Tree growth rings disprove that the earth is warmer now than during Roman times and or even 1000 years ago.

On 7/20/2012 12:48 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Steve B" wrote:
>
>> If the likes of Al Franken live there, I'll pass ...............
> --------------------------------
> Too much of a stretch for your thought capabilities?

Actually a perfect fit for congressional duties ... a comedian, elected
by TV fans.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:55:13 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/18/12 6:37 PM, Leon wrote:
>> Has any one considered lately that cleaning up the atmosphere allows
>> more sun light to reach the surface of the earth??? Stronger hurricanes
>> because there is more warming of the oceans. How is that better???
>>
>
>Some areas get most of their groundwater replenished and most of their
>yearly rainfall from hurricanes. How is that *not* better? Maybe the
>answer is to quit building human habitation in areas below sea level.
>I'm sorry, but I have little to no sympathy for those in New Orleans who
>were warned generation after generation to get the F#@k out of the area
>because there are hurricanes every year. That's a big f-n "DUH!" in
>anyone's book except those who think other people and the government is
>responsible for solving their own problems.

When barges are seen going by *above* people's heads, it tell me that it's not
where I want to live. Then there's Holland.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 13:33:18 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>I think greenies believe that two cars built and operated the same
>pollute the same unless one them is painted green.

WHAT? You mean you haven't read the factually confirmed,
scientifically proven article that air might slipstream over a green
car more easily than other coloured cars?

Geez Leon. Stay up to date!

:)

Han wrote:
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> Like I said, Obama has outsourced our transportation to the Russians.
>
> Like I said, NASA didn't have the money (long before Obama) to
> properly plan for a shuttle successor. ... As far as I can tell, the
> "outsourcing" was totally arranged under Bush.

Right. Blame Bush. Still, the fact is, the transportation of our space
station workers was outsourced under Obama.

On 19 Jul 2012 17:51:49 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:bb81f$50081f8a
>[email protected]:
>
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>
>> Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
>>> habitable.
>>
>> Hey - upstate NY is very habitable! On both of those days in July...
>>
>Quick, someone with a remedy for black flies?

911,000 people seem to think they have that licked. See:
https://www.google.com/search?q=pesticide+for+black+flies
<g>

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:57:58 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made climate
>change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man made global
>warming.
>The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval
>times than it is now," the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported
>last week, "and [the] world has been cooling for 2,000 years."

In the past decade, hikers in Switzerland have been discovering
previously unknown paths (and bodies/mummies?) which were hiked during
the Medieval Warm Period, proving that same hypothesis.


>That and other articles suggest the current global warming trend is a
>mere blip when viewed in the context of natural temperature oscillations
>etched into tree rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a
>New Jersey newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
>extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al Gores of
>the world."

Oversimplified hell. He outright lied about overstating every bit of
data and then -acknowledged- it, saying that people wouldn't act
unless he did so. Farkin' liberal maroons!

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:49:02 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:43:39 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
>>And *IF* CO2 contributes to global warming, the benefits of increased CO2
>>may outweight the hazards. For example, the growing season(s) could extend -
>>Canada may be able to get three wheat crops instead of two. Second, far more
>>untimely deaths can be attributed to cold than heat. Next, places like
>>Minnesota and upstate New York may become habitable.
>
>More growing season *if* water levels remain available to sustain that
>growing season. Like many places in the US we Canadians are
>experiencing drought like conditions in many areas.

Your proof that they won't?

Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok, fun aside, whether or not you think there is a problem or not,
>>> the increased production of CO2 is not helping the perceived
>>> problems. And I would dearly see another "Elfstedentocht" in Holland
>>> during my life time. A 200 km skating race on natural ice is just
>>> awesome ...
>>
>> Oh, but increased CO2 IS helping. Plants.
>>
>> Plants grow faster and bigger at increased CO2 levels.
>>
>> And *IF* CO2 contributes to global warming, the benefits of increased
>> CO2 may outweight the hazards. For example, the growing season(s)
>> could extend - Canada may be able to get three wheat crops instead of
>> two. Second, far more untimely deaths can be attributed to cold than
>> heat. Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
>> habitable.
>>
>> Adapt, overcome, continue.
>
> Apparently, the faster plant growth is somewhat of a fallacy. It may
> simply be untrue, or only true for a few species. But, too bad, it
> doesn't work too well. Perhaps the seeding of the Southern Ocean with
> iron would work to a small extent. At least I just saw a reference
> that it might (at least temporarily) deep six about 1/8th of the CO2
> produced by fossil fuel burning. I'm sure you can google it.

Maybe so, but why would anyone WANT to "deep six" a mess of CO2?

"Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote
>
> Given enough time this cycle too will pass and we will be headed for
> another ice age, I wonder what we are doing to cause that.
>
Perhaps the most interesting ice age speculation would be the greenie
response. What would the politically correct explanation be? And how could
we battle "global cooling"?

"Leon" wrote:

> Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
> that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
> it a political rebuttal if you will.
>
> Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
> in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
> of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming
> cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger
> problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and
> we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing
> to cause that.
>
> Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?
----------------------------------
What is getting lost is the fact that there are over 30 million CO2
belching automobiles operating in China and India that weren't in
operation 10 years ago.

Couple that with the clear cutting of the rain forests and you have a
real out of balance CO2 situation.

It is only going to get more out of balance unless the problem is
addressed.


Lew

On 7/18/2012 1:23 PM, Han wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:34:43 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Leon" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
>>>> that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
>>>> it a political rebuttal if you will.
>>>>
>>>> Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
>>>> in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
>>>> of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming
>>>> cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger
>>>> problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and
>>>> we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing
>>>> to cause that.
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> What is getting lost is the fact that there are over 30 million CO2
>>> belching automobiles operating in China and India that weren't in
>>> operation 10 years ago.
>> So put a carbon tax on Chinese cars. <sheesh>
>>
>>> Couple that with the clear cutting of the rain forests and you have a
>>> real out of balance CO2 situation.
>> So ban clear cutting rain forests. Obama should be able to pass that
>> law, at least. Right? He's had over three years.
>>
>>> It is only going to get more out of balance unless the problem is
>>> addressed.
>> There oughta be a law!
> If you are so happy to tax anyone, why don't you contact Congress?
> They're the ones with the "purse strings".
>
>
If there is a human contribution to global warming, it from all the hot
air and flatulence being released by Congress.

On 7/18/2012 3:49 PM, Han wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 18 Jul 2012 19:23:14 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:34:43 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Leon" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually it does support it however it has a greenie
>>>>>> interpretation that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound
>>>>>> otherwise. Call it a political rebuttal if you will.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
>>>>>> in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
>>>>>> of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the
>>>>>> warming cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have
>>>>>> bigger problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will
>>>>>> pass and we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we
>>>>>> are doing to cause that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?
>>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>>> What is getting lost is the fact that there are over 30 million CO2
>>>>> belching automobiles operating in China and India that weren't in
>>>>> operation 10 years ago.
>>>> So put a carbon tax on Chinese cars. <sheesh>
>>>>
>>>>> Couple that with the clear cutting of the rain forests and you have
>>>>> a real out of balance CO2 situation.
>>>> So ban clear cutting rain forests. Obama should be able to pass
>>>> that law, at least. Right? He's had over three years.
>>>>
>>>>> It is only going to get more out of balance unless the problem is
>>>>> addressed.
>>>> There oughta be a law!
>>> If you are so happy to tax anyone, why don't you contact Congress?
>>> They're the ones with the "purse strings".
>> Isn't that the answer to every "problem", real or perceived?
>>
>>> Ok, fun aside, whether or not you think there is a problem or not, the
>>> increased production of CO2 is not helping the perceived problems.
>>> And I would dearly see another "Elfstedentocht" in Holland during my
>>> life time. A 200 km skating race on natural ice is just awesome ...
>> "It's not helping the perceived problem", says it all. It matters
>> less whether, or not, there is a "problem", than it matters that there
>> is a *perception* of a problem. Perception is reality, I guess.
>> Thank you, AlGore.
> Sorry, wrong choice of words. It isn't a question whether global warming
> is happening, it is. The problem is whether one believes our increasing
> CO2 conetent of the atmosphere has a major or a minor effect here.
> That's the perception I speak of.
>
>
Everyone ignores that on a global level, a little warming would be a
good thing for life in general.

On 07/18/2012 02:49 PM, Han wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 18 Jul 2012 19:23:14 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:34:43 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Leon" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually it does support it however it has a greenie
>>>>>> interpretation that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound
>>>>>> otherwise. Call it a political rebuttal if you will.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
>>>>>> in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
>>>>>> of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the
>>>>>> warming cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have
>>>>>> bigger problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will
>>>>>> pass and we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we
>>>>>> are doing to cause that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?
>>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>>> What is getting lost is the fact that there are over 30 million CO2
>>>>> belching automobiles operating in China and India that weren't in
>>>>> operation 10 years ago.
>>>>
>>>> So put a carbon tax on Chinese cars. <sheesh>
>>>>
>>>>> Couple that with the clear cutting of the rain forests and you have
>>>>> a real out of balance CO2 situation.
>>>>
>>>> So ban clear cutting rain forests. Obama should be able to pass
>>>> that law, at least. Right? He's had over three years.
>>>>
>>>>> It is only going to get more out of balance unless the problem is
>>>>> addressed.
>>>>
>>>> There oughta be a law!
>>>
>>> If you are so happy to tax anyone, why don't you contact Congress?
>>> They're the ones with the "purse strings".
>>
>> Isn't that the answer to every "problem", real or perceived?
>>
>>> Ok, fun aside, whether or not you think there is a problem or not, the
>>> increased production of CO2 is not helping the perceived problems.
>>> And I would dearly see another "Elfstedentocht" in Holland during my
>>> life time. A 200 km skating race on natural ice is just awesome ...
>>
>> "It's not helping the perceived problem", says it all. It matters
>> less whether, or not, there is a "problem", than it matters that there
>> is a *perception* of a problem. Perception is reality, I guess.
>> Thank you, AlGore.
>
> Sorry, wrong choice of words. It isn't a question whether global warming
> is happening, it is. The problem is whether one believes our increasing
> CO2 conetent of the atmosphere has a major or a minor effect here.
> That's the perception I speak of.

And wondering if warming follows increasing C02 or increasing C02
follows warming.

>
> Being an ostrich never helped anyone.
>



--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 7/18/2012 1:23 PM, Han wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:34:43 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Leon" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
>>>> that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
>>>> it a political rebuttal if you will.
>>>>
>>>> Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
>>>> in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
>>>> of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming
>>>> cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger
>>>> problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and
>>>> we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing
>>>> to cause that.
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> What is getting lost is the fact that there are over 30 million CO2
>>> belching automobiles operating in China and India that weren't in
>>> operation 10 years ago.
>> So put a carbon tax on Chinese cars. <sheesh>
>>
>>> Couple that with the clear cutting of the rain forests and you have a
>>> real out of balance CO2 situation.
>> So ban clear cutting rain forests. Obama should be able to pass that
>> law, at least. Right? He's had over three years.
>>
>>> It is only going to get more out of balance unless the problem is
>>> addressed.
>> There oughta be a law!
> If you are so happy to tax anyone, why don't you contact Congress?
> They're the ones with the "purse strings".
>
> Ok, fun aside, whether or not you think there is a problem or not, the
> increased production of CO2 is not helping the perceived problems.

On a global scale (which is the way one should consider global warming),
a slightly warmer globe would not be a problem, it would be a good thing.

On 7/18/2012 3:49 PM, Han wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 18 Jul 2012 19:23:14 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:34:43 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Leon" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually it does support it however it has a greenie
>>>>>> interpretation that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound
>>>>>> otherwise. Call it a political rebuttal if you will.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
>>>>>> in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
>>>>>> of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the
>>>>>> warming cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have
>>>>>> bigger problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will
>>>>>> pass and we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we
>>>>>> are doing to cause that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?
>>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>>> What is getting lost is the fact that there are over 30 million CO2
>>>>> belching automobiles operating in China and India that weren't in
>>>>> operation 10 years ago.
>>>> So put a carbon tax on Chinese cars. <sheesh>
>>>>
>>>>> Couple that with the clear cutting of the rain forests and you have
>>>>> a real out of balance CO2 situation.
>>>> So ban clear cutting rain forests. Obama should be able to pass
>>>> that law, at least. Right? He's had over three years.
>>>>
>>>>> It is only going to get more out of balance unless the problem is
>>>>> addressed.
>>>> There oughta be a law!
>>> If you are so happy to tax anyone, why don't you contact Congress?
>>> They're the ones with the "purse strings".
>> Isn't that the answer to every "problem", real or perceived?
>>
>>> Ok, fun aside, whether or not you think there is a problem or not, the
>>> increased production of CO2 is not helping the perceived problems.
>>> And I would dearly see another "Elfstedentocht" in Holland during my
>>> life time. A 200 km skating race on natural ice is just awesome ...
>> "It's not helping the perceived problem", says it all. It matters
>> less whether, or not, there is a "problem", than it matters that there
>> is a *perception* of a problem. Perception is reality, I guess.
>> Thank you, AlGore.
> Sorry, wrong choice of words. It isn't a question whether global warming
> is happening, it is. The problem is whether one believes our increasing
> CO2 conetent of the atmosphere has a major or a minor effect here.
> That's the perception I speak of.
>
> Being an ostrich never helped anyone.
>
Part of the question is, assuming the globe is warming, on a global
scale is that even a problem? In historical times there have been times
that the globe was warmer than it is now, and it was not a problem before.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote:

> Dammit Han, you're being reasonable - that never works with this
> group :-).
<snip>
---------------------------------
You buy them books, they eat the covers.

Lew

"Larry Blanchard" wrote:

> Dammit Han, you're being reasonable - that never works with this
> group :-).
>
> As I've pointed out, whether or not the increase in CO2 is the major
> factor in warming, there's little dispute that it is a major factor
> in
> ocean acidification. If the base of the global food chain is
> disrupted,
> we won't care how warm it gets!
------------------------------------
You buy them books, they are still eating the covers.

Lew

"Steve B" wrote:

> If the likes of Al Franken live there, I'll pass ...............
--------------------------------
Too much of a stretch for your thought capabilities?

Lew

"Han" wrote:
> And those rules are GOOD!!
> Oil generally has much less sulfur (right?) and mercury than
> most/many
> forms of coal.
------------------------------
Sulfur is a revenue generator for oil, that's why sulfer recovery
units exist (SRU).

Sulfer sold to H2SO4 producers as well as the ag business.

Lew

Han wrote:

>
> That is indeed a factoid (if it isindeed true - have to stay at least
> as skeptical as others) that I cannot explain, but it has nothing,
> absolutely nothing to do with the unassailable fact that we are
> generating CO2 by burning wood and fossil fuels. It seems to me to
> be logical to conclude that that CO2 is at least contributing to the
> roughly doubled quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that such CO2
> could be at least one factor in the global warming process.

Well - if we hadn't plugged up all those damned holes in the ozone layer,
all of that excess CO2 would still just be harmlessly escaping off into
space...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Han wrote:

>
> Exactly. Waste is generated and (supposedly) disposed of properly.
> Except when the loopholes allow disposal in a cheaper way that
> fulfills all legal requirements, except the spirit of the law.

So Han - is it disposed of properly or not? Or is that "spriti of the law"
crap just your way of saying that you don't like the legal way it is being
done? Spirit of the law is quite different from illegal.


>
> The report I saw, as quoted in the New York Times - IIRC, mentioned
> trucking of waste water accross state borders. I don't recall the
> quantities. Large tanker trucks hold up to about 10,000 gallons. So
> ONLY about 100 truck loads is a million gallons ...

So - you do not recall quantities and you are not even sure if it mentioned
trucking across state boundaries. Yet... you feel comfortable in rolling up
numbers like 10,000 gallons. Sure - roll irrelevant numbers just so that
you can achieve an impressive total that makes for a very inflamatory
statement. Hell be damned if it is accurate or even relevant. You need to
ground your thoughts better Han.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:47:51 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:18:11 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>>More growing season *if* water levels remain available to sustain that
>>>growing season. Like many places in the US we Canadians are
>>>experiencing drought like conditions in many areas.
>>
>>Your proof that they won't?
>
>Proof? It's happening right now in front of you. Sustainable water
>levels are disappearing in many places that had previously lush
>fertile soil.

The government does some dumb things, like giving away "free" water to farm
unfarmable land. Sure.

>My proof is plain common sense, something you continually appear to be
>lacking in large quantities.

Your "common sense" is nonsense.

On 7/18/2012 7:41 AM, Han wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/17/2012 7:07 PM, Artemus wrote:
>>> "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made
>>>>> climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man
>>>>> made global warming. The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER
>>>>> in Roman and Medieval times than it is now," the British newspaper
>>>>> the Daily Mail reported last week, "and [the] world has been
>>>>> cooling for 2,000 years." That and other articles suggest the
>>>>> current global warming trend is a mere blip when viewed in the
>>>>> context of natural temperature oscillations etched into tree rings
>>>>> over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey
>>>>> newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
>>>>> extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al
>>>>> Gores of the world."
>>>>
>>>> Got a link?
>>>> Art
>>>>
>>>
>>> Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of the
>>> article doesn't support the part you quoted.
>>> http://www.livescience.com/21624-tree-rings-global-warming.html
>>> Art
>>
>> Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
>> that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
>> it a political rebuttal if you will.
>>
>> Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point in
>> time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens of
>> times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming cycle
>> is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger problems
>> to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and we will be
>> headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing to cause that.
>>
>> Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?
>
> Just for fun. Here is a link to a retroactive look at a 1981 paper that
> looked at scenarios to predict global climate, taking into account many
> factors. It seems that 30 years later the observations have confirmed
> the predictions, including the role of CO2.
> <http://tinyurl.com/832z88r> or
> <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-
> temperature-projection/>
>
> My physicist daughter found the link, and yes, KNMI is the acronym of the
> Dutch weather service (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut),
> and I am a born Dutchman.
>
> In geological times Earth's temperature has often been warmer than today,
> and part of the current rise in globally averaged temperatures may be due
> to other factors. It is just remarkable that 1981 calculations were able
> to predict observations made over the next 30 years, and were based on
> the rise in CO2. Really curious correlation ... Yes I know.

Nothing curious about it, Han ... when it comes to correlation and
causation figures can lie, and liars can figure. Massage/adjust the data
just right (as in the traditional and adjusted temperature data sets
being used for modeling) and the moon is made of Limburger ... or at
least smells like it. :)

And yes, we are definitely in a warming period ... however, the reason
has simply not been determined with sufficient scientific certainty to
embark upon the 'rob the rich, give to the poor' measures those intent
on destroying the sovereignty of select nations in favor of a world
government would have you believe.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Richard wrote:
> On 7/23/2012 9:00 PM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>
>> Right. I continue to misspeak. I should have said "there is
>> virtually no waste dumping from a fracking operation."
>>
>> I'm sure somewhere a valve gets left open for a few minutes...
>>
>>
>> I think you pretty well addressed everything I spoke to; covered it
>> all you did.
>>
>> Dave in Texas
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Let me see if I understand this?
>
> They use explosives to fracture rock to get at the natural gas that's
> down there SOMEWHERE - but it ONLY comes out at the valve?

I think you've wrapped your mind around the concept. Congrats.

"Richard" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On 7/23/2012 9:00 PM, Dave in Texas wrote:

> Right. I continue to misspeak. I should have said "there is virtually no
> waste dumping from a fracking operation."
>
> I'm sure somewhere a valve gets left open for a few minutes...
>
>
> I think you pretty well addressed everything I spoke to; covered it all
> you did.
>
> Dave in Texas
>
>
>


Let me see if I understand this?

They use explosives to fracture rock to get at the natural gas that's
down there SOMEWHERE - but it ONLY comes out at the valve?

Total drilled depth is usually 15,000-16,00 feet including a 4,000-5,000
lateral. There may be as many as 20 stages of fracking involving more than
a million gallons of water, various types of sand and 'secret' chemicals.
This animated video gives you the general idea:
http://northernoil.com/drilling

Dave in Texas

On 7/23/2012 12:18 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>> On 7/22/2012 11:28 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>>> I read an article that showed the average electric/hybrid car has a much
>>>> larger carbon footprint than a gasoline car, when you look at its total
>>>> life, from manufacturing to disposal.
>>
>> Actually many common magazines have reported this fact.
>>
>> Google it, you will find it.
>
> OK, I did. Hybrid/electric cars has a larger carbon footprint during
> the manufacturing process, but a lower footprint over their lifetimes.

Lifetimes is the key word here. After their usefulness has expired you
have to recycle, those huge nasty batteries that electric cars have are
a totally new problem we have to deal with.

>
> The only studies I saw that said otherwise assumed that the conventional
> car would last 300,000 miles while the hybrid would last 100,000 miles.
> There was no justification for that assumption.

Larger vehicles tend to handle the wear and tear much better. Pick up
trucks do tend to last much longer than economy cars before becoming
rattle traps. The typical electric is an economy box with batteries.

>
> The only place where the electric car loses is when you charge it from
> a grid that runs on coal. In that case, it's basically a wash.


Probably not.

Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Exactly. Waste is generated and (supposedly) disposed of properly.
>>> Except when the loopholes allow disposal in a cheaper way that
>>> fulfills all legal requirements, except the spirit of the law.
>>
>> So Han - is it disposed of properly or not? Or is that "spriti of
>> the law" crap just your way of saying that you don't like the legal
>> way it is being done? Spirit of the law is quite different from
>> illegal.
>
> Come on Mike. It is not legal to dump more than x gallons of waste
> containing y ppm of this in the public water ways. So, dilute it
> 10-fold and then dump it. Or read any of the vignettes here
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/DRILLING_DOWN_SERIES.html
> to get an idea.

I will read that link Han but first - I have to ask why you point to
something if it (by your own words) is less than any controlled levels.
Maybe upon reading the link I will come back at you with a different
perspective, but I am suspicious right now...



>
> I wish I could express myself better. This is what I did. I looked
> up the capacity of tanker trucks. Stated as up to 9,000 gallons, so
> for ease of calculations I rounded it up to 10,000 gallons. Yes I
> exagerated, so what. The question was about "millions of gallons of
> waste being trucked or not. By using the 10,000 gallon figure it was
> easy to see that a mere 100 or so trips with just 1 truck would reach
> 1 million gallons. The above links also talk about the danger of
> overworked truck drivers (being asked to drive more and longer than is
> really legal) and the accidents they cause or can cause.

I don't mean to drill down to the absurd level of detail that tries to
differentiate between 1,000 gallons and 1,100 gallons. You were quite
correct in rounding up in my opinion.

But - where do those millions of gallons of figures come from?

>
> Again, just to make sure you know where I stand. I am in favor of
> fracking to make available energy sources that are in principle fairly
> clean, economical and plentiful. It's just that it should be done
> safely and properly.

We are not at all far apart in that concept. I am not anti-fracking.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 19 Jul 2012 11:59:35 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in news:5007d6c9$0$31718$882e7ee2
>@usenet-news.net:
>
>> On a global scale (which is the way one should consider global warming),
>> a slightly warmer globe would not be a problem, it would be a good thing.
>
>That depends. If there is enough irrigation water around, perhaps no
>problem, but here in the US we are depleting aquifers already. If there is
>going to be less snow in the mountains, there will be less of a summertime
>reservoir of water (it will have run off the mountains before spring is
>finished).

And if we continue to destroy aquifers with fracking, the USA will
have little to no drinkable or farmable water available. I worry about
that 1,000 times more than AGWK.

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On 7/18/2012 8:44 PM, Richard wrote:
> On 7/18/2012 6:15 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>> So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
>> curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???
>>
>
> Interesting fallacy...
>
> I'm curious about how that "greener" vehicle (mostly plastic) was made
> without any environmental impact...
>
Me too, the greenies seem to think that because there is no pollution
coming out of the tail pipe that there is no pollution.

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:45:41 -0500, Richard <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/18/2012 2:14 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> So ban clear cutting rain forests. Obama should be able to pass that law, at
>> least. Right? He's had over three years.
>
>
>Best time to plant a tree (or not cut one down) was 20 years ago.
>
>When it would have made a difference.

And you could use it for woodworking, today. ;-)

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:57:58 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made climate
>change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man made global
>warming.
>The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval
>times than it is now," the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported
>last week, "and [the] world has been cooling for 2,000 years."
>That and other articles suggest the current global warming trend is a
>mere blip when viewed in the context of natural temperature oscillations
>etched into tree rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a
>New Jersey newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
>extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al Gores of
>the world."

AlGore overly simple? Who wudda thunk?

HeyBub wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>
>> Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
>>> habitable.
>>
>> Hey - upstate NY is very habitable! On both of those days in July...
>
> My current squeeze is from that area, a suburb of Buffalo (Sasparilla
> or something like that). A year ago, I went with her to meet her
> family. Pleasant enough, but...
>
> The plane trip caused a deep vein thrombosis. A few days after
> returning I came down with double pulmonary embolism.
>
> My dearly beloved called 911.
>
> In slightly more than FOUR MINUTES, I had FIVE EMT's and paramedics
> in my bedroom. Outside was an ambulance and a fire truck. Luckily, I
> live about six blocks from a Class I Trauma Center.
>
> All better now, but the insurance company is out $72,000.
>
> I blame New York.

Nah - it would only be our fault if that $72,000 went into our General Fund.
Give our Gov a chance - he'll find a way to make that happen...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 7/19/2012 6:41 AM, Han wrote:
> Richard<[email protected]> wrote in news:BL-dnb_92OMd-
> [email protected]:
>
>> On 7/18/2012 6:15 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
>>> curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???
>>>
>>
>> Interesting fallacy...
>>
>> I'm curious about how that "greener" vehicle (mostly plastic) was made
>> without any environmental impact...
>
> We'll be mining asteroids for the mierals pretty soon, and all (ahem)
> pollution will occur outside Earth's atmosphere.
>


Now we won't.
We don't do space any more. It's too expensive.
And besides, the environmental impact of building and launching
spacecraft wasn't good for out planet (or so say the greens).

Bottom line is simply this... there is no technical solution to
such a problem, other than reducing the population radically.
Nobody is going to volunteer to do that. Certainly not Al Gore.

The "obvious" conclusions that people have come up with reflect
serious framing errors (on both sides, I may add).

Comparing events of the last 10, 50, 100 years, when the patterns
have run for hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of years is
always going to be misleading.

This is not about science. It's purely politics.



For what it's worth...

RIchard

Mike Marlow wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>
> Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
>> habitable.
>
> Hey - upstate NY is very habitable! On both of those days in July...

My current squeeze is from that area, a suburb of Buffalo (Sasparilla or
something like that). A year ago, I went with her to meet her family.
Pleasant enough, but...

The plane trip caused a deep vein thrombosis. A few days after returning I
came down with double pulmonary embolism.

My dearly beloved called 911.

In slightly more than FOUR MINUTES, I had FIVE EMT's and paramedics in my
bedroom. Outside was an ambulance and a fire truck. Luckily, I live about
six blocks from a Class I Trauma Center.

All better now, but the insurance company is out $72,000.

I blame New York.

On 7/18/2012 6:15 PM, Leon wrote:
>
> So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
> curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???
>

Interesting fallacy...

I'm curious about how that "greener" vehicle (mostly plastic) was made
without any environmental impact...

Han wrote:
>
> Ok, fun aside, whether or not you think there is a problem or not, the
> increased production of CO2 is not helping the perceived problems.
> And I would dearly see another "Elfstedentocht" in Holland during my
> life time. A 200 km skating race on natural ice is just awesome ...

Oh, but increased CO2 IS helping. Plants.

Plants grow faster and bigger at increased CO2 levels.

And *IF* CO2 contributes to global warming, the benefits of increased CO2
may outweight the hazards. For example, the growing season(s) could extend -
Canada may be able to get three wheat crops instead of two. Second, far more
untimely deaths can be attributed to cold than heat. Next, places like
Minnesota and upstate New York may become habitable.

Adapt, overcome, continue.

Dave in Texas wrote:
>
> NO, Bub, you cannot say there is NO waste connected with fracking.
> Speaking from experience . . . though recycling used frack water is a
> growing business, there is still PLENTY of waste water aka,
> 'blowback' and there are serious efforts [in Karnes County, Texas
> and, I assume other Eagle Ford Shale play counties] to establish
> multiple waste disposal injection wells, almost assuredly in close
> proximity to homes and crops.
> http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20120411005372/en, as just one
> example. There is plenty of opposition from long-time local
> framers/ranchers including those that are pocketing some serious bank
> from their royalties. I know because I know a few of those
> farmers/ranchers, and land owners. I believe, in the end, the Texas
> Railroad Commission which "regulates" the oil and gas industry will
> cow-tow to the industry. The API almost always gets its way; TRRC
> commissioners need campaign money, too. Those farmers/ranchers, and
> land owners I refer to, are also afraid that is exactly what will
> happen. These are died-in-the-wool, anti-Obama conservatives. They've
> ranched the land their whole lives; lived through the uranium
> strip-mining of the early '70s. I've seen some evidence that the
> TRRC is doing it's best to curtail and otherwise short-circuit land
> owner's objections by restricting public input [filing dates and
> similar such tactics]. A legal fight is brewing, to be sure. But,
> you CANNOT say there is NO waste from fracking.

Right. I continue to misspeak. I should have said "there is virtually no
waste dumping from a fracking operation."

I'm sure somewhere a valve gets left open for a few minutes...

Han wrote:
>>
>> We still do space. But Obama has outsourced our transportation to the
>> Russians.
>
> Congress has seen fit to strip NASA of the monies needed to make a
> replacement for the shuttle. Whether right or wrong, the slack should
> soon be taken up by private enterprise, it seems from my following of
> space faring. Because Congress didn't act, the Russians are doing an
> excellent job of filling the hiatus in US capabilities. Another
> advantage of the collaboration with the Russians is enhanced
> understanding of each other. We're not living in the cold war
> anymore!! (Which doen't mean we should abandon defense, just that we
> should adjust priorities).

Right.

Like I said, Obama has outsourced our transportation to the Russians.

On 7/24/2012 2:06 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> "Richard" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> On 7/23/2012 9:00 PM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>>
>>> Right. I continue to misspeak. I should have said "there is virtually no
>>> waste dumping from a fracking operation."
>>>
>>> I'm sure somewhere a valve gets left open for a few minutes...
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you pretty well addressed everything I spoke to; covered it all
>>> you did.
>>>
>>> Dave in Texas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Let me see if I understand this?
>>
>> They use explosives to fracture rock to get at the natural gas that's
>> down there SOMEWHERE - but it ONLY comes out at the valve?
>
> Yep. They even tried it with atom bombs on three separate occasions.
> Any gas leakage into groundwater or the like would have been easily
> detectable (like you point a geiger counter at if and if it goes tick
> tick you've got a leak). The AEC looked for such leakage and didn't
> find it.


So we can be sure fracking would be safe from leaks - IF they used
atomic bombs?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Richard" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On 7/23/2012 9:00 PM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>
> > Right. I continue to misspeak. I should have said "there is virtually no
> > waste dumping from a fracking operation."
> >
> > I'm sure somewhere a valve gets left open for a few minutes...
> >
> >
> > I think you pretty well addressed everything I spoke to; covered it all
> > you did.
> >
> > Dave in Texas
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Let me see if I understand this?
>
> They use explosives to fracture rock to get at the natural gas that's
> down there SOMEWHERE - but it ONLY comes out at the valve?

Yep. They even tried it with atom bombs on three separate occasions.
Any gas leakage into groundwater or the like would have been easily
detectable (like you point a geiger counter at if and if it goes tick
tick you've got a leak). The AEC looked for such leakage and didn't
find it.

Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> We're too late on that count. Big Oil actually got the gov't to allow
> them to BYPASS the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act for their
> production of natural gas via fracking. They have a license to taint
> all the air and water they want, and we can't do a damned thing about
> it. I'd like to see come CONgresscritter heads taken off as a result
> of that little treasonous act against the people of the USA. Ditto
> the pact they made with Big Pharma in re: Medicare Part D.
>

Huh?

There are NO federal regulations on fracking and never have been. There was
nothing to bypass, by Big Oil or anybody else. Licenses are not issued by
anybody for fracking. In addition, Congress has never been involved in
fracking, either in favor or in opposition.

Further, most fracking extractions are not owned or operated by Big Oil -
they were developed by independent operators who sell the output to NG
production companies, most of which have no connection to the seven major
oil companies.

If you have any information to the contrary, I'd be really interested in
seeing it.

On 7/23/2012 9:00 PM, Dave in Texas wrote:

> Right. I continue to misspeak. I should have said "there is virtually no
> waste dumping from a fracking operation."
>
> I'm sure somewhere a valve gets left open for a few minutes...
>
>
> I think you pretty well addressed everything I spoke to; covered it all
> you did.
>
> Dave in Texas
>
>
>


Let me see if I understand this?

They use explosives to fracture rock to get at the natural gas that's
down there SOMEWHERE - but it ONLY comes out at the valve?

Han wrote:
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> There are NO federal regulations on fracking and never have been.
>> There was nothing to bypass, by Big Oil or anybody else. Licenses are
>> not issued by anybody for fracking. In addition, Congress has never
>> been involved in fracking, either in favor or in opposition.
>>
>> Further, most fracking extractions are not owned or operated by Big
>> Oil - they were developed by independent operators who sell the
>> output to NG production companies, most of which have no connection
>> to the seven major oil companies.
>>
>> If you have any information to the contrary, I'd be really interested
>> in seeing it.
>
> I believe there are federal regulations that apply to fracking, but
> mostly they are local (state or smaller entities). I believe that
> fracking in PA requires some permits, and that the companies are
> bypassing them by trucking their wastes to OH, or at least interstate
> between 2 states. It would be good to have federal regulations (if
> they were sufficient, reasonable, consistent, and intelligible), so
> that everyone everywhere would be subject to the same rules. Now it
> is too easy to circumvent the rules, or say, oh I diodn't know ...

You're sorta correct and I misspoke. There are STATE regulations on fracking
but there are NO federal regulations on fracking. A lot of people in eastern
Pennsylvania are getting rich from fracked natural gas while their
neighbors, just across the state line in western New York are really pissed
because New York doesn't allow the process.

In the early days of fracking, there was some waste; companies dumped the
semi-polluted water anywhere they pleased. Now, however, all the water used
is reclaimed. There is NO waste connected with fracking.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Dave in Texas wrote:
>
> NO, Bub, you cannot say there is NO waste connected with fracking.
> Speaking from experience . . . though recycling used frack water is a
> growing business, there is still PLENTY of waste water aka,
> 'blowback' and there are serious efforts [in Karnes County, Texas
> and, I assume other Eagle Ford Shale play counties] to establish
> multiple waste disposal injection wells, almost assuredly in close
> proximity to homes and crops.
> http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20120411005372/en, as just one
> example. There is plenty of opposition from long-time local
> framers/ranchers including those that are pocketing some serious bank
> from their royalties. I know because I know a few of those
> farmers/ranchers, and land owners. I believe, in the end, the Texas
> Railroad Commission which "regulates" the oil and gas industry will
> cow-tow to the industry. The API almost always gets its way; TRRC
> commissioners need campaign money, too. Those farmers/ranchers, and
> land owners I refer to, are also afraid that is exactly what will
> happen. These are died-in-the-wool, anti-Obama conservatives. They've
> ranched the land their whole lives; lived through the uranium
> strip-mining of the early '70s. I've seen some evidence that the
> TRRC is doing it's best to curtail and otherwise short-circuit land
> owner's objections by restricting public input [filing dates and
> similar such tactics]. A legal fight is brewing, to be sure. But,
> you CANNOT say there is NO waste from fracking.

Right. I continue to misspeak. I should have said "there is virtually no
waste dumping from a fracking operation."

I'm sure somewhere a valve gets left open for a few minutes...


I think you pretty well addressed everything I spoke to; covered it all
you did.

Dave in Texas

Han wrote:
>>
>> You're sorta correct and I misspoke. There are STATE regulations on
>> fracking but there are NO federal regulations on fracking. A lot of
>> people in eastern Pennsylvania are getting rich from fracked natural
>> gas while their neighbors, just across the state line in western New
>> York are really pissed because New York doesn't allow the process.
>>
>> In the early days of fracking, there was some waste; companies dumped
>> the semi-polluted water anywhere they pleased. Now, however, all the
>> water used is reclaimed. There is NO waste connected with fracking.
>
> There was until recently at least a scarcity of effective regulation
> of waste disposal. I don't believe that there is no waste with
> fracking. You mean to say that all the drilling fluids and all the
> fracking fluids disappear into the earth? That I do not believe. I
> am hopeful that the wastes are disposed of in compliance with all
> regulations, but I am fearful that they still truck waste out of the
> state where it cannot be dumped to states where it IS "legal".
>

Consider:

"Spent or used fracturing fluids are normally recovered at the initial stage
of well production and recycled in a closed system for future use or
disposed of under regulation, either by surface discharge where authorized
under the Clean Water Act or by injection into Class II wells as authorized
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Regulation may also allow recovered
fracturing fluids to be disposed of at appropriate commercial facilities.
Not all fracturing fluid returns to the surface."
http://www.energyfromshale.org/hydraulic-fracturing-fluid

There are many other references under fracking+fluid+recovery

I don't think anybody trucks tens of millions of gallons of water across
state lines...

On 7/18/2012 7:41 AM, Han wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/17/2012 7:07 PM, Artemus wrote:
>>> "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made
>>>>> climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man
>>>>> made global warming. The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER
>>>>> in Roman and Medieval times than it is now," the British newspaper
>>>>> the Daily Mail reported last week, "and [the] world has been
>>>>> cooling for 2,000 years." That and other articles suggest the
>>>>> current global warming trend is a mere blip when viewed in the
>>>>> context of natural temperature oscillations etched into tree rings
>>>>> over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey
>>>>> newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
>>>>> extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al
>>>>> Gores of the world."
>>>>
>>>> Got a link?
>>>> Art
>>>>
>>>
>>> Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of the
>>> article doesn't support the part you quoted.
>>> http://www.livescience.com/21624-tree-rings-global-warming.html
>>> Art
>>
>> Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
>> that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
>> it a political rebuttal if you will.
>>
>> Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point in
>> time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens of
>> times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming cycle
>> is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger problems
>> to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and we will be
>> headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing to cause that.
>>
>> Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?
>
> Just for fun. Here is a link to a retroactive look at a 1981 paper that
> looked at scenarios to predict global climate, taking into account many
> factors. It seems that 30 years later the observations have confirmed
> the predictions, including the role of CO2.
> <http://tinyurl.com/832z88r> or
> <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-
> temperature-projection/>
>
> My physicist daughter found the link, and yes, KNMI is the acronym of the
> Dutch weather service (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut),
> and I am a born Dutchman.
>
> In geological times Earth's temperature has often been warmer than today,
> and part of the current rise in globally averaged temperatures may be due
> to other factors. It is just remarkable that 1981 calculations were able
> to predict observations made over the next 30 years, and were based on
> the rise in CO2. Really curious correlation ... Yes I know.
>


Equally remarkable about 1981 is that it is an odd number year.

You can make any figures tell you what you want them to say. We do not
know the reason for climate change or how long it will last of if the
earth is naturally warming up to offset what did 40 years ago to cool
thing off unknowingly. We are going thorough a normal cycle.

That said the current findings and bits of data collected may explain
why the cave man is no longer around. His collection of data indicated
that there should be no more cooking with fire as it added too much to
the global pollution which was on every ones minds back then. They
starved to death trying to save the world. ;~)

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Han wrote:
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> There are NO federal regulations on fracking and never have been.
>> There was nothing to bypass, by Big Oil or anybody else. Licenses are
>> not issued by anybody for fracking. In addition, Congress has never
>> been involved in fracking, either in favor or in opposition.
>>
>> Further, most fracking extractions are not owned or operated by Big
>> Oil - they were developed by independent operators who sell the
>> output to NG production companies, most of which have no connection
>> to the seven major oil companies.
>>
>> If you have any information to the contrary, I'd be really interested
>> in seeing it.
>
> I believe there are federal regulations that apply to fracking, but
> mostly they are local (state or smaller entities). I believe that
> fracking in PA requires some permits, and that the companies are
> bypassing them by trucking their wastes to OH, or at least interstate
> between 2 states. It would be good to have federal regulations (if
> they were sufficient, reasonable, consistent, and intelligible), so
> that everyone everywhere would be subject to the same rules. Now it
> is too easy to circumvent the rules, or say, oh I diodn't know ...

You're sorta correct and I misspoke. There are STATE regulations on fracking
but there are NO federal regulations on fracking. A lot of people in eastern
Pennsylvania are getting rich from fracked natural gas while their
neighbors, just across the state line in western New York are really pissed
because New York doesn't allow the process.

I do believe that New York has put a plan/law in effect or being
considered. Google 'New York fracking policy.'

In the early days of fracking, there was some waste; companies dumped the
semi-polluted water anywhere they pleased. Now, however, all the water used
is reclaimed. There is NO waste connected with fracking.

NO, Bub, you cannot say there is NO waste connected with fracking.
Speaking from experience . . . though recycling used frack water is a
growing business, there is still PLENTY of waste water aka, 'blowback' and
there are serious efforts [in Karnes County, Texas and, I assume other Eagle
Ford Shale play counties] to establish multiple waste disposal injection
wells, almost assuredly in close proximity to homes and crops.
http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20120411005372/en, as just one example.
There is plenty of opposition from long-time local framers/ranchers
including those that are pocketing some serious bank from their royalties.
I know because I know a few of those farmers/ranchers, and land owners. I
believe, in the end, the Texas Railroad Commission which "regulates" the oil
and gas industry will cow-tow to the industry. The API almost always gets
its way; TRRC commissioners need campaign money, too. Those
farmers/ranchers, and land owners I refer to, are also afraid that is
exactly what will happen. These are died-in-the-wool, anti-Obama
conservatives. They've ranched the land their whole lives; lived through
the uranium strip-mining of the early '70s. I've seen some evidence that
the TRRC is doing it's best to curtail and otherwise short-circuit land
owner's objections by restricting public input [filing dates and similar
such tactics]. A legal fight is brewing, to be sure.
But, you CANNOT say there is NO waste from fracking.

Dave in [Eagle Ford] Texas

On 7/17/2012 2:57 PM, Leon wrote:
> A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made climate
> change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man made global
> warming.
> The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval
> times than it is now," the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported
> last week, "and [the] world has been cooling for 2,000 years."
> That and other articles suggest the current global warming trend is a
> mere blip when viewed in the context of natural temperature oscillations
> etched into tree rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a
> New Jersey newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
> extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al Gores of
> the world."


well duh.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 7/17/2012 7:07 PM, Artemus wrote:
>> "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made
>>>> climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of man
>>>> made global warming. The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER
>>>> in Roman and Medieval times than it is now," the British newspaper
>>>> the Daily Mail reported last week, "and [the] world has been
>>>> cooling for 2,000 years." That and other articles suggest the
>>>> current global warming trend is a mere blip when viewed in the
>>>> context of natural temperature oscillations etched into tree rings
>>>> over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey
>>>> newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
>>>> extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al
>>>> Gores of the world."
>>>
>>> Got a link?
>>> Art
>>>
>>
>> Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of the
>> article doesn't support the part you quoted.
>> http://www.livescience.com/21624-tree-rings-global-warming.html
>> Art
>
> Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
> that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
> it a political rebuttal if you will.
>
> Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point in
> time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens of
> times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming cycle
> is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger problems
> to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and we will be
> headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing to cause that.
>
> Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?

Just for fun. Here is a link to a retroactive look at a 1981 paper that
looked at scenarios to predict global climate, taking into account many
factors. It seems that 30 years later the observations have confirmed
the predictions, including the role of CO2.
<http://tinyurl.com/832z88r> or
<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-
temperature-projection/>

My physicist daughter found the link, and yes, KNMI is the acronym of the
Dutch weather service (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut),
and I am a born Dutchman.

In geological times Earth's temperature has often been warmer than today,
and part of the current rise in globally averaged temperatures may be due
to other factors. It is just remarkable that 1981 calculations were able
to predict observations made over the next 30 years, and were based on
the rise in CO2. Really curious correlation ... Yes I know.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 7/18/2012 7:41 AM, Han wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 7/17/2012 7:07 PM, Artemus wrote:
>>>> "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly made
>>>>>> climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the theory of
>>>>>> man made global warming. The tree rings "prove [the] climate was
>>>>>> WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now," the British
>>>>>> newspaper the Daily Mail reported last week, "and [the] world has
>>>>>> been cooling for 2,000 years." That and other articles suggest
>>>>>> the current global warming trend is a mere blip when viewed in
>>>>>> the context of natural temperature oscillations etched into tree
>>>>>> rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey
>>>>>> newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an
>>>>>> extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al
>>>>>> Gores of the world."
>>>>>
>>>>> Got a link?
>>>>> Art
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of the
>>>> article doesn't support the part you quoted.
>>>> http://www.livescience.com/21624-tree-rings-global-warming.html
>>>> Art
>>>
>>> Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
>>> that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
>>> it a political rebuttal if you will.
>>>
>>> Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
>>> in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
>>> of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming
>>> cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger
>>> problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and
>>> we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing
>>> to cause that.
>>>
>>> Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?
>>
>> Just for fun. Here is a link to a retroactive look at a 1981 paper
>> that looked at scenarios to predict global climate, taking into
>> account many factors. It seems that 30 years later the observations
>> have confirmed the predictions, including the role of CO2.
>> <http://tinyurl.com/832z88r> or
>> <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-19
>> 81- temperature-projection/>
>>
>> My physicist daughter found the link, and yes, KNMI is the acronym of
>> the Dutch weather service (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch
>> Instituut), and I am a born Dutchman.
>>
>> In geological times Earth's temperature has often been warmer than
>> today, and part of the current rise in globally averaged temperatures
>> may be due to other factors. It is just remarkable that 1981
>> calculations were able to predict observations made over the next 30
>> years, and were based on the rise in CO2. Really curious correlation
>> ... Yes I know.
>
> Nothing curious about it, Han ... when it comes to correlation and
> causation figures can lie, and liars can figure. Massage/adjust the
> data just right (as in the traditional and adjusted temperature data
> sets being used for modeling) and the moon is made of Limburger ... or
> at least smells like it. :)
>
> And yes, we are definitely in a warming period ... however, the reason
> has simply not been determined with sufficient scientific certainty to
> embark upon the 'rob the rich, give to the poor' measures those intent
> on destroying the sovereignty of select nations in favor of a world
> government would have you believe.

I hear and respect your doubts, Karl. I'm still with the general idea
that manmade CO2 is a bad thing, and should be curbed as much as
feasible. But I stil drive a 7 year old Grand Caravan ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 7/18/2012 10:24 AM, Han wrote:
>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 7/18/2012 7:41 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/17/2012 7:07 PM, Artemus wrote:
>>>>>> "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly
>>>>>>>> made climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the
>>>>>>>> theory of man made global warming. The tree rings "prove [the]
>>>>>>>> climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now,"
>>>>>>>> the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported last week, "and
>>>>>>>> [the] world has been cooling for 2,000 years." That and other
>>>>>>>> articles suggest the current global warming trend is a mere
>>>>>>>> blip when viewed in the context of natural temperature
>>>>>>>> oscillations etched into tree rings over the past two
>>>>>>>> millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey newspaper, mused that
>>>>>>>> the findings lock in "one piece of an extremely complex puzzle
>>>>>>>> that has been oversimplified by the Al Gores of the world."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Got a link?
>>>>>>> Art
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of
>>>>>> the article doesn't support the part you quoted.
>>>>>> http://www.livescience.com/21624-tree-rings-global-warming.html
>>>>>> Art
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually it does support it however it has a greenie
>>>>> interpretation that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound
>>>>> otherwise. Call it a political rebuttal if you will.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
>>>>> in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
>>>>> of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the
>>>>> warming cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have
>>>>> bigger problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will
>>>>> pass and we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we
>>>>> are doing to cause that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?
>>>>
>>>> Just for fun. Here is a link to a retroactive look at a 1981 paper
>>>> that looked at scenarios to predict global climate, taking into
>>>> account many factors. It seems that 30 years later the
>>>> observations have confirmed the predictions, including the role of
>>>> CO2. <http://tinyurl.com/832z88r> or
>>>> <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-
>>>> 19 81- temperature-projection/>
>>>>
>>>> My physicist daughter found the link, and yes, KNMI is the acronym
>>>> of the Dutch weather service (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch
>>>> Instituut), and I am a born Dutchman.
>>>>
>>>> In geological times Earth's temperature has often been warmer than
>>>> today, and part of the current rise in globally averaged
>>>> temperatures may be due to other factors. It is just remarkable
>>>> that 1981 calculations were able to predict observations made over
>>>> the next 30 years, and were based on the rise in CO2. Really
>>>> curious correlation ... Yes I know.
>>>
>>> Nothing curious about it, Han ... when it comes to correlation and
>>> causation figures can lie, and liars can figure. Massage/adjust the
>>> data just right (as in the traditional and adjusted temperature data
>>> sets being used for modeling) and the moon is made of Limburger ...
>>> or at least smells like it. :)
>>>
>>> And yes, we are definitely in a warming period ... however, the
>>> reason has simply not been determined with sufficient scientific
>>> certainty to embark upon the 'rob the rich, give to the poor'
>>> measures those intent on destroying the sovereignty of select
>>> nations in favor of a world government would have you believe.
>>
>> I hear and respect your doubts, Karl. I'm still with the general
>> idea that manmade CO2 is a bad thing, and should be curbed as much as
>> feasible. But I stil drive a 7 year old Grand Caravan ...
>
> I agree, and certainly think there is indeed evidence to correlate the
> two, but, as a single cause, thus far it is far from sufficient to
> overcome my suspicion of political motives and agendas.
>
> Sad world we live in ... one would have thought that ubiquitous, rapid
> means of communication could have mitigated the seeds of FUD, but so
> far it seems to have increased it exponentially.

I'd bet that the research done at the KNMI around 1980 is free from what
you call FUD. But I have to admit I left Holland a decade before ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:34:43 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Leon" wrote:
>>
>>> Actually it does support it however it has a greenie interpretation
>>> that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound otherwise. Call
>>> it a political rebuttal if you will.
>>>
>>> Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
>>> in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
>>> of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the warming
>>> cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have bigger
>>> problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will pass and
>>> we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we are doing
>>> to cause that.
>>>
>>> Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?
>>----------------------------------
>>What is getting lost is the fact that there are over 30 million CO2
>>belching automobiles operating in China and India that weren't in
>>operation 10 years ago.
>
> So put a carbon tax on Chinese cars. <sheesh>
>
>>Couple that with the clear cutting of the rain forests and you have a
>>real out of balance CO2 situation.
>
> So ban clear cutting rain forests. Obama should be able to pass that
> law, at least. Right? He's had over three years.
>
>>It is only going to get more out of balance unless the problem is
>>addressed.
>
> There oughta be a law!

If you are so happy to tax anyone, why don't you contact Congress?
They're the ones with the "purse strings".

Ok, fun aside, whether or not you think there is a problem or not, the
increased production of CO2 is not helping the perceived problems. And I
would dearly see another "Elfstedentocht" in Holland during my life time.
A 200 km skating race on natural ice is just awesome ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in news:ju71od$ge1$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

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

Common sense is a misnomer, what we understand as common sense isn't common
at all - Gerard the janitor

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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

> On 18 Jul 2012 19:23:14 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:34:43 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Leon" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually it does support it however it has a greenie
>>>>> interpretation that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound
>>>>> otherwise. Call it a political rebuttal if you will.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
>>>>> in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
>>>>> of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the
>>>>> warming cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have
>>>>> bigger problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will
>>>>> pass and we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we
>>>>> are doing to cause that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?
>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>What is getting lost is the fact that there are over 30 million CO2
>>>>belching automobiles operating in China and India that weren't in
>>>>operation 10 years ago.
>>>
>>> So put a carbon tax on Chinese cars. <sheesh>
>>>
>>>>Couple that with the clear cutting of the rain forests and you have
>>>>a real out of balance CO2 situation.
>>>
>>> So ban clear cutting rain forests. Obama should be able to pass
>>> that law, at least. Right? He's had over three years.
>>>
>>>>It is only going to get more out of balance unless the problem is
>>>>addressed.
>>>
>>> There oughta be a law!
>>
>>If you are so happy to tax anyone, why don't you contact Congress?
>>They're the ones with the "purse strings".
>
> Isn't that the answer to every "problem", real or perceived?
>
>>Ok, fun aside, whether or not you think there is a problem or not, the
>>increased production of CO2 is not helping the perceived problems.
>>And I would dearly see another "Elfstedentocht" in Holland during my
>>life time. A 200 km skating race on natural ice is just awesome ...
>
> "It's not helping the perceived problem", says it all. It matters
> less whether, or not, there is a "problem", than it matters that there
> is a *perception* of a problem. Perception is reality, I guess.
> Thank you, AlGore.

Sorry, wrong choice of words. It isn't a question whether global warming
is happening, it is. The problem is whether one believes our increasing
CO2 conetent of the atmosphere has a major or a minor effect here.
That's the perception I speak of.

Being an ostrich never helped anyone.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 7/18/2012 10:24 AM, Han wrote:
>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 7/18/2012 7:41 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/17/2012 7:07 PM, Artemus wrote:
>>>>>> "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> A new analysis of 2,000 years of tree ring data has quickly
>>>>>>>> made climate change deniers' list of greatest hits to the
>>>>>>>> theory of man made global warming. The tree rings "prove [the]
>>>>>>>> climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now,"
>>>>>>>> the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported last week, "and
>>>>>>>> [the] world has been cooling for 2,000 years." That and other
>>>>>>>> articles suggest the current global warming trend is a mere
>>>>>>>> blip when viewed in the context of natural temperature
>>>>>>>> oscillations etched into tree rings over the past two
>>>>>>>> millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey newspaper, mused that
>>>>>>>> the findings lock in "one piece of an extremely complex puzzle
>>>>>>>> that has been oversimplified by the Al Gores of the world."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Got a link?
>>>>>>> Art
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never mind. I see why you didn't provide one. The balance of
>>>>>> the article doesn't support the part you quoted.
>>>>>> http://www.livescience.com/21624-tree-rings-global-warming.html
>>>>>> Art
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually it does support it however it has a greenie
>>>>> interpretation that tries to, as you have found out, make it sound
>>>>> otherwise. Call it a political rebuttal if you will.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief point
>>>>> in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens upon dozens
>>>>> of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to stop the
>>>>> warming cycle is futile and a waste of time and resources, we have
>>>>> bigger problems to solve. Given enough time this cycle too will
>>>>> pass and we will be headed for another ice age, I wonder what we
>>>>> are doing to cause that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?
>>>>
>>>> Just for fun. Here is a link to a retroactive look at a 1981 paper
>>>> that looked at scenarios to predict global climate, taking into
>>>> account many factors. It seems that 30 years later the
>>>> observations have confirmed the predictions, including the role of
>>>> CO2. <http://tinyurl.com/832z88r> or
>>>> <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-
>>>> 19 81- temperature-projection/>
>>>>
>>>> My physicist daughter found the link, and yes, KNMI is the acronym
>>>> of the Dutch weather service (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch
>>>> Instituut), and I am a born Dutchman.
>>>>
>>>> In geological times Earth's temperature has often been warmer than
>>>> today, and part of the current rise in globally averaged
>>>> temperatures may be due to other factors. It is just remarkable
>>>> that 1981 calculations were able to predict observations made over
>>>> the next 30 years, and were based on the rise in CO2. Really
>>>> curious correlation ... Yes I know.
>>>
>>> Nothing curious about it, Han ... when it comes to correlation and
>>> causation figures can lie, and liars can figure. Massage/adjust the
>>> data just right (as in the traditional and adjusted temperature data
>>> sets being used for modeling) and the moon is made of Limburger ...
>>> or at least smells like it. :)
>>>
>>> And yes, we are definitely in a warming period ... however, the
>>> reason has simply not been determined with sufficient scientific
>>> certainty to embark upon the 'rob the rich, give to the poor'
>>> measures those intent on destroying the sovereignty of select
>>> nations in favor of a world government would have you believe.
>>
>> I hear and respect your doubts, Karl. I'm still with the general
>> idea that manmade CO2 is a bad thing, and should be curbed as much as
>> feasible. But I stil drive a 7 year old Grand Caravan ...
>>
>
> So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should
> be curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener
> vehicle???
>
> The responsibility is every one else's ???
>
> Maybe not bad enough or causing enough trouble that "you" should
> change... ;~)
>
>
> LOL

I know it sounds hypocritical, Leon, and perhaps it is. I like the van,
and I won't ditch it (that has environmentally harmful consequences as
well <grin>). I also can't really justify a second vehicle for just my
wife and me. So I try to drive as little as possible/convenient, and do
it in a greeny kind of way - no jackrabbit starts etc.

But indeed, I think that industrialized generation of CO2 is NOT a good
thing for the environment (I pay extra to get renewable energy
electricity).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in news:50073ac5$0$8964$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

> If there is a human contribution to global warming, it from all the hot
> air and flatulence being released by Congress.

Indeed, that doesn't help either ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:55:13 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>On 7/18/12 6:37 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> Has any one considered lately that cleaning up the atmosphere allows
>>> more sun light to reach the surface of the earth??? Stronger
>>> hurricanes because there is more warming of the oceans. How is that
>>> better???
>>>
>>
>>Some areas get most of their groundwater replenished and most of their
>>yearly rainfall from hurricanes. How is that *not* better? Maybe the
>>answer is to quit building human habitation in areas below sea level.
>>I'm sorry, but I have little to no sympathy for those in New Orleans
>>who were warned generation after generation to get the F#@k out of the
>>area because there are hurricanes every year. That's a big f-n "DUH!"
>>in anyone's book except those who think other people and the
>>government is responsible for solving their own problems.
>
> When barges are seen going by *above* people's heads, it tell me that
> it's not where I want to live. Then there's Holland.

Indeed. There is Holland. Where they (mostly, but not always) manage to
keep the water where it is useful. Look up Wageningen on a map. It is
more or less in the middle of the country, on an arm of the Rhine. Where
I grew up the elevation was 66ft above normalized sealevel, at the foot
of Wageningen Mountain (el 166ft, no kidding!). A lot is being spent,
and has been spent to keep water in place, and it is really not unusual
to see ships/boats come by at higher levels than the land. Years ago
there was danger of flooding from exceptionally high river water levels,
and some areas were flooded (can't find reference right away). My Dad
inquired what would happen if the Rhine dike would fail, and was informed
that much of Wageningen would get at least wet feet, if not more.
However the flood would stop some 150 yards from his house ...

Wageningen will celebrate 750 years as a "city" next June ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Richard <[email protected]> wrote in news:BL-dnb_92OMd-
[email protected]:

> On 7/18/2012 6:15 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>> So uh like, ummmm Han! ;~) You think CO2 is a bad thing and should be
>> curbed as much as feasible but not enough to buy a greener vehicle???
>>
>
> Interesting fallacy...
>
> I'm curious about how that "greener" vehicle (mostly plastic) was made
> without any environmental impact...

We'll be mining asteroids for the mierals pretty soon, and all (ahem)
pollution will occur outside Earth's atmosphere.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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

> ...and further wondering that why it is that now, warming follows CO2
> when the record shows that it has *always* led CO2. That "science"
> has always escaped me. Of course then there is that "heat island"
> thing. ...and the outright lies by the "scientists" who are profiting
> from "global warming". Nah, nothing about the "science" to be
> concerned about.

Well, there is a "re" in research ...

That is indeed a factoid (if it isindeed true - have to stay at least as
skeptical as others) that I cannot explain, but it has nothing, absolutely
nothing to do with the unassailable fact that we are generating CO2 by
burning wood and fossil fuels. It seems to me to be logical to conclude
that that CO2 is at least contributing to the roughly doubled quantity of
CO2 in the atmosphere, and that such CO2 could be at least one factor in
the global warming process.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:54:54 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 07/18/2012 02:49 PM, Han wrote:
>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 18 Jul 2012 19:23:14 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:34:43 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Leon" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually it does support it however it has a greenie
>>>>>>>> interpretation that tries to, as you have found out, make it
>>>>>>>> sound otherwise. Call it a political rebuttal if you will.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes at the moment the globe is getting warmer, at this brief
>>>>>>>> point in time, just like it did in the early 90's and dozens
>>>>>>>> upon dozens of times in the past thousand of years. Trying to
>>>>>>>> stop the warming cycle is futile and a waste of time and
>>>>>>>> resources, we have bigger problems to solve. Given enough time
>>>>>>>> this cycle too will pass and we will be headed for another ice
>>>>>>>> age, I wonder what we are doing to cause that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you ever seen a dog chasing its tail?
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>>>>> What is getting lost is the fact that there are over 30 million
>>>>>>> CO2 belching automobiles operating in China and India that
>>>>>>> weren't in operation 10 years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So put a carbon tax on Chinese cars. <sheesh>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Couple that with the clear cutting of the rain forests and you
>>>>>>> have a real out of balance CO2 situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So ban clear cutting rain forests. Obama should be able to pass
>>>>>> that law, at least. Right? He's had over three years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is only going to get more out of balance unless the problem
>>>>>>> is addressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There oughta be a law!
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are so happy to tax anyone, why don't you contact Congress?
>>>>> They're the ones with the "purse strings".
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that the answer to every "problem", real or perceived?
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, fun aside, whether or not you think there is a problem or not,
>>>>> the increased production of CO2 is not helping the perceived
>>>>> problems. And I would dearly see another "Elfstedentocht" in
>>>>> Holland during my life time. A 200 km skating race on natural ice
>>>>> is just awesome ...
>>>>
>>>> "It's not helping the perceived problem", says it all. It matters
>>>> less whether, or not, there is a "problem", than it matters that
>>>> there is a *perception* of a problem. Perception is reality, I
>>>> guess. Thank you, AlGore.
>>>
>>> Sorry, wrong choice of words. It isn't a question whether global
>>> warming is happening, it is. The problem is whether one believes
>>> our increasing CO2 conetent of the atmosphere has a major or a minor
>>> effect here. That's the perception I speak of.
>>
>>And wondering if warming follows increasing C02 or increasing C02
>>follows warming.
>
> Rightio! The books I read show that it follows warming. This means,
> to those of you out in Rio Linda and you liberal folks, that the CO2
> did not cause the warming. It's an -effect- of said warming.

Yebbut ...

Wobble or changes in earth's orbit as well as change sin the sun's output
lead to changes in absorbed energy of the earth. That warming can
release stored CO2 (or methane). Then the released greenhouse gases
exacerbate the warming trends. So the primary effect (orbital change-
induced warming) might have been much smaller than the amplified effects
due to greenhouse gases. But I'm just a retired scientist, and never
studied climatology at the high end.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:ju7shm$9i6$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 7/18/12 4:49 PM, Han wrote:
>> Being an ostrich never helped anyone.
>>
>
> Nor a chicken little.

You sound like my wife. That's a compliment, Mike!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Part of the question is, assuming the globe is warming, on a global
> scale is that even a problem? In historical times there have been
> times that the globe was warmer than it is now, and it was not a
> problem before.

Chicken little says it very well could be a problem. There is a lot of
mass here, and a little warming is easily absorbed. The question may be
whether there is a tipping point, and where that is. Little ice ages and
warmer periods have occurred regularly (Pinatubo eruption had a small but
measurable effect). The real Cassandras say that if the arctic thaws, so
much methane may get released from frozen hydrates that we will get big
warming on a global scale. Etc, etc.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in news:5007d6c9$0$31718$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

> On a global scale (which is the way one should consider global warming),
> a slightly warmer globe would not be a problem, it would be a good thing.

That depends. If there is enough irrigation water around, perhaps no
problem, but here in the US we are depleting aquifers already. If there is
going to be less snow in the mountains, there will be less of a summertime
reservoir of water (it will have run off the mountains before spring is
finished).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> That is indeed a factoid (if it isindeed true - have to stay at least
>> as skeptical as others) that I cannot explain, but it has nothing,
>> absolutely nothing to do with the unassailable fact that we are
>> generating CO2 by burning wood and fossil fuels. It seems to me to
>> be logical to conclude that that CO2 is at least contributing to the
>> roughly doubled quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that such CO2
>> could be at least one factor in the global warming process.
>
> Well - if we hadn't plugged up all those damned holes in the ozone
> layer, all of that excess CO2 would still just be harmlessly escaping
> off into space...

<grin>

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 19 Jul 2012 11:59:35 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:5007d6c9$0$31718$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:
>>
>>> On a global scale (which is the way one should consider global
>>> warming), a slightly warmer globe would not be a problem, it would
>>> be a good thing.
>>
>>That depends. If there is enough irrigation water around, perhaps no
>>problem, but here in the US we are depleting aquifers already. If
>>there is going to be less snow in the mountains, there will be less of
>>a summertime reservoir of water (it will have run off the mountains
>>before spring is finished).
>
> And if we continue to destroy aquifers with fracking, the USA will
> have little to no drinkable or farmable water available. I worry about
> that 1,000 times more than AGWK.

I worry about that too, Larry. OTOH, that is an engineering and
regulation problem. It can be done safely, I believe. But there needs
to be oversight and punishment in case things go wrong. The main things
are 4-fold (I'm a biochemist so I have absolutely no standing): First,
the borehole should be warranteed to be free of defects, with the
companies in charge responsible to the extent that they have to prove
they are not responsible, rather than the "government" needing to prove
they are. Second, the waste should be cleaned up and /properly/ disposed
of. Again same conditions. Third, the fact that the water supply in the
area was fine before fracking proves that fracking was responsible for it
being fouled (if so) after fracking started, and again, same conditions.
Fourth, any earthquakes and damage from them are the direct
responsibility of the fracking companies.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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

> Han wrote:
>>
>> Ok, fun aside, whether or not you think there is a problem or not,
>> the increased production of CO2 is not helping the perceived
>> problems. And I would dearly see another "Elfstedentocht" in Holland
>> during my life time. A 200 km skating race on natural ice is just
>> awesome ...
>
> Oh, but increased CO2 IS helping. Plants.
>
> Plants grow faster and bigger at increased CO2 levels.
>
> And *IF* CO2 contributes to global warming, the benefits of increased
> CO2 may outweight the hazards. For example, the growing season(s)
> could extend - Canada may be able to get three wheat crops instead of
> two. Second, far more untimely deaths can be attributed to cold than
> heat. Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
> habitable.
>
> Adapt, overcome, continue.

Apparently, the faster plant growth is somewhat of a fallacy. It may
simply be untrue, or only true for a few species. But, too bad, it
doesn't work too well. Perhaps the seeding of the Southern Ocean with
iron would work to a small extent. At least I just saw a reference that
it might (at least temporarily) deep six about 1/8th of the CO2 produced
by fossil fuel burning. I'm sure you can google it.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:bb81f$50081f8a
[email protected]:

> HeyBub wrote:
>
> Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
>> habitable.
>
> Hey - upstate NY is very habitable! On both of those days in July...
>
Quick, someone with a remedy for black flies?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 19 Jul 2012 17:47:03 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 19 Jul 2012 11:59:35 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:5007d6c9$0$31718$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:
>>>>
>>>>> On a global scale (which is the way one should consider global
>>>>> warming), a slightly warmer globe would not be a problem, it would
>>>>> be a good thing.
>>>>
>>>>That depends. If there is enough irrigation water around, perhaps
>>>>no problem, but here in the US we are depleting aquifers already.
>>>>If there is going to be less snow in the mountains, there will be
>>>>less of a summertime reservoir of water (it will have run off the
>>>>mountains before spring is finished).
>>>
>>> And if we continue to destroy aquifers with fracking, the USA will
>>> have little to no drinkable or farmable water available. I worry
>>> about that 1,000 times more than AGWK.
>>
>>I worry about that too, Larry. OTOH, that is an engineering and
>>regulation problem. It can be done safely, I believe. But there
>>needs to be oversight and punishment in case things go wrong. The
>>main things are 4-fold (I'm a biochemist so I have absolutely no
>>standing): First, the borehole should be warranteed to be free of
>>defects, with the companies in charge responsible to the extent that
>>they have to prove they are not responsible, rather than the
>>"government" needing to prove they are. Second, the waste should be
>>cleaned up and /properly/ disposed of. Again same conditions. Third,
>>the fact that the water supply in the area was fine before fracking
>>proves that fracking was responsible for it being fouled (if so) after
>>fracking started, and again, same conditions. Fourth, any earthquakes
>>and damage from them are the direct responsibility of the fracking
>>companies.
>
> We're too late on that count. Big Oil actually got the gov't to allow
> them to BYPASS the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act for their
> production of natural gas via fracking. They have a license to taint
> all the air and water they want, and we can't do a damned thing about
> it. I'd like to see come CONgresscritter heads taken off as a result
> of that little treasonous act against the people of the USA. Ditto
> the pact they made with Big Pharma in re: Medicare Part D.
>
> If Satan exists, he's our CONgress.

I don't like Andy Cuomo,but at least he has the frackers under control.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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

> Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ok, fun aside, whether or not you think there is a problem or not,
>>>> the increased production of CO2 is not helping the perceived
>>>> problems. And I would dearly see another "Elfstedentocht" in Holland
>>>> during my life time. A 200 km skating race on natural ice is just
>>>> awesome ...
>>>
>>> Oh, but increased CO2 IS helping. Plants.
>>>
>>> Plants grow faster and bigger at increased CO2 levels.
>>>
>>> And *IF* CO2 contributes to global warming, the benefits of increased
>>> CO2 may outweight the hazards. For example, the growing season(s)
>>> could extend - Canada may be able to get three wheat crops instead of
>>> two. Second, far more untimely deaths can be attributed to cold than
>>> heat. Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become
>>> habitable.
>>>
>>> Adapt, overcome, continue.
>>
>> Apparently, the faster plant growth is somewhat of a fallacy. It may
>> simply be untrue, or only true for a few species. But, too bad, it
>> doesn't work too well. Perhaps the seeding of the Southern Ocean with
>> iron would work to a small extent. At least I just saw a reference
>> that it might (at least temporarily) deep six about 1/8th of the CO2
>> produced by fossil fuel burning. I'm sure you can google it.
>
> Maybe so, but why would anyone WANT to "deep six" a mess of CO2?

By "fertilizing" the ocean with iron sulfate, they caused a bloom of
plankton and all kinds of tiny sea creatures, who all fixed CO2 into
their organic bodies. When they died, they sank to the bottom,hence my
choice of words.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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

> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>> And if we continue to destroy aquifers with fracking, the USA will
>> have little to no drinkable or farmable water available. I worry
>> about that 1,000 times more than AGWK.
>
> Show one aquifer harmed by fracking.
>
> Assuming that you can't, explain how an aquifer, 200-500 ft
> underground, can be contaminated or otherwise influenced by something
> happening five to 15,000 below it.

Now, don't be a denier here ... There are many ways. Some are:

The well bore wasn't sealed properly, especially where it passed through
the aquifer. It has happened ...
The fracking caused mini earthquakes that damaged the old natural seal
below or above the aquifer.
The fracking waste contaminated what was a good source of drinking water.

I am in favor of fracking if properly regulated with ALL potentially
applicable environmental regulations adhered to. So far in many
jurisdictions, the frackers (I'm leaving off an adjective) have played
fast and loose with regulations and contractual obligations. That
damages the industry. Don't the (left out) frackers realize that?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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

> Richard wrote:
>>
>>
>> Now we won't.
>> We don't do space any more. It's too expensive.
>> And besides, the environmental impact of building and launching
>> spacecraft wasn't good for out planet (or so say the greens).
>
> We still do space. But Obama has outsourced our transportation to the
> Russians.

Congress has seen fit to strip NASA of the monies needed to make a
replacement for the shuttle. Whether right or wrong, the slack should
soon be taken up by private enterprise, it seems from my following of
space faring. Because Congress didn't act, the Russians are doing an
excellent job of filling the hiatus in US capabilities. Another
advantage of the collaboration with the Russians is enhanced
understanding of each other. We're not living in the cold war anymore!!
(Which doen't mean we should abandon defense, just that we should adjust
priorities).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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

> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>> We're too late on that count. Big Oil actually got the gov't to allow
>> them to BYPASS the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act for their
>> production of natural gas via fracking. They have a license to taint
>> all the air and water they want, and we can't do a damned thing about
>> it. I'd like to see come CONgresscritter heads taken off as a result
>> of that little treasonous act against the people of the USA. Ditto
>> the pact they made with Big Pharma in re: Medicare Part D.
>>
>
> Huh?
>
> There are NO federal regulations on fracking and never have been.
> There was nothing to bypass, by Big Oil or anybody else. Licenses are
> not issued by anybody for fracking. In addition, Congress has never
> been involved in fracking, either in favor or in opposition.
>
> Further, most fracking extractions are not owned or operated by Big
> Oil - they were developed by independent operators who sell the output
> to NG production companies, most of which have no connection to the
> seven major oil companies.
>
> If you have any information to the contrary, I'd be really interested
> in seeing it.

I believe there are federal regulations that apply to fracking, but
mostly they are local (state or smaller entities). I believe that
fracking in PA requires some permits, and that the companies are
bypassing them by trucking their wastes to OH, or at least interstate
between 2 states. It would be good to have federal regulations (if they
were sufficient, reasonable, consistent, and intelligible), so that
everyone everywhere would be subject to the same rules. Now it is too
easy to circumvent the rules, or say, oh I diodn't know ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Richard <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 7/19/2012 8:48 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> We're too late on that count. Big Oil actually got the gov't to allow
>> them to BYPASS the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act for their
>
> (snipped really good rant (because it wasn't working...)
>
> No, actually not.
>
> The electricity generators got hit today.
>
> Oil will be coming soon.
>
> http://247wallst.com/2012/07/20/federal-court-upholds-us-epa-air-qualit
> y-rule/

And those rules are GOOD!!
Oil generally has much less sulfur (right?) and mercury than most/many
forms of coal.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid