Han wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>> ... snip
>>>
>>>> Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
>>>> expensive....
>>>
... snip
>>
>> If you are doing it to save money, that's one thing. If you think
>> you are saving the planet, you've been hoodwinked.
>
> One does not exclde the other. Do not demean the "rush" of realizing
> you're doing something "good" <grin>.
>
Ahh, the Church of Global warming. Repentance, penance, and absolution
(carbon credits). I get it
>>> All in my opinion, of course! And I do leave my computers on too
>>> much <grin>.
>>>
>>
>> One of the biggest wasters of resources is the idiotic "sleep mode"
>> on copiers and printers at places of business. It takes on the order
>> of minutes for those things to wake up while the person using them has
>> to wait. When you compute the cost of the person's time vs. the
>> electricity savings, the electricity savings pale in comparison.
>> That's a real drag on productivity and output
>
> That's true for a gadget that is used every few minutes, or at least
> every half hour on a 24/7 basis. I was more thinking of the TV being
> really on while everyone is asleep or at work. Or the copier is on
> during the long weekend.
Over weekends and at night I'll buy.
> (Our copier at work goes into deep sleep when
> not used in an hour or so, so then it is less of a factor).
... and that's where the problem lies. One hour, two hours, during the
business day -- that is what is really expensive. Even if the copier takes
1 kW (not true, but I don't have the numbers to hand) in idle mode -- that
is at most 20 cents worth of electricity (50 cents in California probably).
OTOH, the employee waiting for that copier to wake up from deep sleep --
typically 3 to 5 minutes can easily cost on the order of $3 to $5 worth of
time once you figure labor and overhead into the time accounting for that
person. It becomes even more expensive when the copies are critical for
some last-minute deadline and one has to wait for the copier to "wake up"
because it was idle for more than an hour.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On May 17, 7:45 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?
>
> Why not?......Is the capture and storage cost prohibitive?......Are not
> rising levels of CO2 simply the release of naturally stored CO2?
>
>
No, the rising levels are a consequence of the conversion
of fossil carbon and carbon compounds, mostly fossil fuels,
to carbon dioxide. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon
dioxide is about half of that produced by burning fossil fuels
If fossil fuel burning stopped today, the concentration in
the atmosphere would begin dropping tomorrow..
Aside from that balance, there is also the Seuss effect.
--
FF
On May 21, 6:41 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 21, 6:28 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <a0d1462b-3a9f-4246-b5ed-f942094a3...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >Can you show how a conclusion that temperature
> >> >changes are independent of carbon dioxide concentrations
> >> >is consistent with known physics?
>
> >> Can you show how an effect preceding a cause is consistent with basic
> >> logic????
>
> >No, nor do I see the relevance regarding possible future temperature
> >changes. Can you explain?
>
> If you need it explained to you that causes precede effects, rather than the
> other way around, there's really no point in continuing the discussion.
Perhaps I don;t understand your position at all. Can you explain
the relevance regarding the future effect of present increases in
Carbon dioxide concentration?
--
FF
On May 17, 9:34=A0am, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?
>
> Use it to insulate the nuclear waste dumps instead. =A0The rest can be use=
d to
> fertilize the trees that hold the Spotted Owl.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. Spotted Owl has hardly any
meat on them.
On May 24, 1:28 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <536b2b92-838c-4885-ad7d-b5cfb5b3c...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 22, 10:35 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <28b688af-5920-46db-ae3d-fc1f2691f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
> >> >the concentration of carbon dioxide.
>
> >> Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean) decreases as
> >> temperature increases.
>
> >Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
> >as they warmed?
>
> That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise
> *after* temperature rises.
Regardless, what is *your* explanation?
>
> >> >2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
> >> >to the greenhouse effect?
>
> >> Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
> >> temperatures, not the cause.
>
> >Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect
> >on temperature?
>
> Is it your contention that effects precede causes?
Do you always respond to a question with question or only
when you don't want to answer the question?
Now, regarding your question, If tachyons exist, yes.
The last I heard, there was no evidence that they do.
So right now I would say no.
Now, how I'll rephrase so we can see if you evade answering the
question again:
Do greenhouse gases affect temperature?
There are people who deny the validity of the greenhouse effect.
I don't know if you are one of those, but I would like to know.
> Remember, this all started
> when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing
> temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes
> *first*.
No, you pointed out that in the ice core data, it *came*
first.
You never addressed what happens if carbon dioxide
concentrations were to rise independently of a temperature
change.
--
FF
On May 18, 12:13 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
> >very convincing.
>
> Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous temperature
> increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. Kinda hard to show a
> cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed "cause" follows the "effect".
Yes really. Thermodynamics and molecular spectroscopy provides
that scientific basis, not meteorlogical or geological records.
The greenhouse effect is on a sound theoretical footing. Climate
change is not.
You are confusing causality with correlation--So does Al Gore.
>
> >Is CO2 the worst of the gases?
The are neither good, nor bad. Although without a greenhouse
effect the Earth would be frozen solid. That is very easy to
demonstrate *scientifically*.
> > No, methane is much worse, but because it
> >is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not reach the importance
> >of CO2.
> >Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much?
>
> First off, there's *no* evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels
> *cause* the very slight warming that has been observed...
There is no question that increasing greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere drives temperatures up. There is also no question
that there are many other factors.
>
> > On a scale of 0 to a
> >million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5 degrees
> >K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase! But less
> >than a few hours and you're cooked.
>
> .. and second, this is an entirely specious comparison. The slight
> temperature increase that has been observed so far is NOWHERE NEAR 5 degrees
> Kelvin.
Of course he didn't say it was. He was pointing out that what is
a small change in the purely physical sense is important to
us.
But of course you knew that.
--
FF
Woodie wrote:
>
> No! I mean, up my what?
> WHAT is up there?
> Was it removed afterwards or does it remain up there?
> Was it sterilized?
> Animal, vegetable, mineral?
> Do Barak, Hillary, or John have one up theirs?
> What about W., is this whole middle-east thing because he had one up
> his? Will it hurt?
>
> The subject alone raises so many questions! One MUST look!
Should somebody with your screen name really write that post? Rod
On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:22:54 -0700 (PDT), Fred the Red Shirt
<[email protected]> wrote:
>How about if you guys who start political threads make that
>the standard subject line?
A thread title of " O/T: Up Yours" isn't enough of a hint that you
might want to skip it? <G>
---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------
On May 26, 10:44=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On May 26, 8:40 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]=
ps.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> On May 25, 1:40 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >>>> I'm done wasting time arguing with someone who's unable to understand=
the
> >>>> simple principle that causes precede effects. Keep on yapping if you =
like, but
> >>>> I'm done.
> >>> I think you have enough integrity, courage, and intelligence to
> >>> continue.
> >> I also have enough sense not to. As noted above: I'm done wasting time =
arguing
> >> with someone who can't, or won't, comprehend that causes precede effect=
s, not
> >> the other way around. Keep on yapping if you like, but you'll be yappin=
g in a
> >> void. I'm done.
>
> > How DOES Doug keep getting himself in these situations, eh? Over and
> > Over and Over again?
> > Must be us. We're just not equipped to deal with a semantics warrior
> > like him.
> > I can just imagine what it would be like to be that sanctimonious
> > asshole's neighbour.
>
> > r
>
> Ask the guy who lives next door to you...
>
WTF? That's a little old lady who lives next door to him.
On May 25, 1:40 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 24, 7:44 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <98644f7e-875f-4ae9-948b-341c1e5db...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 24, 7:07 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> > <799789f0-6b4c-441d-b328-070c93d42...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred
> > the
> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On May 24, 3:16 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> >> In article
> >> > <[email protected]>,
> >> >> > Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> ...
>
> >> >> >> >> >On May 22, 10:35 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> In article
>
> > <28b688af-5920-46db-ae3d-fc1f2691f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> > Fred
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
> >> >> >> >> >> >the concentration of carbon dioxide.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean)
> >> >> > decreases
> >> >> >> > as
> >> >> >> >> >> temperature increases.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
> >> >> >> >> >as they warmed?
>
> >> >> >> >> That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide
> > levels
> >> > rise
> >> >> >> >> *after* temperature rises.
>
> >> >> >> >Regardless, what is *your* explanation?
>
> >> >> >> I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.
>
> >> >> >It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide,
> >> >> >right?
>
> >> >> Not relevant to the question of which is cause and which is effect.
>
> >> >Oh? What do you consider to be necessary and sufficient to
> >> >establish which is cause and is effect?
>
> >> Geez, all this discussion and you *still* don't understand the point.
>
> >> Once again:
>
> >> "B follows A" implies nothing, one way or the other, regarding the
> > proposition
> >> that A caused B. It does, however, contradict the proposition that B caused
> > A.
>
> >Irrelevant.
>
> Quite the contrary -- that is the *core* of my objection to Han's post.
>
I'm not discussing your objection to Han's post.
I am questioning you about how you justify your claim of
a different causal relationship.
>
>
> >As you know, I was asking you how you established the causality that
> >you asserted in your statements you excised from your reply.
>
> I did not assert that any causality existed;
Wrong. You did so twice.
Your exact words were:
" ...: increasing CO2 level is the RESULT of increasing temperature,
not the CAUSE."
and
"increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
temperatures, not the cause."
If you like, I can provide URLs to the Google archive of
your articles in which you made the statements. However
I should think you are sufficiently mature as to not
require that.
> >I repeat them here: Earlier in this thread you wrote,
> >" ...: increasing CO2 level is the RESULT of increasing temperature,
> >not the CAUSE."
> >and
> >"increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
> > temperatures, not the cause."
>
> >Again, how did you establish that increasing CO2 is the result of
> >increasing temperatures.
>
> Were you born this dense, or is it the result of years of practice?
I am not so dense as to infer causality from correlation alone.
Up until now, I have been assuming the same for you.
>
> Causes precede effects, not the other way around. What happens later *cannot*
> be the cause of what happens earlier, no matter how ardently you and AlGore
> might wish it to be so.
>
If you have no *other* justification for your statement that
"increasing CO2 level is the RESULT of increasing temperature,"
does the reader have *any* alternative than to conclude that
you are inferring causality from correlation alone?
>
>
> >I am not interested in what you claim to be *true*, not in
> >what you claim to not be so.
>
> Again, completely irrelevant.
I do not agree that your reasons for making your claims
are irrelevant to a discussion of your claims.
>
> I'm done wasting time arguing with someone who's unable to understand the
> simple principle that causes precede effects. Keep on yapping if you like, but
> I'm done.
I think you have enough integrity, courage, and intelligence to
continue.
--
FF
On May 18, 12:09 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
> > Your quibbling over "think" vs "know" instead of addressing the
> > point
> > being made tells me that you don't really have a viable
> > counterargument.
>
> "Quibbling", interesting choice of words.
>
> There is no "arguement", simply a statement of facts.
>
> > As for ovens, stoves, refrigerators, etc being limited to the
> > domestic
> > market, are you saying that Americans are the only people who cook
> > food and store it in refrigerators? If so, you really need to talk
> > to
> > your doctor about your medication.
>
> It's very difficult to be competitive shipping major appliances across
> oceans.
>
Check out sand cast iron barbell weights at a sporting goods store
sometime. The last ones I saw here in Maryland were imported
from the PRC. Somehow they manage to be competitive shipping
(literally) dead weight halfway around the worlds.
--
FF
On May 18, 11:35 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 11:00 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>
> >> > "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >> Sanity check time. Find the volume of water contained in the world's
> >> >> oceans, take the absolute worst-case CO2 concentrations that are being
> >> >> bandied around. Determine the amount of CO2 required to have even a
> >> >> measureable effect upon that volume of water.
>
> >> > You need to elaborate here. How would you determine what you are
> >> > proposing?
>
> >> > You can measure the drops in pH directly and make projections.
>
> >> > See: http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
> >> >http://www.science.org.au/nova/106/106key.htm
>
> >> It seems that there is a confusion of cause and effect here.
> >> The presumed cause in the articles you cite is human activity
> >> increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2
> >> concentration is on the order of 300 ppm.
>
> > On this planet it is almost 380 ppmv, and hasn't been as low
> > as 300 for close to a century. Where do you get your data?
>
> You really do need to read before responding Fred. I stated "on the order
> of". Not being anal enough to go searching for an exact number I relied
> upon memory and thus used an approximation.
>
Fair enough.
--
FF
On May 26, 2:13 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> This is the "logic" of the modern so-called rational atheist.
> I threw it in to remind you guys that all reasoning systems
> proceed from premises. You're trying to argue fine points of
> logic in which you are largely in agreement and are avoiding
> the 1000 lb elephant in the room: Your premises are different.
>
I disagree. Our premises quite similar.
That is why Mr Miller refuses to discuss them further.
--
FF
On May 21, 6:57 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <0199efdc-c3ed-4100-b12d-5618efdc7...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On May 21, 6:41 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <[email protected]>, Fred the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 21, 6:28 am,
> > [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> > <a0d1462b-3a9f-4246-b5ed-f942094a3...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred
> > the
> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Can you show how a conclusion that temperature
> >> >> >changes are independent of carbon dioxide concentrations
> >> >> >is consistent with known physics?
>
> >> >> Can you show how an effect preceding a cause is consistent with basic
> >> >> logic????
>
> >> >No, nor do I see the relevance regarding possible future temperature
> >> >changes. Can you explain?
>
> >> If you need it explained to you that causes precede effects, rather than the
> >> other way around, there's really no point in continuing the discussion.
>
> >Perhaps I don;t understand your position at all. Can you explain
> >the relevance regarding the future effect of present increases in
> >Carbon dioxide concentration?
>
> Indeed you don't understand the concept at all. The point is that you have the
> cause-and-effect relationship reversed: increasing CO2 level is the RESULT of
> increasing temperature, not the CAUSE.
1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
the concentration of carbon dioxide.
2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
to the greenhouse effect?
--
FF
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
> ignored him.
>
> The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
> "No", AKA: "Up Yours".
>
> Wonder if there is another approach?
>
> Lew
>
>
"Well!" he harrumphed. "A couple big nukes will teach 'em." (or am I
sounding too neo-con?)
gronk! and thumpa thumpa,
j4
p.s. anybody know if radioactive oil is useable?
On May 17, 11:00 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>
> > "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> ...
>
> >> Sanity check time. Find the volume of water contained in the world's
> >> oceans, take the absolute worst-case CO2 concentrations that are being
> >> bandied around. Determine the amount of CO2 required to have even a
> >> measureable effect upon that volume of water.
>
> > You need to elaborate here. How would you determine what you are
> > proposing?
>
> > You can measure the drops in pH directly and make projections.
>
> > See: http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
> >http://www.science.org.au/nova/106/106key.htm
>
> It seems that there is a confusion of cause and effect here.
> The presumed cause in the articles you cite is human activity
> increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2
> concentration is on the order of 300 ppm.
On this planet it is almost 380 ppmv, and hasn't been as low
as 300 for close to a century. Where do you get your data?
> My point was that in order to lower the pH of a volume of
> liquid, a specific volume of acidic substance must be added.
The carbonic acid, cabonate, bicarbonate equilibirum (and therefor
pH of the solution) is also temperature dependent. It is
an interesting problem.
--
FF
On May 24, 7:07 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <799789f0-6b4c-441d-b328-070c93d42...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 24, 3:16 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >> >On May 22, 10:35 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> >> In article
> >> >> > <28b688af-5920-46db-ae3d-fc1f2691f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > Fred
> >> > the
> >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
> >> >> >> >the concentration of carbon dioxide.
>
> >> >> >> Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean)
> > decreases
> >> > as
> >> >> >> temperature increases.
>
> >> >> >Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
> >> >> >as they warmed?
>
> >> >> That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise
> >> >> *after* temperature rises.
>
> >> >Regardless, what is *your* explanation?
>
> >> I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.
>
> >It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide,
> >right?
>
> Not relevant to the question of which is cause and which is effect.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
> >> >> >> >to the greenhouse effect?
>
> >> >> >> Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
> >> >> >> temperatures, not the cause.
>
> >> >> >Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect
> >> >> >on temperature?
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >Do greenhouse gases affect temperature?
>
> >> Greenhouse gases are among numerous factors that *can* affect temperature.
>
> >Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?
>
> Not relevant as to which is cause and which is effect.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>...
>
> >> >> Remember, this all started
> >> >> when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing
> >> >> temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes
> >> >> *first*.
>
> >> >No, you pointed out that in the ice core data, it *came*
> >> >first.
>
> >> You emphasized the wrong word: the point is that it came *first*.
>
> >Regardless you were addressing a putative history, not the
> >properties of carbon dioxide itself.
>
> Still missing the point: cause and effect.
>
>
>
> >> >You never addressed what happens if carbon dioxide
> >> >concentrations were to rise independently of a temperature
> >> >change.
>
> >> Irrelevant -- that's not happening.
>
> >Wrong, look at the data from ~ 1940 to ~ 1980.
>
> Perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word "independent".
>
>
>
> >Or you could go back to the time from ~ 1880 to
> >~ 1910, though the data from then is less reliable
> >than from the mid-1950s to the present.
>
> >Further, aside from simple arithmetic, the Seuss
> >effect establishes that the rise in carbon dioxide
> >is anthropogenic, right?
>
> Irrelevant to this discussion.
On May 24, 3:00 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]:
>
> > Yes, this is unilateral disarmament on
> > our part -- your words below not withstanding. It is our country
> > removing a part of its ability to defend itself without any equivalent
> > concessions from other countries.
>
Unilateral disarmament is to give up (disarm) what one
already has. It is not the same thing as eschewing
expansion of one's arms.
Personally, I favor the development of new weapons of
the sort we may need to use.
> ... If too many missiles would come
> at the same time, or a single missile would come from the "wrong"
> direction, we'd be cooked at the attacked site, and will have to resortto
> retaliatory strikes.
Or just sent into an American port on board a cargo ship.
That is why Iran must not be allowed to build an atomic
bomb. Missile defense, no matter how effective,
would never be sufficient. Preventing them from
obtaining a bomb is necessary.
That is why fissile material world-wide needs to be
secured and kept secure. Sadly, people in politics,
the press and the media who even know what fissile
material is, are few and far between, much rarer than
those who voice strong opinions on the subject.
For instance, recall that the Bush administration 'warned'
us that if Iraq were to obtain sufficient fissile, they
could build an atomic bomb in as little as n months
(typical values of n ranged from 6 to 12) .
Why didn't anybody ask them the obvious question:
"Why so long?". If *I* had sufficient fissile material I
could build an atom bomb in less than 6 months.
Obtaining the fissile material is the only technologically
difficult part of making an atomic bomb.
Plainly they were choosing their time frame based
on what would seem credible to the ignorant, and
few people pointed that out.
--
FF
In article <18ec9f36-07c3-4e82-8738-a180ec06b1cf@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 25, 1:40 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> I'm done wasting time arguing with someone who's unable to understand the
>> simple principle that causes precede effects. Keep on yapping if you like, but
>> I'm done.
>
>I think you have enough integrity, courage, and intelligence to
>continue.
I also have enough sense not to. As noted above: I'm done wasting time arguing
with someone who can't, or won't, comprehend that causes precede effects, not
the other way around. Keep on yapping if you like, but you'll be yapping in a
void. I'm done.
I wrote:
> The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
> ignored him.
>
> The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they
> said "No", AKA: "Up Yours".
Picture if you will, Shrub, groveling at the feet of his Arab camel
jockey host, begging for an increase in his allowance, only to be told
"No".
Gives you a lot of confidence? NOT!
Lew
On May 26, 8:40=A0am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected].=
com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On May 25, 1:40 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> I'm done wasting time arguing with someone who's unable to understand t=
he
> >> simple principle that causes precede effects. Keep on yapping if you li=
ke, but
> >> I'm done.
>
> >I think you have enough integrity, courage, and intelligence to
> >continue.
>
> I also have enough sense not to. As noted above: I'm done wasting time arg=
uing
> with someone who can't, or won't, comprehend that causes precede effects, =
not
> the other way around. Keep on yapping if you like, but you'll be yapping i=
n a
> void. I'm done.
How DOES Doug keep getting himself in these situations, eh? Over and
Over and Over again?
Must be us. We're just not equipped to deal with a semantics warrior
like him.
I can just imagine what it would be like to be that sanctimonious
asshole's neighbour.
r
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:oxkXj.43$%g.0@trnddc08...
>> The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
>> ignored him.
>>
>> The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
>> "No", AKA: "Up Yours".
>>
>> Wonder if there is another approach?
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>
> Take over.
>
I thought they were "friends"? :)
Do they have WMD's? Lets get them weapons inspectors warmed up. Do you
think W could use the same "Mission Accomplished" banner?
--
Brian
www.garagewoodworks.com
"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
Desiderius Erasmus
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's no
> point in warehousing it.
What about converting the CO2 to carbonate? I think this is how some
scrubbers operate.
The product of which (Na2CO3, K2CO3, CaCO3) could be sold to off set the
cost of scrubbing.
The product carbonates also take up less volume to store.
>
>> Definitely
>> problems that can be conquered, but there is a lot of NIMBY to
>> contend with.
>
> And you think there won't be a lot of NIMBY once people figure out
> that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage volume?
>
>>>> and developing new oil and gas fifth.
>>>>
>> Just my opinion.
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
>
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Han wrote:
>
>> The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
>> very convincing. Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much
>> worse, but because it is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not
>> reach the importance of CO2.
>> Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much? On a scale of 0 to a
>> million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5 degrees
>> K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase! But less
>> than a few hours and you're cooked.
>
> The oceans are known to be a huge sink for CO2 and with cooler
> temperatures absorb it. Also, with warmer temperatures, the oceans
> release CO2. So the question is which is cause and which is effect. Does
> CO2 increase precede heating or does heating precede CO2 increase.
I would think that CO2 increases would precede heating. Which causes more
CO2 release.
There are differences in solubility for cold and hot water (solubility
decreases with increasing temp).
There also appears to be an effect of ocean pH. As more and CO2 is
dissolved and converted to carbonate via carbonic acid, the ocean surface pH
starts to drop. As CO2 leaves the pH rises (more basic).
To complicate things even further CO2 solubility is not only a function of
temperature, but a function of pH (this is a really complicated scenario).
As pH rises more CO2 is dissolved and converted to carbonate.
CO2 <----> H2CO3<-----> HCO3-1 <------> CO3-2.
As pH increases the equilibrium shifts to the right and more CO2 can be
dissolved. (DAGS Le Chatelier's principle). As more and more CO2 is
dissolved the equilibrium shifts to the left and pH falls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
So there does appear to be a negative impact on ocean water as more and more
CO2 is dissolved/converted. DAGS ocean acidification.
>
> I do know that if we eliminate the stuff from the atmosphere, we're done
> for.
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>
>>> The oceans are known to be a huge sink for CO2 and with cooler
>>> temperatures absorb it. Also, with warmer temperatures, the oceans
>>> release CO2. So the question is which is cause and which is effect.
>>> Does CO2 increase precede heating or does heating precede CO2 increase.
>>
>> I would think that CO2 increases would precede heating. Which causes
>> more CO2 release.
>
> Do you have any true scientific cites for this? This sounds like it would
> be a runaway situation which couldn't be stopped until all the CO2 from
> the oceans was in the atmosphere!
No! Remeber that solubility is also a function of pH. As temp rises, CO2
is released and pH climbs. As pH climbs CO2 is more soluble.
I think their is a lot of research being done on this with a lot of
contradicting data.
On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:35:38 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
--snip--
>>
>> On this planet it is almost 380 ppmv, and hasn't been as low
>> as 300 for close to a century. Where do you get your data?
>>
>
> You really do need to read before responding Fred. I stated "on the order
>of". Not being anal enough to go searching for an exact number I relied
>upon memory and thus used an approximation.
There are 2 problems with your remembered approximation, though.
Presumably sometime, somewhere you read the actual number - and
rounded 80 down to 00 instead of 100. Although it breaks the rules,
rounding downward 51, 52, even 60 or so might be understandable.
But, 80? Interesting math.
The other problem is with the fact that we haven't been anywhere near
300 in almost 100 years, not exactly something that changed yesterday.
I point this out because you try to present your arguments with a
seemingly scientific 'face'. Not sure many scientifically oriented
folks would be making this kind of error (unless, perhaps taking into
account some other agenda).
Renata
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The oceans are known to be a huge sink for CO2 and with cooler
>>>>> temperatures absorb it. Also, with warmer temperatures, the oceans
>>>>> release CO2. So the question is which is cause and which is effect.
>>>>> Does CO2 increase precede heating or does heating precede CO2
>>>>> increase.
>>>> I would think that CO2 increases would precede heating. Which causes
>>>> more CO2 release.
>>> Do you have any true scientific cites for this? This sounds like it
>>> would be a runaway situation which couldn't be stopped until all the CO2
>>> from the oceans was in the atmosphere!
>>
>>
>> No! Remeber that solubility is also a function of pH. As temp rises,
>> CO2 is released and pH climbs. As pH climbs CO2 is more soluble.
I should clarify here. The CO2 solubility as CO2 (aq) (dissolved CO2 gas)
doesn't change with changes in pH, but as pH rises the equilibrium shifts to
the right, which pushes more CO2(aq) into the form of HCO3- and CO3-2. So
the net effect is more CO2(g) is removed from the atmosphere, but the
concentration of CO2 in the form of CO2(aq) doesn't change. But because
more CO2(g) is removed from the atmosphere it has the appearance of being
more soluble. (And pH falls).
CO2(g)<------> CO2(aq) <----> H2CO3<-----> HCO3-1 <------> CO3-2.
---increasing pH------>
The opposite is also true. As CO2(aq) goes to CO2(g) and leaves the ocean
the equilibrium shifts to the left and the CO2(aq) concentration doesn't
change. And the pH rises.
> That would mean that the oceans and atmosphere will always be trying to
> reach equilibrium.
YES! Or steady state.
>>
>> I think their is a lot of research being done on this with a lot of
>> contradicting data.
>
> I hope so - I'd hate to think we we're going down this man made GW path
> with no firm scientific evidence.
"Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CO2(g)<------> CO2(aq) <----> H2CO3<-----> HCO3-1 <------> CO3-2.
> ---increasing pH------>
>
> The opposite is also true. As CO2(aq) goes to CO2(g) and leaves the
> ocean the equilibrium shifts to the left and the CO2(aq) concentration
> doesn't change. And the pH rises.
ABOVE should have read equilibrium shifts to the right. pH rises (more
basic) shifts to right. pH falls (more acidic) shifts to left.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Han wrote:
>
>> "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> CO2(g)<------> CO2(aq) <----> H2CO3<-----> HCO3-1 <------> CO3-2.
>>>> ---increasing pH------>
>>>>
>>>> The opposite is also true. As CO2(aq) goes to CO2(g) and leaves the
>>>> ocean the equilibrium shifts to the left and the CO2(aq)
>>>> concentration doesn't change. And the pH rises.
>>>
>>> ABOVE should have read equilibrium shifts to the right. pH rises
>>> (more basic) shifts to right. pH falls (more acidic) shifts to left.
>>>
>> Yes. In principle this is a very simple set of equations. The
>> difficulty is that oceans are not homogeneous, and we do not exactly know
>> where in the oceans their is really a good totaal capacity to dissolve
>> more gaseous CO2 (whether as truely dissolved gas or transformed into
>> bicarbonate and carbonate). Also, it is not yet known whether ocean
>> acidification will indeed kill off corals or not. Or whether more
>> dissolved CO2 in whatever form will enhance coral growth. Very
>> complicated indeed, mostly because ocean mixing is still hotly discussed
>> science. What effects chanes in salinity will have is also important
>> when more arctic and antarctic ice will melt, and mix into the oceans.
>>
>
> Sanity check time. Find the volume of water contained in the world's
> oceans, take the absolute worst-case CO2 concentrations that are being
> bandied around. Determine the amount of CO2 required to have even a
> measureable effect upon that volume of water.
You need to elaborate here. How would you determine what you are proposing?
You can measure the drops in pH directly and make projections.
See: http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
http://www.science.org.au/nova/106/106key.htm
>
>
>> Hopefully it will all only happen in a disastrous way after my adult
>> teeth have stopped hurting me ... Which brings up the question whether
>> cremation or burial is the "greener" way to go ...
>>
>
> Good heavens, I hope that was sarcasm. If not, I fear we are wasting our
> time here.
>
>
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's
>>> no point in warehousing it.
>>
>> Warehousing would suggest you're going to use it again, which does
>> not
>> seem logical if you couldn't possible get energy or other use out of
>> it. I think it has to be put away permanently, really.
>
> Whatever word you use, it still has to be kept forever.
Why? Can't we convert the CO2 into carbonate? I'm pretty sure we can.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's
>>> no point in warehousing it.
>>
>> What about converting the CO2 to carbonate? I think this is how
>> some
>> scrubbers operate.
>>
>> The product of which (Na2CO3, K2CO3, CaCO3) could be sold to off set
>> the cost of scrubbing.
>>
>> The product carbonates also take up less volume to store.
>
> And how much market is there for them?
Not sure. But, there is a need for them, so the market must be there. The
goal is not really to market the product, but to produce the product and
reduce the raw material.
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
>
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's
>>> no point in warehousing it.
>>
>> What about converting the CO2 to carbonate? I think this is how
>> some
>> scrubbers operate.
>>
>> The product of which (Na2CO3, K2CO3, CaCO3) could be sold to off set
>> the cost of scrubbing.
>>
>> The product carbonates also take up less volume to store.
>
> And how much market is there for them?
I dug up a reference for ya. This guy is using NaOH as the base so he ends
up with NaHCO3 (baking soda). Is there a market for super pure baking
soda??
Chem:
CO2+H2O <----> H2CO3
H2CO3 + NaOH -----> NaHCO3 + H2O
Not carbonate in this reference, but bicarbonate. I suppose if you adjust
the amount of NaOH and monitor the pH you could also make Na2CO3 with his
process.
http://www.news.com/Can-baking-soda-curb-global-warming/2100-13838_3-6220127.html
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>> CO2(g)<------> CO2(aq) <----> H2CO3<-----> HCO3-1 <------> CO3-2.
>>>>>> ---increasing pH------>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The opposite is also true. As CO2(aq) goes to CO2(g) and leaves the
>>>>>> ocean the equilibrium shifts to the left and the CO2(aq)
>>>>>> concentration doesn't change. And the pH rises.
>>>>>
>>>>> ABOVE should have read equilibrium shifts to the right. pH rises
>>>>> (more basic) shifts to right. pH falls (more acidic) shifts to left.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes. In principle this is a very simple set of equations. The
>>>> difficulty is that oceans are not homogeneous, and we do not exactly
>>>> know where in the oceans their is really a good totaal capacity to
>>>> dissolve more gaseous CO2 (whether as truely dissolved gas or
>>>> transformed into
>>>> bicarbonate and carbonate). Also, it is not yet known whether ocean
>>>> acidification will indeed kill off corals or not. Or whether more
>>>> dissolved CO2 in whatever form will enhance coral growth. Very
>>>> complicated indeed, mostly because ocean mixing is still hotly
>>>> discussed
>>>> science. What effects chanes in salinity will have is also important
>>>> when more arctic and antarctic ice will melt, and mix into the oceans.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sanity check time. Find the volume of water contained in the world's
>>> oceans, take the absolute worst-case CO2 concentrations that are being
>>> bandied around. Determine the amount of CO2 required to have even a
>>> measureable effect upon that volume of water.
>>
>> You need to elaborate here. How would you determine what you are
>> proposing?
>>
>> You can measure the drops in pH directly and make projections.
>>
>> See: http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
>> http://www.science.org.au/nova/106/106key.htm
>>
>
> It seems that there is a confusion of cause and effect here. The
> presumed
> cause in the articles you cite is human activity increasing the
> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 concentration is on the order
> of 300 ppm. My point was that in order to lower the pH of a volume of
> liquid, a specific volume of acidic substance must be added. Even the
> most
> hysterical of the GW believers don't place human impact at more than
> several ppm. If one were to compute the volume of water in the ocean, the
> question is how much volume of acidic substance must be added to that
> liquid volume in order to change the pH even 0.1?
How do you determine this? Define your experiment for me. I think you
will begin to see the complexity. The ocean is not just water. There's
lots of stuff in it.
> The ultimate point being
> that it is ludicrous to blame human activity on the ability to influence
> that large a volume of liquid and even more ludicrous to blame it on
> western (particularly US) society when areas such as India and China
> produce far larger volumes of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants that can
> contribute to acidification. Yet, all the GW believers seem to feel that
> if they can just choke the life out of US industry and citizens, the world
> will return to its previous balances.
>
>
>
>>
>
> ...snip
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>
>>
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> ...snip
>>>
>>> It seems that there is a confusion of cause and effect here. The
>>> presumed
>>> cause in the articles you cite is human activity increasing the
>>> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 concentration is on the
>>> order
>>> of 300 ppm. My point was that in order to lower the pH of a volume of
>>> liquid, a specific volume of acidic substance must be added. Even the
>>> most
>>> hysterical of the GW believers don't place human impact at more than
>>> several ppm. If one were to compute the volume of water in the ocean,
>>> the question is how much volume of acidic substance must be added to
>>> that
>>> liquid volume in order to change the pH even 0.1?
>>
>> How do you determine this? Define your experiment for me. I think you
>> will begin to see the complexity. The ocean is not just water. There's
>> lots of stuff in it.
>>
>
> Why do I have to define the experiment?
Because you proposed determining "how much volume of acidic substance must
be added to that liquid volume in order to change the pH even 0.1"
This type of experiment can't be done in a jar. Which is why I was
interested in how you would go about computing "the volume of acidic
substance" needed.
> I'm not trying to prove that
> humans are changing the ocean pH. I'm merely pointing out that there is a
> heck of a lot of volume of water, that were everything else to remain
> constant would require huge volumes to change the pH.
Well guess what? The pH is changing.
So what was the point to your "sanity check"?
>> Why? Can't we convert the CO2 into carbonate? I'm pretty sure we
>> can.
>
> And where do we put it? Now you're increasing the volume even more.
Really?
CO2(aq) +H2O -----> H2CO3 (1 mole of co2 makes 1 mole of carbonic acid)
H2CO3 + NaOH -----> NaHCO3 + H2O (1 mole of carbonic acid reacts with 1
mole of sodium hydroxide and yields 1 mole of sodium carbonate)
NaHCO3 + NaOH -----> Na2CO3 + H2O (1 mole of sodium hydroxide reacts with
1 mole of NaOH and yields 1 mole of sodium carbonate)
A mole of Na2CO3(s) takes up more volume than a mole of CO2(g) ?? Show me
the math here.
>
> This whole notion of capturing the output of chemical power plants and
> warehousing it is IMO just, well, _nuts_.
>
> At least with nuclear the volume is manageable.
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
>
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>> Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else
>>>>> there's
>>>>> no point in warehousing it.
>>>>
>>>> What about converting the CO2 to carbonate? I think this is how
>>>> some
>>>> scrubbers operate.
>>>>
>>>> The product of which (Na2CO3, K2CO3, CaCO3) could be sold to off
>>>> set
>>>> the cost of scrubbing.
>>>>
>>>> The product carbonates also take up less volume to store.
>>>
>>> And how much market is there for them?
>>
>> Not sure. But, there is a need for them, so the market must be
>> there. The goal is not really to market the product, but to
>> produce
>> the product and reduce the raw material.
>
> But if there's no market you still end up storing it.
You could give it away free. People use carbonate compounds in industry.
They would gladly take it away for you.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>> This type of experiment can't be done in a jar. Which is why I was
>> interested in how you would go about computing "the volume of acidic
>> substance" needed.
>>
>
> The oceans contain a specific volume of water, that volume of water
> possesses a certain pH level. Holding all other things constant (as the
> GW
> adherents appear to be doing), then it will take a certain volume of
> acidic
> substance to lower the pH of that volume of ocean water.
Yep, it sure would. Do you want to tell me how you would determine this
(with experimental detail) or is this a trade secret?
>
>>> I'm not trying to prove that
>>> humans are changing the ocean pH. I'm merely pointing out that there is
>>> a heck of a lot of volume of water, that were everything else to remain
>>> constant would require huge volumes to change the pH.
>>
>> Well guess what? The pH is changing.
>> So what was the point to your "sanity check"?
>
> The point of my sanity check was to establish cause. The data says pH is
> changing, that is the data, and if true, is a fact. The GW zealots scream
> that it is man-made increases in CO2 that is causing this change. That is
> speculation, theory, and conjecture. My challenge to the luddites (who
> are
> ultimately trying to reduce human industrial activity) is how much CO2
> would have to be produced by humans to be able to produce sufficient
> acidic
> substances to make a measureable change in ocean pH?
I'm not sure that has been determined (unless I am mistaken) due to the huge
complexity of the system.
>That provides a sanity
> check vis a vis whether it is even possible for humans to have any impact
> upon ocean pH.
Does CO2 impact pH? Do we generate huge amounts of CO2? Is the ocean pH
falling?
>Shoot, I could posit the theory that Madonna peeing the
> shower is responsible for the change in ocean pH-- wouldn't make it so,
> but if I screamed loud enough and had a fax machine with an impressive
> letterhead I could probably get Reuters or AP to pick up on it.
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>>>> Why? Can't we convert the CO2 into carbonate? I'm pretty sure
>>>> we
>>>> can.
>>>
>>> And where do we put it? Now you're increasing the volume even
>>> more.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> CO2(aq) +H2O -----> H2CO3 (1 mole of co2 makes 1 mole of carbonic
>> acid) H2CO3 + NaOH -----> NaHCO3 + H2O (1 mole of carbonic acid
>> reacts with 1 mole of sodium hydroxide and yields 1 mole of sodium
>> carbonate)
>> NaHCO3 + NaOH -----> Na2CO3 + H2O (1 mole of sodium hydroxide
>> reacts with 1 mole of NaOH and yields 1 mole of sodium carbonate)
>>
>> A mole of Na2CO3(s) takes up more volume than a mole of CO2(g) ??
>> Show me the math here.
>
> What'd the density of dry ice? How about of Na2CO3?
You want to permanently freeze all of the CO2(g) as CO2(s) to safe space
instead of converting the CO2(g) into Na2CO3 and selling/giving it away?
Boy. That would be cost effective. Have you ran any numbers on that one
yet?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> But if there's no market you still end up storing it.
>>
>> You could give it away free. People use carbonate compounds in
>> industry. They would gladly take it away for you.
>
> And what would they do with it? Remember, you can't allow any uses
> that result in it releasing CO2--if you do then you may as well not
> have wasted your time making it in the first place.
SOOOO very WRONG!!!! Most carbonates are mined. Which is better for
the environment? Dumping tons of mined carbonate-co2 into the atmosphere
or recycling/reusing co2?
Below are a few from Wikipedia:
Sodium carbonate uses that do not release CO2 (From WIKIPEDIA)
In casting, it is referred to as "bonding agent" and is used to allow wet
alginate to adhere to gelled alginate.
When mixed with water and put in a spray bottle, it is sold for its
anti-mold cleaning ability. It is also used to blast off mold from wood or
other materials.
In domestic use, it is used as a water softener during laundry.
FYI after your dry ice density response, I am beginning to think you are a
TROLLING me.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Not carbonate in this reference, but bicarbonate. I suppose if you
>> adjust
>> the amount of NaOH and monitor the pH you could also make Na2CO3
>> with
>> his
>> process.
>>
>> http://www.news.com/Can-baking-soda-curb-global-warming/2100-13838_3-6220127.html
>
> Now, find out what the major use of baking soda is. I believe that
> you will find that it is, well, _baking_. Then look at what baking
> soda does when baking. It reacts with acidic components of the recipe
> to release CO2. So the CO2 is not locked away where it doesn't
> contribute to greenhouse emissions, it's just released a little later.
Do you know the meaning of the word RECYCLE? Would you rather we mine
NaHCO3 that would end up simply releasing CO2 from underground?
>
> Of course you could make baking soda and store it in a warehouse
> somewhere forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and pray that
> the warehouse doesn't burn down, because when you get the stuff hot,
> what does it do? It breaks down and releases CO2.
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
>
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> So they ran wires from the wind turbines and dams direct to your house
>> without interfacing them with the rest of the grid? Yeah, you're
>> being hoodwinked.
>
> Even I do not believe that. But the power I consumed (or an equivalent
> amount) was generated by renewable energy generation.
This guy Clarke is a TROLL.
"Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Do you know the meaning of the word RECYCLE? Would you rather we mine
> NaHCO3 that would end up simply releasing CO2 from underground?
NaHCO3 is not mined, but it is made from carbonates that ARE mined.
Han wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Yes, this is unilateral disarmament on
>> our part -- your words below not withstanding. It is our country
>> removing a part of its ability to defend itself without any equivalent
>> concessions from other countries.
>
> While agreeing with part of your position, this is not the whole truth
> and therefore it is (in my opinion) totally and absolutely false. You
> are advocating that we spend ourselves to death the same way we forced
> the Soviet Union to its death - spend and spend on useless (in the end)
> technology and weapons.
You have a rich and vivid fantasy life. To whit:
1) The threat of those weapons caused *The Soviets* to spend themselves
into oblivion. There is no one who has remotely the same
capability to threaten us such that we'd have to do the same thing.
2) The overwhelming expenses incurred by the US are NOT military.
They are the non-Constitutional entitlement do-gooding that
fouls our Federal budget and agenda.
>
> For instance, we may eventually be able to shoot down a few missiles
> lobbed in our direction, but what would be needed is a guarantee that
> none come through such a missile defense system. I think that history
Sheer nonsense. Do you fail to wear your seatbelt because there
are some kinds of accidents where it does not save your life.
> has proven that offensive strategies always win over defensive ones
> (castles, Maginot line, Atlantic Wall). If too many missiles would come
> at the same time, or a single missile would come from the "wrong"
> direction, we'd be cooked at the attacked site, and will have to resortto
> retaliatory strikes. Are we ready for such sacrifices on our own soil
> and on theirs?
As opposed to what? Doing nothing and hoping they never attack anyway?
Do you keep your house door unlocked as proof of your good will and thereby
keep robbers out?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:AuBXj.1265$dh.254@trnddc05...
>
>
>
> > "Swingman" wrote:
>
> > > Supply and demand have NOTHING to do with the current price of oil,
> > > instead
> > > put the blame squarely where it lies ... greed, by hedge funds and
> > > other
> > > speculators, using manipulation made possible by regulatory
> > > differences
> > > between global stock markets.
>
> > The real problem is the weakness of the USD.
>
> > The price of oil is tied to the USD.
>
> > Just another benefit of our adventures around the world.
>
> This guy called it on the nose almost two years ago:
>
> http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=17812
>
> "detention centers instead of soup kitchens" Read it and weep!
I agree with most, but I always cackle when these guys list $4
trillion (or mroe) in losses to foreign trade because of NAFTA. Sure,
we've lost mroe than we've gain to Mexico, and probably to Canada. But
most of that money went to the Pacific Rim, which is not part of the
North American Free Trade Agreement, or, at least, wasn't the last
time I looked. Christ alone knows what our lunatic Prez is claiming
this week.
On May 20, 6:41 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <d4bc2b36-6207-493b-b57b-d999b23ea...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 19, 9:04 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <b107e089-2b26-40dc-af52-69f4f8554...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > ... you claimed the absence of a causal relationship. That is
> >> >a claim regarding a cause-and-effect-relationship.
>
> >> >The causal relationship is established by thermodynamics and
> >> >spectroscopy, both sold science.
>
> >> >You are also wrong if you think the ice core data are inconsistent
> >> >with that causal relationship.
>
> >> I'm going to put this as simply as I can:
>
> >> "B follows A" does not in any way imply "A caused B".
>
> >> It *does*, however, mean absolutely that B did NOT cause A.
>
> >> Now substitute "increasing temperature" for "A", and "increasing CO2 levels"
> >> for "B". Do you understand now?
>
> >Yes, you base your argument on the false premise that
> >there is only one independent variable at play.
>
> No, I base my argument on the *fact* that effects do not precede causes. Sorry
> you're having so much trouble grasping that concept.
At most you can infer from the ice core data is that
the change in carbon dioxide did not initiate the change
in temperature. You cannot use the data to show that
a change in carbon dioxide cannot initiate a change in
temperature.
We know from basic physics that it can, regardless of
whether or not it did. Do you understand that point?
We observe on Mars that the temperature can continue
to rise with rising carbon dioxide even after solar
irradiation, which is presumed to have initiated the
changes on Mars in the 1990s, drops.
--
FF
On May 25, 1:40 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 24, 7:44 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <98644f7e-875f-4ae9-948b-341c1e5db...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 24, 7:07 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> > <799789f0-6b4c-441d-b328-070c93d42...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred
> > the
> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On May 24, 3:16 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> >> In article
> >> > <[email protected]>,
> >> >> > Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> ...
>
> >> >> >> >> >On May 22, 10:35 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> In article
>
> > <28b688af-5920-46db-ae3d-fc1f2691f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> > Fred
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
> >> >> >> >> >> >the concentration of carbon dioxide.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean)
> >> >> > decreases
> >> >> >> > as
> >> >> >> >> >> temperature increases.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
> >> >> >> >> >as they warmed?
>
> >> >> >> >> That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide
> > levels
> >> > rise
> >> >> >> >> *after* temperature rises.
>
> >> >> >> >Regardless, what is *your* explanation?
>
> >> >> >> I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.
>
> >> >> >It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide,
> >> >> >right?
>
> >> >> Not relevant to the question of which is cause and which is effect.
>
> >> >Oh? What do you consider to be necessary and sufficient to
> >> >establish which is cause and is effect?
>
> >> Geez, all this discussion and you *still* don't understand the point.
>
> >> Once again:
>
> >> "B follows A" implies nothing, one way or the other, regarding the
> > proposition
> >> that A caused B. It does, however, contradict the proposition that B caused
> > A.
>
> >Irrelevant.
>
> Quite the contrary -- that is the *core* of my objection to Han's post.
>
>
>
> >As you know, I was asking you how you established the causality that
> >you asserted in your statements you excised from your reply.
>
> I did not assert that any causality existed; rather, I asserted that the
> timeline of which came first shows that the causality that *Han* asserted does
> *not* exist.
>
>
>
> >I repeat them here: Earlier in this thread you wrote,
> >" ...: increasing CO2 level is the RESULT of increasing temperature,
> >not the CAUSE."
> >and
> >"increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
> > temperatures, not the cause."
>
> >Again, how did you establish that increasing CO2 is the result of
> >increasing temperatures.
>
> Were you born this dense, or is it the result of years of practice?
I am not so dense as to infer causality from correlation alone.
Up until now, I have been assuming the same for you.
>
> Causes precede effects, not the other way around. What happens later *cannot*
> be the cause of what happens earlier, no matter how ardently you and AlGore
> might wish it to be so.
>
If you have no *other* justification for your statement that
"icreasing CO2 level is the RESULT of increasing temperature,"
does the reader have *any* alternative than to conclude that
you are inferring causality from correlation alone?
>
>
> >I am not interested in what you claim to be *true*, not in
> >what you claim to not be so.
>
> Again, completely irrelevant.
I do not agree that your reasons for making your claims
are irrelevant to a discussion of your claims.
>
> I'm done wasting time arguing with someone who's unable to understand the
> simple principle that causes precede effects. Keep on yapping if you like, but
> I'm done.
I think you have enough integrity, courage, and intelligence to
continue.
--
FF
On May 17, 7:52 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Han wrote:
>
>
> This is just amazing. The fear of a natural compound that is a very minor
> atmospheric constituent and the product of perfect combustion. The idea
> that humans can somehow influence the climate of the entire planet (of
> which 3/4 is ocean) by the production of a minor atmospheric constituent is
> pure hubris.
>
Without minor atmospheric components like ozone, carbon dioxide and
methane, the Earth's oceans would be frozen solid.
--
FF
On May 22, 10:35 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <28b688af-5920-46db-ae3d-fc1f2691f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
> >the concentration of carbon dioxide.
>
> Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean) decreases as
> temperature increases.
>
Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
as they warmed?
>
>
> >2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
> >to the greenhouse effect?
>
> Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
> temperatures, not the cause.
Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect
on temperature?
--
FF
On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:37:05 -0500, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>
>> Are these Islamofascists then - Republican Muslims?
>
>
>Nope, they are Independents Muslims
>
Now that's really funny.
Think we can con them into voting for Nader?
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
On May 19, 10:19=A0am, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> How about
> if we look at the data from Mars that show a temperature increase
> over the least 6 or 7 years, during which time solar irradiation
> dropped. =A0Does that show that increased irradiation does NOT
> cause =A0temperature to rise?
>
It shows that Gore's hot air has made it all the way to Mars.
On May 18, 1:56 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Han wrote:
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:g0na0502lr3
> > @news2.newsguy.com:
>
>
>
> >>>> So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
> >>>> forever?
>
> >>> Mother Gaia has done it, in clathrates, or whatever they call the
> >>> complexes in the cold nether regions of the oceans. It can be
> >>> done
> >>> other ways as well.
Yes clathrates. Methane forms them too. There are large
deposits of methane clathrates on the ocean floor, metastable
at their present temperature of pressures. But if they warm
up just a little, they'll let lose.
It might have happened in the past, google methane
gun hypothesis.
> ..
>
> > Of course there will always be NIMBY, but I think that filling
> > underground voids generated by mining would be a good place.
>
> Will those voids be sufficient, considering that what you're putting
> in them has had two atoms of oxygen added to each atom of carbon that
> was taken out? And will those voids be sufficiently secure to keep it
> segregated _forever_? If so then why not put nuclear waste there?
>
They're talking about pumping it into the voids under the
North Sea left over from petroleum extraction. At those
depths it will liquefy, or maybe form clathrates.
Sounds nuts to me.
--
FF
In article <799789f0-6b4c-441d-b328-070c93d42c8a@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 24, 3:16 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> >On May 22, 10:35 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> >> In article
>> >> > <28b688af-5920-46db-ae3d-fc1f2691f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Fred
>> > the
>> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
>> >> >> >the concentration of carbon dioxide.
>>
>> >> >> Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean)
> decreases
>> > as
>> >> >> temperature increases.
>>
>> >> >Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
>> >> >as they warmed?
>>
>> >> That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise
>> >> *after* temperature rises.
>>
>> >Regardless, what is *your* explanation?
>>
>> I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.
>
>It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide,
>right?
Not relevant to the question of which is cause and which is effect.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
>> >> >> >to the greenhouse effect?
>>
>> >> >> Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
>> >> >> temperatures, not the cause.
>>
>> >> >Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect
>> >> >on temperature?
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >Do greenhouse gases affect temperature?
>>
>> Greenhouse gases are among numerous factors that *can* affect temperature.
>
>Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?
Not relevant as to which is cause and which is effect.
>
>>
>>...
>>
>> >> Remember, this all started
>> >> when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing
>> >> temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes
>> >> *first*.
>>
>> >No, you pointed out that in the ice core data, it *came*
>> >first.
>>
>> You emphasized the wrong word: the point is that it came *first*.
>>
>
>Regardless you were addressing a putative history, not the
>properties of carbon dioxide itself.
Still missing the point: cause and effect.
>
>>
>>
>> >You never addressed what happens if carbon dioxide
>> >concentrations were to rise independently of a temperature
>> >change.
>>
>> Irrelevant -- that's not happening.
>
>Wrong, look at the data from ~ 1940 to ~ 1980.
Perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word "independent".
>
>Or you could go back to the time from ~ 1880 to
>~ 1910, though the data from then is less reliable
>than from the mid-1950s to the present.
>
>Further, aside from simple arithmetic, the Seuss
>effect establishes that the rise in carbon dioxide
>is anthropogenic, right?
Irrelevant to this discussion.
On May 18, 2:08 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Han wrote:
> > "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
>
> >> "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>> CO2(g)<------> CO2(aq) <----> H2CO3<-----> HCO3-1 <------> CO3-2.
> >>> ---increasing pH------>
>
> >>> The opposite is also true. As CO2(aq) goes to CO2(g) and leaves the
> >>> ocean the equilibrium shifts to the left and the CO2(aq)
> >>> concentration doesn't change. And the pH rises.
>
> >> ABOVE should have read equilibrium shifts to the right. pH rises
> >> (more basic) shifts to right. pH falls (more acidic) shifts to left.
>
> > Yes. In principle this is a very simple set of equations. The
> > difficulty is that oceans are not homogeneous, and we do not exactly know
> > where in the oceans their is really a good totaal capacity to dissolve
> > more gaseous CO2 (whether as truely dissolved gas or transformed into
> > bicarbonate and carbonate). Also, it is not yet known whether ocean
> > acidification will indeed kill off corals or not. Or whether more
> > dissolved CO2 in whatever form will enhance coral growth. Very
> > complicated indeed, mostly because ocean mixing is still hotly discussed
> > science. What effects chanes in salinity will have is also important
> > when more arctic and antarctic ice will melt, and mix into the oceans.
>
> Sanity check time. Find the volume of water contained in the world's
> oceans, take the absolute worst-case CO2 concentrations that are being
> bandied around. Determine the amount of CO2 required to have even a
> measureable effect upon that volume of water.
>
Go ahead and show us. I'll check your arithmetic.
These people have a done a little work in the area:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/Ocean_Acidification%20FINAL.pdf
http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce/acidification/paper/Orr_OnlineNature04095.pdf
--
FF
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cGmXj.523$%g.206@trnddc08...
"Leon" wrote:
> Take over.
A take over is probably going to happen along about NOV.
---
and THAT scares the hell outt me.
K.
On Sun, 18 May 2008 13:18:31 GMT, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>The subject alone raises so many questions! One MUST look!
Obviously, I also looked. <G>
---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------
On May 18, 10:59 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <0eb1cd78-038d-4201-acd5-bf693bddc...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On May 18, 12:13 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Han <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >> >The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
> >> >very convincing.
>
> >> Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous temperature
> >> increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. Kinda hard to show a
> >> cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed "cause" follows the "effect".
>
> >Yes really. Thermodynamics and molecular spectroscopy provides
> >that scientific basis, not meteorlogical or geological records.
>
> Missed the part about temperature increase *preceding* elevated CO2 levels, I
> see.
No. I see you missed the part about correlation not implying
causality.
>
>
>
> >The greenhouse effect is on a sound theoretical footing. Climate
> >change is not.
>
> >You are confusing causality with correlation--So does Al Gore.
>
> We agree on one thing: Gore certainly confuses the two. However, I understand
> the difference quite clearly. Perhaps you should back up and re-read what I
> wrote. I was *objecting* to the claim that "CO2 [is] causing our planet to
> heat up" by pointing out that ice core data shows that the heating comes
> *before* the elevated CO2 levels, thus showing that there is *not* a
> cause-and-effect relationship between the two, or at any rate, any such
> relationship that may exist is certainly not the one claimed.
Again, ice core data address correlation, not causality. How about
if we look at the data from Mars that show a temperature increase
over the least 6 or 7 years, during which time solar irradiation
dropped. Does that show a causal relationship between irradiation
and temperature such that increased irradiation causes temperature
to drop?
I don't think so.
--
FF
On May 16, 5:18=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> I hope Obama kept his Koran warm after his Christian "conversion" ...
> given his policy ideas, he's gonna need it.
Come on, Tim. Even you don't believe that. I'd put some bat-bait in
that belfry of yours.
On May 26, 8:40 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <18ec9f36-07c3-4e82-8738-a180ec06b...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On May 25, 1:40 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> I'm done wasting time arguing with someone who's unable to understand the
> >> simple principle that causes precede effects. Keep on yapping if you like, but
> >> I'm done.
>
> >I think you have enough integrity, courage, and intelligence to
> >continue.
>
> I also have enough sense not to. As noted above: I'm done wasting time arguing
> with someone who can't, or won't, comprehend that causes precede effects,
As you know, we have always agreed on that point. Your implication
that we disagree on it, is simply dishonest. I had thought better of
you.
> not
> the other way around. Keep on yapping if you like, but you'll be yapping in a
> void. I'm done.
You have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of causality
if indeed you believe that whenever one event follows another,
that proves the second was caused by the first. Mind you,
I don't really think that you do, but your refusal to discuss the
issue is unfortunate. It implies that you know that if you do
engage in an honest discussion, you will inevitably have to
awknowledge truths that you prefer to deny,.
--
On May 24, 3:16 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> >On May 22, 10:35 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> > <28b688af-5920-46db-ae3d-fc1f2691f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred
> > the
> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
> >> >> >the concentration of carbon dioxide.
>
> >> >> Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean) decreases
> > as
> >> >> temperature increases.
>
> >> >Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
> >> >as they warmed?
>
> >> That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise
> >> *after* temperature rises.
>
> >Regardless, what is *your* explanation?
>
> I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.
It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide,
right?
>
>
>
> >> >> >2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
> >> >> >to the greenhouse effect?
>
> >> >> Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
> >> >> temperatures, not the cause.
>
> >> >Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect
> >> >on temperature?
>
>
> ...
>
> >Do greenhouse gases affect temperature?
>
> Greenhouse gases are among numerous factors that *can* affect temperature.
Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?
>
>...
>
> >> Remember, this all started
> >> when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing
> >> temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes
> >> *first*.
>
> >No, you pointed out that in the ice core data, it *came*
> >first.
>
> You emphasized the wrong word: the point is that it came *first*.
>
Regardless you were addressing a putative history, not the
properties of carbon dioxide itself.
>
>
> >You never addressed what happens if carbon dioxide
> >concentrations were to rise independently of a temperature
> >change.
>
> Irrelevant -- that's not happening.
Wrong, look at the data from ~ 1940 to ~ 1980.
Or you could go back to the time from ~ 1880 to
~ 1910, though the data from then is less reliable
than from the mid-1950s to the present.
Further, aside from simple arithmetic, the Seuss
effect establishes that the rise in carbon dioxide
is anthropogenic, right?
--
FF
On May 18, 9:18 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Han wrote:
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
>
> ...
>
> >> We only have data back a few hundred thousand years. Such events
> >> as
> >> the Deccan Traps took place long before that. Then there's the
> >> question of what a large meteor strike does--how much CO2 did the
> >> Chicxulub strike release?
>
> > As I said, outside our control. I don't know the relative magnitude
> > of Pinotubo and our fossil fuel burning, but we need to do what we
> > can (IMO).
The relative magnitude of carbon dioxide released by volcanic
eruptions such as PInatubo is tiny compared to anthropogenic
releases.
>
> Why do we need to do anything if events in the past released equal or
> larger volumes of CO2 and nothing horrible happened?
>
> Pinatubo is tiny compared to Chicxulub or the Deccan Traps.
>
ISTR a great extinction followed the Deccan traps eruptions,
though opinion remains divided as to the causes.
--
FF
On May 17, 11:40 am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:37:05 -0500, "Leon"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Are these Islamofascists then - Republican Muslims?
>
> >Nope, they are Independents Muslims
>
> Now that's really funny.
>
> Think we can con them into voting for Nader?
>
> Tom Watson
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnetwww.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
If Grease Pit Denizen were an elective office, Nader would be a shoo-
in. Instead, all he gets is the "shoo."
On May 24, 7:07 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <799789f0-6b4c-441d-b328-070c93d42...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 24, 3:16 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >> >On May 22, 10:35 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> >> In article
> >> >> > <28b688af-5920-46db-ae3d-fc1f2691f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > Fred
> >> > the
> >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
> >> >> >> >the concentration of carbon dioxide.
>
> >> >> >> Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean)
> > decreases
> >> > as
> >> >> >> temperature increases.
>
> >> >> >Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
> >> >> >as they warmed?
>
> >> >> That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise
> >> >> *after* temperature rises.
>
> >> >Regardless, what is *your* explanation?
>
> >> I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.
>
> >It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide,
> >right?
>
> Not relevant to the question of which is cause and which is effect.
>
Oh? What do you consider to be necessary and sufficient to
establish which is cause and is effect?
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
> >> >> >> >to the greenhouse effect?
>
> >> >> >> Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
> >> >> >> temperatures, not the cause.
>
> >> >> >Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect
> >> >> >on temperature?
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >Do greenhouse gases affect temperature?
>
> >> Greenhouse gases are among numerous factors that *can* affect temperature.
>
> >Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?
>
> Not relevant as to which is cause and which is effect.
We disagree. But let's put that aside until we see if we agree
as to the answer to the question above.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>...
>
> >> >> Remember, this all started
> >> >> when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing
> >> >> temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes
> >> >> *first*.
>
> >> >No, you pointed out that in the ice core data, it *came*
> >> >first.
>
> >> You emphasized the wrong word: the point is that it came *first*.
>
> >Regardless you were addressing a putative history, not the
> >properties of carbon dioxide itself.
>
> Still missing the point: cause and effect.
How so?
>
>
>
> >> >You never addressed what happens if carbon dioxide
> >> >concentrations were to rise independently of a temperature
> >> >change.
>
> >> Irrelevant -- that's not happening.
>
> >Wrong, look at the data from ~ 1940 to ~ 1980.
>
> Perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word "independent".
>
I disagree. However I do need you to explain the relevance of
the concept in the context of the 1940 to 1980 data. After
all, if I assume i understand why you consider it relevant, I
may assume incorrectly.
>
>
> >Or you could go back to the time from ~ 1880 to
> >~ 1910, though the data from then is less reliable
> >than from the mid-1950s to the present.
>
> >Further, aside from simple arithmetic, the Seuss
> >effect establishes that the rise in carbon dioxide
> >is anthropogenic, right?
>
> Irrelevant to this discussion.
I disagree.
But I do agree that it is premature to discuss why.
--
FF
"Han" wrote
> But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in equilibrium.
> You don't believe your friends <grin>?
Supply and demand have NOTHING to do with the current price of oil, instead
put the blame squarely where it lies ... greed, by hedge funds and other
speculators, using manipulation made possible by regulatory differences
between global stock markets.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/wall-street-blame-runaway-energy/story.aspx?guid=%7B789899AB%2DFD58%2D4110%2D9C54%2D7A42B8D50907%7D
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On May 16, 2:24 pm, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 16, 1:39 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
> > ignored him.
>
> > The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
> > "No", AKA: "Up Yours".
>
> > Wonder if there is another approach?
>
> > Lew
>
> Ummm.... yes - it involves labeling someone a terrorist, the military
> (shocking) and a contrived preemptive strike (why, I never heard of
> such a thing, that would go against everything this country USED to
> stand for)....
>
> D'ohBoy
And a BIG 'kiss my ass' to the shrub from D'ohBoy.
D'ohBoy
J. Clarke wrote:
> So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?
Why not?......Is the capture and storage cost prohibitive?......Are not
rising levels of CO2 simply the release of naturally stored CO2?
>
> Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and the
> volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that produce
> the same amount of power and tell us which makes more sense.
I'd agree with current technologies and costs nuclear is the only or the
largest viable energy crisis alternative.......Renewables are simply stop
gaps and niche products and often expensive....Conservation makes a good
sound bite but no one ever rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly
worthwhile for getting through hard times but never for solving hard times.
Rod
"Swingman" wrote:
> Supply and demand have NOTHING to do with the current price of oil,
> instead
> put the blame squarely where it lies ... greed, by hedge funds and
> other
> speculators, using manipulation made possible by regulatory
> differences
> between global stock markets.
The real problem is the weakness of the USD.
The price of oil is tied to the USD.
Just another benefit of our adventures around the world.
Lew
In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's
>>> no point in warehousing it.
>>
>> What about converting the CO2 to carbonate? I think this is how
>> some
>> scrubbers operate.
>>
>> The product of which (Na2CO3, K2CO3, CaCO3) could be sold to off set
>> the cost of scrubbing.
>>
>> The product carbonates also take up less volume to store.
>
>And how much market is there for them?
>
How much of a market is there for powdered laundry detergent? Na2CO3 is better
known as "washing soda".
In article <a0d1462b-3a9f-4246-b5ed-f942094a32c4@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>Can you show how a conclusion that temperature
>changes are independent of carbon dioxide concentrations
>is consistent with known physics?
>
Can you show how an effect preceding a cause is consistent with basic
logic????
Robatoy wrote:
>> Up to a total container weight not exceeding 67,000 pounds.
"Doug Winterburn" wrote:
> I wonder if this might not be for the GVW limit on trucks - 80,000
> pounds in the US?
Makes sense; however, consider the folowing:
300 lbs/reefer.
67,000/300 = 223 reefers.
Assume a 53 ft trailer, the largest used.
No way to you get 223 reefers in a 53 ft trailer.
Lew
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
...snip
>>
>> It seems that there is a confusion of cause and effect here. The
>> presumed
>> cause in the articles you cite is human activity increasing the
>> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 concentration is on the order
>> of 300 ppm. My point was that in order to lower the pH of a volume of
>> liquid, a specific volume of acidic substance must be added. Even the
>> most
>> hysterical of the GW believers don't place human impact at more than
>> several ppm. If one were to compute the volume of water in the ocean,
>> the question is how much volume of acidic substance must be added to that
>> liquid volume in order to change the pH even 0.1?
>
> How do you determine this? Define your experiment for me. I think you
> will begin to see the complexity. The ocean is not just water. There's
> lots of stuff in it.
>
Why do I have to define the experiment? I'm not trying to prove that
humans are changing the ocean pH. I'm merely pointing out that there is a
heck of a lot of volume of water, that were everything else to remain
constant would require huge volumes to change the pH.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Are these Islamofascists then - Republican Muslims?
Nope, they are Independents Muslims
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?
>
Use it to insulate the nuclear waste dumps instead. The rest can be used to
fertilize the trees that hold the Spotted Owl.
jo4hn wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> With due respect to all participants, I think this thread has become
>>> boring and excessively long, hence my lack of recent participation.
>>> For me, the need to work also cuts down on the available time.
>>> Nevertheless, let's not let facts get in the way of reason. Whatever
>>> the cause for release of CO2 into the atmosphere in the geologically
>>> distant past, based on the properties of CO2 it is NOT reasonable to
>>> assume that CO2 does NOT increase heat retention by the earth. Hence
>>> the assertion that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere did and will
>>> increase the earth's temperature.
>>
>> "Let's not let facts get in the way of reason." !!
>>
>> Begin with the *fact* that ice core data shows that increases in
>> temperature *preceded* increases in CO2 levels.
>>
>> *Reason* tells us that that if any causal relationship exists there,
>> it *can't* be the one that you asserted.
>
> OK, I give up. I suggest that anyone who is interested in
> paleoclimatology start with Wikipedia for a general treatise on the
> subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core). Then look at some more
> specific information on the Vostok data at
> http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/. Both
> these sources have excellent bibliographies for further study.
> Scientific American
> (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ice-core-extends-climate) also
> presents some interesting information on the subject plus an excellent
> list for further reading. Should you have a rather more extensive
> background in climatology or related disciplines, Science magazine
> presents the research and details of the conclusions presented (start at
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/5408/1712?hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&FIRSTINDEX=0&maxtoshow=&HITS=10&fulltext=Fischer%2C+H.%2C+M.+Wahlen%2C+J.+Smith%2C+D.+Mastroiani+and+B.+Deck%2C+1999%3A+Ice+core+records+of+atmospheric+CO2+around+the+last+three+glacial+terminations.+Science%2C+283%2C+1712-1714.&searchid=1&resourcetype=HWCIT
>
> or DAGS on '"Science Magazine" ice core data' .
>
> Good luck to all.
> mahalo,
> jo4hn
Here's a tinurl (with luck) for that monstrous URL: http://tinurl.us/0c931b
sorry about that,
jo4hn
In article <98644f7e-875f-4ae9-948b-341c1e5dba29@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 24, 7:07 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <799789f0-6b4c-441d-b328-070c93d42...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 24, 3:16 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article
> <[email protected]>,
>> > Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> ...
>>
>> >> >> >On May 22, 10:35 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article
>> >> >> > <28b688af-5920-46db-ae3d-fc1f2691f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Fred
>> >> > the
>> >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
>> >> >> >> >the concentration of carbon dioxide.
>>
>> >> >> >> Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean)
>> > decreases
>> >> > as
>> >> >> >> temperature increases.
>>
>> >> >> >Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
>> >> >> >as they warmed?
>>
>> >> >> That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels
> rise
>> >> >> *after* temperature rises.
>>
>> >> >Regardless, what is *your* explanation?
>>
>> >> I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.
>>
>> >It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide,
>> >right?
>>
>> Not relevant to the question of which is cause and which is effect.
>>
>
>Oh? What do you consider to be necessary and sufficient to
>establish which is cause and is effect?
Geez, all this discussion and you *still* don't understand the point.
Once again:
"B follows A" implies nothing, one way or the other, regarding the proposition
that A caused B. It does, however, contradict the proposition that B caused A.
I see no point in further discussions with someone unable to understand that.
B A R R Y wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:22:54 -0700 (PDT), Fred the Red Shirt
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> How about if you guys who start political threads make that
>> the standard subject line?
>
>
> A thread title of " O/T: Up Yours" isn't enough of a hint that you
> might want to skip it? <G>
No! I mean, up my what?
WHAT is up there?
Was it removed afterwards or does it remain up there?
Was it sterilized?
Animal, vegetable, mineral?
Do Barak, Hillary, or John have one up theirs?
What about W., is this whole middle-east thing because he had one up his?
Will it hurt?
The subject alone raises so many questions! One MUST look!
Han wrote:
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
>>>very convincing.
>>
>> Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous
>> temperature increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.
>> Kinda hard to show a cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed
>> "cause" follows the "effect".
>
> That makes GW still more scary, IMO. The CO2 increase like now
> (industrial revolution) has never before occurred (unless there was
> indeed volcanic CO2 output).
My word, haven't you seen figures for the amount of greenhouse gases
spewed by Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Pinatubo, and now the volcano in Chile.
Dwarf the amount of gases emitted since the beginning of the industrial
revolution.
>
>>>Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much worse, but because
>>>it is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not reach the
>>>importance of CO2.
>>>Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much?
>>
>> First off, there's *no* evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2
>> levels *cause* the very slight warming that has been observed...
>
> The papers I have seen in reputable journals like Science indicate to me
> otherwise.
>
>>> On a scale of 0 to a
>>>million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5
>>>degrees K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase!
>>>But less than a few hours and you're cooked.
>>
>> .. and second, this is an entirely specious comparison. The slight
>> temperature increase that has been observed so far is NOWHERE NEAR 5
>> degrees Kelvin.
>
> I was trying to make a point, but apparently didn't succeed. The point
> was that human life (and society in general) is predicated on
> agriculture, which is really bound to a rather narrow temperature range.
> You can shift things somewhat to or from the equator, but that's it.
>
> I hope I am just seeing the dark side of things and that it won't be as
> bad as the doomsayers suggest, but wouldn't you want to be on the safe
> side?
If it means destroying our way of life and standard of living? No, for
something as shaky and goofy as the idea that humans have the ability to
change the temperature of the entire planet by only altering the CO2
concentration in the atmosphere by a few 1/10's to 1 ppm and that we should
thus make major alterations that have severe impacts upon our economic
security, I @#$% well want a whole lot more than some models that can't
even predict what *has* happened, but want me to believe that they can
predict what will happen. The fact is, a critical view of the data would
indicate we don't even know what the global average temperature has been
prior to widespread dissemination of the thermometer. If you want to give
up your way of life because of speculation based upon the size of tree
rings and ice core samples, go ahead -- don't expect me to jump off that
bridge with you.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Han wrote:
> "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> CO2(g)<------> CO2(aq) <----> H2CO3<-----> HCO3-1 <------> CO3-2.
>>> ---increasing pH------>
>>>
>>> The opposite is also true. As CO2(aq) goes to CO2(g) and leaves the
>>> ocean the equilibrium shifts to the left and the CO2(aq)
>>> concentration doesn't change. And the pH rises.
>>
>> ABOVE should have read equilibrium shifts to the right. pH rises
>> (more basic) shifts to right. pH falls (more acidic) shifts to left.
>>
> Yes. In principle this is a very simple set of equations. The
> difficulty is that oceans are not homogeneous, and we do not exactly know
> where in the oceans their is really a good totaal capacity to dissolve
> more gaseous CO2 (whether as truely dissolved gas or transformed into
> bicarbonate and carbonate). Also, it is not yet known whether ocean
> acidification will indeed kill off corals or not. Or whether more
> dissolved CO2 in whatever form will enhance coral growth. Very
> complicated indeed, mostly because ocean mixing is still hotly discussed
> science. What effects chanes in salinity will have is also important
> when more arctic and antarctic ice will melt, and mix into the oceans.
>
Sanity check time. Find the volume of water contained in the world's
oceans, take the absolute worst-case CO2 concentrations that are being
bandied around. Determine the amount of CO2 required to have even a
measureable effect upon that volume of water.
> Hopefully it will all only happen in a disastrous way after my adult
> teeth have stopped hurting me ... Which brings up the question whether
> cremation or burial is the "greener" way to go ...
>
Good heavens, I hope that was sarcasm. If not, I fear we are wasting our
time here.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
In article <6bf3d328-d25a-4b03-966e-8795e6c830a1@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 18, 10:59 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <0eb1cd78-038d-4201-acd5-bf693bddc...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 18, 12:13 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article <[email protected]>, Han
> <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
>> >> >very convincing.
>>
>> >> Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous temperature
>> >> increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. Kinda hard to
> show a
>> >> cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed "cause" follows the
> "effect".
>>
>> >Yes really. Thermodynamics and molecular spectroscopy provides
>> >that scientific basis, not meteorlogical or geological records.
>>
>> Missed the part about temperature increase *preceding* elevated CO2 levels, I
>> see.
>
>No. I see you missed the part about correlation not implying
>causality.
Fred, you really should cultivate the habit of reading posts before you reply
to them. You'll make so much more sense that way.
*I* did not claim *any* causality of *anything*. Han claimed that increasing
CO2 levels cause increasing temperature. I said there is *not* a causal
relationship there, as evidenced by the ice cores that show increasing
temperature *preceding* increased CO2 levels. I made no claim whatever to a
cause-and-effect relationship.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >The greenhouse effect is on a sound theoretical footing. Climate
>> >change is not.
>>
>> >You are confusing causality with correlation--So does Al Gore.
>>
>> We agree on one thing: Gore certainly confuses the two. However, I understand
>> the difference quite clearly. Perhaps you should back up and re-read what I
>> wrote. I was *objecting* to the claim that "CO2 [is] causing our planet to
>> heat up" by pointing out that ice core data shows that the heating comes
>> *before* the elevated CO2 levels, thus showing that there is *not* a
>> cause-and-effect relationship between the two, or at any rate, any such
>> relationship that may exist is certainly not the one claimed.
>
>Again, ice core data address correlation, not causality.
I didn't claim that the ice core data established causality of any sort.
In article <536b2b92-838c-4885-ad7d-b5cfb5b3cf36@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 22, 10:35 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <28b688af-5920-46db-ae3d-fc1f2691f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
>> >the concentration of carbon dioxide.
>>
>> Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean) decreases as
>> temperature increases.
>>
>
>Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
>as they warmed?
That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise
*after* temperature rises.
>
>>
>>
>> >2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
>> >to the greenhouse effect?
>>
>> Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
>> temperatures, not the cause.
>
>Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect
>on temperature?
>
Is it your contention that effects precede causes? Remember, this all started
when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing
temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes
*first*.
In article <74e008af-2c24-4210-bb8b-e0eb31613a1c@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 26, 8:40 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <18ec9f36-07c3-4e82-8738-a180ec06b...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 25, 1:40 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> I'm done wasting time arguing with someone who's unable to understand the
>> >> simple principle that causes precede effects. Keep on yapping if you like,
> but
>> >> I'm done.
>>
>> >I think you have enough integrity, courage, and intelligence to
>> >continue.
>>
>> I also have enough sense not to. As noted above: I'm done wasting time
> arguing
>> with someone who can't, or won't, comprehend that causes precede effects,
>
>As you know, we have always agreed on that point. Your implication
>that we disagree on it, is simply dishonest. I had thought better of
>you.
Actually, we *don't* agree on that point. You claim we do, but you keep on
ignoring that fact, and insisting that the effect indeed precedes the cause.
>
>> not
>> the other way around. Keep on yapping if you like, but you'll be yapping in a
>> void. I'm done.
>
>You have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of causality
>if indeed you believe that whenever one event follows another,
>that proves the second was caused by the first.
You have a serious inability to comprehend written English if you can
entertain even for a moment the notion that I believe that -- I've explicitly
said, several times, that I don't believe that.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding that the point is that when
one event follows another, that proves that the *first* was NOT caused by the
*second*?
In article <0eb1cd78-038d-4201-acd5-bf693bddc0d5@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 18, 12:13 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Han <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> >The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
>> >very convincing.
>>
>> Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous temperature
>> increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. Kinda hard to show a
>> cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed "cause" follows the "effect".
>
>Yes really. Thermodynamics and molecular spectroscopy provides
>that scientific basis, not meteorlogical or geological records.
Missed the part about temperature increase *preceding* elevated CO2 levels, I
see.
>
>The greenhouse effect is on a sound theoretical footing. Climate
>change is not.
>
>You are confusing causality with correlation--So does Al Gore.
We agree on one thing: Gore certainly confuses the two. However, I understand
the difference quite clearly. Perhaps you should back up and re-read what I
wrote. I was *objecting* to the claim that "CO2 [is] causing our planet to
heat up" by pointing out that ice core data shows that the heating comes
*before* the elevated CO2 levels, thus showing that there is *not* a
cause-and-effect relationship between the two, or at any rate, any such
relationship that may exist is certainly not the one claimed.
Robatoy wrote:
> On May 17, 9:34 am, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>> So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?
>> Use it to insulate the nuclear waste dumps instead. The rest can be used to
>> fertilize the trees that hold the Spotted Owl.
>
> I don't know what all the fuss is about. Spotted Owl has hardly any
> meat on them.
yabbut, like the roadrunner, what's there is excellent and worth any
amount of expense and trouble.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>> The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
>> ignored him.
>>
>> The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they
>> said "No", AKA: "Up Yours".
>
>
> Picture if you will, Shrub, groveling at the feet of his Arab camel
> jockey host, begging for an increase in his allowance, only to be told
> "No".
>
>
> Gives you a lot of confidence? NOT!
>
> Lew
Should be a strong object lesson of what happens when you try to negotiate
with nothing to back it up. Does the idea of unilaterally disarming (ala
Barack Obama's pledge to suspend development of missile defense systems and
new weapon systems) not provide a diplomatic analog to the inability to
have anything from which to negotiate (i.e, the threat to increase our own
production) in this case?
The US has no position from which to negotiate in this case, the Saudis
know that our liberal environmental radicals will prevent any further
development in the US, so they pretty much hold all the cards.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
> Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
> expensive....
Jeff Immelt, CEO, General Electric, obviously doesn't share your point
of view.
Seems he has made the decision to invest significant GE resources in
the renewable energy business.
Wonder where the assets from the sale of the GE major appliance
business will be invested?
Wind turbine anyone?
Lew
In article <b107e089-2b26-40dc-af52-69f4f8554a3c@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 18, 6:08 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <6bf3d328-d25a-4b03-966e-8795e6c83...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 18, 10:59 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article
>> > <0eb1cd78-038d-4201-acd5-bf693bddc...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred
> the
>> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On May 18, 12:13 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> >> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> > <[email protected]>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
>> >> >> >very convincing.
>>
>> >> >> Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous temperature
>> >> >> increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. Kinda hard to
>> > show a
>> >> >> cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed "cause" follows the
>> > "effect".
>>
>> >> >Yes really. Thermodynamics and molecular spectroscopy provides
>> >> >that scientific basis, not meteorlogical or geological records.
>>
>> >> Missed the part about temperature increase *preceding* elevated CO2
> levels, I
>> >> see.
>>
>> >No. I see you missed the part about correlation not implying
>> >causality.
>>
>> Fred, you really should cultivate the habit of reading posts before you reply
>> to them. You'll make so much more sense that way.
>>
>> *I* did not claim *any* causality of *anything*.
>
>Correct.
>
>> Han claimed that increasing
>> CO2 levels cause increasing temperature.
>
>He didn't cite the ice core data, he cited basic
>physics.
>
>> I said there is *not* a causal
>> relationship there,
>
>You're wrong.
>
>> as evidenced by the ice cores that show increasing
>> temperature *preceding* increased CO2 levels. I made no claim
>> whatever to a cause-and-effect relationship.
>>
>
>Wrong, you claimed the absence of a causal relationship. That is
>a claim regarding a cause-and-effect-relationship.
>
>The causal relationship is established by thermodynamics and
>spectroscopy, both sold science.
>
>You are also wrong if you think the ice core data are inconsistent
>with that causal relationship.
I'm going to put this as simply as I can:
"B follows A" does not in any way imply "A caused B".
It *does*, however, mean absolutely that B did NOT cause A.
Now substitute "increasing temperature" for "A", and "increasing CO2 levels"
for "B". Do you understand now?
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On May 17, 11:00 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>>
>> > "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> Sanity check time. Find the volume of water contained in the world's
>> >> oceans, take the absolute worst-case CO2 concentrations that are being
>> >> bandied around. Determine the amount of CO2 required to have even a
>> >> measureable effect upon that volume of water.
>>
>> > You need to elaborate here. How would you determine what you are
>> > proposing?
>>
>> > You can measure the drops in pH directly and make projections.
>>
>> > See: http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
>> >http://www.science.org.au/nova/106/106key.htm
>>
>> It seems that there is a confusion of cause and effect here.
>> The presumed cause in the articles you cite is human activity
>> increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2
>> concentration is on the order of 300 ppm.
>
> On this planet it is almost 380 ppmv, and hasn't been as low
> as 300 for close to a century. Where do you get your data?
>
You really do need to read before responding Fred. I stated "on the order
of". Not being anal enough to go searching for an exact number I relied
upon memory and thus used an approximation.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
> ignored him.
>
> The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
> "No", AKA: "Up Yours".
>
> Wonder if there is another approach?
How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A few nuclear
reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not prohibited
drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years before
anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million barrels a day
from that field.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:AuBXj.1265$dh.254@trnddc05...
> "Swingman" wrote:
>
>
> > Supply and demand have NOTHING to do with the current price of oil,
> > instead
> > put the blame squarely where it lies ... greed, by hedge funds and
> > other
> > speculators, using manipulation made possible by regulatory
> > differences
> > between global stock markets.
>
> The real problem is the weakness of the USD.
>
> The price of oil is tied to the USD.
>
> Just another benefit of our adventures around the world.
This guy called it on the nose almost two years ago:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=17812
"detention centers instead of soup kitchens" Read it and weep!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>> "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>> CO2(g)<------> CO2(aq) <----> H2CO3<-----> HCO3-1 <------> CO3-2.
>>>>> ---increasing pH------>
>>>>>
>>>>> The opposite is also true. As CO2(aq) goes to CO2(g) and leaves the
>>>>> ocean the equilibrium shifts to the left and the CO2(aq)
>>>>> concentration doesn't change. And the pH rises.
>>>>
>>>> ABOVE should have read equilibrium shifts to the right. pH rises
>>>> (more basic) shifts to right. pH falls (more acidic) shifts to left.
>>>>
>>> Yes. In principle this is a very simple set of equations. The
>>> difficulty is that oceans are not homogeneous, and we do not exactly
>>> know where in the oceans their is really a good totaal capacity to
>>> dissolve more gaseous CO2 (whether as truely dissolved gas or
>>> transformed into
>>> bicarbonate and carbonate). Also, it is not yet known whether ocean
>>> acidification will indeed kill off corals or not. Or whether more
>>> dissolved CO2 in whatever form will enhance coral growth. Very
>>> complicated indeed, mostly because ocean mixing is still hotly discussed
>>> science. What effects chanes in salinity will have is also important
>>> when more arctic and antarctic ice will melt, and mix into the oceans.
>>>
>>
>> Sanity check time. Find the volume of water contained in the world's
>> oceans, take the absolute worst-case CO2 concentrations that are being
>> bandied around. Determine the amount of CO2 required to have even a
>> measureable effect upon that volume of water.
>
> You need to elaborate here. How would you determine what you are
> proposing?
>
> You can measure the drops in pH directly and make projections.
>
> See: http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
> http://www.science.org.au/nova/106/106key.htm
>
It seems that there is a confusion of cause and effect here. The presumed
cause in the articles you cite is human activity increasing the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 concentration is on the order
of 300 ppm. My point was that in order to lower the pH of a volume of
liquid, a specific volume of acidic substance must be added. Even the most
hysterical of the GW believers don't place human impact at more than
several ppm. If one were to compute the volume of water in the ocean, the
question is how much volume of acidic substance must be added to that
liquid volume in order to change the pH even 0.1? The ultimate point being
that it is ludicrous to blame human activity on the ability to influence
that large a volume of liquid and even more ludicrous to blame it on
western (particularly US) society when areas such as India and China
produce far larger volumes of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants that can
contribute to acidification. Yet, all the GW believers seem to feel that
if they can just choke the life out of US industry and citizens, the world
will return to its previous balances.
>
...snip
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> Woodie wrote:
>> No! I mean, up my what?
>> WHAT is up there?
>> Was it removed afterwards or does it remain up there?
>> Was it sterilized?
>> Animal, vegetable, mineral?
>> Do Barak, Hillary, or John have one up theirs?
>> What about W., is this whole middle-east thing because he had one up
>> his? Will it hurt?
>>
>> The subject alone raises so many questions! One MUST look!
>
>
> Should somebody with your screen name really write that post? Rod
Uhm... Rod!?
In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 24, 7:44 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <98644f7e-875f-4ae9-948b-341c1e5db...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 24, 7:07 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article
>> > <799789f0-6b4c-441d-b328-070c93d42...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred
> the
>> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On May 24, 3:16 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> >> In article
>> > <[email protected]>,
>> >> > Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> ...
>>
>> >> >> >> >On May 22, 10:35 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> In article
>> >> >> >> >
> <28b688af-5920-46db-ae3d-fc1f2691f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > Fred
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
>> >> >> >> >> >the concentration of carbon dioxide.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean)
>> >> > decreases
>> >> >> > as
>> >> >> >> >> temperature increases.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
>> >> >> >> >as they warmed?
>>
>> >> >> >> That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide
> levels
>> > rise
>> >> >> >> *after* temperature rises.
>>
>> >> >> >Regardless, what is *your* explanation?
>>
>> >> >> I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.
>>
>> >> >It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide,
>> >> >right?
>>
>> >> Not relevant to the question of which is cause and which is effect.
>>
>> >Oh? What do you consider to be necessary and sufficient to
>> >establish which is cause and is effect?
>>
>> Geez, all this discussion and you *still* don't understand the point.
>>
>> Once again:
>>
>> "B follows A" implies nothing, one way or the other, regarding the
> proposition
>> that A caused B. It does, however, contradict the proposition that B caused
> A.
>
>Irrelevant.
Quite the contrary -- that is the *core* of my objection to Han's post.
>
>As you know, I was asking you how you established the causality that
>you asserted in your statements you excised from your reply.
I did not assert that any causality existed; rather, I asserted that the
timeline of which came first shows that the causality that *Han* asserted does
*not* exist.
>
>I repeat them here: Earlier in this thread you wrote,
>" ...: increasing CO2 level is the RESULT of increasing temperature,
>not the CAUSE."
>and
>"increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
> temperatures, not the cause."
>
>Again, how did you establish that increasing CO2 is the result of
>increasing temperatures.
Were you born this dense, or is it the result of years of practice?
Causes precede effects, not the other way around. What happens later *cannot*
be the cause of what happens earlier, no matter how ardently you and AlGore
might wish it to be so.
>
>I am not interested in what you claim to be *true*, not in
>what you claim to not be so.
Again, completely irrelevant.
I'm done wasting time arguing with someone who's unable to understand the
simple principle that causes precede effects. Keep on yapping if you like, but
I'm done.
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A few
> nuclear
> reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not prohibited
> drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years before
> anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million barrels a
> day from that field.
But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in equilibrium.
You don't believe your friends <grin>?
Conservation should be first and renewable energy second. Developing coal
strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation of greenhouse
gases), nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of nuclear waste),
and developing new oil and gas fifth.
Just my opinion.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
@news3.newsguy.com:
> Han wrote:
>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A
>>> few
>>> nuclear
>>> reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not
>>> prohibited
>>> drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years before
>>> anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million barrels
>>> a
>>> day from that field.
>>
>> But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in
>> equilibrium. You don't believe your friends <grin>?
>>
>> Conservation should be first and renewable energy second.
>> Developing
>> coal strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation of
>> greenhouse gases),
>
> So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?
Mother Gaia has done it, in clathrates, or whatever they call the
complexes in the cold nether regions of the oceans. It can be done other
ways as well.
>> nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of
>> nuclear waste),
>
> Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and the
> volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that produce
> the same amount of power and tell us which makes more sense.
I'm all for nuclear energy, but the volume of waste is not the problem.
The problems with nuclear waste are the heat generated and the need to
contain it for a very, very long time. Definitely problems that can be
conquered, but there is a lot of NIMBY to contend with.
>> and developing new oil and gas fifth.
>>
Just my opinion.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:g0na0502lr3
@news2.newsguy.com:
> Han wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
>> @news3.newsguy.com:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A
>>>>> few nuclear reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton
>>>>> not prohibited drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take
>>>>> 10 years before anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1
>>>>> million barrels a day from that field.
>>>>
>>>> But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in
>>>> equilibrium. You don't believe your friends <grin>?
>>>>
>>>> Conservation should be first and renewable energy second.
>>>> Developing
>>>> coal strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation
>>>> of
>>>> greenhouse gases),
>>>
>>> So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
>>> forever?
>>
>> Mother Gaia has done it, in clathrates, or whatever they call the
>> complexes in the cold nether regions of the oceans. It can be done
>> other ways as well.
>
> And where do we put these clathrates or "other ways"?
I really think we agree on the need for responsible use and generation of
renewable energy . I'd suggest to put clathrates in the voids of coal or
other mines, to help prevent sinkholes.
>>>> nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of
>>>> nuclear waste),
>>>
>>> Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and
>>> the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that
>>> produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more
>>> sense.
>>
>> I'm all for nuclear energy, but the volume of waste is not the
>> problem. The problems with nuclear waste are the heat generated
>
> How much heat do you believe to be generated by nuclear waste once the
> short-half-life elements have decayed?
I'm not a nuclear engineer, so I can't quote you numbers, but I do
believe that the heat generated by nuclear waste can be considerable.
Obviously it depends on the energy of the decay step(s) and their
respective energies expressed per unit mass or volume (ducking).
>> and
>> the need to contain it for a very, very long time.
>
> Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's no
> point in warehousing it.
Warehousing would suggest you're going to use it again, which does not
seem logical if you couldn't possible get energy or other use out of it.
I think it has to be put away permanently, really.
>> Definitely
>> problems that can be conquered, but there is a lot of NIMBY to
>> contend with.
>
> And you think there won't be a lot of NIMBY once people figure out
> that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage volume?
Of course there will always be NIMBY, but I think that filling
underground voids generated by mining would be a good place.
>>>> and developing new oil and gas fifth.
>>>>
>> Just my opinion.
>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:g0na0502lr3
>> @news2.newsguy.com:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
>>>> @news3.newsguy.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
> ... snip
>>> that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage
>>> volume?
>>
>> Of course there will always be NIMBY, but I think that filling
>> underground voids generated by mining would be a good place.
>>
>
> This is just amazing. The fear of a natural compound that is a very
> minor
> atmospheric constituent and the product of perfect combustion. The
> idea that humans can somehow influence the climate of the entire
> planet (of which 3/4 is ocean) by the production of a minor
> atmospheric constituent is pure hubris.
>
> Can we foul our own nests? Absolutely, that's why smog controls and
> making
> sure that industrial smokestacks are not causing severe local
> pollution. But destroying the planet? It doesn't pass the laugh test.
> Yet so many are buying in to it that they are willing to cause
> economic (and in other countries survival) hardships on others rather
> than taking logical steps to increase energy production. A growing,
> prosperous economy cannot continue to use less and less energy
> (conservation) yet continue to grow and prosper. When alternate
> sources become competitive, they will be used; forcing their use and
> subsidizing it with other peoples' money is not the development of
> alternate energy sources.
From your sig, and with all respect:
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
very convincing.
Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much worse, but because it
is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not reach the importance
of CO2.
Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much? On a scale of 0 to a
million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5 degrees
K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase! But less
than a few hours and you're cooked.
You have to realize that things that in relative terms are minor can
still affect life in a major way. Can we adjust? We don't know, because
we don't really know how much things are going to change. Will the
planet survive? Sure, by all records Earth has been much hotter and much
cooler before, compared to now, but our society may not. Should we try
to prevent extremes like we are seemingly having success in combating air
pollution in our big cities? I think we should.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
>> forever?
>
> Why not?......Is the capture and storage cost prohibitive?......Are
> not rising levels of CO2 simply the release of naturally stored CO2?
>
>>
>> Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and
>> the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that
>> produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more sense.
>
> I'd agree with current technologies and costs nuclear is the only or
> the largest viable energy crisis alternative.......
If it were not for the problems of waste control and control of plutonium
(apart from cheap nuclear weapon material, it is also very, very toxic),
nuclear would be ideal. Hence the '60's ideas of fusion energy, still a
great potential source.
> Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
> expensive....
Not so. I signed up for electricity delivery from renewable sources, and
I hope I am not hoodwinked. The info and bills say I am getting 100% of
my electricity from wind and water, all for ~$4/month more. OK, on a
$50/month electric bill it is by percentage a lot, perhaps, but not much
in impact on my pocketbook.
>Conservation makes a good sound bite but no one ever
> rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly worthwhile for getting
> through hard times but never for solving hard times. Rod
>
Conservation can be as easy as walking to the post office 200 yards away,
instead of starting up the car from cold, just for getting a few stamps.
Or turning off the lights when not needed. Conservation need not be a
measure of last resort, but is just a showing of respect for natural
resources.
All in my opinion, of course! And I do leave my computers on too much
<grin>.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> CO2(g)<------> CO2(aq) <----> H2CO3<-----> HCO3-1 <------> CO3-2.
>> ---increasing pH------>
>>
>> The opposite is also true. As CO2(aq) goes to CO2(g) and leaves the
>> ocean the equilibrium shifts to the left and the CO2(aq)
>> concentration doesn't change. And the pH rises.
>
> ABOVE should have read equilibrium shifts to the right. pH rises
> (more basic) shifts to right. pH falls (more acidic) shifts to left.
>
Yes. In principle this is a very simple set of equations. The
difficulty is that oceans are not homogeneous, and we do not exactly know
where in the oceans their is really a good totaal capacity to dissolve
more gaseous CO2 (whether as truely dissolved gas or transformed into
bicarbonate and carbonate). Also, it is not yet known whether ocean
acidification will indeed kill off corals or not. Or whether more
dissolved CO2 in whatever form will enhance coral growth. Very
complicated indeed, mostly because ocean mixing is still hotly discussed
science. What effects chanes in salinity will have is also important
when more arctic and antarctic ice will melt, and mix into the oceans.
Hopefully it will all only happen in a disastrous way after my adult
teeth have stopped hurting me ... Which brings up the question whether
cremation or burial is the "greener" way to go ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
(snipped for brevity).
I believe that there is a very significant correlation between the human
production of CO2 and global warming (GW), a correlation that is very, very
suggestive of a causal relationship. Maybe cooling (as when volcanoes
erupt and throw stuff up into the atmosphere, sometimes causing winter-like
summers, and famine) is more harmful in a relatively short time period.
However, I am very fearful that we may start a feed-forward loop wherein
CO2 increases cause global warming which in turn causes more CO2 to leave
the oceans, etc.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
> ... snip
>>
>>> Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
>>> expensive....
>>
>> Not so. I signed up for electricity delivery from renewable sources,
>> and I hope I am not hoodwinked. The info and bills say I am getting
>> 100% of my electricity from wind and water, all for ~$4/month more.
>> OK, on a $50/month electric bill it is by percentage a lot, perhaps,
>> but not much in impact on my pocketbook.
>>
>
> But are you really paying 100% of the cost of the difference for
> those
> renewables, or it this where you are paying for one of those "green
> watts" programs where you donate a certain amount per month for so
> development of so many kilowatt hours of wind or solar?
I am surcharged to pay for the difference in cost (or subsidy - what's
the difference?) between ordinary electricity and high-faluting
electricity. Thereby I believe I am doing something good, and I am happy
that I can afford it.
>>>Conservation makes a good sound bite but no one ever
>>> rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly worthwhile for getting
>>> through hard times but never for solving hard times. Rod
>>>
>> Conservation can be as easy as walking to the post office 200 yards
>> away, instead of starting up the car from cold,
>
> Not sure that many people would actually drive that short a distance
> and even those who do are using miniscule amounts of energy in so doing
I was making a point, and using close to an actual distance between my
home and the USPS office in 07410. At night, when getting a prescription
in the rain from the CVS 100 yards further, I have chosen to use the car.
>> just for getting a few stamps.
>> Or turning off the lights when not needed. Conservation need not be
>> a measure of last resort, but is just a showing of respect for
>> natural resources.
>>
>
> If you are doing it to save money, that's one thing. If you think
> you are saving the planet, you've been hoodwinked.
One does not exclde the other. Do not demean the "rush" of realizing
you're doing something "good" <grin>.
>> All in my opinion, of course! And I do leave my computers on too
>> much <grin>.
>>
>
> One of the biggest wasters of resources is the idiotic "sleep mode"
> on copiers and printers at places of business. It takes on the order
> of minutes for those things to wake up while the person using them has
> to wait. When you compute the cost of the person's time vs. the
> electricity savings, the electricity savings pale in comparison.
> That's a real drag on productivity and output
That's true for a gadget that is used every few minutes, or at least
every half hour on a 24/7 basis. I was more thinking of the TV being
really on while everyone is asleep or at work. Or the copier is on
during the long weekend. (Our copier at work goes into deep sleep when
not used in an hour or so, so then it is less of a factor).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Han
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
>>very convincing.
>
> Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous
> temperature increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.
> Kinda hard to show a cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed
> "cause" follows the "effect".
That makes GW still more scary, IMO. The CO2 increase like now
(industrial revolution) has never before occurred (unless there was
indeed volcanic CO2 output).
>>Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much worse, but because
>>it is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not reach the
>>importance of CO2.
>>Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much?
>
> First off, there's *no* evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2
> levels *cause* the very slight warming that has been observed...
The papers I have seen in reputable journals like Science indicate to me
otherwise.
>> On a scale of 0 to a
>>million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5
>>degrees K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase!
>>But less than a few hours and you're cooked.
>
> .. and second, this is an entirely specious comparison. The slight
> temperature increase that has been observed so far is NOWHERE NEAR 5
> degrees Kelvin.
I was trying to make a point, but apparently didn't succeed. The point
was that human life (and society in general) is predicated on
agriculture, which is really bound to a rather narrow temperature range.
You can shift things somewhat to or from the equator, but that's it.
I hope I am just seeing the dark side of things and that it won't be as
bad as the doomsayers suggest, but wouldn't you want to be on the safe
side?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>> Hopefully it will all only happen in a disastrous way after my adult
>> teeth have stopped hurting me ... Which brings up the question
>> whether cremation or burial is the "greener" way to go ...
>>
>
> Good heavens, I hope that was sarcasm. If not, I fear we are
> wasting our
> time here.
Sarcasm is a good guess!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The oceans contain a specific volume of water, that volume of water
> possesses a certain pH level. Holding all other things constant (as
> the GW adherents appear to be doing), then it will take a certain
> volume of acidic substance to lower the pH of that volume of ocean
> water.
>
This is where the sanity check should come in. The oceans are not sitting
on an enormous stirrer and are not getting mixed instantaneously. There
are great differences (relatively speaking) in salinity and temperature
throughout the oceans. I have never been in the Dead Sea, where not
floating is an effort, but I do know the differences in floatation and
tempreatures in fresh water, North Sea and Atlantic Ocean, and Mediteranean
Sea. And that was just close to shore (believe me!).
Mixing of intra-oceanic waters is fairly limited. Otherwise the waters off
Maine should not be as cold, and the North Sea not as warm.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> (snipped for brevity).
>>
>> I believe that there is a very significant correlation between the
>> human production of CO2 and global warming (GW), a correlation that
>> is very, very suggestive of a causal relationship. Maybe cooling
>> (as
>> when volcanoes erupt and throw stuff up into the atmosphere,
>> sometimes causing winter-like summers, and famine) is more harmful
>> in
>> a relatively short time period. However, I am very fearful that we
>> may start a feed-forward loop wherein CO2 increases cause global
>> warming which in turn causes more CO2 to leave the oceans, etc.
>
> I am far more fearful that if we change whatever we're doing the
> glaciation cycle that for some reason has been long delayed will
> happen at a greatly accelerated pace.
>
I think it will be easier to work with cooling in this technological age
than with warming. It will really take quite a bit of cooling to lead to
another ice age during the next few hundred years, while the threat of
rising oceans and changes to agricultural climate because of GW are much
more immediate.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>> That makes GW still more scary, IMO. The CO2 increase like now
>> (industrial revolution) has never before occurred (unless there was
>> indeed volcanic CO2 output).
>
> How do you know that it has "never before occurred"?
Human involvement in regulating CO2 has never before occurred.
Volcanos, clathrate disruption etc are generally outside our control,
but fossil fuel burning etc is under our control.
> We only have data back a few hundred thousand years. Such events as
> the Deccan Traps took place long before that. Then there's the
> question of what a large meteor strike does--how much CO2 did the
> Chicxulub strike release?
As I said, outside our control. I don't know the relative magnitude of
Pinotubo and our fossil fuel burning, but we need to do what we can (IMO).
Just picking on part of your replies <grin>.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote in news:599331df-6ce1-
[email protected]:
> They're talking about pumping it into the voids under the
> North Sea left over from petroleum extraction. At those
> depths it will liquefy, or maybe form clathrates.
>
> Sounds nuts to me.
Since the extraction of oil and gas leaves holes that can and do collapse,
filling the voids (especially under inhabited regions) has the advantage of
preserving the integrity of housing etc.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> ... and that's where the problem lies. One hour, two hours, during
> the
> business day -- that is what is really expensive. Even if the copier
> takes 1 kW (not true, but I don't have the numbers to hand) in idle
> mode -- that is at most 20 cents worth of electricity (50 cents in
> California probably). OTOH, the employee waiting for that copier to
> wake up from deep sleep -- typically 3 to 5 minutes can easily cost on
> the order of $3 to $5 worth of time once you figure labor and overhead
> into the time accounting for that person. It becomes even more
> expensive when the copies are critical for some last-minute deadline
> and one has to wait for the copier to "wake up" because it was idle
> for more than an hour.
We can go back and forth about this, but the fact remains that power on
means power consumed. How to limit that, and how to make "instant on"
indeed instant on from power off or practically off, that's what should be
figured out.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> So they ran wires from the wind turbines and dams direct to your house
> without interfacing them with the rest of the grid? Yeah, you're
> being hoodwinked.
Even I do not believe that. But the power I consumed (or an equivalent
amount) was generated by renewable energy generation.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:599331df-6ce1-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> They're talking about pumping it into the voids under the
>>> North Sea left over from petroleum extraction. At those
>>> depths it will liquefy, or maybe form clathrates.
>>>
>>> Sounds nuts to me.
>>
>> Since the extraction of oil and gas leaves holes that can and do
>> collapse, filling the voids (especially under inhabited regions) has
>> the advantage of preserving the integrity of housing etc.
>
> So how many houses are there in the North Sea?
>
I think there are some oil drilling and distribution rigs. Would not be
good if they get damaged. There was an earthquake of sorts (3.5 on the
Richter scale) in the province of Groningen (Netherlands) where there has
been so much subsidence and damage that the local government and the gas-
winning company (NAM by their Dutch initials) are paying compensation. I
don't know whether there are plans to "fill" those voids with anything,
but I believe that in some places water injection is used to crank up gas
and maybe oil winning. That's where CO2 or carbonate injection could
help.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>> We can go back and forth about this, but the fact remains that power
>> on means power consumed. How to limit that, and how to make
>> "instant
>> on" indeed instant on from power off or practically off, that's what
>> should be figured out.
>
> Oh, that's easy--you put a 100kw element in the fuser to heat it up
> rapidly.
>
100 kW at 50 cent/kWh? $50 per hour to operate a copier? At that rate the
electric company would give you the paper and toner.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> So they ran wires from the wind turbines and dams direct to your
>>> house without interfacing them with the rest of the grid? Yeah,
>>> you're being hoodwinked.
>>
>> Even I do not believe that. But the power I consumed (or an
>> equivalent amount) was generated by renewable energy generation.
>
> An equivalent amount yes, but not the energy you consumed.
>
> I like it though--greenies like you pay a premium for the same
> identical energy from the same identical sources that the guy across
> the street gets without paying the premium.
>
> Can you say "more money than brains"?
>
Thanks!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Woodie <[email protected]> wrote in news:H0WXj.115136$TT4.78579@attbi_s22:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:22:54 -0700 (PDT), Fred the Red Shirt
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> How about if you guys who start political threads make that
>>> the standard subject line?
>>
>>
>> A thread title of " O/T: Up Yours" isn't enough of a hint that you
>> might want to skip it? <G>
>
> No! I mean, up my what?
> WHAT is up there?
> Was it removed afterwards or does it remain up there?
> Was it sterilized?
> Animal, vegetable, mineral?
> Do Barak, Hillary, or John have one up theirs?
> What about W., is this whole middle-east thing because he had one up
> his? Will it hurt?
>
> The subject alone raises so many questions! One MUST look!
Gotcha!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote in news:c9b4150b-ed6f-
[email protected]:
> The nuitty part is capturing the carbon dioxide from power plants
> and transporting it there.
Sorry, not sure about "nuitty".
Technology to trap and chemically bond smokestack gases is in use, although
stupid regulations seem to make utilities able to avoid retrofitting.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Yes, this is unilateral disarmament on
> our part -- your words below not withstanding. It is our country
> removing a part of its ability to defend itself without any equivalent
> concessions from other countries.
While agreeing with part of your position, this is not the whole truth
and therefore it is (in my opinion) totally and absolutely false. You
are advocating that we spend ourselves to death the same way we forced
the Soviet Union to its death - spend and spend on useless (in the end)
technology and weapons.
For instance, we may eventually be able to shoot down a few missiles
lobbed in our direction, but what would be needed is a guarantee that
none come through such a missile defense system. I think that history
has proven that offensive strategies always win over defensive ones
(castles, Maginot line, Atlantic Wall). If too many missiles would come
at the same time, or a single missile would come from the "wrong"
direction, we'd be cooked at the attacked site, and will have to resortto
retaliatory strikes. Are we ready for such sacrifices on our own soil
and on theirs?
Some kind of early warning system would be fine with me. Also, as far as
monitoring and manning such installation(s), that can be done in
cooperation with others (Russians, Chinese) so we let them know that they
should be concerned about terrorist attacks as well. But the operative
mentality has to be one of brutality, with disregard for civilian
casualties, just like they don't care about that in attacking us.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>>Irrelevant.
>
> Quite the contrary -- that is the *core* of my objection to Han's
> post.
>>
>>As you know, I was asking you how you established the causality that
>>you asserted in your statements you excised from your reply.
>
> I did not assert that any causality existed; rather, I asserted that
> the timeline of which came first shows that the causality that *Han*
> asserted does *not* exist.
>
With due respect to all participants, I think this thread has become
boring and excessively long, hence my lack of recent participation. For
me, the need to work also cuts down on the available time. Nevertheless,
let's not let facts get in the way of reason. Whatever the cause for
release of CO2 into the atmosphere in the geologically distant past,
based on the properties of CO2 it is NOT reasonable to assume that CO2
does NOT increase heat retention by the earth. Hence the assertion that
increases in CO2 in the atmosphere did and will increase the earth's
temperature.
We probably should pay more attention to the effects of changes in solar
radiation, which happen for various reasons, on the earth temperature.
However, I don't really see how we can affect that easily, other than by
putting some kind of soot or reflective material into the stratosphere or
above (a possibility of course, maybe in the form of solar energy
collectors linked to microwave transmitting stations). For a whole lot
of reasons limiting carbon emissions is good, not the least of which is
conservation.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The US has no position from which to negotiate in this case, the Saudis
> know that our liberal environmental radicals will prevent any further
> development in the US, so they pretty much hold all the cards.
It's the Carter years all over again.
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> Your quibbling over "think" vs "know" instead of addressing the
> point
> being made tells me that you don't really have a viable
> counterargument.
"Quibbling", interesting choice of words.
There is no "arguement", simply a statement of facts.
> As for ovens, stoves, refrigerators, etc being limited to the
> domestic
> market, are you saying that Americans are the only people who cook
> food and store it in refrigerators? If so, you really need to talk
> to
> your doctor about your medication.
It's very difficult to be competitive shipping major appliances across
oceans.
Ever wonder why the Chinese tried to buy a US appliance manufacturer
rather than serve the US market from China?
Seems the logic evades you.
Lew
In article <28b688af-5920-46db-ae3d-fc1f2691f9c2@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 21, 6:57 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <0199efdc-c3ed-4100-b12d-5618efdc7...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 21, 6:41 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article
>> > <[email protected]>, Fred
> the
>> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 21, 6:28 am,
>> > [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> >> In article
>> >> > <a0d1462b-3a9f-4246-b5ed-f942094a3...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Fred
>> > the
>> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Can you show how a conclusion that temperature
>> >> >> >changes are independent of carbon dioxide concentrations
>> >> >> >is consistent with known physics?
>>
>> >> >> Can you show how an effect preceding a cause is consistent with basic
>> >> >> logic????
>>
>> >> >No, nor do I see the relevance regarding possible future temperature
>> >> >changes. Can you explain?
>>
>> >> If you need it explained to you that causes precede effects, rather than
> the
>> >> other way around, there's really no point in continuing the discussion.
>>
>> >Perhaps I don;t understand your position at all. Can you explain
>> >the relevance regarding the future effect of present increases in
>> >Carbon dioxide concentration?
>>
>> Indeed you don't understand the concept at all. The point is that you have
> the
>> cause-and-effect relationship reversed: increasing CO2 level is the RESULT of
>> increasing temperature, not the CAUSE.
>
>1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
>the concentration of carbon dioxide.
Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean) decreases as
temperature increases.
>
>2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
>to the greenhouse effect?
Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
temperatures, not the cause.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:oxkXj.43$%g.0@trnddc08...
> The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they ignored
> him.
>
> The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
> "No", AKA: "Up Yours".
>
> Wonder if there is another approach?
>
> Lew
>
>
Take over.
On May 20, 5:58 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <489bab39-dc6f-4157-8af5-425facc22...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 20, 6:41 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <d4bc2b36-6207-493b-b57b-d999b23ea...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 19, 9:04 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> > <b107e089-2b26-40dc-af52-69f4f8554...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred
> > the
> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> > ... you claimed the absence of a causal relationship. That is
> >> >> >a claim regarding a cause-and-effect-relationship.
>
> >> >> >The causal relationship is established by thermodynamics and
> >> >> >spectroscopy, both sold science.
>
> >> >> >You are also wrong if you think the ice core data are inconsistent
> >> >> >with that causal relationship.
>
> >> >> I'm going to put this as simply as I can:
>
> >> >> "B follows A" does not in any way imply "A caused B".
>
> >> >> It *does*, however, mean absolutely that B did NOT cause A.
>
> >> >> Now substitute "increasing temperature" for "A", and "increasing CO2
> > levels"
> >> >> for "B". Do you understand now?
>
> >> >Yes, you base your argument on the false premise that
> >> >there is only one independent variable at play.
>
> >> No, I base my argument on the *fact* that effects do not precede causes.
> > Sorry
> >> you're having so much trouble grasping that concept.
>
> >At most you can infer from the ice core data is that
> >the change in carbon dioxide did not initiate the change
> >in temperature.
>
> Exactly so.
>
> >You cannot use the data to show that
> >a change in carbon dioxide cannot initiate a change in
> >temperature.
>
> Ever hear of Occam's Razor, Fred?
Yes.
Can you show how a conclusion that temperature
changes are independent of carbon dioxide concentrations
is consistent with known physics?
--
FF
On May 18, 6:08 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <6bf3d328-d25a-4b03-966e-8795e6c83...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 18, 10:59 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <0eb1cd78-038d-4201-acd5-bf693bddc...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 18, 12:13 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>, Han
> > <[email protected]>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> >The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
> >> >> >very convincing.
>
> >> >> Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous temperature
> >> >> increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. Kinda hard to
> > show a
> >> >> cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed "cause" follows the
> > "effect".
>
> >> >Yes really. Thermodynamics and molecular spectroscopy provides
> >> >that scientific basis, not meteorlogical or geological records.
>
> >> Missed the part about temperature increase *preceding* elevated CO2 levels, I
> >> see.
>
> >No. I see you missed the part about correlation not implying
> >causality.
>
> Fred, you really should cultivate the habit of reading posts before you reply
> to them. You'll make so much more sense that way.
>
> *I* did not claim *any* causality of *anything*.
Correct.
> Han claimed that increasing
> CO2 levels cause increasing temperature.
He didn't cite the ice core data, he cited basic
physics.
> I said there is *not* a causal
> relationship there,
You're wrong.
> as evidenced by the ice cores that show increasing
> temperature *preceding* increased CO2 levels. I made no claim
> whatever to a cause-and-effect relationship.
>
Wrong, you claimed the absence of a causal relationship. That is
a claim regarding a cause-and-effect-relationship.
The causal relationship is established by thermodynamics and
spectroscopy, both sold science.
You are also wrong if you think the ice core data are inconsistent
with that causal relationship.
You are thinking in terms of a single independent variable.
Can you separately solve separately for multiple forcing
functions acting with the same frequency?
>
>
>
> ...
> >Again, ice core data address correlation, not causality.
>
> I didn't claim that the ice core data established causality of any sort.
How about basic physics? Do you see how that establishes
causality?
How about
if we look at the data from Mars that show a temperature increase
over the least 6 or 7 years, during which time solar irradiation
dropped. Does that show that increased irradiation does NOT
cause temperature to rise?
--
FF
On May 19, 10:19=A0pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On May 18, 2:24 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
>
> > > Check out sand cast iron barbell weights at a sporting goods store
> > > sometime. =A0The last ones I saw here in Maryland were imported
> > > from the PRC. =A0Somehow they manage to be competitive shipping
> > > (literally) dead weight halfway around the worlds.
>
> > Different ball game.
>
> > When you ship a major appliance, it includes a lot of sailboat fuel
> > which makes it very tough to get any shipping density on a container
> > ship.
>
> > Freight charges end up being based on occupied volume, not weight.
>
> That makes a lot of sense. =A0Now I won; tbe surprised if they
> start making square barbell weights.
>
> --
>
> FF
Up to a total container weight not exceeding 67,000 pounds.
On May 24, 7:44 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <98644f7e-875f-4ae9-948b-341c1e5db...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 24, 7:07 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <799789f0-6b4c-441d-b328-070c93d42...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 24, 3:16 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> > <[email protected]>,
> >> > Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> ...
>
> >> >> >> >On May 22, 10:35 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> In article
> >> >> >> > <28b688af-5920-46db-ae3d-fc1f2691f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > Fred
> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
> >> >> >> >> >the concentration of carbon dioxide.
>
> >> >> >> >> Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean)
> >> > decreases
> >> >> > as
> >> >> >> >> temperature increases.
>
> >> >> >> >Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
> >> >> >> >as they warmed?
>
> >> >> >> That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels
> > rise
> >> >> >> *after* temperature rises.
>
> >> >> >Regardless, what is *your* explanation?
>
> >> >> I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.
>
> >> >It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide,
> >> >right?
>
> >> Not relevant to the question of which is cause and which is effect.
>
> >Oh? What do you consider to be necessary and sufficient to
> >establish which is cause and is effect?
>
> Geez, all this discussion and you *still* don't understand the point.
>
> Once again:
>
> "B follows A" implies nothing, one way or the other, regarding the proposition
> that A caused B. It does, however, contradict the proposition that B caused A.
Irrelevant.
As you know, I was asking you how you established the causality that
you asserted in your statements you excised from your reply.
I repeat them here: Earlier in this thread you wrote,
" ...: increasing CO2 level is the RESULT of increasing temperature,
not the CAUSE."
and
"increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
temperatures, not the cause."
Again, how did you establish that increasing CO2 is the result of
increasing temperatures.
I am not interested in what you claim to be *true*, not in
what you claim to not be so.
>
> I see no point in further discussions with someone unable to understand that.
Rather it appears that you are afraid you will be unable to
justify *your own* assertions. Take heart, I bet you can.
--
FF
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:37:05 -0500, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Are these Islamofascists then - Republican Muslims?
>>
>>
>>Nope, they are Independents Muslims
>>
>
>
>
> Now that's really funny.
>
> Think we can con them into voting for Nader?
Perhaps, and won't they have their hands full, then!
On May 18, 2:24 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
>
> > Check out sand cast iron barbell weights at a sporting goods store
> > sometime. The last ones I saw here in Maryland were imported
> > from the PRC. Somehow they manage to be competitive shipping
> > (literally) dead weight halfway around the worlds.
>
> Different ball game.
>
> When you ship a major appliance, it includes a lot of sailboat fuel
> which makes it very tough to get any shipping density on a container
> ship.
>
> Freight charges end up being based on occupied volume, not weight.
>
That makes a lot of sense. Now I won; tbe surprised if they
start making square barbell weights.
--
FF
J. Clarke wrote:
> Han wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:g0na0502lr3
>> @news2.newsguy.com:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
>>>> @news3.newsguy.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves?
>>>>>>> A
>>>>>>> few nuclear reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba
>>>>>>> Clinton
>>>>>>> not prohibited drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would
>>>>>>> take 10 years before anything resulted anyway, we would now be
>>>>>>> getting 1 million barrels a day from that field.
>>>>>>
... snip
>>
>> I'm not a nuclear engineer, so I can't quote you numbers, but I do
>> believe that the heat generated by nuclear waste can be
>> considerable.
>> Obviously it depends on the energy of the decay step(s) and their
>> respective energies expressed per unit mass or volume (ducking).
>
> Short term it's "considerable" which is why high-level waste stays at
> the power plant until it's decayed enough for shipment. By the time
> it gets to a long-term storage facility the heat generated is
> negligible.
>
It's been a bunch of years since my Modern Physics course, but I recall
the fact that the highest-level wastes that generate such heat also have
the shortest half-lives.
>>>> and
>>>> the need to contain it for a very, very long time.
>>>
>>> Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's
>>> no point in warehousing it.
>>
>> Warehousing would suggest you're going to use it again, which does
>> not
>> seem logical if you couldn't possible get energy or other use out of
>> it. I think it has to be put away permanently, really.
>
> Whatever word you use, it still has to be kept forever.
>
Back before Hanoi Jane and others got the the nuclear industry effectively
shut down, there was significant research on means to deal with nuclear
waste. One of the means involved vitrification (basically encapsulating
in, or turning to, glass) and then launching the waste into space
(destinations varied, from solar incineration to out of the solar system).
The vitrified product would be recoverable and not pose significant danger
in the event of a launch malfunction. There were other approaches under
consideration as well.
>>>> Definitely
>>>> problems that can be conquered, but there is a lot of NIMBY to
>>>> contend with.
>>>
>>> And you think there won't be a lot of NIMBY once people figure out
>>> that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage
>>> volume?
>>
>> Of course there will always be NIMBY, but I think that filling
>> underground voids generated by mining would be a good place.
>
> Will those voids be sufficient, considering that what you're putting
> in them has had two atoms of oxygen added to each atom of carbon that
> was taken out? And will those voids be sufficiently secure to keep it
> segregated _forever_? If so then why not put nuclear waste there?
>
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On May 18, 8:40 am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote in news:599331df-6ce1-
> [email protected]:
>
> > They're talking about pumping it into the voids under the
> > North Sea left over from petroleum extraction. At those
> > depths it will liquefy, or maybe form clathrates.
>
> > Sounds nuts to me.
>
> Since the extraction of oil and gas leaves holes that can and do collapse,
> filling the voids (especially under inhabited regions) has the advantage of
> preserving the integrity of housing etc.
>
The nuitty part is capturing the carbon dioxide from power plants
and transporting it there.
--
FF
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>> ...snip
>>>>
>>>> It seems that there is a confusion of cause and effect here. The
>>>> presumed
>>>> cause in the articles you cite is human activity increasing the
>>>> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 concentration is on the
>>>> order
>>>> of 300 ppm. My point was that in order to lower the pH of a volume of
>>>> liquid, a specific volume of acidic substance must be added. Even the
>>>> most
>>>> hysterical of the GW believers don't place human impact at more than
>>>> several ppm. If one were to compute the volume of water in the ocean,
>>>> the question is how much volume of acidic substance must be added to
>>>> that
>>>> liquid volume in order to change the pH even 0.1?
>>>
>>> How do you determine this? Define your experiment for me. I think you
>>> will begin to see the complexity. The ocean is not just water.
>>> There's lots of stuff in it.
>>>
>>
>> Why do I have to define the experiment?
>
> Because you proposed determining "how much volume of acidic substance must
> be added to that liquid volume in order to change the pH even 0.1"
>
> This type of experiment can't be done in a jar. Which is why I was
> interested in how you would go about computing "the volume of acidic
> substance" needed.
>
The oceans contain a specific volume of water, that volume of water
possesses a certain pH level. Holding all other things constant (as the GW
adherents appear to be doing), then it will take a certain volume of acidic
substance to lower the pH of that volume of ocean water.
>> I'm not trying to prove that
>> humans are changing the ocean pH. I'm merely pointing out that there is
>> a heck of a lot of volume of water, that were everything else to remain
>> constant would require huge volumes to change the pH.
>
> Well guess what? The pH is changing.
> So what was the point to your "sanity check"?
The point of my sanity check was to establish cause. The data says pH is
changing, that is the data, and if true, is a fact. The GW zealots scream
that it is man-made increases in CO2 that is causing this change. That is
speculation, theory, and conjecture. My challenge to the luddites (who are
ultimately trying to reduce human industrial activity) is how much CO2
would have to be produced by humans to be able to produce sufficient acidic
substances to make a measureable change in ocean pH? That provides a sanity
check vis a vis whether it is even possible for humans to have any impact
upon ocean pH. Shoot, I could posit the theory that Madonna peeing the
shower is responsible for the change in ocean pH -- wouldn't make it so,
but if I screamed loud enough and had a fax machine with an impressive
letterhead I could probably get Reuters or AP to pick up on it.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On May 17, 10:34=A0am, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On May 17, 9:34 am, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>> So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?=
> >> Use it to insulate the nuclear waste dumps instead. =A0The rest can be =
used to
> >> fertilize the trees that hold the Spotted Owl.
>
> > I don't know what all the fuss is about. Spotted Owl has hardly any
> > meat on them.
>
> yabbut, like the roadrunner, what's there is excellent and worth any
> amount of expense and trouble.
Best get your ACME credit card out.
On May 21, 6:28 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <a0d1462b-3a9f-4246-b5ed-f942094a3...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Can you show how a conclusion that temperature
> >changes are independent of carbon dioxide concentrations
> >is consistent with known physics?
>
> Can you show how an effect preceding a cause is consistent with basic
> logic????
No, nor do I see the relevance regarding possible future temperature
changes. Can you explain?
--
FF
On May 19, 9:04 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <b107e089-2b26-40dc-af52-69f4f8554...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > ... you claimed the absence of a causal relationship. That is
> >a claim regarding a cause-and-effect-relationship.
>
> >The causal relationship is established by thermodynamics and
> >spectroscopy, both sold science.
>
> >You are also wrong if you think the ice core data are inconsistent
> >with that causal relationship.
>
> I'm going to put this as simply as I can:
>
> "B follows A" does not in any way imply "A caused B".
>
> It *does*, however, mean absolutely that B did NOT cause A.
>
> Now substitute "increasing temperature" for "A", and "increasing CO2 levels"
> for "B". Do you understand now?
Yes, you base your argument on the false premise that
there is only one independent variable at play.
Suppose there are five independent variables. Suppose
two of them are changing in a way that drives temperature
up and three of them are changing in a way that drives temperature
down. If the temperature goes up, or if the temperature goes
down, does that prove or disprove anything about how any one
of those five variable affects temperature?
Now, back to basic physics, do you understand what it means
for a planet to be in thermal equilibrium?
--
FF
On May 26, 2:23 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >Please place a "yes" or "no" below the following propositions:
>
> >1) "A follows B" - in and of itself - says nothing one way or the other
> > as to whether B *causes* A:
>
> > Doug Says:
> Correct
> > Fred Says:
Yes. Hence my questions for Mr Miller.
>
> >2) "A follows B" is sufficient to demonstrate that A *cannot* have caused B:
>
> > Doug Says:
> Correct
> > Fred Says:
Yes, though it is insufficient to demonstrate that another
event identical to A cannot cause another event identical
to B under other circumstances.
>
> >3) "A and B" happen at the same time - in and of itself - says nothing
> > about whether or not they had a *common* or *related* cause:
>
> > Doug Says:
> Correct
> > Fred Says:
Yes.
>
> >4) "A, B, and many other things exist and demonstrate complexity. This
> > clearly demonstrates a complete lack of first cause and can be
> > sufficiently explained by the "magic" of self-organization,
> > evolution, and punctuated equilibrium:
>
> Disagree
Irrelevant.
--
FF
On May 26, 2:23 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Which is why I've decided it's a waste of time to continue arguing with Fred.
I think that with a modicum of effort you can justify the statements I
have asked you to justify. Your reticence is the result of a growing
realization on your part that I can use a similar justification for
statements you'd rather not have considered. I'm going to make
them anyways.
--
FF
On May 18, 2:04 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Han wrote:
> > [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
>
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Han
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
> >>>very convincing.
>
> >> Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous
> >> temperature increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.
> >> Kinda hard to show a cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed
> >> "cause" follows the "effect".
>
> > That makes GW still more scary, IMO. The CO2 increase like now
> > (industrial revolution) has never before occurred (unless there was
> > indeed volcanic CO2 output).
>
> My word, haven't you seen figures for the amount of greenhouse gases
> spewed by Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Pinatubo, and now the volcano in Chile.
> Dwarf the amount of gases emitted since the beginning of the industrial
> revolution.
>
Haven't you?
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from
subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at
the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total
global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. T
his is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic)
CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150
times."
and, courtesy of the minions of the Bush administration who
are routinely accused of 'suppressing' real science:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5271302
"Volcanic CO{sub 2} presently represents only 0.22%
of anthropogenic emissions but may have contributed
to significant greenhouse` effects at times in Earth history"
And look at the Mauna Loa data:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide_png
You might be able to detect an effect from volcanic
eruptions in there, but it is subtle at best.
>
>
>
> ...
>
> > I hope I am just seeing the dark side of things and that it won't be as
> > bad as the doomsayers suggest, but wouldn't you want to be on the safe
> > side?
>
> If it means destroying our way of life and standard of living? No, for
> something as shaky and goofy as the idea that humans have the ability to
> change the temperature of the entire planet by only altering the CO2
> concentration in the atmosphere by a few 1/10's to 1 ppm
You would seem to be unclear on the concept of rate. The rate of
increase is between 1 and two ppmv/year.
--
FF
On May 24, 7:07 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <799789f0-6b4c-441d-b328-070c93d42...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 24, 3:16 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> ...
> ...
>
> >> >> >Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
> >> >> >as they warmed?
>
> >> >> That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise
> >> >> *after* temperature rises.
>
> >> >Regardless, what is *your* explanation?
>
> >> I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.
>
> >It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide,
> >right?
>
> Not relevant to the question of which is cause and which is effect.
>
What do you consider to be necessary and sufficient to establish
which is cause and which is effect?
As you will recall you wrote: " ...: increasing CO2 level
is the RESULT of increasing temperature, not the CAUSE."
and "increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
temperatures, not the cause."
You do seem to be pretty convinced on that point.
I would like to know how you established that.
>
> >> >> >> Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
> >> >> >> temperatures, not the cause.
>
>...
>
> >> >Do greenhouse gases affect temperature?
>
> >> Greenhouse gases are among numerous factors that *can* affect temperature.
>
> >Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?
>
> Not relevant as to which is cause and which is effect.
>
No. Since greenhouse gases *can* affect temperature,
the question of whether or not carbon dioxide is a greenhouse
gas is relevant to both the question of cause and effect
and to Han's remark to the effect that sound science has
established that rising carbon dioxide concentrations
cause temperatures to rise.
So, with that context in mind, is carbon dioxide a
greenhouse gas?
>
>
>
>
> >>...
>
> >> >> Remember, this all started
> >> >> when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing
> >> >> temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes
> >> >> *first*.
>
> >> >No, you pointed out that in the ice core data, it *came*
> >> >first.
>
> >> You emphasized the wrong word: the point is that it came *first*.
>
> >Regardless you were addressing a putative history, not the
> >properties of carbon dioxide itself.
>
> Still missing the point: cause and effect.
>
No, you made a general statement cause and effect
based on a particular data set from the past,and argue
that it disproves what Han said was true, in general,
about carbon dioxide and temperature changes.
It is not clear how you apply those observations from the
past to disprove Han's remarks about the general case.
Please explain.
>
>
> >> >You never addressed what happens if carbon dioxide
> >> >concentrations were to rise independently of a temperature
> >> >change.
>
> >> Irrelevant -- that's not happening.
>
> >Wrong, look at the data from ~ 1940 to ~ 1980.
>
> Perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word "independent".
>
No. However, rather than assume I understand the relevance
of your suggestion I do need you to explain the relevance in
the context of the data from ~1940 to ~1980, during which time
carbon dioxide rose while the temperature did not.
>
>
> >Or you could go back to the time from ~ 1880 to
> >~ 1910, though the data from then is less reliable
> >than from the mid-1950s to the present.
>
> >Further, aside from simple arithmetic, the Seuss
> >effect establishes that the rise in carbon dioxide
> >is anthropogenic, right?
>
> Irrelevant to this discussion.
We disagree. But discussion of the Seuss effect
is premature.
--
FF
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> Take over.
>
> A take over is probably going to happen along about NOV.
>
> Oh wait, think you've got something else in mind.
>
> Lew
>
>
No, that will be a big *give back*, and the islamofacists will breathe
a big sigh of relief, being given another 4 years to cook up mayhem
and mischief with an impotent US president doing little or nothing
in the meantime.
You talk about nukes? Start building your shelter. It's the
1960s all over again, but this time the war isn't "cold".
I hope Obama kept his Koran warm after his Christian "conversion" ...
given his policy ideas, he's gonna need it.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On May 17, 9:56=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Swingman" wrote:
> > Supply and demand have NOTHING to do with the current price of oil,
> > instead
> > put the blame squarely where it lies ... greed, by hedge funds and
> > other
> > speculators, using manipulation made possible by regulatory
> > differences
> > between global stock markets.
>
> The real problem is the weakness of the USD.
>
> The price of oil is tied to the USD.
>
Some pundits speculate that it was the underlying cause for getting
rid of Sadam; he wanted to switch to the Euro.
The same bunch thinks that the sabre-rattling with Iran is all about
that too.
If oil no longer holds up the USD, the US economy collapses.
It's always the same: Follow the money!
The huge tax breaks for the rich is just another transfer of wealth
before the corps starts to rot.
On May 25, 2:21 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote innews:[email protected]:
>
> ...
>
> > I did not assert that any causality existed; rather, I asserted that
> > the timeline of which came first shows that the causality that *Han*
> > asserted does *not* exist.
>
> With due respect to all participants, I think this thread has become
> boring and excessively long, hence my lack of recent participation. For
> me, the need to work also cuts down on the available time. Nevertheless,
> let's not let facts get in the way of reason. Whatever the cause for
> release of CO2 into the atmosphere in the geologically distant past,
> based on the properties of CO2 it is NOT reasonable to assume that CO2
> does NOT increase heat retention by the earth. Hence the assertion that
> increases in CO2 in the atmosphere did and will increase the earth's
> temperature.
You refer to a feedback phenomenon. I get the impression that
Mr Miller is desperately trying to avoid awknowledging any facts
that support the concept of feedback.
--
FF
>
> We probably should pay more attention to the effects of changes in solar
> radiation, which happen for various reasons, on the earth temperature.
> However, I don't really see how we can affect that easily, other than by
> putting some kind of soot or reflective material into the stratosphere or
> above (a possibility of course, maybe in the form of solar energy
> collectors linked to microwave transmitting stations). For a whole lot
> of reasons limiting carbon emissions is good, not the least of which is
> conservation.
>
It's been done, google solar dimming, if you have not already.
--
FF
On May 16, 1:39 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
> ignored him.
>
> The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they said
> "No", AKA: "Up Yours".
>
> Wonder if there is another approach?
>
> Lew
Ummm.... yes - it involves labeling someone a terrorist, the military
(shocking) and a contrived preemptive strike (why, I never heard of
such a thing, that would go against everything this country USED to
stand for)....
D'ohBoy
In article <489bab39-dc6f-4157-8af5-425facc2278b@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 20, 6:41 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <d4bc2b36-6207-493b-b57b-d999b23ea...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 19, 9:04 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article
>> > <b107e089-2b26-40dc-af52-69f4f8554...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred
> the
>> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > ... you claimed the absence of a causal relationship. That is
>> >> >a claim regarding a cause-and-effect-relationship.
>>
>> >> >The causal relationship is established by thermodynamics and
>> >> >spectroscopy, both sold science.
>>
>> >> >You are also wrong if you think the ice core data are inconsistent
>> >> >with that causal relationship.
>>
>> >> I'm going to put this as simply as I can:
>>
>> >> "B follows A" does not in any way imply "A caused B".
>>
>> >> It *does*, however, mean absolutely that B did NOT cause A.
>>
>> >> Now substitute "increasing temperature" for "A", and "increasing CO2
> levels"
>> >> for "B". Do you understand now?
>>
>> >Yes, you base your argument on the false premise that
>> >there is only one independent variable at play.
>>
>> No, I base my argument on the *fact* that effects do not precede causes.
> Sorry
>> you're having so much trouble grasping that concept.
>
>At most you can infer from the ice core data is that
>the change in carbon dioxide did not initiate the change
>in temperature.
Exactly so.
>You cannot use the data to show that
>a change in carbon dioxide cannot initiate a change in
>temperature.
Ever hear of Occam's Razor, Fred?
On May 17, 5:02 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> The scientific principles behind CO2 causing
> our planet to heat up are very convincing. Is
> CO2 the worst of the gases?
Let's explain those scientific principles-- the
law of conservation of energy, and spectroscopy.
All heat transfer is driven by a temperature
difference. Heat transfers from the sun to
the surface of the Earth because the surface
of the earth is cooler than the sun. Heat transfers
from the Sun to the atmosphere fo the earth
because the atmosphere of the Earth is
cooler than the Sun. Heat transfers from the
surface of the Earth to space because the
temperature of the surface of the Earth is
greater than space. Heat transfers from the
atmosphere of the earth to space because the
temperature of the atmosphere is greater than
that of space. Heat transfers from the atmosphere
of the earth to the surface of the earth, or vice
versa, depending on which is cooler, typically
this transfer is from the Earth's surface to the
atmosphere.
The net rate at which a body radiates energy is
proportionate to the fourth power of its temperature.
The frequency distribution is governed by the Stefan
-Boltzman relationship, the peak frequency of that
distribution rises with temperature.
Conservation of energy requires that for any
system in which heat is exchanged only by radiation,
emissivity will equal absorptivity for any body
that is in thermal equilibrium.
If the emissivity is greater than the absorptivity
the body will lose energy until equilibrium is restored.
If the emissivity is less than the absorptivity the
temperature of the body will rise until equilibrium
is restored.
(For a body in thermal equilibrium the difference
between unity and the absorptivity is therefore
equal to the difference between unity and the
emissivity and is called reflectivity, and the ratio
of reflected energy to incidental energy is called
the albedo.)
A the temperature of the solar photosphere, the peak
of the emitted spectrum is in visible light. The gases
that comprise the Earth's atmosphere are mostly
transparent to visible light so most of that gets
to the surface where it is absorbed, and converted
to heat, a process called themalization. Some is
thermalized in the atmosphere and some is
reflected form both.
At the temperature of the Earth's surface the emission
peaks in the infrared range. Carbon dioxide has strong
infrared absorption bands. Thus it strongly absorbs some
of the infrared emission from the Earth's surface. This
energy is thermalized in the atmosphere, reducing
the temperature gradient between the Earth's surface
and the atmosphere. All gases that behave that way
are called greenhouse gases. They all have the effect
of raising the temperature of the Earth above what it
would be if there were no greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere.
Now, how much do the greenhouse gases raise the
temperature? While the above relationship is clear
from theory, quantifying the effect is a bit tougher.
What would be cool is if we had a control, that is a
planet the same average distance from the Sun,
but without an atmosphere. And, we're in luck,
we do. So we can get a handle on how effective
the greenhouse effect is by comparing the temperature
of the earth's surface with the moon. The temperature
at the surface of both varies on a daily annual and on
a geographical basis. But it averages out to be about
298 k for the Earth and 238 K for the moon. The
Moon is about 50 degrees (K) cooler than the Earth.
The moon also has a lower albedo, if they were the
same that difference should be greater.
Thus, all other things being equal, adding more
greenhouse gas, like Carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
will make the planet wrmer while removing it will
make the planet cooler.
And THOSE are the scientific principles behind
CO2 causing our planet to heat up There are,
and have always been, other scientific principles
causing our planet to heat up and cool off which
is why no one can prove or disprove a causal
relationship between any of them and the temperature
of the Earth using climate data alone.
Note, we did NOT compare the Earth to the Moon
to determine if there was a causal relationship
between atmosphere and surface temperature.
That determination was made using physical
theory. Determination of causality requires
a theory.
The comparison was done to get a handle on
the MAGNITUDE of the effect tha tis predicted
from the underlying theories--the law of conservation
of energy and spectroscopy.
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>With due respect to all participants, I think this thread has become
>boring and excessively long, hence my lack of recent participation. For
>me, the need to work also cuts down on the available time. Nevertheless,
>let's not let facts get in the way of reason. Whatever the cause for
>release of CO2 into the atmosphere in the geologically distant past,
>based on the properties of CO2 it is NOT reasonable to assume that CO2
>does NOT increase heat retention by the earth. Hence the assertion that
>increases in CO2 in the atmosphere did and will increase the earth's
>temperature.
"Let's not let facts get in the way of reason." !!
Begin with the *fact* that ice core data shows that increases in temperature
*preceded* increases in CO2 levels.
*Reason* tells us that that if any causal relationship exists there, it
*can't* be the one that you asserted.
D'ohBoy wrote:
> On May 16, 1:39 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production in Feb, they
>> ignored him.
>>
>> The shrub asked the Saudis to increase oil production today, they
>> said "No", AKA: "Up Yours".
>>
>> Wonder if there is another approach?
>>
>> Lew
>
> Ummm.... yes - it involves labeling someone a terrorist, the
> military
> (shocking) and a contrived preemptive strike (why, I never heard of
> such a thing, that would go against everything this country USED to
> stand for)....
And a "contrived preemptive strike" is going to increase oil
production how?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A
>> few
>> nuclear
>> reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not
>> prohibited
>> drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years before
>> anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million barrels
>> a
>> day from that field.
>
> But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in
> equilibrium. You don't believe your friends <grin>?
>
> Conservation should be first and renewable energy second.
> Developing
> coal strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation of
> greenhouse gases),
So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?
> nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of
> nuclear waste),
Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and the
volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that produce
the same amount of power and tell us which makes more sense.
> and developing new oil and gas fifth.
>
> Just my opinion.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
> @news3.newsguy.com:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A
>>>> few
>>>> nuclear
>>>> reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not
>>>> prohibited
>>>> drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years
>>>> before
>>>> anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million
>>>> barrels
>>>> a
>>>> day from that field.
>>>
>>> But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in
>>> equilibrium. You don't believe your friends <grin>?
>>>
>>> Conservation should be first and renewable energy second.
>>> Developing
>>> coal strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation
>>> of
>>> greenhouse gases),
>>
>> So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
>> forever?
>
> Mother Gaia has done it, in clathrates, or whatever they call the
> complexes in the cold nether regions of the oceans. It can be done
> other ways as well.
And where do we put these clathrates or "other ways"?
>>> nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of
>>> nuclear waste),
>>
>> Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and
>> the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that
>> produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more
>> sense.
>
> I'm all for nuclear energy, but the volume of waste is not the
> problem. The problems with nuclear waste are the heat generated
How much heat do you believe to be generated by nuclear waste once the
short-half-life elements have decayed?
> and
> the need to contain it for a very, very long time.
Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's no
point in warehousing it.
> Definitely
> problems that can be conquered, but there is a lot of NIMBY to
> contend with.
And you think there won't be a lot of NIMBY once people figure out
that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage volume?
>>> and developing new oil and gas fifth.
>>>
> Just my opinion.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:g0na0502lr3
> @news2.newsguy.com:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
>>> @news3.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves?
>>>>>> A
>>>>>> few nuclear reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba
>>>>>> Clinton
>>>>>> not prohibited drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would
>>>>>> take 10 years before anything resulted anyway, we would now be
>>>>>> getting 1 million barrels a day from that field.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in
>>>>> equilibrium. You don't believe your friends <grin>?
>>>>>
>>>>> Conservation should be first and renewable energy second.
>>>>> Developing
>>>>> coal strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent
>>>>> accumulation
>>>>> of
>>>>> greenhouse gases),
>>>>
>>>> So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
>>>> forever?
>>>
>>> Mother Gaia has done it, in clathrates, or whatever they call the
>>> complexes in the cold nether regions of the oceans. It can be
>>> done
>>> other ways as well.
>>
>> And where do we put these clathrates or "other ways"?
>
> I really think we agree on the need for responsible use and
> generation of renewable energy . I'd suggest to put clathrates in
> the voids of coal or other mines, to help prevent sinkholes.
>
>>>>> nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of
>>>>> nuclear waste),
>>>>
>>>> Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal
>>>> and
>>>> the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that
>>>> produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more
>>>> sense.
>>>
>>> I'm all for nuclear energy, but the volume of waste is not the
>>> problem. The problems with nuclear waste are the heat generated
>>
>> How much heat do you believe to be generated by nuclear waste once
>> the short-half-life elements have decayed?
>
> I'm not a nuclear engineer, so I can't quote you numbers, but I do
> believe that the heat generated by nuclear waste can be
> considerable.
> Obviously it depends on the energy of the decay step(s) and their
> respective energies expressed per unit mass or volume (ducking).
Short term it's "considerable" which is why high-level waste stays at
the power plant until it's decayed enough for shipment. By the time
it gets to a long-term storage facility the heat generated is
negligible.
>>> and
>>> the need to contain it for a very, very long time.
>>
>> Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's
>> no point in warehousing it.
>
> Warehousing would suggest you're going to use it again, which does
> not
> seem logical if you couldn't possible get energy or other use out of
> it. I think it has to be put away permanently, really.
Whatever word you use, it still has to be kept forever.
>>> Definitely
>>> problems that can be conquered, but there is a lot of NIMBY to
>>> contend with.
>>
>> And you think there won't be a lot of NIMBY once people figure out
>> that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage
>> volume?
>
> Of course there will always be NIMBY, but I think that filling
> underground voids generated by mining would be a good place.
Will those voids be sufficient, considering that what you're putting
in them has had two atoms of oxygen added to each atom of carbon that
was taken out? And will those voids be sufficiently secure to keep it
segregated _forever_? If so then why not put nuclear waste there?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
>> forever?
>
> Why not?......Is the capture and storage cost prohibitive?......Are
> not rising levels of CO2 simply the release of naturally stored CO2?
So how much are you going to have warehoused after, say, a thousand
years? Remember, that warehouse has to be _absolutely_ secure--if it
ever gets busted open then we have 1000 years worth of CO2 emission
happening in an instant.
Rising levels of CO2 are not "simply the release of naturally stored
CO2". They are the result of burning carbon--one atom of carbon
burned with two atoms of oxygen gives one molecule of CO2 plus a
certain amount of energy. To store it "naturally" in the state it was
in before it was burned you have to unburn it, which means putting as
much energy _into_ it as you got out of it (more actually, considering
that the process is not 100% efficient), which defeats the purpose of
burning it in the firt place.
>> Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and
>> the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that
>> produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more
>> sense.
>
> I'd agree with current technologies and costs nuclear is the only or
> the largest viable energy crisis alternative.......Renewables are
> simply stop gaps and niche products and often
> expensive....Conservation makes a good sound bite but no one ever
> rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly worthwhile for getting
> through hard times but never for solving hard times. Rod
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> (snipped for brevity).
>
> I believe that there is a very significant correlation between the
> human production of CO2 and global warming (GW), a correlation that
> is very, very suggestive of a causal relationship. Maybe cooling
> (as
> when volcanoes erupt and throw stuff up into the atmosphere,
> sometimes causing winter-like summers, and famine) is more harmful
> in
> a relatively short time period. However, I am very fearful that we
> may start a feed-forward loop wherein CO2 increases cause global
> warming which in turn causes more CO2 to leave the oceans, etc.
I am far more fearful that if we change whatever we're doing the
glaciation cycle that for some reason has been long delayed will
happen at a greatly accelerated pace.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
>
>
>> Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
>> expensive....
>
> Jeff Immelt, CEO, General Electric, obviously doesn't share your
> point
> of view.
>
> Seems he has made the decision to invest significant GE resources in
> the renewable energy business.
>
> Wonder where the assets from the sale of the GE major appliance
> business will be invested?
>
> Wind turbine anyone?
The fact that GE thinks they can make money selling the things doesn't
make them any less a stopgap.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up
>>> are very convincing.
>>
>> Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous
>> temperature increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2
>> levels.
>> Kinda hard to show a cause-and-effect relationship when the
>> supposed
>> "cause" follows the "effect".
>
> That makes GW still more scary, IMO. The CO2 increase like now
> (industrial revolution) has never before occurred (unless there was
> indeed volcanic CO2 output).
How do you know that it has "never before occurred"? We only have
data back a few hundred thousand years. Such events as the Deccan
Traps took place long before that. Then there's the question of what
a large meteor strike does--how much CO2 did the Chicxulub strike
release?
>
>>> Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much worse, but
>>> because it is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not
>>> reach the importance of CO2.
>>> Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much?
>>
>> First off, there's *no* evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2
>> levels *cause* the very slight warming that has been observed...
>
> The papers I have seen in reputable journals like Science indicate
> to
> me otherwise.
Based on climate models that are working from a couple of hundred
years of data no doubt. If the model when run for a simulated hundred
thousand years or so doesn't show the glaciation cycle then it's not
to be trusted. We're in the boundary of a cycle--the model has to be
able to separate what's part of the cycle with what's not. If it
can't show the cycle then it can't do that. And none of these climate
models have been tested that way.
These are basically the same models that told us that if Saddam fired
his oil fields we'd all freeze to death in the dark. They were wrong
then, what makes you think that they're right now?
>>> On a scale of 0 to a
>>> million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5
>>> degrees K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2%
>>> increase!
>>> But less than a few hours and you're cooked.
>>
>> .. and second, this is an entirely specious comparison. The slight
>> temperature increase that has been observed so far is NOWHERE NEAR
>> 5
>> degrees Kelvin.
>
> I was trying to make a point, but apparently didn't succeed. The
> point was that human life (and society in general) is predicated on
> agriculture, which is really bound to a rather narrow temperature
> range. You can shift things somewhat to or from the equator, but
> that's it.
>
> I hope I am just seeing the dark side of things and that it won't be
> as bad as the doomsayers suggest, but wouldn't you want to be on the
> safe side?
Eventually the event you fear is going to happen anyway you know. Why
not have it happen now and get it over with? Ice ages are not the
normal state of the planet.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
>>> forever?
>>
>> Why not?......Is the capture and storage cost prohibitive?......Are
>> not rising levels of CO2 simply the release of naturally stored
>> CO2?
>>
>>>
>>> Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and
>>> the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that
>>> produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more
>>> sense.
>>
>> I'd agree with current technologies and costs nuclear is the only
>> or
>> the largest viable energy crisis alternative.......
>
> If it were not for the problems of waste control and control of
> plutonium (apart from cheap nuclear weapon material, it is also
> very,
> very toxic), nuclear would be ideal. Hence the '60's ideas of
> fusion
> energy, still a great potential source.
>
>> Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
>> expensive....
>
> Not so. I signed up for electricity delivery from renewable
> sources,
> and I hope I am not hoodwinked. The info and bills say I am getting
> 100% of my electricity from wind and water, all for ~$4/month more.
> OK, on a $50/month electric bill it is by percentage a lot, perhaps,
> but not much in impact on my pocketbook.
So they ran wires from the wind turbines and dams direct to your house
without interfacing them with the rest of the grid? Yeah, you're
being hoodwinked.
>> Conservation makes a good sound bite but no one ever
>> rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly worthwhile for getting
>> through hard times but never for solving hard times. Rod
>>
> Conservation can be as easy as walking to the post office 200 yards
> away, instead of starting up the car from cold, just for getting a
> few stamps. Or turning off the lights when not needed. Conservation
> need not be a measure of last resort, but is just a showing of
> respect for natural resources.
And of course you're going to get rich this way.
> All in my opinion, of course! And I do leave my computers on too
> much
> <grin>.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's
>> no point in warehousing it.
>
> What about converting the CO2 to carbonate? I think this is how
> some
> scrubbers operate.
>
> The product of which (Na2CO3, K2CO3, CaCO3) could be sold to off set
> the cost of scrubbing.
>
> The product carbonates also take up less volume to store.
And how much market is there for them?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else
>>>> there's
>>>> no point in warehousing it.
>>>
>>> What about converting the CO2 to carbonate? I think this is how
>>> some
>>> scrubbers operate.
>>>
>>> The product of which (Na2CO3, K2CO3, CaCO3) could be sold to off
>>> set
>>> the cost of scrubbing.
>>>
>>> The product carbonates also take up less volume to store.
>>
>> And how much market is there for them?
>
> Not sure. But, there is a need for them, so the market must be
> there. The goal is not really to market the product, but to
> produce
> the product and reduce the raw material.
But if there's no market you still end up storing it.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else
>>>> there's
>>>> no point in warehousing it.
>>>
>>> Warehousing would suggest you're going to use it again, which does
>>> not
>>> seem logical if you couldn't possible get energy or other use out
>>> of
>>> it. I think it has to be put away permanently, really.
>>
>> Whatever word you use, it still has to be kept forever.
>
> Why? Can't we convert the CO2 into carbonate? I'm pretty sure we
> can.
And where do we put it? Now you're increasing the volume even more.
This whole notion of capturing the output of chemical power plants and
warehousing it is IMO just, well, _nuts_.
At least with nuclear the volume is manageable.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else
>>>>>> there's
>>>>>> no point in warehousing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about converting the CO2 to carbonate? I think this is
>>>>> how
>>>>> some
>>>>> scrubbers operate.
>>>>>
>>>>> The product of which (Na2CO3, K2CO3, CaCO3) could be sold to off
>>>>> set
>>>>> the cost of scrubbing.
>>>>>
>>>>> The product carbonates also take up less volume to store.
>>>>
>>>> And how much market is there for them?
>>>
>>> Not sure. But, there is a need for them, so the market must be
>>> there. The goal is not really to market the product, but to
>>> produce
>>> the product and reduce the raw material.
>>
>> But if there's no market you still end up storing it.
>
> You could give it away free. People use carbonate compounds in
> industry. They would gladly take it away for you.
And what would they do with it? Remember, you can't allow any uses
that result in it releasing CO2--if you do then you may as well not
have wasted your time making it in the first place. That means no
baking with sodium bicarbonate, no making cement out of calcium
carbonate, etc.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>
>> The fact that GE thinks they can make money selling the things
>> doesn't
>> make them any less a stopgap.
>
> Do you have any idea how ridiculous the above sounds?
>
> GE doesn't "think", they "know" there is money to be made long term,
> in the renewable energy business, which is why the major capitol
> investment is being made to develop products for it.
>
> Renewable energy products have an international market while major
> appliances (ovens, stoves, refrigerators, etc) are limited to the
> domestic market.
>
> Maybe that is why major appliances are for sale.
>
> Maybe they need the $'s to build more and bigger wind turbines.
Your quibbling over "think" vs "know" instead of addressing the point
being made tells me that you don't really have a viable
counterargument.
As for ovens, stoves, refrigerators, etc being limited to the domestic
market, are you saying that Americans are the only people who cook
food and store it in refrigerators? If so, you really need to talk to
your doctor about your medication.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>>> Why? Can't we convert the CO2 into carbonate? I'm pretty sure
>>> we
>>> can.
>>
>> And where do we put it? Now you're increasing the volume even
>> more.
>
> Really?
>
> CO2(aq) +H2O -----> H2CO3 (1 mole of co2 makes 1 mole of carbonic
> acid) H2CO3 + NaOH -----> NaHCO3 + H2O (1 mole of carbonic acid
> reacts with 1 mole of sodium hydroxide and yields 1 mole of sodium
> carbonate)
> NaHCO3 + NaOH -----> Na2CO3 + H2O (1 mole of sodium hydroxide
> reacts with 1 mole of NaOH and yields 1 mole of sodium carbonate)
>
> A mole of Na2CO3(s) takes up more volume than a mole of CO2(g) ??
> Show me the math here.
What'd the density of dry ice? How about of Na2CO3?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else
>>>> there's
>>>> no point in warehousing it.
>>>
>>> What about converting the CO2 to carbonate? I think this is how
>>> some
>>> scrubbers operate.
>>>
>>> The product of which (Na2CO3, K2CO3, CaCO3) could be sold to off
>>> set
>>> the cost of scrubbing.
>>>
>>> The product carbonates also take up less volume to store.
>>
>> And how much market is there for them?
>
>
> I dug up a reference for ya. This guy is using NaOH as the base so
> he ends
> up with NaHCO3 (baking soda). Is there a market for super pure
> baking
> soda??
>
> Chem:
> CO2+H2O <----> H2CO3
> H2CO3 + NaOH -----> NaHCO3 + H2O
>
> Not carbonate in this reference, but bicarbonate. I suppose if you
> adjust
> the amount of NaOH and monitor the pH you could also make Na2CO3
> with
> his
> process.
>
> http://www.news.com/Can-baking-soda-curb-global-warming/2100-13838_3-6220127.html
Now, find out what the major use of baking soda is. I believe that
you will find that it is, well, _baking_. Then look at what baking
soda does when baking. It reacts with acidic components of the recipe
to release CO2. So the CO2 is not locked away where it doesn't
contribute to greenhouse emissions, it's just released a little later.
Of course you could make baking soda and store it in a warehouse
somewhere forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and pray that
the warehouse doesn't burn down, because when you get the stuff hot,
what does it do? It breaks down and releases CO2.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:599331df-6ce1-
> [email protected]:
>
>> They're talking about pumping it into the voids under the
>> North Sea left over from petroleum extraction. At those
>> depths it will liquefy, or maybe form clathrates.
>>
>> Sounds nuts to me.
>
> Since the extraction of oil and gas leaves holes that can and do
> collapse, filling the voids (especially under inhabited regions) has
> the advantage of preserving the integrity of housing etc.
So how many houses are there in the North Sea?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> So they ran wires from the wind turbines and dams direct to your
>> house without interfacing them with the rest of the grid? Yeah,
>> you're being hoodwinked.
>
> Even I do not believe that. But the power I consumed (or an
> equivalent amount) was generated by renewable energy generation.
An equivalent amount yes, but not the energy you consumed.
I like it though--greenies like you pay a premium for the same
identical energy from the same identical sources that the guy across
the street gets without paying the premium.
Can you say "more money than brains"?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> ... and that's where the problem lies. One hour, two hours,
>> during
>> the
>> business day -- that is what is really expensive. Even if the
>> copier
>> takes 1 kW (not true, but I don't have the numbers to hand) in idle
>> mode -- that is at most 20 cents worth of electricity (50 cents in
>> California probably). OTOH, the employee waiting for that copier to
>> wake up from deep sleep -- typically 3 to 5 minutes can easily cost
>> on the order of $3 to $5 worth of time once you figure labor and
>> overhead into the time accounting for that person. It becomes even
>> more expensive when the copies are critical for some last-minute
>> deadline and one has to wait for the copier to "wake up" because it
>> was idle for more than an hour.
>
> We can go back and forth about this, but the fact remains that power
> on means power consumed. How to limit that, and how to make
> "instant
> on" indeed instant on from power off or practically off, that's what
> should be figured out.
Oh, that's easy--you put a 100kw element in the fuser to heat it up
rapidly.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>> That makes GW still more scary, IMO. The CO2 increase like now
>>> (industrial revolution) has never before occurred (unless there
>>> was
>>> indeed volcanic CO2 output).
>>
>> How do you know that it has "never before occurred"?
>
> Human involvement in regulating CO2 has never before occurred.
> Volcanos, clathrate disruption etc are generally outside our
> control,
> but fossil fuel burning etc is under our control.
What difference does the source of the CO2 make?
>> We only have data back a few hundred thousand years. Such events
>> as
>> the Deccan Traps took place long before that. Then there's the
>> question of what a large meteor strike does--how much CO2 did the
>> Chicxulub strike release?
>
> As I said, outside our control. I don't know the relative magnitude
> of Pinotubo and our fossil fuel burning, but we need to do what we
> can (IMO).
Why do we need to do anything if events in the past released equal or
larger volumes of CO2 and nothing horrible happened?
Pinatubo is tiny compared to Chicxulub or the Deccan Traps.
> Just picking on part of your replies <grin>.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>> (snipped for brevity).
>>>
>>> I believe that there is a very significant correlation between the
>>> human production of CO2 and global warming (GW), a correlation
>>> that
>>> is very, very suggestive of a causal relationship. Maybe cooling
>>> (as
>>> when volcanoes erupt and throw stuff up into the atmosphere,
>>> sometimes causing winter-like summers, and famine) is more harmful
>>> in
>>> a relatively short time period. However, I am very fearful that we
>>> may start a feed-forward loop wherein CO2 increases cause global
>>> warming which in turn causes more CO2 to leave the oceans, etc.
>>
>> I am far more fearful that if we change whatever we're doing the
>> glaciation cycle that for some reason has been long delayed will
>> happen at a greatly accelerated pace.
>>
> I think it will be easier to work with cooling in this technological
> age than with warming.
I don't. Reducing the temperature of the planet would be expensive,
but we know ways to do it. Increasing the temperature would be _much_
more difficult, considering that if we have an ice age in the near
future the global warming by CO2 emissions model would have been
proven to be bullshit.
> It will really take quite a bit of cooling to
> lead to another ice age during the next few hundred years,
Look at the ice cores. The cooling happens _fast_--it's the warming
that is the gradual process.
> while the
> threat of rising oceans and changes to agricultural climate because
> of GW are much more immediate.
Your opinion, and that of climatologists whose models can't handle a
full glaciation cycle. Anybody who has done computer modelling
marvels at the willingness of people who haven't to accept any kind of
bullshit that comes out of a computer.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>> Not carbonate in this reference, but bicarbonate. I suppose if
>>> you
>>> adjust
>>> the amount of NaOH and monitor the pH you could also make Na2CO3
>>> with
>>> his
>>> process.
>>>
>>> http://www.news.com/Can-baking-soda-curb-global-warming/2100-13838_3-6220127.html
>>
>> Now, find out what the major use of baking soda is. I believe that
>> you will find that it is, well, _baking_. Then look at what baking
>> soda does when baking. It reacts with acidic components of the
>> recipe to release CO2. So the CO2 is not locked away where it
>> doesn't contribute to greenhouse emissions, it's just released a
>> little later.
>
> Do you know the meaning of the word RECYCLE? Would you rather we
> mine
> NaHCO3 that would end up simply releasing CO2 from underground?
So how much of the mined NaHCO3 would we replace? If not all of it
then maybe we're looking at the wrong source of CO2. If more than all
of it what do we do with the remainder?
>> Of course you could make baking soda and store it in a warehouse
>> somewhere forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and pray that
>> the warehouse doesn't burn down, because when you get the stuff
>> hot,
>> what does it do? It breaks down and releases CO2.
>>
>> --
>> --
>> --John
>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> So they ran wires from the wind turbines and dams direct to your
>>> house without interfacing them with the rest of the grid? Yeah,
>>> you're being hoodwinked.
>>
>> Even I do not believe that. But the power I consumed (or an
>> equivalent amount) was generated by renewable energy generation.
>
>
> This guy Clarke is a TROLL.
You can't win on the facts so you start name-calling.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>> But if there's no market you still end up storing it.
>>>
>>> You could give it away free. People use carbonate compounds in
>>> industry. They would gladly take it away for you.
>>
>> And what would they do with it? Remember, you can't allow any uses
>> that result in it releasing CO2--if you do then you may as well not
>> have wasted your time making it in the first place.
>
> SOOOO very WRONG!!!! Most carbonates are mined. Which is
> better for the environment? Dumping tons of mined carbonate-co2
> into the atmosphere or recycling/reusing co2?
Can you replace the mined carbonates one for one with that produced
from your power plants?
> Below are a few from Wikipedia:
>
> Sodium carbonate uses that do not release CO2 (From WIKIPEDIA)
> In casting, it is referred to as "bonding agent" and is used to
> allow
> wet alginate to adhere to gelled alginate.
> When mixed with water and put in a spray bottle, it is sold for its
> anti-mold cleaning ability. It is also used to blast off mold from
> wood or other materials.
> In domestic use, it is used as a water softener during laundry.
Yes, those are "some uses". What is the _major_ use?
And if it's used as a "water softener during laundry", _then_ what
happens to it?
Same for "anti-mold cleaning"--what happens to it _after_ that? Does
it cease to exist after it goes down the drain?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>> We can go back and forth about this, but the fact remains that
>>> power
>>> on means power consumed. How to limit that, and how to make
>>> "instant
>>> on" indeed instant on from power off or practically off, that's
>>> what
>>> should be figured out.
>>
>> Oh, that's easy--you put a 100kw element in the fuser to heat it up
>> rapidly.
>>
> 100 kW at 50 cent/kWh? $50 per hour to operate a copier? At that
> rate the electric company would give you the paper and toner.
You can have it fast, good, or cheap, but you can't have all three.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>
>> Your quibbling over "think" vs "know" instead of addressing the
>> point
>> being made tells me that you don't really have a viable
>> counterargument.
>
> "Quibbling", interesting choice of words.
>
> There is no "arguement", simply a statement of facts.
Still no counterargument, just an assertion that you have stated
"facts".
>> As for ovens, stoves, refrigerators, etc being limited to the
>> domestic
>> market, are you saying that Americans are the only people who cook
>> food and store it in refrigerators? If so, you really need to talk
>> to
>> your doctor about your medication.
>
> It's very difficult to be competitive shipping major appliances
> across
> oceans.
And yet somehow the Germans and the Koreans manage it. More of your
"facts"?
> Ever wonder why the Chinese tried to buy a US appliance manufacturer
> rather than serve the US market from China?
To get a brand name?
> Seems the logic evades you.
Seems that you don't get out much.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Should be a strong object lesson of what happens when you try to negotiate
> with nothing to back it up. Does the idea of unilaterally disarming (ala
> Barack Obama's pledge to suspend development of missile defense systems and
> new weapon systems) not provide a diplomatic analog to the inability to
> have anything from which to negotiate (i.e, the threat to increase our own
> production) in this case?
That last sentence gives me a headache trying to figure out what it
might possibly mean? Can you give any hints?
One of the problems might be the use of words in ways that their basic
meaning doesn't support. An example would be your equating
"unilaterally disarming" with "suspend development of missile defense
systems and new weapon systems". You must not have any idea of exactly
what unilateral disarmament means.
>
> The US has no position from which to negotiate in this case, the Saudis
> know that our liberal environmental radicals will prevent any further
> development in the US, so they pretty much hold all the cards.
>
Han wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Yes, this is unilateral disarmament on
>> our part -- your words below not withstanding. It is our country
>> removing a part of its ability to defend itself without any
>> equivalent concessions from other countries.
>
> While agreeing with part of your position, this is not the whole
> truth
> and therefore it is (in my opinion) totally and absolutely false.
> You
> are advocating that we spend ourselves to death the same way we
> forced
> the Soviet Union to its death - spend and spend on useless (in the
> end) technology and weapons.
>
> For instance, we may eventually be able to shoot down a few missiles
> lobbed in our direction, but what would be needed is a guarantee
> that
> none come through such a missile defense system. I think that
> history
> has proven that offensive strategies always win over defensive ones
> (castles, Maginot line, Atlantic Wall). If too many missiles would
> come at the same time, or a single missile would come from the
> "wrong"
> direction, we'd be cooked at the attacked site, and will have to
> resortto retaliatory strikes. Are we ready for such sacrifices on
> our own soil and on theirs?
>
> Some kind of early warning system would be fine with me. Also, as
> far as monitoring and manning such installation(s), that can be done
> in cooperation with others (Russians, Chinese) so we let them know
> that they should be concerned about terrorist attacks as well. But
> the operative mentality has to be one of brutality, with disregard
> for civilian casualties, just like they don't care about that in
> attacking us.
So you're saying that because armor doesn't always work police and
soldiers should not be provided with it?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:g0na0502lr3
> @news2.newsguy.com:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
>>> @news3.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
... snip
>> that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage volume?
>
> Of course there will always be NIMBY, but I think that filling
> underground voids generated by mining would be a good place.
>
This is just amazing. The fear of a natural compound that is a very minor
atmospheric constituent and the product of perfect combustion. The idea
that humans can somehow influence the climate of the entire planet (of
which 3/4 is ocean) by the production of a minor atmospheric constituent is
pure hubris.
Can we foul our own nests? Absolutely, that's why smog controls and making
sure that industrial smokestacks are not causing severe local pollution.
But destroying the planet? It doesn't pass the laugh test. Yet so many
are buying in to it that they are willing to cause economic (and in other
countries survival) hardships on others rather than taking logical steps to
increase energy production. A growing, prosperous economy cannot continue
to use less and less energy (conservation) yet continue to grow and
prosper. When alternate sources become competitive, they will be used;
forcing their use and subsidizing it with other peoples' money is not the
development of alternate energy sources.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Han wrote:
... snip
>
>> Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
>> expensive....
>
> Not so. I signed up for electricity delivery from renewable sources, and
> I hope I am not hoodwinked. The info and bills say I am getting 100% of
> my electricity from wind and water, all for ~$4/month more. OK, on a
> $50/month electric bill it is by percentage a lot, perhaps, but not much
> in impact on my pocketbook.
>
But are you really paying 100% of the cost of the difference for those
renewables, or it this where you are paying for one of those "green watts"
programs where you donate a certain amount per month for so development of
so many kilowatt hours of wind or solar?
>>Conservation makes a good sound bite but no one ever
>> rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly worthwhile for getting
>> through hard times but never for solving hard times. Rod
>>
> Conservation can be as easy as walking to the post office 200 yards away,
> instead of starting up the car from cold,
Not sure that many people would actually drive that short a distance and
even those who do are using miniscule amounts of energy in so doing
> just for getting a few stamps.
> Or turning off the lights when not needed. Conservation need not be a
> measure of last resort, but is just a showing of respect for natural
> resources.
>
If you are doing it to save money, that's one thing. If you think you are
saving the planet, you've been hoodwinked.
> All in my opinion, of course! And I do leave my computers on too much
> <grin>.
>
One of the biggest wasters of resources is the idiotic "sleep mode" on
copiers and printers at places of business. It takes on the order of
minutes for those things to wake up while the person using them has to
wait. When you compute the cost of the person's time vs. the electricity
savings, the electricity savings pale in comparison. That's a real drag on
productivity and output
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
In article <d4bc2b36-6207-493b-b57b-d999b23eab6a@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 19, 9:04 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <b107e089-2b26-40dc-af52-69f4f8554...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > ... you claimed the absence of a causal relationship. That is
>> >a claim regarding a cause-and-effect-relationship.
>>
>> >The causal relationship is established by thermodynamics and
>> >spectroscopy, both sold science.
>>
>> >You are also wrong if you think the ice core data are inconsistent
>> >with that causal relationship.
>>
>> I'm going to put this as simply as I can:
>>
>> "B follows A" does not in any way imply "A caused B".
>>
>> It *does*, however, mean absolutely that B did NOT cause A.
>>
>> Now substitute "increasing temperature" for "A", and "increasing CO2 levels"
>> for "B". Do you understand now?
>
>Yes, you base your argument on the false premise that
>there is only one independent variable at play.
No, I base my argument on the *fact* that effects do not precede causes. Sorry
you're having so much trouble grasping that concept.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> With due respect to all participants, I think this thread has become
>> boring and excessively long, hence my lack of recent participation. For
>> me, the need to work also cuts down on the available time. Nevertheless,
>> let's not let facts get in the way of reason. Whatever the cause for
>> release of CO2 into the atmosphere in the geologically distant past,
>> based on the properties of CO2 it is NOT reasonable to assume that CO2
>> does NOT increase heat retention by the earth. Hence the assertion that
>> increases in CO2 in the atmosphere did and will increase the earth's
>> temperature.
>
> "Let's not let facts get in the way of reason." !!
>
> Begin with the *fact* that ice core data shows that increases in temperature
> *preceded* increases in CO2 levels.
>
> *Reason* tells us that that if any causal relationship exists there, it
> *can't* be the one that you asserted.
OK, I give up. I suggest that anyone who is interested in
paleoclimatology start with Wikipedia for a general treatise on the
subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core). Then look at some more
specific information on the Vostok data at
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/. Both
these sources have excellent bibliographies for further study.
Scientific American
(http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ice-core-extends-climate) also
presents some interesting information on the subject plus an excellent
list for further reading. Should you have a rather more extensive
background in climatology or related disciplines, Science magazine
presents the research and details of the conclusions presented (start at
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/5408/1712?hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&FIRSTINDEX=0&maxtoshow=&HITS=10&fulltext=Fischer%2C+H.%2C+M.+Wahlen%2C+J.+Smith%2C+D.+Mastroiani+and+B.+Deck%2C+1999%3A+Ice+core+records+of+atmospheric+CO2+around+the+last+three+glacial+terminations.+Science%2C+283%2C+1712-1714.&searchid=1&resourcetype=HWCIT
or DAGS on '"Science Magazine" ice core data' .
Good luck to all.
mahalo,
jo4hn
Han wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:g0na0502lr3
>>> @news2.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
>>>>> @news3.newsguy.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>> ... snip
>>>> that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage
>>>> volume?
>>>
>>> Of course there will always be NIMBY, but I think that filling
>>> underground voids generated by mining would be a good place.
>>>
>>
>> This is just amazing. The fear of a natural compound that is a very
>> minor
>> atmospheric constituent and the product of perfect combustion. The
>> idea that humans can somehow influence the climate of the entire
>> planet (of which 3/4 is ocean) by the production of a minor
>> atmospheric constituent is pure hubris.
>>
>> Can we foul our own nests? Absolutely, that's why smog controls and
>> making
>> sure that industrial smokestacks are not causing severe local
>> pollution. But destroying the planet? It doesn't pass the laugh test.
>> Yet so many are buying in to it that they are willing to cause
>> economic (and in other countries survival) hardships on others rather
>> than taking logical steps to increase energy production. A growing,
>> prosperous economy cannot continue to use less and less energy
>> (conservation) yet continue to grow and prosper. When alternate
>> sources become competitive, they will be used; forcing their use and
>> subsidizing it with other peoples' money is not the development of
>> alternate energy sources.
>
> From your sig, and with all respect:
>> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
>
> The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
> very convincing.
Is this why we haven't experienced warming since about 1998? And why last
year has been one of the coolest on record? Also is this why
climatologists are indicating that for the next 10 to 12 years we can
expect to see a decrease in global average temperature due to "natural
causes"? These causes, by the way that weren't predicted by the models
extrapolating a rise in global average temperature over the next 5 decades.
Sure, one can apply models of increased CO2 concentration and show an
increase in temperature. What these models fail to do (and are frankly
incapable of doing) is take into account that the atmosphere is a
remarkably complex closed-loop control system that will mitigate those
effects by increased plant growth. Get the models to properly predict,
from only a posteriori data the average climate in a known time period,
then use those models to predict climate within a reasonable future period
(say a period of 10 years). After that, if the models have shown
reasonable agreement with real measurements, then maybe the GW community
will have a valid leg to stand upon. Until then, using hysteria and
unreliable models to dismantle and destroy our society is beyond
reprehensible.
> Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much worse, but because it
> is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not reach the importance
> of CO2.
> Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much? On a scale of 0 to a
> million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5 degrees
> K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase! But less
> than a few hours and you're cooked.
>
> You have to realize that things that in relative terms are minor can
> still affect life in a major way. Can we adjust? We don't know, because
> we don't really know how much things are going to change. Will the
> planet survive? Sure, by all records Earth has been much hotter and much
> cooler before, compared to now, but our society may not. Should we try
> to prevent extremes like we are seemingly having success in combating air
> pollution in our big cities? I think we should.
The temperature swings predicted by even the most rabid GW zealots nowhere
approach a 10 degree F temperature increase in the coming years (your 5K
increase). The question of whether human action could affect that in any
significant way is quite debateable.
What leads one to believe that the current average temperatures are/were
ideal? The climatological changes over the centuries, including the
mini-ice age during the Middle Ages and other such swings in climate show
that natural state of the climate is to be unstable. Cooling is as bad for
humans as greater warming, probably even more so as it affects food
production adversely (just ask the farmers in Greenland).
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 21, 6:28 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <a0d1462b-3a9f-4246-b5ed-f942094a3...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Can you show how a conclusion that temperature
>> >changes are independent of carbon dioxide concentrations
>> >is consistent with known physics?
>>
>> Can you show how an effect preceding a cause is consistent with basic
>> logic????
>
>No, nor do I see the relevance regarding possible future temperature
>changes. Can you explain?
>
If you need it explained to you that causes precede effects, rather than the
other way around, there's really no point in continuing the discussion.
Robatoy wrote:
> On May 19, 10:19 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On May 18, 2:24 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
>>>> Check out sand cast iron barbell weights at a sporting goods store
>>>> sometime. The last ones I saw here in Maryland were imported
>>>> from the PRC. Somehow they manage to be competitive shipping
>>>> (literally) dead weight halfway around the worlds.
>>> Different ball game.
>>> When you ship a major appliance, it includes a lot of sailboat fuel
>>> which makes it very tough to get any shipping density on a container
>>> ship.
>>> Freight charges end up being based on occupied volume, not weight.
>> That makes a lot of sense. Now I won; tbe surprised if they
>> start making square barbell weights.
>>
>> --
>>
>> FF
>
> Up to a total container weight not exceeding 67,000 pounds.
I wonder if this might not be for the GVW limit on trucks - 80,000
pounds in the US?
On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:18:12 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>No, that will be a big *give back*, and the islamofacists <SNIP>
>
Is this "islamofacists" (sic) a reference to someone who has a face
like a muslim?
Or, are you talking about "islamofascists"?
You would agree, I suppose, that fascists are considered right wing.
You would further agree, one would think, that Republicans are
considered right wing.
Are these Islamofascists then - Republican Muslims?
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>> Why? Can't we convert the CO2 into carbonate? I'm pretty sure we
>> can.
>
>And where do we put it? Now you're increasing the volume even more.
Actually, converting CO2 to carbonates *reduces* the volume by nearly three
orders of magnitude.
One metric ton of CO2 gas occupies a volume of a bit over five hundred cubic
meters at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure.
Calcium carbonate, CaCO3, is 44% CO2 by mass. Thus 2.27 metric tons of CaCO3
represents one metric ton of CO2 -- and occupies a volume of only eight-tenths
of a cubic meter.
>
>This whole notion of capturing the output of chemical power plants and
>warehousing it is IMO just, well, _nuts_.
>
>At least with nuclear the volume is manageable.
>
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
> Check out sand cast iron barbell weights at a sporting goods store
> sometime. The last ones I saw here in Maryland were imported
> from the PRC. Somehow they manage to be competitive shipping
> (literally) dead weight halfway around the worlds.
Different ball game.
When you ship a major appliance, it includes a lot of sailboat fuel
which makes it very tough to get any shipping density on a container
ship.
Freight charges end up being based on occupied volume, not weight.
Lew
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>> The oceans are known to be a huge sink for CO2 and with cooler
>> temperatures absorb it. Also, with warmer temperatures, the oceans
>> release CO2. So the question is which is cause and which is effect. Does
>> CO2 increase precede heating or does heating precede CO2 increase.
>
> I would think that CO2 increases would precede heating. Which causes more
> CO2 release.
Do you have any true scientific cites for this? This sounds like it
would be a runaway situation which couldn't be stopped until all the CO2
from the oceans was in the atmosphere!
Patrick Karl wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Should be a strong object lesson of what happens when you try to
>> negotiate
>> with nothing to back it up. Does the idea of unilaterally disarming
>> (ala Barack Obama's pledge to suspend development of missile defense
>> systems and new weapon systems) not provide a diplomatic analog to the
>> inability to have anything from which to negotiate (i.e, the threat to
>> increase our own production) in this case?
>
> That last sentence gives me a headache trying to figure out what it
> might possibly mean? Can you give any hints?
>
Let me type this out more simply:
1. We have no position from which to negotiate with Saudi Arabia to get them
to produce more oil. i.e., if they say "no", we have no position of
strength from which to say, "OK, then we will do x, y, or z" such as
developing our own reserves because the Saudis know that the enviros here
would rather see people freeze to death than have a caribou have to skirt
an oil derrick in ANWR.
2. This forms a good analog for the same kinds of things the left wants to
do to our defense posture. For example, Obama talks a good game
about "tough diplomacy" (whatever the @#%$ that means) and talking to our
enemies with "tough negotiations". But, when the person on the other side
of the table says, "No, we still want to see you infidels killed and Israel
pushed into the sea, and by the way, we have xx nuclear missiles, so don't
you dare do anything to us", if we have nothing from which to respond --
for example, "your xx missiles are meaningless because they can be
destroyed before they leave your territories", we have no position from
which to bargain.
3. Obama has already stated his desire to place us in the same position
defensively as we currently stand regarding energy. He has pledged to stop
developing anti-missile defenses. Yes, this is unilateral disarmament on
our part -- your words below not withstanding. It is our country removing
a part of its ability to defend itself without any equivalent concessions
from other countries. It may not be the "unilateral disarmament" that you
equate only to the US destroying its own nuclear arsenal without others
doing the same, but the words are being used correctly. He has further
stated the desire to stop development of all new weapon systems. This is
not going to provide a position of strength from which to negotiate in the
future.
> One of the problems might be the use of words in ways that their basic
> meaning doesn't support. An example would be your equating
> "unilaterally disarming" with "suspend development of missile defense
> systems and new weapon systems". You must not have any idea of exactly
> what unilateral disarmament means.
See above. What do *you* think unilateral disarmament means? Would
particularly like to see your definition in light of the idea that we
would, unilaterally, stop development of the ability to defend ourselves
from missile attack. Please explain how this is not unilateral disarmament
>>
>> The US has no position from which to negotiate in this case, the Saudis
>> know that our liberal environmental radicals will prevent any further
>> development in the US, so they pretty much hold all the cards.
>>
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Garage_Woodworks wrote:
>>
>>>> The oceans are known to be a huge sink for CO2 and with cooler
>>>> temperatures absorb it. Also, with warmer temperatures, the oceans
>>>> release CO2. So the question is which is cause and which is effect.
>>>> Does CO2 increase precede heating or does heating precede CO2 increase.
>>> I would think that CO2 increases would precede heating. Which causes
>>> more CO2 release.
>> Do you have any true scientific cites for this? This sounds like it would
>> be a runaway situation which couldn't be stopped until all the CO2 from
>> the oceans was in the atmosphere!
>
>
> No! Remeber that solubility is also a function of pH. As temp rises, CO2
> is released and pH climbs. As pH climbs CO2 is more soluble.
That would mean that the oceans and atmosphere will always be trying to
reach equilibrium.
>
> I think their is a lot of research being done on this with a lot of
> contradicting data.
I hope so - I'd hate to think we we're going down this man made GW path
with no firm scientific evidence.
On Mon, 19 May 2008 09:17:38 -0400, Renata <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:35:38 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>--snip--
>>>
>>> On this planet it is almost 380 ppmv, and hasn't been as low
>>> as 300 for close to a century. Where do you get your data?
>>>
>>
>> You really do need to read before responding Fred. I stated "on the order
>>of". Not being anal enough to go searching for an exact number I relied
>>upon memory and thus used an approximation.
>
>There are 2 problems with your remembered approximation, though.
>
>Presumably sometime, somewhere you read the actual number - and
>rounded 80 down to 00 instead of 100. Although it breaks the rules,
>rounding downward 51, 52, even 60 or so might be understandable.
>But, 80? Interesting math.
>
>The other problem is with the fact that we haven't been anywhere near
>300 in almost 100 years, not exactly something that changed yesterday.
>
>I point this out because you try to present your arguments with a
>seemingly scientific 'face'. Not sure many scientifically oriented
>folks would be making this kind of error (unless, perhaps taking into
>account some other agenda).
>
>Renata
I do so love this Barsky woman
Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And Summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And oft' is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd:
But thy eternal Summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
Nor shall Death brag thou wanderest in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest:
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
(willy #18)
and besides that you kick some serious ass.
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
Robatoy wrote:
> On May 26, 8:40 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <18ec9f36-07c3-4e82-8738-a180ec06b...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 25, 1:40 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>> I'm done wasting time arguing with someone who's unable to understand the
>>>> simple principle that causes precede effects. Keep on yapping if you like, but
>>>> I'm done.
>>> I think you have enough integrity, courage, and intelligence to
>>> continue.
>> I also have enough sense not to. As noted above: I'm done wasting time arguing
>> with someone who can't, or won't, comprehend that causes precede effects, not
>> the other way around. Keep on yapping if you like, but you'll be yapping in a
>> void. I'm done.
>
> How DOES Doug keep getting himself in these situations, eh? Over and
> Over and Over again?
> Must be us. We're just not equipped to deal with a semantics warrior
> like him.
> I can just imagine what it would be like to be that sanctimonious
> asshole's neighbour.
>
> r
Ask the guy who lives next door to you...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <[email protected]>, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
>very convincing.
Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous temperature
increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. Kinda hard to show a
cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed "cause" follows the "effect".
>Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much worse, but because it
>is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not reach the importance
>of CO2.
>Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much?
First off, there's *no* evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels
*cause* the very slight warming that has been observed...
> On a scale of 0 to a
>million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5 degrees
>K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase! But less
>than a few hours and you're cooked.
.. and second, this is an entirely specious comparison. The slight
temperature increase that has been observed so far is NOWHERE NEAR 5 degrees
Kelvin.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <74e008af-2c24-4210-bb8b-e0eb31613a1c@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On May 26, 8:40 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>> In article
>> <18ec9f36-07c3-4e82-8738-a180ec06b...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
>> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On May 25, 1:40 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>>> I'm done wasting time arguing with someone who's unable to understand the
>>>>> simple principle that causes precede effects. Keep on yapping if you like,
>> but
>>>>> I'm done.
>>>> I think you have enough integrity, courage, and intelligence to
>>>> continue.
>>> I also have enough sense not to. As noted above: I'm done wasting time
>> arguing
>>> with someone who can't, or won't, comprehend that causes precede effects,
>> As you know, we have always agreed on that point. Your implication
>> that we disagree on it, is simply dishonest. I had thought better of
>> you.
>
> Actually, we *don't* agree on that point. You claim we do, but you keep on
> ignoring that fact, and insisting that the effect indeed precedes the cause.
>>> not
>>> the other way around. Keep on yapping if you like, but you'll be yapping in a
>>> void. I'm done.
>> You have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of causality
>> if indeed you believe that whenever one event follows another,
>> that proves the second was caused by the first.
>
> You have a serious inability to comprehend written English if you can
> entertain even for a moment the notion that I believe that -- I've explicitly
> said, several times, that I don't believe that.
>
> Why are you having so much trouble understanding that the point is that when
> one event follows another, that proves that the *first* was NOT caused by the
> *second*?
>
<Puts on striped shirt and blows whistle loudly>
Gentlemen -
Please place a "yes" or "no" below the following propositions:
1) "A follows B" - in and of itself - says nothing one way or the other
as to whether B *causes* A:
Doug Says:
Fred Says:
2) "A follows B" is sufficient to demonstrate that A *cannot* have caused B:
Doug Says:
Fred Says:
3) "A and B" happen at the same time - in and of itself - says nothing
about whether or not they had a *common* or *related* cause:
Doug Says:
Fred Says:
4) "A, B, and many other things exist and demonstrate complexity. This
clearly demonstrates a complete lack of first cause and can be
sufficiently explained by the "magic" of self-organization,
evolution, and punctuated equilibrium:
This is the "logic" of the modern so-called rational atheist.
I threw it in to remind you guys that all reasoning systems
proceed from premises. You're trying to argue fine points of
logic in which you are largely in agreement and are avoiding
the 1000 lb elephant in the room: Your premises are different.
Presuppositionally Yours,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sat, 17 May 2008 14:34:19 GMT, Woodie <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robatoy wrote:
>> I don't know what all the fuss is about. Spotted Owl has hardly any
>> meat on them.
>
>yabbut, like the roadrunner, what's there is excellent and worth any
>amount of expense and trouble.
That's pretty much what Spencer Tracy said about Katherine Hepburn.
I didn't believe him, either.
My favorite Spotted Owl sentiments are:
"I love the Spotted Owl - Boiled, Broiled, Fried..." (T Shirt)
"Spotted Owl - The Other White Meat." (A variation of which may turn
up in the presidential race)
"Spotted Owl - It's What's For Dinner."
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> The fact that GE thinks they can make money selling the things
> doesn't
> make them any less a stopgap.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous the above sounds?
GE doesn't "think", they "know" there is money to be made long term,
in the renewable energy business, which is why the major capitol
investment is being made to develop products for it.
Renewable energy products have an international market while major
appliances (ovens, stoves, refrigerators, etc) are limited to the
domestic market.
Maybe that is why major appliances are for sale.
Maybe they need the $'s to build more and bigger wind turbines.
Lew
In article <[email protected]>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 24, 1:28 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <536b2b92-838c-4885-ad7d-b5cfb5b3c...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 22, 10:35 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article
>> > <28b688af-5920-46db-ae3d-fc1f2691f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Fred
> the
>> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >1) How does increasing temperature cause a rise in
>> >> >the concentration of carbon dioxide.
>>
>> >> Solubility of a gas in water (e.g. carbon dioxide in the ocean) decreases
> as
>> >> temperature increases.
>>
>> >Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide
>> >as they warmed?
>>
>> That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise
>> *after* temperature rises.
>
>Regardless, what is *your* explanation?
I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.
>
>>
>> >> >2) How do you stop carbon dioxide from contributing
>> >> >to the greenhouse effect?
>>
>> >> Irrelevant, since increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
>> >> temperatures, not the cause.
>>
>> >Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect
>> >on temperature?
>>
>> Is it your contention that effects precede causes?
>
>Do you always respond to a question with question or only
>when you don't want to answer the question?
Do you?
>
>Now, regarding your question, If tachyons exist, yes.
>The last I heard, there was no evidence that they do.
>So right now I would say no.
>
>Now, how I'll rephrase so we can see if you evade answering the
>question again:
>
>Do greenhouse gases affect temperature?
Greenhouse gases are among numerous factors that *can* affect temperature.
>
>There are people who deny the validity of the greenhouse effect.
>I don't know if you are one of those, but I would like to know.
>
>> Remember, this all started
>> when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing
>> temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes
>> *first*.
>
>No, you pointed out that in the ice core data, it *came*
>first.
You emphasized the wrong word: the point is that it came *first*.
>
>You never addressed what happens if carbon dioxide
>concentrations were to rise independently of a temperature
>change.
Irrelevant -- that's not happening.
In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article
> <74e008af-2c24-4210-bb8b-e0eb31613a1c@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On May 26, 8:40 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>> In article
>>> <18ec9f36-07c3-4e82-8738-a180ec06b...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fred
> the
>>> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On May 25, 1:40 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>>>>> I'm done wasting time arguing with someone who's unable to understand the
>>>>>> simple principle that causes precede effects. Keep on yapping if you
> like,
>>> but
>>>>>> I'm done.
>>>>> I think you have enough integrity, courage, and intelligence to
>>>>> continue.
>>>> I also have enough sense not to. As noted above: I'm done wasting time
>>> arguing
>>>> with someone who can't, or won't, comprehend that causes precede effects,
>>> As you know, we have always agreed on that point. Your implication
>>> that we disagree on it, is simply dishonest. I had thought better of
>>> you.
>>
>> Actually, we *don't* agree on that point. You claim we do, but you keep on
>> ignoring that fact, and insisting that the effect indeed precedes the cause.
>>>> not
>>>> the other way around. Keep on yapping if you like, but you'll be yapping in
> a
>>>> void. I'm done.
>>> You have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of causality
>>> if indeed you believe that whenever one event follows another,
>>> that proves the second was caused by the first.
>>
>> You have a serious inability to comprehend written English if you can
>> entertain even for a moment the notion that I believe that -- I've explicitly
>
>> said, several times, that I don't believe that.
>>
>> Why are you having so much trouble understanding that the point is that when
>> one event follows another, that proves that the *first* was NOT caused by the
>
>> *second*?
>>
>
><Puts on striped shirt and blows whistle loudly>
>
>Gentlemen -
>
>Please place a "yes" or "no" below the following propositions:
>
>1) "A follows B" - in and of itself - says nothing one way or the other
> as to whether B *causes* A:
>
> Doug Says:
Correct
> Fred Says:
>
>2) "A follows B" is sufficient to demonstrate that A *cannot* have caused B:
>
> Doug Says:
Correct
> Fred Says:
>
>3) "A and B" happen at the same time - in and of itself - says nothing
> about whether or not they had a *common* or *related* cause:
>
> Doug Says:
Correct
> Fred Says:
>
>4) "A, B, and many other things exist and demonstrate complexity. This
> clearly demonstrates a complete lack of first cause and can be
> sufficiently explained by the "magic" of self-organization,
> evolution, and punctuated equilibrium:
Disagree
>
> This is the "logic" of the modern so-called rational atheist.
> I threw it in to remind you guys that all reasoning systems
> proceed from premises. You're trying to argue fine points of
> logic in which you are largely in agreement and are avoiding
> the 1000 lb elephant in the room: Your premises are different.
Which is why I've decided it's a waste of time to continue arguing with Fred.
Han wrote:
> The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
> very convincing.
> Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much worse, but because it
> is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not reach the importance
> of CO2.
> Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much? On a scale of 0 to a
> million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5 degrees
> K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase! But less
> than a few hours and you're cooked.
The oceans are known to be a huge sink for CO2 and with cooler
temperatures absorb it. Also, with warmer temperatures, the oceans
release CO2. So the question is which is cause and which is effect.
Does CO2 increase precede heating or does heating precede CO2 increase.
I do know that if we eliminate the stuff from the atmosphere, we're done
for.
"Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>
> I thought they were "friends"? :)
Only when it suits them.
>
> Do they have WMD's?
Of Course, that is where Sadam sent some of his after we gave him 6 months
warning that we were going to come and destroy them.
In article <[email protected]>, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>While agreeing with part of your position, this is not the whole truth
>and therefore it is (in my opinion) totally and absolutely false. You
>are advocating that we spend ourselves to death the same way we forced
>the Soviet Union to its death - spend and spend on useless (in the end)
>technology and weapons.
"Useless"? The Soviet Union didn't think so. That's why they objected so
strenuously to our development of a ballistic-missile defense system: because
they knew that it *would* work. They were developing one of their own.
"Useless"? Contemporary Russian leadership doesn't think so either. That's why
they object so strenuously to our placement of missile defense systems in
Poland and the Czech Republic.
"Useless"? Anybody who's been paying any attention to the testing the Navy has
conducted recently *knows* that's not so.
>
>For instance, we may eventually be able to shoot down a few missiles
>lobbed in our direction, but what would be needed is a guarantee that
>none come through such a missile defense system.
Nonsense. A defense system doesn't have to be 100% effective, or even close to
that, to serve as an effective deterrent. If it's accurate enough to preserve
our ability to retaliate, it's sufficient for that purpose. And obviously any
defense system that stops even *one* missile is better than having none at
all.
> I think that history
>has proven that offensive strategies always win over defensive ones
>(castles, Maginot line, Atlantic Wall). If too many missiles would come
>at the same time, or a single missile would come from the "wrong"
>direction, we'd be cooked at the attacked site, and will have to resortto
>retaliatory strikes.
And that is an improvement over having no defensive system at all, exactly
how?
> Are we ready for such sacrifices on our own soil
>and on theirs?
Probably not -- which is the most obvious reason of all for building and
deploying a defensive system. DUH!
>
>Some kind of early warning system would be fine with me.
But not a system that might actually, you know, *stop* one of those incoming
missiles.
Whose side are you on, anyway?
In article <0199efdc-c3ed-4100-b12d-5618efdc786d@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 21, 6:41 pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article
> <[email protected]>, Fred the
> Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:>On May 21, 6:28 am,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> >> In article
>> > <a0d1462b-3a9f-4246-b5ed-f942094a3...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Fred
> the
>> > Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Can you show how a conclusion that temperature
>> >> >changes are independent of carbon dioxide concentrations
>> >> >is consistent with known physics?
>>
>> >> Can you show how an effect preceding a cause is consistent with basic
>> >> logic????
>>
>> >No, nor do I see the relevance regarding possible future temperature
>> >changes. Can you explain?
>>
>> If you need it explained to you that causes precede effects, rather than the
>> other way around, there's really no point in continuing the discussion.
>
>Perhaps I don;t understand your position at all. Can you explain
>the relevance regarding the future effect of present increases in
>Carbon dioxide concentration?
>
Indeed you don't understand the concept at all. The point is that you have the
cause-and-effect relationship reversed: increasing CO2 level is the RESULT of
increasing temperature, not the CAUSE.