Home > Archive > Cobol > March 2008 > OT: Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT: Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
|
|
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-21, 9:55 pm |
| I don't know how accurate the following is, but it's interesting.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
========================================
==
Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:55 AM
By: Phil Brennan
Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the
reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global
warming theory?
Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal
that almost all the allegedly "lost" ice has come back. A NOAA report
shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in
January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost
back to their original levels.
Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that
there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging
the global warming cru ers and buttressing arguments of skeptics who
deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to
a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to
fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al
Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind's alleged
impact on the global climate.
Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of
August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has
soared in recent years.
As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems
to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.
As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere
has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover
across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the
one exception - Western Europe, which had, until the w end when
temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking
in unseasonably warm weather.
Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the
heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United
States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was
so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow.
Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the
heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan,
snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even Baghdad had a
snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents.
AFP news reports icy temperatures have just swept through south China,
stranding 180,000 people and leading to widespread power cuts just as
the area was recovering from the worst weather in 50 years, the
government said Monday. The latest cold snap has taken a severe toll
in usually temperate Yunnan province, which has been struck by heavy
snowfalls since Thursday, a government official from the provincial
disaster relief office told AFP.
Twelve people have died there, state Xinhua news agency reported, and
four remained missing as of Saturday.
An ongoing record-long spell of cold weather in Vietnam's northern
region, which started on Jan. 14, has killed nearly 60,000 cattle,
mainly bull and buffalo calves, local press reported Monday. By Feb.
17, the spell had killed a total of 59,962 cattle in the region,
including 7,349 in the Ha Giang province, 6,400 in Lao Cai, and 5,571
in Bac Can province, said Hoang Kim Giao, director of the Animal
Husbandry Department under the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development, according to the Pioneer newspaper.
In Britain the temperatures plunged to -10 C in central England,
according to the Express, which reports that experts say that
February could end up as one of the coldest in Britain in the past
10 years with the freezing night-time conditions expected to stay
around a frigid -8 C until at least the middle of the w. And the
BBC reports that a bus company's efforts to cut global warming
emissions have led to services being disrupted by cold weather.
Meanwhile Athens News reports that a raging snow storm that blanketed
most of Greece over the wend and continued into the early morning
hours on Monday, plunging the country into sub-zero temperatures. The
agency reported that public transport buses were at a standstill on
Monday in the wider Athens area, while ships remained in ports, public
services remained closed, and schools and courthouses in the more
severely-stricken prefectures were also closed.
Scores of villages, mainly on the island of Crete, and in the
prefectures of Evia, Argolida, Arcadia, Lakonia, Viotia, and the
Cyclades islands were snowed in.
More than 100 villages were snowed-in on the island of Crete and
temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest
temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina,
where they plunged to -12 C.
Temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest
temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina,
where they plunged to -12 C.
If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death.
| |
| Robert 2008-02-23, 3:55 am |
| On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:31:29 -0600, "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
>
>Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:55 AM
>
>By: Phil Brennan
>
>Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the
>reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global
>warming theory?
Obviously Phil Brennan beleves the latter. The giveaway is emotionally loaded phrases like
scare mongering.
>Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the
>U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal
>that almost all the allegedly "lost" ice has come back. A NOAA report
>shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in
>January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost
>back to their original levels.
It's not news that the North Pole ice cap melts every summer.
>Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that
>there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging
>the global warming cruers and buttressing arguments of skeptics who
>deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
The South Pole icepack has been increasing for decades. It's hard to define usual or
average during a trend. If they use, say a twenty year average as the norm, OF COURSE this
year is above the norm.
The issue is GLOBAL warming. Antarctica doesn't represent the globe.
>The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to
>a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to
>fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al
>Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind's alleged
>impact on the global climate.
Newspaper reporters are not scientists, they pander to what the public wants to see. Just
like Sports Illustrated are not experts on swimsuits or female pulchritude. At best,
pictures are anecdotal evidence; at worst, they're non-verbal lying.
>Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of
>August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has
>soared in recent years.
That's because some countries, such as Norway and Russia, banned or imposed limits on the
"harvest" (killing) of polar bears. The US is notable for its absence.
>As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems
>to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.
Investing Mother Nature with a personality appeals to emotion, not reason.
>As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere
>has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover
>across the area is at its greatest since 1966.
What does that prove? Here in the northern US we're getting cold air called Siberian
Express. It originates in Siberia, travels across the north pole, through Canada, and hits
us with sub-zero Farenheit. It is possible that a colder north pole in previous years
stopped the cold air from traveling across it. I don't know; I'm not a climate expert. It
just seeems to me that colder temperatures is a SIMPLISTIC interpretation to deny global
warming.
I'm neutral on whether global warming is real and whether it's caused by human activity.
My bullshit detecting radar perks up when I hear appeals to emotion such as pictures of
polar bears and cute baby seals.We've heard it too many times before. This time, they'll
have to produce real scientific evidence.
| |
| billious 2008-02-23, 3:55 am |
|
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:qetur39hfh6feio890e2e9sdlfkb1caktv@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:31:29 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
> <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Obviously Phil Brennan beleves the latter. The giveaway is emotionally
> loaded phrases like
> scare mongering.
>
Which is quite distinct, of course, from emotionally-loaded phrases like
"global warming."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-23, 7:55 am |
| "Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
> Newspaper reporters are not scientists, they pander to what the public wants to see.
So, when newspapers report that the economy is down, or that the home
team lost, they do that because the public wants to hear that the economy
is down or that the home team lost? Can we spell "d-u-m-b?"
Newspapers report on *what people are interested in* not just *what they
want to see*.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <qetur39hfh6feio890e2e9sdlfkb1caktv@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
[snip]
>I'm neutral on whether global warming is real and whether it's caused by
>human activity.
To borrow a bit of logic reported by Freud - 'There is no global warming,
humans have not caused it and it has been detected on Mars so it must be a
natural phenomenon.'
DD
| |
|
| In article <G_Tvj.80911$Mu4.74723@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Newspapers report on *what people are interested in* not just *what they
>want to see*.
A commercial medium (newspapers/radio/television) will report on what will
sell column-inches/air time to advertisers; they are in business to make a
profit.
(this 'dirty little secret' has been given a bit more air over the past
decades; try finding before, say, 1980, statements like 'it should be
noted that Engulf-and-Devour is the sole owner of the Daily Fishwrap'.)
DD
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> A commercial medium (newspapers/radio/television) will report on what will
> sell column-inches/air time to advertisers; they are in business to make a
> profit.
True. Which is why they report on what people are interested in. *What*
they report about those things is a mixture of facts and how their personal
and/or coorperate worldview interprets them.
Of course, you also have the likes of The National Inquirer, which are
almost entirely fiction, with maybe a tiny grain of distorted fact.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Bill Gunshannon 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| In article <fpp962$4gv$1@reader2.panix.com>,
docdwarf@panix.com () writes:
> In article <G_Tvj.80911$Mu4.74723@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> A commercial medium (newspapers/radio/television) will report on what will
> sell column-inches/air time to advertisers; they are in business to make a
> profit.
And a scientist will report what will bring in the next million dollar
research grant. No one ever got a grant by reporting, "There is nothing
here worth investigating."
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
| |
|
| In article <gkWvj.101102$N67.50454@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>
>True. Which is why they report on what people are interested in.
.... or what they believe people can be made to be interested in; sometimes
it works, sometimes it doesn't.
'You supply the pictures, I'll supply the war.' - attributed to Hearst.
>*What*
>they report about those things is a mixture of facts and how their personal
>and/or coorperate worldview interprets them.
Assuming that the corporation controls the means of production then it
might well be concluded that nothing gets printed without the
corporation's (at the very least) tacit approval; the corporation's
'worldview' is, as stated above, to sell column-inches/air time.
As my Sainted Paternal Grandfather - may he sleep with the angels! - used
to say, 'Ain't *nobody* in business for your good health... even the drug
companies have to show a profit.'
>Of course, you also have the likes of The National Inquirer, which are
>almost entirely fiction, with maybe a tiny grain of distorted fact.
For a good many years there have been markets for both fiction and
non-fiction works, aye.
DD
| |
|
| In article <62at3uF22mo6iU3@mid.individual.net>,
Bill Gunshannon <billg999@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>In article <fpp962$4gv$1@reader2.panix.com>,
> docdwarf@panix.com () writes:
>
>And a scientist will report what will bring in the next million dollar
>research grant. No one ever got a grant by reporting, "There is nothing
>here worth investigating."
I'm not sure what you are calling 'a scientist' here, Mr Gunshannon, but
it would not be very difficult at all to imagine a situation where one
study generates a conclusion that '(product) has (negative effects)' and a
manufacturers' consortium provides grants to folks who report 'there is
nothing here worth investigating'.
DD
| |
| tlmfru 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| Well, if you think "global warming" is just a red-flag "loaded phrase",
let's hear your answer to the question:
Glaciers, sea ice covers, and ice caps are melting all over the world. (Not
all of them, but most - over 70%, I'd say). See the February issue of
Scientific American. If it's not global warming that's causing all this,
what is?
PL
billious <billious_1954@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47bfa482$0$28629$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>
> "Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
> news:qetur39hfh6feio890e2e9sdlfkb1caktv@
4ax.com...
>
> Which is quite distinct, of course, from emotionally-loaded phrases like
> "global warming."
>
>
| |
| Bill Gunshannon 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| In article <IIZvj.5852$yk5.4059@newsfe18.lga>,
"tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> writes:
> Well, if you think "global warming" is just a red-flag "loaded phrase",
> let's hear your answer to the question:
>
> Glaciers, sea ice covers, and ice caps are melting all over the world. (Not
> all of them, but most - over 70%, I'd say). See the February issue of
> Scientific American. If it's not global warming that's causing all this,
> what is?
>
The real question is not so much, "Is global warming happening?" It is
more, "Is man responsible?" And even more, "Can man stop it?" I would
expect that while the answer to #1 is "Yes", the answerr to #2 & #3 is a
resounding "No". There is considerable evidence that the earth has been
much hotter and much colder in the distant past long before man was a
part of the equation. It is the height of arrogance for man to think
he is anything more than a samll, annoying gnat on the earth's back.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
| |
|
| On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:35:24 -0600, tlmfru wrote:
> Well, if you think "global warming" is just a red-flag "loaded phrase",
> let's hear your answer to the question:
>
> Glaciers, sea ice covers, and ice caps are melting all over the world. (Not
> all of them, but most - over 70%, I'd say). See the February issue of
> Scientific American. If it's not global warming that's causing all this,
> what is?
>
> PL
>
If people believe Man Made Global Warming is true, why don't they do
anything effective about it? The Kyoto protocol will have a negligible
effect, and there has been little progress on a replacement treaty. A
reduction of 80-90% in carbon emissions by industrialized nations would be
required. This is what is needed to produce an overall 50% reductions
because 3rd world emissions are rising rapidly. To put this level of
reductions in context, 10% of your household electricity consumption
consists of appliances on standby.
If people really believed this, we would see radically different
behavior. Eg a massive switch to nuclear for electricity and
nuclear-generated hydrogen for transport. Greenhouse taxes to create the
right incentives across the economy.
Tim
| |
|
| On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:04:41 +0000, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> There is considerable evidence that the earth has been
> much hotter and much colder in the distant past long before man was a
> part of the equation.
True
> It is the height of arrogance for man to think
> he is anything more than a samll, annoying gnat on the earth's back.
>
> bill
>
It is a question of fact as to whether it's true or not. We are burning the
equivalent of 1,000 barrels of oil per *second*. And oil is only a portion
of our energy consumption.
Man's impact has been more than that of a gnat on the earth's back in other
areas. For example many fisheries have been depleted to a tiny fraction of
their former productivity over the past 100 years.
Tim
| |
| tlmfru 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| At least as far as this discussion has been going on the question has been
whether it's happening. I don't know how long you've been following it.
Anyway: #1, yes; #2, probably not responsible but certainly contributing;
#3, almost certainly not. And it scares the hell out of me when ideas like
pumping carbon dioxide into the oceans or sequestering it underground are
proposed. Nobody can possibly predict the results - but experience has
shown that something unexpected ALWAYS happens..
PL
Bill Gunshannon <billg999@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
news:62b929F21s8cmU1@mid.individual.net...
> In article <IIZvj.5852$yk5.4059@newsfe18.lga>,
> "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> writes:
(Not[color=darkred]
this,[color=darkred]
>
> The real question is not so much, "Is global warming happening?" It is
> more, "Is man responsible?" And even more, "Can man stop it?" I would
> expect that while the answer to #1 is "Yes", the answerr to #2 & #3 is a
> resounding "No". There is considerable evidence that the earth has been
> much hotter and much colder in the distant past long before man was a
> part of the equation. It is the height of arrogance for man to think
> he is anything more than a samll, annoying gnat on the earth's back.
>
> bill
>
> --
> Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
> billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> University of Scranton |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
| |
| tlmfru 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| Wasn't talking about "man-made" GW. But "people" do really believe this -
just not enough of them and espeicially not the right ones. It isn't
cynical to say that as long as profits are threatened by taking anti-GW
efforts, none will happen. One very simple thing that everyone can do,
without affecting their lifestyle, is to dump all gasoline/diesel/propane
home & garden appliances in favour of electrically-driven ones. Lawn
mowers, garden tractors, leaf blowers, edge trimmers - etc., etc. (For my
fellow dwellers in climates with snow I specifically exempt snow blowers!)
PL
tim <TimJ@internet.com> wrote in message
news:13s0t5fmvg1bg21@corp.supernews.com...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:35:24 -0600, tlmfru wrote:
>
(Not[color=darkred]
this,[color=darkred]
>
> If people believe Man Made Global Warming is true, why don't they do
> anything effective about it? The Kyoto protocol will have a negligible
> effect, and there has been little progress on a replacement treaty. A
> reduction of 80-90% in carbon emissions by industrialized nations would be
> required. This is what is needed to produce an overall 50% reductions
> because 3rd world emissions are rising rapidly. To put this level of
> reductions in context, 10% of your household electricity consumption
> consists of appliances on standby.
>
> If people really believed this, we would see radically different
> behavior. Eg a massive switch to nuclear for electricity and
> nuclear-generated hydrogen for transport. Greenhouse taxes to create the
> right incentives across the economy.
>
> Tim
| |
| billious 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
|
> billious <billious_1954@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47bfa482$0$28629$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
"tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
news:IIZvj.5852$yk5.4059@newsfe18.lga...[color=darkred]
> Well, if you think "global warming" is just a red-flag "loaded phrase",
> let's hear your answer to the question:
>
> Glaciers, sea ice covers, and ice caps are melting all over the world.
> (Not
> all of them, but most - over 70%, I'd say). See the February issue of
> Scientific American. If it's not global warming that's causing all this,
> what is?
>
> PL
>
The question is whether the phrases are or are not emotionally-loaded. It's
hypocricy for one side to claim that the other is using such phrases when
they're using them themselves.
As for whether the phenomenon is happening, then clearly it is. The more
pertinent question is whether it's normal - and clearly, on historical
evidence, it is normal.
The thrmometer was only invented in 1724. All previous measurements are
qualitative. We only have reliable GLOBAL weather records for the past few
decades. It's impossible to draw any valid conclusions about weather cycles
that may be thousands of years in duration from such a small sample.
Suppose this scare had been generated in the times of the "frost fairs" of
the 17th century, when the Thames froze over - sufficiently for it to
support an ox-cart? We'd have had the panic-merchants squawking about
"global freezing." Fact is that this has happened many times in history -
AD250, but then rarely reported until the 1600s, then a relatively common
event into the 1800s. All part of a greater cycle - certainly longer than a
human lifetime - and the doom-merchants are looking at the lifetime of a
political appointment as their yardstick.
How about grapevine? It's now being grown in the South of England, wonderful
evidence of "global warming." It's not been possible to grow grapes there
since the Romans did it nearly 2000 years ago. No doubt "the sanitation, the
medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water
system, and public health" along with bringing peace were the cause of that
particular bout of "global warming" too.
How long have we been able to measure solar radiation? The entire "global
warming" argument relies on the assumption that the sun's radiation is
ABSOLUTELY CONSTANT. Never-changing, not one iota. What total bollocks!
It's like last year's political issue - "discrimination." Whipped up by the
mass-media in the hope of making sales, starting with a problem and
eventually generating an industry where the bone-idle define themselves to
be in any number of imaginary "disciminated-against" groups and claim a free
ride from society.
This time it's gone international and those countries that have wasted their
resources making petty war on each other or maintaining their philosophical
atitudes want to have all of the benefits of advanced technologies given to
them without actually having to go through the pain of the social changes
that brought those technologies about in the first place.
Sure - I'd prefer meadows and lilacs and tall grass to acres and acres of
tar and cement - but let's study how to bring that about for everyone - not
just the first thing (and the ONLY thing) the common herd thinks of,
Kyoto-style.
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| My apologies to others if I repeat what they may have already said but
I can't let Judson get away with this nonsense.
On 22 Feb, 02:31, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> I don't know how accurate the following is, but it's interesting.
Not very accurate.
> ========================================
==
> Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
> Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the
> reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global
> warming theory?
>
> Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the
> U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal
> that almost all the allegedly "lost" ice has come back.
Would they care to publish the photos of the Western Antarctic Ice
Shelf that has magically rematerialised or are they still trying to
download photos from Google Earth dating back 5 years?
> A NOAA report
> shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in
> January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost
> back to their original levels.
Really? I'm amazed to hear that the world has suddenly entered another
ice age. Where has been covered by ice ?
>
> Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express
Actually that is the DAILY EXPRESS, printed in London and available
throughout the UK and even at the better quality newstands in the USA
(not that the Daily Express is a quality paper these days).
> showed that
> there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual,
One third more surface coverage doesn't mean one third more ice. As
the glaciers are moving faster they are also thinning. What may look
like more ice from an aerial photograph (they must be using Google
Earth) may actually be a reduced volume of ice.
> challenging
> the global warming cruers and buttressing arguments of skeptics who
> deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
>
> The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to
> a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to
> fight climate change
The fact that hungry polar bears are approaching places of human
habitation in search of discarded foodstuffs is proof that they are no
longer able to sustain themselves from seals and sealions. Further,
their population is in decline.
> and has been used by former Vice President Al
> Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind's alleged
> impact on the global climate.
Unfortunate, giving ammo to skeptics.
>
> Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of
> August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has
> soared in recent years.
Really? Read this:
<quote from wikipedia>
The polar bear is a vulnerable species at high risk of extinction.
Zoologists and climatologists believe that the projected decreases in
the polar sea ice due to global warming will reduce their population
by two thirds by mid-century. Local long-term studies show that 7 out
of 19 subpopulations are declining or already severely reduced
</quote from wikipedia>
>
> As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems
> to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.
Mother Nature (known variously as Gaia or Danae from various ancient
mythologies) does not take sides.
>
> As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere
> has endured its coldest winter in decades,
Not in the UK. You might suffer a little in the US but then, in what
year, haven't you had snow?
> adding that snow cover
> across the area is at its greatest since 1966.
Thin spreads are meaningless. Incidentally, the Daily Express is not
an objective newspaper and is barely any more reliable/trustworthy
than that scurrilous red-topped rag the Sun. (I read the Guardian but
then my IQ exceeds 5).
> The newspaper cites the
> one exception - Western Europe, which had, until the wend when
> temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking
> in unseasonably warm weather.
Yep, warm, wet and frequently overcast. I had hoped for snow; I enjoy
building snowmen and usually only get one day a year to practice. This
year, no such luck. Obviously evidence for global  ing. Actually,
probably more evidence for the meanderings of the Jet Stream.
>
> Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the
> heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United
> States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was
> so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow.
All places that I would expect to be inundated with snow at this time
of year. Of course, I would expect the UK to be under a blanket of
snow as well but no such luck.
>
> Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the
> heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures.
You don't get snow unless the temperature drops below zero.
Incidentally, when the first war with Iraq was under way, there were
snow storms even then (early 1990s?). One member of the UK Armed
Forces died due to exposure in a blizzard whilst evading Iraqi forces.
> In Afghanistan,
> snow and freezing weather killed 120 people.
Snow in Afghanistan is an annual event.
> Even Baghdad had a
> snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents.
>
> AFP news reports icy temperatures have just swept through south China,
> stranding 180,000 people and leading to widespread power cuts just as
> the area was recovering from the worst weather in 50 years, the
> government said Monday. The latest cold snap has taken a severe toll
> in usually temperate Yunnan province, which has been struck by heavy
> snowfalls since Thursday, a government official from the provincial
> disaster relief office told AFP.
Unusually heavy snow, but then global warmers don't ever say that the
world can not freeze temporally locally.
>
> Twelve people have died there, state Xinhua news agency reported, and
> four remained missing as of Saturday.
>
> An ongoing record-long spell of cold weather in Vietnam's northern
> region, which started on Jan. 14, has killed nearly 60,000 cattle,
> mainly bull and buffalo calves, local press reported Monday. By Feb.
> 17, the spell had killed a total of 59,962 cattle in the region,
> including 7,349 in the Ha Giang province, 6,400 in Lao Cai, and 5,571
> in Bac Can province, said Hoang Kim Giao, director of the Animal
> Husbandry Department under the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and
> Rural Development, according to the Pioneer newspaper.
>
> In Britain the temperatures plunged to -10 C in central England,
> according to the Express,
For about three days. Usually we can expect a fortnight of cold
weather with three days of thick snow. What we got was three days of
cold weather and no snow.
> which reports that experts say that
> February could end up as one of the coldest in Britain in the past
> 10 years with the freezing night-time conditions expected to stay
> around a frigid -8 C until at least the middle of the w.
Just as well they stopped it at 10 myears. I remember getting
temperatures as low as -20 degrees centigrade here in the last 20
years.
> And the
> BBC reports that a bus company's efforts to cut global warming
> emissions have led to services being disrupted by cold weather.
Did their diesel freeze?
>
> Meanwhile Athens News reports that a raging snow storm that blanketed
> most of Greece over the wend and continued into the early morning
> hours on Monday, plunging the country into sub-zero temperatures. The
> agency reported that public transport buses were at a standstill on
> Monday in the wider Athens area, while ships remained in ports, public
> services remained closed, and schools and courthouses in the more
> severely-stricken prefectures were also closed.
>
Snow is not unusual in the Eastern Med. Greece, Cyprus, Israel, Syria,
Iraq, etc., often get snow. So what?
> Scores of villages, mainly on the island of Crete, and in the
> prefectures of Evia, Argolida, Arcadia, Lakonia, Viotia, and the
> Cyclades islands were snowed in.
>
> More than 100 villages were snowed-in on the island of Crete and
> temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest
> temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina,
> where they plunged to -12 C.
>
> Temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest
> temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina,
> where they plunged to -12 C.
>
> If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death.
The BBC News 24 service carried an item in which they reported at 9 am
that global warming would save lives as people in the UK would not
freeze to death during the winter (despite being a civilised nation we
do still let people freeze to death; that's the price of free will)
and by 10 pm the report had changed to thousands would die of heat
exhaustion and skin cancer as a result of global warming.
Enjoy 8-)
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| On 23 Feb, 12:06, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Robert" <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
>
> So, when newspapers report that the economy is down, or that the home
> team lost, they do that because the public wants to hear that the economy
> is down or that the home team lost? Can we spell "d-u-m-b?"
>
> Newspapers report on *what people are interested in* not just *what they
> want to see*.
Newspapers/newsreporters report on any story that they think will sell
more papers (or fill the pages or airtime). How many times have you
read/heard phrases like 'people are concerned about...' and have you
ever stopped to consider whether those people are newsmen or people on
the street? Do you think that the news reporters are actually
reporting the news or are they really engineering the news?
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| On 23 Feb, 16:22, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
> In article <62at3uF22mo6...@mid.individual.net>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill Gunshannon <billg...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>
>
y[color=darkred]
>
ill[color=darkred]
e a[color=darkred]
>
g[color=darkred]
>
> I'm not sure what you are calling 'a scientist' here, Mr Gunshannon, but
> it would not be very difficult at all to imagine a situation where one
> study generates a conclusion that '(product) has (negative effects)' and a=
> manufacturers' consortium provides grants to folks who report 'there is
> nothing here worth investigating'.
>
> DD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or even that some (product) has been shown to have (positive) effects.
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| On 23 Feb, 19:04, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <IIZvj.5852$yk5.4...@newsfe18.lga>,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> writes:
>
>
=A0(Not[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
is,[color=darkred]
>
> The real question is =A0not so much, "Is global warming happening?" =A0It =
is
> more, "Is man responsible?" =A0And even more, "Can man stop it?" =A0I woul=
d
> expect that while the answer to #1 is "Yes", the answerr to #2 & #3 is a
> resounding "No". =A0There is considerable evidence that the earth has been=
> much hotter and much colder in the distant past long before man was a
> part of the equation. =A0It is the height of arrogance for man to think
> he is anything more than a samll, annoying gnat on the earth's back.
>
Presumably you know about the infamous 'hockey stick curve'? Seeing as
the rise in temperatures appears to be related to the rise in human
population levels and that the gradient of the slope has substantially
increased since the industrial revolution would you please provide a
credible explanation for thos observations? and explain how natural
phenomena (which you will probably resort to) are related to increase
in human populations and the onset of the industrial revolution.
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| On 23 Feb, 19:31, tim <T...@internet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:35:24 -0600, tlmfru wrote:
>
=A0(Not[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
is,[color=darkred]
>
>
> If people believe Man Made Global Warming is true, why don't they do
> anything effective about it? The Kyoto protocol will have a negligible
> effect, and there has been little progress on a replacement treaty. A
> reduction of 80-90% in carbon emissions by industrialized nations would be=
> required. This is what is needed to produce an overall 50% reductions
> because 3rd world emissions are rising rapidly. To put this level of
> reductions in context, 10% of your household electricity consumption
> consists of appliances on standby.
>
> If people really believed this, we would see radically different
> behavior. Eg a massive switch to nuclear for electricity and
> nuclear-generated hydrogen for transport. Greenhouse taxes to create the
> right incentives across the economy.
>
> Tim
What we need is a good war to reduce population levels. Sorry, sick
joke.
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| On 23 Feb, 19:31, tim <T...@internet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:35:24 -0600, tlmfru wrote:
>
> If people believe Man Made Global Warming is true, why don't they do
> anything effective about it? The Kyoto protocol will have a negligible
> effect, and there has been little progress on a replacement treaty. A
> reduction of 80-90% in carbon emissions by industrialized nations would be
> required. This is what is needed to produce an overall 50% reductions
> because 3rd world emissions are rising rapidly. To put this level of
> reductions in context, 10% of your household electricity consumption
> consists of appliances on standby.
>
> If people really believed this, we would see radically different
> behavior. Eg a massive switch to nuclear for electricity and
> nuclear-generated hydrogen for transport. Greenhouse taxes to create the
> right incentives across the economy.
>
> Tim
I don't think that switching to nuclear power will reduce the problem.
That would still result in thermal death to the world.
Only renewable energy sources are the solution, coupled with a drastic
cut in population levels.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Newspapers/newsreporters report on any story that they think will sell
> more papers (or fill the pages or airtime).
Of course. They select things they hope people will be interested in.
People don't buy newspapers or magazines or watch TV news for
issues they have no interest in.
> How many times have you
> read/heard phrases like 'people are concerned about...' and have you
> ever stopped to consider whether those people are newsmen or people on
> the street?
I said "interested" not "concerned", though the two are related.
> Do you think that the news reporters are actually
> reporting the news or are they really engineering the news?
That depends on who the reporters are. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| On 23 Feb, 23:12, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
> At least as far as this discussion has been going on the question has been=
> whether it's happening. =A0I don't know how long you've been following it.=
>
> Anyway: #1, yes; #2, probably not responsible but certainly contributing;
> #3, almost certainly not. =A0And it scares the hell out of me when ideas l=
ike
> pumping carbon dioxide into the oceans or sequestering it underground are
> proposed. =A0Nobody can possibly predict the results - but experience has
> shown that something unexpected ALWAYS happens..
>
> PL
>
> Bill Gunshannon <billg...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:62b929F21s8cmU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
,[color=darkred]
>
[color=darkred]
> (Not
of[color=darkred]
> this,
>
t is[color=darkred]
uld[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
en[color=darkred]
>
I wonder if it would take more energy to liquify CO2 than it would
sequester?
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Only renewable energy sources are the solution, coupled with a drastic
> cut in population levels.
Are you volunteering on that second issue? :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-23, 6:55 pm |
| On 23 Feb, 23:17, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
> Wasn't talking about "man-made" GW. =A0But "people" do really believe this=
-
> just not enough of them and espeicially not the right ones. =A0It isn't
> cynical to say that as long as profits are threatened by taking anti-GW
> efforts, none will happen. =A0One very simple thing that everyone can do,
> without affecting their lifestyle, is to dump all gasoline/diesel/propane
> home & garden appliances in favour of electrically-driven ones. =A0Lawn
> mowers, garden tractors, leaf blowers, edge trimmers - etc., etc. =A0(For =
my
> fellow dwellers in climates with snow I specifically exempt snow blowers!)=
>
> PL
>
> tim <T...@internet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:13s0t5fmvg1bg21@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
>
,[color=darkred]
>
[color=darkred]
> (Not
of[color=darkred]
> this,
>
>
be[color=darkred]
>
[color=darkred]
>
When I was at school I was taught that any bio/chemical process was
inefficient and that by converting any thermal source to kinetic power
would, at best be 10% efficient. So, we use petrol to provide an
immediate source of power, loss 90% efficiency. If we convert nuclear
to heat to electricity to power we lose 90% converting nuclear to
steam, more converting steam to electricity, more carrying the
electricity through pylon cables and even more converting to power at
the users end.
All that you can possibly save on is pollution levels (non-CO2).
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-23, 9:57 pm |
| Alistair wrote:
>
> Presumably you know about the infamous 'hockey stick curve'? Seeing as
> the rise in temperatures appears to be related to the rise in human
> population levels and that the gradient of the slope has substantially
> increased since the industrial revolution would you please provide a
> credible explanation for thos observations? and explain how natural
> phenomena (which you will probably resort to) are related to increase
> in human populations and the onset of the industrial revolution.
I'd be glad to comment on the "hocky stick curve."
For those not familiar, a graph of the earth's temperature takes a big jump
in about 1950 from a relatively flat history.
There are two problems associated with the "hocky stick" theory: The first
is that it is hailed as proof of anthropogenic (man-made) warming inasmuch
as the graph coincides with human's increased use of energy. The second
problem is that the "hocky stick" hypothesis is wrong.
That the earth has been warmer in the past - without man's copious use of
energy - is evidence sufficient that the earth's temperature is not
necessarily dependent on man's activities. Further, even if the graph is
correct, there is no showing of cause and effect. In fact, increased energy
use may be the RESULT of global warming, not the cause (think air
conditioning).
No, once upon a time, wine was produced in the British Isles and Greenland
got its name because, well, it was GREEN. The earth was warmer then than
now.
That the "hocky stick" graph is based on bad data, bad proxies, bad theory,
bad computational models, and bad methodology has been called into question.
One can easily do a Google search to ferret out the applicable discussions.
| |
| Robert 2008-02-23, 9:57 pm |
| On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:17:55 -0600, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>Wasn't talking about "man-made" GW. But "people" do really believe this -
>just not enough of them and espeicially not the right ones. It isn't
>cynical to say that as long as profits are threatened by taking anti-GW
>efforts, none will happen. One very simple thing that everyone can do,
>without affecting their lifestyle, is to dump all gasoline/diesel/propane
>home & garden appliances in favour of electrically-driven ones. Lawn
>mowers, garden tractors, leaf blowers, edge trimmers - etc., etc. (For my
>fellow dwellers in climates with snow I specifically exempt snow blowers!)
Consumer appliances are a drop in the bucket, less than 1% of US energy consumption.
Electric plants are 38% efficient. Adding transmission losses and electric motor
efficiency, it takes four units of energy input at the power plant to produce one unit of
energy usable to the consumer.
Internal combustion engines are similarly inefficient, around 20%. The other 80% is wasted
as heat.
Switching to electric appliances is a feel-good meaningless gesture.
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-23, 9:57 pm |
| Alistair wrote:
>
> Newspapers/newsreporters report on any story that they think will sell
> more papers (or fill the pages or airtime). How many times have you
> read/heard phrases like 'people are concerned about...' and have you
> ever stopped to consider whether those people are newsmen or people on
> the street? Do you think that the news reporters are actually
> reporting the news or are they really engineering the news?
Of course people are interested.
Take for example the recent NY Times story about the possibility that there
could have been an impression that John McCain might be doing something
unusual with a woman 31 years his junior (not so far-fetched in that "once a
sailor AND a fighter pilot, always a sailor and a fighter pilot").
According to the Executive Editor of the NY Times, Bill Keller, within 24
hours the paper had received over 4,000 emails (almost all of them
critical).
If the folks weren't interested, why would they express an opinion?
This may, however, the NY Times story may be a rare example of a
self-defeating prophecy. The last time the NY Times endorsed a Republican
for president was in 1952 when they supported Eisenhower. This little
dust-up has pushed a number of skeptics into the McCain camp.
Sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
| |
| Robert 2008-02-23, 9:57 pm |
| On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:40:41 -0800 (PST), Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 23 Feb, 23:17, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
>
>When I was at school I was taught that any bio/chemical process was
>inefficient and that by converting any thermal source to kinetic power
>would, at best be 10% efficient.
Ordinary coal and natural gas power plants are 38% efficient. The next generation are 55%
efficient.
> So, we use petrol to provide an
>immediate source of power, loss 90% efficiency.
The average for internal combustion engines is 20%. Under ideal conditions, it can be 40%.
Theoretical models claim they can achieve 55%.
> If we convert nuclear
>to heat to electricity to power we lose 90% converting nuclear to
>steam, more converting steam to electricity, more carrying the
>electricity through pylon cables and even more converting to power at
>the users end.
Did you know the US produces more nuclear power than France or any other country?
Did you know China is building two new coal-fueled power plants EVERY DAY? Did you know
the Kyoto Protocol imposes reductions only on developed countries; China, India and Brazil
can increase CO2 pollution as much as they want?
Social engineering programs like global warming ALWAYS have an unseen sponsor who benefits
economically. Organized movements are never altruistic, although they are presented that
way. In the case of global warming, the beneficiaries are developing countries, primarilly
China.
I think the ever gullible American public are being sold a story crafted by money
managers.
| |
|
| On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:30:34 -0800, Alistair wrote:
> On 23 Feb, 19:31, tim <T...@internet.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think that switching to nuclear power will reduce the problem.
> That would still result in thermal death to the world.
>
You seem to be assuming that it is the heat produced by burning fossil
fuels that is the problem. Not at all - the energy produced by all the
power stations is only few tenths of a percent of the sun's incoming
radiation.
Tim
| |
|
| On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:40:41 -0800, Alistair wrote:
>
> When I was at school I was taught that any bio/chemical process was
> inefficient and that by converting any thermal source to kinetic power
> would, at best be 10% efficient. So, we use petrol to provide an
> immediate source of power, loss 90% efficiency. If we convert nuclear
> to heat to electricity to power we lose 90% converting nuclear to
> steam, more converting steam to electricity, more carrying the
> electricity through pylon cables and even more converting to power at
> the users end.
>
> All that you can possibly save on is pollution levels (non-CO2).
The point is that the heat produced by man is negligible. You can test
this by standing near a thermal energy plant. Even locally there is
negligible heating effects. The only reason cities are hotter than the
surrounding countryside is that concrete and bricks and asphalt retain
heat better than vegetation.
The only globally significant effects are indirect ones such as CO2 causing
an increase in retention of solar radiation.
There is enough uranium to last hundreds of years. (On the downside it
increases the risk of nuclear proliferation).
Tim
| |
|
| In article <98df0a9c-4035-4afd-ba54-5486ce78660b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 23 Feb, 16:22, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
[snip - I may have caused misattributions, for that I apologise]
[color=darkred]
>
>Or even that some (product) has been shown to have (positive) effects.
Poison or nutrition, Mr Maclean... either is a matter of dose and/or
method of ingestion. Water can be good stuff as long as one does not
breathe too much of it.
DD
| |
| tlmfru 2008-02-24, 6:55 pm |
| "> Switching to electric appliances is a feel-good meaningless gesture. "
So you feel that nothing can be done, that there's no point, that all we can
do is sigh helplessly?
You speak of the ratio between power generation and delivery - four to one,
you say, for electricity. What is the comparable figure for petroleum use,
from the oil field to the gas pump? (And I assume you're talking about
coal-fired or gas-fired power plants)
My drop in the bucket, admittedly very small, is at least something that can
be done. It'll reduce emissions if nothing else. Getting a bit exotic -
solar cells could charge the batteries for these devices - as we speak there
are lawn mowers for sale at Canadian Tire that have a two-hour battery.
There are many small things that can be done that will have a cumulative
effect - ride a bike to work if you can, turn off all the lights at the
office at night, turn off electrical advertising at night if the business
isn't open, buy some sturdy bags to carry groceries, do the drying outside
on the line. None of these will impact one's lifestyles or affect business
much - and all added together they may achieve significant figures. Can you
state authoritatively that by implementing small changes we won't discover
other ways of doing things that will have more effect? Nothing I've
mentioned here will harm anything so there's nothing to be lost by trying.
At the very least, Robert, let people make a feel-good gesture. If it won't
help it won't do any harm!
Do you have any suggestions?
PL
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:33l1s3l7idt8jsbigcmpifelf89ui61qeb@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:17:55 -0600, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>
this -[color=darkred]
my[color=darkred]
blowers!)[color=darkred]
>
> Consumer appliances are a drop in the bucket, less than 1% of US energy
consumption.
>
> Electric plants are 38% efficient. Adding transmission losses and electric
motor
> efficiency, it takes four units of energy input at the power plant to
produce one unit of
> energy usable to the consumer.
>
> Internal combustion engines are similarly inefficient, around 20%. The
other 80% is wasted
> as heat.
>
> Switching to electric appliances is a feel-good meaningless gesture.
>
>
| |
|
| On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:16:05 -0600, tlmfru wrote:
> At the very least, Robert, let people make a feel-good gesture. If it won't
> help it won't do any harm!
>
> Do you have any suggestions?
>
> PL
>
Feel-good measures are harmful if they lead people to think they are
actually addressing the problem when they are not.
Suggestions
1. High carbon/greenhouse taxes. This will lead to economic incentives to
adopt the other suggestions...
2. Massive conversion to nuclear power - remove roadblocks / "not in my
back yard" impediments.
3. Replacement of oil by hydrogen (generated by nuclear power).
4. One-child policy backed up by taxation policy. (Have > 1 child, pay
high taxed and the subsequent children do not get free education etc).
5. Publicise the relative effectiveness of various measures. For example,
solar power is greenhouse adverse for the first 3 years, due to the energy
cost of producing the equipment.
6. A treaty covering the entire world, otherwise the above is a waste of
time. China is commissioning a new coal power station about once a w!
This would work. The question is whether it is necessary.
Tim
| |
| tlmfru 2008-02-24, 6:55 pm |
|
tim <TimJ@internet.com> wrote in message
news:13s3khl9qi4g646@corp.supernews.com...
> Suggestions
>
> 1. High carbon/greenhouse taxes. This will lead to economic incentives to
> adopt the other suggestions...
>
This is a complete sham/shell game. Adding a small percentage to the cost
of fuel will have no effect whatsoever on usage; there is no certainty that
the money raised will be used in any meaningful way to reduce carbon-nased
fuel usage; in fact it's a good bet that the money will go to the energy
producers as "incentives".
A high tax will have some effect but there's a level of usage which cannot
be reduced. That level of usage will continue to be burned and the tax will
cause monster inflation; to reduce it further will require drastic changes
in society and the economy. Why not just propose to ban private cars?
No money-based or book-keeping scheme (such as carbon credits) is going to
reduce usage.
> 2. Massive conversion to nuclear power - remove roadblocks / "not in my
> back yard" impediments.
>
> 3. Replacement of oil by hydrogen (generated by nuclear power).
>
Both good. Wastes will have to be stored in mines in stable granite
geological structures.
> 4. One-child policy backed up by taxation policy. (Have > 1 child, pay
> high taxed and the subsequent children do not get free education etc).
>
> 6. A treaty covering the entire world, otherwise the above is a waste of
> time. China is commissioning a new coal power station about once a w!
If you live in the US I'm surprised you dare propose these. If there's one
thing that will rouse up your basic American conservative citizen it's the
idea of a world government. And interfering with the family is just about
as bad.
> 5. Publicise the relative effectiveness of various measures. For example,
> solar power is greenhouse adverse for the first 3 years, due to the energy
> cost of producing the equipment.
>
>
> This would work. The question is whether it is necessary.
>
> Tim
I guess we can wait and see if the sea levels rise as is predicted by GW
theories. If they're even partly right there are going to be far bigger
problems than coping with higher temperatures.
PL
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-24, 6:55 pm |
| On 23 Feb, 23:26, "billious" <billious_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How about grapevine? It's now being grown in the South of England, wonderful
> evidence of "global warming."
Actually it is also grown in North East England as far north as Leeds
and has been since Roman times.
> It's not been possible to grow grapes there
> since the Romans did it nearly 2000 years ago.
Not true. Search for UK vineyards and Leeds.
> No doubt "the sanitation, the
> medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water
> system, and public health" along with bringing peace were the cause of that
> particular bout of "global warming" too.
Some one has been watching Monty Python.
>
> How long have we been able to measure solar radiation? The entire "global
> warming" argument relies on the assumption that the sun's radiation is
> ABSOLUTELY CONSTANT. Never-changing, not one iota. What total bollocks!
Why don't you throw in the jet stream and El Nino & Las Ninas as well?
>
> It's like last year's political issue - "discrimination." Whipped up by the
> mass-media in the hope of making sales, starting with a problem and
> eventually generating an industry where the bone-idle define themselves to
> be in any number of imaginary "disciminated-against" groups and claim a free
> ride from society.
Perhaps they are disabled and you are being improperly discriminatory.
>
> This time it's gone international and those countries that have wasted their
> resources making petty war on each other or maintaining their philosophical
> atitudes want to have all of the benefits of advanced technologies given to
> them without actually having to go through the pain of the social changes
> that brought those technologies about in the first place.
>
> Sure - I'd prefer meadows and lilacs and tall grass to acres and acres of
> tar and cement - but let's study how to bring that about for everyone - not
> just the first thing (and the ONLY thing) the common herd thinks of,
> Kyoto-style.-
So, to achieve your grassy meadows for all you will be recommending
and actively pursuing a policy of population reduction?
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-24, 6:55 pm |
| On 24 Feb, 00:32, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Of course. They select things they hope people will be interested in.
> People don't buy newspapers or magazines or watch TV news for
> issues they have no interest in.
>
>
> I said "interested" not "concerned", though the two are related.
>
>
> That depends on who the reporters are. :-)
We appear to be agreed on one point then.
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-24, 6:55 pm |
| On 24 Feb, 00:34, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Are you volunteering on that second issue? :-)
No, as an atheist I have no future life or existence to go to. I would
suggest that all people of religious bent, where they have a strong
belief in an afterlife, should be culled first. ;-)
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-24, 6:55 pm |
| On 24 Feb, 01:04, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alistair wrote:
>
>
> I'd be glad to comment on the "hocky stick curve."
>
> For those not familiar, a graph of the earth's temperature takes a big jump
> in about 1950 from a relatively flat history.
>
> There are two problems associated with the "hocky stick" theory: The first
> is that it is hailed as proof of anthropogenic (man-made) warming inasmuch
> as the graph coincides with human's increased use of energy. The second
> problem is that the "hocky stick" hypothesis is wrong.
>
> That the earth has been warmer in the past - without man's copious use of
> energy - is evidence sufficient that the earth's temperature is not
> necessarily dependent on man's activities. Further, even if the graph is
> correct, there is no showing of cause and effect. In fact, increased energy
> use may be the RESULT of global warming, not the cause (think air
> conditioning).
>
> No, once upon a time, wine was produced in the British Isles and Greenland
> got its name because, well, it was GREEN. The earth was warmer then than
> now.
>
> That the "hocky stick" graph is based on bad data, bad proxies, bad theory,
> bad computational models, and bad methodology has been called into question.
> One can easily do a Google search to ferret out the applicable discussions.
So, your answer is that the hockey stick curve is entirely due to
solar variations? Or are we all farting too much (there was a theory
that the dinosaurs died out because they produced too much methane
resulting in a global temperature rise)?
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-24, 6:55 pm |
| tim wrote:
>
> The only globally significant effects are indirect ones such as CO2
> causing an increase in retention of solar radiation.
>
Are you aware that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere amounts to
three one-hundredths of one percent? That's 0.00338% (or 300 parts per
million).
There are those who think that an increase in this number, say doubling or
tripling, would have a detectable effect on the earth's temperature.
They believe this because there's no way GW can be attributed to humans
otherwise.
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-24, 6:55 pm |
| On 24 Feb, 03:28, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:40:41 -0800 (PST), Alistair <alist...@ld50macca.dem=
on.co.uk> wrote:
his -[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
o,[color=darkred]
ne[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
or my[color=darkred]
s!)[color=darkred]
>
>
>
>
>
se",[color=darkred]
>
ld.[color=darkred]
ue of[color=darkred]
ll[color=darkred]
>
>
e[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
ld be[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>
the[color=darkred]
>
>
> Ordinary coal and natural gas power plants are 38% efficient. The next gen=
eration are 55%
> efficient.
>
>
> The average for internal combustion engines is 20%. Under ideal conditions=
, it can be 40%.
> Theoretical models claim they can achieve 55%.
>
>
> Did you know the US produces more nuclear power than France or any other c=
ountry?
>
> Did you know China is building two new coal-fueled power plants EVERY DAY?=
Did you know
> the Kyoto Protocol imposes reductions only on developed countries; China, =
India and Brazil
> can increase CO2 pollution as much as they want?
>
> Social engineering programs like global warming ALWAYS have an unseen spon=
sor who benefits
> economically. Organized movements are never altruistic, although they are =
presented that
> way. In the case of global warming, the beneficiaries are developing count=
ries, primarilly
> China.
>
> I think the ever gullible American public are being sold a story crafted b=
y money
> managers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think the western world is going to have to introduce import taxes
on products from countries which are not subject to the Kyoto treaty,
Otherwise we just move production to the east for no benefit. And that
is no solution to global warming.
| |
|
| On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:50:44 -0600, tlmfru wrote:
> tim <TimJ@internet.com> wrote in message
> news:13s3khl9qi4g646@corp.supernews.com...
> This is a complete sham/shell game. Adding a small percentage to the
> cost of fuel will have no effect whatsoever on usage; there is no
> certainty that the money raised will be used in any meaningful way to
> reduce carbon-nased fuel usage; in fact it's a good bet that the money
> will go to the energy producers as "incentives".
Greenhouse tax: Where did I say the percentage would be small? As you
suggest, the tax would have to be large to affect behaviour.
Such a tax, if large, should be use to reduce other taxes. So the overall
tax burden should not rise.
While the overall level of taxation would not go up, the structure of
incentives would change behaviour. Have a look at the size of cars in
Europe if you don't think taxes affect behaviour.
In some countries they have given away trading rights to emit carbon to
companies for nothing. A better approach would be to tax emissions as a
resource rent.
The remaining points you made are largely around the point that people
would not accept these measures. You are probably right - this just
reinforces my point that people are not taking effective action because
they don't really believe the problem is real.
There are other factors.
1. The human brain is biased to short term actions and tends only to
believe things when they are having a direct immediate effect - abstract
arguments, no matter how valid, seem to have little effect. A case in
point is most people's failure to provide sufficiently for their
retirement.
2. Religious beliefs. Some people interpret words like "be fruitful and
multiply" to mean that they should breed until the earth is ruined by
over-population. As has been amply demonstrated in recent conversations on
this news group, it is hard to reason with some of these people.
World government: As I understand it, generally the US is not against
treaties in principle. In fact it has been very strong in pushing for the
extension of the trade treaties including extension of copyright terms and
other related IP laws around the globe. (I do not live there but I spent
several months in Michigan in the late 1990s and nearly moved to the US at
that time)
The reason I suggested that a global approach is needed is that we all
share the same atmosphere. It is no use one country reducing emissions if
other increase theirs.
Tim
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-24, 6:55 pm |
| On 24 Feb, 04:03, tim <T...@internet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:30:34 -0800, Alistair wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> You seem to be assuming that it is the heat produced by burning fossil
> fuels that is the problem. Not at all - the energy produced by all the
> power stations is only few tenths of a percent of the sun's incoming
> radiation.
>
> Tim- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So why are we not building solar energy power stations. The principles
are already established and there is plenty of desert land to build
upon, although that will introduce further problems (maintenance where
vegetation grows in the shade of solar panels).
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-24, 6:55 pm |
| On 24 Feb, 04:11, tim <T...@internet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:40:41 -0800, Alistair wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
>
>
> The point is that the heat produced by man is negligible. You can test
> this by standing near a thermal energy plant. Even locally there is
> negligible heating effects. The only reason cities are hotter than the
> surrounding countryside is that concrete and bricks and asphalt retain
> heat better than vegetation.
>
> The only globally significant effects are indirect ones such as CO2 causin=
g
> an increase in retention of solar radiation.
>
> There is enough uranium to last hundreds of years. (On the downside it
> increases the risk of nuclear proliferation).
>
> Tim
Creates a problem with contaminated waste too.
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-24, 6:55 pm |
| On 24 Feb, 08:00, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
> In article <98df0a9c-4035-4afd-ba54-5486ce786...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.=
com>,
>
> Alistair =A0<alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> [snip - I may have caused misattributions, for that I apologise]
>
[color=darkred]
hing[color=darkred]
>
t[color=darkred]
d a[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>
>
>
> Poison or nutrition, Mr Maclean... either is a matter of dose and/or
> method of ingestion. =A0Water can be good stuff as long as one does not
> breathe too much of it.
>
> DD
Water is toxic when consumed in too great a quantity, as some party
goers have found out in the UK.
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-24, 6:55 pm |
| On 24 Feb, 21:50, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
> tim <T...@internet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:13s3khl9qi4g646@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
o[color=darkred]
>
> This is =A0a complete sham/shell game. =A0Adding a small percentage to the=
cost
> of fuel will have no effect whatsoever on usage; there is no certainty tha=
t
> the money raised will be used in any meaningful way to reduce carbon-nased=
> fuel usage; in fact it's a good bet that the money will go to the energy
> producers as "incentives".
>
> A high tax will have some effect but there's a level of usage which cannot=
> be reduced. =A0That level of usage will continue to be burned and the tax =
will
> cause monster inflation; to reduce it further will require drastic changes=
> in society and the economy. =A0Why not just propose to ban private cars?
>
> No money-based or book-keeping scheme (such as carbon credits) is going to=
> reduce usage.
>
>
>
> Both good. =A0Wastes will have to be stored in mines in stable granite
> geological structures.
>
>
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>
> If you live in the US I'm surprised you dare propose these. =A0If there's =
one
> thing that will rouse up your basic American conservative citizen it's the=
> idea of a world government. =A0And interfering with the family is just abo=
ut
> as bad.
>
,[color=darkred]
gy[color=darkred]
>
>
>
> I guess we can wait and see if the sea levels rise as is predicted by GW
> theories. =A0If they're even partly right there are going to be far bigger=
> problems than coping with higher temperatures.
>
> PL
How badly will the USA be affected by sea level rise? I ask because I
have seen maps showing how badly the UK will be affected (and they
vary quite substantially).
| |
| Alistair 2008-02-24, 6:55 pm |
| On 24 Feb, 22:19, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> tim wrote:
>
>
> Are you aware that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere amounts to
> three one-hundredths of one percent? That's 0.00338% (or 300 parts per
> million).
>
> There are those who think that an increase in this number, say doubling or
> tripling, would have a detectable effect on the earth's temperature.
>
> They believe this because there's no way GW can be attributed to humans
> otherwise.
Those same people will also point out that a slight increase in CO2
level will improve plant productivity but that a doubling of the
level will have a negative effect on plant productivity.
| |
|
| On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:23:51 -0800, Alistair wrote:
> So why are we not building solar energy power stations. The principles
> are already established and there is plenty of desert land to build
> upon, although that will introduce further problems (maintenance where
> vegetation grows in the shade of solar panels).
Solar power is very expensive. It does not work at night, invoking the
problem of storage, which is also expensive and inefficient. It is also
greenhouse negative for at least 3 years, because of the energy required
to produce all the gear involved.
Tim
| |
|
| On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:19:02 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
> tim wrote:
>
>
> Are you aware that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere amounts to
> three one-hundredths of one percent? That's 0.00338% (or 300 parts per
> million).
Yes. I learned this at school a long time ago.
If you add it up, the total quantity is enormous. This is about 1 pound per
square meter of the earth's surface. CO2 is quite an effective blocker of
certain frequencies of radiation.
Tim
| |
| Robert 2008-02-24, 9:59 pm |
| On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:16:05 -0600, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>"> Switching to electric appliances is a feel-good meaningless gesture. "
>
>So you feel that nothing can be done, that there's no point, that all we can
>do is sigh helplessly?
>
>You speak of the ratio between power generation and delivery - four to one,
>you say, for electricity. What is the comparable figure for petroleum use,
>from the oil field to the gas pump?
Five to one. I said that.
>(And I assume you're talking about coal-fired or gas-fired power plants)
Nuclear plants use the same kind of turbines as fossil fuel plants. More significantly,
light water reactors, which they all are, use a tiny fraction of the energy in uranium.
Breeder reactors are much more efficient, but they cost more because they turn uranium
into plutonium.
>My drop in the bucket, admittedly very small, is at least something that can
>be done. It'll reduce emissions if nothing else.
No. It'll just move the emission site from your yard to the power plant.
> Getting a bit exotic -
>solar cells could charge the batteries for these devices - as we speak there
>are lawn mowers for sale at Canadian Tire that have a two-hour battery.
Why not a push mower? Why not grow something that doesn't have to be mowed, such as
clover, sedge or natural meadow grass? The last has to be mowed 2-4 times a year compared
to 40 times for commercial grass.
>There are many small things that can be done that will have a cumulative
>effect - ride a bike to work if you can,
I did that for years, and walked to work in four cities. In one, I rode a cable car to
work.
A meat eater walking consumes more energy than a car traveling the same distance.
""It is actually quite astounding how much energy is wasted by the standard American
diet-style. Even driving many gas-guzzling luxury cars can conserve energy over walking --
that is, when the calories you burn walking come from the standard American diet! This is
because the energy needed to produce the food you would burn in walking a given distance
is greater than the energy needed to fuel your car to travel the same distance, assuming
that the car gets 24 miles per gallon or better."
http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/beef.html
> turn off all the lights at the
>office at night, turn off electrical advertising at night if the business
>isn't open, buy some sturdy bags to carry groceries, do the drying outside
>on the line. None of these will impact one's lifestyles or affect business
>much - and all added together they may achieve significant figures. Can you
>state authoritatively that by implementing small changes we won't discover
>other ways of doing things that will have more effect? Nothing I've
>mentioned here will harm anything so there's nothing to be lost by trying.
>
>At the very least, Robert, let people make a feel-good gesture. If it won't
>help it won't do any harm!
Because feel-good gestures can do more harm than good. Here's an example:
"the Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda
Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the Dust to Dust lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will
require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version.
One of the reasons hybrids cost more than non-hybrids is the manufacture, replacement and
disposal of such items as batteries, electric motors (in addition to the conventional
engine), lighter weight materials and complexity of the power package.
And while many consumers and environmentalists have targeted sport utility vehicles
because of their lower fuel economy and/or perceived inefficiency as a means of
transportation, the energy cost per mile shows at least some of that disdain is misplaced.
For example, while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28
cents per mile, the Hummer H3 was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is lower than
all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civic at $2.42 per mile.
"If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil
supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high-fuel-economy vehicles," says Art
Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, Inc. "But if the concern is the broader
issues such as environmental impact of energy usage, some high-mileage vehicles actually
cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime."
http://www.leftlanenews.com/study-a...n-a-hummer.html
>Do you have any suggestions?
Stop eating meat.
"Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global
warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together."
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ars-427843.html
"If you gave up showering, you'd save less water than what's required to make a single
pound of beef. Not beef for a whole year, just one miserable pound. A whole year's worth
of showers takes about 5,200 gallons, but it takes 5,214 gallons to produce a single pound
of beef. If you gave up beef, you'd save over 300,000 gallons a year. A whole lot more
than you could save by never showering."
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/environment.html
"To produce 1 kcal of plant protein requires an input of about 2.2 kcal of fossil energy.
The average fossil energy input for all the animal protein production systems studied is
25 kcal fossil energy input per 1 kcal of protein produced."
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/660S?ck=nck
The average includes chicken. For beef, the ratio is 40 units in for 1 unit out.
>
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote in message
> news:33l1s3l7idt8jsbigcmpifelf89ui61qeb@
4ax.com...
>this -
>my
>blowers!)
>consumption.
>motor
>produce one unit of
>other 80% is wasted
>
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-24, 9:59 pm |
| Alistair wrote:
>
> So, your answer is that the hockey stick curve is entirely due to
> solar variations?
What's the question? We WERE talking about the validity of the "hocky-stick"
curve. I merely commented on how XXXXed-up some think the original Mann
study was.
> Or are we all farting too much (there was a theory
> that the dinosaurs died out because they produced too much methane
> resulting in a global temperature rise)?
I don't think I fart TOO much. Can't say about you.
Maybe someone should do a peer reviewed study. I think Michael Mann is
available.
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-24, 9:59 pm |
| tim wrote:
>
> Yes. I learned this at school a long time ago.
>
> If you add it up, the total quantity is enormous. This is about 1
> pound per square meter of the earth's surface. CO2 is quite an
> effective blocker of certain frequencies of radiation.
>
Right. Assuming CO2 is as effective as a parasol.
That could mean that 0.00338% of sunlight is blocked. Of the 745 watts/sq
meter of energy that falls on the surface of the earth, CO2 would result in,
um, let me see, mumble-mumble, carry-the-three, ah, yes. I have it! 744.97
watts.
I can do better than that with SPF10 sunscreen ointment.
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-24, 9:59 pm |
| Robert wrote:
>
> Stop eating meat.
>
Adam and Eve were vegetarians. It was only Noah and his decendants that were
allowed to eat meat.
Adam and Eve started out in trouble. By the time we get to Noah the world
was so hopelessly depraved, wicked, and corrupt that God had to destroy it
and start over.
I'm not convinced there's a connection between debauchry and vegetarianism,
but I'm not sure I want to take the chance. There's even a theory that the
on-going nastiness we experience in the world is caused by residual plant
eating.
Remember, vegetables are not food; vegetables are what food eats.
| |
| Robert 2008-02-24, 9:59 pm |
| On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:33:42 -0800 (PST), Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 24 Feb, 21:50, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
>
>How badly will the USA be affected by sea level rise? I ask because I
>have seen maps showing how badly the UK will be affected (and they
>vary quite substantially).
Check these maps. Bangladesh is the most volnerable place.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wik..._Rise_Risks_png
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-24, 10:00 pm |
| Alistair wrote:
>
> So why are we not building solar energy power stations. The principles
> are already established and there is plenty of desert land to build
> upon, although that will introduce further problems (maintenance where
> vegetation grows in the shade of solar panels).
Because they won't work and can't be made to work. Not on any kind of scale.
The sun puts 745 watts/sq meter on the surface of the earth. At the equator.
At noon. With no clouds.
Assume 50% efficient collectors, and, adjusting for latitude, darkness, and
clouds:
To supply the electrical needs of California, you'd need a solar collector
the size of the Los Angeles basin (roughly 1200 sq miles). Which, when you
think on it, is not such a bad idea.
On the other hand, can you imagine what it would COST to erect and maintain
1200 sq miles of solar collectors? Californians have been trying for a
hundred YEARS to cover Los Angeles with pavement and haven't even come
close!
No, won't work. Can't run a country on sunbeams.
| |
| Robert 2008-02-24, 10:00 pm |
| On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:43:22 -0000, tim <TimJ@internet.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:23:51 -0800, Alistair wrote:
>
>
>Solar power is very expensive. It does not work at night, invoking the
>problem of storage, which is also expensive and inefficient. It is also
>greenhouse negative for at least 3 years, because of the energy required
>to produce all the gear involved.
That's true of photovoltaic cells. It's cheaper to use sunlight to turn water into steam,
which can drive a turbine and can be STORED.
Another way to store energy is to pump water to a higher elevation, then recover it by
letting the water flow downhill.
| |
| Robert 2008-02-25, 3:55 am |
| On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:59:22 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>Robert wrote:
>
>Adam and Eve were vegetarians. It was only Noah and his decendants that were
>allowed to eat meat.
>
>Adam and Eve started out in trouble. By the time we get to Noah the world
>was so hopelessly depraved, wicked, and corrupt that God had to destroy it
>and start over.
>
>I'm not convinced there's a connection between debauchry and vegetarianism,
>but I'm not sure I want to take the chance. There's even a theory that the
>on-going nastiness we experience in the world is caused by residual plant
>eating.
>
>Remember, vegetables are not food; vegetables are what food eats.
You're right to use a Biblical metaphor, because carnivores react to attacks on meat the
same way they react to attacks on their religion. Like a starving dog reacts when someone
tries to take its bone. Reason goes out the window. Never mind energy economy, never mind
efficiency, he's talking about grabbing my STEAK.
| |
|
| On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:53:44 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
> tim wrote:
>
> Right. Assuming CO2 is as effective as a parasol.
>
> That could mean that 0.00338% of sunlight is blocked. Of the 745 watts/sq
> meter of energy that falls on the surface of the earth, CO2 would result in,
> um, let me see, mumble-mumble, carry-the-three, ah, yes. I have it! 744.97
> watts.
>
> I can do better than that with SPF10 sunscreen ointment.
You seem to be using the formula
Amount-blocked = total-radiation * fraction-of-atmosphere-that-is-CO2
There is no foundation for this. Added you to my troll-kill file.
Tim
| |
| Jeff Campbell 2008-02-25, 7:55 am |
| Alistair wrote:
> On 23 Feb, 23:17, "tlmfru" <la...@mts.net> wrote:
>
> When I was at school I was taught that any bio/chemical process was
> inefficient and that by converting any thermal source to kinetic power
> would, at best be 10% efficient. So, we use petrol to provide an
> immediate source of power, loss 90% efficiency. If we convert nuclear
> to heat to electricity to power we lose 90% converting nuclear to
> steam, more converting steam to electricity, more carrying the
> electricity through pylon cables and even more converting to power at
> the users end.
>
> All that you can possibly save on is pollution levels (non-CO2).
see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle>
<quote>
Efficiency of CCGT plants
By combining both gas and steam cycles, high input temperatures and low
output temperatures can be achieved. The efficiency of the cycles add,
because they are powered by the same fuel source. So, a combined cycle plant
has a thermodynamic cycle that operates between the gas-turbine's high firing
temperature and the waste heat temperature from the condensors of the steam
cycle. This large range means that the Carnot efficiency of the cycle is high.
The actual efficiency, while lower than this is still higher than that of either plant
on its own.
The thermal efficiency of a combined cycle power plant is the net power
output of the plant divided by the heating value of the fuel. If the plant
produces only electricity, efficiencies of up to 59% can be achieved. In the
case of combined heat and power generation, the overall efficiency can
increase to 85%.
</quote>
Jeff
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-25, 6:55 pm |
| "tim" <TimJ@internet.com> wrote:
>
> There is enough uranium to last hundreds of years. (On the downside it
> increases the risk of nuclear proliferation).
I want to see a practical fusion reactor. Removes fuel as a limit, fuel
not radioactive, byproducts not permanently radioactive, if there is
a problem it shuts down, loss of containment results in only a local
explosion, no massive release of radiation like Chernobyl.
--
Judson McClendon | | |