More noise about climate

"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote

> After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine
> evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're being
> fed.

ROFL.

Max

"Han" wrote:

> What you show in the picture is the reservoir of the gas, which went
> up
> and down as the supply increased or was used up.
--------
Looks just like the one along side the I-405 here in L/A.

Lew

Somebody wrote:

> Psst! Concrete is seldom recycled.

BULL SHIT.

If your eyes were not brown before, they are now.

Lew

"Han" wrote:

> Who is opposing what? Squealing pglets will oppose anything ...
-------------------------
That's as good a description of the Republicans these days as any I
guess.

Lew

Dave Balderstone wrote:

>Start here:
>
><http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm>
>
><http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/new-paper-in-nature-on-co2-amplif
>ication-its-less-than-we-thought/>
>
><http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html>

--------------------------------------------
Ah yes, unvetted intellectual bull shit.

Lew

On Feb 1, 2:19=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:5153f412-e363-4458-ae70-
> [email protected]:
>
> > ....adn they're usually busy opposing any- and everything the Obama
> > administration is trying to accomplish.
>
> Who is opposing what? =A0Squealing pglets will oppose anything ...
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid

Do you remember Boer Koekoek van de Boeren Partij?
(BK) "Ik ber er teugen."
(reporter) "Waarom?"
(BK) "Omdat ik er teugen ben."

Translation: A politician stated he was against something, and a
reporter asked him why. The answer was: "because I am against it.."

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Han wrote:
>>
>> The CO2 seems to be the component that has changed most since the
>> start of the industrial revolution, and as far as I can judge does
>> have an undesirable effect. It is also probably the component that is
>> easiest to limit. Methane has a far greater effect than CO2, but
>> seems quantitatively less important. Not sure whether a tax on meat
>> would help keep the cattle farting down. (sarcasm!!).
>
> I need some proof that a trace gas has that much effect.
>
> The CO2 in the atmosphere (0.003%) is equivalent to the blood stain left
> on a football field after an official received 17 stab wounds when he made
> three consecutive bad calls against the home team (i.e., less than two
> square feet).
>
> I suspect that if power plants exhaled Argon or Helium, proof would be
> constructed that these gases are sealing our doom.
>
>
>
>>
>> Also, I think that changing black asphalt to white concrete in roads
>> could have an effect, but I am not an engineer. Many other simple
>> examples could be given to reduce energy consumption. Not the least
>> of which is to stick it to the oil and gas producers in some
>> countries ...
>
> And asphalt costs what? Ten times that of installing concrete?
>
> I can see it now: In an effort to increase the earth's albido, concrete is
> mandated. States with thousands of miles of two-lane Farm-To-Market or
> rural roads, each hosting 50 vehicles per day, are to be resurfaced.
> Two-lane concrete roadways cost a bit over $1 million per mile to
> construct. (Asphalt is about $150,000 per mile and can be recycled.)
>
> There are over 41,000 miles of Farm and Ranch roads in Texas.
>
Concrete would be extremely expensive in the north. It would have to be
extensively repaired, if not replaced, each spring.

On Jan 30, 3:25=A0pm, "Jon Slaughter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
> > On 30 Jan 2010 12:18:17 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
> > scrawled the following:
>
> >> My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to
> >> this American-Swiss scientific report. =A0The abstract/summary is
> >> freely available at:
> >> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488>. =A0O=
r
> >> through the Digital Object Identifier site:
> >> <http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488>
>
> >> For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. =A0If anyone is trul=
y
> >> interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm
> >> not totally sure of the copyright rules.
>
> >> Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated
> >> interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it
> >> appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe
> >> that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere).
>
> >> Here is the summary:
>
> >> Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the
> >> Rate of Global Warming
> >> Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean
> >> Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3
>
> >> Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10%
> >> after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate
> >> of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about
> >> 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon
> >> dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that
> >> stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000,
> >> which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during
> >> the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change.
> >> These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an
> >> important driver of decadal global surface climate change.
>
> >> 1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division,
> >> Boulder, CO, USA.
> >> 2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
> >> University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
> >> 3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of
> >> Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
>
> >> Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication
> >> 12 January 2010.
>
> > IOW, Mother Nature knows what to do and has been doing it to regulate
> > the climate around her. I, too, feel that Man should tread more
> > lightly on the Earth. For the most part, it is, but coal-fired power
> > is still a ghastly unrepentant part of the process. =A0Spending billion=
s
> > to make "clean coal" is one of the greenies' dumbest concepts.
>
> Yes, it's called negative feedback and if the earth was so unstable as to
> come crashing down from what man could do then most likely we wouldn't be
> here in the first place. It's very arrogant or just plain ignorant to
> believe than mankind can compete with the power of mother nature.

Ignoring your obvious straw men, I think the height of ignorance is
the implication that you *know* the whole story, one way or the other.

You don't.
I don't.
We don't.

All YOU'VE done is say that anybody who believes other than what YOU
believe is arrogant and ignorant.

Which is funny and ironic!

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:52:02 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:

>In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:25:44 -0600, Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, it's called negative feedback and if the earth was so unstable as
>> > to come crashing down from what man could do then most likely we
>> > wouldn't be here in the first place.
>>
>> Let's see. The world's population doubles on average every 60-65 years.

Uh, are we gone yet? Were we gone when it went from 500,000,000 to
1B, or 1B to 2B, 2-4, or 4-6B? Um, no.

>> That probably only holds true since the Black Death, but you get the
>> idea. Not too mention the fact that the Industrial Revolution is a
>> recent thing as history goes.
>>
>> But you seem to equate the damage we can do today with the minor affect
>> of a few million or less primitive homo saps and claim that since they
>> didn't die out anything we can do today isn't going to hurt.
>>
>> Your argument is ridiculous.

And your Malthusian rants aren't, Larry? ;)


>Well, the earth has survived more than one comet impact, and life
>continued, despite REPEATED mass extinctions that occurred before our
>ancestors were small shrew-like creatures nibbling on grubs.
>
>Whether or not humans are here has SFA to do with the long term
>"health" of the planet, whatever the fuck that means...
>
>Is Venus "healthy"? Mercury? Neptune?

All my Venusian friends are. <g>


>The "damage" that h.Saps can do to the planet is inconsequential in the
>scheme of things. And given that the stated goal of many of the
>"Greens" is the death of most of the human race, well... Pardon me if I
>don't give a rat's ass what they think. They could improve things
>simply by opening one of their own veins.

A Freakin' Men!


>If we're gone, who cares whether the spotted owl exists? The universe
>sure as hell doesn't.

A friend knew a guy with lots of land in WA state. He had no spotted
owls. When the guys next to him clearcut their land, he suddenly got
owls. Even though their original habitat was completely gone, they
just moved and built up a larger population. Too bad the guys at the
top of the regulatory system don't realize that. (That's another
little bit of Mother Nature, too.)


>Cleaning up the worst pollution on the planet? I'm for it. Let's start
>with China, India and Africa.

Why stop there? Clean it up everywhere, starting today. But tell
folks like the EPA (who micromanage the shit out of it, making it too
expensive to even START cleanup) to STFU and GTFO, so it can happen!

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:25:44 -0600, Jon Slaughter wrote:
>
> > Yes, it's called negative feedback and if the earth was so unstable as
> > to come crashing down from what man could do then most likely we
> > wouldn't be here in the first place.
>
> Let's see. The world's population doubles on average every 60-65 years.
> That probably only holds true since the Black Death, but you get the
> idea. Not too mention the fact that the Industrial Revolution is a
> recent thing as history goes.
>
> But you seem to equate the damage we can do today with the minor affect
> of a few million or less primitive homo saps and claim that since they
> didn't die out anything we can do today isn't going to hurt.
>
> Your argument is ridiculous.

Well, the earth has survived more than one comet impact, and life
continued, despite REPEATED mass extinctions that occurred before our
ancestors were small shrew-like creatures nibbling on grubs.

Whether or not humans are here has SFA to do with the long term
"health" of the planet, whatever the fuck that means...

Is Venus "healthy"? Mercury? Neptune?

The "damage" that h.Saps can do to the planet is inconsequential in the
scheme of things. And given that the stated goal of many of the
"Greens" is the death of most of the human race, well... Pardon me if I
don't give a rat's ass what they think. They could improve things
simply by opening one of their own veins.

If we're gone, who cares whether the spotted owl exists? The universe
sure as hell doesn't.

Cleaning up the worst pollution on the planet? I'm for it. Let's start
with China, India and Africa.

In article <[email protected]>, Han
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190
> @newsfe13.iad:
>
> > Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll cut it
> > WAY down.
> > How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant?
>
> CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or glucose.
> It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing, please make
> sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended).

There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas
of any import.

Do try to keep up.

Water vapour, on the other hand...

In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Or were you thinking that perhaps Exxon, Chevron, BP et al will jump to
> the fore and wave their corporate magic wands? :-/

They're all there in the cap and trade market push, Morris. Every
single one of them.

In article <[email protected]>, Bob
Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> in 133091 20100131 030530 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>
> wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>, Han
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190
> >> @newsfe13.iad:
> >>
> >> > Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll cut it
> >> > WAY down.
> >> > How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant?
> >>
> >> CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or glucose.
> >> It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing, please make
> >> sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended).
> >
> >There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas
> >of any import.
>
> Please produce said evidence.


Start here:

<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm>

<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/new-paper-in-nature-on-co2-amplif
ication-its-less-than-we-thought/>

<http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html>

After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine
evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're being
fed.

In article <[email protected]>, Han
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > Politics only needs to "steer economics" if not doing so results in
> > something horrible happening. I want to know if that is the case,
> > hence my question. Waffling about it doesn't answer the question.
>
> You ask for absolute certainty, sir? Please help me hold my belly!!
> (figuratively, please!).
>
> If there were certainty, we would be really wasting our bits here.

At the very least, point to a model that can predict YESTERDAY.

In article <[email protected]>, CW
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Concrete would be extremely expensive in the north. It would have to be
> extensively repaired, if not replaced, each spring.

We were through Winnipeg MB last summer and drove through the
neighbourhood I lived in in the mid 1970s.

The concrete roads poured more than 30 years ago were in very good
condition.

On Feb 1, 12:20=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/1/2010 12:29 AM, LDosser wrote:
>
> >>> You've probably guessed that I'm one of those people who're easily
> >>> amused. :)
>
> >> Here, for your dining and dancing entertainment, is Matsunari-San and
> >> the Luminescent Pigs!
>
> > url might be useful
>
> >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18729767
>
> Confirmed: I _am_ easily amused!
>
> Just remembering a farm neighbor (whose pigs were fixated on becoming
> free-range porkers) saying: "If you see one of my pigs, kick it - it's
> either loose, trying to get loose, or thinking about getting loose."
>
> By their fluorescence shall ye know them. :)
>
> More seriously, I can see this as a (possibly) useful research tracking
> tool.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Hell, if you develop that pig-luminescense out further, you won't have
to start your BBQ.

On Jan 31, 9:10=A0am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/31/2010 8:22 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > The question I want answered, that the greenies have never tried to add=
ress,
> > is "Let's stipulate that everything you say is true. =A0Suppose we let =
the
> > whole thing run its course, burn up all the oil and coal and shale oil =
and
> > whatnot. =A0At the end of that process where will we be?"
>
> It's a good question, and I don't think there is a single answer. Where
> we will be, necessarily, will be determined by the choices we make
> between now and then.
>
> I suspect, and of course have no way of knowing, that we will not
> completely consume all fuel resources - but I extrapolate that as each
> resource becomes less readily available it will become increasingly
> costly, and so diminish in terms of common usage.
>
> As that happens, either the usage (what people accomplished with that
> particular resource) will be discontinued, or another resource or
> another means of accomplishing that goal will be adopted.
>
> Such a scenario leaves a lot of room for all kinds of choices, and I'm
> not convinced that being a "greenie" (or not being a greenie) has much
> to do with that answer.
>
> Those future choices will be influenced by the importance attached to
> "green-ness" of each person's outlook at the time - and, FWIW, I don't
> think "green" is a binary attribute.
>
> To me the more interesting questions are "Where do we _want_ to be in
> five, ten, a hundred, or a thousand years from now?" and "What choices
> need to be made, and by when, for those visions to be realized?"

Well said.

The other thing that is NOT binary is the pricing of the finite
resources as they become less and less plentiful (whether that's in
terms of absolute supply or the costs of extraction, refinement, and
delivery).

Or ... simple market manipulation by the monopoly currently in
control.

As that cost-to-consumer curve steepens, carnage ensues. We saw it,
in micro, as gas reached -- what -- four bucks a gallon, rather
recently?

Jobs are lost. Industries are wiped out. LIVES are horrifically
impacted.

The much vaunted "market" will take an immeasurable toll on real human
beings if we let it play out, vis-a-vis fossil fuels.

On Jan 31, 11:52=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]=
uy.com:
>
> > The question I want answered, that the greenies have never tried to
> > address, is "Let's stipulate that everything you say is true. =A0Suppos=
e
> > we let the whole thing run its course, burn up all the oil and coal
> > and shale oil and whatnot. =A0At the end of that process where will we
> > be?"
>
> That would take a very long time, and economics would largely prevent it.=
=A0
> Coal is extremely abundant, though the ost usable quality is not. =A0You
> know of course that oil-poor countries such as Nazi Germany and a prior
> version of South Africa used coal as a basis for producing oil/gasoline. =
=A0

The hospital I was born in, was right next to a 'Gas Fabriek" They
made gas from coal and distributed to people's houses via pipes....
and I'm not that old. I do remember the smell of sulphur.
It looked a bit like this:
http://img.mobypicture.com/edaafee47848114ca130f1812dfe4c9e_view.jpg

On Feb 1, 9:08=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote in news:hk5mks$7d0$1
> @speranza.aioe.org:
>
> > I didn't mean to impose on anyone and then realized that I was, and I'm
> > not sure I wasn't out of line. It /does/ sound fantastic and exciting t=
o
> > be able to see, but I'd like to retract all the pushiness...
>
> Curiosity is never pushy. =A0The only bad question is the one you don't a=
sk
> (and should have asked). =A0I am keeping your request in mind and just ne=
ed
> the right reference. =A0
>
> The reference LDosser gave above is sort of useful, but doesn't have
> movies. =A0It does prove the principle, tough, even in pigs, who are much
> harder and more costly to work with than mice.
>
....adn they're usually busy opposing any- and everything the Obama
administration is trying to accomplish.

On Jan 31, 12:37=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
=A0
>
> The retreating of the glaciers and the rising of the sea level at
> moderate latitudes has been explained by a rebound of the earth's (I am
> confused, is the apostrophe correct here or not) surface because of the
> lightening of the load of ice on Greenland and Scandinavia. =A0
>

I am having a hard time getting my head around that theory. The
earth's crust it (on a scale model) is thinner than the shell on an
egg. All the ice and water at that scale would be invisibly thin.
Earth, reduced to that size in scale would feel considerably smoother
than an egg, in fact it would be impossible to find either the Mariana
Trench or Everest by touch.
Just the fact that we have shrunk the planet with communications, this
is still Mother Earth.. a pretty big ball of stuff.

On Jan 30, 7:18=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl)

Thanks for that link/tip. I have been reading that online paper and
must say that fits me and my outlook perfectly.
Then, upon reading where that paper came from, it became clear why I
like it as much as I do.
It was a combination of two very different newspapers, one artsy-
fartsy from Amsterdam and one all-business/international paper from
Rotterdam/The Hague.
Well, guess what... where I was born and raised was almost exactly
dead-centre between those 3 cities. Alphen Aan Den Rijn. In the 1960's
we had influences from all three cities, in terms of fashion, music,
etc. Then also wedged between Leiden and Utrecht, there was an
academic influence as well.


Then all hell broke loose when I first tuned in to Radio Caroline..<G>

Really cool stuff. Again, thanks for that.

r

Douglas Johnson wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I need some proof that a trace gas has that much effect.
>>
>> The CO2 in the atmosphere (0.003%) is equivalent to the blood stain
>> left on a football field after an official received 17 stab wounds
>> when he made three consecutive bad calls against the home team
>> (i.e., less than two square feet).
>
> Small traces can have big effect. The tetanus toxin is fatal at
> doses at 2.5 nanograms per kilogram of body weight or
> 0.0000000000025%.

I agree. For the rest of the game, not a single flag was thrown.

On Feb 3, 2:53=A0am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 07:41:24 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
> > <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
> >>in 133119 20100131 103402 Dave Balderstone
> >><dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> >>>In article <[email protected]>, Bob
> >>>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> in 133091 20100131 030530 Dave Balderstone
> >>>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> >In article <[email protected]>, Han
> >>>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> >> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>> >> news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190
> >>>> >> @newsfe13.iad:
>
> >>>> >> > Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'=
ll
> >>>> >> > cut it
> >>>> >> > WAY down.
> >>>> >> > How in the hell did the consequences of living become a polluta=
nt?
>
> >>>> >> CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat o=
r
> >>>> >> glucose.
> >>>> >> It is also a greenhouse gas. =A0If you want to stop breathing, pl=
ease
> >>>> >> make
> >>>> >> sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. =A0(Humor intende=
d).
>
> >>>> >There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse
> >>>> >gas
> >>>> >of any import.
>
> >>>> Please produce said evidence.
>
> >>>Start here:
>
> >>><http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm>
>
> >>><http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/new-paper-in-nature-on-co2-ampl=
if
> >>>ication-its-less-than-we-thought/>
>
> >>><http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html=
>
>
> >>>After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine
> >>>evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're bein=
g
> >>>fed.
>
> >>Not one of those links backs up your statement that "CO2 is NOT, in fac=
t,
> >>a greenhouse gas".
>
> > How's that swallowing coming along, Bob? =A0Looks pretty advanced to me=
.
> > ;)
>
> > You overlooked 3 important words: =A0"...of any import." =A0I'll bet th=
at
> > wasn't an accident, Mr. Alarmist. =A0How does it feel for your entire
> > cartel of Alarmist crime to come tumbling down around you as it is?
>
> > Don't worry, you'll find another "cause" soon. =A0You libs always do.
> > Maybe go back to overpopulation or anti-nuke? =A0<BIG sigh>
>
> Shave The Whales

..then there is the Canuckistani mantra: "Save The Forests, Eat a
Beaver!"

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:54:45 -0600, the infamous dpb <[email protected]>
scrawled the following:

>Han wrote:
>...
>
>> Per molecule CO2 is ot a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and some
>> others are much better. But if you have a million more mlecules of CO2
>> than methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce the number of
>> molecules of CO2, than let's go for imiting CO2.
>>
>...
>But CO2 is also very specific in the wavelengths it absorbs and it
>doesn't take much to make incremental changes in concentration to have
>less actual effect. Data indicates concentrations are at point of
>already being past the knee of the curve. If so, won't make much
>difference at all either way.

Y'mean "the knee of the hockey stick?" <bseg>

I haven't yet read all of this paper, but it looks like a fair
analysis. (Well, except for the dead polar bear pic. Har!)
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html It has a CO2 absorption chart. Please
describe what you're talking about via the chart, or show another one
to which you refer.

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

J. Clarke wrote:
>
> The question I want answered, that the greenies have never tried to
> address, is "Let's stipulate that everything you say is true.
> Suppose we let the whole thing run its course, burn up all the oil
> and coal and shale oil and whatnot. At the end of that process where
> will we be?"

From the Romans through the Middle Ages people used wood and charcoal to the
extent that there are almost no forests left in Europe. Fortunately, they
discovered coal. Coal powered the industrial revolution, but eventually gave
way to petroleum products.

When oil becomes too expensive, we'll find something else.

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:56:28 -0700, the infamous "Max"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote
>
>> After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine
>> evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're being
>> fed.
>
>ROFL.

Yeah, that was truly slick of Baldy, wasnt' it, Max?


--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

On 31 Jan 2010 17:16:27 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
scrawled the following:

>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> And asphalt costs what? Ten times that of installing concrete?
>
>I think you inadvertently switched them. Bu I do get the drift.
>
>> I can see it now: In an effort to increase the earth's albido,
>> concrete is mandated. States with thousands of miles of two-lane
>> Farm-To-Market or rural roads, each hosting 50 vehicles per day, are
>> to be resurfaced. Two-lane concrete roadways cost a bit over $1
>> million per mile to construct. (Asphalt is about $150,000 per mile and
>> can be recycled.)
>
>Concrete can be recycled as well, and I doubt that the cost differential
>is as big as you say. And I note you have come down from a factor of 10
>to a factor of less than 7.
>
>> There are over 41,000 miles of Farm and Ranch roads in Texas.
>
>I don't care about Texas (smile!!).
>
>IMNSHO a lot can be done by altering our approach for future work just
>slightly. This example is for moderate climates with freeze-thaw cycles,
>like around New York. For instance, a road surface on a local village
>road with good cracks in it (not HUGE, but just good cracks) can be
>rather easily repaired well, using a little extra effort. Not just
>slapping some asphalt repair stuff on it, and patting that down with a
>shovel, but heating the old surface, patching it and sealing it with
>liquid tar (whatever). The road could easily last another 10 years or
>more then while the slapping patching stuff just lifts in a year or two.
>Yes the initial repair is more than twice as costly, but it lasts much
>more than 3 times as long. You get what you pay for!

If the bean counters got their way, that would be the standard
everywhere. But they can't get that kind of funding package together
-and- give all the payouts in the rest of the political infrastructure
at the same time...and get away with it. If we could keep track of it
(IE: keep it out of pols' hands) and get competitive bids for
everything, it would actually cost taxpayers a lot less money in the
long run. The question is: How do you stop the pols from spending
every last cent in the kitty (and then some) every year?


>Then when real resurfacing is needed, a decision could be made to hae a
>lighter colored top layer. Many factors go into these choices, but
>albedo could easily be included.

That's a great idea. I really like the gold and ruddy roads in AZ and
NV.

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/denial

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> Cleaning up the worst pollution on the planet? I'm for it. Let's start
> with China, India and Africa.

You'll note the richest countries generate the least pollution. In the main,
that takes energy to do so. Cutting back on energy production will worsen
pollution.


We can eliminate, for example, electric stoves - thereby cutting down on the
amount of coal necessary to produce power - and all cook our meals over
charcoal braziers. There goes the neighborhood.

in 133119 20100131 103402 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Bob
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> in 133091 20100131 030530 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>
>> wrote:
>> >In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190
>> >> @newsfe13.iad:
>> >>
>> >> > Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll cut it
>> >> > WAY down.
>> >> > How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant?
>> >>
>> >> CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or glucose.
>> >> It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing, please make
>> >> sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended).
>> >
>> >There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas
>> >of any import.
>>
>> Please produce said evidence.
>
>
>Start here:
>
><http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm>
>
><http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/new-paper-in-nature-on-co2-amplif
>ication-its-less-than-we-thought/>
>
><http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html>
>
>After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine
>evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're being
>fed.

Not one of those links backs up your statement that "CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas".

Han wrote:
> [email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han <[email protected]> writes:
>>> My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to
>>> this American-Swiss scientific report. The abstract/summary is freely
>>> available at:
>>> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488>. Or
>>> through the Digital Object Identifier site:
>>> <http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488>
>>>
>>> For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. If anyone is truly
>>> interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not
>>> totally sure of the copyright rules.
>>>
>>> Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated
>>> interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it
>>> appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe
>>> that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere).
>>>
>>> Here is the summary:
>>>
>>> Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the
>>> Rate of Global Warming
>>> Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean
>>> Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3
>> Hm. I seem to recall Susan Solomon's name from the CRUtapes.
>>
>> Contrast with:
>>
>> David C. Frank, Jan Esper, Christoph C. Raible, Ulf Büntgen, Valerie
>> Trouet, Benjamin Stocker, & Fortunat Joos. Ensemble reconstruction
>> constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate. Nature,
>> 2010; 463 (7280): 527 DOI: 10.1038/nature08769
>>
>> In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this
>> empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature
>> reconstructions with CO2 data from three Antarctic ice cores over the
>> period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the
>> feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a
>> median value of 7.7.
>>
>> The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2
>> per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting
>> significantly less amplification of current warming.
>>
>> scott
>
> The CO2 seems to be the component that has changed most since the start
> of the industrial revolution, and as far as I can judge does have an
> undesirable effect. It is also probably the component that is easiest to
> limit.

Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll cut it
WAY down.
How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant?

Methane has a far greater effect than CO2, but seems
> quantitatively less important. Not sure whether a tax on meat would help
> keep the cattle farting down. (sarcasm!!).
>
> Also, I think that changing black asphalt to white concrete in roads
> could have an effect, but I am not an engineer. Many other simple
> examples could be given to reduce energy consumption. Not the least of
> which is to stick it to the oil and gas producers in some countries ...
>
>

Robatoy wrote:

> On Jan 30, 9:18 am, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com>
> wrote:
>> On 30 Jan 2010 12:18:17 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
>> scrawled the following:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
... snip
>> >Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication 12
>> >January 2010.
>>
>> IOW, Mother Nature knows what to do and has been doing it to regulate
>> the climate around her. I, too, feel that Man should tread more
>> lightly on the Earth. For the most part, it is, but coal-fired power
>> is still a ghastly unrepentant part of the process.  Spending billions
>> to make "clean coal" is one of the greenies' dumbest concepts.
>>
>
> What a mouth-full. Clean Coal...WTF??? Has anyone ever looked at coal
> up close? You have any idea what kinda shit is in that stuff?
> Sure it's a great gob of carbon, but...
>
> I am not an alarmist about AGW.. but I DO believe we need to be nice
> to the planet. That whole Rainforest butcher job is a real problem.

and is exacerbated by some of the alarmists. By preventing the sale of
timber from the rain forest, the people from those countries now burn down
the trees so they can make a living farming and raising livestock on the
land. If it weren't for the meddling, more than likely those people would
realize that they could make a living with logging and would take care of
the forests.


> There is no need to pollute the oceans. Bad stewardship is just that.
> Stupid management of our one-and-only planet.
> I have done some travelling and I have seen what stupid people do with
> their drinking water.... they shit in it. Not smart.

That falls into the "poop in your own bathtub" arena. Taking care of
where you live is just plain good sense. Making sure that you, your
children and your grandchildren have a nice place to live leads to the idea
that maybe controlling where you put your trash, how you handle waste
products and how industry around you properly disposes of waste are all good
ideas. The idea that such acts "save the planet" or that releases the
products of perfect combustion (CO2 and water vapor) into the atmosphere is
harmful or will destroy the planet is where it just starts to get silly.
Silly vis a vis the common folks parroting this stuff -- diabolical and
controlling vis a vis those in power promoting this as a way to garner even
more power into those peoples' lives.


> But... one does not deserve the 'greenie' label when one is aware of
> bad habits. I am no Ed Begley and never will be.
> Eat what you kill, turn into furniture what you chop down or build a
> house.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Han <[email protected]> writes:
>My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to this
>American-Swiss scientific report. The abstract/summary is freely
>available at:
><http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488>. Or
>through the Digital Object Identifier site:
><http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488>
>
>For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. If anyone is truly
>interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not
>totally sure of the copyright rules.
>
>Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated
>interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it
>appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe that
>we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere).
>
>Here is the summary:
>
>Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate
>of Global Warming
>Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean
>Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3

Hm. I seem to recall Susan Solomon's name from the CRUtapes.

Contrast with:

David C. Frank, Jan Esper, Christoph C. Raible, Ulf Büntgen, Valerie Trouet, Benjamin Stocker, & Fortunat Joos.
Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate.
Nature, 2010; 463 (7280): 527 DOI: 10.1038/nature08769

In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach by
comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO2 data from three
Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800.
The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per
degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7.

The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius can
be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming.

scott

J. Clarke wrote:

> dpb wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> dpb wrote:
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Per molecule CO2 is ot a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and
>>>>> some others are much better. But if you have a million more
>>>>> mlecules of CO2 than methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce
>>>>> the number of molecules of CO2, than let's go for imiting CO2.
>>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> But CO2 is also very specific in the wavelengths it absorbs and it
>>>> doesn't take much to make incremental changes in concentration to
>>>> have less actual effect. Data indicates concentrations are at
>>>> point of already being past the knee of the curve. If so, won't
>>>> make much difference at all either way.
>>>
>>> What "knee" of what "curve"?
>>
>> Differential light absorption<-->energy attenuation vs concentration
>> is exponential. Very low concentrations-->high (relatively)
>> attenuation vs concentration but reaches a plateau where adding
>> further makes successively little difference as the particular
>> wavelengths are already heavily filtered. Roughly, it's ~exp(u/x)
>
> Nice bafflegab. Now try it in terms of its environmental effect.

Put in a different way -- CO2 only absorbs energy in specific wavelengths
of light (think of it as a filter the CO2 absorbs light in certain
wavelengths and does not affect other wavelengths, letting that energy pass
through with no impact). At some point, the maximum absorption in those
wavelengths is reached and all of the energy in those narrow bands is being
absorbed. Thereafter, it doesn't matter how much additional CO2 you pump
into the system, no additional energy in those wavebands can be absorbed and
CO2 has zero impact in other wavelengths of light.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Han wrote:
>
> Concrete can be recycled as well, and I doubt that the cost
> differential is as big as you say. And I note you have come down
> from a factor of 10 to a factor of less than 7.

Psst! Concrete is seldom recycled.

>
>> There are over 41,000 miles of Farm and Ranch roads in Texas.
>
> I don't care about Texas (smile!!).

You would if the federal government is to pay to replace all the asphalt
roads with concrete. Some of the dump trucks used to haul sand and cement
would have to be diverted to haul money from your state to mine.

in 133091 20100131 030530 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Han
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190
>> @newsfe13.iad:
>>
>> > Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll cut it
>> > WAY down.
>> > How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant?
>>
>> CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or glucose.
>> It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing, please make
>> sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended).
>
>There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas
>of any import.

Please produce said evidence.

On 2/1/2010 2:33 PM, Robatoy wrote:

> Do you remember Boer Koekoek van de Boeren Partij?
> (BK) "Ik ber er teugen."
> (reporter) "Waarom?"
> (BK) "Omdat ik er teugen ben."
>
> Translation: A politician stated he was against something, and a
> reporter asked him why. The answer was: "because I am against it.."

Didn't know "Pelosi" was Dutch!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

[email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han <[email protected]> writes:
>>My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to
>>this American-Swiss scientific report. The abstract/summary is freely
>>available at:
>><http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488>. Or
>>through the Digital Object Identifier site:
>><http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488>
>>
>>For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. If anyone is truly
>>interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not
>>totally sure of the copyright rules.
>>
>>Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated
>>interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it
>>appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe
>>that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere).
>>
>>Here is the summary:
>>
>>Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the
>>Rate of Global Warming
>>Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean
>>Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3
>
> Hm. I seem to recall Susan Solomon's name from the CRUtapes.
>
> Contrast with:
>
> David C. Frank, Jan Esper, Christoph C. Raible, Ulf Büntgen, Valerie
> Trouet, Benjamin Stocker, & Fortunat Joos. Ensemble reconstruction
> constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate. Nature,
> 2010; 463 (7280): 527 DOI: 10.1038/nature08769
>
> In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this
> empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature
> reconstructions with CO2 data from three Antarctic ice cores over the
> period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the
> feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a
> median value of 7.7.
>
> The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2
> per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting
> significantly less amplification of current warming.
>
> scott

The CO2 seems to be the component that has changed most since the start
of the industrial revolution, and as far as I can judge does have an
undesirable effect. It is also probably the component that is easiest to
limit. Methane has a far greater effect than CO2, but seems
quantitatively less important. Not sure whether a tax on meat would help
keep the cattle farting down. (sarcasm!!).

Also, I think that changing black asphalt to white concrete in roads
could have an effect, but I am not an engineer. Many other simple
examples could be given to reduce energy consumption. Not the least of
which is to stick it to the oil and gas producers in some countries ...


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190
@newsfe13.iad:

> Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll cut it
> WAY down.
> How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant?

CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or glucose.
It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing, please make
sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in
news:310120100434024828%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca:

> In article <[email protected]>, Bob
> Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> in 133091 20100131 030530 Dave Balderstone
>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>> >In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >> news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190 @newsfe13.iad:
>> >>
>> >> > Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours -
>> >> > that'll cut it WAY down.
>> >> > How in the hell did the consequences of living become a
>> >> > pollutant?
>> >>
>> >> CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or
>> >> glucose. It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop
>> >> breathing, please make sure your remains do not keep on producing
>> >> CO2. (Humor intended).
>> >
>> >There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse
>> >gas of any import.
>>
>> Please produce said evidence.
>
>
> Start here:
>
> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm>
>
> <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/new-paper-in-nature-on-co2-ampli
> f ication-its-less-than-we-thought/>
>
> <http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html>
>
> After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine
> evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're
> being fed.

Per molecule CO2 is ot a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and some
others are much better. But if you have a million more mlecules of CO2
than methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce the number of
molecules of CO2, than let's go for imiting CO2.

Many ifs, I know. But the advantages of reducing the use of fossil fuels
are many. And if it is done through increased efficiency or switching to
non-polluting systems like Morris' solar water pumps, than all the
better. Morris is showing that it is a technological thinking leap that
is needed, not new sources of (for instance) rare earth metals.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

I have to proofread better. My kayboard is not always transmitting what I
type, here I fill in the missing letters ...

Per molecule CO2 is not a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and some
others are much better. But if you have a million TIMES more molecules of
CO2 than of methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce the number of
molecules of CO2, than let's go for limiting CO2.

Many ifs, I know. But the advantages of reducing the use of fossil fuels
are many. And if it is done through increased efficiency or switching to
non-polluting systems like Morris' solar water pumps, than all the
better. Morris is showing that it is a technological thinking leap that
is needed, not new sources of (for instance) rare earth metals.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Jan 30, 3:25 pm, "Jon Slaughter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>> > On 30 Jan 2010 12:18:17 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
>> > scrawled the following:
>>
>> >> My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to
>> >> this American-Swiss scientific report.  The abstract/summary is
>> >> freely available at:
>> >> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488>.
>> >>  O
> r
>> >> through the Digital Object Identifier site:
>> >> <http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488>
>>
>> >> For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription.  If anyone is
>> >> trul
> y
>> >> interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm
>> >> not totally sure of the copyright rules.
>>
>> >> Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated
>> >> interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete,
>> >> it appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do
>> >> believe that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere).
>>
>> >> Here is the summary:
>>
>> >> Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in
>> >> the Rate of Global Warming
>> >> Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1
>> >> Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3
>>
>> >> Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10%
>> >> after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the
>> >> rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009
>> >> by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only
>> >> to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data
>> >> suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between
>> >> 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of
>> >> surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to
>> >> estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that
>> >> stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of
>> >> decadal global surface climate change.
>>
>> >> 1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences
>> >> Division, Boulder, CO, USA.
>> >> 2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
>> >> University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
>> >> 3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University
>> >> of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
>>
>> >> Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for
>> >> publication 12 January 2010.
>>
>> > IOW, Mother Nature knows what to do and has been doing it to
>> > regulate the climate around her. I, too, feel that Man should tread
>> > more lightly on the Earth. For the most part, it is, but coal-fired
>> > power is still a ghastly unrepentant part of the process.  Spending
>> > billion
> s
>> > to make "clean coal" is one of the greenies' dumbest concepts.
>>
>> Yes, it's called negative feedback and if the earth was so unstable
>> as to come crashing down from what man could do then most likely we
>> wouldn't be here in the first place. It's very arrogant or just plain
>> ignorant to believe than mankind can compete with the power of mother
>> nature.
>
> Ignoring your obvious straw men, I think the height of ignorance is
> the implication that you *know* the whole story, one way or the other.
>
> You don't.
> I don't.
> We don't.
>
> All YOU'VE done is say that anybody who believes other than what YOU
> believe is arrogant and ignorant.
>
> Which is funny and ironic!

Exactly. In science it is implied that your theory is based on ALL the
facts, and usually it is a given that you do NOT have all the facts.
Hence further tests/trials/whatever. Yes that is a contradiction.

In this case, however, it seems without doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse
gas, that human activity has increased the quantity of it, and that
reducing the quantity of free CO2 would be beneficial by preventing
further greenhouse heating of the earths atmosphere. That leaves out of
the equation other greenhouse gases, cooling/heating effects of
(volcanic?) particulates, and smog, among probably many more things
affecting climate.

Despite the anomaly of a totally erroneous statement about retreating
glaciers in the Himalayas, most glaciers worldwide are indeed retreating,
for whatever reasons. In high school 50 years ago, the Rhone glacier in
Switzerland was already an example of sorts.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> The question I want answered, that the greenies have never tried to
> address, is "Let's stipulate that everything you say is true. Suppose
> we let the whole thing run its course, burn up all the oil and coal
> and shale oil and whatnot. At the end of that process where will we
> be?"

That would take a very long time, and economics would largely prevent it.
Coal is extremely abundant, though the ost usable quality is not. You
know of course that oil-poor countries such as Nazi Germany and a prior
version of South Africa used coal as a basis for producing oil/gasoline.
Another conversion process is the well-known conversion of coal plus
steam to CO and hydrogen, a mixture that used to be pumped around to
homes as cooking gas. SO the question will langish for an answer for a
very long time, since nuclear power, wind and water power, as well as
solar power will eventually be more economical than fossil fuel power.

Politics will need to steer economics so as to find the most acceptable
fuels/sources of power. Hence the debates, and the struggles between
economic interests.

Stay tuned <grin>.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> And asphalt costs what? Ten times that of installing concrete?

I think you inadvertently switched them. Bu I do get the drift.

> I can see it now: In an effort to increase the earth's albido,
> concrete is mandated. States with thousands of miles of two-lane
> Farm-To-Market or rural roads, each hosting 50 vehicles per day, are
> to be resurfaced. Two-lane concrete roadways cost a bit over $1
> million per mile to construct. (Asphalt is about $150,000 per mile and
> can be recycled.)

Concrete can be recycled as well, and I doubt that the cost differential
is as big as you say. And I note you have come down from a factor of 10
to a factor of less than 7.

> There are over 41,000 miles of Farm and Ranch roads in Texas.

I don't care about Texas (smile!!).

IMNSHO a lot can be done by altering our approach for future work just
slightly. This example is for moderate climates with freeze-thaw cycles,
like around New York. For instance, a road surface on a local village
road with good cracks in it (not HUGE, but just good cracks) can be
rather easily repaired well, using a little extra effort. Not just
slapping some asphalt repair stuff on it, and patting that down with a
shovel, but heating the old surface, patching it and sealing it with
liquid tar (whatever). The road could easily last another 10 years or
more then while the slapping patching stuff just lifts in a year or two.
Yes the initial repair is more than twice as costly, but it lasts much
more than 3 times as long. You get what you pay for!

Then when real resurfacing is needed, a decision could be made to hae a
lighter colored top layer. Many factors go into these choices, but
albedo could easily be included.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>, Han
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Despite the anomaly of a totally erroneous statement about retreating
>>glaciers in the Himalayas, most glaciers worldwide are indeed
>>retreating, for whatever reasons. In high school 50 years ago, the
>>Rhone glacier in Switzerland was already an example of sorts.
>>
> Ummmmm.... Don't look now, but retreating glaciers isn't anything new.
> About ten thousand years ago, the area where I sit as I type this was
> under half a mile of ice.
>
> Good friend of mine has a master's in geology, and obviously know more
> about this than I do, but according to him, we're actually still *in*
> the last Ice Age -- "normal" conditions, on a geologic time scale, are
> a *lot* warmer than we have now.

Yes Doug, you are indeed indicating that everything depends on the time
scale we are using. Greenland was named Greenland, because it was green
when the Vikings discovered it, not white. Also intermittently there
have been mini ice ages. So over what time frame do we average things
out? And how do we extrapolate?

The retreating of the glaciers and the rising of the sea level at
moderate latitudes has been explained by a rebound of the earth's (I am
confused, is the apostrophe correct here or not) surface because of the
lightening of the load of ice on Greenland and Scandinavia.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:4e998771-0846-42fc-babf-bdcea9e00028@f11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

> On Jan 31, 11:52 am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote
>> innews:[email protected]
> uy.com:
>>
>> > The question I want answered, that the greenies have never tried to
>> > address, is "Let's stipulate that everything you say is true.
>> >  Suppos
> e
>> > we let the whole thing run its course, burn up all the oil and coal
>> > and shale oil and whatnot.  At the end of that process where will
>> > we be?"
>>
>> That would take a very long time, and economics would largely prevent
>> it.
>  
>> Coal is extremely abundant, though the ost usable quality is not.
>>  You know of course that oil-poor countries such as Nazi Germany and
>> a prior version of South Africa used coal as a basis for producing
>> oil/gasoline.
>  
>
> The hospital I was born in, was right next to a 'Gas Fabriek" They
> made gas from coal and distributed to people's houses via pipes....
> and I'm not that old. I do remember the smell of sulphur.
> It looked a bit like this:
> http://img.mobypicture.com/edaafee47848114ca130f1812dfe4c9e_view.jpg

Yes I too remember the smell of sulfur by the gasfabriek in Wageningen.
What you show in the picture is the reservoir of the gas, which went up
and down as the supply increased or was used up.

This is a pdf of a story about Wageningen that you made me dig up (in
Dutch):
<http://wageningen.sp.nl/docs/070501_1_mei_wandeling_A5.pdf>

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:5bc1ece5-6110-41a9-a8e8-
[email protected]:

> On Jan 31, 12:37 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>  
>>
>> The retreating of the glaciers and the rising of the sea level at
>> moderate latitudes has been explained by a rebound of the earth's (I
am
>> confused, is the apostrophe correct here or not) surface because of
the
>> lightening of the load of ice on Greenland and Scandinavia.  
>>
>
> I am having a hard time getting my head around that theory. The
> earth's crust it (on a scale model) is thinner than the shell on an
> egg. All the ice and water at that scale would be invisibly thin.
> Earth, reduced to that size in scale would feel considerably smoother
> than an egg, in fact it would be impossible to find either the Mariana
> Trench or Everest by touch.
> Just the fact that we have shrunk the planet with communications, this
> is still Mother Earth.. a pretty big ball of stuff.

This was a theory when I was in high school (in Wageningen). Late 50's
to early 60's.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> It seems to me that those are pretty important questions -- that it
> never occurs to the AGWK proponents to ask. The whole notion of AGWK
> rests on two unproven, and probably incorrect, unconscious
> assumptions, in addition to the conscious, obvious, and equally
> unproven ones that the earth is warming, we're causing it, and we can
> do something about it. The unconscious assumptions are: 1) The current
> climate is "normal" 2) Any departure from the current climate is
> undesirable According to my friend the geologist, the current climate
> is definitely not "normal" when viewed at a geologic time scale. And
> there's reason to think that moderate warming is probably a good thing
> (think longer growing seasons).

Again, it's the time scale one uses to define normal. It was interesting
to see the Nat Geo show on the cycling of the desert conditions of the
Sahara. A 20,000 year cycle between lush greenery and desert, due to a
change in the angle of the earth's axis relative to the sun, superimposed
on the elliptical nature of the earth orbit. It was supposed to steer the
winds so that rain falls in the Sahara or not. Not sure whether I express
it correctly - please ask your geologist friend.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Politics only needs to "steer economics" if not doing so results in
> something horrible happening. I want to know if that is the case,
> hence my question. Waffling about it doesn't answer the question.

You ask for absolute certainty, sir? Please help me hold my belly!!
(figuratively, please!).

If there were certainty, we would be really wasting our bits here.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote in news:hk4ktm$fo6$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

> One of the molecular biologists over at Pioneer Hi-Bred told me that
> they (biologists) know how to do the gene splicing to produce
> bio-luminescence.

Yes, that is relatively simple. However, this luciferase is the protein
that catalyzes conversion of ATP to AMP with the production of light
(i.e. the glass of the lightbulb plus the socket). You also need a
source of ATP (like the electricity for the lightbulb) and the luciferin
that does the actual luminescing (the glowing filament in a bulb).

And then you get the kind of light of a firefly - weak and greenish. The
gene/protein geeks have made variants of different wavelengths, but it is
still not much lighting bang for the buck.

The major advantage is that you can hook this relatively small protein to
other proteins by gene splicing, and express the combined protein in
cells or animals. Then you can follow the fate of the protein by
microscope, and see how and under which conditions it moves between
(subcellular) compartments. This is exceedingly useful for research to
figure out if, how and why things happen. The movies are fantastic (for
a biologist). I don't think this is going to be the savior for
generalized lighting.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote in news:hk4mn1$id2$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

>> Hence the debates, and the struggles between economic interests.
>
> Hmm. Have you closely examined the /effects/ of debate? Have they
> resulted in real/meaningful/positive changes?
>
> To _whose_ economic interests do you refer?

I used the comma and the "and" above to indiccate independent things.
Apart from the debates (like we are having here), the coal industry, the
oil cartels, the "greenies", and the innocent consumer all are economc
interests that want to achieve goals that may somewhere along the line
conflict. Let's assume that your solar water pumps become reality on a
huge scale. Then the oil cartels might see them (you) as a threat to their
sale of their commodity. (I am exagerating of course - I do hope that your
pumps become a very useful alternative pronto!!!).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:000e17fe$0$2271
[email protected]:

>
> "Han" wrote:
>
>> What you show in the picture is the reservoir of the gas, which went
>> up
>> and down as the supply increased or was used up.
> --------
> Looks just like the one along side the I-405 here in L/A.
>
> Lew

And like the (in)famous Elmhurst gastanks next to the LIE in Queens.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>>
>> Concrete can be recycled as well, and I doubt that the cost
>> differential is as big as you say. And I note you have come down
>> from a factor of 10 to a factor of less than 7.
>
> Psst! Concrete is seldom recycled.

That's new to me. Shouldn't it be the aggregate in new concrete?

>>> There are over 41,000 miles of Farm and Ranch roads in Texas.
>>
>> I don't care about Texas (smile!!).
>
> You would if the federal government is to pay to replace all the
> asphalt roads with concrete. Some of the dump trucks used to haul sand
> and cement would have to be diverted to haul money from your state to
> mine.

Highway funds should go to railroads in the Northeast <smile>.

I walk/bike a few minutes to the NJTransit railroad station ("Radburn"),
then ride the trains at half fare (over 62) to either Hoboken or
Manhattan. I like railroads ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in news:08qdnZV-
[email protected]:

> Concrete would be extremely expensive in the north. It would have to be
> extensively repaired, if not replaced, each spring.

Not if it were poured by competent people, I think.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Put in a different way -- CO2 only absorbs energy in specific
> wavelengths
> of light (think of it as a filter the CO2 absorbs light in certain
> wavelengths and does not affect other wavelengths, letting that energy
> pass through with no impact). At some point, the maximum absorption
> in those wavelengths is reached and all of the energy in those narrow
> bands is being absorbed. Thereafter, it doesn't matter how much
> additional CO2 you pump into the system, no additional energy in those
> wavebands can be absorbed and CO2 has zero impact in other wavelengths
> of light.

Should be true if all light of that wavelength has been absorbed. Don't
know if and when that would happen. There might be very much light of
those wavelengths, more than crrently or in the near future would be
absorbed.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Somebody wrote:
>>
>>> Psst! Concrete is seldom recycled.
>>
>> BULL SHIT.
>>
>> If your eyes were not brown before, they are now.
>>
>
> Whatever. At least they're open.
>
> From the U.S. Geological Survey:
>
> "Aggregates produced from recycled concrete supply roughly 5 percent
> of the total aggregates market (more than 2 billion t per year), the
> rest being supplied by aggregates from natural sources such as crushed
> stone, sand, and gravel."
>
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0181-99/fs-0181-99so.pdf
>
> See also
> http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/sand_&_gravel_construc
> tion/590400.pdf
>
> Total aggregate usage: 1,120,000 (x 1,000) metric tons (Table 6)
> Total recycled asphalt and concrete: 7,210 (x 1,000) metric tons
> (Table 14)

PULLEAS!!!!
All that statistic says is that more aggregate is being used for concrete
production than can be supplied by recycled concrete/asphalt. (only ~
0.7% could be supplied by recycling). Seems to me at least. Don't
confuse us with incorrect data/conclusions.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote in news:hk4u48$t8l$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

> I'm not a biologist (IANAB?) but that _does_ sound fantastic. Movies?
> Can you post (or send) a video? With a voice-over to tell about what's
> shown? Please...

Someone in our division gave a talk of unpublished work showing time-lapse
movies like that. Two kinds of cells (tissue culture), identical but for
the absence of something fairly essential in one set. Movement of proteins
indicating movement of organelles was seen in the "wild-type" cells, but
not in the "mutants".

I have seen some more like that, but I don't have the references at hand.
I'll keep this in mind for a future posting. The voice-over I can't
promise.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote in news:hk5mks$7d0$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

> I didn't mean to impose on anyone and then realized that I was, and I'm
> not sure I wasn't out of line. It /does/ sound fantastic and exciting to
> be able to see, but I'd like to retract all the pushiness...

Curiosity is never pushy. The only bad question is the one you don't ask
(and should have asked). I am keeping your request in mind and just need
the right reference.

The reference LDosser gave above is sort of useful, but doesn't have
movies. It does prove the principle, tough, even in pigs, who are much
harder and more costly to work with than mice.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Light doesn't start fires, unless it is from a very powerful laser.
Luminescence doesn't come close by many factors of 10. AFAIK.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:5153f412-e363-4458-ae70-
[email protected]:

> ....adn they're usually busy opposing any- and everything the Obama
> administration is trying to accomplish.

Who is opposing what? Squealing pglets will oppose anything ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:0146eba6-b522-4ebf-98d5-
[email protected]:

> Do you remember Boer Koekoek van de Boeren Partij?
> (BK) "Ik ber er teugen."
> (reporter) "Waarom?"
> (BK) "Omdat ik er teugen ben."
>
> Translation: A politician stated he was against something, and a
> reporter asked him why. The answer was: "because I am against it.."

Yes, I remember Boer Koekoek (Farmer Cuckoo).
He lived in Bennekom, all of 3 miles from where I lived at the time. He
was the prototype of candidate for the protest voter. Garnered FARRR too
many votes, but luckily only once or twice. This was a big thing in
Holland, because of the large number of parties represented in the lower
chamber of parliament, and the necessity for coalition negotiations. His
impact was far greater than it should have been. As protest candidates
always have an impact out of proportion to their "contribution".

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:000f8e99$0$2260
[email protected]:

>
> "Han" wrote:
>
>> Who is opposing what? Squealing pglets will oppose anything ...
> -------------------------
> That's as good a description of the Republicans these days as any I
> guess.
>
> Lew

Thanks, Lew!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
>
> The CO2 seems to be the component that has changed most since the
> start of the industrial revolution, and as far as I can judge does
> have an undesirable effect. It is also probably the component that is
> easiest to limit. Methane has a far greater effect than CO2, but
> seems quantitatively less important. Not sure whether a tax on meat
> would help keep the cattle farting down. (sarcasm!!).

I need some proof that a trace gas has that much effect.

The CO2 in the atmosphere (0.003%) is equivalent to the blood stain left on
a football field after an official received 17 stab wounds when he made
three consecutive bad calls against the home team (i.e., less than two
square feet).

I suspect that if power plants exhaled Argon or Helium, proof would be
constructed that these gases are sealing our doom.



>
> Also, I think that changing black asphalt to white concrete in roads
> could have an effect, but I am not an engineer. Many other simple
> examples could be given to reduce energy consumption. Not the least
> of which is to stick it to the oil and gas producers in some
> countries ...

And asphalt costs what? Ten times that of installing concrete?

I can see it now: In an effort to increase the earth's albido, concrete is
mandated. States with thousands of miles of two-lane Farm-To-Market or rural
roads, each hosting 50 vehicles per day, are to be resurfaced. Two-lane
concrete roadways cost a bit over $1 million per mile to construct. (Asphalt
is about $150,000 per mile and can be recycled.)

There are over 41,000 miles of Farm and Ranch roads in Texas.

On Jan 30, 7:18=A0am, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com>
wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2010 12:18:17 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
> scrawled the following:
>
>
>
> >My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to this
> >American-Swiss scientific report. =A0The abstract/summary is freely
> >available at:
> ><http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488>. =A0Or
> >through the Digital Object Identifier site:
> ><http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488>
>
> >For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. =A0If anyone is truly
> >interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not
> >totally sure of the copyright rules.
>
> >Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated
> >interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it
> >appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe that
> >we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere).
>
> >Here is the summary:
>
> >Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rat=
e
> >of Global Warming
> >Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean
> >Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3
>
> >Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after th=
e
> >year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in
> >global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to
> >that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other
> >greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water
> >vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhance=
d
> >the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30%
> >compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that
> >stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal
> >global surface climate change.
>
> >1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division,
> >Boulder, CO, USA.
> >2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
> >University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
> >3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of
> >Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
>
> >Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication 12
> >January 2010.
>
> IOW, Mother Nature knows what to do and has been doing it to regulate
> the climate around her. I, too, feel that Man should tread more
> lightly on the Earth. For the most part, it is, but coal-fired power
> is still a ghastly unrepentant part of the process. =A0Spending billions
> to make "clean coal" is one of the greenies' dumbest concepts.

Actually, I think the "greenies" find it an offensive oxymoron.

It's the industry that's pushing it.

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:34:02 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> scrawled the following:

>In article <[email protected]>, Bob
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> in 133091 20100131 030530 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>
>> wrote:
>> >In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190
>> >> @newsfe13.iad:
>> >>
>> >> > Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll cut it
>> >> > WAY down.
>> >> > How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant?
>> >>
>> >> CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or glucose.
>> >> It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing, please make
>> >> sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended).
>> >
>> >There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas
>> >of any import.
>>
>> Please produce said evidence.
>
>
>Start here:
>
><http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm>
>
><http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/new-paper-in-nature-on-co2-amplif
>ication-its-less-than-we-thought/>
>
><http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html>
>
>After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine
>evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're being
>fed.

I'll give you odds that he denies validity...IF he says anything more.
;)

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

On Feb 1, 1:11=A0am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5bc1ece5-6110-41a9-a8e8-eb08fd1a21ac@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 31, 12:37 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The retreating of the glaciers and the rising of the sea level at
> > moderate latitudes has been explained by a rebound of the earth's (I am
> > confused, is the apostrophe correct here or not) surface because of the
> > lightening of the load of ice on Greenland and Scandinavia.
>
> I am having a hard time getting my head around that theory. The
> earth's crust it (on a scale model) is thinner than the shell on an
> egg. All the ice and water at that scale would be invisibly thin.
> Earth, reduced to that size in scale would feel considerably smoother
> than an egg, in fact it would be impossible to find either the Mariana
> Trench or Everest by touch.
> Just the fact that we have shrunk the planet with communications, this
> is still Mother Earth.. a pretty big ball of stuff.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_reboundfor a decent
> explanation.

Fascinating. I had no idea. Considering my fascination with those
sorts of things, I'm surprised I missed that one. Never too old, eh?
I knew that Georgian Bay was moving upwards and that the mantle was
constantly rearranging itself, but I wasn't aware of the actual reason.

On Feb 1, 10:58=A0pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5153f412-e363-4458-ae70-2b94aa3e45f0@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 1, 9:08 am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:> Morris Dovey <mrdo...@=
iedu.com> wrote in news:hk5mks$7d0$1
> > @speranza.aioe.org:
>
> > > I didn't mean to impose on anyone and then realized that I was, and I=
'm
> > > not sure I wasn't out of line. It /does/ sound fantastic and exciting=
to
> > > be able to see, but I'd like to retract all the pushiness...
>
> > Curiosity is never pushy. The only bad question is the one you don't as=
k
> > (and should have asked). I am keeping your request in mind and just nee=
d
> > the right reference.
>
> > The reference LDosser gave above is sort of useful, but doesn't have
> > movies. It does prove the principle, tough, even in pigs, who are much
> > harder and more costly to work with than mice.
>
> ....adn they're usually busy opposing any- and everything the Obama
> administration is trying to accomplish.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> The mice or the pigs or both?

Depends on whether four legs are worse than two?

On Jan 30, 9:18=A0am, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com>
wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2010 12:18:17 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
> scrawled the following:
>
>
>
>
>
> >My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to this
> >American-Swiss scientific report. =A0The abstract/summary is freely
> >available at:
> ><http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488>. =A0Or
> >through the Digital Object Identifier site:
> ><http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488>
>
> >For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. =A0If anyone is truly
> >interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not
> >totally sure of the copyright rules.
>
> >Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated
> >interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it
> >appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe that
> >we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere).
>
> >Here is the summary:
>
> >Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rat=
e
> >of Global Warming
> >Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean
> >Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3
>
> >Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after th=
e
> >year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in
> >global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to
> >that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other
> >greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water
> >vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhance=
d
> >the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30%
> >compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that
> >stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal
> >global surface climate change.
>
> >1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division,
> >Boulder, CO, USA.
> >2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
> >University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
> >3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of
> >Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
>
> >Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication 12
> >January 2010.
>
> IOW, Mother Nature knows what to do and has been doing it to regulate
> the climate around her. I, too, feel that Man should tread more
> lightly on the Earth. For the most part, it is, but coal-fired power
> is still a ghastly unrepentant part of the process. =A0Spending billions
> to make "clean coal" is one of the greenies' dumbest concepts.
>

What a mouth-full. Clean Coal...WTF??? Has anyone ever looked at coal
up close? You have any idea what kinda shit is in that stuff?
Sure it's a great gob of carbon, but...

I am not an alarmist about AGW.. but I DO believe we need to be nice
to the planet. That whole Rainforest butcher job is a real problem.
There is no need to pollute the oceans. Bad stewardship is just that.
Stupid management of our one-and-only planet.
I have done some travelling and I have seen what stupid people do with
their drinking water.... they shit in it. Not smart.
But... one does not deserve the 'greenie' label when one is aware of
bad habits. I am no Ed Begley and never will be.
Eat what you kill, turn into furniture what you chop down or build a
house.

Han wrote:
> My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to
> this American-Swiss scientific report. The abstract/summary is freely
> available at:
> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488>. Or
> through the Digital Object Identifier site:
> <http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488>
>
> For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. If anyone is truly
> interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not
> totally sure of the copyright rules.
>
> Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated
> interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it
> appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe
> that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere).

But who is the "we" and what is to be done about it? The US is not the
major producer of CO2 and the US could stop producing CO2 completely without
having any effect whatsoever other than slowing the rate of increase a tiny
amount. Would you fight a nuclear war with the largest producer if that is
what it took to make _them_ stop?

>
> Here is the summary:
>
> Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the
> Rate of Global Warming
> Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean
> Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3
>
> Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after
> the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of
> increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25%
> compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide
> and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that
> stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000,
> which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during
> the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change.
> These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an
> important driver of decadal global surface climate change.
>
> 1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division,
> Boulder, CO, USA.
> 2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
> University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
> 3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of
> Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
>
> Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication
> 12 January 2010.

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:11:29 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> But who is the "we" and what is to be done about it? The US is not the
> major producer of CO2 and the US could stop producing CO2 completely
> without having any effect whatsoever other than slowing the rate of
> increase a tiny amount. Would you fight a nuclear war with the largest
> producer if that is what it took to make _them_ stop?
>
In 2006, China produced 21.5% of the worlds CO2 emissions. The US
produced 20.2%. So our stopping would reduce emissions only a "little
bit"? I cite:

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

If you have conflicting evidence, please produce it.

BTW, considering the difference in population, the US is far ahead of
China in emissions per capita.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2010 12:18:17 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
> scrawled the following:
>
>> My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to
>> this American-Swiss scientific report. The abstract/summary is
>> freely available at:
>> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488>. Or
>> through the Digital Object Identifier site:
>> <http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488>
>>
>> For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. If anyone is truly
>> interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm
>> not totally sure of the copyright rules.
>>
>> Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated
>> interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it
>> appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe
>> that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere).
>>
>> Here is the summary:
>>
>> Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the
>> Rate of Global Warming
>> Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean
>> Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3
>>
>> Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10%
>> after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate
>> of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about
>> 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon
>> dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that
>> stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000,
>> which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during
>> the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change.
>> These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an
>> important driver of decadal global surface climate change.
>>
>> 1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division,
>> Boulder, CO, USA.
>> 2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
>> University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
>> 3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of
>> Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
>>
>> Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication
>> 12 January 2010.
>
> IOW, Mother Nature knows what to do and has been doing it to regulate
> the climate around her. I, too, feel that Man should tread more
> lightly on the Earth. For the most part, it is, but coal-fired power
> is still a ghastly unrepentant part of the process. Spending billions
> to make "clean coal" is one of the greenies' dumbest concepts.

Yes, it's called negative feedback and if the earth was so unstable as to
come crashing down from what man could do then most likely we wouldn't be
here in the first place. It's very arrogant or just plain ignorant to
believe than mankind can compete with the power of mother nature.

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:25:44 -0600, Jon Slaughter wrote:

> Yes, it's called negative feedback and if the earth was so unstable as
> to come crashing down from what man could do then most likely we
> wouldn't be here in the first place.

Let's see. The world's population doubles on average every 60-65 years.
That probably only holds true since the Black Death, but you get the
idea. Not too mention the fact that the Industrial Revolution is a
recent thing as history goes.

But you seem to equate the damage we can do today with the minor affect
of a few million or less primitive homo saps and claim that since they
didn't die out anything we can do today isn't going to hurt.

Your argument is ridiculous.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 1/30/2010 6:52 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:

> Cleaning up the worst pollution on the planet? I'm for it. Let's start
> with China, India and Africa.

Our own is easier to get at; but let's consider helping China, India,
Africa, Bangladesh,...

Perhaps we can expand our vision of the possible and perhaps, just
perhaps, we can come up with some practical technologies to improve
_everyone's_ situation.

Or were you thinking that perhaps Exxon, Chevron, BP et al will jump to
the fore and wave their corporate magic wands? :-/

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 1/30/2010 7:44 PM, HeyBub wrote:

> You'll note the richest countries generate the least pollution. In the main,
> that takes energy to do so. Cutting back on energy production will worsen
> pollution.

Good point. Perhaps the poorest countries need some more appropriate
means of producing the energy they use for warming their homes, cooking
their food, increasing their agricultural production.

I don't thing they need anyone to do it for 'em - perhaps they just need
for the technologically-advanced (richest) countries to show 'em how...

> We can eliminate, for example, electric stoves - thereby cutting down on the
> amount of coal necessary to produce power - and all cook our meals over
> charcoal braziers. There goes the neighborhood.

We could, but don't need to - but already in undeveloped areas people
are eager to cook without having to gather fuel, and to improve their
own neighborhoods. Increasing numbers are doing just that. :)

There's nothing wrong with using electricity to cook, but there are
other ways - and, people being the inventive critters we are, we will
find more ways still to fry our bacon...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 1/30/2010 9:06 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Or were you thinking that perhaps Exxon, Chevron, BP et al will jump to
>> the fore and wave their corporate magic wands? :-/
>
> They're all there in the cap and trade market push, Morris. Every
> single one of them.

So? There _is_ a choice: either give them their corporacracy or build a
future in which they play much diminished roles.

Everybody gets to make their own choice.

[ Suggested reading: "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" , by John
Perkins ISBN#978-0-452-28708-2 ]

Choose wisely.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Han wrote:
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in
> news:310120100434024828%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bob
>> Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> in 133091 20100131 030530 Dave Balderstone
>>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190 @newsfe13.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours -
>>>>>> that'll cut it WAY down.
>>>>>> How in the hell did the consequences of living become a
>>>>>> pollutant?
>>>>>
>>>>> CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or
>>>>> glucose. It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop
>>>>> breathing, please make sure your remains do not keep on producing
>>>>> CO2. (Humor intended).
>>>>
>>>> There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse
>>>> gas of any import.
>>>
>>> Please produce said evidence.
>>
>>
>> Start here:
>>
>> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm>
>>
>> <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/new-paper-in-nature-on-co2-ampli
>> f ication-its-less-than-we-thought/>
>>
>> <http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html>
>>
>> After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine
>> evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're
>> being fed.
>
> Per molecule CO2 is ot a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and some
> others are much better. But if you have a million more mlecules of
> CO2 than methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce the number of
> molecules of CO2, than let's go for imiting CO2.
>
> Many ifs, I know. But the advantages of reducing the use of fossil
> fuels are many. And if it is done through increased efficiency or
> switching to non-polluting systems like Morris' solar water pumps,
> than all the better. Morris is showing that it is a technological
> thinking leap that is needed, not new sources of (for instance) rare
> earth metals.

Something that a lot of people don't "get" is that CO2 from biological
sources such as respiration is recycled so there's not a net increase. As
for methane, methane is a fuel, it reacts with air and produces CO2 and
water, sometimes rapidly in a fire, sometimes more slowly.

The question I want answered, that the greenies have never tried to address,
is "Let's stipulate that everything you say is true. Suppose we let the
whole thing run its course, burn up all the oil and coal and shale oil and
whatnot. At the end of that process where will we be?"

Han wrote:
> I have to proofread better. My kayboard is not always transmitting
> what I type, here I fill in the missing letters ...
>
> Per molecule CO2 is not a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and
> some others are much better. But if you have a million TIMES more
> molecules of CO2 than of methane, and if it is indeed easier to
> reduce the number of molecules of CO2, than let's go for limiting CO2.
>
> Many ifs, I know. But the advantages of reducing the use of fossil
> fuels are many. And if it is done through increased efficiency or
> switching to non-polluting systems like Morris' solar water pumps,
> than all the better. Morris is showing that it is a technological
> thinking leap that is needed, not new sources of (for instance) rare
> earth metals.

If we could magically make every energy system in the world 200 percent
efficient it would not come close to hitting the IPCC targets. If this is a
problem of the magnitude they are claiming, it's not going to be fixed by
driving a Prius and using fluorescent light bulbs.

Han wrote:
...

> Per molecule CO2 is ot a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and some
> others are much better. But if you have a million more mlecules of CO2
> than methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce the number of
> molecules of CO2, than let's go for imiting CO2.
>
...
But CO2 is also very specific in the wavelengths it absorbs and it
doesn't take much to make incremental changes in concentration to have
less actual effect. Data indicates concentrations are at point of
already being past the knee of the curve. If so, won't make much
difference at all either way.

--

dpb wrote:
> Han wrote:
> ...
>
>> Per molecule CO2 is ot a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and some
>> others are much better. But if you have a million more mlecules of
>> CO2 than methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce the number of
>> molecules of CO2, than let's go for imiting CO2.
>>
> ...
> But CO2 is also very specific in the wavelengths it absorbs and it
> doesn't take much to make incremental changes in concentration to have
> less actual effect. Data indicates concentrations are at point of
> already being past the knee of the curve. If so, won't make much
> difference at all either way.

What "knee" of what "curve"?

J. Clarke wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> Han wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Per molecule CO2 is ot a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and some
>>> others are much better. But if you have a million more mlecules of
>>> CO2 than methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce the number of
>>> molecules of CO2, than let's go for imiting CO2.
>>>
>> ...
>> But CO2 is also very specific in the wavelengths it absorbs and it
>> doesn't take much to make incremental changes in concentration to have
>> less actual effect. Data indicates concentrations are at point of
>> already being past the knee of the curve. If so, won't make much
>> difference at all either way.
>
> What "knee" of what "curve"?

Differential light absorption<-->energy attenuation vs concentration is
exponential. Very low concentrations-->high (relatively) attenuation vs
concentration but reaches a plateau where adding further makes
successively little difference as the particular wavelengths are already
heavily filtered. Roughly, it's ~exp(u/x)

--

On 1/31/2010 8:22 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

> The question I want answered, that the greenies have never tried to address,
> is "Let's stipulate that everything you say is true. Suppose we let the
> whole thing run its course, burn up all the oil and coal and shale oil and
> whatnot. At the end of that process where will we be?"

It's a good question, and I don't think there is a single answer. Where
we will be, necessarily, will be determined by the choices we make
between now and then.

I suspect, and of course have no way of knowing, that we will not
completely consume all fuel resources - but I extrapolate that as each
resource becomes less readily available it will become increasingly
costly, and so diminish in terms of common usage.

As that happens, either the usage (what people accomplished with that
particular resource) will be discontinued, or another resource or
another means of accomplishing that goal will be adopted.

Such a scenario leaves a lot of room for all kinds of choices, and I'm
not convinced that being a "greenie" (or not being a greenie) has much
to do with that answer.

Those future choices will be influenced by the importance attached to
"green-ness" of each person's outlook at the time - and, FWIW, I don't
think "green" is a binary attribute.

To me the more interesting questions are "Where do we _want_ to be in
five, ten, a hundred, or a thousand years from now?" and "What choices
need to be made, and by when, for those visions to be realized?"

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Larry Jaques wrote:
...

> I haven't yet read all of this paper, but it looks like a fair
> analysis. (Well, except for the dead polar bear pic. Har!)
> http://brneurosci.org/co2.html It has a CO2 absorption chart. Please
> describe what you're talking about via the chart, or show another one
> to which you refer.

...

I've not read any of it, but Fig 4 shows the effect. (Whether the fits
are meaningful quantitatively is another question, but the shape is...)

--

In article <[email protected]>, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Despite the anomaly of a totally erroneous statement about retreating
>glaciers in the Himalayas, most glaciers worldwide are indeed retreating,
>for whatever reasons. In high school 50 years ago, the Rhone glacier in
>Switzerland was already an example of sorts.
>
Ummmmm.... Don't look now, but retreating glaciers isn't anything new. About
ten thousand years ago, the area where I sit as I type this was under half a
mile of ice.

Good friend of mine has a master's in geology, and obviously know more about
this than I do, but according to him, we're actually still *in* the last Ice
Age -- "normal" conditions, on a geologic time scale, are a *lot* warmer than
we have now.

dpb wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
>>> Han wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Per molecule CO2 is ot a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and
>>>> some others are much better. But if you have a million more
>>>> mlecules of CO2 than methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce
>>>> the number of molecules of CO2, than let's go for imiting CO2.
>>>>
>>> ...
>>> But CO2 is also very specific in the wavelengths it absorbs and it
>>> doesn't take much to make incremental changes in concentration to
>>> have less actual effect. Data indicates concentrations are at
>>> point of already being past the knee of the curve. If so, won't
>>> make much difference at all either way.
>>
>> What "knee" of what "curve"?
>
> Differential light absorption<-->energy attenuation vs concentration
> is exponential. Very low concentrations-->high (relatively)
> attenuation vs concentration but reaches a plateau where adding
> further makes successively little difference as the particular
> wavelengths are already heavily filtered. Roughly, it's ~exp(u/x)

Nice bafflegab. Now try it in terms of its environmental effect.

In article <[email protected]>, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Despite the anomaly of a totally erroneous statement about retreating
>>>glaciers in the Himalayas, most glaciers worldwide are indeed
>>>retreating, for whatever reasons. In high school 50 years ago, the
>>>Rhone glacier in Switzerland was already an example of sorts.
>>>
>> Ummmmm.... Don't look now, but retreating glaciers isn't anything new.
>> About ten thousand years ago, the area where I sit as I type this was
>> under half a mile of ice.
>>
>> Good friend of mine has a master's in geology, and obviously know more
>> about this than I do, but according to him, we're actually still *in*
>> the last Ice Age -- "normal" conditions, on a geologic time scale, are
>> a *lot* warmer than we have now.
>
>Yes Doug, you are indeed indicating that everything depends on the time
>scale we are using. Greenland was named Greenland, because it was green
>when the Vikings discovered it, not white. Also intermittently there
>have been mini ice ages. So over what time frame do we average things
>out? And how do we extrapolate?

It seems to me that those are pretty important questions -- that it never
occurs to the AGWK proponents to ask. The whole notion of AGWK rests on two
unproven, and probably incorrect, unconscious assumptions, in addition to the
conscious, obvious, and equally unproven ones that the earth is warming, we're
causing it, and we can do something about it. The unconscious assumptions are:
1) The current climate is "normal"
2) Any departure from the current climate is undesirable
According to my friend the geologist, the current climate is definitely not
"normal" when viewed at a geologic time scale. And there's reason to think
that moderate warming is probably a good thing (think longer growing seasons).

Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> The question I want answered, that the greenies have never tried to
>> address, is "Let's stipulate that everything you say is true.
>> Suppose we let the whole thing run its course, burn up all the oil
>> and coal and shale oil and whatnot. At the end of that process
>> where will we be?"
>
> That would take a very long time, and economics would largely prevent
> it. Coal is extremely abundant, though the ost usable quality is not.
> You know of course that oil-poor countries such as Nazi Germany and a
> prior version of South Africa used coal as a basis for producing
> oil/gasoline. Another conversion process is the well-known conversion
> of coal plus steam to CO and hydrogen, a mixture that used to be
> pumped around to homes as cooking gas. SO the question will langish
> for an answer for a very long time, since nuclear power, wind and
> water power, as well as solar power will eventually be more
> economical than fossil fuel power.
>
> Politics will need to steer economics so as to find the most
> acceptable fuels/sources of power. Hence the debates, and the
> struggles between economic interests.

Politics only needs to "steer economics" if not doing so results in
something horrible happening. I want to know if that is the case, hence my
question. Waffling about it doesn't answer the question.

Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jan 31, 9:10 am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 1/31/2010 8:22 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> The question I want answered, that the greenies have never tried to
>>> address, is "Let's stipulate that everything you say is true.
>>> Suppose we let the whole thing run its course, burn up all the oil
>>> and coal and shale oil and whatnot. At the end of that process
>>> where will we be?"
>>
>> It's a good question, and I don't think there is a single answer.
>> Where we will be, necessarily, will be determined by the choices we
>> make between now and then.
>>
>> I suspect, and of course have no way of knowing, that we will not
>> completely consume all fuel resources - but I extrapolate that as
>> each resource becomes less readily available it will become
>> increasingly costly, and so diminish in terms of common usage.
>>
>> As that happens, either the usage (what people accomplished with that
>> particular resource) will be discontinued, or another resource or
>> another means of accomplishing that goal will be adopted.
>>
>> Such a scenario leaves a lot of room for all kinds of choices, and
>> I'm not convinced that being a "greenie" (or not being a greenie)
>> has much to do with that answer.
>>
>> Those future choices will be influenced by the importance attached to
>> "green-ness" of each person's outlook at the time - and, FWIW, I
>> don't think "green" is a binary attribute.
>>
>> To me the more interesting questions are "Where do we _want_ to be in
>> five, ten, a hundred, or a thousand years from now?" and "What
>> choices need to be made, and by when, for those visions to be
>> realized?"
>
> Well said.
>
> The other thing that is NOT binary is the pricing of the finite
> resources as they become less and less plentiful (whether that's in
> terms of absolute supply or the costs of extraction, refinement, and
> delivery).
>
> Or ... simple market manipulation by the monopoly currently in
> control.
>
> As that cost-to-consumer curve steepens, carnage ensues. We saw it,
> in micro, as gas reached -- what -- four bucks a gallon, rather
> recently?
>
> Jobs are lost. Industries are wiped out. LIVES are horrifically
> impacted.
>
> The much vaunted "market" will take an immeasurable toll on real human
> beings if we let it play out, vis-a-vis fossil fuels.

I'm not looking for "if we diddle with this or that", I'm looking for worst
case--we make the worst plausible choices with fossil fuels, we use them all
up, so there are no longer any fossil fuels in existence to put CO2 into the
atmosphere, what happens to the environment? It's a simple question and if
the climatologists can't or won't answer it then someone needs to hold their
feet to the fire until they can.

Spending trillions of dollars "fixing" a problem when we don't know the
consequences of not spending it is _crazy_.

Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> And asphalt costs what? Ten times that of installing concrete?
>
> I think you inadvertently switched them. Bu I do get the drift.
>
>> I can see it now: In an effort to increase the earth's albido,
>> concrete is mandated. States with thousands of miles of two-lane
>> Farm-To-Market or rural roads, each hosting 50 vehicles per day, are
>> to be resurfaced. Two-lane concrete roadways cost a bit over $1
>> million per mile to construct. (Asphalt is about $150,000 per mile
>> and can be recycled.)
>
> Concrete can be recycled as well, and I doubt that the cost
> differential is as big as you say. And I note you have come down
> from a factor of 10 to a factor of less than 7.

Albedo be damned, if using concrete results in roads that don't have to be
rebuilt every ten years or so then I'm all for it. The Romans built roads
through swamps that Moshe Dayan could drive tanks over 2000 years later, but
we can't build roads in a desert that you can drive a Jeep over 50 years
later (try to follow the original path of Route 66 if you disbelieve).

>> There are over 41,000 miles of Farm and Ranch roads in Texas.
>
> I don't care about Texas (smile!!).
>
> IMNSHO a lot can be done by altering our approach for future work just
> slightly. This example is for moderate climates with freeze-thaw
> cycles, like around New York. For instance, a road surface on a
> local village road with good cracks in it (not HUGE, but just good
> cracks) can be rather easily repaired well, using a little extra
> effort. Not just slapping some asphalt repair stuff on it, and
> patting that down with a shovel, but heating the old surface,
> patching it and sealing it with liquid tar (whatever). The road
> could easily last another 10 years or more then while the slapping
> patching stuff just lifts in a year or two. Yes the initial repair is
> more than twice as costly, but it lasts much more than 3 times as
> long. You get what you pay for!
>
> Then when real resurfacing is needed, a decision could be made to hae
> a lighter colored top layer. Many factors go into these choices, but
> albedo could easily be included.

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:30:00 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:



>
> Uh, are we gone yet? Were we gone when it went from 500,000,000 to 1B,
> or 1B to 2B, 2-4, or 4-6B? Um, no.
>
>>> That probably only holds true since the Black Death, but you get the
>>> idea. Not too mention the fact that the Industrial Revolution is a
>>> recent thing as history goes.
>>>
>>> But you seem to equate the damage we can do today with the minor
>>> affect of a few million or less primitive homo saps and claim that
>>> since they didn't die out anything we can do today isn't going to
>>> hurt.
>>>
>>> Your argument is ridiculous.
>
> And your Malthusian rants aren't, Larry? ;)
>

My rants? Your response totally ignored the text I was responding to.


Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:11:29 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>> But who is the "we" and what is to be done about it? The US is not the
>> major producer of CO2 and the US could stop producing CO2 completely
>> without having any effect whatsoever other than slowing the rate of
>> increase a tiny amount. Would you fight a nuclear war with the largest
>> producer if that is what it took to make _them_ stop?
>>
> In 2006, China produced 21.5% of the worlds CO2 emissions. The US
> produced 20.2%. So our stopping would reduce emissions only a "little
> bit"? I cite:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
>
> If you have conflicting evidence, please produce it.
>
> BTW, considering the difference in population, the US is far ahead of
> China in emissions per capita.
>

Well, Mr. Clarke has posted many missives to this group since my post
above, and none of those have responded to it. I assume that means he
has no conflicting evidence and was merely spouting BS. Typical.

J. Clarke wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> dpb wrote:
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Per molecule CO2 is ot a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and
>>>>> some others are much better. But if you have a million more
>>>>> mlecules of CO2 than methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce
>>>>> the number of molecules of CO2, than let's go for imiting CO2.
>>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> But CO2 is also very specific in the wavelengths it absorbs and it
>>>> doesn't take much to make incremental changes in concentration to
>>>> have less actual effect. Data indicates concentrations are at
>>>> point of already being past the knee of the curve. If so, won't
>>>> make much difference at all either way.
>>> What "knee" of what "curve"?
>> Differential light absorption<-->energy attenuation vs concentration
>> is exponential. Very low concentrations-->high (relatively)
>> attenuation vs concentration but reaches a plateau where adding
>> further makes successively little difference as the particular
>> wavelengths are already heavily filtered. Roughly, it's ~exp(u/x)
>
> Nice bafflegab. Now try it in terms of its environmental effect.

Thanks...

Means differential increase in CO2 hasn't nearly the effect in
influencing further effects as did/does at much lower concentrations.
Hence, isn't any great net effect either way of either increasing nor
decreasing concentrations from present point.

--

On 1/31/2010 8:25 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

> If this is a problem of the magnitude they are claiming, it's not
> going to be fixed by driving a Prius and using fluorescent light
> bulbs.

Fair enough. If this is a problem of /any/ magnitude, and if we have no
"magic bullet" solution at hand - then it would seem wise to consider
partial solutions that, in aggregate, might produce an acceptable
outcome at an acceptable cost.

I would also seem wise to continue the search for "magic bullets" _and_
to find /more/ partial solutions to increase the probability of a
favorable outcome.

At present, it appears to me that the magic bullets all require some
kind of breakthrough development, and the drawback to breakthroughs is
that they don't seem to happen on any kind of predictable schedule -
then next could come later today, or it could come five hundred years
from now...

The partial solutions appear to be incremental in nature. The first CFL
bulbs to hit the market weren't all that reliable, the current crop seem
to be better, and over the next (small number of) years we can expect
them to improve significantly. I'm seeing the same kind of progression
for LED lighting, with luminosity/watt being the improvement factor.

One of the molecular biologists over at Pioneer Hi-Bred told me that
they (biologists) know how to do the gene splicing to produce
bio-luminescence. Goof ball that I am, I envision street lighting with
glowing trees - and can't help wondering just how much light might be
coaxed out of a plant. (Might I light my living room with a few
well-placed ficus plants? If we produced bio-luminescent grass for safer
parks might kids come home with glow-in-the-dark knees and elbows?) :)

I think you're right about driving a Prius and using CFL bulbs. They're
/not/ enough - one of the interesting challenges of the 21st century
will be finding a whole spectrum of improved technologies so that
whether the IPCC is /generally/ right or /generally/ wrong, the people
of the 22nd century find more right in their time than we do in ours.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

J. Clarke wrote:
...
> Albedo be damned, if using concrete results in roads that don't have to be
> rebuilt every ten years or so then I'm all for it. The Romans built roads
> through swamps that Moshe Dayan could drive tanks over 2000 years later, but
> we can't build roads in a desert that you can drive a Jeep over 50 years
> later (try to follow the original path of Route 66 if you disbelieve).
...

Caesar didn't have quite the same labor contract w/ the unions... :)

--

Han wrote:
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Despite the anomaly of a totally erroneous statement about
>>> retreating glaciers in the Himalayas, most glaciers worldwide are
>>> indeed retreating, for whatever reasons. In high school 50 years
>>> ago, the Rhone glacier in Switzerland was already an example of
>>> sorts.
>>>
>> Ummmmm.... Don't look now, but retreating glaciers isn't anything
>> new. About ten thousand years ago, the area where I sit as I type
>> this was under half a mile of ice.
>>
>> Good friend of mine has a master's in geology, and obviously know
>> more about this than I do, but according to him, we're actually
>> still *in* the last Ice Age -- "normal" conditions, on a geologic
>> time scale, are a *lot* warmer than we have now.
>
> Yes Doug, you are indeed indicating that everything depends on the
> time scale we are using. Greenland was named Greenland, because it
> was green when the Vikings discovered it, not white. Also
> intermittently there have been mini ice ages. So over what time
> frame do we average things out? And how do we extrapolate?
>
> The retreating of the glaciers and the rising of the sea level at
> moderate latitudes has been explained by a rebound of the earth's (I
> am confused, is the apostrophe correct here or not) surface because
> of the lightening of the load of ice on Greenland and Scandinavia.

The ice age started something like either 20 million or 2.5 million years
ago (depending on whether you count the start of Antarctic glaciation or of
Northern Hemisphere glaciation) and has gone through a roughly 100,000 year
cycle in which the Northern Hemisphere glaciers advance and retreat. Right
now we appear, according to the ice cores, to be chronologically near a
point of maximum retreat. The last time that point was reached, most of the
glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere went away, including pretty much the
entire Greenland icecap (that's why you can core down only 100,000 years or
so in Greenland but more than half a million in Antarctica). Once they went
away, the cooling started again and the glaciers started advancing again.

All that being the case, it's not surprising that the Greenland ice cap is
melting and it doesn't seem to me to be anything to be alarmed about.

So, the question is not "is anthropogenic carbon dioxide causing the
glaciers to melt"--they'd be melting sometime around now anyway, so who
gives a damn other than alarmists? The question is "will the next
glaciation be any different from the previous one due to anthropogenic
carbon dioxide emissions", and the possible answers there are "no, it
won't", in which case who gives a damn, or "it will be milder than the
previous one" in which case "goody-goody", or "it will flip the Earth back
to the normal no-glaciers state that existed over most of its history" in
which case it's going to be an expensive transition but should be stable for
a few tens of millions of years at least, maybe longer. Of course it could
be that the next glaciation will be harsher and colder and with much greater
glacier advance than the previous one, but that's kind of difficult to
reconcile with the notion of "warming".