Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
More photos of the eclipse from Albuquerque
31 views
Skip to first unread message
Chris L Peterson
May 24, 2012, 3:05:04 PM5/24/12
to
I drove down from Colorado to be on the centerline. Perfect conditions
for viewing (with my Coronado H-alpha scope) and imaging (in white
light). I might have also caught a green flash right at sunset, along
the eclipsed limb. Pretty cool
http://www.cloudbait.com/gallery/solar/20120520_eclipse.html
for viewing (with my Coronado H-alpha scope) and imaging (in white
light). I might have also caught a green flash right at sunset, along
the eclipsed limb. Pretty cool
http://www.cloudbait.com/gallery/solar/20120520_eclipse.html
Sam Wormley
May 24, 2012, 3:56:22 PM5/24/12
to
palsing
May 24, 2012, 3:58:44 PM5/24/12
to
Davoud
May 24, 2012, 4:32:59 PM5/24/12
to
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> http://www.cloudbait.com/gallery/solar/20120520_eclipse.html
*****
You did a great job -- that was a worthy and productive trip! You
weren't on Sandia Peak, by any chance? As a child of maybe 12 or 13 I
did some terrestrial and astro observing from the peak with a local
club that my brother hooked me up with. My brother was a police officer
in Albuquerque and a student at UNM at the time. I was really wowed by
the great 'scopes and by the fact that the sky was not obscured by coal
and steel-mill smoke.
Neither I nor anyone I knew back home in Pennsylvania could afford a
'scope, and we didn't even have access to ATM knowledge--though I
already knew from a trip to Buhl Planetarium in Pittsburgh that one day
I would own a Questar. My Questar is 30 years old this year and I
expect to use it for white-light photography of the ToV on 5 June if
the sky is clear.
On that subject, we were fogged out here for the June, 2004 Transit of
Venus. I am not by nature a pessimistic person, but I am utterly
persuaded that we will be clouded out on June 5. My primary care
physician is not optimistic about me getting another crack at it in
2117.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
> http://www.cloudbait.com/gallery/solar/20120520_eclipse.html
*****
You did a great job -- that was a worthy and productive trip! You
weren't on Sandia Peak, by any chance? As a child of maybe 12 or 13 I
did some terrestrial and astro observing from the peak with a local
club that my brother hooked me up with. My brother was a police officer
in Albuquerque and a student at UNM at the time. I was really wowed by
the great 'scopes and by the fact that the sky was not obscured by coal
and steel-mill smoke.
Neither I nor anyone I knew back home in Pennsylvania could afford a
'scope, and we didn't even have access to ATM knowledge--though I
already knew from a trip to Buhl Planetarium in Pittsburgh that one day
I would own a Questar. My Questar is 30 years old this year and I
expect to use it for white-light photography of the ToV on 5 June if
the sky is clear.
On that subject, we were fogged out here for the June, 2004 Transit of
Venus. I am not by nature a pessimistic person, but I am utterly
persuaded that we will be clouded out on June 5. My primary care
physician is not optimistic about me getting another crack at it in
2117.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Chris L Peterson
May 24, 2012, 4:44:55 PM5/24/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 16:32:59 -0400, Davoud <st...@sky.net> wrote:
>You did a great job -- that was a worthy and productive trip! You
>weren't on Sandia Peak, by any chance?
Thanks. No, I opted to avoid the peak. Thought there might be a
>You did a great job -- that was a worthy and productive trip! You
>weren't on Sandia Peak, by any chance?
traffic jam on the tramway, and didn't want to haul my stuff up there.
Much simpler to be next to the car- up on the lowest slopes of the
peak, but that's all.
>On that subject, we were fogged out here for the June, 2004 Transit of
>Venus. I am not by nature a pessimistic person, but I am utterly
>persuaded that we will be clouded out on June 5. My primary care
>physician is not optimistic about me getting another crack at it in
>2117.
Bill Owen
May 24, 2012, 6:51:56 PM5/24/12
to
Davoud wrote:
> On that subject, we were fogged out here for the June, 2004 Transit of
> Venus. I am not by nature a pessimistic person, but I am utterly
> persuaded that we will be clouded out on June 5.
I went back to my old high school outside Baltimore for the 2004
> On that subject, we were fogged out here for the June, 2004 Transit of
> Venus. I am not by nature a pessimistic person, but I am utterly
> persuaded that we will be clouded out on June 5.
transit. It was foggy at sunrise -- just enough so that we could look
safely through the fog without filters and see the sun with that big
black dot on it.
*That* was impressive. Maybe we'll get lots of haze here in LA at
sunset on June 5. Davoud, maybe you'll get just the right optical depth
in your clouds too.
-- Bill
P.S. Yeah, 2117 is probably out of the question. I'm willing to settle
for the return of 1P/Halley in 2061. I'll be only 107. Could happen.
Ben
May 25, 2012, 3:19:39 AM5/25/12
to
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:05:04 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
wsne...@hotmail.com
May 26, 2012, 8:24:14 AM5/26/12
to
On May 24, 4:32 pm, Davoud <s...@sky.net> wrote:
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >http://www.cloudbait.com/gallery/solar/20120520_eclipse.html
>
> *****
>
> You did a great job -- that was a worthy and productive trip! You
> weren't on Sandia Peak, by any chance? As a child of maybe 12 or 13 I
> did some terrestrial and astro observing from the peak with a local
> club that my brother hooked me up with. My brother was a police officer
> in Albuquerque and a student at UNM at the time. I was really wowed by
> the great 'scopes and by the fact that the sky was not obscured by coal
> and steel-mill smoke.
>
> Neither I nor anyone I knew back home in Pennsylvania could afford a
> 'scope, and we didn't even have access to ATM knowledge--though I
> already knew from a trip to Buhl Planetarium in Pittsburgh that one day
> I would own a Questar. My Questar is 30 years old this year and I
> expect to use it for white-light photography of the ToV on 5 June if
> the sky is clear.
>
> On that subject, we were fogged out here for the June, 2004 Transit of
> Venus. I am not by nature a pessimistic person, but I am utterly
> persuaded that we will be clouded out on June 5. My primary care
> physician is not optimistic about me getting another crack at it in
> 2117.
It isn't as if the transit is only visible from a small part of the
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >http://www.cloudbait.com/gallery/solar/20120520_eclipse.html
>
> *****
>
> You did a great job -- that was a worthy and productive trip! You
> weren't on Sandia Peak, by any chance? As a child of maybe 12 or 13 I
> did some terrestrial and astro observing from the peak with a local
> club that my brother hooked me up with. My brother was a police officer
> in Albuquerque and a student at UNM at the time. I was really wowed by
> the great 'scopes and by the fact that the sky was not obscured by coal
> and steel-mill smoke.
>
> Neither I nor anyone I knew back home in Pennsylvania could afford a
> 'scope, and we didn't even have access to ATM knowledge--though I
> already knew from a trip to Buhl Planetarium in Pittsburgh that one day
> I would own a Questar. My Questar is 30 years old this year and I
> expect to use it for white-light photography of the ToV on 5 June if
> the sky is clear.
>
> On that subject, we were fogged out here for the June, 2004 Transit of
> Venus. I am not by nature a pessimistic person, but I am utterly
> persuaded that we will be clouded out on June 5. My primary care
> physician is not optimistic about me getting another crack at it in
> 2117.
planet.
OTOH, a dedicated warmingista would refrain from frivolous travel in
order to keep his carbon footprint in check. After all, even a 600
mile round trip by car would cause the addition of several hundred
pounds of CO2 to the Earth's fragile atmosphere. That amount is a
significant fraction of what a person in the developing world (few of
whom chase eclipses or transits) might generate in an entire year.
(An annular eclipse is visible as a partial over a wide area, negating
the "need" to travel to the centerline.)
Chris L Peterson
May 26, 2012, 10:13:33 AM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 05:24:14 -0700 (PDT), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>It isn't as if the transit is only visible from a small part of the
>planet.
From much of the world. About the only places where it won't be
>It isn't as if the transit is only visible from a small part of the
>planet.
visible are Spain and Portugal, the western third of Africa, and a big
chunk of South America. (No luck in Antarctica, either.) It looks like
somewhere around 90% of the Earth's population have an opportunity to
view this without any travel.
>OTOH, a dedicated warmingista would refrain from frivolous travel in
>order to keep his carbon footprint in check.
(or "warministas" at all), I guess there's no problem.
>(An annular eclipse is visible as a partial over a wide area, negating
>the "need" to travel to the centerline.)
annular, you need to be on the centerline, which is necessarily
narrow.
wsne...@hotmail.com
May 26, 2012, 1:38:28 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 10:13 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
Sun, avoidance of clouds, etc.)
> >OTOH, a dedicated warmingista would refrain from frivolous travel in
> >order to keep his carbon footprint in check.
>
> Well, since "dedicated warministas" are a figment of your imagination
> (or "warministas" at all), I guess there's no problem.
Owl Bore, and countless other hypocrites fall under the category of
warmingista, ie, those who wish to politicize the issue, and to goad
and coerce others into doing as they say (but not as they do,
usually.)
> >(An annular eclipse is visible as a partial over a wide area, negating
> >the "need" to travel to the centerline.)
>
> Only if you want to see a partial eclipse. If you want to see it as
> annular, you need to be on the centerline, which is necessarily
> narrow.
The dedicated warmingista wanting (but not needing, of course) to
travel to see an event:
www.greyhound.com
www.schwinn.com
www.thewalkingsite.com/shoes.html
www.apparent-wind.com/sailboat-manufacturers.html
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 05:24:14 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >It isn't as if the transit is only visible from a small part of the
> >planet.
>
> From much of the world. About the only places where it won't be
> visible are Spain and Portugal, the western third of Africa, and a big
> chunk of South America. (No luck in Antarctica, either.) It looks like
> somewhere around 90% of the Earth's population have an opportunity to
> view this without any travel.
Except perhaps to get a better view (whole transit, higher altitude of
> >It isn't as if the transit is only visible from a small part of the
> >planet.
>
> From much of the world. About the only places where it won't be
> visible are Spain and Portugal, the western third of Africa, and a big
> chunk of South America. (No luck in Antarctica, either.) It looks like
> somewhere around 90% of the Earth's population have an opportunity to
> view this without any travel.
Sun, avoidance of clouds, etc.)
> >OTOH, a dedicated warmingista would refrain from frivolous travel in
> >order to keep his carbon footprint in check.
>
> Well, since "dedicated warministas" are a figment of your imagination
> (or "warministas" at all), I guess there's no problem.
warmingista, ie, those who wish to politicize the issue, and to goad
and coerce others into doing as they say (but not as they do,
usually.)
> >(An annular eclipse is visible as a partial over a wide area, negating
> >the "need" to travel to the centerline.)
>
> Only if you want to see a partial eclipse. If you want to see it as
> annular, you need to be on the centerline, which is necessarily
> narrow.
travel to see an event:
www.greyhound.com
www.schwinn.com
www.thewalkingsite.com/shoes.html
www.apparent-wind.com/sailboat-manufacturers.html
Chris L Peterson
May 26, 2012, 1:47:37 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:38:28 -0700 (PDT), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Except perhaps to get a better view (whole transit, higher altitude of
>Sun, avoidance of clouds, etc.)
Of course. Nevertheless, most people will be able to see the transit
>Except perhaps to get a better view (whole transit, higher altitude of
>Sun, avoidance of clouds, etc.)
without a need for significant travel.
>Owl Bore, and countless other hypocrites fall under the category of
>warmingista, ie, those who wish to politicize the issue, and to goad
>and coerce others into doing as they say (but not as they do,
>usually.)
the science deniers and those who find themselves economically
threatened by mitigation measures.
wsne...@hotmail.com
May 26, 2012, 2:15:49 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 1:47 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
No, the _skeptics_ recognize the inevitable abuse of mitigation
measures, measures which the warmingistas will find ways to avoid in
any case. A warmingista said something to the effect "I fly commercial
whenever possible" in response to questions about his use of private
jets.
measures, measures which the warmingistas will find ways to avoid in
any case. A warmingista said something to the effect "I fly commercial
whenever possible" in response to questions about his use of private
jets.
Chris L Peterson
May 26, 2012, 2:21:26 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:15:49 -0700 (PDT), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>No, the _skeptics_ recognize the inevitable abuse of mitigation
>measures, measures which the warmingistas will find ways to avoid in
>any case. A warmingista said something to the effect "I fly commercial
>whenever possible" in response to questions about his use of private
>jets.
Well, I'll simply consider the use of terms like "Owl Bore" and
>No, the _skeptics_ recognize the inevitable abuse of mitigation
>measures, measures which the warmingistas will find ways to avoid in
>any case. A warmingista said something to the effect "I fly commercial
>whenever possible" in response to questions about his use of private
>jets.
"warminista" to be very strong indicators that the speaker has nothing
of substance to offer.
wsne...@hotmail.com
May 26, 2012, 4:02:24 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 2:21 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
The terms sum up the lack of integrity of those to whom they apply.
So you drove instead of taking a bus, which has a much smaller carbon
footprint per passenger-mile?
So you drove instead of taking a bus, which has a much smaller carbon
footprint per passenger-mile?
Chris L Peterson
May 26, 2012, 4:49:52 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:02:24 -0700 (PDT), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>So you drove instead of taking a bus, which has a much smaller carbon
>footprint per passenger-mile?
I drove because it was the most appropriate way for me to make my
>So you drove instead of taking a bus, which has a much smaller carbon
>footprint per passenger-mile?
trip. Only people like you believe that anybody with an interest in
reducing human carbon output needs to go live in a cave.
wsne...@hotmail.com
May 28, 2012, 7:40:22 AM5/28/12
to
On May 26, 4:49 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
However, I am sure that you travel by motorcoach "whenever possible"
right?
> Only people like you believe that anybody with an interest in
> reducing human carbon output needs to go live in a cave.
For someone who despises the oil companies so much, you sure are quick
to take advantage of the products they have to offer. Or maybe you go
around collecting used fryer grease from fast food joints in your
neighborhood to run your bio-diesel car?
Traveling by bus is a big step up from living in a cave. But maybe you
deserve to live in a cave.
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:02:24 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >So you drove instead of taking a bus, which has a much smaller carbon
> >footprint per passenger-mile?
>
> I drove because it was the most appropriate way for me to make my
> trip.
You drove because it was the most _convenient_ way to make the trip.
> >So you drove instead of taking a bus, which has a much smaller carbon
> >footprint per passenger-mile?
>
> I drove because it was the most appropriate way for me to make my
> trip.
However, I am sure that you travel by motorcoach "whenever possible"
right?
> Only people like you believe that anybody with an interest in
> reducing human carbon output needs to go live in a cave.
to take advantage of the products they have to offer. Or maybe you go
around collecting used fryer grease from fast food joints in your
neighborhood to run your bio-diesel car?
Traveling by bus is a big step up from living in a cave. But maybe you
deserve to live in a cave.
meow
May 28, 2012, 8:22:14 AM5/28/12
to
<wsne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> OTOH, a dedicated warmingista would refrain from frivolous travel in
> order to keep his carbon footprint in check. After all, even a 600
> mile round trip by car would cause the addition of several hundred
> pounds of CO2 to the Earth's fragile atmosphere. That amount is a
> significant fraction of what a person in the developing world (few of
> whom chase eclipses or transits) might generate in an entire year.
What would your opinion be of someone who rented a BMW 520d
> OTOH, a dedicated warmingista would refrain from frivolous travel in
> order to keep his carbon footprint in check. After all, even a 600
> mile round trip by car would cause the addition of several hundred
> pounds of CO2 to the Earth's fragile atmosphere. That amount is a
> significant fraction of what a person in the developing world (few of
> whom chase eclipses or transits) might generate in an entire year.
(they don't own a car) just so they could have a smug driving experience
to the eclipse (and they left the engine running so their dog could be
cooled by the air-conditioning while the owner viewed the eclipse)?
Chris L Peterson
May 28, 2012, 10:31:10 AM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 04:40:22 -0700 (PDT), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>You drove because it was the most _convenient_ way to make the trip.
>However, I am sure that you travel by motorcoach "whenever possible"
>right?
Your arguments (I'm being charitable using that word) are really too
>You drove because it was the most _convenient_ way to make the trip.
>However, I am sure that you travel by motorcoach "whenever possible"
>right?
inane to respond to.
Davoud
May 28, 2012, 10:41:49 AM5/28/12
to
meow:
The answer to your question supports the assertion that there multiple
facets to practically every issue.
On the one hand, empirical evidence shows that the BMW driver is likely
to be more smug and self-entitled than, say, the Hyundai driver. Or
even the average Mercedes driver, who tends to be self-assured. I'm
sure that all of our gentle readers understand that this is not a
blanket assertion that BMW drivers are smug and self-entitled. Indeed,
scientifically conducted surveys consistently show that between 0.5 and
1% of all BMW drivers are humble, self-effacing people who are neither
nouveau riche a-holes nor wannabes who happen to be able to get a car
loan. Coincidentally, surveys show that the same percentage know how to
drive a high-performance car.
On the other hand, a BMW driver who leaves the air conditioner running
so that their dog will be safe and comfortable while the driver is not
in the car most certainly has a streak of redeeming kindness.
> What would your opinion be of someone who rented a BMW 520d
> (they don't own a car) just so they could have a smug driving experience
> to the eclipse (and they left the engine running so their dog could be
> cooled by the air-conditioning while the owner viewed the eclipse)?
My apology in advance, because your question was not directed to me.
> (they don't own a car) just so they could have a smug driving experience
> to the eclipse (and they left the engine running so their dog could be
> cooled by the air-conditioning while the owner viewed the eclipse)?
The answer to your question supports the assertion that there multiple
facets to practically every issue.
On the one hand, empirical evidence shows that the BMW driver is likely
to be more smug and self-entitled than, say, the Hyundai driver. Or
even the average Mercedes driver, who tends to be self-assured. I'm
sure that all of our gentle readers understand that this is not a
blanket assertion that BMW drivers are smug and self-entitled. Indeed,
scientifically conducted surveys consistently show that between 0.5 and
1% of all BMW drivers are humble, self-effacing people who are neither
nouveau riche a-holes nor wannabes who happen to be able to get a car
loan. Coincidentally, surveys show that the same percentage know how to
drive a high-performance car.
On the other hand, a BMW driver who leaves the air conditioner running
so that their dog will be safe and comfortable while the driver is not
in the car most certainly has a streak of redeeming kindness.
Quadibloc
May 28, 2012, 12:26:54 PM5/28/12
to
On May 28, 5:40 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> For someone who despises the oil companies so much, you sure are quick
> to take advantage of the products they have to offer. Or maybe you go
> around collecting used fryer grease from fast food joints in your
> neighborhood to run your bio-diesel car?
>
> Traveling by bus is a big step up from living in a cave. But maybe you
> deserve to live in a cave.
The problem with this kind of argument isn't in the argument itself,
> For someone who despises the oil companies so much, you sure are quick
> to take advantage of the products they have to offer. Or maybe you go
> around collecting used fryer grease from fast food joints in your
> neighborhood to run your bio-diesel car?
>
> Traveling by bus is a big step up from living in a cave. But maybe you
> deserve to live in a cave.
it's in the goal it serves.
People have to live in the world the way they find it. And one person
making sacrifices isn't going to make a big enough change to the total
world carbon output to change global warming.
So one person just living up to his principles and not using a car...
is pretty much all downside and no upside. It doesn't prevent global
warming from happening.
So, although individuals _should_ be responsible, and not use gasoline
wastefully, those individual decisions aren't likely to add up to
*solving the problem*. No. For that, you need big old government
forcing everyone to do his part, even when that part hurts.
And if you don't like that for ideological reasons, or if your
politics has blinded you to the science, well, I don't really care.
Mind you, I *am* against us all going back to living in caves. My
answer, therefore, is nuclear power.
No use of fossil fuels for electrical power generation or home heating
- where hydroelectricity is not available, then nuclear. (Maybe stuff
like geothermal, tide farms, wind farms, solar power... if it can be
made to work with reasonably limited environmental impact, but that
kind of warm and fuzzy stuff is *not* what we can count on.)
People take trolley buses and electrically-powered trains to commute
to work; gas rationing ensures that. But they get to use their cars
occasionally to go out to the country on long weekends and so on -
America is a prosperous land, and so we don't begrudge people their
small luxuries.
As long as girls expect guys to have cars to go out on dates with
them, we will need cars.
John Savard
Chris L Peterson
May 28, 2012, 12:37:54 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 09:26:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>So, although individuals _should_ be responsible, and not use gasoline
>wastefully, those individual decisions aren't likely to add up to
>*solving the problem*. No. For that, you need big old government
>forcing everyone to do his part, even when that part hurts.
And a key idea here is "waste". It is not implicitly wasteful to use
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>So, although individuals _should_ be responsible, and not use gasoline
>wastefully, those individual decisions aren't likely to add up to
>*solving the problem*. No. For that, you need big old government
>forcing everyone to do his part, even when that part hurts.
energy- even for luxuries, like heating swimming pools. There is
nothing wrong with people taking advantage of what technology has to
offer- indeed, to suggest they do otherwise is simply asking for
social policy that will fail.
What is wasteful is not taking advantage of opportunities to conserve.
The reality is, everybody can find ways to reduce their carbon
footprint without impacting their lifestyles at all- no sacrifice
required. That difference in output is wastage, and that's the first
place to address. Not telling people to skip vacations because the
planes are dirty. Not telling people to take the bus when there are
obvious advantages to them to use a car. If everybody simply made
simple, painless changes that reduced their carbon output by a few
percent, that would be vastly more important than a few fanatics
eschewing all modern technology and the advantages it provides.
Of course, if people won't do that voluntarily, then it is the
responsibility of government to facilitate the process- for instance,
by mandating fuel standards, subsidizing public transport, requiring
certain energy efficiencies, and taxing dirty energy sources.
Quadibloc
May 28, 2012, 4:58:43 PM5/28/12
to
On May 28, 10:37 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> What is wasteful is not taking advantage of opportunities to conserve.
> The reality is, everybody can find ways to reduce their carbon
> footprint without impacting their lifestyles at all- no sacrifice
> required. That difference in output is wastage, and that's the first
> place to address.
Certainly it is the first place to address. And that made sense back
> What is wasteful is not taking advantage of opportunities to conserve.
> The reality is, everybody can find ways to reduce their carbon
> footprint without impacting their lifestyles at all- no sacrifice
> required. That difference in output is wastage, and that's the first
> place to address.
when the only problem was that some of our oil had to be imported from
the Middle East.
The current problem of global warming, however, requires massive
reductions in carbon dioxide output to avoid problems. And they're
required quickly as well.
That's why the next step - which also doesn't involve much in the way
of sacrifice - converting to nuclear power is needed.
Fortunately, China and India are both countries whose use of nuclear
reactors poses no additional proliferation problem. If North Korea and
the countries of Africa continue to use fossil fuels, that won't be
too serious.
Unfortunately, though, we don't yet have an ideal way to run existing
cars in a carbon-free fashion. I suppose that with enough electricity,
we can make carbon-neutral gasoline from carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere and water, but that sounds to me almost as impractical as
carbon sequestration.
And I'm not prepared to tell people to eat a lot less meat - even
though this is another greenhouse problem. (I don't think a dent can
be made by switching from beef to pork or chicken or even fish... but
if it could, that might work.)
John Savard
Chris L Peterson
May 28, 2012, 7:29:18 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 13:58:43 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>The current problem of global warming, however, requires massive
>reductions in carbon dioxide output to avoid problems. And they're
>required quickly as well.
That is true, but you have to start somewhere.
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>The current problem of global warming, however, requires massive
>reductions in carbon dioxide output to avoid problems. And they're
>required quickly as well.
>That's why the next step - which also doesn't involve much in the way
>of sacrifice - converting to nuclear power is needed.
disagreement here is mainly on economic grounds, not environmental
ones. I happen to think that for a much smaller investment we could be
utilizing the Sun for a large part of our energy needs... via a
combination of photovoltaic, thermal, and photochemical means (the
latter having the advantage that it's consistent with our current
liquid energy infrastructure).
Chris.B
May 29, 2012, 2:39:01 AM5/29/12
to
On May 28, 10:58 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> That's why the next step - which also doesn't involve much in the way
> of sacrifice - converting to nuclear power is needed.
>
> John Savard
>
> That's why the next step - which also doesn't involve much in the way
> of sacrifice - converting to nuclear power is needed.
>
Tell it to the Tuna!
I have sacrificed myself. God knows I have laid myself daily upon the
bloody, sacrificial stone. To ride a bicycle to the shops instead of
using the car. All I read in the papers is about drunken youth and
senile old men mowing down cyclists willy nilly. Left, right and
centre we fall like chaff before their insane charge to be absolutely
nowhere five minutes ago. To save time? For what?
It's hell out there and we cyclists have by far the lowest status of
any user of the public roads! We cyclists should be shining, bronzed
gods in these climate wars! Heaped with rewards for our sterling
efforts in saving the planet against our massed, motorised foes.
When did the driver's seconds saved equal our loss of years? How many
cyclists and equally brave pedestrians suffer an early death at the
hands of a banned, uninsured, insanely impatient, juvenile, homeless,
drunk and drugged driver in an uninsured, unroadworthy rust bucket
with no road tax? Or just another ordinary driver using their mobile
telephone while speeding, texting, smoking, drinking and eating
simultaneously?
Where do I queue for my medal for valour in the face of such
overwhelming odds against survival? Who will benefit from my lifetime
of CO2 savings? Will my sacrifice mean a funeral with full military
honours and a mention on the TV News headlines around the globe? Will
a glistening white stone be raised on some close-cropped lawn in
memory of my contribution to the survival of all mankind against the
vast, alien horde of filthy oil abusers?
Answers, on a postcard please, to:
meow
May 29, 2012, 6:49:54 AM5/29/12
to
"Davoud" <st...@sky.net> wrote:
> meow:
> > What would your opinion be of someone who rented a BMW 520d
> > (they don't own a car) just so they could have a smug driving experience
> > to the eclipse (and they left the engine running so their dog could be
> > cooled by the air-conditioning while the owner viewed the eclipse)?
>
> My apology in advance, because your question was not directed to me.
No apology necessary; I'm flattered that you took the time to respond to my silly
> meow:
> > What would your opinion be of someone who rented a BMW 520d
> > (they don't own a car) just so they could have a smug driving experience
> > to the eclipse (and they left the engine running so their dog could be
> > cooled by the air-conditioning while the owner viewed the eclipse)?
>
> My apology in advance, because your question was not directed to me.
little post.
> The answer to your question supports the assertion that there multiple
> facets to practically every issue.
>
> On the one hand, empirical evidence shows that the BMW driver is likely
> to be more smug and self-entitled than, say, the Hyundai driver. Or
> even the average Mercedes driver, who tends to be self-assured. I'm
> sure that all of our gentle readers understand that this is not a
> blanket assertion that BMW drivers are smug and self-entitled. Indeed,
> scientifically conducted surveys consistently show that between 0.5 and
> 1% of all BMW drivers are humble, self-effacing people who are neither
> nouveau riche a-holes nor wannabes who happen to be able to get a car
> loan. Coincidentally, surveys show that the same percentage know how to
> drive a high-performance car.
> On the other hand, a BMW driver who leaves the air conditioner running
> so that their dog will be safe and comfortable while the driver is not
> in the car most certainly has a streak of redeeming kindness.
on my driving to feel smug, but I did enjoy the jealous glances when parked. :-)
meow
May 29, 2012, 6:50:40 AM5/29/12
to
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> As long as girls expect guys to have cars to go out on dates with
> them, we will need cars.
The future of the human race is in the hands of auto makers? I will sleep
> As long as girls expect guys to have cars to go out on dates with
> them, we will need cars.
soundly tonight...
meow
May 29, 2012, 6:50:58 AM5/29/12
to
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote:
> I have sacrificed myself. God knows I have laid myself daily upon the
> bloody, sacrificial stone. To ride a bicycle to the shops instead of
> using the car.
are drivers like myself on it (inexperienced guy driving a powerful car
that I had just rented).
Davoud
May 29, 2012, 9:25:09 AM5/29/12
to
Quadibloc:
minority, of high-schoolers living in NYC have a car? They do not. The
same is true of many others across age groups and income levels. Yet
these people date and travel around the city (and the country and the
world if they can). I have a good friend who lives in Manhattan--a
physician--who has never owned a car and never had a driver's license.
And probably never wished he had. Ditto his wife, also from Manhattan.
They met and dated and married, all without ever being in a private
car. Or even taxis very much. Bus and subway.
I know people who live in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany who date
the same way, except they throw bicycles into the mix. The same is true
in many cities around the world. I have also observed that there is a
correlation between progressive vs. regressive thinking and auto
ownership in the cities. The more progressive a city dweller is, the
less likely s/he is to own a car.
> > As long as girls expect guys to have cars to go out on dates with
> > them, we will need cars.
meow:
> > them, we will need cars.
> The future of the human race is in the hands of auto makers? I will sleep
> soundly tonight...
I wonder of Quadibloc thinks that the majority, or even a sizable
> soundly tonight...
minority, of high-schoolers living in NYC have a car? They do not. The
same is true of many others across age groups and income levels. Yet
these people date and travel around the city (and the country and the
world if they can). I have a good friend who lives in Manhattan--a
physician--who has never owned a car and never had a driver's license.
And probably never wished he had. Ditto his wife, also from Manhattan.
They met and dated and married, all without ever being in a private
car. Or even taxis very much. Bus and subway.
I know people who live in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany who date
the same way, except they throw bicycles into the mix. The same is true
in many cities around the world. I have also observed that there is a
correlation between progressive vs. regressive thinking and auto
ownership in the cities. The more progressive a city dweller is, the
less likely s/he is to own a car.
Chris.B
May 29, 2012, 12:02:18 PM5/29/12
to
On May 29, 3:25 pm, Davoud <s...@sky.net> wrote:
>
> I know people who live in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany who date
> the same way, except they throw bicycles into the mix. The same is true
> in many cities around the world. I have also observed that there is a
> correlation between progressive vs. regressive thinking and auto
> ownership in the cities. The more progressive a city dweller is, the
> less likely s/he is to own a car.
Indeed. Though there are other factors at work here. We are told that
>
> I know people who live in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany who date
> the same way, except they throw bicycles into the mix. The same is true
> in many cities around the world. I have also observed that there is a
> correlation between progressive vs. regressive thinking and auto
> ownership in the cities. The more progressive a city dweller is, the
> less likely s/he is to own a car.
humanity is choosing to live in cities. Many cities lack parking
spaces for every occupant. Parking grows increasingly more expensive,
exclusive or impossibly difficult for the commuter and city inhabitant
alike. City property prices are higher than in the countryside. This
puts further economic pressures on would-be car owners. Many cities
are grid-locked at certain times of the day. Cycling, or even running,
have been much faster than driving, over some routes, for probably the
last 50 years. Driving requires concentration if it is to be done
well. This precludes the always-connected from being adequately
connected. Though, god knows, they try! Car ownership may offer a
certain freedom but completely isolates the driver from social
interaction. Those actively looking for a partner may never meet
another human being, face to face, if they drive everywhere. Road rage
situations are not ideal for forming a relationship. Bumping into
another pedestrian is. A bicycle is an ice-breaker at the traffic
lights and supermarket, cycle parking rack. ;-)
wsne...@hotmail.com
May 29, 2012, 8:08:35 PM5/29/12
to
On May 28, 10:31 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
even to an eclipse path.
Do you ever travel by bus? Those vehicles have the potential to
obtain 300+ passenger miles per gallon of diesel.
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 04:40:22 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >You drove because it was the most _convenient_ way to make the trip.
> >However, I am sure that you travel by motorcoach "whenever possible"
> >right?
>
> Your arguments (I'm being charitable using that word) are really too
> inane to respond to.
It certainly isn't inane to suggest that a warmingista ride the bus,
> >You drove because it was the most _convenient_ way to make the trip.
> >However, I am sure that you travel by motorcoach "whenever possible"
> >right?
>
> Your arguments (I'm being charitable using that word) are really too
> inane to respond to.
even to an eclipse path.
Do you ever travel by bus? Those vehicles have the potential to
obtain 300+ passenger miles per gallon of diesel.
wsne...@hotmail.com
May 29, 2012, 8:14:56 PM5/29/12
to
On May 28, 8:22 am, "meow" <c...@milkyway.nit> wrote:
The dog might be the bigger problem WRT carbon emissions:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/pet-dogs-damaging-environment-suvs/story?id=9402234#.T8Vldc1QBFs
OTOH as long as you aren't a faux-green, hypocritical climate
alarmist, who expects everyone else to cut back, your mode of
transport wouldn't matter.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/pet-dogs-damaging-environment-suvs/story?id=9402234#.T8Vldc1QBFs
OTOH as long as you aren't a faux-green, hypocritical climate
alarmist, who expects everyone else to cut back, your mode of
transport wouldn't matter.
wsne...@hotmail.com
May 29, 2012, 8:50:31 PM5/29/12
to
On May 28, 12:37 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 09:26:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 09:26:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>
> <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >So, although individuals _should_ be responsible, and not use gasoline
> >wastefully, those individual decisions aren't likely to add up to
> >*solving the problem*. No. For that, you need big old government
> >forcing everyone to do his part, even when that part hurts.
>
> And a key idea here is "waste". It is not implicitly wasteful to use
> energy- even for luxuries, like heating swimming pools.
Most people get along perfectly well without heated swimming pools.
> >So, although individuals _should_ be responsible, and not use gasoline
> >wastefully, those individual decisions aren't likely to add up to
> >*solving the problem*. No. For that, you need big old government
> >forcing everyone to do his part, even when that part hurts.
>
> And a key idea here is "waste". It is not implicitly wasteful to use
> energy- even for luxuries, like heating swimming pools.
If the planet is really in as dire a situation as the warmingistas
would have everyone believe, they would see such luxuries as a waste.
The CO2 might be better "spent" on food and other necessities.
> There is
> nothing wrong with people taking advantage of what technology has to
> offer- indeed, to suggest they do otherwise is simply asking for
> social policy that will fail.
> What is wasteful is not taking advantage of opportunities to conserve.
> The reality is, everybody can find ways to reduce their carbon
> footprint without impacting their lifestyles at all- no sacrifice
> required.
conserve (ie, not you.)
> That difference in output is wastage, and that's the first
> place to address. Not telling people to skip vacations because the
> planes are dirty. Not telling people to take the bus when there are
> obvious advantages to them to use a car.
see... other people driving to work = waste. Peterson driving
hundreds of miles on a joy ride, when a bus ride would have saved CO2
emissions = not waste.
> If everybody simply made
> simple, painless changes that reduced their carbon output by a few
> percent, that would be vastly more important than a few fanatics
> eschewing all modern technology and the advantages it provides.
50%, 75%, 90% or more by taking the bus.
> Of course, if people won't do that voluntarily, then it is the
> responsibility of government to facilitate the process- for instance,
> by mandating fuel standards,
> subsidizing public transport,
Theft. And even then you would have to force people to ride it.
> requiring
> certain energy efficiencies, and taxing dirty energy sources.
wsne...@hotmail.com
May 29, 2012, 8:52:59 PM5/29/12
to
On May 28, 7:29 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 13:58:43 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 13:58:43 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>
> <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >The current problem of global warming, however, requires massive
> >reductions in carbon dioxide output to avoid problems. And they're
> >required quickly as well.
>
> That is true, but you have to start somewhere.
You should have said "we" or "I" not just "you." Typical warmingista.
> >The current problem of global warming, however, requires massive
> >reductions in carbon dioxide output to avoid problems. And they're
> >required quickly as well.
>
> That is true, but you have to start somewhere.
wsne...@hotmail.com
May 29, 2012, 11:27:59 PM5/29/12
to
On May 28, 12:26 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On May 28, 5:40 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > For someone who despises the oil companies so much, you sure are quick
> > to take advantage of the products they have to offer. Or maybe you go
> > around collecting used fryer grease from fast food joints in your
> > neighborhood to run your bio-diesel car?
>
> > Traveling by bus is a big step up from living in a cave. But maybe you
> > deserve to live in a cave.
>
> The problem with this kind of argument isn't in the argument itself,
> it's in the goal it serves.
>
> People have to live in the world the way they find it. And one person
> making sacrifices isn't going to make a big enough change to the total
> world carbon output to change global warming.
>
> So one person just living up to his principles and not using a car...
(Or private jet)
> On May 28, 5:40 am, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > For someone who despises the oil companies so much, you sure are quick
> > to take advantage of the products they have to offer. Or maybe you go
> > around collecting used fryer grease from fast food joints in your
> > neighborhood to run your bio-diesel car?
>
> > Traveling by bus is a big step up from living in a cave. But maybe you
> > deserve to live in a cave.
>
> The problem with this kind of argument isn't in the argument itself,
> it's in the goal it serves.
>
> People have to live in the world the way they find it. And one person
> making sacrifices isn't going to make a big enough change to the total
> world carbon output to change global warming.
>
> So one person just living up to his principles and not using a car...
> is pretty much all downside and no upside. It doesn't prevent global
> warming from happening.
> So, although individuals _should_ be responsible, and not use gasoline
> wastefully, those individual decisions aren't likely to add up to
> *solving the problem*. No. For that, you need big old government
> forcing everyone to do his part, even when that part hurts.
"do his part."
The warmingistas themselves have no intention of cutting back in any
significant way.
> And if you don't like that for ideological reasons, or if your
> politics has blinded you to the science, well, I don't really care.
> Mind you, I *am* against us all going back to living in caves. My
> answer, therefore, is nuclear power.
>
> No use of fossil fuels for electrical power generation or home heating
> - where hydroelectricity is not available, then nuclear. (Maybe stuff
> like geothermal, tide farms, wind farms, solar power... if it can be
> made to work with reasonably limited environmental impact, but that
> kind of warm and fuzzy stuff is *not* what we can count on.)
>
> People take trolley buses and electrically-powered trains to commute
> to work; gas rationing ensures that. But they get to use their cars
> occasionally to go out to the country on long weekends and so on -
> America is a prosperous land, and so we don't begrudge people their
> small luxuries.
"begrudge."
> As long as girls expect guys to have cars to go out on dates with
> them, we will need cars.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/desmond-hatchett-30-kids_n_1528850.html
I doubt that he has a car.
0 new messages