[Gasification] Gasification Digest, Vol 9, Issue 35

[David]

Hi Peter,

The Mexicans, due to small field sizes, were squeezed out of corn due to low 
prices up North.  Their production price needed to be US$2.75/bushel to be 
profitable.  Now that USA corn is $4.00/bushel the Mexican farmer is back in 
business.

IMHO fuel and food compete, but go hand in hand since food production is not 
done much in the cities and the food must be transported to the consumers.

In the 1980's 90% of the fresh vegetables available in Moscow were grown in 
little plots around the apartment houses..source - my Dad who spent 4 years 
there building a baby food plant.

David Green
"Rootless half diminished"
"A voicing that resolves two ways"
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <gasification-request at listserv.repp.org>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:58 PM
Subject: Gasification Digest, Vol 9, Issue 35


> Send Gasification mailing list submissions to
> gasification at listserv.repp.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> gasification-request at listserv.repp.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> gasification-owner at listserv.repp.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Gasification digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Producer Gas Driven Engine w/ Liquid Fuel Assist (Ed Woolsey)
>   2. Re: UK Documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle
>      (Peter Singfield)
>   3. Re: sugar beet ethanol (Philippe Raufast)
>   4. Re: UK Documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle
>      (rkurt at tadaust.org.au)
>   5. Re: Producer Gas Driven Engine w/ Liquid Fuel Assist
>      (Peter Singfield)
>   6. Re: UK Documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle
>      (Peter Singfield)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:06:16 -0600
> From: "Ed Woolsey" <woolsey at netins.net>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Producer Gas Driven Engine w/ Liquid Fuel
> Assist
> To: "'Peter Singfield'" <snkm at btl.net>,
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <011301c76a62$0df55670$6600a8c0 at Eddell>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Raw sugar ..One ton will equal about 135.4 gallons of ethanol.
> USDA Pub. 2006
> Ed
> Iowa
> About 14.7 pounds per gallon....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Peter 
> Singfield
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:43 PM
> To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Producer Gas Driven Engine w/ Liquid Fuel 
> Assist
>
> At 07:11 PM 3/19/2007 -0000, Ken Basterfield wrote:
>>
>>Ken Basterfield wrote:
>>> At the 30lb sugar per gallon of ethanol conversion rate it would give
>>> only 180 gallons ethanol per acre.
>>
>
> For comparison
>
> Here in Belize a well kept cane field will yield 40 tons of whole cane for
> sugar processing per year.
>
> The sugar eventually extracted will be 10% of the gross -- or 4 tons.
>
> 8000lbs sugar/30 = 266 gallon
>
> But in real time -- going by memory from some old papers on this subject
> published in Brazil -- they claim 60 to 80 liters of pure ethanol per ton
> of "raw cane.
>
> OK -- went up dug up specific ref.
>
> "All these figures show the important role played by S?o Paulo State in
> this agribusiness sector. Also, its productivity is the highest one when
> compared to other regions; average industrial efficiency is 80,6 litters 
> of
> alcohol (both anhydrous and hydrated) per tonne of crushed cane, against
> 78,3 l/tc in Brazil. Moreover, there are industries in the state whose
> productivity reaches 100 litters of alcohol per tonne of cane"
>
> So 20 gallons per ton is a "fair" figure -- 
>
> One ton of cane = 200 lbs of sugar
>
> 200/30 = 6.6 gallons per ton -- raw cane
>
> Yet Brazil gets 20 gallons from that same 200 lbs of sugar.
>
> 10 lbs sugar = 1 gallon ethanol
>
> Oops -- where did the rest go -- eh??
>
> By the way -- forty tons per acre * 20 gal per ton = 800 gal per acre of
> "ethanol" --
>
> Forget the sugar beats -- eh??
>
> I have an extensive data base on cane to ethanol processes -- much of 
> which
> makes for very interesting reading -- like this line out of one of them:
>
> Brazil: in 1990, 88% of new cars were alcohol-powered
>
> Apparently, the alcohol industry figured out a way of making alcohol
> production profitable again, and as the average price of the liter of
> gasoline in the gas stations is 0,90-1,35 R$ (0,60 - 0,80 US$ dollars), 
> the
> same amount of alcohol costs only 0,60-0,75 (0,40 - 0,50 U$ dollars). And
> the prices are still too high, because the government started charging 
> more
> fuel taxes (because of the economical situation of Brazil). Knowing that
> the Government taxes about 25% of the prices of fuel, a costumer should be
> paying only 0,10 - 0,15 US$ for a liter of alcohol!
>
> Date line -- 1998 -- Brazil
>
> Don't go self destructing re-inventing all those wheels -- eh??
>
> However -- if you could use the pulp of the sugar beet after sugar
> extraction as food for a fast biomethane generator -- things do get much
> "sweeter" --
>
> What makes ethanol from corn "work" in the US is government subsidies --
> and nothing else.
>
> Starve the Mexicans -- but do not buy ehtanol "freely" from Brazil --
>
> Typical Euro Barbarian blooded mentality!!
>
> Peter / Belize
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.14/727 - Release Date: 3/19/2007
> 11:49 AM
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.14/727 - Release Date: 3/19/2007
> 11:49 AM
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:40:34 -0600 (CST)
> From: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] UK Documentary The Great Global Warming
> Swindle
> To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Message-ID: <3.0.32.20070319143747.00adeb20 at pop.btl.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> At 08:31 PM 3/19/2007 +0100, you wrote:
>>What horseshit is that, now as an argument you shoot at me with shit,
>>now you take your argument to that I am a TV dumass, what I am saying
>>is what I have been told by the TV or some body else, that is an
>>perfect example of what your problem is.....do you say that my
>>argument.... what I have said is on TV....I have not seen it....it is
>>horseshit....all what I have seen is from the ice core graphic, have
>>you seen the graphic.....
>>
>
> How can the ice core graphic predict short term events such as we know to
> have historically occured??
>
> Ask youself that question for starters before you start swinging ice core
> graphics as the ultimate word of God or something --
>
> It is not so!!
>
> OK -- I have not seen that grphic -- can you point us to the url??
>
> and if not -- how does ice cores acvtually record the onset of continental
> ice sheets miles thick??
>
> Little bit year by year over a priod of 1000 years??
>
> Maybe the poles -- where these ice cores are taken -- do not end up with
> percipitation that results in short term deposits of mile and more thick
> ice sheets??
>
> Which pole were these ice cores taken from??
>
> If indeed we ended up with 40 days and nights of terrible precipitation --
> in the form of snow -- ice -- as global air temperatures went down -- for
> the reasons I clearly logically presented (which you make no reply to --
> why not??) -- what would happen to that part that fell into the oceans??
>
> How about -- it would "melt" -- thus increasing the the level of the 
> oceans
> and in some rough relationship to increases of ice sheet thickness (miles)
> across the northern temperate zones (as is the theory -- ice sheets across
> mosdt of canada -- Northern US -- Russia and Europe were miles thick at 
> the
> "peak")
>
> So ocean levels would have risen.
>
> If your ice cores are from the Artic -- good chance that even meant that
> ice was then under water -- or -- pushed under water by the weight of the
> extra thick ice sheet (after all -- those ice sheets pushed the plains of
> American and Canada below sea level so when the ice melted they remained
> large inland seas)
>
> Then there would be -- basically -- no record of this event in those ice
> cores after -- right??
>
> Ect -- etc -- can you derive thoughts??
>
> Or is it only follow your leader times??
>
> You have to ignore so much real data to support your proposition -- based
> -- apparently -- totally on a single ice core graphic.
>
> Again -- there are no "simplistic" answers to this "problem"
>
> Certainly -- I still have problems with accepting your basic premise:
>
>>So how are you going to solve a climate problem which is not caused by
>>Humans behaviour,
>
> And you basing that kind of major definitive statement on your special
> knowlege of an ice core graphic only??
>
> I still say that is more rleigious styel thought process than scientific!!
>
> It smacks of some one wanting to support a belief -- beyond all reason to
> the contrary.
>
> Which -- is exactly the "program" being broadcast by TV these times.
>
> So if you say you did not get this opinion from TV -- I can believe in
> major coincidence --
>
> But your not presenting any logical responses to data refuting your
> statements.
>
> Again -- just like people that watch to much TV do -- 
>
> again -- coinincidence -- right??
>
> It is all about a single holy grail ice core -- right??
>
> How about if that ice core was 1 mile beneath the surface of the sea 
> during
> that event??
>
> Od was that ice core taken over high lands in ant artica??
>
> and another point -- would the air over the poles have been hot enough to
> meet superaturation condtions to begin with??
>
> Probably not!!
>
> That means when the trigger finally did "fire the round" and percipitation
> formed and dropped in place -- the pole areas would not have experienced
> such dramtic accumulations.
>
> In fact -- we have no record of suddenly appearing ice sheets miles thick
> over the poles -- do we??
>
> So what has a polar ice core got to do with this discussion then??
>
> Eh???
>
> Look -- if you insist on not thinking in a logical manner -- fine -- your 
> a
> European -- after all!!
>
> Take your icon and worship it -- if that is indeed your style.
>
> Mine is to keep an open mind.
>
> so if you can present an Url -- or more indepth data than a presently
> hypothetical ice core -- unlike you might do if our causes were indeed
> reversed  -- I will actually go investigate.
>
> Anyone else talked with this ice core??
>
> but they way -- and ice core sample from the top of the mount Everest --  
> or
> any of its glaciers -- would not show such a rapid accumulation either --
> for the simple reason - -that kind of fast drop would simply roll off to
> the sides.
>
> We have reason to believe that the world looked mostly very "flat" under
> it's mantles of miles thick ice sheets --- 
>
> You would need to take an ice core sample from a valley glacier in the
> temperate zones to verify properly -- but there is a problem -- they all
> melted away thousands of years ago.
>
> But such an ice core might have demonstrated deposits of miles thick in a
> very short period of time -- if they existed today.
>
> Percipitation as ice probably fell on the tropical areas as well -- but it
> melted soon after.
>
> The other "effect" you are ignoring -- is why the temperate zone ice 
> sheets
> existed for so long after.
>
> One theory states that ice -- snow -- ends up relfelcting most of the 
> solar
> energy back to out space.
>
> Imagine how brightly the planet earth must have shined to someone -- if
> possible -- being on Mars at that time.
>
> Now -- if your ice core icon is "true" -- it should have a layer deposited
> in one "season" -- and that layer should be a mile or more thick.
>
>
>
> Peter / Belize
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:14:24 +0100
> From: "Philippe Raufast" <praufast at free.fr>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] sugar beet ethanol
> To: Gasification at listserv.repp.org <Gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <20070319211218.A563A5A1C4 at smtp6-g19.free.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain;      charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>>The truth of the matter is that centralised electric power generation 
>>throws away 60 plus of the energy content of the fuel as waste heat , as 
>>does a vehicle mounted IC engine.
>>
>>Perhaps the only solution is to use decentralised combined heat and power 
>>plants based on gasification or dual fuelled IC engines, and use the waste 
>>heat for heating buildings.
>>
>>The enabling step for this to happen, is a fully automated 
>>gasifier/generator system with a electric power and thermal output matched 
>>to the requirements of standard domestic dwellings, either individual 
>>homes or appartments/schools/hospitals etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>Ken
>
> Ken, take a look here :
>
> micro-CHP has a continuous output of 5.5kW of electricity and 12.5 kW of 
> heat from 20.6 KW of fuel, for an efficiency of 90%, with a plant oil 
> burning version available. An additional external exhaust heat exchanger 
> can provide a further 2.5 kW of thermal energy, raising the efficiency up 
> to 98%.
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/03/senertec_dachs.php
>
> and here :http://www.senertec.de/englisch/frames.php
>
> Or maybe here ?  (this is a modern steam engine)
> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cyclone_Technologies_LLLP
>
> Philippe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:20:48 +1000
> From: rkurt at tadaust.org.au
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] UK Documentary The Great Global Warming
> Swindle
> To: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
> Cc: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Message-ID: <45FEFEB0.6000504 at tadaust.org.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Peter Singfield wrote:
>> <snipped>
>> - atmosphere rapidly chills -- not just due to lack of energy input
>> -- but because condensing water on particles is very energy 
>> consumptive --
> <snipped>
>
> C'mon Peter, condensing water vapour releases energy---- Latent Heat of
> Vapourisation.
>
>
> Kurt
> who has flown hundreds of kilometers in
> unpowered aeroplanes (gliders) on just that heat
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:58:13 -0600 (CST)
> From: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Producer Gas Driven Engine w/ Liquid Fuel
> Assist
> To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Message-ID: <3.0.32.20070319150105.00ae1710 at pop.btl.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> At 02:06 PM 3/19/2007 -0600, Ed Woolsey wrote:
>>Raw sugar ..One ton will equal about 135.4 gallons of ethanol.
>>USDA Pub. 2006
>>Ed
>>Iowa
>>About 14.7 pounds per gallon....
>
> OK -- that sounds about right -- there are losses involved in real time
> production.
>
> A lot depends on exactly what kind of sugar -- sucrose -- glucose -- and
> mixtures and variations -- etc.
>
> sugar beet sugar might indeed require 30 lbs
>
> Brazil sugar cane might well indeed be runing higher than 10% sugar yileds
> -- as does our Berlize variety.
>
> Peter / Belize
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:58:15 -0600 (CST)
> From: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] UK Documentary The Great Global Warming
> Swindle
> To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Message-ID: <3.0.32.20070319155521.00bf1970 at pop.btl.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> At 04:52 PM 3/19/2007 -0400, Daniel Nicoson wrote:
>>Peter,
>>
>>Kind of watching from the sidelines here as most of my posts seem to have 
>>a
>>significant time delay.
>>
>>Could you explain the contribution of a volcanic eruption in your 
>>scenario?
>>I have heard tell that the 1992 eruption in the Philippines (Mt. Pinatubo 
>>I
>>think) released more Co2 than mankind has released in the last 200 years. 
>>I
>>don't have a source for that statement.
>>
>>Certainly volcano's release large amounts of Co2.  How does your model
>>factor in those large events?
>>
>>Thanks for your time,
>>
>>Dan Nicoson
>>
>
> Hi Dan;
>
> OK -- it is all about what we called in refrigeration servicing -- the
> "Bump" factor. This a slang term used in Montreal refrigeration/air
> conditioning -- service trade -- many years back "when"
>
> When one has over hauled a refrigeration system and pulled the vacuum long
> enough -- then replenish the reservoir with freon -- comes time to a just
> the thermal expansion valve.
>
> you turn the adjustment screw 1/4 of a turn -- then watch your gauges and
> thermometers for a set period of time to observe the "reaction" -- that
> time of waiting we called the "bump" --
>
> But -- the large the system -- the greater the bump!!
>
> A small system -- maybe 15 minutes of bump between when you turned the
> screw 1/4 turn -- and the system finished "bouncing" and stabilized.
>
> Larger system -- longer -- sometimes -- much longer.
>
> It is the final tweaking to make sure everything is running in perfect
> balance for top efficiencies and reliability.
>
> I services some large AC system where I turned that screw once every 24
> hours!!
>
> Now -- I have appended the entire part of the CO2 "bump" below.
>
> Here is the "meat":
>
> "why the rise in CO2 initially lags behind the temperature rise:
>
> The best current explanation for the lag of 800 years is that this is
> how long it takes for CO2, absorbed by the ocean in an earlier warm
> period, to be "flushed out" at the end of an ice age. Once that CO2
> has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as
> a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of
> positive feedback. (See Caillon et al., 'Timing of Atmospheric CO2
> and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III,' Science,
> 14 March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731)
>
> There is a serious mistake in that statement though:
>
> "absorbed by the ocean in an earlier warm period"
>
> Cold water "holds" more CI2 than warm water.
>
> What should have been stated is:
>
> During the ice age water is extremely cold and locks down much of the
> global CO2 -- but as the ice age ends -- the water warms -- being able 
> then
> to hold less CO2 -- so Co2 is released to the atmosphere.
>
> The "Bump" is 800 years long.
>
> However -- once a threshold is passed:
>
> Once that CO2 has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping
> properties as
> a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of  positive
> feedback. (See Caillon et al., 'Timing of Atmospheric CO2  and Antarctic
> Temperature Changes Across Termination III,' Science,  14 March 2003: Vol.
> 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731)
>
> So -- your question:
>
>>I have heard tell that the 1992 eruption in the Philippines (Mt. Pinatubo 
>>I
>>think) released more Co2 than mankind has released in the last 200 years. 
>>I
>>don't have a source for that statement.
>
> First -- it would be proper to verify that statement -- as it might better
> read -- the last 200 years preceding 1970!!
>
> Second -- one would say that was still not enough to trigger the bump
> period into run-away condition.
>
> However -- any way you slice this cake -- it still means more CO2 did go
> into the atmosphere.
>
> One could also -- almost say -- the roughly 100,000 year cycle is based on
> when sufficient CO2 has been released by normal; average volcanic activity
> to trip the cycle over again.
>
> Then one should also consider -- man's efforts resulting in increasing 
> that
> normal CO2 input would definitely be speeding us faster to the inevitable.
>
> Hope that clarifies it some what??
>
> Actually -- Kevin -- a Phd of physics -- and a Phd of meteorology argues
> all of this intensely about five years or so again.
>
> Kevin and I put forth most of these same point -- the Phd of Physics and
> the Meteorologist disagreed.
>
> Ergo -- my past comment -- when the earth's super saturated atmosphere
> finally reaches conditions allowing condensation -- huge amount of latent
> heat energies are involved (ball park -- 1000 btu per pound of water to
> change state between steam and liquid states)
>
> But I presented it wrong.
>
> Water must give up 1000 btu's of heat to condense!!
>
> So how come when it rains on earth it gets shilly after and not hotter??
>
> Well -- think of the old time multi floor buildings -- heating in the 
> winter.
>
> They had a boiler in the basement -- and steam at next to zero pressure
> raised up from that boiler to condense in the radiators in the rooms above
> -- there releasing large amounts of heat -- 1000 btu per pound of
> steam/water -- keeping things "warm" -- even in the coldest winter days.
>
> To accomplish this miracle one needed combust much fuel at the boiler in
> that basement. And thus supplying -- 1000 btu into the water to turn it to
> steam -- to rise and heat the apartment.
>
> Putting this in global weather perspective -- 
>
> Water is evaporated at the earths surface areas -- absorbing  1000 btu's
> heat to do so -- then raises way up to the top floors -- to be 
> condensed --
> releasing 1000 BTU's of heat.
>
> The problem is hot air goes up -- cold comes down -- so the heat released
> for condensing heats the upper atmosphere and that goes up -- eventually
> getting chilled -- by outer space - -which is another way of saying --  
> heat
> from planet earth is shed to outer space -- and very neat refrigeration
> cycle -- with a huge bump!!
>
> That is why a rain in the tropics always brings a refreshing coolness 
> after --
>
> It is the thermodynamic flows caused by such activities the can cause
> storms -- and major storms -- such as hurricanes.
>
> When that process become over amplified -- the chilling effect can go to
> extreme -- and then yes -- ice falls in large amount from the skies.
>
> Hey -- explain snow and snow storms -- if you do not believe -- eh??
>
> We even get hail storms here in the tropics -- ice balls -- large ones --
> falling.
>
> How so -- eh??
>
> Does it take 800 years for a tropical ice storm to develop??
>
> No!!
>
> Actually -- the graphics in the movie "Day after Tomorrow" were quote
> accurate - -and so very impressive -- in my opinion.
>
> And certainly I would never say it is a totally false representation of
> what is staring us in the face -- and I am not even so sure it exaggerated
> the possibilities.
>
> We simply will have to but wait and observe --
>
> How long??
>
> Well -- that is the very real question -- is it not??
>
> How to avoid this scenario??
>
> Probably -- by stopping the atmosphere from becoming supersaturated.
>
> Oh -- how would one do that??
>
> Numerous ways present -- here are but a few possibilities.
>
> Make sure that their is always enough particulate matter in the upper
> atmosphere to release water --
>
> Two -- attempt to control the amount of solar energy impinging on our 
> globe
> to keep temps from going to high.
>
> "Smoke" does both -- but is not politically correct by "Green" standards.
>
> Oh - -the other reason volcanoes do not raise temps when they erupt huge
> amounts of CO@ is because they also produce a lot of dust in the upper
> atmosphere -- which results in huge cooling effects due to reflection of
> solar energy back to out space -- thus cooling the oceans -- and cooling
> the "rains" -- which then absorb  more CO2 -- which is then locked in the
> oceans as a result.
>
> The bump is when the oceans have now absorbed to much CO2 -- and are in a
> super solution state -- where nay little change in parameters can change
> huge forces in very short order -- such as releasing super great amounts 
> of
> CO2 --
>
> Apparently -- in the normal order of things -- it takes five hundred years
> "bump" before that situation is reached.
>
> We are well past 800 years -- volcanoes still occur as they always have --
> and man has indeed influenced events -- no matter what the ice core icon
> man says!!
>
> bottom line -- Though CO2 alone theortically does not have to be the prime
> mover/shaker of ice age events -- it usuually is!!
>
> Though I doubt it will be the prime mover this time -- nuclear war will
> occur first.
>
> Course -- not due to man's "influence" -- right!!!
>
> Peter / Belize
>
>
> *********************appended**************
>
> We then come to one of the film's most misleading arguments.
> Antarctic ice cores show that rises in levels of CO2 have lagged 800
> years behind temperature rises at specific times in the geological
> past. This, argued Durkin, +proves+ that CO2 cannot be responsible
> for global warming - instead global warming is responsible for
> increasing levels of CO2. But this was a huge howler.
>
> What Durkin's film failed to explain was that the 800-year lag
> happened at the end of ice ages which occur about every 100,000
> years. (See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/
> co2-in-ice-cores)
>
> Scientists believe that the end of an ice age is likely triggered
> when the amount of heat reaching the Earth rises as a result of a
> periodic change in the Earth's orbit around the sun. Jeff
> Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at Scripps Institution of
> Oceanography, explains why the rise in CO2 initially lags behind the
> temperature rise:
>
> "The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000
> years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag
> shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out
> of the 5000 year trend." (Real Climate, 'What does the lag of CO2
> behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?',
> December 3, 2005; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/
> 2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/)
>
> The best current explanation for the lag of 800 years is that this is
> how long it takes for CO2, absorbed by the ocean in an earlier warm
> period, to be "flushed out" at the end of an ice age. Once that CO2
> has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as
> a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of
> positive feedback. (See Caillon et al., 'Timing of Atmospheric CO2
> and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III,' Science,
> 14 March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731)
>
> Professor Severinghaus summarises:
>
> "In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an
> amplifier once they are underway."
>
> Durkin's analysis, then, was way off the mark.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
>
> End of Gasification Digest, Vol 9, Issue 35
> *******************************************