"ETHANOL EATING UP THE FOOD SUPPLY!!"
ScreenB...@aol.com
AMAZING?..........
"Biofuels Boom Raises Tough Questions
March 10, 2007, 10:25 PM EST
NEW YORK (AP)-- America is drunk on ethanol. Farmers in the Midwest
are sending billions of bushels of corn to refineries that turn it
into billions of gallons of fuel. Automakers in Detroit have already
built millions of cars, trucks and SUVs that can run on it, and are
committed to making millions more. In Washington, politicians have
approved generous subsidies for companies that make ethanol.
And just this week, President Bush arranged with Brazil's President
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva for their countries to share ethanol
production technology.
Even alternative fuel aficionados are surprised at the nation's sudden
enthusiasm for grain alcohol.
"It's coming on dramatically; more rapidly than anyone had expected,"
said Nathanael Greene, a senior policy analyst at the Natural
Resources Defense Council.
You'd think that would be good news, but it actually worries a lot of
people.
The problem is, ethanol really isn't ready for prime time. The only
economical way to make ethanol right now is with corn, which means the
burgeoning industry is literally eating America's lunch, not to
mention its breakfast and dinner. And though ethanol from corn may
have some minor benefits with regard to energy independence, most
analysts conclude its environmental benefits are questionable at best.
There are many questions about ethanol's place in America's energy
future. Some are easily answered; others, not so much."
Niel Humphreys
You post is not related to Global Warming. It's alternative to external
oil,
Global Warming is Real, but CO2 is not the cause!
How can you people believe the <1% of CO2 can influence the 99% of heated
air?
Is not the CO2 that caused the problem, it is the actual heat source that
vibrates the electrons of OXYGEN & NITROGEN. The vibrations started from
the ground, from your car engines, from factory, fuel producers, etc.. Yes
Nuclear Plant too because they generate >5000 degree F.
Keep in mind 99% of the air contains Oxygen and Nitrogen, they are the ones
that melt the Ices.
Today Scientists are so stupid, I just can't believe they claim CO2 trapping
the heat. You cannot trap the heat with light object, it has to be a bigger
object(in large quantity) to trap the 99% of heated air.
"theloner...@aol.com" <ScreenB...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173649369....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
zzbu...@netscape.net
<ScreenBeret...@aol.com> wrote:
> Yup........And the Results are "Questionable".......Ain't that
> AMAZING?..........
>
> "Biofuels Boom Raises Tough Questions
> March 10, 2007, 10:25 PM EST
>
> NEW YORK (AP)-- America is drunk on ethanol. Farmers in the Midwest
> are sending billions of bushels of corn to refineries that turn it
> into billions of gallons of fuel. Automakers in Detroit have already
> built millions of cars, trucks and SUVs that can run on it, and are
> committed to making millions more. In Washington, politicians have
> approved generous subsidies for companies that make ethanol.
It's simple to understand, since the only thing they
make in the Midwest is morons and
Caterpillar,Tractors, rather than automobiles,
Joe Fischer
<zzbu...@netscape.net> wrote:
> It's simple to understand, since the only thing they
> make in the Midwest is morons and
> Caterpillar,Tractors, rather than automobiles,
Toyota has a number of assembly plants in
the Midwest.
But we need yeast technology, and maybe
some seed stock for the right strains of yeast, to
use other things besides corn.
Joe Fischer
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On 12 Mar 2007 21:41:12 -0700, "zzbun...@netscape.net"
>
> <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > It's simple to understand, since the only thing they
> > make in the Midwest is morons and
> > Caterpillar,Tractors, rather than automobiles,
>
> Toyota has a number of assembly plants in
> the Midwest.
Toyota also has a huge number of
dealerships in Washington.
Which doesn;t mean anything
other than Toyota is Ford spelled
with working transmissions,
Joe Fischer
<zzbu...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Toyota also has a huge number of
> dealerships in Washington.
> Which doesn;t mean anything
> other than Toyota is Ford spelled
> with working transmissions,
Toyota would love to sell as many vehicles
as Ford in the US.
Joe Fischer
Carbon Criminal Polluters
> On 15 Mar 2007 14:01:55 -0700, "zzbun...@netscape.net"
>
> <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > Toyota also has a huge number of
> > dealerships in Washington.
> > Which doesn;t mean anything
> > other than Toyota is Ford spelled
> > with working transmissions,
>
> Toyota would love to sell as many vehicles
> as Ford in the US.
>
> Joe Fischer
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/02/business/web.0802cars.php
Toyota's U.S. sales edge past Ford's
By MICHELINE MAYNARD and FARA WARNER The New York Times
DETROIT The Japanese auto giant Toyota passed the struggling Ford
Motor Company in July to rank as the second-biggest-selling auto
company in the United States, behind General Motors, sales figures
showed Tuesday.
Crackpot Joe Fischer, ignore.
Joe Fischer
<Carbon.Crimi...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
>On Mar 15, 3:15 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
>> Toyota would love to sell as many vehicles
>> as Ford in the US.
>
>http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/02/business/web.0802cars.php
>Toyota's U.S. sales edge past Ford's
>By MICHELINE MAYNARD and FARA WARNER The New York Times
>DETROIT The Japanese auto giant Toyota passed the struggling Ford
>Motor Company in July to rank as the second-biggest-selling auto
>company in the United States, behind General Motors, sales figures
>showed Tuesday.
It may not be that bad for the whole year, Ford
made big changes in the work force last year, and
the year end inventory is way down 591,000 units,
and that probably means some big change in design.
So maybe Toyota would like to sell as many
cars in the US as GM. But "Ford" in that article
may not include all ford brands and types.
>Crackpot Joe Fischer, ignore.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On 15 Mar 2007 14:01:55 -0700, "zzbun...@netscape.net"
>
> <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > Toyota also has a huge number of
> > dealerships in Washington.
> > Which doesn;t mean anything
> > other than Toyota is Ford spelled
> > with working transmissions,
>
> Toyota would love to sell as many vehicles
> as Ford in the US.
Undoutably they would.
Since the only thing either of the morons
have to do with the US is Tokyo robots.
> Joe Fischer
T. Keating
<ad...@sznzozwzdzoznzczozmzpzuztezrzsz.co.uk> wrote:
>
>You post is not related to Global Warming. It's alternative to external
>oil,
>
>
>Global Warming is Real, but CO2 is not the cause!
>
>
>How can you people believe the <1% of CO2 can influence the 99% of heated
>air?
Yes it can, and does so continuously.
You can start out by learning some fundamental chemistry concepts.
This information is usually included in a 1st year college chemistry
course..
Modern technology and industry has been founded on and is
completely dependant on these fundamental chemistry concepts.
>Is not the CO2 that caused the problem, it is the actual heat source that
>vibrates the electrons of OXYGEN & NITROGEN. The vibrations started from
>the ground, from your car engines, from factory, fuel producers, etc.. Yes
>Nuclear Plant too because they generate >5000 degree F.
NOT..
O2, and N2 are mostly opaque for both Visible and IR wavelengths.
Meanwhile CO2 is NOT opaque in certain IR bands.
O2, and N2 gains energy from C02 molecules via kinetic means.
>
>Keep in mind 99% of the air contains Oxygen and Nitrogen, they are the ones
>that melt the Ices.
>
>Today Scientists are so stupid, I just can't believe they claim CO2 trapping
>the heat. You cannot trap the heat with light object, it has to be a bigger
>object(in large quantity) to trap the 99% of heated air.
I see that you're one of those lower IQ types who demonstrates that
fact via keyboard. Please refrain from posting to the science
related Usenet groups until you acquire the necessary knowledge.
Snip the rest of previous post...
Dependency on Ethanol (C2H5OH) production from biomass (solar energy @
less than 0.5% eff) is a somewhat dubious proposition. Crops and
other biomass are highly vulnerable to the environmental extremes
(hi/low temp, Lack of h20, too much/little solar flux) over an
extended period. Those extremes are projected to increase in
magnitude as Global Warming progresses.
Joe Fischer
>On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:55:32 GMT, "Niel Humphreys"
><ad...@sznzozwzdzoznzczozmzpzuztezrzsz.co.uk> wrote:
>>You post is not related to Global Warming. It's alternative to external
>>oil,
>>Global Warming is Real, but CO2 is not the cause!
>>How can you people believe the <1% of CO2 can influence the 99% of heated
>>air?
>>Is not the CO2 that caused the problem, it is the actual heat source that
>>vibrates the electrons of OXYGEN & NITROGEN. The vibrations started from
>>the ground, from your car engines, from factory, fuel producers, etc.. Yes
>>Nuclear Plant too because they generate >5000 degree F.
>
>NOT..
>
> O2, and N2 are mostly opaque for both Visible and IR wavelengths.
>Meanwhile CO2 is NOT opaque in certain IR bands.
>
>O2, and N2 gains energy from C02 molecules via kinetic means.
>
>I see that you're one of those lower IQ types who demonstrates that
>fact via keyboard. Please refrain from posting to the science
>related Usenet groups until you acquire the necessary knowledge.
Would you be kind enough to explain what "opaque"
means, does that mean the O2 and N2 molecules block IR?
Or does that mean O2 and N2 molecules reflect IR?
If CO2 is NOT "opaque" in certain IR bands, does
that mean CO2 allows those IR bands to pass without
absorbing or reflecting them?
Joe Fischer
Bill Ward
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:55:32 GMT, "Niel Humphreys"
> <ad...@sznzozwzdzoznzczozmzpzuztezrzsz.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>You post is not related to Global Warming. It's alternative to external
>>oil,
>>
>>
>>Global Warming is Real, but CO2 is not the cause!
>>
>>
>>How can you people believe the <1% of CO2 can influence the 99% of heated
>>air?
>
> Yes it can, and does so continuously.
>
> You can start out by learning some fundamental chemistry concepts.
> This information is usually included in a 1st year college chemistry
> course..
>
> Modern technology and industry has been founded on and is
> completely dependant on these fundamental chemistry concepts.
>
>>Is not the CO2 that caused the problem, it is the actual heat source that
>>vibrates the electrons of OXYGEN & NITROGEN. The vibrations started from
>>the ground, from your car engines, from factory, fuel producers, etc..
>>Yes Nuclear Plant too because they generate >5000 degree F.
>
> NOT..
>
> O2, and N2 are mostly opaque for both Visible and IR wavelengths.
You may want to reconsider that statement.
T. Keating
wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:55:32 GMT, "Niel Humphreys"
><ad...@sznzozwzdzoznzczozmzpzuztezrzsz.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>You post is not related to Global Warming. It's alternative to external
>>oil,
>>
>>
>>Global Warming is Real, but CO2 is not the cause!
>>
>>
>>How can you people believe the <1% of CO2 can influence the 99% of heated
>>air?
>
>Yes it can, and does so continuously.
>
> You can start out by learning some fundamental chemistry concepts.
>This information is usually included in a 1st year college chemistry
>course..
>
> Modern technology and industry has been founded on and is
>completely dependant on these fundamental chemistry concepts.
>
>>Is not the CO2 that caused the problem, it is the actual heat source that
>>vibrates the electrons of OXYGEN & NITROGEN. The vibrations started from
>>the ground, from your car engines, from factory, fuel producers, etc.. Yes
>>Nuclear Plant too because they generate >5000 degree F.
>
>NOT..
>
> O2, and N2 are mostly opaque for both Visible and IR wavelengths.
>Meanwhile CO2 is NOT opaque in certain IR bands.
Correction as others have pointed out..
O2 and N2 is mostly transparent for both visible and IR wavelengths.
Meanwhile CO2 is transparent for visible and opaque for some IR
wavelengths.
Retief
<ScreenB...@aol.com> wrote:
>Yup........And the Results are "Questionable".......Ain't that
>AMAZING?..........
>
>"Biofuels Boom Raises Tough Questions
>March 10, 2007, 10:25 PM EST
>
>NEW YORK (AP)-- America is drunk on ethanol. Farmers in the Midwest
>are sending billions of bushels of corn to refineries that turn it
>into billions of gallons of fuel. Automakers in Detroit have already
[...]
>The problem is, ethanol really isn't ready for prime time. The only
>economical way to make ethanol right now is with corn, which means the
>burgeoning industry is literally eating America's lunch, not to
>mention its breakfast and dinner. And though ethanol from corn may
This is a good thing... Much of the world wishes to complain about US
fuel usage, so let's convert our excess grain/crops into fuel, and
eliminate our food exports... These worldwide critics will be so much
happier knowing that we aren't burning so much precious oil, even if
that also means that they will starve to death... ;)
Give 'em what they demand, good and hard...
Retief
Retief
wrote:
> You can start out by learning some fundamental chemistry concepts.
>This information is usually included in a 1st year college chemistry
>course..
Speaking of such...
> O2, and N2 are mostly opaque for both Visible and IR wavelengths.
>Meanwhile CO2 is NOT opaque in certain IR bands.
You have this mostly backwards/upside-down, of course.
>O2, and N2 gains energy from C02 molecules via kinetic means.
O2/N2 gain IR energy directly via Collision Induced Absorption, as
well. The atmospheric system is not as simple as the AGW crowd would
like to assert.
And let us not forget that water, the most important greenhouse gas,
exhibits a broad absorption response across the IR band.
>>Keep in mind 99% of the air contains Oxygen and Nitrogen, they are the ones
>>that melt the Ices.
>>
>>Today Scientists are so stupid, I just can't believe they claim CO2 trapping
>>the heat. You cannot trap the heat with light object, it has to be a bigger
Dr. Lindzen points out that the absorption rolls off after the first
19 ppm. Yes, the strong CO2 IR bands are saturated at quote low
concentrations, greatly limiting the contributory effect of increasing
atmospheric CO2.
CO2, in competition with water vapor, provides a minimal contribution.
>>object(in large quantity) to trap the 99% of heated air.
>
>I see that you're one of those lower IQ types who demonstrates that
>fact via keyboard. Please refrain from posting to the science
>related Usenet groups until you acquire the necessary knowledge.
Likewise, Keating.
Retief
Exxon Liars & Crooks
> On 11 Mar 2007 14:42:50 -0700, "theloneranger...@aol.com"
Crackpot Crooked Retief. Ignore.
Much of the world is oblivious. Corporations own that food, not you
Retief, and they will decide to take it out of the mouths of customers
who pay less, to give it (at a higher price) to those that pay more.
Corporations are doing the damages top to bottom and paying no price,
but Retief blames the victims for the crimes of his bosses.
Exxon Liars & Crooks
> Dr. Lindzen points out that the absorption rolls off after the first
> 19 ppm. Yes, the strong CO2 IR bands are saturated at quote low
> concentrations, greatly limiting the contributory effect of increasing
> atmospheric CO2.
>
> Retief
Lindzen is a CROOK, Retief is named after a conman of fiction.
Lindzen lies. Ignore Retief.
T. Keating
wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:46:32 -0400, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
>wrote:
>
>> You can start out by learning some fundamental chemistry concepts.
>>This information is usually included in a 1st year college chemistry
>>course..
>
>Speaking of such...
>
>> O2, and N2 are mostly opaque for both Visible and IR wavelengths.
>>Meanwhile CO2 is NOT opaque in certain IR bands.
>
>You have this mostly backwards/upside-down, of course.
Already noted and corrected in my other follow up post..
>
>>O2, and N2 gains energy from C02 molecules via kinetic means.
>
>O2/N2 gain IR energy directly via Collision Induced Absorption, as
>well. The atmospheric system is not as simple as the AGW crowd would
>like to assert.
>
>And let us not forget that water, the most important greenhouse gas,
>exhibits a broad absorption response across the IR band.
>
>>>Keep in mind 99% of the air contains Oxygen and Nitrogen, they are the ones
>>>that melt the Ices.
>>>
>>>Today Scientists are so stupid, I just can't believe they claim CO2 trapping
>>>the heat. You cannot trap the heat with light object, it has to be a bigger
>
>Dr. Lindzen points out that the absorption rolls off after the first
>19 ppm. Yes, the strong CO2 IR bands are saturated at quote low
>concentrations, greatly limiting the contributory effect of increasing
>atmospheric CO2.
err. no.. Lindzen is WRONG for two basic reasons..
1. Ignoring the weaker absorption bands/vibration modes and lower
order absorption peaks @ 4.5 micron and in the 8-11 micron range.
As atmospheric CO2 gas concentration increases, the percentage of IR
energy captured in these ranges increases in roughly linear fashion.
This effect is stronger for atmospheric molecules at lower
concentrations, since doubling or tripling said concentration involves
proportionally less mass than those which exist at higher
concentrations. (CH4 verses CO2 verses H20).
2. As overall CO2 concentration increases both the stronger and
weaker bands end up being captured at successively lower altitudes,
thus increasing the surface heating effects.
ref..
http://jcbmac.chem.brown.edu/baird/CHEM-F1/Chem-IRC/images/water_CO2Absn.html
>
>CO2, in competition with water vapor, provides a minimal contribution.
Except CO2 does NOT phase change (solid/liquid/gas) in our atmosphere
which makes a HUGE difference in it's gaseous phase half life. 10's
of years for CO2 instead of weeks for H2O which readily precipitates
(self regulating) out of our atmosphere.
CO2 was in basic equilibrium at 270-280 ppm for millions of years.
Natural mechanisms capacity to regulate CO2 concentration was/is
limited to a few ppm per year. Meanwhile humanity is overwhelming
natures sequestration rate by several ppm per year.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2211568.ece
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1127-co2.html
>
>>>object(in large quantity) to trap the 99% of heated air.
>>
>>I see that you're one of those lower IQ types who demonstrates that
>>fact via keyboard. Please refrain from posting to the science
>>related Usenet groups until you acquire the necessary knowledge.
>
>Likewise, Keating.
>
>Retief
Unfortunately you're one of those who would blindly follow those who
wish to deceive.
Retief
wrote:
> >Dr. Lindzen points out that the absorption rolls off after the first
> >19 ppm. Yes, the strong CO2 IR bands are saturated at quote low
> >concentrations, greatly limiting the contributory effect of increasing
> >atmospheric CO2.
>
> err. no.. Lindzen is WRONG for two basic reasons..
>
> 1. Ignoring the weaker absorption bands/vibration modes and lower
> order absorption peaks @ 4.5 micron and in the 8-11 micron range.
No, those weaker bands are in competition with water:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/
And experimentally, CO2 in competition with H2O behaves thus:
http://uploader.wuerzburg.de/mm-physik/klima/artefact.htm
The author notes that CO2 (357ppm to 714 ppm) doubling provides no
significant change in transmission for the 15 um band, when in
competition with water. That is, a doubling of CO2 results in a 0.054
W/m^2 increase in power absorption (which is a far cry from the 4
W/m^2 the IPCC claims).
> As atmospheric CO2 gas concentration increases, the percentage of IR
> energy captured in these ranges increases in roughly linear fashion.
So you're trying to ignore competition with water, which overwhelms
the contribution of CO2.
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/
> This effect is stronger for atmospheric molecules at lower
> concentrations, since doubling or tripling said concentration involves
> proportionally less mass than those which exist at higher
> concentrations. (CH4 verses CO2 verses H20).
>
> 2. As overall CO2 concentration increases both the stronger and
> weaker bands end up being captured at successively lower altitudes,
> thus increasing the surface heating effects.
>
> ref..
>
> http://jcbmac.chem.brown.edu/baird/CHEM-F1/Chem-IRC/images/water_CO2Absn.html
Let's use a larger, clearer image:
http://www.profc.udec.cl/~gabriel/tutoriales/rsnote/cp1/1-11-2.gif
Yes, note the broad shared bands, between H2O and CO2. Note that
the strong CO2 bands are already saturated (no energy left to absorb).
For example, the 2.5 um CO2 band lies on top of the water absorption
band. CO2 will contribute nothing, if added or removed.
The ~4.5 um CO2 band is saturated. The 15 um CO2 band is saturated,
and the "important wings" (according to the IPCC) are consumed by
water.
We can also examine:
http://www.coseti.org/images/atmosphe.gif
Carefully note the 46% humidity at 59F, and 1 km path length.
For this 1 km horizontal path (0.59 g/cm^2 H2O), the transmission will
be less than 10%, if the absorption coefficient is greater than
approximately 5, for a given wavelength (using only water for these
results).
> >CO2, in competition with water vapor, provides a minimal contribution.
>
> Except CO2 does NOT phase change (solid/liquid/gas) in our atmosphere
> which makes a HUGE difference in it's gaseous phase half life. 10's
Yes, and that phase change also makes a huge difference in the energy
transport mechanisms in which water contributes. That is one aspect
that makes water the most important greenhouse gas.
> of years for CO2 instead of weeks for H2O which readily precipitates
> (self regulating) out of our atmosphere.
However, that does not eliminate atmospheric water. The Earth
atmosphere averages about 1% water vapor -- saturation occurs at about
4%. There is a lot of room between those values.
You can look up atmospheric water concentration in Antarctica, and
will find that they also contribute strongly to IR absorption.
> CO2 was in basic equilibrium at 270-280 ppm for millions of years.
No is wasn't (and this is only 400ky):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png
Looking back millions of years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
> Natural mechanisms capacity to regulate CO2 concentration was/is
> limited to a few ppm per year.
The ocean moves VAST amounts of CO2 in and out. How much of the
atmospheric CO2 is the result of oceanic heating (and other thermal
_response_ sources)?
> Meanwhile humanity is overwhelming
> natures sequestration rate by several ppm per year.
> http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2211568.ece
This says 650ky, not millions...
> >>I see that you're one of those lower IQ types who demonstrates that
> >>fact via keyboard. Please refrain from posting to the science
> >>related Usenet groups until you acquire the necessary knowledge.
> >
> >Likewise, Keating.
>
> Unfortunately you're one of those who would blindly follow those who
> wish to deceive.
Really, Keating... It seems that you are the blind follower...
Retief
T. Keating
wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 02:21:28 -0400, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
>wrote:
>
>> >Dr. Lindzen points out that the absorption rolls off after the first
>> >19 ppm. Yes, the strong CO2 IR bands are saturated at quote low
>> >concentrations, greatly limiting the contributory effect of increasing
>> >atmospheric CO2.
>>
>> err. no.. Lindzen is WRONG for two basic reasons..
>>
>> 1. Ignoring the weaker absorption bands/vibration modes and lower
>> order absorption peaks @ 4.5 micron and in the 8-11 micron range.
>> As atmospheric CO2 gas concentration increases, the percentage of IR
>> energy captured in these ranges increases in roughly linear fashion.
>>
>> This effect is stronger for atmospheric molecules at lower
>> concentrations, since doubling or tripling said concentration involves
>> proportionally less mass than those which exist at higher
>> concentrations. (CH4 verses CO2 verses H20).
>>
>> 2. As overall CO2 concentration increases both the stronger and
>> weaker bands end up being captured at successively lower altitudes,
>> thus increasing the surface heating effects.
>>
>
>No, those weaker bands are in competition with water:
>
>http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/
Your data is an average.. As noted previously, the average does NOT
apply to the cooler regions of the earth. CO2 spreads out in a neary
even fashion.. H20 does NOT evenly distribute..
Varies by more than a 100 times..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean.2005.030.jpg
>
>And experimentally, CO2 in competition with H2O behaves thus:
>
>http://uploader.wuerzburg.de/mm-physik/klima/artefact.htm
Author looks at a very tiny segment of the spectrum that I was NOT
discussing. Looking only CO2 absorption peak @ 15 micron +- 1
micron.
As I pointed out previously, it's the lessor peaks that will double
in magnitude as CO2 concentration doubles.
snip..
>Let's use a larger, clearer image:
>
>http://www.profc.udec.cl/~gabriel/tutoriales/rsnote/cp1/1-11-2.gif
Inverted graph, transmittance instead of absorption.. And appears to
be some what inaccurate.
>We can also examine:
>http://www.coseti.org/images/atmosphe.gif
Same flaw.. H20 does not distribute evenly.. the world is not a
steady state of as noted in the referenced conditions.
>Carefully note the 46% humidity at 59F, and 1 km path length.
The entire column of air must be consider.. complete with it's
variations in temp and humidity. Very little atmospheric H2O is
present in polar regions.
snip..
T. Keating
wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 02:21:28 -0400, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
>wrote:
>
>> >Dr. Lindzen points out that the absorption rolls off after the first
>> >19 ppm. Yes, the strong CO2 IR bands are saturated at quote low
>> >concentrations, greatly limiting the contributory effect of increasing
>> >atmospheric CO2.
>>
>> err. no.. Lindzen is WRONG for two basic reasons..
>>
>> 1. Ignoring the weaker absorption bands/vibration modes and lower
>> order absorption peaks @ 4.5 micron and in the 8-11 micron range.
>> As atmospheric CO2 gas concentration increases, the percentage of IR
>> energy captured in these ranges increases in roughly linear fashion.
>>
>> This effect is stronger for atmospheric molecules at lower
>> concentrations, since doubling or tripling said concentration involves
>> proportionally less mass than those which exist at higher
>> concentrations. (CH4 verses CO2 verses H20).
>>
>> 2. As overall CO2 concentration increases both the stronger and
>> weaker bands end up being captured at successively lower altitudes,
>> thus increasing the surface heating effects.
>>
>
>No, those weaker bands are in competition with water:
>
>http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/
Your data is an average.. As noted previously, the average does NOT
apply to the cooler regions of the earth. CO2 spreads out in a
nearly even fashion.. H20 does NOT evenly distribute..
Varies by more than a 100 times..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean.2005.030.jpg
>
>And experimentally, CO2 in competition with H2O behaves thus:
>
>http://uploader.wuerzburg.de/mm-physik/klima/artefact.htm
Author looks at a very tiny segment of the spectrum that I was NOT
discussing. Looking only CO2 absorption peak @ 15 micron +- 1
micron.
As I pointed out previously, it's the lessor peaks that will double
in magnitude as CO2 concentration doubles.
snip..
>Let's use a larger, clearer image:
>
>http://www.profc.udec.cl/~gabriel/tutoriales/rsnote/cp1/1-11-2.gif
Inverted graph, transmittance instead of absorption.. And appears to
be some what inaccurate.
>We can also examine:
>http://www.coseti.org/images/atmosphe.gif
Same flaw.. H20 does not distribute evenly.. the world is not a
steady state of as noted in the referenced conditions.
>Carefully note the 46% humidity at 59F, and 1 km path length.
The entire column of air must be consider.. complete with it's
Alex Terrell
wrote:
>
> The problem is, ethanol really isn't ready for prime time. The only
> economical way to make ethanol right now is with corn, which means the
> burgeoning industry is literally eating America's lunch, not to
> mention its breakfast and dinner. And though ethanol from corn may
> have some minor benefits with regard to energy independence, most
> analysts conclude its environmental benefits are questionable at best.
>
> There are many questions about ethanol's place in America's energy
> future. Some are easily answered; others, not so much."
Actually, corn is definitely not the economical way to make ethanol.
You would be hard pushed to choose a worse crop than corn.
Principally, the energy payback is marginal - even negative according
to some studies.
The reason America is getting ethanol from corn is because it has a
lot of corn farmers, who have persuaded the Government to give
subsidies to produce ethanol, so they can boost their incomes doing
what they've always done.
Switching over to better crops would make huge sense. Switchgrass
seems a good bet for the USA. Are there parts of the USA where sugar
cane is appropriate?
Joe Fischer
>On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>On Thu, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>>> >Dr. Lindzen points out that the absorption rolls off after the first
>>> >19 ppm. Yes, the strong CO2 IR bands are saturated at quote low
>>> >concentrations, greatly limiting the contributory effect of increasing
>>> >atmospheric CO2.
>>>
>>> err. no.. Lindzen is WRONG for two basic reasons..
>>>
>>> 1. Ignoring the weaker absorption bands/vibration modes and lower
>>> order absorption peaks @ 4.5 micron and in the 8-11 micron range.
>>> As atmospheric CO2 gas concentration increases, the percentage of IR
>>> energy captured in these ranges increases in roughly linear fashion.
>>>
>>> This effect is stronger for atmospheric molecules at lower
>>> concentrations, since doubling or tripling said concentration involves
>>> proportionally less mass than those which exist at higher
>>> concentrations. (CH4 verses CO2 verses H20).
>>>
>>> 2. As overall CO2 concentration increases both the stronger and
>>> weaker bands end up being captured at successively lower altitudes,
>>> thus increasing the surface heating effects.
>>>
>>
>>No, those weaker bands are in competition with water:
>>
>>http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/
>
>Your data is an average.. As noted previously, the average does NOT
>apply to the cooler regions of the earth. CO2 spreads out in a
>nearly even fashion.. H20 does NOT evenly distribute..
Why would that matter, H2O I S the dominant
greenhouse gas, and it is essentially the O N L Y gas
that changes phase in the atmosphere, and changing
phase is what controls both excessive warming and
cooling.
Self regulating control is the most essential
factor in keeping the surface temperatures within
bounds, and that is why the Earth has temperatures
suitable for life as we know it.
Any consideration of a static or "average"
property of any of the gases in the atmosphere is
infantile. Water vapor I S the controlling gas,
and all other constituent gases are just minor in
either warming or cooling.
>Varies by more than a 100 times..
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean.2005.030.jpg
Of course, that is how it REGULATES temperatures.
>>And experimentally, CO2 in competition with H2O behaves thus:
>>
>>http://uploader.wuerzburg.de/mm-physik/klima/artefact.htm
>
>Author looks at a very tiny segment of the spectrum that I was NOT
>discussing. Looking only CO2 absorption peak @ 15 micron +- 1
>micron.
CO2 only has two main spikes, most of the absorption
is at the peak of those two spikes, there is no broad coverage
of the spectrum below the wavelength of light by CO2.
>As I pointed out previously, it's the lessor peaks that will double
>in magnitude as CO2 concentration doubles.
And how many of those are there? The magnitude
or intensity is less of a factor than broad coverage.
The actual quantity of thermal energy absorbed by
CO2 is a very minor modification of the total warming, and
at the poles even then it is less of a factor because the
sun doesn't shine that much at the poles, not at all part
of the year.
The temperature differential between the surface
and the stratosphere-troposphere boundary at the poles
is so small that the CO2 there _obviously_ does very
little to warm the surface.
Most of the arguments for the enormous effect
of CO2 appears to be misinterpretation of the writing
of graduate level temperature and climate studies,
authors write papers and books and don't spend
the rest of their life trying to correct misinterpretations.
>snip..
>
>>Let's use a larger, clearer image:
>>
>>http://www.profc.udec.cl/~gabriel/tutoriales/rsnote/cp1/1-11-2.gif
>
>Inverted graph, transmittance instead of absorption.. And appears to
>be some what inaccurate.
And you have always had your transmittance and
absorption factors correct?
Very few gases reflect at atmospheric pressures,
so there really isn't any reason to consider anything but
absorption in heat transfer, transmittance merely means
there is no effect.
>>We can also examine:
>>http://www.coseti.org/images/atmosphe.gif
>
>Same flaw.. H20 does not distribute evenly.. the world is not a
>steady state of as noted in the referenced conditions.
Thank goodness, if it were a static atmosphere,
temperatures would fluctuate possibly even worse
than at the surface of the moon, and that is primarily
why Venus has such a high temperature, there is
not enough water vapor to regulate the temperature.
>>Carefully note the 46% humidity at 59F, and 1 km path length.
>
>The entire column of air must be consider.. complete with it's
>variations in temp and humidity. Very little atmospheric H2O is
>present in polar regions.
>snip..
Because it precipitates out at those temperatures?
The extreme actions called for by the people
that have misinterpreted the effect of water vapor
could be disastrous to human life on Earth, that is
why more study is needed before doing anything
drastic.
The demand for ethanol and other bio fuels
is bad enough because of the artificial price of oil,
and any irrational legislation can only put more
pressure on the prices and availability of foodstocks
for the bio fuel industry.
Just the effect of increased methane in the
atmosphere is more than the effect of CO2, there
are simply too many natural and biological sources
of methane that cannot be contained.
Combustibles like CO and methane do
eventually combust at low temperatures in the
atmosphere to become CO2, but the quantity
of methane is so great there is always enough
to have more of an effect than CO2.
The wildfire hype of AGW will self
distinguish when the reactionaries have to start
paying hard earned money to the con artists
selling carbon credits, paying through the nose
will get old, and harm to the economy could
be precipitous.
Unless you really are sure you fully
understand the complete role of water vapor
in regulating temperatures at the surface of
Earth, and the thermal energy content of
the ocean, land and distributed liquid water,
you are doing more harm than good.
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
>Switching over to better crops would make huge sense. Switchgrass
>seems a good bet for the USA. Are there parts of the USA where sugar
>cane is appropriate?
Yes, about half a million square miles.
Joe Fischer
knews4...@yahoo.com
Better get a second job to pay for your groceres.
Tell the kids to get a job too.
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2981
GOP Adultery Party in '08
Arnold Walker
"Alex Terrell" <alext...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174650361.9...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
farmers.
For roughly a 150 years ...depending on whether you include Cunningham who
started out blackstrap
moslass operation in1843 or cane in 1872.
If you used Imperial,Dixie Crystal,Holly,or C&H cane sugar used stuff grown
in Texas and Louisana.
But unlike the corn growners,cane growers had competition from foriegn
farmers.That went like US automotive
industry over the last 30 to 40 years.They are now thinking about sales for
the last of the industrial business.
On a company that before it started moving out owned the town of Sugarland.
Houston and the Texas prison system now has Ellis prison and 7 major housing
additions from the sale of the plantations and industrail sites.
Imperial is moving to Brazil .......
Like the rice farmers,you never heard 1% of the concern that you now hear
for corn....or a another crop recieving protection with an earmark
this week Spinach.
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Retief
<j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:
>>>And experimentally, CO2 in competition with H2O behaves thus:
>>>
>>>http://uploader.wuerzburg.de/mm-physik/klima/artefact.htm
>>
>>Author looks at a very tiny segment of the spectrum that I was NOT
>>discussing. Looking only CO2 absorption peak @ 15 micron +- 1
>>micron.
>
> CO2 only has two main spikes, most of the absorption
>is at the peak of those two spikes, there is no broad coverage
Actually, it has 3 strong bands. 1 of those is buried under a strong
water band (and is saturated in absence of water). The other 2 are
saturated. The IPCC expressed concerns about the wings of the 15 um
band (those "wings" are broader than the other 2 bands - but compete
with water)
>>>Let's use a larger, clearer image:
>>>
>>>http://www.profc.udec.cl/~gabriel/tutoriales/rsnote/cp1/1-11-2.gif
>>
>>Inverted graph, transmittance instead of absorption.. And appears to
>>be some what inaccurate.
>
> And you have always had your transmittance and
>absorption factors correct?
The graphic presented is correct. Was it excessively presumptuous of
me to assume that the average reader would understand that
transmission = 1 - absorption?
> Very few gases reflect at atmospheric pressures,
>so there really isn't any reason to consider anything but
>absorption in heat transfer, transmittance merely means
>there is no effect.
tr. = 1 - abs.
>>>We can also examine:
>>>http://www.coseti.org/images/atmosphe.gif
>>
>>Same flaw.. H20 does not distribute evenly.. the world is not a
>>steady state of as noted in the referenced conditions.
>
> Thank goodness, if it were a static atmosphere,
>temperatures would fluctuate possibly even worse
Keating is grasping at straws, he has no legitimate objection.
But let me invite him to provide a better documented graph than the
one above.
>>>Carefully note the 46% humidity at 59F, and 1 km path length.
>>
>>The entire column of air must be consider.. complete with it's
>>variations in temp and humidity. Very little atmospheric H2O is
>>present in polar regions.
>>snip..
>
> Because it precipitates out at those temperatures?
Not as much as you might think...
> Unless you really are sure you fully
>understand the complete role of water vapor
>in regulating temperatures at the surface of
>Earth, and the thermal energy content of
>the ocean, land and distributed liquid water,
>you are doing more harm than good.
The real problem is these folks want to spend _huge_ amounts of money,
addressing something that may not be the source "of the problem" (in
quotes, as they also labor under the idea that it "is a problem").
Retief
Retief
wrote:
> >> 2. As overall CO2 concentration increases both the stronger and
> >> weaker bands end up being captured at successively lower altitudes,
> >> thus increasing the surface heating effects.
> >
> >No, those weaker bands are in competition with water:
> >
> >http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/
>
> Your data is an average..
No it's not. The graph is identified as "optical thickness", which
would be 1/(absorption coefficient). However, what is shown is
obviously the absorption coefficient (as the depth of CO2 to reduce 15
um to 1/e would be a shorter distance than its neighbors, not a longer
path) -- thus the graph exhibits a labelling error, but is otherwise
_very_ detailed data.
> As noted previously, the average does NOT
> apply to the cooler regions of the earth. CO2 spreads out in a neary
> even fashion.. H20 does NOT evenly distribute..
And so your criticism is that the method, which the AGW crowd apply to
atmospheric modelling, is incorrect.
> Varies by more than a 100 times..
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean.2005.030.jpg
So solve the more complex, localized model for us.
> >And experimentally, CO2 in competition with H2O behaves thus:
> >
> >http://uploader.wuerzburg.de/mm-physik/klima/artefact.htm
>
> Author looks at a very tiny segment of the spectrum that I was NOT
> discussing. Looking only CO2 absorption peak @ 15 micron +- 1
> micron.
The wings of the 15 um band are what the IPCC attributes as the
contribution of CO2, which allegedly results in warming.
http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/session23/doc2b.pdf
"Box 1.4. Halocarbons and the Tropical Tropopause"
[...]
"The very strong 15 um band dominates the role of carbon dioxide ..."
> As I pointed out previously, it's the lessor peaks that will double
> in magnitude as CO2 concentration doubles.
And those lessor peaks lie _orders_of_magnitude_ below the absorption
coefficient for water, at the same wavelengths (in some cases, 5 or 6
orders of magnitude).
> snip..
>
> >Let's use a larger, clearer image:
> >
> >http://www.profc.udec.cl/~gabriel/tutoriales/rsnote/cp1/1-11-2.gif
>
> Inverted graph, transmittance instead of absorption..
And this is a problem...why? For conditions where there is no
reflection: transmittance = (1 - absorption).
> And appears to be some what inaccurate.
And so you would like to explicitly point out these "inaccuracies",
demonstrate that your graphic does not exhibit these "inaccuracies",
and explain why they are relevant to this high level discussion.
> >We can also examine:
> >http://www.coseti.org/images/atmosphe.gif
>
> Same flaw..
No flaws. This is an experimental result (and it is an extremely
useful and interesting graph -- most such graphs do not detail the
date and conditions under which the measurement was made).
> H20 does not distribute evenly.. the world is not a
> steady state of as noted in the referenced conditions.
So you are criticising the AGW crowd, who use averages for this, as
opposed to performing a region by region calculation of energy,
absorption and local heating, to produce a model. I agree that they
should be working from the non-uniform distribution of water and solar
flux.
> >Carefully note the 46% humidity at 59F, and 1 km path length.
>
> The entire column of air must be consider..
Yes, the average water column height tends to run in the range of 2-3
km (not 1 km). So the total absorption of energy through that column
is expected to be stronger than exhibited by the graph presented.
You should note that extremely detailed atmospheric water
concentration data is sparse, incomplete and hard to find.
> complete with it's variations in temp and humidity.
Correct, however that is not what the AGW crowd does. They use
averages.
Note also that the region which recieves the highest solar flux (i.e.
the equator), is also dominated by an extremely large body of water
(i.e. the oceans).
> Very little atmospheric H2O is present in polar regions.
How much? Be specific.
Here, let me help you. Antarctica exhibits an average atmospheric
water load of about 1.6 kg/m^2. The Antarctic snow reflects about 83%
of incoming solar energy. And 2/3 of the absorbed energy results from
that small amount of water vapor in the antarctic atmosphere.
For the Antarctic atmosphere described above, the transmission will be
less than 10% (i.e. 90% absorption) for any wavelength which exhibits
an absorption coefficient greaters than approximately 15.
Retief
Souls Black as Coal
Souls Black as Coal
alexterrell
> On 23 Mar 2007 "Alex Terrell" <alexterr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Switching over to better crops would make huge sense. Switchgrass
> >seems a good bet for the USA. Are there parts of the USA where sugar
> >cane is appropriate?
>
> Yes, about half a million square miles.
>
> Joe Fischer
Not sure of the exact yields, but
At 5 tons per hectare should give about 640 million tons of fuel, or
about 12 million barrels per day.
Is there enough water?
Joe Fischer
In some places, most of the time, here there has
been an excess flow above normal pool of about
200,000 cubic feet per second over the last month.
But it would be interesting to see if fermentation
can occur in ocean water, salt kills a lot of kinds of
bacteria, guppies acclimated slowly to ocean water
have no disease at all, I raised a litter of 29, two
jumped out of the tank, the other 27 grew larger
and healthier than in fresh water, but guppies are
sterile in ocean water, I don't know why, so they
did not produce young until acclimated slowly
back to fresh water, then the good health became
apparent in the prolific results.
But since much of the process of ethanol
fermentation and distillation requires near boiling
or very warm water and some stocks require
cooking, the extra energy needed to use distilled
ocean water with heat exchangers would not be
too great.
A bigger problem than water is the waste, it
needs to be managed, possibly converted to chicken
feed or animal feed or something, maybe even plastics.
But sugar beets and potatoes will grow in
another million square miles. Aircraft may never
fly with anything but petroleum or liquified coal,
so the airline industry will not use much bio fuel,
because of the oxygen atom, it does not have
the energy density of fossil fuels.
Potatoes is the crop that is under utilized,
except maybe in Russia.
Joe Fischer
T. Keating
snippy...
Bzzzt.. non sequitur response..
When a particular GH gas concentration(H20) varies by over a 100 to 1
ratio you can bet good money on a shifting atmospheric absorption
spectra in those areas.
I.E. ~7000ppm in tropics .. less than 70 ppm near the poles..
If you're not able to recognize that simple fact then you're probably
being paid by someone to act ignorant/stupid/troll, and really
shouldn't be posting in the sci.* usenet groups..
Same response applies to Relief's posting.
Joe Fischer
>When a particular GH gas concentration(H20) varies by over a 100 to 1
>ratio you can bet good money on a shifting atmospheric absorption
>spectra in those areas.
>
>I.E. ~7000ppm in tropics .. less than 70 ppm near the poles..
>
>If you're not able to recognize that simple fact then you're probably
>being paid by someone to act ignorant/stupid/troll, and really
>shouldn't be posting in the sci.* usenet groups..
>
>Same response applies to Relief's posting.
Of course, everybody that does not agree with
the Prince of carbness is getting paid by someone to
act ignorant/stupid/troll, and really shouldn't post........
We all should send all that money back and
act smarter like nudds, and be as sane as hanson,
and as civil as VD.
I regret suggesting that the spectra of the
atmosphere changes with the amount of water and
that rain cools the surface and transfers to the high
atmosphere, and that clouds shield the sun in
daytime, and hold heat in at night, and that there
is a self regulating process controlling climate,
you have made it clear that nature absolutely
must have a static stable atmosphere and the
temperature can only go up and up as carbon
is burned.
I wouldn't want to suggest any science to
conflict with the gifted fortune telling of the IPCC
group, whom all have many years each of climate
and weather study.
Joe Fischer
Retief
wrote:
> >>>No, those weaker bands are in competition with water:
> >>>
> >>>http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/
> >>
> >>Your data is an average.. As noted previously, the average does NOT
> >>apply to the cooler regions of the earth. CO2 spreads out in a
> >>nearly even fashion.. H20 does NOT evenly distribute..
> >
> > Why would that matter, H2O I S the dominant
> >greenhouse gas,
>
> snippy...
>
> Bzzzt.. non sequitur response..
Not really. Water dominates in concentrationa and absorption
coeffcient, so the uneven distribution isn't going to help you.
In fact, the reader should also note that a higher atmospheric water
concentration near the equator, is better able to take advantage of
the higher solar flux and higher surface temperatures (in response to
your "non-uniform distribution" comment).
> When a particular GH gas concentration(H20) varies by over a 100 to 1
> ratio you can bet good money on a shifting atmospheric absorption
> spectra in those areas.
And those concentrations don't matter, once the opacity of the
atmosphere becomes sufficient to absorb the energy that is available
in a given IR band.
But perhaps you'd like to show your math, so we can see why you
believe otherwise.
We can see the saturation effect, in this relatively short path:
http://www.coseti.org/images/atmosphe.gif
> I.E. ~7000ppm in tropics .. less than 70 ppm near the poles..
So let's see...7000 ppm is a dew point of about 2 C. So on a 25 C day
(in the tropics), you're suggesting that the relative humidity will be
about 22%. And on a 30 C day (again in the tropics), the relative
humidity will be about 17%. This is clearly incorrect.
You're only off by an order of magnitude. Why don't we look up some
real numbers, rather than just pulling them out of your ass.
http://www.casdn.neu.edu/~geology/department/staff/naylor/geo1158/part1.htm
"Water (H2O). Warm air can hold more water than cold air. Saturated,
tropical air at 35oC (95oF) contains 56,000ppm (5.6%) water vapor.
This is about as sticky as it can get. In Boston, humid summer air
(dew point 68oF) contains 23,000ppm (2.3%) water vapor. At dawn on
New Years day with the temperature at 10oF the air would contain
less than 2200ppm (0.2%) water."
http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/kidder/Johnsen_Miao_and_Kidder.pdf
This paper estimates that the total annual mean atmospheric water
vapor is 1.9E13 kg (over a surface area of 11.9E6 km^2) for
Antarctica.
So that gives us a yearly Antarctic average of 1.6 kg/m^2 atmospheric
H2O. From this we can estimate the transmission/absorption
characteristics for the atmospheric water. For the Antarctic
atmosphere (0.16 g/cm^2 H2O), the transmission will be less than 10%,
if the absorption coefficient is greater than approximately 15, for a
given wavelength. And we note that researchers estimate that this
meager amount of water vapor is responsible for 2/3 of the greenhouse
effect in this region.
> If you're not able to recognize that simple fact then you're probably
> being paid by someone to act ignorant/stupid/troll, and really
> shouldn't be posting in the sci.* usenet groups..
Pot, Kettle, Black. Do you really think that insults and slurs are
going to conceal your lack of references and data?
> Same response applies to Relief's posting.
Wow, such a science based rebuttal, Keating.
Retief
Exxon Liars & Thieves
T. Keating
wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:20:46 -0400, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
>wrote:
>
>> >>>No, those weaker bands are in competition with water:
>> >>>
>> >>>http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/
>> >>
>> >>Your data is an average.. As noted previously, the average does NOT
>> >>apply to the cooler regions of the earth. CO2 spreads out in a
>> >>nearly even fashion.. H20 does NOT evenly distribute..
>> >
>> > Why would that matter, H2O I S the dominant
>> >greenhouse gas,
>>
>> snippy...
>>
>> Bzzzt.. non sequitur response..
>
>Not really. Water dominates in concentrationa and absorption
>coeffcient, so the uneven distribution isn't going to help you.
Varies from 7000ppm (topics 7.5cm) to less than 70ppm arctic.
snippy...
>http://www.casdn.neu.edu/~geology/department/staff/naylor/geo1158/part1.htm
>
> "Water (H2O). Warm air can hold more water than cold air. Saturated,
> tropical air at 35oC (95oF) contains 56,000ppm (5.6%) water vapor.
> This is about as sticky as it can get. In Boston, humid summer air
> (dew point 68oF) contains 23,000ppm (2.3%) water vapor. At dawn on
> New Years day with the temperature at 10oF the air would contain
> less than 2200ppm (0.2%) water."
Bzzzt... non sequitur response.. again..
Comparing apples to oranges..
The earth's atmosphere can't maintain that ppm of H20 density over the
entire vertical column..(into outer space..)
Any particular sample at low altitude can achieve very high densities.
(rain)..
Retief
wrote:
> >> >>>No, those weaker bands are in competition with water:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/
> >> >>
> >> >>Your data is an average.. As noted previously, the average does NOT
> >> >>apply to the cooler regions of the earth. CO2 spreads out in a
> >> >>nearly even fashion.. H20 does NOT evenly distribute..
> >> >
> >> > Why would that matter, H2O I S the dominant
> >> >greenhouse gas,
> >>
> >> snippy...
> >>
> >> Bzzzt.. non sequitur response..
> >
> >Not really. Water dominates in concentrationa and absorption
> >coeffcient, so the uneven distribution isn't going to help you.
>
> Varies from 7000ppm (topics 7.5cm) to less than 70ppm arctic.
That is not really true, as reported below.
Why do you think this statement is of importance?
If 70 bullets is enough to kill an elephant, is firing 7,000 bullets
at the elephant relevant?
If 70 inches of concrete is enough to reduce the radiation from
nuclear fallout to an insignificant level, is 7,000 inches relevant?
> >http://www.casdn.neu.edu/~geology/department/staff/naylor/geo1158/part1.htm
> >
> > "Water (H2O). Warm air can hold more water than cold air. Saturated,
> > tropical air at 35oC (95oF) contains 56,000ppm (5.6%) water vapor.
> > This is about as sticky as it can get. In Boston, humid summer air
> > (dew point 68oF) contains 23,000ppm (2.3%) water vapor. At dawn on
> > New Years day with the temperature at 10oF the air would contain
> > less than 2200ppm (0.2%) water."
>
> Bzzzt... non sequitur response.. again..
>
> Comparing apples to oranges..
Not at all.
> The earth's atmosphere can't maintain that ppm of H20 density over the
> entire vertical column..(into outer space..)
Neither can the Earth's atmosphere maintain your 7,000 ppm, over the
entire vertical column. So what?
Yes, water varies with altitude, and the majority is confined to the
troposphere (where we live).
Those concentrations, and the known optical absorption coefficients
for water, make your claimed 100-to-1 variation, which you are
apparently concerned about, of substantially limited significance.
Again, we can see the saturation effect, in this relatively short
path:
http://www.coseti.org/images/atmosphe.gif
Let's consider the strong water band, around 6.5 um. How much of the
total energy is transmitted there? How much more energy in this
band would be absorbed, if the water concentration were substantially
increased?
How much actual water is contained in that column? A: less than 1/4
of the _global_ average water load. And the tropical regions run
about twice that concentration.
And on the other end of the scale, the Antarctic average is 1.6 kg/m^2
atmospheric H2O (about 1/4 of that 1 km path from "coseti.org"). This
meager amount is still a strong IR absorber.
> Any particular sample at low altitude can achieve very high densities.
> (rain)..
Not just rain, it can be maintained at fairly high levels. Clouds and
clear sky water vapor are powerful drivers.
Retief
Retief Turd, Exxon Turds
> Not just rain, it can be maintained at fairly high levels. Clouds and
> clear sky water vapor are powerful drivers.
>
> Retief
A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
This website is posted by federal court order and contains nothing
that was not evidence used in trials. At the trials lawyers had
opportunity of due process of law to object and exclude evidence --
these are the ones that were not excluded.
TASSC "Global Warming"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Global+Warming%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
TASSC "Singer, F."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Singer%2C+F.%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
TASSC "Lindzen, R"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Lindzen%2C+R%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
TASSC "Michaels, P"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=TASSC+%22Michaels%2C+P%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
"Patrick J. Michaels"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Patrick+J.+Michaels%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
"Patrick Michaels"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Patrick+Michaels%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
"Science & Environmental Policy Project"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?mode=listing&pattern=%22Science+%26+Environmental+Policy+Project%22&document_code=&date_op=&date=&records_per_page=100&sort_by=swishe_rank
A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=521
#596 - A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
A new study concludes that this has been the warmest century in 600
years, and that the hottest years during this century have been 1990,
1995, and 1997.[1,2] This is further evidence that global warming is
upon us, and that humans are contributing to it by burning coal and
oil. (See REHW #430, #466.) "Our conclusion was that the warming of
the past few decades appears to be closely tied to emission of
greenhouse gases by humans and not [by] any of the natural factors,"
say Michael E. Mann, principal author of the new study.[1]
The global temperature varies as time passes because of natural
changes in sunlight reaching the Earth, dust from volcanoes (which
reflects sunlight back into space), and changing amounts of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere.
So-called greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide [CO2], but also
methane and a few others that are less important) allow sunlight to
strike the Earth but don't allow heat to escape back into space as
readily, thus trapping heat near the surface, just as the glass roof
on a greenhouse does. Scientists have recognized the existence of this
"greenhouse effect" for about 100 years and they know that, sooner or
later, increasing the amount of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere
must warm the planet. Thus scientists don't debate whether greenhouse
gases will cause global warming. They debate when it will be
noticeable, how big the warming will be, and what its consequences
might be.
During the past 100 years, humans burning coal and oil have increased
the atmosphere's concentration of carbon dioxide [CO2] --the main
greenhouse gas --by 25%, and the concentration is still rising.
Actual temperature measurements only go back about 150 years, so
temperatures earlier than that must be inferred from tree rings,
corals and fossils in the oceans, deposits left by glaciers, the
chemical composition of ancient ice at the poles, and fossilized
pollen found in lake sediments. The new study, published in the
British journal NATURE, uses many of these techniques to reconstruct
the Earth's temperature back to the year 1400 A.D.[2]
The new study bolsters the consensus reached in 1996 by an
overwhelming majority of the world's climatologists, that (a) global
warming is probably noticeable now; and (b) human activities are
probably contributing to the rise in the planet's average temperature.
That consensus conclusion was published in the second Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),[3]
which is an office of the United Nations Environment Programme and the
World Meteorological Organization.
For their part, the coal and oil corporations are not taking this
scientific consensus lying down. They are fighting back with a multi-
million dollar public relations plan that was recently leaked to the
NEW YORK TIMES.[4] These corporations stand to lose by the global
climate-change agreement reached last December 11 in Kyoto, Japan. The
Kyoto agreement binds the U.S. to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions
to 7% below 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012. For a country like
the U.S., which has steadily rising emissions, the Kyoto agreement
will require cuts as great as 30% to 35% below where emissions would
otherwise be by the year 2012. (See REHW #577.)
In an attempt to undermine the Kyoto agreement, the energy
corporations plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the
industry's views of climate science and to train them in public
relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians, and the
public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify
controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that trap the sun's
heat near Earth."[4] The plan is being spearheaded by Joe Walker, a
public relations representative of the American Petroleum Institute.
The scientific talent for the public relations campaign is being
recruited by Frederick Seitz, who is a physicist, not a climatologist,
but who has an impressive scientific resume as former president of the
American Physical Society, former president of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), and president emeritus of Rockefeller University. Dr.
Seitz is also distinguished by being one of the last remaining
scientists who insist that humans have not altered the stratospheric
ozone layer, despite an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary.
He is currently associated with two libertarian think tanks, the
George C. Marshall Institute and the Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition (see www.marshall.org, www.tassc.org, and www.junkscience.com).
Dr. Seitz injected himself into the climate debate forcefully by
attacking the IPCC just days after publication of the IPCC's consensus
conclusion that humans were probably contributing to global warming.
Writing in the WALL STREET JOURNAL June 12, 1996, Dr. Seitz called the
IPCC report a "major deception on global warming." He accused IPCC
scientists of the most "disturbing corruption of the peer-review
process" that he had ever witnessed. And he accused one particular
scientist, Benjamin Santer, of having made "unauthorized changes" to
the IPCC report for political purposes. It turned out that Seitz had
not attended any of the IPCC meetings, and he had not contacted Santer
to find out whether the changes to the IPCC document were "authorized"
or not. It also turned out that all of Seitz's charges were wrong --
the IPCC report had been peer-reviewed by roughly one thousand
qualified scientists and all of the writing in the final report was
fully authorized.[5]
Dr. Seitz and his associates at the George C. Marshall Institute are
now preparing to release a petition that they reportedly sent to
"virtually every scientist in every field" in the U.S.[6] There are 10
million people with undergraduate degrees in science in the U.S., and
half a million with science Ph.D.s. Of these, 15,000 science graduates
and 6000 with Ph.D. degrees have reportedly signed the petition, which
rejects the Kyoto agreement and argues that increasing levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the planet. The mass
mailing to scientists included a copy of an article formatted to look
as if it had been published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. It was not. The
article, which had been neither peer-reviewed nor published, argued
that the release of more carbon dioxide "will help to maintain and
improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all
people." The Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org) has
branded the exercise "a deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific
community with misinformation on the subject of climate change."
According to the NEW YORK TIMES, the energy corporations plan to spend
$5 million over the next two years to "maximize the impact of
scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media, and
other key audiences." Their plan calls for spending $600,000 (not
including costs of advertising) on a media campaign to influence
science writers, editors, columnists, and TV network correspondents
using as many as 20 "respected climate scientists" recruited
specifically "to inject credible science and scientific accountability
into the climate science debate, thereby raising questions about and
undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'" The energy
corporations say they intend to provide "a one-stop resource for
members of Congress, the media industry, and all others concerned."
This latest plan to "educate" Americans about global warming will be
paid for by Exxon, Chevron, and other supporters of the American
Petroleum Institute. Previous similar attempts in recent years have
been funded by Exxon, Shell Oil, Unocal, ARCO, the British Coal
Corporation, the German Coal Mining Association, and Cyprus Minerals,
a western mining company that is the single biggest funder of the so-
called Wise Use anti-environmental movement in the U.S.[7]
Who knows? With enough money, it may be possible to convince Congress
and the media that global warming is not happening, despite the
evidence, which is considerable (see REHW #430, #466):
** Average global air temperatures have risen this century.
** The oceans have warmed this century;
** The level of the oceans has been rising this century because water
expands as it warms;
** Many glaciers have shrunk this century in response to warming;
** Plants are moving upward on mountainsides as temperatures rise;
** Rainfall --particularly torrential rainfall --has been increasing
this century as global warming has put more water vapor into the air;
** Floods are increasing because of more rainfall;
** In England, where climatic records reach back several hundred
years, spring has been arriving earlier in recent decades;
** The IPCC and the World Health Organization say that global warming
is expanding the range of mosquitoes that carry malaria, yellow fever,
and dengue fever, a trend that will put millions of additional humans
at risk from these diseases. (See REHW #466.)
** Computer models predict that global warming will be accompanied by
more storms and more intense storms, and, in fact, this has been
happening. To protect itself the U.S. insurance industry in 1996
stopped insuring certain storm-prone areas on the eastern seaboard and
along the Gulf coast.[8]
Already severe storms are hurting people in California, Alabama, the
upper midwest, and New England, to mention only U.S. locations where
extreme weather events have struck in recent months. Real people are
suffering. Affected individuals, and all taxpayers, are paying large
costs. If the world scientific consensus is correct, this will
continue until our use of coal and oil is cut by 60% or 70% and the
atmosphere can stabilize again. At present there is no possibility --
none--of achieving such drastic cuts because the oil and coal
companies are too powerful.
Global warming is the most important problem we face because it has
the potential to disrupt every part of the global ecosystem. It is
also the most important because it promises to reveal the fundamental
flaws in the permissive way we treat corporations: (1) we give them
the free- speech protections of the Bill of Rights, allowing them to
spend millions on disinformation campaigns aimed at maintaining a
harmful status quo. And (2) we allow them to manipulate our most basic
democratic institutions by pumping millions of dollars into election
campaigns. It seems clear that if we are to solve the global warming
problem, these two practices will have to change.
--Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
=====
[1] William K. Stevens, "New Evidence Finds This is the Warmest
Century in 600 years," NEW YORK TIMES April 28, 1998, pg. C3.
[2] Michael E. Mann and others, "Global-scale temperature patterns and
climate forcing over the past six centuries," NATURE Vol. 392 (April
23, 1998), pgs. 779-787. See also, Gabriele Hegerl, "The past as a
guide to the future," NATURE Vol. 392 (April 23, 1998), pgs. 758-759.
[3] J.J. Houghton and others, editors, CLIMATE CHANGE 1995: THE
SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
1996).
[4] John H. Cushman, Jr., "Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate
Treaty," NEW YORK TIMES April 26, 1998, pgs. A1, A24.
[5] Paul N. Edwards and Stephen H. Schneider, "The 1995 IPCC Report:
Broad Consensus or 'Scientific Cleansing,' ECOFABLES/ECOSCIENCE No. 1
(Fall 1997), pgs. 3-9. ECOFABLES/ECOSCIENCE is published by the Center
for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020. E-mail:
ecofa...@bing.stanford.edu; telephone (415) 723-5924; fax: (415) 723-
5920.
[6] Colin Macilwain, "Petition strengthens hand of global warming
skeptics," NATURE Vol. 392 (April 16, 1998), pg. 639.
[7] Ross Gelbspan, "Hot Air on Global Warming; Science and Academia in
the Service of the Fossil Fuel Industry," MULTINATIONAL MONITOR Vol.
18, No. 11 (November 1997), pgs. 14-17.
[8] Joseph B. Treaster, "Insurer Curbing Sales of Policies in Storm
Areas," NEW YORK TIMES October 10, 1996, pgs. A1, D6.
Descriptor terms: global warming; greenhouse effect; corporations;
kyoto; insurance industry; libertarians; think tanks; ipcc;
T. Keating
wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:12:07 -0400, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
>wrote:
>
>> >> >>>No, those weaker bands are in competition with water:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Your data is an average.. As noted previously, the average does NOT
>> >> >>apply to the cooler regions of the earth. CO2 spreads out in a
>> >> >>nearly even fashion.. H20 does NOT evenly distribute..
>> >> >
>> >> > Why would that matter, H2O I S the dominant
>> >> >greenhouse gas,
>> >>
>> >> snippy...
>> >>
>> >> Bzzzt.. non sequitur response..
>> >
>> >Not really. Water dominates in concentrationa and absorption
>> >coeffcient, so the uneven distribution isn't going to help you.
>>
>> Varies from 7000ppm (topics 7.5cm) to less than 70ppm arctic.
>
>That is not really true, as reported below.
>
Snip... no evidence presented to support your claim..
Meanwhile, referring back to my previous citation in Message-ID:
<v2b703t9kpf40i3tc...@4ax.com>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean.2005.030.jpg
"Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean"
Insignificant Cockroach Turds
> >That is not really true, as reported below.
>
> Snip... no evidence presented to support your claim..
A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
This website is posted by federal court order and contains nothing
that was not evidence used in trials. At the trials lawyers had
opportunity of due process of law to object and exclude evidence --
these are the ones that were not excluded.
It confirms the activist website which merely quotes public knowledge.
Retief
wrote:
>>> >Not really. Water dominates in concentrationa and absorption
>>> >coeffcient, so the uneven distribution isn't going to help you.
>>>
>>> Varies from 7000ppm (topics 7.5cm) to less than 70ppm arctic.
>>
>>That is not really true, as reported below.
>
>Snip... no evidence presented to support your claim..
Gosh, aren't you just the most clever little troll? You snip data
which is inconvenient to your assertions and claims.
>Meanwhile, referring back to my previous citation in Message-ID:
><v2b703t9kpf40i3tc...@4ax.com>
>
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean.2005.030.jpg
>"Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean"
And this proves your claim that the varying atmospheric concentrations
of water are relevant...how?
So, where does this show 7000 ppm through the entire atmospheric
column (you will recall that you raised this issue, and presented your
numbers as "superior")? Where are the stratospheric concentrations to
support your claim? I am especially interested to see that...
Retief
Mass Killer COALition
> support your claim? I am especially interested to see that...
>
> Retief
A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
T. Keating
wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:30:11 -0400, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>> >Not really. Water dominates in concentrationa and absorption
>>>> >coeffcient, so the uneven distribution isn't going to help you.
>>>>
>>>> Varies from 7000ppm (topics 7.5cm) to less than 70ppm arctic.
>>>
>>>That is not really true, as reported below.
>>
>>Snip... no evidence presented to support your claim..
>
>Gosh, aren't you just the most clever little troll? You snip data
>which is inconvenient to your assertions and claims.
>
>>Meanwhile, referring back to my previous citation in Message-ID:
>><v2b703t9kpf40i3tc...@4ax.com>
>>
>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean.2005.030.jpg
>>"Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean"
>
>And this proves your claim that the varying atmospheric concentrations
>of water are relevant...how?
I don't see any point of continuing to debate the point with a
scientifically illiterate person.
Retief
wrote:
> >And this proves your claim that the varying atmospheric concentrations
> >of water are relevant...how?
>
> I don't see any point of continuing to debate the point with a
> scientifically illiterate person.
That's pretty damn funny, coming from someone who thinks that optical
path lengths and absorption coefficients have no relevance to a
discussion of atmospheric absorption rates...
It was even more amusing that you didn't understand that the
"concrete" example was exactly analogous to the atmospheric absorption
problem...
I will re-iterate this for the readers who are still following this
thread. We can experimentally see the saturation effect, in this
relatively short path:
http://www.coseti.org/images/atmosphe.gif
Let's consider the strongly absorbed water band, around 6.5 um - how
much energy remains to be absorbed by the water vapor? Ans: "none".
How much _more_ energy in this band would be absorbed, if the water
concentration were substantially increased? Ans: "none".
How much actual water is contained in that column? A: less than 1/4
of the _global_ average water load (i.e. 0.59 cm versus 2.5 cm
precipitable water). And the Earth's tropical regions average about
twice the global average concentration (i.e. 5 cm precipitable water).
And on the other end of the scale, the Antarctic average is 1.6 kg/m^2
atmospheric H2O (about 1/4 of that 1 km path from "coseti.org"). This
meager amount is still a strong IR absorber, according to Antarctic
researchers.
Now Keating, run along and play with the kiddies.
Retief
Exxon's Dick Pumps Retief's Mouth
> Now Keating, run along and play with the kiddies.
>
> Retief
The A.S.S. Coalition (TASSC) & Global Warming
http://TobaccoDocuments.org Court Records
http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/158433.html
Abstract
To circumvent its lack of credibility with the public, policy makers
and the media, Philip Morris (PM) uses the strategy of creating front
groups. Forming an artificial third party and then assigning it an
"umbrella cause" (one which happens to mesh perfectly with the tobacco
industry's) gives PM and the industry the opportunity to create a
wholly separate, and far more credible, mouthpiece advance its
policies and political desires. In PM's front group "Associates for
Research in Substance Enjoyment," (ARISE) "scientists" lumped tobacco
use together with innocuous substances like tea and chocolate, put out
worldwide press releases saying substance use was good for you and
declared public health advocates to be puritanical, neo-prohibitionist
party poopers. After the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
declared secondhand smoke as a Class A Human Carcinogen, PM needed a
powerful group to rise up help discredit EPA's findings. Thus PM
formed "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition," or TASSC.
Recognizing that the chemical, paper, metal, petroleum and other
environmentally-dubious industries would also be thrilled to have a
group of "committed experts" who would publicly say that scientific
warnings against their activities were not credible, PM invited these
industries to join TASSC. With the needs clear and a host of willing
help-mates waiting in the wings, PM created TASSC through a public
relations firm called APCO Associates, which helped PM distance itself
from the group. After a 2-month, $50,000 feasibility study done hand
in hand with PM's law firm of Covington and Burling, APCO began
forming TASSC. APCO did an admirable job of recruiting members for
TASSC, too. The "supporters list" (found in another document) includes
businesses from the "Family Loompya Seafood Market" and "Pinckneyville
Lighting" to sawmills, mining and chemical companies, including W.R.
Grace, Co., Amoco, and Dow Chemical. Today's document reveals the
goals of TASSC, and also APCO's enthusiasm for creating a similar
group in Europe based on its success in America and elsewhere. Title:
Thoughts on TASSC Europe Type of Document: Memo From: Tom Hockaday of
APCO Associates To: Matt Winokur, Director, Worldwide Regulatory
Affairs for Philip Morris Date: 19940324 Site: Philip Morris Tobacco
Company http://www.pmdocs.com/ Bates No. 2025492898/2905 Page Count: 8
URL: http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?DOCID=2025492898/2905
03/28/94 15:25 '8`202 466 6004 APCO ASSOCIATES 0004 -3 - As a starting
point, we can identify key issues requiring sound scientific research
and scientists that may have an interest in them. Some issues our
European colleagues suggest include: . Global warming · Nuclear waste
disposal · Diseases and pests in agricultural products for
transborder trade · Biotechnology . Eco-labeling for EC products
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html
Thoughts on Tassc Europe
Date: 25 Mar 1994
-3- As a starting point, we can identify key issues requiring sound
scientific research and scientists that may have an interest in them.
Some issues our European colleagues suggest include: . Global
warming . Nuclear waste disposal . Diseases and pests in agricultural
products for transborder trade . Biotechnology . Eco-labeling for EC
products . Food processing and packaging
-5- decisions. The supporters of the Appeal are a loose-knit group.
The effort to expand the support of the Appeal is handled through Dr.
M. Saloman of the International Center for Scientific Ecology (Paris).
In discussions with a number of our scientific supporters and with Dr.
Fred Singer (a member of the Board of the International Center for
Scientific Ecology), there is belief that this initial support could
be organized into a more "formal movement" internationally. The
benefits of attempting to use this group as a basis of extending TASSC
include: Several of TASSC's scientists have signed the Appeal,
providing the opportunity to approach the supporters with a "peer to
peer" approach, i.e. , a "Dear Colleague" letter.
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_m2/TI15842109.html
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1993 THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER A truth squad
for monitoring shaky science
Date: 28 Dec 1993
TASSC should work to make fiascos like the Alar scare as familiar to
students as rain forests or global warming.
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/82000099.html
TASSC The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
"It is neither reasonable nor prudent for major political decisions to
be based on presumptions which, in the current state of knowledge, are
still only hypotheses, although they must certainly be examined and
even taken into account. The more or less apocalyptic scenarios evoked
in the preparatory, work for the Rio conference are not the kind of
certitudes which can be used as a basis for political decisions likely
to entail major upheavals and heavy expenditure on a global scale."
~Michael Salomon, Editorial Director, Projections Quarterly, Autumn-
Winter 1992
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028363773-3791.html
Scientists for Sound Public Policy Assessment Project and Symposium
Date: 1994 (est.)
Length: 19 pages
EXPLANATIONS · The political decision-makers are vulnerable to
activists' emotional appeals and press campaigns · The opinion climate
tends to favour overly simplified solutions The precautionary
principle is now the accepted guideline. Even if a hypothesis is not
100 per cent scientifically proven, action should be taken, e.g.
global warming Europe's industry is often on the defensive. Action is
typically taken when it is too late. And industrial resistence is
perceived as protection of commercial self-interests.
Burson-Marsteller
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025493202-3207.html
Date: 26 Apr 1994 (est.)
Length: 6 pages
Many industries trying to establish groups to "communicate science"
and "to lobby" EUFIC (food industry) SAGB (biotechnology) Heidelberg
Appeal (global warming)
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024102283-2287.html
Date: 1992 (est.)
Length: 5 pages
SEITZ SYMPOSIUM
*Late lst quarter/early 2nd quarter
*Procedural Options for Addressing the Scientific Issue Highlighted in
Global Warming and Ozone Hole Controversies, Dr. Frederick Seitz of
the George C. Marshall Institute
*40-60 regulators--Ensure credible science
*TASSC
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046451070-1139.html
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
Date: 11 Aug 1994
Length: 70 pages
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025802450-2451.html
Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process Semi-Final Program
930524 - 930525 the Madison Hotel 15th and M Streets, Nw Washington,
D.C.
Date: 19930525/D
Length: 2 pages
CONFERENCE OVERVIEW: From global warming and ozone depletion to
biotechnology and food additives
Dr.. S. Fred Singer (Moderator) University of Virginia; president, The
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Dr. S. Fred Singer, president The Science & Environmental Policy
Project. 9:15
===============
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Date: 09 Dec 1996
Length: 13 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/batco/800298146-8158.html
Press Release of The Science & Environmental Policy Project "TOP FIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 'MYTHS' OF 1995 TO BE RELEASED BY SCIENCE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT: List Challenges Costly Policies Not
Supported By Sound Scientific Data," January 10, 1996
===============
Philip Morris
Date: 31 Mar 1993
Length: 1 page
2025802449
Jump To Images
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025802449.html
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2021178213-8216.html
Philip Morris
Possible Individuals to Be Approached for Opinion Editorials
Date: 02 Mar 1993
Length: 4 pages
Candace Crandall -- Executive Vice President of the Science and
Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).
She has published extensively on junk science issues in the past.
Crandall' was the Director of Communications for the Center for
Strategic and International' Studies before joining, SEPP. The primary
focus of SEPP is too document the use of scientific data in the
development of federal environmental policy. SEPP is an independent,
non-profi research group that relies on private funding.
It will co-sponsor a conference with George Mason University in May on
scientific integrity in the political process, Crandall has arranged
for a number of prominent scientists to be participants, including Dr.
Bernard Davis of Harvard University and1 Sir William Mitchell of'
Oxford University.
Crandall is Dr: Fred Singer's wife.
===============
Issue Report Alexis Whither Environmental Regulation
Date: 01 Jul 1993
Length: 6 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s2/TI31741185.html
Dr. S. Fred Singer is Professor of Environmental Sciences at the
University of Virginia and directs the Washington- based Science &
Environmental Policy Project. He is currently working on a study on
environmental regulation for the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.
===============
Philip Morris
Anthology of 950000's Environmental Myths
Date: 11 Feb 1996
Length: 3 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2048280356-0358.html
Copyright 1996 News World Communications, Inc. The Washington Times
February 11, 1996, Sunday, Final Edition SECTION: Part B; COMMENTARY;
Pg. B3 LENGTH: 1377 words HEADLINE: Anthology of 1995's environmental
myths BYLINE: S. Fred Singer
BODY: The primary mission of the Science & Environmental Policy
Project has been to study and analyze how science is used - or
missused - in the setting of federal environmental policies, and then
expose the most egregious examples of environmental malfeasance. There
are so many: Superfund, asbestos, Alar, acid rain, to mention just a
few - all of them costing mega-billions and backed by insubstantial
science. When we decided to list the greatest environmental myths of
1995, our board _ of experts finally settled on the following five
topics that demonstrate distortion or misuse of science in shaping
policies. We present them here to educate policy-makers and the public
in the hope that the publicity will lead to more cost-effective
policies and a healthier environment. (1) Global warming and the
Climate Treaty: During 1995, scare stories about a future catastrophic
greenhouse warming gained much momentum, while at the same time the
evidence for such warming became weaker and weaker. At the first
"Conference of the Parties" to the Global Climate Treaty in Berlin in
April, the science was ignored while the assembled "statesmen" went
ahead to establish a permanent secretariat and plan further mega-
meetings. In September, at the initiative of Al Gore, a Washington
conference promoted a new fear tied to global warming: a spread of
tropical diseases putting 3 billion people at risk. Finally, in
November (in Madrid) and December (in Rome), the U.N.-sponsored
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific arm
of the Treaty, managed to approve two pre-drafted summary reports.
These can charitably be described as being "economical with the
truth."...
===============
Philip Morris
Is the Concept of Linear Relationship Between Dose and Effect Still A
Valid Model for Assessing Risk Related to Low Doses of Carcinogens? A
Restricted International Scientific Seminar 930510 - Paris (France)
Date: 10 May 1993
Length: 5 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385383-5387.html
International Center for a Scientific Ecology Is the concept of linear
relationship between dose and effoct still a valid model for assessing
risk related to low doses of ets? A restricted international
scienfific Seminar May 10, 1993 - Paris (France)
The seminar is organised by the International Centre for a Scientific
Ecology (see Introduction to the Centre in the appendix). The
scientific work is organised by Dr Michel Salomon, the coordinator of
the Heidelberg Appeal.
Prof. S. Fred Singer, Doctor of Physical Science; President of the
Science & Environmental Policy Project; former Director, US Weather
Satellite Program; Dean of the School of Environmental Sciences,
University of Miami; Deputy Assistant Administrator of US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); American. nationality;
Dr. Michel Salomon, coordinator of the Heidelberg Appeal; former
science journalist; magazine editor; French nationality.
===============
Philip Morris
Dr. S. Fred Singer, Director the Science and Environmental Policy
Project
Date: 08 Mar 1993 (est.)
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2021178209.html
===============
Brown & Williamson
Public Affairs Strategies.
Date: 1900
Length: 4 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bw/1059809.html
(#8) SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT From a strategic
standpoint, we believed the most effective way to publicize the report
would be through a credibl]e highly respected "third party".
So we brought the report to the attention of the 'Science &
Environmental Policy Project", SEPP, as it is known, is a Fairfax,
Va., think-tank that studies and analyzes how science is used in
federal policy-making and encourages the use of sound science. After
reading the CRS report, SEPP was equally concerned the EPA's
conclusions and agreed more visibility was in or@er.
{#9) SEPP NEWS RELEASE With B&W's assistance, SEEP launched a media
relations campaign in January calling attention to the "Top Five
Environmental Myths of 1995." While such issues as "global warming"
and radon were on the list, the focus was on ETS.
(#10) WASHINGTON TIMES "OP ED" In addition to news releases, SEPP
wrote "Op ed" pieces and conducted interviews on radio and television.
SEPP is continuing the "environmental myths" campaign, extending
discussion of the subject to speeches by Dr. Fred Singer, SEPP's
executive director. It's one strategy to help balance the debate.
===============
Mayo Clinic
Length: 37 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/85002238.html
THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR A SCIENTIFIC ECOLOGY The Center has been
created at the beginning of 1993 under the French law for nomprolit
organizations.
The Board of the Center includes in particular:
- Mr Pierre Joly. President of the Association Francaise pour la
Recherche Therapeutique : former President of the International
Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association ;
- Mr Constant Burg. honorary member of the State Council ; honorary
managing director of INSERM : President of the lnstitut Curie:
- Mr Gilbert Rutman. chief mining engineer: President of the Conseil
Natioflal des Ingenieurs et des Scientifiques de France:
- Prof. S. Fred Singer. Doctor of Physical Science : President of the
Science & Environmental Policy Project : former Director US Weather
Satellite Program : Dean of the School of Environmental Sciences.
University of Miami : Deputy Assistant Administrator of US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) :
- Mr Gary Nash. Secretary General of the International Council on
Metals and the Environment (ICME) : former Director General in the
Canada Department of Energy. Mines und Resources :
- Dr. Michel Salomon, coordinator of the Heidelberg Appeal ; former
science journalist : magazine editor.
===============
Philip Morris
Top Five Environmental Policy "Myths" of 950000 to Be Released by
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Date: 1995 (est.)
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2065122118.html
===============
Philip Morris
the Delaney Clause - Linchpin of the Environmental Policy Edifice
Date: 10 May 1993
Length: 4 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2501171259-1262.html
The Delaney Clause-Linchpin of the Environmental Policy Edifice Prof.
S. Fred Singer
S. Fred Singer Director, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Arlington, Virginia
===============
Philip Morris
Junk Science at the Epa
Date: 08 Mar 1993 (est.)
Length: 3 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2021178206-8208.html
S. Fred Singer Visiting fellovv at the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University and President of the Washington. D C.-baed Science &
Environrnental Policy Project
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2065122122.html
Philip Morris
Sepp - Environmental Myths of 950000 - Smt Participant Broadcast
Details
Date: 1995 (est.)
Length: 1 page
===============
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2065122119-2121.html
Philip Morris
Top Five Environmental Policy "Myths" of 950000 to Be Released by
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Date: 10 Jan 1996
Length: 3 pages
===============
Philip Morris
Seminar of 930510 on the Linear Relationship
Date: 31 Mar 1993
Length: 3 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028443741-3743.html
Opening speech by Chairman of the Seminar, Prof. Bruce N. Ames
(Biologist'4 Dir., Nat. Inst. of EnvironmentallHealth Sciences Center,
Berkeley, U.S.A.). 9/9.20 a.m. · How biofogically based modeis may
help extrapolating cancer risk to low doses.
· The Delaney amendment and its consequences on the American
regufation. Prof. S. Fred Singer (Physicist, former Dir., US Weather
Satellite Program; President, Science & Environmental Policy Project,
U'.S.A.). 10.20/10.30 a.m.
Noon · Case studies: Predictions and reality. - The Arsenic case.
Prof. Gerhard Stohrer (former chief, Dept!. of chemical risk, Research
Inst. Sloan-Kettering~ U.S.A.).
The DDT case. Dr. William Hazeltine (Ph.D., entomo!bgist, former
Manager of mosquito abatement in California, U.S:A.).
===============
Philip Morris
Update 930419
Date: 19 Apr 1993
Length: 7 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025475593-5599.html
CONFERENCE/MEETING: Scientific Integrity in the Public Process
SPONSOR: International Institute of George Mason University and the
Science and Environmental Policy Project DATE: May 24-25, 1993
LOCATION: The Madison Hotel, Washington, DC TELEPHONE NUMBER:
703-993-8200
===============
BATCo
[Note from Heather Cooke to Tom Fitzgerald regarding report issued by
The Science & Environmental Policy Project SEPP]
Date: 27 Feb 1996
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/batco/700520244.html
BRITISH-AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED To: FACSIMILE MR TOM
FITZGERALD I From: HEATHER COOKE Company: Brown & Williamson Phone
01784 448045 'Tobacco Corp Number: Fax No: Fax No: 0"784 448654 Date:
27/02/96 Pages To Follow: 3 Comments: I am trying to get hold of a
report issued by The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
which relates to the attached press release. Do you have a copy that
you can fax to me or know where I might be able to get hold of a copy?
Many thanks Heather Cooke Administrator, Smoking Issues
===============
Philip Morris
Toxic Policy at Dead End: the Case of Arsenic
Date: 10 May 1993 (est.)
Length: 6 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2502146148-6153.html
International Center for a Scientific Ecology Seminar on linear risk
assessment May 10, 1993 Toxic Policy at Dead End: The Case of Arsenic
Gerhard Strohrer Science and Environmental Policy Project 2101 Wilson
Boulevard, Suite 1003 Arlington, Virginia 22201
===============
Philip Morris
Give Industry A Bigger Science Rol
Date: 19921229/P
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2074144040.html
Patrick J. Michaels is associate professor of environmental sciences
at the University Virginia and is affiliated with the Washington-based
Science & Environment Policy Project. The Science & Environmental
Policy Project, 2101 Wilson Blvd., #1003, Arlington, VA 22201 .(703)
527-0130
===============