New ethanol study, 21 April 2014

[Dave@Moon]

I firmly believe there is a massive change underway on our planet, I can't presume to know if it;s a normal cycle or a man-made one...

The wider point, constantly missed and probably deliberately so, is that the change you describe was predicted. It was predicted in timing and scale mathematically by the best minds of generations past. And they did so decades before it began happening, and continue to do so accurately and with reasonable precision. Other "informative" noise from other past predictions looking at other phenomena will be used to distract from that fact (cue the next "coming ice age/global cooling hypothesis" based mocking), and those noises will frequently pass for "scientific" (political) critique.

BTW, it's best to not use the term "believe" regarding factual phenomena. Facts and errors exist. Only truths or lies are believed.

[Dave@Moon]

You're fighting a belief system, and a rather seductive one at that because it ties into feelings of victimization.

I should have more properly described this as fighting a part of a belief system. This particular part is called denialism, and while it is hardly limited to Climate Change ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism ) it is used by interested parties (usually financially interested) ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/ ) to shade the discussion at large ( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism --watch for the tumbleweeds:D).

Edited April 27, 2014 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[MarrsCars]

The wider point, constantly missed and probably deliberately so, is that the change you describe was predicted. It was predicted in timing and scale mathematically by the best minds of generations past. And they did so decades before it began happening, and continue to do so accurately and with reasonable precision. Other "informative" noise from other past predictions looking at other phenomena will be used to distract from that fact (cue the next "coming ice age/global cooling hypothesis" based mocking), and those noises will frequently pass for "scientific" (political) critique.

BTW, it's best to not use the term "believe" regarding factual phenomena. Facts and errors exist. Only truths or lies are believed.

Thanks Dave, I understand that our planet works on cycles far greater than our mortal lifetimes so I am not surprised it was predicted as the evidence is all there if we look at our planet's history, it's all a matter of where we go from here right? That is the crux of the matter. I appreciate your perspectives. Also very true what you said about beliefs. *thumbs up*

[capngrog]

Grumpy is addiction people of a certain age just can't resist.

- Dave@Moon

I do fully appreciate that spending time on the AACA forum means the opinions here will more than likely reflect an older generation's viewpoints, and I'm sure nobody here will debate that those views almost always vary from the views of the younger crowd. When you were a kid did you believe that the moon was made of cheese just because ol grandpappy said it 'twas so, he heard it from his teacher down at the one-room school house? Heck, she's traveled all over, even been to the next county once, so she really must be an expert on celestial bodies!

- MarrsCars

I think I notice a disturbing underlying philosophical leaning between Messrs Dave@Moon and MarrsCars: GENERATIONAL BIAS :eek::eek::eek:!

Dave, who were these "best minds of generations past"? Were they the same as the ones predicting global cooling in the late 1970's? It should also be noted that global warming short term prediction timing and scale have been shown to be significantly in error. Long term global warming seems to be following a slope established by recordings made late in the 19th century.

BTW, it's best to not use the term "believe" regarding factual phenomena. Facts and errors exist. Only truths or lies are believed.

I guess I'm just too old to grasp the wisdom and significance of this one.:confused: Truths and lies are, unfortunately, difficult to detect; however, I do BELIEVE in facts. Oh, by the way, an "hypothesis is not a fact".

Dave, I took the time to click on the links included in your post. The Wikipedia link begins with a reasonable definition of denialism but quickly degenerates into equating anyone who disagrees with the global warming theorists with the Holocaust Deniers. Shameful on Wikipedia's part! The second link is to a reprint of a "The Daily Climate" article in the "Scientific American" which only bemoans the fact that it is becoming more difficult to track funding sources of organizations that disagree with popular global warming theory (no science involved in this article). The third link was to something called "Rational Wiki" which was interesting until it degenerated into grade school name calling: "... Sarah Palin, the hopelessly ignorant Republican Candidate for Vice President was a denialist".

When someone or something attempts to buttress an argument with name calling; i.e., "hopelessly ignorant", denialist, Holocaust denier etc. it means to me that they are running low on logic and full of hate/politics. By the way, I find the term "denialist" to be perjorative and its use indicative of a closed mind.

I think we need to get back to what I perceive the intent of the Original Poster of this thread: a discussion of the suitability of ethanol as a motor fuel. My opinion (which I can back up with fact ... see my Post #17) is that the use of ethanol as a blend or as a motor fuel itself is a bad idea. It results in no significant net reduction in atmospheric pollution and is proving to be very costly.

By the way, MarrsCars: are you the Marrscars artist? If so, very nice going.:cool:

Still old and (hopefully) gittin' older,

Grog

[Guest]

I have the right to drive and enjoy old cars and listen to opinions on this forum that are different than my own even if I don't necessarily like the mindset of a few stubborn people who I feel are incorrect, the two do not correlate in any way, are not mutually exclusive, and does not lessen my joy for the hobby. As with any discussion, this is my opinion, and you have yours, I have no issue with that and defend your right to speak what you feel and would never contrive to attack you personally or try to compare how much of a "car guy" you are by what you drive. Are there not people here who don't even own a classic or vintage car? There are, but by your measure they don't belong here. I choose an all inclusive model for my life, and I am better for it. You're remarks border dangerously on "you aren't one of us, so you don't belong here." I do know plenty of older generation folks who strive to remain up to date on knowledge and info, so again, age isn't the sole factor. To your point however, I consider myself someone who does see the big picture and I would gladly drive a new Tesla or other electric car over most other gas cars, and if you like cars I suggest you try one yourself. You will be amazed at the wave of torque that envelopes you on your way to smooth and quiet highway speeds. I also back the idea being tossed around locally that some of our downtown city streets *should* be closed to cars and remain pedestrian only, if you read up on the number of pedestrian deaths in the parts of our town that have lots of clubs, cafes and restaurants you might consider that useful also. Again, none of this makes me less of an enthusiast. I have owned many old cars, I attend every race that goes on here, I go to the MBCA corral at the local historics, auto jumbles and swap meets, I founded a car new site that has grown to readership approaching 100,000 people, I contribute to Jalopnik regularly, I write for our local and national club magazines and newsletters, I work on my own car when I have the means to do so, and I am going on a road trip in a few days to pick up a fun old car with a buddy. I dare say I am more active in the car world than many who seem to judge me.

I'd like to toss in the notion that Tesla may very well be the entity that brings back traditional coachbuilding. These cars use a skateboard style chassis, a flat base to which the body and components are affixed, this is different than unibody cars we have been straddled with for so long. The ability to swap out the bodywork so readily has many in the car world excited at the prospects of the return of the coachbuilders. You may not know that if you simply disregarded anything written about electric cars. Also, you do realize that electric propulsion for cars is indeed old technology? So I am to believe that now there are only certain electric cars that will qualify my credentials as a car guy. Grog and RW Burgess also expressed similar enthusiasm for electric and hybrid cars on the first page of this thread so I am not alone even here. You will have to send me the rule book on what makes someone a true gearhead, I didn't get my copy when I was born to a father who was working down at the Chrysler plant. I also don't see too many people complaining that Jay Leno owns and appreciates all makes, models, ages and even powered plants in his cars. As you said, there is a word for that kind of behavior.

My use of "settled science" was a turnabout to the individual who used it originally to mean quite the opposite. Maybe that subtlety eluded some, I will be more clear in the future.

Dave@moon, I think we are arguing the same point mostly, so if my attempts at humor were taken as truth or my opinion, again I somehow failed. To be clear, I firmly believe there is a massive change underway on our planet, I can't presume to know if it;s a normal cycle or a man-made one, but I do know it will have catastrophic effects on all of us alive in 20+ years. I am not one for sabre rattling but for a more scientific approach about how we can better manage our food and water resources, our rising sea levels, dwindling sea life, etc. Few could say we have enough resources for everyone on the planet, and the 2-billion extra who will arrive in the next 10-years or so. I think Dave's point is that things ARE happening, regardless of why, and I agree with that.

Also, ethanol is gas is bad.

Sorry but, I'm not measuring anything. I'm pointing out things you list and say by your own admission which happen to not correlate to other things you say especially when you put your words into someone else's mouth by some great telepathic interpretation. I'm sorry for you when you feel attacked by your own words.

[Dandy Dave]

As far as Climate Weather change and Ethanol, Wize old Injun say, Not brave, not squaw, Not even Big um Chief can argue with the accuracy of ancient weather rock. This winter been heap um cold.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/23839262@N08/3026211200/

[MarrsCars]

By the way, MarrsCars: are you the Marrscars artist? If so, very nice going.:cool:

Yup, one in the same. When I'm not driving cars I'm painting them... on canvas, not in a booth.

[Rusty_OToole]

Wonder if the great sages of the past include James Lovelock, inventor of the Gaia hypothesis and one of the first to write about, and make predictions regarding Global Warming? He admitted in 2012 that he was wrong and his predictions were too extreme. Being a scientist, when events do not match his predictions, he changes his mind. He also points out that Al Gore, Tim Flannery and other Global Warming alarmists were wrong as well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html

I have read dozens of books and articles on Global Warming or Climate Change, written by experts on both sides of the issue. It is far more complex than some people seem to think. There are more things involved than just man made CO2.

What I read leads me to believe that we have a certain amount of warming but that the situation is not as dire as we have been led to believe and that carbon taxes, carbon credits, and the usual panaceas will not help.

This of course, puts me in a class with holocaust deniers and people who claim to have visited Jupiter with Elvis in a space ship piloted by Bigfoot.

It is the Global Warming advocates who have framed the discussion this way. Their tactics come straight out of the handbooks of Saul Alinsky, Joseph Goebbels and the Spanish Inquisition.

Well the joke is on you. You can't hurt me with your buxxxxt because I don't have any position to lose.

And, I want to know where to apply for my oil company check. They keep saying guys like me are being paid off by the oil companies but I never got a daxx dime.

Edited April 29, 2014 by R W Burgess
easy to figure out (see edit history)

[West Peterson]

Yup, one in the same. When I'm not driving cars I'm painting them... on canvas, not in a booth.

While we're asking non-sequiter questions, I'm also wondering if you're related to the Marr who participated on the 1946 Glidden Tour, which went to Michigan.

[MarrsCars]

While we're asking non-sequiter questions, I'm also wondering if you're related to the Marr who participated on the 1946 Glidden Tour, which went to Michigan.

No West, that is not me nor any relation. "Marrs" is purely a Nome de Plume for my car art.

[capngrog]

Now what?:eek: This graph is part of a video (available in classrooms as a DVD) produced by an organization called "Emerging Science and Understanding" (ESAU). I did a Yahoo and Google search in an attempt to determine where this organization is within the "political spectrum", but the only thing I've been able to find is the video itself. I haven't taken the time to view the complete video, but from the little I've seen, it appears to present another side of the highly politicized global warming debate. The ESAU indicate that the 530 scientists surveyed are PHDs actually working on climate issues. While the figures in the pie charts may not be exact, I believe that it indicates that there is still a healthy debate within the scientific community over global warming. Who knows?:confused: I just thought it was interesting.

This post confirms my guilt in weighing in on the Global Warming issue, but I still think we should return to the original subject: the suitability of ethanol and ethanol blended fuels as motor fuels.

ethanol over ice; hmmm, good,

Grog

[Rusty_OToole]

Any scientist who says we can close the books on anything, we have nothing more to learn, is no scientist at all.

By the way I agree that humans cause climate change I just don't believe we are responsible for all of it, or even most of it. And of the bit we cause, CO2 only accounts for a small part. This is based on what I have read about the work of scientists who are actually studying the problem, not running around shrieking and waving their hands in the air.

[Bleach]

Be aware that not all PHD's are true scientists. The PHD's involved may be from all over the educational spectrum. A PHD does not necessarily mean you know everything there is about global warming. For all we know, the PHD's involved in the global warming debate are political "scientists".

I'm with Grog, I like my ethanol in a glass not in my gas tank.

[Dandy Dave]

Be aware that not all PHD's are true scientists. The PHD's involved may be from all over the educational spectrum. A PHD does not necessarily mean you know everything there is about global warming. For all we know, the PHD's involved in the global warming debate are political "scientists".

I'm with Grog, I like my ethanol in a glass not in my gas tank.

I only drinks mine Coke with Captain Morgan. And I'll haa..vve you know ees.. do...ing jus..t fine... Dandy Dave!

[Bhigdog]

The Cap'n will never hurt you........................Bob

[Dandy Dave]

Ohhh Bob. I stepped on a nail today. I haven't done that in years. It only hurts when I walk. Guess I'll have the Captain give me my pain killers. Dandy Dave!

[Bleach]

EtOH is by far the world's best pain killer.

[Dave@Moon]

Now what?:eek: This graph is part of a video (available in classrooms as a DVD) produced by an organization called "Emerging Science and Understanding" (ESAU). I did a Yahoo and Google search in an attempt to determine where this organization is within the "political spectrum", but the only thing I've been able to find is the video itself. I haven't taken the time to view the complete video, but from the little I've seen, it appears to present another side of the highly politicized global warming debate. The ESAU indicate that the 530 scientists surveyed are PHDs actually working on climate issues. While the figures in the pie charts may not be exact, I believe that it indicates that there is still a healthy debate within the scientific community over global warming. Who knows?:confused: I just thought it was interesting.

This post confirms my guilt in weighing in on the Global Warming issue, but I still think we should return to the original subject: the suitability of ethanol and ethanol blended fuels as motor fuels.

ethanol over ice; hmmm, good,

Grog

In 2003, Bray and von Storch conducted a survey of the perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change.^{[citation needed]} The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. The 2003 survey has been strongly criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet.^{[citation needed]} Bray and von Storch defended their results and accused climate change skeptics of interpreting the results with bias. Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected.^{[citation needed]}

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

I strongly suggest you read the overviews provided in the (admittedly layman-oriented) Wikipedia link provided, with special emphasis on change over time since this 2003 survey was publis..., well actually it was rejected for publication for reasons above. Notice how frequently the figure "97-98%" surfaces in all of the latest surveys.

A "healthy debate"? Not here or anywhere else. Sadly that won't matter to many (if any) who read this, and neither does anything else.

Like any other problem involving ethanol, the ability to admit there is a problem is the first and biggest step in the process. And like any other problem involving ethanol, many will never take that step.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Dave@Moon
typo (see edit history)

[Bhigdog]

Ohhh Bob. I stepped on a nail today. I haven't done that in years. It only hurts when I walk. Guess I'll have the Captain give me my pain killers. Dandy Dave!

Dr. Bob prescribes a tetanus shot and the healing power of the good Cap'n. He's your friend. And that is SETTLED SCIENCE......................Bob

[Dandy Dave]

Dr. Bob prescribes a tetanus shot and the healing power of the good Cap'n. He's your friend. And that is SETTLED SCIENCE......................Bob

Luckily I had my Tetanus shot taking care of last July.