Last Friday the Vancouver Sun published an article titled, “Turning Seaweed into Biofuel” written by Agence France-Presse. This article outlines the processes for turning seaweed into a biofuel that may potentially replace or at least reduce the amount of coal and oil usage. Researchers have engineered a type of E.coli bacteria that can degrade the major sugars present in brown seaweed and have found a way to harness the energy produced. Currently, they have four aquafarming sites in Chile in hopes of taking the necessary steps in order to produce it commercially. Seaweed is also gaining attention for it is cultivated on coastlines unlike sugar and corn biofuels who use land and compete with other crops used for food.

Also, a UK/Scotland based news-website, Business7, recently reported that the Edinburgh Napier University has spun out a new company called Celtic Renewables Ltd. that intends to use the byproducts of whiskey to create a biofuel that may have a huge global impact. The whiskey industry produces 500,000 tonnes of draff each year which is used to make bio-butanol. Unlike some other biofuels, bio-butanol can replace petrol and also be blended with it as well. Consumers will thereby not need to modify their vehicles in order to use this biofuel.

articles can be found here:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/technology/Turning+seaweed+into+biofuel/6026380/story.html

http://www.business7.co.uk/business-news/scottish-business-news/2012/01/25/new-bio-fuel-company-will-make-fuel-from-whisky-by-products-106408-23719051/

Larry Bell, a professor at the University of Houston and the head of the graduate program in space architecture, is a contributor of Forbes.com (the website of the renowned business-orientated magazine) and is also a skeptic of the anthropogenic impact on climate change. Bell’s most recent article on Forbes.com titled “Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change” discusses a recent peer-reviewed study that (as Bell puts it) “indicates” that climate change is not due to human causes but rather because of the oscillations of our solar system. Bell reiterates the study’s findings and argues that climate changes as far back as 1850 can be associated with solar cycles in 9, 10, 20 and 60 year long intervals that affect the cloud systems and tide oscillations that in turn affect the climate. These solar cycles mainly involve the influence of Jupiter and Saturn on our plant. The 60 year interval is also related with many traditional calendars that are associated with astronomical cycles. As Bell says, the study also shows that the IPCC’s climate forecasting model has overestimated the human contributions towards climate change and that the model fails to incorporate any astronomical influence towards our climate. The study, using its own astronomical model and basing it on the 60 year cycle alone, states that in comparison to the IPCC model that suggests that the earth will increase 1.0-3.6 degrees C by 2100, their model predicts that the earth will only increase 0.3-1.2 degrees C. Bell also shows, however, the limits of the study for it only includes 4 astronomical harmonics whereas ocean tides are forecasted using 30-40 harmonics. The amount of scientific information and evidence that Bell uses makes for a rather convincing article. Bell also includes a segment where he asks the researcher behind the study a few questions and directly quotes the researcher himself making the article more credible. However, Bell does display some logical fallacies in his argument. For example, the fallacy of stacking the deck can be seen in his article because all of his argument is against the anthropogenic impact on the climate. He does not discuss any details as to why people would think that there is a human impact. Also, the logical fallacy of either/or can be seen. Bell not does explore the possibility that both the solar cycle and human impact may be contributing factors of global warming.

Original Article can be found here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/01/10/global-warming-no-natural-predictable-climate-change/

Bell, L. (2012, January 10). Global warming? No, natural, predictable, climate change. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!