http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece

I could've posted this in the ethanol thread since it actually supports some people's opinion, but that thread is already 10+ pages long, so I think we need a fresh start.

 

Again, I don't think we are getting the whole picture of the situation. If someone were to produce a link stating otherwise, I'd feel that both were biased towards their cause. It's such a touchy subject, everyone wants their research to agree with their opinion on the matter.

 

According to S. Fred Singer, professor of environmental sciences global warming is occuring, but as far as man made pollutants being the cause has yet to be proven and according to initial testing and NASA scientist probably is a natural occurance based upon all of the Planets in our solar system warming by the same amount over the same time period. It would appear that possible an increase in the suns output that occurs every 1000 years or so may be the cause. The meeting at the U.N that started us down the path that led to the Kyoto treaty. Global warming by manmade pollutants was not supported by any of the American meteorological society scientist who were barred from speaking at the U.N. IPCC meeting, only about a dozen governing board members(many of which have no credentials in this area) who supported Al Gores view were invited to voice support for the man made cause. On top of this many feel that a moderate warming would be helpful in reducing pollutants in the northern climates from heating and would increase the growing season which increase harvest quantity and removes more pollutants from the atmosphere. It would appear that the U.N and the Clinton administration attempted to sell us a bill of goods that in the long run will impact adversely our standard of living and hurt our economy for no reason. While overall I support decreasing polution it needs to be balanced against cost versus gain unless it is proven that major reductions are necessry by qualified scientist that have done the testing to prove the theory. So far all we have are computer models and those are subject to garbage in garbage out issues and do not supply the proof needed to support the man made theory.

 

It looks like they are focusing on nitrous oxides, which as far as I knew anyway, wasn't really a greenhouse gas, but is a contributor to smog. The blanket statement greenhouse gas doesn't hold much weight, since water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas...

 

Usually, what happens is that after someone comes out with a study, other scientists will verify the results -- they may agree and validate them, but they may find an error.

Here's the original research article, BTW:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.pdf
(sorry about not posting it earlier)

This research takes a previously more or less overlooked gas, N2O (laughing gas, not to be confused with NO2 or NOx) into account, and this does make perfect sense to me.

 

There's plenty of evidence that global warming is happening, and humans, at least partially, are reponsible for that. And I won't argue about this in this particular thread.

As to answer fellro86, while water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas, it's concentration in the air doesn't really depend on human activity, except on a very local scale. And I think this has already been discussed here before. If there's too much water vapor in the air, it will simply precipitate out. On the other hand, CO2, CH4, N2O, etc., stay in the atmosphere a lot longer.

 

This will be a no win argument for years to come. Those who support ethanol and other bio fuels want to believe that it is such a great thing. They want to believe this so badly that they will rationalize it.

They will say that it's cheaper. It's not! Especially if you include the subsidies which our tax dollars pay for.

They will say that it reduces are dependancy on fossil fuels. It doesn't! Especially when you take into consideration the very small amount of ethanol that is used. Primarily in automobiles and no where else. As wll as the fossile fuels required to produce the ethanol and the lower efficiency level.

They will even say that it's better for the environment. Even though more and more is showing that that isn't exactly correct.

They also will have you believe that it's great for our economy and "The Farmer". It isn't! The majority of the farms that grow corn and produce ethanol are large corporations like Archer Daniels Midland. Plus, many more people have jobs related to the petroleum industry than can ever be compared to the ethanol industry. A lot more money goes to the average worker via patroleum.

The main point is that while petroleum isn't the greatest thing on the planet, we know what it can do for us and we know how to work with it's side affects. That can't be said for ethanol. Ethanol has been in use for approximately 30 years or more, yet they don't know any more about it now than they did when they first started using it. That's not even counting how alcohol based fuel was what was originally used when the automobile was invented, yet they saw the inefficiency of it and migrated towards petroleum based fuels. Then there's also all of the plastics, oils, and other byproducts that are produced via fossile fuels.

Nope, there is no winning this one. Neither side will budge for the common good of all people. I am all for finding an alternative energy source other than petroleum. Even if it's just a replacement for the transportation industry such as cars, trucks, trains, planes, etc... I just don't think that ethanol is the answer and that it is wasting a lot of valuable resources that could be targeted towards finding a real solution. IMO, ethanol is pushed solely for political reasons. Later... Mike....

 

That study wasn't talking just ethanol though, it also was talking biodiesel as well.

I still stand by the statement "greenhouse gases" is a very general term, and carbon dioxide is usually the main target, not nitrogen. According to this study, it would seem now nitrogen is suspect as well. That is what the majority of our atmosphere is already, so if it was detrimental in that form, it should already be a problem. It is regularly ignored that the fact the earth warms and cools in cycles may have a little something to do with it, at least in the media, which makes it sound more like man is the only cause. You will find there is resistance to ALL alternatives, being in Wyoming, I'm sure you likely have heard all the flap about how wind power for electricity is a bad thing... Other than a few pinwheels on a ridge, they have no visual troubles, but that is the complaint. Then the risk to birds. No matter the source, there will be opponents.

 

Are you in the same page?!? It is N2O (nitrous-oxide), not nitrogen.

And in my previous post. I specifcally noted that we're talking about N2O to make sure it won't get mixed up. Duh!!

 

Nitrogen is part of it, correct? It has 2 parts nitrogen, 1 part oxygen.

 

Ok, Nitrogen and N2O are two different animals. We've gone over chemistry before, but it looks like we have to do it again. Nitrogen in the atmosphere is N2...that's it, nothing else-N2O is, well, N2O. Reacts differently. You breathe it in, it takes the place of where oxygen would go in your blood, and you get loopy, sick, or dead.
As another example of how chemistry works in weird ways...take Sodium (Na) and Chlorine (Cl). Pure Sodium explodes when you put it into water, Chlorine is a poisonus gas, combine the two (NaCl) and (whalah!) you get SALT!

 

Not really guys. N2O is Nitrous Oxide, known as laughing gas and an anaesthetic.

What we are talking about as a byproduct of combustion is NOx - NO and NO2.

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

And as you point out Weeds, one small change in the chemical formula makes a big change in what the material is and how it behaves.

 

No, this is not about NOx or NO2 -- the title of the research article (the .pdf) is:
"N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels"
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.pdf

 

For starters, this argument shows you total lack of understanding the relevant physics and chemistry. This will most certainly add lots of weight to your posts in alternative fuels.

Additionally, if this was your intended way to weasel out -- you should've known it better. Often, it's much simpler to admit a mistake -- be it carelessness or misunderstanding than trying to come with some backdoor excuse built on quicksand.

As for the shemistry, just because N2O and N2 both have 2 N, that doesn't say much about how they behave. They're very different gases in most respects. N2O is also different from the other nitrogen oxides (often just collectively called NOx) that it cannot be made directly from nitrogen and oxygen; instead, it is normally made from some other compound such as NH4NO3. (ammonium nitrate)

 

Well then collect it and sell it to the ricers. They're always looking for the NAWZ. Problem solved.