SEVEN gallons of refined petroleum in it. Maybe EIGHT since e85 actually is normally only 82% ethanol, not quite 85%.

So heres your math fixed...

1000/18 = 55 gallons E85 = 8 gallons of pure gas.

This is a perfect example of how incompetent governments are when it comes to picking winners and why they should not be subdizing energy production.

No this is a perfect example of why people that dont understand technologies shouldnt dismiss them.

[TimG]

Its just flat out wrong. You cite a reduction from 25 to 18 for E85 and a different in fuel burned on your trip of 40 VS 55... which is probably fairly close.

I fixed it before I saw your response. I thought E85 was 15% ethanol but I figured that out when I checked my own figures (so save your rants). I also figured out that the article I linked probably has a typo when it said - 3-4 mpg reduction fro E10. It should have said 3-4% because that is what all of the sources say.

Basically - my claim is true for E15-E20 blends. E10 or less is close to break even or a slight benefit. E85 is definite reduction except it cannot be produced in the quantities required so it is an largely academic question.

Edited September 28, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

Youre post is improved now. But youre still wrong. Using E10 absolutely does not result in more refined petroleum being burned. It results in a few percent less. And the more you add, the less refined petroleum is burned.

Youre trying to escape the laws of physics here. For your claim to be true ethanol would have to CONSUME energy when burned. It doesnt. It produces it, and the more you add to gas the less petroleum youll sell.

The only reason MPG goes down is simply because ethanol has a lower energy density than refined petroleum, but about 34%.

Edited September 28, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

pretty much abandoned most of the claim you made when you posted it.

So what? I made post with errors. Caught them myself and removed the post.

The fact is the gasoline consumed as a function of percent ethanol does increase as ethanol increase, reaches a peak and falls off. I have seen some calculations that show this can be a net increase in gasoline consumption but it really depends on the car and how well it can handle the blend.

Edited September 28, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

Youre trying to escape the laws of physics here. For your claim to be true ethanol would have to CONSUME energy when burned. It doesnt. It produces it, and the more you add to gas the less petroleum youll sell.

Not at all. Engine efficiency is as important as energy density and adding ethanol reduces engine efficiency. The my calculations were correct if E15 reduced engine efficiency by 30%

[RNG]

Youre post is improved now. But youre still wrong. Using E10 absolutely does not result in more refined petroleum being burned. It results in a few percent less. And the more you add, the less refined petroleum is burned.

Youre trying to escape the laws of physics here. For your claim to be true ethanol would have to CONSUME energy when burned. It doesnt. It produces it, and the more you add to gas the less petroleum youll sell.

The only reason MPG goes down is simply because ethanol has a lower energy density than refined petroleum, but about 34%.

As I posted above, did you incorporate input energy?

[Wild Bill]

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html

"At face value, the data seem incredibly important," says Michael Lockwood, a space physicist at the University of Reading, UK. "If solar activity is out of phase with solar radiative forcing, it could change our understanding of how processes in the troposphere and stratosphere act to modulate Earth's climate."

Some meteorologists believe, for example, that during phases of low solar activity, 'blocking events' — unusual patterns in westerly air currents that can cause cold snaps and freak weather in Europe — occur more frequently. A blocking event is thought to have caused the southward transport of ash clouds following the eruption in March of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull, which disrupted air traffic throughout Europe. But any links between recent weather anomalies and possible peculiarities in the current solar cycle are speculative for now, says Lockwood."

Just going back to the OP and throwing some more fuel on the flames...

[waldo]

Well...at least it's finally being discussed. Funny how the Sun's effects were originally dismissed because brightness "varies by just 0.1 percent". Yet CO2 in our atmosphere is just 380 parts per million - a mere 0.038 percent! As for the IPCC including these effects in their next report, I'm not sure how the author can jump to that conclusion. I've bolded a few words to dampen the optimism - an optimism that presumes that this part of Climate Science, previously villified, will simply bare its secrets to an IPCC schedule.

Link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727793.100-the-sun-joins-the-climate-club.html

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html

"At face value, the data seem incredibly important," says Michael Lockwood, a space physicist at the University of Reading, UK. "If solar activity is out of phase with solar radiative forcing, it could change our understanding of how processes in the troposphere and stratosphere act to modulate Earth's climate."

Some meteorologists believe, for example, that during phases of low solar activity, 'blocking events' — unusual patterns in westerly air currents that can cause cold snaps and freak weather in Europe — occur more frequently. A blocking event is thought to have caused the southward transport of ash clouds following the eruption in March of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull, which disrupted air traffic throughout Europe. But any links between recent weather anomalies and possible peculiarities in the current solar cycle are speculative for now, says Lockwood."

Just going back to the OP and throwing some more fuel on the flames...

oh snap! How did I miss this thread? Ya, ya Simple... what a brazenly naive assertion you make - that, as you state, "the sun is finally being discussed". What? Is this you ridiculously implying that no solar science is being performed... that no related active/ongoing scientific discussion is occurring... that no solar/climate change related papers are being published? That nothing's being done... scientists aren't on the case... unless some blog throws up an article link/analysis, it wildly replicates across blog world... and you notice it? Yeesh!

just so it's clear, today's Nature journal reference is 'round 2' on this same subject... this is the actual publication of the research mentioned in the OP... which simply reflected the first wave through blog world some 3 weeks back. I expect today's thread reference reflects it's being discussed again today in blog world, in line with the paper's actual publication (yesterday) - paper here:

but... Wild Bill, what do you mean/imply when you suggest this paper, 'add's fuel to the flames'? There really was no mileage in this thread off the OP... just a single post made reference to it... Simple went quiet - wonder why? Maybe cause... skeptic/deniers, as it turns out, don't like this paper one bit!

certainly same old caveats... a single paper... doesn't necessarily mean much at this stage. Prevailing comment from pro-AGW scientists seems to be summarized along the lines of, it's too premature to make any conclusions, the analysis data only covers a short 3 year period within the 11 year solar cycle, more than likely there's an anomaly at play, more research required, etc. The initial denier blog buzz was quickly dampened when legitimate analysis of the paper started coming forward... when comments from the paper's principle author surfaced; example:

If further studies find the same pattern over a longer period of time, [then] we may have overestimated the sun's role in warming the planet, rather than underestimating it. It does not give comfort to climate sceptics at all. If the sun warmed the Earth less when it was at the solar maximum, then the reverse was also true. You can't have it one way and not the other.

However, the authors of the latest study, published in Nature, said solar activity could account for at most about 10 per cent of the extra warming this century. But if the new findings can be supported, it would mean this greater solar activity may have kept global warming in check by lowering temperatures slightly and counteracting the influence of greenhouse gases

[Slim]

That quote at the end of your post concerns me... sure would be crappy if previous years of solar activity actually reduced the effects of AGW, and we could see a reversal at some point that would give us a big hit of warming...

In any case, need a bit more time to see how this pans out.