In the big picture, there is one thing that warms the earth: the sun.

Likewise, there is one thing that cools it: radiative loss to space.

Variations in the first are natural, ongoing, and pretty well understood-including by the scientists who wrote the IPCC reports. (See the site RealClimate.org, if you are truly interested in understanding these issues.)

Man’s modification of the atmosphere–directly measured and beyond any dispute–affects the second. More long-wave radiation is absorbed and re-radiated as infra-red; the upper stratosphere cools (and this too has been directly measured) and the lower atmosphere–the troposphere–warms.

Natural variability will still exist; you will still have colder and warmer years. But the lowered rate of radiative heat loss superimposes an upward temperature trend on that natural variability. And that is what we see: global temps have *not* ceased to rise, contrary to much of the recent hoopla. Temps in the US Northwest may be another story over the short to medium term if the PDO observations are correct; but that just means somewhere else will be warm instead.

The information that kum dollison posted is indeed correct. – much more so than your attempt to equate your experiences from 30 years ago.

I’d say it’s time for you to step away from the dark ages.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentations/sae-2002-01-2743-v2.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentations/epa-fev-isaf-no55.pdf

“The Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) produced today, use fairly typical gasoline engines, which, because they must retain dual-fuel capability, are not able to take full advantage of the favorable combustion characteristics of alcohols.
“Engines optimized for alcohol fuel use, on the other hand, may yield efficiencies that exceed that of state-of-the-art diesel engines—or, about one third higher than that of FFV engines. In earlier engine research at EPA with neat [100%] methanol and ethanol, for example, over 40% brake thermal efficiency was achieved over a relatively broad range of loads and speeds, with peak levels reaching over 42%. Similar work has also been performed with E85, yielding up to 20% fuel economy improvement over baseline gasoline engines.”

And for some factual information on food prices:

http://agadvocate.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/the-food-vs-fuel-debate/

http://agadvocate.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/why-are-food-prices-going-up/

BUT, you didn’t read the links, did you?

One (the State of Minnesota Test) was a “Real World” BLIND Test with a combination of professional drivers, and State Employees. No one knew which fuel they were using. I guess the EPA Research was rigged, too.

Is that how you do Climate “Research?” Ignore all evidence; and go with your preconceived notions?

I suspect they use that base period because it will give them the numbers they’re looking for!

Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com

About 30 years ago I co-owned a company called “Research Unlimited” based in Crete Illinois. Our mission statement was to investigate and capitalize on new technologies in the chemical and electronics industries. To this end we designed special purpose computers for many in the fast food industry (including Mickey D) as well in the aerospace industry (including Goodyear and others).

We also worked on developing specialty chemicals to enhance the mining of coal, increasing tool life in machining shop operations, and for increasing gasoline engine life. In the course of doing the latter, we came across a small company in New Jersey who had developed an ingredient claimed to increase gas mileage by up to 30%! After testing the product over a six month period, we bought the company’s trade secrets.

Having said all that, it’s the testing I wish to focus on.

“kum dollison” (don’t know why he can’t capitalize his name) has been alluding to tests performed by the likes of Iowa State University, Merril Lynch, University of N. Dakota, and Mn State at Mankatow as his sources for impeccable information.

To that I say nonsense!

When we first came to know of this special additive, we ran preliminary tests at Standard Oil’s research labs and had incredible results. This led us to purchase five Pontiac Grandvilles, which we stripped bare (except for the driver’s seat) and baselined for the next three months over a measured portion of I-57 in Illinois. During the baselining period and subsequent road tests with the additive in the tanks, we switched drivers between vehicles to establish each driver’s peculiarities. We even went so far as to measure wind speed and direction, humidity, and temperature during each test, as well as each driver’s biorhythm’s. The drivers did not know whether the additive was in their tank of gas or not. Otherwise, we attempted to make these tests as “blind” as possible.

After eight months of recording each vehicle’s results, we then took one of the cars to the a WELL known, EPA endorsed lab where they had so graciously agreed to run the standard EPA tests with and without the additive.

Folks, the REAL world and dynamometer testing are two entirely different animals! After questioning some of the results, one of the technicians told me privately that each test can be profoundly different from another just based on the test driver’s attitude. If a test driver runs the test as though he has an egg under his foot, he’ll accomplish completely different results than if he doesn’t… and it’s not even noticeable to the average eye. He also said he can give me any result I want (and no, he wasn’t looking for a bribe).

The bottom line is simply this: the sources cited by “kum dollison” all have a “dog in the fight” in the sense each of those States, as well as Merril Lynch, stand to profit from the ethanol debacle. Any poll or report based on information provided by those with a vested interest should be looked upon with a great deal of suspicion! Having said that, I wouldn’t give a tinkers damn for any of “kum dollison’s sources!

Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com

I think that we have to look a little longer to see a legitimate slope trend.

No, you haven’t be “p’wned.” Here’s the EPA test that found ethanol can deliver 40% efficiency.

http://www.methanol.org/pdf/ISAF-XV-EPA.pdf

Will someone please explain to me why we do not use the years 2001 -2007 in the average? The total period from 1979 – 2007 inclusive is 27 years. Why are they using only the first 22 years of that period for the average and not including the last 5 years? Would that drop the average down so that the anomalies in 2001- 2007 show to be lower?

I will not claim to be any kind of expert on this, but In March, I had 1000% more snow in my yard than I did a year ago. Now, I have the same amount of snow in my yard – zero – as I did a year ago.

Perhaps this is apples and oranges, perhaps not. It only seems logical to me that when you have a lot more of something that can melt, and then things start to melt, a lot more stuff will melt.

But I’m admittedly engaging in conjecture.

As I was saying, Ethanol returns no more energy than that required in its production.

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/environment/will-biofuel-scam-derail-environmentalism?-200804291301/

Please do not send us on more pointless efforts to vet your silly claims to the contrary. An ideal world is not available for residence.

Buy and store Oregon, Washington, and Idaho wines. We won’t see new wines from these states for a loooonnnngggg time, which means you could re-sell for a handsome profit later on. Buy before they begin limiting purchases.