phenol from biomass
pawa...@pobox.com
Is it possible to make phenol, fromaldehyde and adhesives from biomass. I need infrormation about it.
Pawan
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
"Uncle Al" Schwartz
Sure you can make phenol from cellulose, and it is an insanely stupid,
inefficient, and expensive (Environmentally correct) thing to do.
(C6H10 O5)n to C6H5OH. Do the stoichiometry at 100% yield. Never mind
that the chemistry of each step of the transformation is uniformly
crappy. Horrors. Phenol is incredibly cheap to make via
petrochemistry, and the byproduct (acetone by the old process) is
salable as well.
Formaldehyde comes from air oxidation of methanol, which can be isolated
by destructive distillation of wood to pyroligneous acid. It worked in
the 17th Century. Today we take synthesis gas CO + H2 from steam
reforming of carbon and blow it over Cu/ZnO catalyst. It goes like
gangbusters in about 100% yield and selectivity. Methanol to
formaldehyde is likewise beautiful over platinum gauze in air, for
instance. The kinetics are so good that the gauze will glow red hot.
(Envronmentalists hate good engineering - it makes them look like
fools. Small effort, that.)
If you want Eco-adhesive (expensive and crappy), take whey (or fat-free
milk - another gift from the Pleasure Police), and precipitate the
casein by adding vinegar. Collect the damp goo and neutralize the acid
with sodium bicarbonate (baking soda or, or... trona! Rape of the
Earth!) The foamy white mess is an adequate adhesive for cellulostics
if you don't care about aesthetics or engineering specs.
Environmentalism is that philosophy and dialectic opposed to progress in
its every form.
(Hey, >South< Dakota, how 'bout that Green House incineration of the
Earth and your
-87 degree F wind chill factors! Hey Europe, is it COLD enough for
you? Hey California Central Valley, how 'bout that Green House
desiccation of all arable land, and your new inland sea?)
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
Uncl...@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Jay Hanson
Peter Hernes wrote:
> First of all, the weather can't even be predicted reliably more than one
> day in advance because the atmosphere is a chaotic system -- what makes
> you think that the Green House effect is going to UNIFORMLY increase the
> temperature of every spot on the globe at all times?
Hi Peter,
I ran into a student who works claims to with John Christy
at the University of Alabama. The student says that
satellite observations do NOT show global warming.
But according to Paul Ehrlich in BETRAYAL OF SCIENCE AND REASON:
"In the past, skeptics about global warming have cited the
satellite data. But Dr. [John R.] Christy [of the University
of Alabama and coauthor of the original satellite paper]
said that even the rate of warming measured from the
satellites has begun to move into the range scientists
expect to result from human-caused warming."
Are you familliar with this issue? What does the satellite
data show now?
Jay
Jay Hanson
Peter Hernes wrote:
> First of all, the weather can't even be predicted reliably more than one
> day in advance because the atmosphere is a chaotic system -- what makes
> you think that the Green House effect is going to UNIFORMLY increase the
> temperature of every spot on the globe at all times?
Hi Peter,
I ran into a student who works claims to with John Christie
"Uncle Al" Schwartz
Peter Hernes wrote:
>
> > Environmentalism is that philosophy and dialectic opposed to progress in
> > its every form.
> >
> > (Hey, >South< Dakota, how 'bout that Green House incineration of the
> > Earth and your
> > -87 degree F wind chill factors! Hey Europe, is it COLD enough for
> > you? Hey California Central Valley, how 'bout that Green House
> > desiccation of all arable land, and your new inland sea?)
>
> -87 wind chill in SoDak, BUT maybe it's time to replace simplistic ideas
> about what the Green House effect will do to the earth's climate with
> common sense and reality.
Quick summary of what follows:
1) Data which supports the Green House Effect supports it.
2) Data which ignores the Green House Effect supports it
3) Data which contradicts the Green House Effect supports it - needs
more study.
4) Anyone who disagrees is obviously unfit to judge.
"Higher average temperatures" are elicited by the measurements being
made in what is now cement and asphalt urban (vs. what was transpiring
leafy rural) environs. The Green House Effect is a pile of
Environmentalist progandistic swill fit to feed to spotted owls (which
happily eat rats in Home Base lumberyards).
Keep Occam's Razor honed.
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
Uncl...@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
> First of all, the weather can't even be predicted reliably more than one
> day in advance because the atmosphere is a chaotic system -- what makes
> you think that the Green House effect is going to UNIFORMLY increase the
> temperature of every spot on the globe at all times?
>
> Second, there are actually TWO things going on with gas emissions due to
> industry, cars, etc. 1) green house gases are causing an increase in
> AVERAGE temperature across the globe (lest you still disagree with this,
> consider that they just handed out a Nobel prize for work that shows this
> -- the green house effect is mainstream science now, not just some
> environmental extremism. They don't hand out Nobel prizes for quack
> science) 2) sulfur dioxide emissions cause a DECREASE in average
> temperature. To correctly look at the effects of gas emissions on
> temperature, you have to plot BOTH types and compare them with average
> temps. What you get is a stunning overlap -- in places like the eastern
> U.S., Europe, Russia, and areas of China where local emissions of sulfur
> dioxide are high enough to compete with or overwhelm green house gases,
> the temperature has gone DOWN. In the rest of the world where sulfur
> dioxide emissions aren't significant, but green house gases have
> increased, temperature has gone UP.
>
> Third, weather patterns in the U.S. are driven to a large extent by the
> position of the Jet stream. The green house effect essentially mimics an
> El Nino effect, in which warmer water in the tropical Pacific forces the
> Jet stream over the Pacific farther north. Models show that the primary
> warming effects of green house gases will be in the tropical oceans
> because the intensity of the sun is the highest there, hence the
> similarity to El Nino. In any case, pushing the Jet stream farther north
> in the Pacific means that more arctic air will get pulled down into the
> the U.S., hence, -87 in SoDak.
>
> I agree that "environmentalism" has become extreme in many cases, and that
> is unfortunate precisely because it causes people to act in the OTHER
> extreme to counter it. However, don't throw out the baby with the bath
> water. The kernel of truth is still there in the "environmental"
> movement -- that is, that we have a finite amount of resources on this
> planet and we need to be good stewards of them.
>
> Peter Hernes
Leonard Evens
Peter Hernes wrote:
>
> I realize that it's popular to bash the Green House effect when there is
> -87 wind chill in SoDak, BUT maybe it's time to replace simplistic ideas
> about what the Green House effect will do to the earth's climate with
> common sense and reality.
>
> First of all, the weather can't even be predicted reliably more than one
> day in advance because the atmosphere is a chaotic system -- what makes
> you think that the Green House effect is going to UNIFORMLY increase the
> temperature of every spot on the globe at all times?
Good point. People might be interested in looking at
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/Data/GISTEMP/TIanom.ann.gif
which shows how different areas varied from the overall increase
during 1996.
>
> Second, there are actually TWO things going on with gas emissions due to
> industry, cars, etc. 1) green house gases are causing an increase in
> AVERAGE temperature across the globe (lest you still disagree with this,
> consider that they just handed out a Nobel prize for work that shows this
I think you are confusing two different things. The Nobel Prize in
Chemistry was awarded for work on the relation between CFCs and ozone
depletion.
This has essentially nothing to do with the question of global warming.
(CFCs are in fact greenhouse gases, but that was not particularly
relevant
to the awarding of the prize.)
> -- the green house effect is mainstream science now, not just some
> environmental extremism. They don't hand out Nobel prizes for quack
> science) 2) sulfur dioxide emissions cause a DECREASE in average
> temperature. To correctly look at the effects of gas emissions on
> temperature, you have to plot BOTH types and compare them with average
> temps. What you get is a stunning overlap -- in places like the eastern
> U.S., Europe, Russia, and areas of China where local emissions of sulfur
> dioxide are high enough to compete with or overwhelm green house gases,
> the temperature has gone DOWN. In the rest of the world where sulfur
> dioxide emissions aren't significant, but green house gases have
> increased, temperature has gone UP.
There may be some elements of truth in your assertion, but I don't think
it is anything close to being that simple. There are some differences
between
the Northern and Southern hemispheres and they may be related to sulfate
aerosols, but I don't think anyone claims such a simple direct relation.
>
> Third, weather patterns in the U.S. are driven to a large extent by the
> position of the Jet stream. The green house effect essentially mimics an
> El Nino effect, in which warmer water in the tropical Pacific forces the
> Jet stream over the Pacific farther north. Models show that the primary
> warming effects of green house gases will be in the tropical oceans
> because the intensity of the sun is the highest there, hence the
> similarity to El Nino. In any case, pushing the Jet stream farther north
> in the Pacific means that more arctic air will get pulled down into the
> the U.S., hence, -87 in SoDak.
>
I only wish everything were so straightforward.
> I agree that "environmentalism" has become extreme in many cases, and that
> is unfortunate precisely because it causes people to act in the OTHER
> extreme to counter it. However, don't throw out the baby with the bath
> water. The kernel of truth is still there in the "environmental"
> movement -- that is, that we have a finite amount of resources on this
> planet and we need to be good stewards of them.
>
> Peter Hernes
I think your heart may be in the right place, but you have quite a lot
to learn.
One good place to start is the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change which presents virtually everything that is known and
extensive bibliographies. Jan Schoerer also regularly posts a short
FAQ on the subject in sci.environment which is well worth reading and
also contains useful references.
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois
Peter Hernes
> Environmentalism is that philosophy and dialectic opposed to progress in
> its every form.
>
> (Hey, >South< Dakota, how 'bout that Green House incineration of the
> Earth and your
> -87 degree F wind chill factors! Hey Europe, is it COLD enough for
> you? Hey California Central Valley, how 'bout that Green House
> desiccation of all arable land, and your new inland sea?)
I realize that it's popular to bash the Green House effect when there is
-87 wind chill in SoDak, BUT maybe it's time to replace simplistic ideas
about what the Green House effect will do to the earth's climate with
common sense and reality.
First of all, the weather can't even be predicted reliably more than one
day in advance because the atmosphere is a chaotic system -- what makes
you think that the Green House effect is going to UNIFORMLY increase the
temperature of every spot on the globe at all times?
Second, there are actually TWO things going on with gas emissions due to
industry, cars, etc. 1) green house gases are causing an increase in
AVERAGE temperature across the globe (lest you still disagree with this,
consider that they just handed out a Nobel prize for work that shows this
-- the green house effect is mainstream science now, not just some
environmental extremism. They don't hand out Nobel prizes for quack
science) 2) sulfur dioxide emissions cause a DECREASE in average
temperature. To correctly look at the effects of gas emissions on
temperature, you have to plot BOTH types and compare them with average
temps. What you get is a stunning overlap -- in places like the eastern
U.S., Europe, Russia, and areas of China where local emissions of sulfur
dioxide are high enough to compete with or overwhelm green house gases,
the temperature has gone DOWN. In the rest of the world where sulfur
dioxide emissions aren't significant, but green house gases have
increased, temperature has gone UP.
Third, weather patterns in the U.S. are driven to a large extent by the
position of the Jet stream. The green house effect essentially mimics an
El Nino effect, in which warmer water in the tropical Pacific forces the
Jet stream over the Pacific farther north. Models show that the primary
warming effects of green house gases will be in the tropical oceans
because the intensity of the sun is the highest there, hence the
similarity to El Nino. In any case, pushing the Jet stream farther north
in the Pacific means that more arctic air will get pulled down into the
the U.S., hence, -87 in SoDak.
I agree that "environmentalism" has become extreme in many cases, and that
Steve Segrest
The webpage PointCounterpoint at http://www2.vivid.net/~ses/point.html
gives a quick overview of two very different opinions of what is going
on in the global warming debate.
Leonard Evens
"Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
>
> Peter Hernes wrote:
> >
> > > Environmentalism is that philosophy and dialectic opposed to progress in
> > > its every form.
> > >
> > > (Hey, >South< Dakota, how 'bout that Green House incineration of the
> > > Earth and your
> > > -87 degree F wind chill factors! Hey Europe, is it COLD enough for
> > > you? Hey California Central Valley, how 'bout that Green House
> > > desiccation of all arable land, and your new inland sea?)
> >
> > I realize that it's popular to bash the Green House effect when there is
> > -87 wind chill in SoDak, BUT maybe it's time to replace simplistic ideas
> > about what the Green House effect will do to the earth's climate with
> > common sense and reality.
>
>
> 1) Data which supports the Green House Effect supports it.
> 2) Data which ignores the Green House Effect supports it
> 3) Data which contradicts the Green House Effect supports it - needs
> more study.
> 4) Anyone who disagrees is obviously unfit to judge.
>
> "Higher average temperatures" are elicited by the measurements being
> made in what is now cement and asphalt urban (vs. what was transpiring
> leafy rural) environs. The Green House Effect is a pile of
> Environmentalist progandistic swill fit to feed to spotted owls (which
> happily eat rats in Home Base lumberyards).
>
> Keep Occam's Razor honed.
> --
> Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
> Uncl...@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
> http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
>
>
now you are simply proceding by argument by assertion of personal
belief. Why in the world should anyone pay any attention to your
personal beliefs? What qualifications do you have? Have you published
any of your contentions in peer reviewed scientific journals?
Please refer to the IPCC Reports which discusses the issue of urban
heat island effects. This issue has been thoroughly explored and it
does not suffice to explain what appears to be observed warming.
The issue of whether or not we have observed warming due to enhanced
greenhouse radiative forcing is quite complex. There are in fact
reasonable arguments which critics have raised. But I don't think you
have the foggiest idea what they are. If you are going to engage in
polemics on this issue, you should at least arm yourself with sensible
arguments instead of engaging in simple minded arguments not
particularly supported by the data.
Greg Chaudion
"Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
> 1) HCHO is an Official carcinogen, especially after it was found that
> urea-formaldehyde foams were a cheap, safe, and effective way to
> insulate the walls of old houses,
Gee, Uncle Al, when did you get so bitter. You used to seem so nice
when you had your "Uncle Al show" on channel 9 in Cincinnati, OH.
Did Wendy but you through a nasty divorce and take all the props
from the show.
Well, Unc, all I can say is that the old school engineers like you are
a dying breed, which I consider to be a good thing.
Paul F. Dietz
"\"Uncle Al\" Schwartz" <#Uncl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>If you want Eco-adhesive (expensive and crappy), take whey (or fat-free
>milk - another gift from the Pleasure Police), and precipitate the
>casein by adding vinegar.
I don't know if it's an "Eco"-adhesive, but aren't there resins in use
today that are made with furfural or a related compound and
formaldehyde? Furfural is made by acid treatment of xylose derived
from oat hulls.
Paul
Michael Tobis
Steve Segrest (ste...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: The webpage PointCounterpoint at http://www2.vivid.net/~ses/point.html
: gives a quick overview of two very different opinions of what is going
: on in the global warming debate.
This isn't the web, it's television. There's no supporting evidence and
no links to any further discussion in either "discussion".
Of course, people expect no better, but this sort of "balance" is no
help whatsoever.
mt
"Uncle Al" Schwartz
Bill McEachern wrote:
>
> "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
> >snip
> >
> > ....Sure you can make phenol from cellulose, and it is an insanely stupid,
> > inefficient, and expensive (Environmentally correct) thing to do.
> > (C6H10 O5)n to C6H5OH. Do the stoichiometry at 100% yield. Never mind
> > that the chemistry of each step of the transformation is uniformly
>
> It is not such a problem if you can start with pyrolosis oil.
>
> Bill McEachern
> bil...@helix.net
Uncle Al stands corrected:
....Sure you can make pyrolysis oil from cellulose, and it is an insanely
stupid, inefficient, and expensive (Environmentally correct) thing to
do. Do the stoichiometry at 100% yield. Never mind that the chemistry
of the transformation is uniformly crappy.
Bill, I remind you of the recipe for Gypsy chicken. It begins...
"First, steal a chicken."
Cellulose to aromatics is a way to convert silage into government
subsidy.
Corn into ethanol gets a $0.57/gallon government subsidy on the way to
gasohol,
plus tax breaks and subsidies on the growing. It make more sense to
pyrolyze
politicans for their lipids.
Lloyd R. Parker
\"Uncle Al\" Schwartz (#Uncl...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:
: Quick summary of what follows:
:
: 1) Data which supports the Green House Effect supports it.
: 2) Data which ignores the Green House Effect supports it
: 3) Data which contradicts the Green House Effect supports it - needs
: more study.
: 4) Anyone who disagrees is obviously unfit to judge.
:
: "Higher average temperatures" are elicited by the measurements being
: made in what is now cement and asphalt urban (vs. what was transpiring
: leafy rural) environs. The Green House Effect is a pile of
: Environmentalist progandistic swill fit to feed to spotted owls (which
: happily eat rats in Home Base lumberyards).
Not so. We've seen the tree line in the Alps retreat further uphill, for
example. The cold winter in Europe and the US is blamed, in part, on
warmer Pacific Ocean temperatures. Not much asphalt in the Pacific Ocean!
"Uncle Al" Schwartz
Said adhesives are indeed in production, but the are not Environmentally
sound:
1) HCHO is an Official carcinogen, especially after it was found that
urea-formaldehyde foams were a cheap, safe, and effective way to
insulate the walls of old houses,
2) These resins are made of >chemicals<, you Eco-terrorist,
3) Oat hulls are a waste product whose subsequent conversion
generates profit. To be Environmentally sound the oat hulls would need
be grown as the main product (toss away the oats in a landfill - don't
burn them!), in the absence of fertilizers or pesticides on a no-tillage
privately-owned farm, and with massive government subsidies to produce a
product that nobody wants even at the subsidized price. (Check out a
recent "Science" on no-shade coffee plantations. I'm not fabricating
any of this.)
4) Said resins are often used as binders for sand casting metal. THE
DEVIL WALKS ABROAD AND HIS NAME IS ENGINEERING!
(BTW, my error, whey won't do it for casein glue. It's main use is to
pollute waterways. The only possible remediation is petition drives.)
Bill McEachern
pawa...@pobox.com wrote:
>
> Is it possible to make phenol, fromaldehyde and adhesives from biomass. I need infrormation about it.
>
> Pawan
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Yes it is. If you want to know more drop me a note.
Bill McEachern
bil...@helix.net
Bill McEachern
Peter Hernes
> > Second, there are actually TWO things going on with gas emissions due to
> > industry, cars, etc. 1) green house gases are causing an increase in
> > AVERAGE temperature across the globe (lest you still disagree with this,
> > consider that they just handed out a Nobel prize for work that shows this
>
> Chemistry was awarded for work on the relation between CFCs and ozone
> depletion.
> This has essentially nothing to do with the question of global warming.
> (CFCs are in fact greenhouse gases, but that was not particularly
> relevant
> to the awarding of the prize.)
You are correct. My mistake. That's what I get for writing off the cuff
-- I mixed up my climate connundrums.
However, I have been doing some followup on the greenhouse gas/SO2 issue.
My "source" for that was a talk given at the University of Washington,
so I asked the speaker for more information. Here is an excerpt of the
reply:
"Best recent summary of the internationally accepted view (1000
climate change scientists worldwide, >98% global consensus) is the 1995
IPCC Third Assessment (WMO/UNEP) available in the UW bookstore (Houghton
et
al, eds, 1996, Cambridge Univ Press).
Follow-on articles on sulfate forcing are appearing regularly in
Nature and in Science, all tracable to the seminal work by our own
Professor Robert Charlson (At Sci and Chemistry)--for a popular version,
see his Sci Am article (270:pp 48-57,1994).
The inclusion of the sulfate regional cooling is widely considered as
responsible for the IPCC statement (first time!) that the findgerprint of
human activity is discernible in the observed climate record."
> > science) 2) sulfur dioxide emissions cause a DECREASE in average
> > temperature. To correctly look at the effects of gas emissions on
> > temperature, you have to plot BOTH types and compare them with average
> > temps. What you get is a stunning overlap -- in places like the eastern
> > U.S., Europe, Russia, and areas of China where local emissions of sulfur
> > dioxide are high enough to compete with or overwhelm green house gases,
> > the temperature has gone DOWN. In the rest of the world where sulfur
> > dioxide emissions aren't significant, but green house gases have
> > increased, temperature has gone UP.
>
> There may be some elements of truth in your assertion, but I don't think
> it is anything close to being that simple. There are some differences
> between
> the Northern and Southern hemispheres and they may be related to sulfate
> aerosols, but I don't think anyone claims such a simple direct relation.
See above reference.
> > Third, weather patterns in the U.S. are driven to a large extent by the
> > position of the Jet stream. The green house effect essentially mimics an
> > El Nino effect, in which warmer water in the tropical Pacific forces the
> > Jet stream over the Pacific farther north. Models show that the primary
> > warming effects of green house gases will be in the tropical oceans
> > because the intensity of the sun is the highest there, hence the
> > similarity to El Nino. In any case, pushing the Jet stream farther north
> > in the Pacific means that more arctic air will get pulled down into the
> > the U.S., hence, -87 in SoDak.
>
> I only wish everything were so straightforward.
Of course it's not that straightforward, but at least it's closer to
reality than the notion that the greenhouse effect will cause all temps to
go up uniformly across the globe, which is what I was trying to counter
by my original post. I realize the models have limitations (some of them
extreme), but it's a place to start, and one of the outputs of the models
is precisely the assertion that the tropics will warm and the jet stream
will be forced north. If we have any understanding at all of what happens
in an El Nino year, this could be considered common sense.
> > I agree that "environmentalism" has become extreme in many cases, and that
> > is unfortunate precisely because it causes people to act in the OTHER
> > extreme to counter it. However, don't throw out the baby with the bath
> > water. The kernel of truth is still there in the "environmental"
> > movement -- that is, that we have a finite amount of resources on this
> > planet and we need to be good stewards of them.
> I think your heart may be in the right place, but you have quite a lot
> to learn.
Don't we all have a lot to learn? Have you ever met anyone who didn't
(other than Uncle Al, of course)?
A curious statement . . .
> One good place to start is the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on
> Climate Change which presents virtually everything that is known and
> extensive bibliographies. Jan Schoerer also regularly posts a short
> FAQ on the subject in sci.environment which is well worth reading and
> also contains useful references.
That's two plugs for the IPCC report -- I'll add it to my "To Do" list.
Are you familiar with the report that was cited to me above? Did you
reach the same conclusion, i.e. that for the first time, humanity's
fingerprint on global temps is now discernable?
Peter Hernes
_____________________________________________________________________
Peter J. Hernes Tel. (206) 543-2155
University of Washington Fax (206) 543-0275
School of Oceanography
Box 357940
Seattle, WA 98195 pjhe...@u.washington.edu
Paul Farrar
In article <5c3962$i...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
And in the interest of good theatre, it's usual to have both "sides"
be represented by someone as far in opposite directions from the truth
as possible. This page certainly goes a long way in that policy.
Paul Farrar
James C. Allison
Leonard Evens wrote:
"Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:(with lots of snips)
> > "Higher average temperatures" are elicited by the measurements being
> > made in what is now cement and asphalt urban (vs. what was transpiring
> > leafy rural) environs. The Green House Effect is a pile of
> > Environmentalist progandistic swill fit to feed to spotted owls (which
> > happily eat rats in Home Base lumberyards).
> Would you please supply some evidence for your last statements? Right
> now you are simply proceding by argument by assertion of personal
> belief. Why in the world should anyone pay any attention to your
> personal beliefs? What qualifications do you have? Have you published
> any of your contentions in peer reviewed scientific journals?
>
> Please refer to the IPCC Reports which discusses the issue of urban
> heat island effects. This issue has been thoroughly explored and it
> does not suffice to explain what appears to be observed warming.
>
> The issue of whether or not we have observed warming due to enhanced
> greenhouse radiative forcing is quite complex. There are in fact
> reasonable arguments which critics have raised. But I don't think you
> have the foggiest idea what they are. If you are going to engage in
> polemics on this issue, you should at least arm yourself with sensible
> arguments instead of engaging in simple minded arguments not
> particularly supported by the data.
> Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
> Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
> Evanston Illinois
Uncle Al,
Are you going to let Leonard get away with this? %^D
--
Hang in there!
Regards and sincere best wishes
AllisonWonderland
---
CHECK OUT THE WEBPAGE AT
http://www.livingston.net/allison/home.htm
Comments welcome.
Steinn Sigurdsson
far...@datasync.com (Paul Farrar) writes:
> In article <5c3962$i...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
> Michael Tobis <to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >Steve Segrest (ste...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> >: The webpage PointCounterpoint at http://www2.vivid.net/~ses/point.html
> >: gives a quick overview of two very different opinions of what is going
> >: on in the global warming debate.
> >
> >This isn't the web, it's television. There's no supporting evidence and
> >no links to any further discussion in either "discussion".
> >
> >Of course, people expect no better, but this sort of "balance" is no
> >help whatsoever.
> And in the interest of good theatre, it's usual to have both "sides"
> be represented by someone as far in opposite directions from the truth
> as possible. This page certainly goes a long way in that policy.
A bit too far, and then some.
That web page is not a debate, the viewpoints presented
completely disregard the opposite view, and consist
mostly of somewhat insane soundbites. Bad use of the medium,
at least do a rebuttal phase and have some pretense of debate
rather than two orthogonal monologues.
"Uncle Al" Schwartz
Never argue with a fool - casual passersby cannot tell the difference.
However, if it floats your boat, THE EARTH IS IN THE GRIP OF A MASSIVE
COOLING TREND WHICH WILL IRREVOCABLY RESULT IN ANOTHER ICE AGE:
"Newsweek," 28 April 1975, Peter Gwynne
"International Wildlife," July 1975, Nigel Calder
"The Cooling," 1976, Lowell Ponte
"Global Ecology Readings Towards a Rational Stretegy for Man, 1971,
Reid Bryson
"Science," 09 July 1971, Dr. SI Rasool and Dr. SH Schneider.
The most sophisticated current climate models are incapable of
forecasting the weather two weeks in advance, much less 50 years into
the future. Perhaps this is because nobody knows anything about clouds,
and there are land masses and open sea to complicate smooth sphere
models - polar caps, jet streams, Third World throwbacks burning their
forests into ashes and their land into laterite, volcanoes,
Environmentalist landfills belching methane and carbon dioxide... All
together now: IT NEEDS MORE RESEARCH.
In the meanwhile, we will all panic to up the ante for grants.
Even a cursory look at climate data shows that if anything, days have
not gotten warmer, nights (when it gets colder) have gotten warmer. A
leveling of temperature extremes from the bottom up moves the mean
temperature without increasing any maximum. THE SKY IS FALLING!
MINI-ICE AGE! GREEN HOUSE EFFECT! If the treeline is moving north, it
is sopping up extravagant tonnages of CO2 (photosynthesis, you know -
palstic doesn't grow on trees) and keeping it sequestered for
centuries. Le Chatelier has the last laugh.
The Russian economy has utterly collapsed, and continues to contract
each year. Italy has a perpetual crisis of governent corruption and
stagnation. The whole of Hispanic America is a midden of Byzantine
Catholic degeneration. The British royal house has discovered a
downside to chronic inbreeding. If all these social, economic,
political, and agricultural travesties show no sign of serious internal
upset, I fail to see how another 100 ppm of CO2 in the air will move a
whole planet which has had 5 billion years to work out dynamic
equilibrium and homeostasis. Adding another jigger of Inda Ink to a
glass half-filled with India ink leaves it just as black.
Mark Friesel
"Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
>
....
>
> Never argue with a fool...
....nor listen to one.
Mark Friesel
Leonard Evens
I'm sorry I came down on you so strongly, but your mixing up ozone
depletion and climate change put me off.
My impression from what I have read is that the relation between
enhanced greenhouse warming and cyclic phenomena like El Nino is still
an open question with some work suggesting there may be such a relation.
If anyone knows anything more definitive, I would very much like to know
about it, since it seems to me to be a fairly crucial point since El
Nino, it seems fairly clear, has a dramatic effect on climate.
What you said above about sulfate aerosols I beliieve is correct, and
Charlson certainly seems to be one of the leading experts on that
subject. I found his Scientific American article very informative
at the time, but I believe it is already out of date. Climate Change
1995 contains more up to date information.
I wish both those worried about climate change and those skeptical about
it would read the IPCC Reports. One at least learns what the relevant
issues are and which questions need to be answered. If you insist on
finding information to support your position, you can find it on either
side in these Reports, but I would hope that all of us will try instead
to understand what is known rather than look for support for a
predetermined opinion.
As to your last question, after reading the famous Chapter 8 of Climate
Change 1995, I think the authors do in fact conclude that human
activities have probably affected climate, but they don't try to
quantify the amount of the effect. However, to be comepletely honest I
have to admit that they word things so carefully and include so many
caveats that it would not be irrational to conclude that the question is
still open. Personally I am convinced human activities have affected
climate since the beginning of the industrial revolution. More to the
point I believe that a doubling or worse of the CO_2 concentration (or
its equivalent in other greenhouse gases) will likely lead to
significant climate changes, but the timing and degree is uncertain.
I think it is imprudent to continue with this unplanned experiment in
global engineering, but I expect we will continue anyway.
_____________________________________________________________________
> Peter J. Hernes Tel. (206) 543-2155
> University of Washington Fax (206) 543-0275
> School of Oceanography
> Box 357940
> Seattle, WA 98195 pjhe...@u.washington.edu
--
Leonard Evens
> > > Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
> > > Evanston Illinois
>
> > Are you going to let Leonard get away with this? %^D
>
> Never argue with a fool - casual passersby cannot tell the difference.
> However, if it floats your boat, THE EARTH IS IN THE GRIP OF A MASSIVE
> COOLING TREND WHICH WILL IRREVOCABLY RESULT IN ANOTHER ICE AGE:
>
> "Newsweek," 28 April 1975, Peter Gwynne
> "International Wildlife," July 1975, Nigel Calder
> "The Cooling," 1976, Lowell Ponte
> "Global Ecology Readings Towards a Rational Stretegy for Man, 1971,
> Reid Bryson
> "Science," 09 July 1971, Dr. SI Rasool and Dr. SH Schneider.
>
I asked for references showing that observed warming over some relevant
period is due to increased urbanization which is approximately what Mr.
Schwartz claimed in the posting I was responding to. Instead, he calls
me names and changes the subject. Apparently we are now discussing
predictions of global cooling made over 20 years ago. I have not read
all the above above references, but I did read the Science article by
Rasool and Schneider. This has been the subject of extensive discussion
in sci.environment, and I posted a long discussion of what is in the
article and what followed in Science over the next decade under
Schneider's name. Rasool and Schneider did some rough calculations and
concluded that dust might predominate over greenhouse gases, but if my
memory serves me right, they made no striking predictions. They did
rule out the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect, and I think
most everyone agrees with that conclusion today. I felt the paper was
more like a thought experiment, and in any case the state of the art was
primitive enough at that time that all sorts of conjecture was
possible.(However, even in this paper, they remark that Manabe estimates
were different from theirs as to greenhouse warming.) By the end of
that decade, Schneider had clearly resolved the matter in his mind and
come down on the side of greenhouse warming predominating. However, it
should be noted that the issue of aerosol cooling has not gone away.
The latest analyses show that it plays a significant role. See Climate
Change 1995 for more discussion of this matter and how incorporating
both factors leads models to make predictions more consistent with
observations.
As to cooling, there is a very strong possibility that we will be
entering another glacial period at some time in the near (on a
geological time scale) term. After all we have been primarily in
a global ice age interspersed with interglacial periods for quite a long
time. But time scale is all important. Enhanced greenhouse warming
is something to be concerned about in the short term from a human point
of view, which is a very different matter.
> The most sophisticated current climate models are incapable of
> forecasting the weather two weeks in advance, much less 50 years into
> the future. Perhaps this is because nobody knows anything about clouds,
It is numerical _weather_ prediction computer models that in fact can't
predict _weather_ more than about four or five days in advance. It is
thought that it will never be possible to predict weather in this way
more than about two weeks because of `chaotic' behavior of the
underlying dynamical system. However, climate is not the same as
weather. It is the average of weather, and there is no reason why
climate models can't in principle predict climate many decades in
advance. In fact climate models predict quite a lot about climate,
e.g., seasons.
Even the weather models by the way are getting better at predicting the
general weather patterns weeks or more ahead if we don't insist on
detailed forecasts. There were articles about this in Science I believe
within the past couple of years, but I'm afraid I don't have the
references handy. {Perhaps some kind soul will provide them.
> and there are land masses and open sea to complicate smooth sphere
> models - polar caps, jet streams, Third World throwbacks burning their
> forests into ashes and their land into laterite, volcanoes,
> Environmentalist landfills belching methane and carbon dioxide... All
> together now: IT NEEDS MORE RESEARCH.
Well at least we agree on something. And I hope everyone who also
agrees lets his or her Congressional Representives know about it, since
Congress does not seem convinced more research is needed. All the
factors mentioned above by the way are discussed in the IPCC Reports
(except they don't engage in name calling about particular countries.)
> In the meanwhile, we will all panic to up the ante for grants.
>
> Even a cursory look at climate data shows that if anything, days have
> not gotten warmer, nights (when it gets colder) have gotten warmer. A
> leveling of temperature extremes from the bottom up moves the mean
> temperature without increasing any maximum. THE SKY IS FALLING!
> MINI-ICE AGE! GREEN HOUSE EFFECT! If the treeline is moving north, it
> is sopping up extravagant tonnages of CO2 (photosynthesis, you know -
> palstic doesn't grow on trees) and keeping it sequestered for
> centuries.
The Carbon models discussed in the IPCC Reports---see in particular
Climate Change 1994---already take into account take up of some of the
excess CO_2 by the biosphere. It is not enough to prevent further
buildup. It has been occuring for decades, will continue to occur, but
doesn't affect the predictions because it has been accounted for. Of
course, there may be surprises. On the one hand the biosphere could
start taking up much more CO_2 than expected, and on the other hand,
the northern tundras could thaw and release a lot of extra CO_2. To
assume that all certainties will break in the benign direction has no
rational justification.
> Le Chatelier has the last laugh.
>
Le Chatelier's Principle says things in stable equilibrium tend to
return to equilibrium if perturbed. As such it is a truism. But it
doesn't say if you apply a steady forcing to a system, it will respond
by returning to equilibrium. For example I am in stable equilibrium
on the second floor of my house, but if I step out the window I won't
continue to float there. Moreover, the earth has undergone rather
large changes over its lifetime. I agree that there is a human
tendency to believe that things won't change very much, at least in our
culture, but this is more wishful thinking than based on experience.
> The Russian economy has utterly collapsed, and continues to contract
> each year. Italy has a perpetual crisis of governent corruption and
> stagnation. The whole of Hispanic America is a midden of Byzantine
> Catholic degeneration. The British royal house has discovered a
> downside to chronic inbreeding. If all these social, economic,
> political, and agricultural travesties show no sign of serious internal
> upset, I fail to see how another 100 ppm of CO2 in the air will move a
> whole planet which has had 5 billion years to work out dynamic
> equilibrium and homeostasis. Adding another jigger of Inda Ink to a
> glass half-filled with India ink leaves it just as black.
>
I won't comment on the various insults to other cultures and the
Catholics.
According to IPCC estimates, if current policies are continued,
concentrations should rise to about 700 ppm by 2100 (compared to about
360 ppm now), which would be unprecedented for the entire time our
species has been on Earth. And of course it would not stop there. At
some point, we will have to limit emissions. It is just a question of
when. However, it is certain that as claimed above, the biosphere will
adjust somehow to such changes. The question is how well our societies
will adjust. Personally, I don't think this will mean the end of
humanity, but it may mean considerable dislocation and suffering.
If we can avoid some of this by prudent actions now, it is rational to
try to do so. As to the rest of the planet, there is a lot of evidence
of large losses of biodiversity, and climate change will excacerbate
this. After enough millions of years, the biosphere will certainly
recover, but I'm afraid I can't take quite that long term a view.
Gerfried Cebrat
Can someone give me an answer, if methane emission from bioenery and
compressed natural gas fuels (cars, busses, trucks) is still considered
as having a higher global warming potential than CO2 (at what time ranges
?). My figures are propably outdatet.
many thanks
best regards
--
DI. Gerfried Cebrat
email: g.ce...@aon.at NEW Homepage:
http://privat.schlund.de/CebratGerfried
Adress: Am Schlosshang 4, A- 8075 Hart bei Graz, Styria, Austria, Europe
Tel. +43/316/49 14 49, Fax: upon request
Catherine Renard
pawa...@pobox.com wrote:
>
> Is it possible to make phenol, fromaldehyde and adhesives from biomass. I need infrormation about it.
>
> Pawan
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Yes for phenol and adhesives, formaldehyde probably but I do not
know about that.
Phenol: wood is not composed only of cellulose, it contains also for a
not negligible % lignin, a phenylpropanoids polymer. Phenol from tar is
the original industrial process, more "astute" possibilities could
surely be possible.
>From the polysaccharides like cellulose it is possible to make by
dehydratation furan derivatives, which are "mimics" of the more
classic aromatics and lend themselves to a similar chemistry, which some
research groups are busy investigating.
Adhesives: lots of biomass-based glues have been/are used: the simple
"white glue" is based on starch (expensive? purified starch is less
than 0.5$ a kg). Collagen (from bones, fish bones, etc) is a very
good and traditionnal glue. A lot of more sophisticated glues are
based on pine tree resin, and these you have surely used already.
There is a lot of research now taking place on making adhesives
and printing inks from plant proteins like gluten, etc.
For more information on use of biomass-based chemicals, fibres etc,
the journal "Industrial Crops and Products", from Elsevier, could be
of interest to you.
C. Renard
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated signature for Catherine Renard in
netscape.
The views expressed in this message should be taken as the personal views
of
the author, unless stated otherwise.
Achim Recktenwald, PhD
Bill McEachern wrote:
>
> "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
Couldn't you start from lignin? Lignin is produced in the plant from
trans-cinnamic acid and phenolic derivatives.
Achim
Cost Engineering PL
>inefficient, and expensive (Environmentally correct) uniformly
>crappy. Horrors. (Envronmentalists hate good engineering - it makes them look like
>fools. Small effort, that.)
>(expensive and crappy), or fat-free
>milk - another gift from the Pleasure Police! Rape of the
>Earth!
>Environmentalism is that philosophy and dialectic opposed to progress in
>its every form.
>(Hey, >South< Dakota, how 'bout that Green House incineration of the
>Earth and your
>-87 degree F wind chill factors! Hey Europe, is it COLD enough for
>you? Hey California Central Valley, how 'bout that Green House
>desiccation of all arable land, and your new inland sea?)
Gee, Uncle Al... does the word "ulcer" mean anything to you?
Cheery-cheery bye-bye, sweetcakes...
Jim
"Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
>
> Peter Hernes wrote:
> >
> > > its every form.
> > >
> > > (Hey, >South< Dakota, how 'bout that Green House incineration of the
> > > Earth and your
> > > -87 degree F wind chill factors! Hey Europe, is it COLD enough for
> > > you? Hey California Central Valley, how 'bout that Green House
> > > desiccation of all arable land, and your new inland sea?)
> >
> > -87 wind chill in SoDak, BUT maybe it's time to replace simplistic ideas
> > about what the Green House effect will do to the earth's climate with
> > common sense and reality.
>
>
> 1) Data which supports the Green House Effect supports it.
> 2) Data which ignores the Green House Effect supports it
> 3) Data which contradicts the Green House Effect supports it - needs
> more study.
> 4) Anyone who disagrees is obviously unfit to judge.
>
> made in what is now cement and asphalt urban (vs. what was transpiring
> leafy rural) environs. The Green House Effect is a pile of
> Environmentalist progandistic swill fit to feed to spotted owls (which
> happily eat rats in Home Base lumberyards).
"The Green House Effect is a pile of Environmentalist progandistic swill
fit to feed to spotted owls" How have you come to that conclusion? Are
you at all aware of the mainstream position in current science that is
held by global warming? To say that global warming is only an idea in
environmental circles is absurd. It is a sound prediction based on known
fact. I will never cease to be amazed by the ability of ordinary people
with biases to come out and state that they know best how the earth
works, and all that research can be dispensed with.
Todd M. Bolton
>
> Peter Hernes wrote:
> >
A whole bunch of clipping
>
> I'm sorry I came down on you so strongly, but your mixing up ozone
> depletion and climate change put me off.
>
> My impression from what I have read is that the relation between
> enhanced greenhouse warming and cyclic phenomena like El Nino is still
> an open question with some work suggesting there may be such a relation.
> If anyone knows anything more definitive, I would very much like to know
> about it, since it seems to me to be a fairly crucial point since El
> Nino, it seems fairly clear, has a dramatic effect on climate.
>
A large number of disclaimers including "I am not a scientist or
even all that well read."gr
But I DO want to point out that many of the problems in reaching
consensus opinions on environmental issues result from inexact use and
understanding of words. I may be wrong, gr, but it is my opinion tha El
Nino has little if any global CLIMATIC effect. However it does have a
large effect on WEATHER patterns and therefor on LOCAL "climates." I
think this difference is as important as ozone depletion vs/ climate
change.gr
Peter Hernes
> Jim wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > "The Green House Effect is a pile of Environmentalist progandistic swill
> > fit to feed to spotted owls" How have you come to that conclusion? Are
> > you at all aware of the mainstream position in current science that is
> > held by global warming? To say that global warming is only an idea in
> > environmental circles is absurd. It is a sound prediction based on known
> > fact. I will never cease to be amazed by the ability of ordinary people
> > with biases to come out and state that they know best how the earth
> > works, and all that research can be dispensed with.
>
> support.
> What comes next, inescapable global nothing? There's damn little grant
> money in it.
People used to think irrefutably that the earth was at the center of
universe. Now they don't. They used to think that the earth was flat.
Now they don't. They used to think that atomic radiation was safe.
Now they don't. It's called a paradigm shift -- it's how science works.
For every scientific "fact" that you take for granted, you can find
people who believed they had irrefutable evidence that your fact is
wrong. You probably used to believe in Santa Claus. Why? Because you
had irrefutable evidence -- presents under the tree. Maybe we should take
everything that YOU say for granted because you were wrong on that one!
That would be silly, of course, because you sure as he!! know your
chemistry. Same thing here -- the global cooling ideas of the 70's
look pretty ridiculous right now, but that's part of how science grows.
Throw out bold ideas, and then try to prove or disprove them. That one
has been disproved, so get over it and move on.
"Uncle Al" Schwartz
Jim wrote:
[snip]
> "The Green House Effect is a pile of Environmentalist progandistic swill
> fit to feed to spotted owls" How have you come to that conclusion? Are
> you at all aware of the mainstream position in current science that is
> held by global warming? To say that global warming is only an idea in
> environmental circles is absurd. It is a sound prediction based on known
> fact. I will never cease to be amazed by the ability of ordinary people
> with biases to come out and state that they know best how the earth
> works, and all that research can be dispensed with.
Inescapable global cooling in the 1970s enjoyed the same irrefutable
support.
What comes next, inescapable global nothing? There's damn little grant
money in it.
--
yvind Seland
In article <32E805...@ix.netcom.com>, "\"Uncle Al\" Schwartz" <#Uncl...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> Jim wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > "The Green House Effect is a pile of Environmentalist progandistic swill
> > fit to feed to spotted owls" How have you come to that conclusion? Are
> > you at all aware of the mainstream position in current science that is
> > held by global warming? To say that global warming is only an idea in
> > environmental circles is absurd. It is a sound prediction based on known
> > fact. I will never cease to be amazed by the ability of ordinary people
> > with biases to come out and state that they know best how the earth
> > works, and all that research can be dispensed with.
>
> Inescapable global cooling in the 1970s enjoyed the same irrefutable
> support.
References please. A lot of people have made this claim, but none of them
have given any scientific references.
Oeyvind Seland
Seamus
At 11:19 23/01/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Hi Jim,
>
>I asked the last fellow why he was interested and he failed to provide me
>with much of an answer. I am looking for people that have some sort of
>commercial interest in this. We make bio-oil. I am looking for someone who
>wants to buy the products. If you fit drop me a note with some background on
>who you are and what you do.
>
Hi Bill,
We don`t meter out information here to people against
a c/v so I doubt that we will be hearing from you again either.
You made the offer of information and you wasted my time by making it
conditional in an insulting manner.
I am tempted to post you our Safety Policy together with our
policy on Racism.
Goodbye,
Jim.
Achim Recktenwald, PhD
Paul Farrar wrote:
>
> In article <5c3962$i...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
> Michael Tobis <to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >Steve Segrest (ste...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> >: The webpage PointCounterpoint at http://www2.vivid.net/~ses/point.html
> >: gives a quick overview of two very different opinions of what is going
> >: on in the global warming debate.
> >
> >This isn't the web, it's television. There's no supporting evidence and
> >no links to any further discussion in either "discussion".
> >
> >Of course, people expect no better, but this sort of "balance" is no
> >help whatsoever.
> >
> >
>
> And in the interest of good theatre, it's usual to have both "sides"
> be represented by someone as far in opposite directions from the truth
> as possible. This page certainly goes a long way in that policy.
>
Who wants truth? People want entertainment.
Achim
Bruce Hamilton
Leonard Evens <l...@math.nwu.edu> wrote:
>"Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
>> Never argue with a fool - casual passersby cannot tell the difference.
>> However, if it floats your boat, THE EARTH IS IN THE GRIP OF A MASSIVE
>> COOLING TREND WHICH WILL IRREVOCABLY RESULT IN ANOTHER ICE AGE:
>I asked for references showing that observed warming over some relevant
>period is due to increased urbanization which is approximately what Mr.
>Schwartz claimed in the posting I was responding to. Instead, he calls
>me names and changes the subject.
To Leonard Evens:-
You apparently don't visit sci.chem. Uncle Al is a prolific
poster there, and has an extensive knowledge of chemistry.
His posts are a mixture of actual facts, incorrect " facts ",
humour, acceptable opinions, and totally unacceptable
opinions. He's gathered quite a fan club there, but his
fallibility is also often obvious.
Choose parts that you want to respond to, ignore the
taunts, red herrings, and the associated junk opinions.
A visit to sci.chem will provide many examples of Uncle Al's
posting style.
To Uncle Al Schwartz:-
How you project yourself is purely your choice, but insulting
people who have established credibility in groups that you
obviously don't frequent achieves little. A visit to DejaNews
to check some postings from your victim wouldn't go amiss,
and a visit to sci.environment may find some of Leonard's
posts.
Leonard Evens is well known in sci.environment for his
thoughtful and careful explanations and discussions of
scientific environmental issues.
To other readers:-
I chose to post this, rather than email, just to point out that
when posts are crossposted, it sometimes pays to check
the credentials of the poster before making assumptions
about their knowledge and ability.
You can make up your own mind about who is more correct,
but anyone interested in the issues should consider reading
the IPCC assessments - consensus documents written by
a diverse range of nationally nominated experts. There is
also an excellent FAQ in sci.environment written by Jan
Schloerer " Climate Change: Some Basics, which wiill also
be available by FTP from the Usenet FAQ site rtfm.mit.edu in the
pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/sci/environment directory.
Bruce Hamilton
Jim
"Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
<CLIP>
>
> Never argue with a fool - casual passersby cannot tell the difference.
> However, if it floats your boat, THE EARTH IS IN THE GRIP OF A MASSIVE
> COOLING TREND WHICH WILL IRREVOCABLY RESULT IN ANOTHER ICE AGE:
>
> "Newsweek," 28 April 1975, Peter Gwynne
> "International Wildlife," July 1975, Nigel Calder
> "The Cooling," 1976, Lowell Ponte
> "Global Ecology Readings Towards a Rational Stretegy for Man, 1971,
> Reid Bryson
> "Science," 09 July 1971, Dr. SI Rasool and Dr. SH Schneider.
>
The issue of an eventual return to a glacial period and a short-term
transformation of the earth's climate by CO2 are 2 different matters
entirely, and happen over different time scales.
> The most sophisticated current climate models are incapable of
> forecasting the weather two weeks in advance, much less 50 years into
> the future.
You are confusing exact predictions with alterations of trends and
averages. Global warming predicts certain average quantities and
occurence rates to change, which is capable of being predicted. It does
not make predictions about precice positions of weather systems, which
remains in the realm of the unknowable beyond a few days. It is the same
difference between the daily forecast in the paper (a few days ahead),
and the 30-day outlook, which looks at the predicted average quantities
for the next month.
> Perhaps this is because nobody knows anything about clouds,
> and there are land masses and open sea to complicate smooth sphere
> models - polar caps, jet streams, Third World throwbacks burning their
> forests into ashes and their land into laterite, volcanoes,
> Environmentalist landfills belching methane and carbon dioxide... All
> together now: IT NEEDS MORE RESEARCH.
> In the meanwhile, we will all panic to up the ante for grants.
>
"Nobody knows anything". If that were the case, atmospheric science
would not exist. The research projects churned out by various agencies
over the years, notably the U.N. panel on climate change, should be more
than convincong.
> Even a cursory look at climate data shows that if anything, days have
> not gotten warmer, nights (when it gets colder) have gotten warmer. A
> leveling of temperature extremes from the bottom up moves the mean
> temperature without increasing any maximum. THE SKY IS FALLING!
> MINI-ICE AGE! GREEN HOUSE EFFECT! If the treeline is moving north, it
> is sopping up extravagant tonnages of CO2 (photosynthesis, you know -
> palstic doesn't grow on trees) and keeping it sequestered for
> centuries. Le Chatelier has the last laugh.
>
Global warming will result in a reduction of forest area as forest zones
are left behind faster than their ability to migrate, and because of
other habitat limitations in their new would-be climate zones. You
really should do your reading before unilaterally overruling everybody
else.
> The Russian economy has utterly collapsed, and continues to contract
> each year. Italy has a perpetual crisis of governent corruption and
> stagnation. The whole of Hispanic America is a midden of Byzantine
> Catholic degeneration. The British royal house has discovered a
> downside to chronic inbreeding. If all these social, economic,
> political, and agricultural travesties show no sign of serious internal
> upset, I fail to see how another 100 ppm of CO2 in the air will move a
> whole planet which has had 5 billion years to work out dynamic
> equilibrium and homeostasis. Adding another jigger of Inda Ink to a
> glass half-filled with India ink leaves it just as black.
>
The theory is that the earth's homeostasis will be transformed to a new
equilibrium by a sudden increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, and this
transition will be disruptive to the biosphere and to human society,
disruptions that could have serious consequences such as loss of
agricultural productivity, flooding of coastal areas, decline in
forests, rearrangement of rainfall, and spread of tropical disesase to
temperate areas.
Bob Yates
Jim wrote:
> Global warming will result in a reduction of forest area as forest zones
> are left behind faster than their ability to migrate, and because of
> other habitat limitations in their new would-be climate zones. You
> really should do your reading before unilaterally overruling everybody
> else.
This is surprising, I didn't know that a band of deserts surrounded the
Earth at the equator.
BTW, how long do you estimate before we can grow oranges in South
Carolina, like they did before the War for States Rights? Everyone
knows how bad the forest were in around the world at the beginning of
the last centuary, Geia help us if things turn that bad again.
Todd M. Bolton
I wrote
> > However it does have a large effect on WEATHER patterns and therefor > > on LOCAL "climates." I think this difference is
as important as
> >ozone depletion vs/ climate change.gr
> So, how are you defining global climate? If all local weather patterns
> are changed, is that a global climate change even though the average
> global climate may be unchanged? What if, say, half the globe experiences
> a local weather change (and hence a climate change since climate is
> average weather) for six months to four years. Some would argue that El
> Nino's have at least that strong an effect. Does a climate change have to
> be permanent for it to count? You can start the ball rolling toward
> better consensus by giving some definitions.gr
>
Damn, called my bluff.
Permanent is relative.
In terms of time required to say that a climate has "changed", I would have to
look for a period long enough that the ecology of the affected region changes. This
would apply for localized climatic changes. I come here through a winding forestry
track and therefor would be looking for changes in plant populations reflecting
changing moisture and or temp requirements/regimes. Six months to 4 years is not
going to be long enough for this plant, and animal, population shift to become very
obvious. Or if it did start, as it might in herbaceous systems, the change would
probably reverse with return to previous conditions. This type of local climatic
changes are visible in urban heat islands in that exotic woody species are
developing self sustaining populations in areas where they were previously unknown.
> If all local weather patterns are changed,
> is that a global climate change even though the average
> global climate may be unchanged?
I have to say, No, but I may be incorrect.gr Depending on the rate and distance of
change the same ecological conditions might remain in the same amounts, just in
different loactions. According to the premise I have stated above this would not
equal a "global" climate change.
Francis Malinosky-Rummell
Gerfried Cebrat (G.Ce...@aon.at) wrote:
: Can someone give me an answer, if methane emission from bioenery and
The CO2 equivalents for CH4 are 83, 31, and 13 for 20 years, 100 years and
200 years according to the Sector Specific Issues, 1994, p. E.1 for the
1994 Voluntary Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Report.
Note, however that this is for emitted CH4. Internal combustion engines
typically utilize 99% of the fuel and thus emit CO2 on a molar basis for
that 99% and emit 1% of the CH4 unburned. Natural gas typically also
includes large hydrocarbons (ethane, butane, etc.) but this would probably
not be the case for bio-gas.
NW Fuel specializes in purifying and/or utilizing sub-quality natural gas
from such sources as gob wells, abandoned coal mine vents, biomass, and
low quality natural gas wells. Feel free to contact me if I can help you
further.
--
Francis Malinosky-Rummell
NW Fuel Development, Inc.
2785 SW 123rd Avenue
Beaverton, OR 97005
(503) 627-0767
fra...@agora.rdrop.com
phil. Felton
In article
<Pine.OSF.3.95.970123...@saul5.u.washington.edu>, Peter
Hernes <pjhe...@saul.u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > Jim wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > "The Green House Effect is a pile of Environmentalist progandistic swill
> > > fit to feed to spotted owls" How have you come to that conclusion? Are
> > > you at all aware of the mainstream position in current science that is
> > > held by global warming? To say that global warming is only an idea in
> > > environmental circles is absurd. It is a sound prediction based on known
> > > fact. I will never cease to be amazed by the ability of ordinary people
> > > with biases to come out and state that they know best how the earth
> > > works, and all that research can be dispensed with.
> >
> > Inescapable global cooling in the 1970s enjoyed the same irrefutable
> > support.
> > What comes next, inescapable global nothing? There's damn little grant
> > money in it.
>
> People used to think irrefutably that the earth was at the center of
> universe. Now they don't. They used to think that the earth was flat.
> Now they don't. They used to think that atomic radiation was safe.
> Now they don't. It's called a paradigm shift -- it's how science works.
> For every scientific "fact" that you take for granted, you can find
> people who believed they had irrefutable evidence that your fact is
> wrong. You probably used to believe in Santa Claus. Why? Because you
> had irrefutable evidence -- presents under the tree. Maybe we should take
> everything that YOU say for granted because you were wrong on that one!
> That would be silly, of course, because you sure as he!! know your
> chemistry. Same thing here -- the global cooling ideas of the 70's
> look pretty ridiculous right now, but that's part of how science grows.
> Throw out bold ideas, and then try to prove or disprove them. That one
> has been disproved, so get over it and move on.
They weren't just ideas, the scientific data of that time showed that the global
average temperature had increased since 1880 until about 1945 when it peaked,
followed by a decline until about 1970. Observing this decline over about 25
years it's not surprising that ideas about global cooling were in vogue.
We are
now doing the same based on our observations of global warming since 1970,
admittedly backed up by our computational models of global climate which have
been significantly refined since that time. However, as far as I'm aware these
models are not able to account for this period of decline? The longer term data
shows a consistent trend of warming interupted by short term fluctuations
from 1700 to 1945. The temperatures which prevailed between 1933 and 1952 and
those we are experiencing now represent a recovery to the levels that prevailed
for a long period in the early Middle Ages (1100-1300).
(see: H.H. Lamb, "Climatic History and the Future", Princeton University Press,
1985, originally published by Methuen & Co. 1977.)
Phil.
Leonard Evens
Bob Yates wrote:
>
> Jim wrote:
> > Global warming will result in a reduction of forest area as forest zones
> > are left behind faster than their ability to migrate, and because of
> > other habitat limitations in their new would-be climate zones. You
> > really should do your reading before unilaterally overruling everybody
> > else.
>
> This is surprising, I didn't know that a band of deserts surrounded the
> Earth at the equator.
The author did not say that heat produces deserts. He suggested that
plants used to a certain climate might not be able to migrate nortward
sufficnetly quickly as climate warmed. This possiblity would be
excacerbated by the fact that continuous ecologocial zones (in the past)
are now fragmented as the result of human development. If you want,
you can argue with such assertions, but at least you should get right
what you are arguing about.
>
> BTW, how long do you estimate before we can grow oranges in South
> Carolina, like they did before the War for States Rights?
Now that is a new one. I presume you are talking about the Civil War
as we citizens of Illinois call it. I know the losers insisted on
calling it the War Between the States for a while, but `War for States
Rights?' This is really getting bizarre. Let's face it. Despite all
the posturing, the Civil War was mainly about the institution of
slavery.
> Everyone
> knows how bad the forest were in around the world at the beginning of
> the last centuary, Geia help us if things turn that bad again.
This is news to me. Can you provide some references in the scientific
or historical literature justifying such a claim?
Superdave the Wonderchemist
m.com> <32EA5B...@xmission.com> <32EC37...@pop.intellinet.com>
<32F0C77A...@math.nwu.edu>:
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network (NDHECN)
Distribution:
There are some of us on this planet who would welcome global warming with
open arms. I am one of these people. After spending the past two
winters in Fargo, ND I can say that global warming is good. These past
two winters here have been the worst (coldest and snowiest) two
back-to-back winters since people began recording such things here. In
fact, I believe that in order to improve the climate here, we need an
average increase in temperacture of about 10 degrees C. As far as I am
concerned, people living in low-lying coastal areas can just pack up and
move (people in the Netherlands will have to emigrate to another
country).
Of course my views are subject to change should I move back to Tucson, AZ.
-Superdave The Wonderchemist (a nickname, not a title)
TSheph1012
The greenhouse effect gets air time because the science-stupid jornalist
THINK they understand it. You know what happens whens you grow plants
under CO2 enriched conditions? They grow faster and bigger, fixing more
carbon. CO2 is in dynamic equilbria, you can disturb it slightly but any
big changes cause a mediating effect
"Uncle Al" Schwartz
The experiment is already in place, and it is working grandly . The
Official terrestrial CO2 air concentration is measured atop an extinct
Hawaiian volcano. Crops are grown all over Southern California wherein
the local CO2 concentration is another 20-50 ppm higher - freeways,
furnaces, and lots of exhaled hot air.
Nobody has noticed anything. Needs more study.
The Green House Effect is real. IT IS! IT IS!!!
BY THE HAIRS ON MY CHINNY CHIN CHIN, IT IS!!!!!
Michael Tobis
phil. Felton (fel...@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
: In article
: <Pine.OSF.3.95.970123...@saul5.u.washington.edu>, Peter
: Hernes <pjhe...@saul.u.washington.edu> wrote:
: They weren't just ideas, the scientific data of that time showed that the global
: average temperature had increased since 1880 until about 1945 when it peaked,
: followed by a decline until about 1970. Observing this decline over about 25
: years it's not surprising that ideas about global cooling were in vogue.
This is a rather qualitative description, and many others are possible.
It is not at all clear from the global record that "a decline from 1940
to 1975" is the best description of the record. It depends on which data you
look at and how narrow your running average band is.
I think a better decription of the record is "approximately constant
(though with sparse southern hemisphere representation) from mid 19th
century to about 1910, followed by a distinct increase from 1910 to 1940,
followed by a period of approximately constant temperature from 1940 to
1980, followed by an unusually rapid rise since then. An 0.1 degree
peak-to-peak variation with about a five year period and about 0.2
degrees of white noise are superimposed. There was a particularly cold
period in the northern hemisphere in the early 1970s."
Neither of these descriptions is the record. The record is the record.
Figures C3 and C4 in the IPCC 1992 report tell the tale. You can see
one of these curves at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/press/pj9601/index.htm .
There are similar curves from several groups, differing in details,
particularly the depths and heights of the lesser peaks and troughs.
"A decline from 1940 to 1975" is true if you connect the end points,
but is hardly the most striking feature of the curve.
: We are
: now doing the same based on our observations of global warming since 1970,
: admittedly backed up by our computational models of global climate which have
: been significantly refined since that time.
Thanks for the admission. There is considerably more to it than that,
though. First of all, the statements in the 1970s, though admittedly
more apocalyptic on occasion than was called for, were, at least when
voiced by scientists and not journalists, couched in caveats. Current
thinking, based not only on complex models but also on relatively
straightforward reasoning bolstered by paleoclimatic evidence, calls
for an unmistakeably forced warming to begin appearing about now and
increase in an accelerating fashion in proportion to identified greenhouse
forcing.
: However, as far as I'm aware these
: models are not able to account for this period of decline?
Actually, accounting for aerosol releases, greenhouse gas accumulation,
known intrinsic climate oscillations, and solar variability allows
too many degrees of freedom to confidently identify the proportions,
but known phenomena can easily account for all the observed variance.
A remarkably good match can be obtained from aerosol and greenhouse
forcing alone (see the IPCC 1995 report) but this sort of tweaking
may overstate the case a bit.
The longer term data
: shows a consistent trend of warming interupted by short term fluctuations
: from 1700 to 1945. The temperatures which prevailed between 1933 and 1952 and
: those we are experiencing now represent a recovery to the levels that prevailed
: for a long period in the early Middle Ages (1100-1300).
: (see: H.H. Lamb, "Climatic History and the Future", Princeton University Press,
: 1985, originally published by Methuen & Co. 1977.)
Lamb is not considered a reliable source these days. He was a very interesting
man and writes remarkably well, but his grasp of statistics was weak, and
some of his graphs are, well, bogus. He simply overdrew his conclusions
in many ways. There is some debate whether the "Little Ice Age" is a useful
concept in discussing global trends.
"Although climate was generally cooler in the centuries preceding
the present, there are some indications that fluctuations over
the last 1000 years may not exactly be synchrounous. ... the
warming in China during the eleventh century precedes by 200
years the peak warming in Europe (etc. similar examples)...
The more heterogeneous pattern of climate change during the
Little Ice Age appears to be different from the warming pattern
of the last century, which appears to have been more uniform
globally." {Crowley and North, 1991]
This is insufficient to conclude that the current warming is more
globally forced than climate changes of the past, but it certainly
tends to support such an argument rather than oppose it.
The usual references apply:
Climate change 1995 : the science of climate change / edited by
J.T. Houghton ... [et al.] ; production editor, J.A. Lakeman. --
Cambridge ; New York, NY, USA : Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Climate change 1992 : the supplementary report to the IPCC
scientific assessment / [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change] ; edited by J.T. Houghton, B.A. Callander and S.K.
Varney. -- Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press,
1992.
Paleoclimatology / Thomas J. Crowley and Gerald R. North. -- New
York : Oxford University Press ; Oxford [England] : Clarendon
Press, c1991.
mt
Todd M. Bolton
Sea...@Knox.com wrote:
>
> Leonard Evens <l...@math.nwu.edu>,opened his mouth, removed his left
> foot, lifted up the right one and placed it accurately and with
> practice in that orifice. He went on to pronounce that:-
>
> >Now that is a new one. I presume you are talking about the Civil War
>
> > the Civil War was mainly about the institution of
> >slavery.
>
> >Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
> >Evanston Illinois
>
> with whom you might consult before making such courageous and cavalier
> rewrites of the history of that troubled nation.
>
> Perhaps, you may have become acquainted with one or two Americans
> during your stay at that place who might just be able to advise you on
> the topics you annunciate upon.
>
> Do have a better day tomorrow.
>
> S.
Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy's vice president, "our new
governments foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great
truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery-
subordination to the superior race --is his natural and normal
condition."
Bruce Hamilton
Les Cargill <lcar...@ods.com> wrote:
>I have yet to find a serious resource on whether or not any of the
>following have any substance at all:
>
>- Global warming
Try the IPCC Scientific assessment volumes, 1990, 1992, 1995.
A search for IPCC on the WWW will find the some of the executive
summaries and ordering information. A good introduction is the
"Climate Change: Some Basics" FAQ available in sci.environment
and also available by FTP from rtfm.mit.edu in
pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/sci/environment, and at some WWW sites.
>- The ozone "hole"
Try the Ozone Depletion FAQ in sci.environment.
Also available by FTP from rtfm.mit.edu in
pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/sci/environment, and at
some WWW sites.
>- Acid rain
This has been extensively researched and reported
in journals such as Environmental Science and Technology
and Journal of Air and Waste Management Assn. There are also
a series of US Government agency reports on the issue - should be
available from the EPA.
>- Landfill problems
Read the monthly journal Biocycle, it has
articles like "The state of garbage in the USA"
>I would be ecstatic to converse with a serious scientist who
>has a consistent, coherent model published that even raises a shadow of
>doubt. I want numbers, not chicken little kneejerk.
Strange that you post this in sci.chem, when sci.environment
routinely discusses such issues, and followups are set accordingly.
Bruce Hamilton
"Uncle Al" Schwartz
Todd M. Bolton wrote:
[snip]
> Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy's vice president, "our new
> government's foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great
> truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery-
> subordination to the superior race --is his natural and normal
> condition."
Imagine the Media attention he would have drawn had he said it in
Ebonics to a crowd supported by Welfare, high on booze and drugs; and
demanding their right to have Rodney King and OJ Simpson declared
innocent (as opposed to "not guilty").
Bob Yates
Todd M. Bolton wrote:
>
> Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy's vice president, "our new
> truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery-
> subordination to the superior race --is his natural and normal
> condition."
Ok, so the Vice President of the Confedercy was in agreement with the
President of the Union, about the relative status of the white and black
man. What does that prove?
Of course the Confedercy was commissioning black officers, the Union
considered them incompetent. And approximately equal numbers of blacks
volunteered to fight on both sides.
I do hope your science is better than your history.
Lloyd R. Parker
Sea...@Knox.com wrote:
: Leonard Evens <l...@math.nwu.edu>,opened his mouth, removed his left
: foot, lifted up the right one and placed it accurately and with
: practice in that orifice. He went on to pronounce that:-
:
: >Now that is a new one. I presume you are talking about the Civil War
:
: > Let's face it......
: > the Civil War was mainly about the institution of
: >slavery.
:
: >Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
: >Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
: >Evanston Illinois
:
: One wonders if there is a department of History at that establishment
: with whom you might consult before making such courageous and cavalier
: rewrites of the history of that troubled nation.
:
: Perhaps, you may have become acquainted with one or two Americans
: during your stay at that place who might just be able to advise you on
: the topics you annunciate upon.
:
: Do have a better day tomorrow.
:
: S.
As a Southerner, the original poster was quite right. The Civil War was
about slavery, and no pussy footing around can change that. States
rights? What states rights? The right to own slaves, that's what. And
the argument that not all the soldiers owned slaves makes no difference.
Not all the German soldiers in WW II hated or killed Jews either.
Lloyd R. Parker
\"Uncle Al\" Schwartz (Uncl...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Todd M. Bolton wrote:
:
: [snip]
: > Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy's vice president, "our new
: > government's foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great
: > truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery-
: > subordination to the superior race --is his natural and normal
: > condition."
: Imagine the Media attention he would have drawn had he said it in
: Ebonics to a crowd supported by Welfare, high on booze and drugs; and
: demanding their right to have Rodney King and OJ Simpson declared
: innocent (as opposed to "not guilty").
Hmm... most welfare recipients are white, so you can't be implying that
has anything to do with blacks, can you? Maybe you're implying whites don't
use drugs or alcohol? Maybe you've forgotten how whites killed blacks up
through the 1960s and white juries let them off as their "right"?
(Medgar Evans ring a bell?)
Leonard Evens
I am not clear on how this got in the news groups it is in since it does
not seem to have anything to do with energy, the environment, or
science. (I do admit there is a lot of talk involved.)
Anyway I can't resist a last few words, and then I hope the discussion
can be moved elsewhere although I am not personally familiar with any
newsgroups devoted to people still fighting the Civil War.
--
Todd M. Bolton
Bob Yates wrote:
>
> Todd M. Bolton wrote:
> >
> > Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy's vice president, "our new
> > truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery-
> > subordination to the superior race --is his natural and normal
> > condition."
>
> President of the Union, about the relative status of the white and black
> man. What does that prove?
>
> Of course the Confedercy was commissioning black officers, the Union
> considered them incompetent. And approximately equal numbers of blacks
> volunteered to fight on both sides.
>
> I do hope your science is better than your history.
Mr. Yates,
Let us see how my sense of logic holds up to your education in history.
You assertted that slavery was not a major factor/cause of the War
Between the States. In response I posted the above quotation regarding
a "cornerstone" of the establishment of that short lived rebellious
group's attempt at establishing a nation. That cornerstone was slavery.
To me the quote indicates that slavery was probably desired by the
founders of the CSA. Now remember that you claimed that
salvery was not a major cause of the war and answer the following
question. I will be polite and allow you two weasel answers.
1, What were three principle reasons that led to the secession of the
southern states which formed the CSA?
Todd M. Bolton
"Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
>
> Todd M. Bolton wrote:
>
>
> > Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy's vice president, "our new
> > truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery-
> > subordination to the superior race --is his natural and normal
> > condition."
>
> Ebonics to a crowd supported by Welfare, high on booze and drugs; and
> demanding their right to have Rodney King and OJ Simpson declared
> innocent (as opposed to "not guilty").
>
> Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
> Uncl...@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
> http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Uncle Al,
It must be horrible to live with a mind so full of fetid garbage and
bile. I hope yuour nieces and nephews don't have to visit very often.
Remco Vietor
Superdave the Wonderchemist wrote:
> fact, I believe that in order to improve the climate here, we need an
> average increase in temperacture of about 10 degrees C. As far as I am
> concerned, people living in low-lying coastal areas can just pack up and
> move (people in the Netherlands will have to emigrate to another
enough by now... :)
Remco
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated signature for Remco Vietor in netscape.
The views expressed in this message should be taken as the personal views of
the author, unless stated otherwise.
george p swanton
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.chem,sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Green House effect (WAS Re: phenol from biomass)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <8536968...@dejanews.com> <32F369...@erols.com> <32F3FA...@pop.intellinet.com> <32F68B...@erols.com>
Sender:
Followup-To: alt.dev.null
Distribution:
Organization: Biddeford Internet Corp.
Keywords:
Cc:
In article <32F68B...@erols.com>,
Todd M. Bolton <tmbo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Bob Yates wrote:
>> Todd M. Bolton wrote:
>> > Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy's vice president, [...]
>> Ok, so the Vice President of the Confedercy was in agreement [...]
>Mr. Yates,
>
>Let us see how my sense of logic holds up to your education in history.
> You assertted that slavery was not a major factor/cause of the War
>Between the States. [...]
While I do not wish to squelch your discussion, may I point out that
the subject at hand no longer appears much related to newsgroups to
which it is being posted.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,
sci.chem,
sci.energy,
alt.energy.renewable,
talk.environment
Perhaps you could move to email, or an alternate newsgroup might provide a
more lively discussion?
Respectfully yours
gps
Trying pitifully to regain some small measure of signal-to-noise-ratio
Not wanting to point this into an inappropriat group, followups to alt.dev.null
Kenneth Andrew Mack
In article <19970130202...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
TSheph1012 <tshep...@aol.com> wrote:
>The greenhouse effect gets air time because the science-stupid jornalist
>THINK they understand it. You know what happens whens you grow plants
>under CO2 enriched conditions? They grow faster and bigger, fixing more
>carbon. CO2 is in dynamic equilbria, you can disturb it slightly but any
>big changes cause a mediating effect
How about a little research before you post so that you don't make an ass
of yourself. CO2 has not been in dynamic equilibria since they started
measuring it. It has gone up for the past however many years...
Kenneth Mack
"Uncle Al" Schwartz
And the two preponderant sources of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 are
1) Third World respiration plus slash-and-burn agriculture,
2) Arabian methane flaring from oil wells.
I don't hear any hairy-armpitted Birkenstock-wearing harridan
Environmentalist shrew calling for an end to either. I am always
impressed by the loudest protests being in close proximity to the nicest
restaurants.
Kenneth Mack
On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
> Kenneth Andrew Mack wrote:
> >
> > In article <19970130202...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> > TSheph1012 <tshep...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >The greenhouse effect gets air time because the science-stupid jornalist
> > >THINK they understand it. You know what happens whens you grow plants
> > >under CO2 enriched conditions? They grow faster and bigger, fixing more
> > >carbon. CO2 is in dynamic equilbria, you can disturb it slightly but any
> > >big changes cause a mediating effect
> >
> > How about a little research before you post so that you don't make an ass
> > of yourself. CO2 has not been in dynamic equilibria since they started
> > measuring it. It has gone up for the past however many years...
> >
> > Kenneth Mack
>
> And the two preponderant sources of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 are
>
> 1) Third World respiration plus slash-and-burn agriculture,
> 2) Arabian methane flaring from oil wells.
Third World respiration? Hmm....
To that list I'll add auto emissions.
> I don't hear any hairy-armpitted Birkenstock-wearing harridan
> Environmentalist shrew calling for an end to either.
Really? I have (except for the third world respiration part.) Maybe I hang
out with too many of them hairy-armpitted subhumans. Or maybe you should
listen rather than just stereotype...
> --
> Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
> Uncl...@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
> http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
>
Kenneth Mack
ma...@colorado.edu
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~mack/Home.html
TSheph1012
I don't see any Volume,issue, or page number for the peer reviewed jornal
you draw your conclusions from? Could it be that you are posting without
research to back you up? Who the ass now Kenny?
T.R. Shepherd
Kenneth Andrew Mack
In article <19970206151...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
You are,
1) It is a well studied fact that the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere has been rising. If you just type in "carbon
dioxide" in your favorite search engine you will find reams of information
and graphs showing the steady rise. It is not, as you stated, in
equilibrium. To placate you I have copied a few sources below. Try
http://cdiac.ESD.ORNL.GOV/cdiac/pns/top10.html for more info on CO2.
I find it shocking that someone with a science degree would make a
statement, such as you did, without researching it. That is the realm of
the politician.
2) My name is Kenneth.
---
Siple Station Ice Core Data
Source: Neftel, A., H. Friedli, E. Moore, H. Lotscher, H. Oeschger, U.
Siegenthaler, and B. Stauffer. 1994. Historical carbon
dioxide record from the Siple Station ice core. pp. 11-14. In T.A. Boden,
D.P. Kaiser, R.J. Sepanski, and F.W. Stoss (eds.)
Trends'93: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. ORNL/CDIAC-65. Carbon
Dioxide Information Analysis Center,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. U.S.A.
Mauna Loa Data
Source: Keeling, C.D., and T.P. Whorf. 1994. Atmospheric carbon dioxide
records from sites in the SIO air sampling network. pp.
16-26. In T.A. Boden, D.P. Kaiser, R.J. Sepanski, and F.W. Stoss (eds.)
Trends'93: A Compendium of Data on Global
Change. ORNL/CDIAC-65. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
U.S.A.
----
>T.R. Shepherd
John Humphrey
Would someone be kind enough to explain to me why anyone would choose
to put a CO2 monitoring unit on a volcano, active or not, unless they
were studying the seepage of CO2 from volcanos
>
"Uncle Al" Schwartz
DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD THOUGHTCRIME!
Perhaps they would not get the right answers otherwise.
Robert Parson
In article <5dh379$5h6$3...@noc.van.hookup.net>,
John Humphrey <jhum...@mlc.awinc.com> wrote:
>Would someone be kind enough to explain to me why anyone would choose
>to put a CO2 monitoring unit on a volcano, active or not, unless they
>were studying the seepage of CO2 from volcanos
1. High altitude: you want to be above the atmospheric boundary layer.
2. Middle of the ocean: away from continental sources/sinks.
3. Close to the equator: convenient for studying interhemispheric
exchange, etc.
It should be pointed out that the Hawaiian site is hardly the only
one. There are CO2 monitoring sites all over the globe. The Hawaiian
site was just the first to go into operation. Take a look at Fig. 1.5,
page 20 of R. P. Wayne's _Chemistry of Atmospheres_ (2nd Edition,
Oxford, 1991); it compares Hawaii to South Pole for 1958 to 1990.
They track each other perfectly. Each goes from ~315 to ~350 ppm
(South Pole lagging Hawaii by a couple of years) with a seasonal
oscillation of ~7ppm in Hawaii and ~1-2 ppm at South Pole. CO2 really
is very well mixed in the atmosphere.
------
Robert