Urgent Action Needed on Global Warming
silverback
ONDON - US and British experts, adding a sense
of urgency to warnings of global warming, said yesterday that humans
have triggered rapid climate change and must act fast to help prevent
environmental turmoil.
''It's important we take action now,'' said James
Baker, undersecretary of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. He urged businesses to boost energy efficiency and
increase their use of renewable power sources.
''Ignoring climate change will surely be the most
costly of all possible choices, for us and our children,'' said Baker
and Peter Ewins, head of the British meteorological office, in a joint
letter to London's Independent newspaper.
''Our climate is now changing rapidly,'' they wrote.
''Our new data and understanding now point to a critical situation we
face.''
The letter warned of extreme weather like floods
happening more frequently as the planet warms; greenhouse gas
emissions have to be curbed to prevent catastrophes, the letter said.
''We're now coming clean and saying we believe the
evidence is almost incontrovertible, that man has an effect and
therefore we need to act accordingly,'' Ewins later told BBC Radio.
''We now need to persuade the business community
that to act now is the responsible thing to do.''
Baker said flooding that has killed tens of
thousands people in Venezuela was the kind of catastrophe global
warming could trigger, although it was too early to state
categorically that climate change was the cause of the
Venezuelan disaster.
Experts say 1998 was the costliest year ever for
insured losses from weather-related catastrophes. The storms, floods,
droughts and fires around the world in 1998 exceeded all the
weather-related losses of the 1980s.
''As the average temperature goes up we can expect
more extreme events - floods, drought, more severe storms,'' Baker
said. ''The fact is that if you add enough carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere, the laws of physics tell us that you're going to change
the climate. It's only a question of how fast and exactly where it is
going to happen.''
The senior scientists said this has been the hottest
decade for the past 1,000 years in the Northern Hemisphere, according
to indicators, including evidence from tree rings.
Humans now should brace themselves for ''rising sea
levels, changing precipitation patterns, ecological and agricultural
dislocations, and the increased spread of human disease,'' they said.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
just one more reason to vote against the moron boy george
*****************************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
Do your patriotic duty and vote for your favorite blithering idiot at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/award.html
======================================================
Michael Ejercito's solution to global warming
If the goverment wanted to end global warming, it would use its
nuclear arsenal to put enough dust into the atmoshpere
to reduce sunlight, creating a nuclear winter.
And just to prove to the world that Dan Quayle
has nothing over him, Micheal wrote.
"the problem is not people are not being
paid enough,but the costs of goods and
services are too high."
************************************************
tjwilson
him to give away them again. We really need them now.
Stay cool.
tjw
Not a Republican
How can they do this? Because their models very incomplete and as reliable
as the entrails of a goose. That gives them the wiggle room they need, as
is the case with all witch doctors.
The emperor is naked as a jaybird and nutty as chicken little.
Merry Christmas.
--
nar
"silverback" <gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com> wrote in message
news:386382f5...@news.spiritone.com...
silverback
<forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
>And the witch doctor will undoubtedly accord any event to his pet theory.
>How can they do this? Because their models very incomplete and as reliable
nope the models are reliable
Not a Republican
> On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:46:58 -0500, "Not a Republican"
> <forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >And the witch doctor will undoubtedly accord any event to his pet theory.
> >How can they do this? Because their models very incomplete and as
reliable
>
> nope the models are reliable
Will you stand there and hold your breath as long as I say they're not? Or
will you get out your animal bones?
--
nar
Unknown
wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:46:58 -0500, "Not a Republican"
><forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>And the witch doctor will undoubtedly accord any event to his pet theory.
>>How can they do this? Because their models very incomplete and as reliable
>
>nope the models are reliable
>
To quote Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Meteorology,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
" the computer models used to predict global warming are a long way
from being perfected. "
" there is no evidence that the man-made increases in carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere are having any harmful effects."
-Indianapolis Star, 8/13/98
Lindzen is not your run-of-the-mill "climate expert". He is the real
deal.
Any quotes (from real people) to support your useless statement would
be helpful.
silverback
<forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
>"silverback" <gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com> wrote in message
>news:3864fa90...@news.spiritone.com...
>> On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:46:58 -0500, "Not a Republican"
>> <forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And the witch doctor will undoubtedly accord any event to his pet theory.
>> >How can they do this? Because their models very incomplete and as
>reliable
>>
>> nope the models are reliable
>
>Will you stand there and hold your breath as long as I say they're not? Or
>will you get out your animal bones?
naw I will just get out the models and show you how many correct
projections those models have already made.
You can put on the pointy hat and go sit in the corner now.
>
>--
>nar
Phillip C Nisbet
wrote:
>>> nope the models are reliable
>>
>>Will you stand there and hold your breath as long as I say they're not? Or
>>will you get out your animal bones?
>
>naw I will just get out the models and show you how many correct
>projections those models have already made.
> You can put on the pointy hat and go sit in the corner now.
>
silverback,
Lose the concept. The models are not reliable and have yet to
correctly predict a thing. If the initial models were correct, we
have suffered an increase in global temperature in excess of 3-5
degrees C, which simply has not happened.
Under other hypothesis by the group which initially came up with this,
we have nuclear winter effects which also did not happen in the Gulf
War, which were predicted by the revised models. TAPPS was incorrect
and the sons and daughters of TAPPS are flawed.
The best predictor of heat island factor revised global temperature
data is solar activity. We are in a period of increased energy inputs
from the sun and flare activity increases have a greater bearing on
temperature then energy retention matrixs derived from patterning
models.
It should be pointed out to you that we had a global temperature
increase cycle through in the 1930's as well and most of the 'highest
temperature on record' nonesense discards 1930's data as the last
peak. The science is just not in and the bulk of earth scientists
surveyed agree that no action at this time is neccessary to combat
'global warming'. Kyoto was a bad treaty and not neccessary. It
simply serves at yet another way for NGO's and the environmental
community to practice economic imperialism and their continueing
racist actions.
Phillip C Nisbet
wrote:
>>> nope the models are reliable
>>
silverback,
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Message-ID: <cancel.3865f...@news.salmoninternet.com>
Control: cancel <3865f12b...@news.salmoninternet.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <3865f12b...@news.salmoninternet.com>
From: cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Sender: nis...@salmoninternet.com (Phillip C Nisbet)
Approved: cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Newsgroups: microsoft.test,easynet.test,sat.test,de.test,ch.test,at.test,uk.test,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 26 Dec 1999 17:02:41 GMT
Organization: Chris Lewis' VSNL CensorBot
X-Cancelled-By: cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 183.247.205.73
X-Original-From: nis...@salmoninternet.com (Phillip C Nisbet)
X-Cancel-ID: F@!)X<WF]JX)EXMOM">+:>`]JQ[WV!BV%AS`2%CC9YYV$SR7[:TI1|?T
Reply-To: nis...@salmoninternet.com (Phillip C Nisbet)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.243.162.41
X-Trace: 26 Dec 1999 18:01:08 +0100, 193.243.162.41
Lines: 2
Path: ...!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!news1-MUC.ecrc.net.MISMATCH!news-MUC.ecrc.net!newsrouter.chello.at!newsmaster-01.vbs.at!newsmaster-02.vbs.at!news.global-one.at!192.148.253.68.POSTED!qcarh002.nortelnetworks.com!bcarh189.ca.nortel.com!zcarh46f.bnr.ca!despams.ocunix.on.ca
Chris Lewis' personal UDP against VSNL continues: <3865f12b...@news.salmoninternet.com>
silverback
Nisbet) wrote:
>On 26 Dec 1999 00:58:20 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>> nope the models are reliable
>>>
>>>Will you stand there and hold your breath as long as I say they're not? Or
>>>will you get out your animal bones?
>>
>>naw I will just get out the models and show you how many correct
>>projections those models have already made.
>> You can put on the pointy hat and go sit in the corner now.
>>
>
>silverback,
>
>Lose the concept. The models are not reliable and have yet to
>correctly predict a thing. If the initial models were correct, we
wrong the models have correctly predicted numerous things such as a
greater warming of the low temps vs the high temps, the polar warming
as evidenced by thining ice caps and melting perma frost and many
others.
>have suffered an increase in global temperature in excess of 3-5
>degrees C, which simply has not happened.
>
>Under other hypothesis by the group which initially came up with this,
>we have nuclear winter effects which also did not happen in the Gulf
>War, which were predicted by the revised models. TAPPS was incorrect
>and the sons and daughters of TAPPS are flawed.
>
the gulf war was hardly a nuclear war fellow. A nuclear winter is
still not disputed.
>The best predictor of heat island factor revised global temperature
oh bullshit you damn fools keep lying about the heat island. First off
there are only a limited number of sites that exhibit heat islands but
you want to claim all sites have one. Well loon I want you to tell us
how many recording stations are in Mont, Wy, ND, SD, Idaho, Alsaka,
the North West Terrorities, and the Yukon. Then I want you to list the
number of heat islands in that same area, an area that is at least a
third of North America if not more.
>data is solar activity. We are in a period of increased energy inputs
>from the sun and flare activity increases have a greater bearing on
>temperature then energy retention matrixs derived from patterning
>models.
at the very most experts have concluded that the sun could only
account for maybe 40% of the warming. The rest is due to global
warming from the burning of fossil fuels.
>
>It should be pointed out to you that we had a global temperature
>increase cycle through in the 1930's as well and most of the 'highest
>temperature on record' nonesense discards 1930's data as the last
not it doesn't
>peak. The science is just not in and the bulk of earth scientists
>surveyed agree that no action at this time is neccessary to combat
>'global warming'. Kyoto was a bad treaty and not neccessary. It
it was bad in that it did not go far enough
>simply serves at yet another way for NGO's and the environmental
>community to practice economic imperialism and their continueing
>racist actions.
Sure thing loon any time you think you are ready to prove to me that
you can violate the laws of thermo or quantum let me know. The fact
remains if you pump more CO2 into the atmosphere the average temp is
going to go up as a result dictated by the laws of science.
tjwilson
silverback wrote:
>
> On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 16:40:11 -0500, "Not a Republican"
> <forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >"silverback" <gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com> wrote in message
> >news:3864fa90...@news.spiritone.com...
> >> On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:46:58 -0500, "Not a Republican"
> >> <forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >And the witch doctor will undoubtedly accord any event to his pet theory.
> >> >How can they do this? Because their models very incomplete and as
> >reliable
> >>
> >> nope the models are reliable
> >
> >Will you stand there and hold your breath as long as I say they're not? Or
> >will you get out your animal bones?
>
> naw I will just get out the models and show you how many correct
> projections those models have already made.
> You can put on the pointy hat and go sit in the corner now.
There is a projection that the sky will fall on Mar 5, 2000.
Seriously, I saw it on the History Channel. Be prepared, wear
your pointy hat.
tjw
>
> >
> >--
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> *****************************************************
>
> GDY Weasel
> emailers remove the spam buster
>
>
> ************************************************
silverback
wrote:
>
>
>silverback wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 16:40:11 -0500, "Not a Republican"
>> <forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"silverback" <gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3864fa90...@news.spiritone.com...
>> >> On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:46:58 -0500, "Not a Republican"
>> >> <forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >And the witch doctor will undoubtedly accord any event to his pet theory.
>> >> >How can they do this? Because their models very incomplete and as
>> >reliable
>> >>
>> >> nope the models are reliable
>> >
>> >Will you stand there and hold your breath as long as I say they're not? Or
>> >will you get out your animal bones?
>>
>> naw I will just get out the models and show you how many correct
>> projections those models have already made.
>> You can put on the pointy hat and go sit in the corner now.
>
>There is a projection that the sky will fall on Mar 5, 2000.
>Seriously, I saw it on the History Channel. Be prepared, wear
>your pointy hat.
so you believe in black helicopters too?
>tjw
>>
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> *****************************************************
>>
>> GDY Weasel
>> emailers remove the spam buster
>>
>>
Zepp
wrote:
>
>
>silverback wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 16:40:11 -0500, "Not a Republican"
>> <forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"silverback" <gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3864fa90...@news.spiritone.com...
>> >> On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:46:58 -0500, "Not a Republican"
>> >> <forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >And the witch doctor will undoubtedly accord any event to his pet theory.
>> >> >How can they do this? Because their models very incomplete and as
>> >reliable
>> >>
>> >> nope the models are reliable
>> >
>> >Will you stand there and hold your breath as long as I say they're not? Or
>> >will you get out your animal bones?
>>
>> naw I will just get out the models and show you how many correct
>> projections those models have already made.
>> You can put on the pointy hat and go sit in the corner now.
>
>There is a projection that the sky will fall on Mar 5, 2000.
>Seriously, I saw it on the History Channel. Be prepared, wear
>your pointy hat.
>tjw
Hmm. That's a Sunday, isn't it?
Nothing on my calendar for that day. OK. End of the World it is. I
won't bother to return my video rentals.
>>
**********************************************************
>Bush dodged a question about what he would do if the government
>surplus grew at a slower rate than he projected in his $483 billion,
>five-year tax plan.
>
>``I refuse to accept the premise that surpluses will decline if I were
>president,'' Bush said.
>
Newsday, 12/6/99
**********************************************************
Not dead, in jail or a slave?
Thank a liberal!
For more of Zepp's Commentary, go to
http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
Liberalism Resurgent, Steve's brilliant
and well-documented page, is mirrored at
the following locations:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
http://www.wtrt.net/~blarson/institute.htm
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
http://resurgent.virtualave.net
Warning: Contains ideas
************************************************************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Phillip C Nisbet
wrote:
>
>wrong the models have correctly predicted numerous things such as a
>greater warming of the low temps vs the high temps, the polar warming
>as evidenced by thining ice caps and melting perma frost and many
>others.
>
Any increase in global temperatures will result in thinning ice caps,
silverback. The question comes, what generates the warming and what
temperature conditions can be predicted from the model. Since the
models for CO2 generated warming do not predicted the temperatures
observed, it is obvious by Occams Razor, that they are not the source
of observed climatic conditions.
>
>the gulf war was hardly a nuclear war fellow. A nuclear winter is
>still not disputed.
>
TAPPS was disputed at the very first conference it was presented at.
Sagan tried to get it accepted by the scientific community, but the
bugger bombed out. He later tried to claim that the proof of his
TAPPS conclusions would be proven by the buring of the oil fields in
the Gulf War. This only showed that no such effect took place in the
predicted cyclone season or in temperatures in the Indian Ocean. So
sorry, nuclear winter is disputed and repudiated.
>>The best predictor of heat island factor revised global temperature
>
>oh bullshit you damn fools keep lying about the heat island. First off
>there are only a limited number of sites that exhibit heat islands but
>you want to claim all sites have one. Well loon I want you to tell us
>how many recording stations are in Mont, Wy, ND, SD, Idaho, Alsaka,
>the North West Terrorities, and the Yukon. Then I want you to list the
>number of heat islands in that same area, an area that is at least a
>third of North America if not more.
>
silverback, the heat island data has been acknowledge by Science and
most other reputable journals. The most recent global warming data
has been adjusted to include it. Most of the sites for long term
temperature data are cities with strong heat island charactoistics.
That is why we have gone over to sattelite generated maps for
determining temp variations. They are also using that method to
reduce heat island effects in cities, by cutting down on the heat
charactoistics for buildings and pushing for more urban forestery.
>>data is solar activity. We are in a period of increased energy inputs
>>from the sun and flare activity increases have a greater bearing on
>>temperature then energy retention matrixs derived from patterning
>>models.
>
>at the very most experts have concluded that the sun could only
>account for maybe 40% of the warming. The rest is due to global
>warming from the burning of fossil fuels.
>
Please cite which experts you are using. The planetologists which I
attended Universtiy with do not come to such a conclusion.
>>
>Sure thing loon any time you think you are ready to prove to me that
>you can violate the laws of thermo or quantum let me know. The fact
>remains if you pump more CO2 into the atmosphere the average temp is
>going to go up as a result dictated by the laws of science.
>
What quantum mechanics has to do with this is anybodies guess. As for
thermodynamics, what violations of either the first or second laws do
you see in any posting of mine? You infer that a uni-input
systematics will increase temperature, but the earth and its
atmosphere are not mono dimesional nor static. CO2 is not the end and
all and be all of atmospheric temperature nor the most significant
'greenhouse' gas. Please find the time to study the CO2 cycle in
geochemistry before posting and calling geochemists loons.
silverback
Nisbet) wrote:
>On 26 Dec 1999 16:53:19 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>wrong the models have correctly predicted numerous things such as a
>>greater warming of the low temps vs the high temps, the polar warming
>>as evidenced by thining ice caps and melting perma frost and many
>>others.
>>
>Any increase in global temperatures will result in thinning ice caps,
>silverback. The question comes, what generates the warming and what
>temperature conditions can be predicted from the model. Since the
>models for CO2 generated warming do not predicted the temperatures
oh yes they did with a good degree of accuracy
>observed, it is obvious by Occams Razor, that they are not the source
>of observed climatic conditions.
>
>>
>>the gulf war was hardly a nuclear war fellow. A nuclear winter is
>>still not disputed.
>>
>TAPPS was disputed at the very first conference it was presented at.
>Sagan tried to get it accepted by the scientific community, but the
>bugger bombed out. He later tried to claim that the proof of his
>TAPPS conclusions would be proven by the buring of the oil fields in
>the Gulf War. This only showed that no such effect took place in the
>predicted cyclone season or in temperatures in the Indian Ocean. So
>sorry, nuclear winter is disputed and repudiated.
>
nope it has not. The premise of the burning oil filed has been.
>>>The best predictor of heat island factor revised global temperature
>>
>>oh bullshit you damn fools keep lying about the heat island. First off
>>there are only a limited number of sites that exhibit heat islands but
>>you want to claim all sites have one. Well loon I want you to tell us
>>how many recording stations are in Mont, Wy, ND, SD, Idaho, Alsaka,
>>the North West Terrorities, and the Yukon. Then I want you to list the
>>number of heat islands in that same area, an area that is at least a
>>third of North America if not more.
>>
>silverback, the heat island data has been acknowledge by Science and
>most other reputable journals. The most recent global warming data
yup and you redneck hicks still don't understand it and try to claim
all ground based measurements are flawed by heat islands. You fools
have vastly overstated the effects of heat islands.
maybe you can tell us the location of some of these so called heat
islands that report flawed data. Be sure to include mankato, Mn a
little city of about 40K oh and by the way the official reporting
station there is about 3 miles out of town surrounded by corna na soy
bean fileds..
>has been adjusted to include it. Most of the sites for long term
>temperature data are cities with strong heat island charactoistics.
>That is why we have gone over to sattelite generated maps for
>determining temp variations. They are also using that method to
>reduce heat island effects in cities, by cutting down on the heat
>charactoistics for buildings and pushing for more urban forestery.
>
>>>data is solar activity. We are in a period of increased energy inputs
>>>from the sun and flare activity increases have a greater bearing on
>>>temperature then energy retention matrixs derived from patterning
>>>models.
>>
>>at the very most experts have concluded that the sun could only
>>account for maybe 40% of the warming. The rest is due to global
>>warming from the burning of fossil fuels.
>>
>Please cite which experts you are using. The planetologists which I
>attended Universtiy with do not come to such a conclusion.
try the peer reviewed lit.
>>>
>
>>Sure thing loon any time you think you are ready to prove to me that
>>you can violate the laws of thermo or quantum let me know. The fact
>>remains if you pump more CO2 into the atmosphere the average temp is
>>going to go up as a result dictated by the laws of science.
>>
>What quantum mechanics has to do with this is anybodies guess. As for
um CO2 is a absorber of radiation, it absorbs long wavelenght IR light
at precisely the wavelength predicted for blackbody radiation of the
earth.
Your trying to tell us that the CO2 produced from burning fossil
fuels is incapable of aborbign this radiation. it is this absorbtion
that leads to the green house effect.
>thermodynamics, what violations of either the first or second laws do
>you see in any posting of mine? You infer that a uni-input
the extra CO2 acts just like an extra insulation blanket does in a
home attic.
>systematics will increase temperature, but the earth and its
>atmosphere are not mono dimesional nor static. CO2 is not the end and
it is onyl one of a number of green house gases, but its the one that
does exert the most influence on changing climate.
>all and be all of atmospheric temperature nor the most significant
yes it is the most siginificant green house gas, the only one with a
greater green house effect is water vaport, but the amount of water
vapor is dependent upon the temp, so its maximum value is already set
unless the temp changes.
>'greenhouse' gas. Please find the time to study the CO2 cycle in
>geochemistry before posting and calling geochemists loons.
>
*****************************************************
Phillip C Nisbet
wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 01:02:40 GMT, nis...@salmoninternet.com (Phillip C
>Nisbet) wrote:
>
>>On 26 Dec 1999 16:53:19 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
<snip>
I will reply to the rest of your missive later, but this poor dumb
hick happens to be an earth scientist, listed in who's who and with
more then your average bit of peer reviewed lit. to his name. So
until you provide some real basis for your agruementation, other then
a yes it is yes it is, I think we can safely discount most of your
infantile rambles. Since the majority of earth scientists do not
agree with your conclusions, I recommend that you return to the
draweing board.
silverback
Nisbet) wrote:
>On 27 Dec 1999 01:50:54 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 01:02:40 GMT, nis...@salmoninternet.com (Phillip C
>>Nisbet) wrote:
>>
>>>On 26 Dec 1999 16:53:19 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
><snip>
>
>I will reply to the rest of your missive later, but this poor dumb
>hick happens to be an earth scientist, listed in who's who and with
sure you are, you can be anythign you liek this is usenet. But even if
you are an "earth scientist that doesn't make you an expert on climate
change or global warming.
The fact remains you can violate the laws of science by pumping
massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere without the global warming.
>more then your average bit of peer reviewed lit. to his name. So
>until you provide some real basis for your agruementation, other then
>a yes it is yes it is, I think we can safely discount most of your
>infantile rambles. Since the majority of earth scientists do not
>agree with your conclusions, I recommend that you return to the
>draweing board.
*****************************************************
Phillip C Nisbet
wrote:
>>
>>I will reply to the rest of your missive later, but this poor dumb
>>hick happens to be an earth scientist, listed in who's who and with
>
>sure you are, you can be anythign you liek this is usenet. But even if
>you are an "earth scientist that doesn't make you an expert on climate
>change or global warming.
> The fact remains you can violate the laws of science by pumping
>massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere without the global warming.
>
Unlike you, I list my name in full. University of Washington degree
in geology with graduate school at EWU.
Once more, for your benefit, I will try to explain it really slowly.
If CO2 was the sole factor in a dynamic atmosphere, you might have a
point. It is not. The CO2 cycle is complex and the atmosphere is
more so. Competing natural and man made factors contribute to heat
retention within the atmosphere. A number of other factors tend to
limit heat retention or block solar inputs. When all are weighed in
the balance, we have less then a half a degree of warming when a CO2
only model would have predicted 5 degrees. This suggests that CO2 is
not the major contributor to global temperature that some had
predicted earlier. You may continue to chant your mantra all you
wish, but the bulk of earth scientists do not believe you and the
facts are not on your side on this one.
Gary Carroll
silverback wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 06:26:45 GMT, nis...@salmoninternet.com (Phillip C
> Nisbet) wrote:
>
> >On 27 Dec 1999 01:50:54 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 01:02:40 GMT, nis...@salmoninternet.com (Phillip C
> >>Nisbet) wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 26 Dec 1999 16:53:19 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> ><snip>
> >
> >I will reply to the rest of your missive later, but this poor dumb
> >hick happens to be an earth scientist, listed in who's who and with
> >more then your average bit of peer reviewed lit. to his name. So
> >until you provide some real basis for your agruementation, other then
> >a yes it is yes it is, I think we can safely discount most of your
> >infantile rambles. Since the majority of earth scientists do not
> >agree with your conclusions, I recommend that you return to the
> >draweing board.
>
> sure you are, you can be anythign you liek this is usenet. But even if
Like, for instance, Silverback who claims to have a BS Chemistry, MS
Chemistry, three years towards a Masters in Chemistry specializing in
environmental matters, and a recent BS in Computer Science.
Yet he also claims he is about 50, works as a helpdesk technician for
low $20, and has demonstrated grammar and spelling skills consistent
with a poor fifth grade education. How does he explain these
inconsistencies? The "Corporate Whores" have it in for him.
Mike Hartigan
> And the witch doctor will undoubtedly accord any event to his pet theory.
> How can they do this? Because their models very incomplete and as reliable
> is the case with all witch doctors.
> The emperor is naked as a jaybird and nutty as chicken little.
> "silverback" <gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com> wrote in message
> news:386382f5...@news.spiritone.com...
>> By William MacLean, Reuters, 12/24/1999
>>
>> ONDON - US and British experts, adding a sense
>> of urgency to warnings of global warming, said yesterday that humans
>> have triggered rapid climate change and must act fast to help prevent
>> environmental turmoil.
But neither facts nor statistics are cited in the article. I wonder
why?
>> ''It's important we take action now,'' said James
>> Baker, undersecretary of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
>> Administration. He urged businesses to boost energy efficiency and
>> increase their use of renewable power sources.
This is probably good advice in *any* event.
>> ''Ignoring climate change will surely be the most
>> costly of all possible choices, for us and our children,'' said Baker
>> and Peter Ewins, head of the British meteorological office, in a joint
>> letter to London's Independent newspaper.
How did he determine either the "cost" or "all possible choices"? Since
you seem to be on Mr. MacLean's page, perhaps you could enumerate these
choices for us?
>> ''Our climate is now changing rapidly,'' they wrote.
>> ''Our new data and understanding now point to a critical situation we
>> face.''
Then why don't they publish their findings so they can get a concensus
on the issue?
>> The letter warned of extreme weather like floods
>> happening more frequently as the planet warms; greenhouse gas
>> emissions have to be curbed to prevent catastrophes, the letter said.
The catastrophies are already here *without* "Global Warming" -- he's
getting to that (I read ahead).
>> ''We're now coming clean and saying we believe the
>> evidence is almost incontrovertible, that man has an effect and
>> therefore we need to act accordingly,'' Ewins later told BBC Radio.
Will this "evidence" ever see the light of day?
>> ''We now need to persuade the business community
>> that to act now is the responsible thing to do.''
>>
>> Baker said flooding that has killed tens of
>> thousands people in Venezuela was the kind of catastrophe global
>> warming could trigger, although it was too early to state
>> categorically that climate change was the cause of the
>> Venezuelan disaster.
So, "Global Warming" *could* trigger this flooding (in the future). It
seems to me that *something* is causing it *now* and, rather than
spinning our wheels at the foot of the "Global Warming" grail, we
should fix whatever is actually causing these problems! (assuming it
were within our control)
>> Experts say 1998 was the costliest year ever for
>> insured losses from weather-related catastrophes. The storms, floods,
>> droughts and fires around the world in 1998 exceeded all the
>> weather-related losses of the 1980s.
*Without* "Global Warming"
>> ''As the average temperature goes up we can expect
>> more extreme events - floods, drought, more severe storms,'' Baker
>> said. ''The fact is that if you add enough carbon dioxide to the
>> atmosphere, the laws of physics tell us that you're going to change
>> the climate. It's only a question of how fast and exactly where it is
>> going to happen.''
>>
>> The senior scientists said this has been the hottest
>> decade for the past 1,000 years in the Northern Hemisphere, according
>> to indicators, including evidence from tree rings.
Interesting -- the Chicago Tribune, as part of it's end of the century
coverage, is publishing some weather extremes from this century. I
don't recall the exact decades, but those decades dubbed the "hottest"
in terms of temperature were in the early part of this century, while
the "coldest" have been more recent. Annual one year extremes have been
similarly clustered.
>> Humans now should brace themselves for ''rising sea
>> levels, changing precipitation patterns, ecological and agricultural
>> dislocations, and the increased spread of human disease,'' they said.
Assuming that these events are inevitable (they are, based on history,
not on theories), why are they, by definition, "bad" things? Maybe
we'll benefit from it. There are many parts of the world, for example,
that would *LOVE* to see a change in precipitation patterns.
Agricultural dislocations would likely INcrease the amount of arable
land. Climate has been changing for *centuries*. Why are we so
arrogant to think that we can affect it? Or to "fix" it? Remember,
"evolution" and "status quo" are mutually exclusive. Which do you
advocate?
>> just one more reason to vote against the moron boy george
You lost me on that one!
--
+-----------------------------------------------+
Mike Hartigan <hart...@enteract.dot.com>
Why didn't you do that to the monkey
BEFORE he sold the car?
silverback
Nisbet) wrote:
>On 27 Dec 1999 06:50:41 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I will reply to the rest of your missive later, but this poor dumb
>>>hick happens to be an earth scientist, listed in who's who and with
>>
>>sure you are, you can be anythign you liek this is usenet. But even if
>>you are an "earth scientist that doesn't make you an expert on climate
>>change or global warming.
>> The fact remains you can violate the laws of science by pumping
>>massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere without the global warming.
>>
>Unlike you, I list my name in full. University of Washington degree
>in geology with graduate school at EWU.
>
>Once more, for your benefit, I will try to explain it really slowly.
>If CO2 was the sole factor in a dynamic atmosphere, you might have a
>point. It is not. The CO2 cycle is complex and the atmosphere is
>more so. Competing natural and man made factors contribute to heat
>retention within the atmosphere. A number of other factors tend to
>limit heat retention or block solar inputs. When all are weighed in
>the balance, we have less then a half a degree of warming when a CO2
>only model would have predicted 5 degrees. This suggests that CO2 is
>not the major contributor to global temperature that some had
>predicted earlier. You may continue to chant your mantra all you
>wish, but the bulk of earth scientists do not believe you and the
>facts are not on your side on this one.
still think you can violate the laws of thermo and quantum, huh? CO2
is tha major major green house gas with global warming, there are
other factors as well but none as important as CO2. The models did
correctly predict a rise in temp. And trying to trivialized the amount
of the rise as only a 1/5 degree C or full degree F shows how little
you really learnt at the university. After all the peaks and valleys
of temps during pass warm periods and ice ages only vary by about 2-5
degrees from normal.
silverback
wrote:
>
>
>silverback wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 06:26:45 GMT, nis...@salmoninternet.com (Phillip C
>> Nisbet) wrote:
>>
>> >On 27 Dec 1999 01:50:54 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 01:02:40 GMT, nis...@salmoninternet.com (Phillip C
>> >>Nisbet) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On 26 Dec 1999 16:53:19 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>> >>>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >I will reply to the rest of your missive later, but this poor dumb
>> >hick happens to be an earth scientist, listed in who's who and with
>> >more then your average bit of peer reviewed lit. to his name. So
>> >until you provide some real basis for your agruementation, other then
>> >a yes it is yes it is, I think we can safely discount most of your
>> >infantile rambles. Since the majority of earth scientists do not
>> >agree with your conclusions, I recommend that you return to the
>> >draweing board.
>>
>> sure you are, you can be anythign you liek this is usenet. But even if
>
>Like, for instance, Silverback who claims to have a BS Chemistry, MS
>Chemistry, three years towards a Masters in Chemistry specializing in
>environmental matters, and a recent BS in Computer Science.
>Yet he also claims he is about 50, works as a helpdesk technician for
>low $20, and has demonstrated grammar and spelling skills consistent
>with a poor fifth grade education. How does he explain these
>inconsistencies? The "Corporate Whores" have it in for him.
so parkie you reinvented yerself. Too bad you didn't have the ability
ot add a few brains.
>
>> you are an "earth scientist that doesn't make you an expert on climate
>> change or global warming.
>> The fact remains you can violate the laws of science by pumping
>> massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere without the global warming.
*****************************************************
Gary Carroll
> still think you can violate the laws of thermo and quantum, huh? CO2
> is tha [sic] major major [sic] green house gas with global warming [??}, there are
> other factors as well[,] but none as important as CO2. The models did
> correctly predict a rise in temp. And trying to trivialized [sic] the amount
> of the rise as only a[sic] 1/5 degree C or [a] full degree F shows how little
> you really learnt [sic] at the university. After all the peaks and valleys
> of temps [sic] during pass [sic] warm periods and ice ages only vary by[differ?] about 2-5
> degrees from normal.
Which law of thermodynamics do you postulate is being violated?
You neglected to specify what quantum... quantum chemistry? Quantum
physics? And which quantum law do you postulate is being violated by his
reply?
If he learned so little at his university, yet is making a living as a
scientist and composing coherent posts, what is the implication about
what you learned from your university, with a masters in chemistry and
BS in Computer Science, but working as a help desk technician and unable
to put together a coherent post?
I realise this is a bit harsh, but you should expect to get this sort of
response when you call others "dumb hicks" and idiots.
Gary Carroll
silverback wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 15:13:42 GMT, Gary Carroll <garyc...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >silverback wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 06:26:45 GMT, nis...@salmoninternet.com (Phillip C
> >> Nisbet) wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 27 Dec 1999 01:50:54 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 01:02:40 GMT, nis...@salmoninternet.com (Phillip C
> >> >>Nisbet) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On 26 Dec 1999 16:53:19 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
> >> >>>wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >I will reply to the rest of your missive later, but this poor dumb
> >> >hick happens to be an earth scientist, listed in who's who and with
> >> >more then your average bit of peer reviewed lit. to his name. So
> >> >until you provide some real basis for your agruementation, other then
> >> >a yes it is yes it is, I think we can safely discount most of your
> >> >infantile rambles. Since the majority of earth scientists do not
> >> >agree with your conclusions, I recommend that you return to the
> >> >draweing board.
> >>
> >> sure you are, you can be anythign you liek this is usenet. But even if
> >> you are an "earth scientist that doesn't make you an expert on climate
> >> change or global warming.
> >> The fact remains you can violate the laws of science by pumping
> >> massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere without the global warming.
> >
> >Like, for instance, Silverback who claims to have a BS Chemistry, MS
> >Chemistry, three years towards a Masters in Chemistry specializing in
> >environmental matters, and a recent BS in Computer Science.
> >Yet he also claims he is about 50, works as a helpdesk technician for
> >low $20, and has demonstrated grammar and spelling skills consistent
> >with a poor fifth grade education. How does he explain these
> >inconsistencies? The "Corporate Whores" have it in for him.
>
> so parkie you reinvented yerself. Too bad you didn't have the ability
> ot add a few brains.
Um... what? Perhaps you responded to the wrong post?
X Metro Man
wrote:
>>Once more, for your benefit, I will try to explain it really slowly.
>>If CO2 was the sole factor in a dynamic atmosphere, you might have a
>>point. It is not. The CO2 cycle is complex and the atmosphere is
>>more so. Competing natural and man made factors contribute to heat
>>retention within the atmosphere. A number of other factors tend to
>>limit heat retention or block solar inputs. When all are weighed in
>>the balance, we have less then a half a degree of warming when a CO2
>>only model would have predicted 5 degrees. This suggests that CO2 is
>>not the major contributor to global temperature that some had
>>predicted earlier. You may continue to chant your mantra all you
>>wish, but the bulk of earth scientists do not believe you and the
>>facts are not on your side on this one.
Water vapor is THE greenhouse gas.
If global warming is the problem, why does the solution involve the
U.S. cutting back to 1990 levels, but the third world can increase
their carbon output unabated? Why not return ALL nations' output to
1990 levels?
tjwilson
Zepp wrote:
>
> On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 17:54:53 GMT, tjwilson <tjwi...@hb.quik.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >silverback wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 16:40:11 -0500, "Not a Republican"
> >> <forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"silverback" <gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3864fa90...@news.spiritone.com...
> >> >> On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:46:58 -0500, "Not a Republican"
> >> >> <forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >And the witch doctor will undoubtedly accord any event to his pet theory.
> >> >> >How can they do this? Because their models very incomplete and as
> >> >reliable
> >> >>
> >> >> nope the models are reliable
> >> >
> >> >Will you stand there and hold your breath as long as I say they're not? Or
> >> >will you get out your animal bones?
> >>
> >> naw I will just get out the models and show you how many correct
> >> projections those models have already made.
> >> You can put on the pointy hat and go sit in the corner now.
> >
> >There is a projection that the sky will fall on Mar 5, 2000.
> >Seriously, I saw it on the History Channel. Be prepared, wear
> >your pointy hat.
> >tjw
>
> Hmm. That's a Sunday, isn't it?
>
> Nothing on my calendar for that day. OK. End of the World it is. I
> won't bother to return my video rentals.
That's a good attitude. If Glen sees that show on the History Channel;
he'll spend the whole day under his bed.
tjw
> >>
>
>< BS snipped >
silverback
wrote:
>silverback wrote:
>
>> still think you can violate the laws of thermo and quantum, huh? CO2
>> is tha [sic] major major [sic] green house gas with global warming [??}, there are
>> other factors as well[,] but none as important as CO2. The models did
>> correctly predict a rise in temp. And trying to trivialized [sic] the amount
>> of the rise as only a[sic] 1/5 degree C or [a] full degree F shows how little
>> you really learnt [sic] at the university. After all the peaks and valleys
>> of temps [sic] during pass [sic] warm periods and ice ages only vary by[differ?] about 2-5
>> degrees from normal.
>
>Which law of thermodynamics do you postulate is being violated?
>You neglected to specify what quantum... quantum chemistry? Quantum
>physics? And which quantum law do you postulate is being violated by his
>reply?
poor widdle carol doesn't understand basic chemistry. Hey moron its
called asbortion of black body radiation and the 2nd law of thermo
look em up.
>If he learned so little at his university, yet is making a living as a
>scientist and composing coherent posts, what is the implication about
>what you learned from your university, with a masters in chemistry and
>BS in Computer Science, but working as a help desk technician and unable
>to put together a coherent post?
>I realise this is a bit harsh, but you should expect to get this sort of
>response when you call others "dumb hicks" and idiots.
too bad that dumb hick isn't even up to date on the peer reviewed lit
in his subfiled. Thats right you goofy bastard, that fool claims to be
an earth scientist and that earth scientist disagrees with global
warming. But just one year ago in Oct a geologist delivered a paper at
the SF convention stating that 1998 was the warmest year in over 1600
years. -- He thoguht his data base was only accurate enough to go back
that long.
silverback
wrote:
>On 27 Dec 1999 16:52:58 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>wrote:
>
>>>Once more, for your benefit, I will try to explain it really slowly.
>>>If CO2 was the sole factor in a dynamic atmosphere, you might have a
>>>point. It is not. The CO2 cycle is complex and the atmosphere is
>>>more so. Competing natural and man made factors contribute to heat
>>>retention within the atmosphere. A number of other factors tend to
>>>limit heat retention or block solar inputs. When all are weighed in
>>>the balance, we have less then a half a degree of warming when a CO2
>>>only model would have predicted 5 degrees. This suggests that CO2 is
>>>not the major contributor to global temperature that some had
>>>predicted earlier. You may continue to chant your mantra all you
>>>wish, but the bulk of earth scientists do not believe you and the
>>>facts are not on your side on this one.
>
>Water vapor is THE greenhouse gas.
yup. but now go and tell us how you increase the maximum amount of
water vapor in the atm? Come on widdle feller, answer up. The fact
remains the amount of water vapor is essentilly a constant as long as
the global temp is constant.
>
>If global warming is the problem, why does the solution involve the
>U.S. cutting back to 1990 levels, but the third world can increase
>their carbon output unabated? Why not return ALL nations' output to
>1990 levels?
because too damn many corporate whores have polluted good science.
silverback
wrote:
>
>
>Zepp wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 17:54:53 GMT, tjwilson <tjwi...@hb.quik.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >silverback wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 16:40:11 -0500, "Not a Republican"
>> >> <forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"silverback" <gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3864fa90...@news.spiritone.com...
>> >> >> On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:46:58 -0500, "Not a Republican"
>> >> >> <forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >And the witch doctor will undoubtedly accord any event to his pet theory.
>> >> >> >How can they do this? Because their models very incomplete and as
>> >> >reliable
>> >> >>
>> >> >> nope the models are reliable
>> >> >
>> >> >Will you stand there and hold your breath as long as I say they're not? Or
>> >> >will you get out your animal bones?
>> >>
>> >> naw I will just get out the models and show you how many correct
>> >> projections those models have already made.
>> >> You can put on the pointy hat and go sit in the corner now.
>> >
>> >There is a projection that the sky will fall on Mar 5, 2000.
>> >Seriously, I saw it on the History Channel. Be prepared, wear
>> >your pointy hat.
>> >tjw
>>
>> Hmm. That's a Sunday, isn't it?
>>
>> Nothing on my calendar for that day. OK. End of the World it is. I
>> won't bother to return my video rentals.
>
>That's a good attitude. If Glen sees that show on the History Channel;
>he'll spend the whole day under his bed.
naw I am going to make damn sure I land on top of one of you right
wingers just so I can shit in yer face for one last time.
>tjw
>> >>
>>
>>< BS snipped >
Phillip C Nisbet
wrote:
>
>too bad that dumb hick isn't even up to date on the peer reviewed lit
>in his subfiled. Thats right you goofy bastard, that fool claims to be
>an earth scientist and that earth scientist disagrees with global
>warming. But just one year ago in Oct a geologist delivered a paper at
>the SF convention stating that 1998 was the warmest year in over 1600
>years. -- He thoguht his data base was only accurate enough to go back
>that long.
>
One paper at the AGU annual meeting does not a scientific consensus
make. Neither does the data of one group stand as conclusive. We do
science, which is something you have only a foggy notion of.
The bulk of earth scientists were polled on the question of global
warming less then 4 months ago. The conclusion was that we do not
have sufficient data at this time to be sure that it is even occuring
and that any drastic action to avert 'global warming' was not
justified at this time. The same AGU paper you mention was later
picked to shreds in Science, by the by.
Now, please show me how the laws of entropy are violated by any thing
that I have posted. Proofs is how we do science. If you have a
degree in chemistry, mine is in geochemistry, you should be able to
show me a complete model for how you expect to predict the CO2 cycle,
but can you or any other give me a similar model which deals with all
variables for the atmosphere? Even assuming you have a Cray? Of
course you can't. The models are to simplistic.
That is why they can not accurately predict the temperature increase
and why they are unable to deliver real proofs. Until they do, the
jury is out on global warming.
And further, methane is a far better green house gas then CO2. Look
it up in your CRC, which any real chemist always keeps near and dear
to him.
Phillip C Nisbet
wrote:
>>Water vapor is THE greenhouse gas.
>
>yup. but now go and tell us how you increase the maximum amount of
>water vapor in the atm? Come on widdle feller, answer up. The fact
>remains the amount of water vapor is essentilly a constant as long as
>the global temp is constant.
>
And at what point in the history of the planet can you spot a time
when the temperature has been constant? So, widdle fella, water vapor
and global temperature are variables, not constants. CO2
concentrations have been higher in the past as well and are not acting
proportionally to the amount of fossil fuels burned. Ever hear of the
CO2 sink? Notice that many of us are interested in where some of the
'missing' CO2 has gone? Or do you actually read any journals in
Geochemistry?
>>
>>If global warming is the problem, why does the solution involve the
>>U.S. cutting back to 1990 levels, but the third world can increase
>>their carbon output unabated? Why not return ALL nations' output to
>>1990 levels?
>
>because too damn many corporate whores have polluted good science.
>
No, because too many enviro-fascists have been defeated in trying to
impose their will on the third world. Their countries will not put up
with this crypto-imperialism of the left. They intend to improve the
living standards of their people and the white bread silver spoon
greenie set has not political sway in their nations. So their
solution is to get BC to allow them into WTO and try to ram trade
restrictions on the errant third world, who then pulls out of the
meeting. Result, silverback helps to starve workers in the third
world.
Gary Carroll
silverback wrote:
> >> >There is a projection that the sky will fall on Mar 5, 2000.
> >> >Seriously, I saw it on the History Channel. Be prepared, wear
> >> >your pointy hat.
> >> >tjw
> >>
> >> Hmm. That's a Sunday, isn't it?
> >>
> >> Nothing on my calendar for that day. OK. End of the World it is. I
> >> won't bother to return my video rentals.
> >
> >That's a good attitude. If Glen sees that show on the History Channel;
> >he'll spend the whole day under his bed.
>
> naw I am going to make damn sure I land on top of one of you right
> wingers just so I can shit in yer face for one last time.
You live in the sky?
Gary Carroll
silverback wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:42:38 GMT, Gary Carroll <garyc...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >silverback wrote:
> >
> >> still think you can violate the laws of thermo and quantum, huh? CO2
> >> is tha [sic] major major [sic] green house gas with global warming [??}, there are
> >> other factors as well[,] but none as important as CO2. The models did
> >> correctly predict a rise in temp. And trying to trivialized [sic] the amount
> >> of the rise as only a[sic] 1/5 degree C or [a] full degree F shows how little
> >> you really learnt [sic] at the university. After all the peaks and valleys
> >> of temps [sic] during pass [sic] warm periods and ice ages only vary by[differ?] about 2-5
> >> degrees from normal.
> >
> >Which law of thermodynamics do you postulate is being violated?
> >You neglected to specify what quantum... quantum chemistry? Quantum
> >physics? And which quantum law do you postulate is being violated by his
> >reply?
>
> poor widdle carol doesn't understand basic chemistry. Hey moron its
> called asbortion of black body radiation and the 2nd law of thermo
> look em up.
No, it’s not. I think you mean "absorption of black body radiation", but
that is still wrong, as the second law of thermodynamics is *not* black
body absorption. The second law says that disorder (entropy) is always
increasing in any closed system. Black body radiation and absorption are
just two of the many consequences of this law. The second law means that
heat always flows from a warm area to a cool area. A consequence of this
is that heat will flow earth to space, greenhouse gasses
notwithstanding.
The concern about greenhouse gasses is that visible sunlight can
penetrate the greenhouse gas unabsorbed, thus allowing heat gain from
the sun to take place normally. But the sunlight absorbed by the earth
is re-radiated in infrared, and re-radiation is slowed (not prevented)
by greenhouse gasses. This *may* raise temperatures, but the amount of
increase is unknown because greenhouse gasses are not the only mechanism
to be considered. For instance, the reflectivity of the earth is not a
constant. If the earth warms even slightly, the amount of cloud cover
increases, and thus (since clouds are white) reflectivity goes up.
Sunlight that strikes a cloud is reflected as visible light without the
greenhouse gasses having any effect.
I note that it’s still a mystery what you think any of any of this has
to do with quantum physics. I suspect you threw in the word quantum
because you think it sounds neat, and left out physics because it’s to
hard for you to spell. Any other familiarity is quite limited.
I base this on our previous exchange on this subject, in which you
creatively wrote:
> give some people a shovel and damn just sit back and watch them dig a
> whole to bury themself with. So you are saying that global absorbtion
> is exactly balanced by global radiation. Nope not by a long shot.
(Incidentally, the *first* law of thermodynamics, says that the total
amount of energy going into a closed system must be matched by the total
amount going out.)
silverback
Nisbet) wrote:
>On 28 Dec 1999 07:23:33 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>wrote:
>>
>>too bad that dumb hick isn't even up to date on the peer reviewed lit
>>in his subfiled. Thats right you goofy bastard, that fool claims to be
>>an earth scientist and that earth scientist disagrees with global
>>warming. But just one year ago in Oct a geologist delivered a paper at
>>the SF convention stating that 1998 was the warmest year in over 1600
>>years. -- He thoguht his data base was only accurate enough to go back
>>that long.
>>
>silverback,
>
>One paper at the AGU annual meeting does not a scientific consensus
>make. Neither does the data of one group stand as conclusive. We do
>science, which is something you have only a foggy notion of.
>
>The bulk of earth scientists were polled on the question of global
>warming less then 4 months ago. The conclusion was that we do not
>have sufficient data at this time to be sure that it is even occuring
>and that any drastic action to avert 'global warming' was not
>justified at this time. The same AGU paper you mention was later
>picked to shreds in Science, by the by.
now you are fibbing.
>
>Now, please show me how the laws of entropy are violated by any thing
>that I have posted. Proofs is how we do science. If you have a
>degree in chemistry, mine is in geochemistry, you should be able to
>show me a complete model for how you expect to predict the CO2 cycle,
>but can you or any other give me a similar model which deals with all
>variables for the atmosphere? Even assuming you have a Cray? Of
>course you can't. The models are to simplistic.
>
nor can the models of a nuclear reactor give the precise details of
the workings of that reactor but it still can be used to control it.
Thats the problem of all models, they are inherently simplistic in
order that the details maybe more fully understood. No one other than
the anti-global warming crowd has ever claimed that models must be
exact.
>That is why they can not accurately predict the temperature increase
>and why they are unable to deliver real proofs. Until they do, the
>jury is out on global warming.
>
nope the jury has already concluded that global warming is real and
all thats left is how soon and how severe the effects will be.
>And further, methane is a far better green house gas then CO2. Look
>it up in your CRC, which any real chemist always keeps near and dear
>to him.
hehe, there are many gasses that are better aborbers of IR radiation,
but then they are only trace gases vs the 3% or concentration of CO2
in the atmo.
silverback
Nisbet) wrote:
>On 28 Dec 1999 07:25:50 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>Water vapor is THE greenhouse gas.
>>
>>yup. but now go and tell us how you increase the maximum amount of
>>water vapor in the atm? Come on widdle feller, answer up. The fact
>>remains the amount of water vapor is essentilly a constant as long as
>>the global temp is constant.
>>
>And at what point in the history of the planet can you spot a time
>when the temperature has been constant? So, widdle fella, water vapor
>and global temperature are variables, not constants. CO2
oh for the last few ten thousand years the global average temp has
been nearly constant.
>concentrations have been higher in the past as well and are not acting
>proportionally to the amount of fossil fuels burned. Ever hear of the
>CO2 sink? Notice that many of us are interested in where some of the
yup sure have heard of the carbon sink. But then if it is out there
tell us why the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is still increasing?
Could it be due to the fact that the massive amounts of CO2 produce by
the buring of fossil fuels is beyond the capacity of the so called
carbon sink?
>'missing' CO2 has gone? Or do you actually read any journals in
>Geochemistry?
so is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increasing or decreasing?
>>>
>>>If global warming is the problem, why does the solution involve the
>>>U.S. cutting back to 1990 levels, but the third world can increase
>>>their carbon output unabated? Why not return ALL nations' output to
>>>1990 levels?
>>
>>because too damn many corporate whores have polluted good science.
>>
>No, because too many enviro-fascists have been defeated in trying to
>impose their will on the third world. Their countries will not put up
the only ecofasccist are the 3 piece suits in the corporate board
room.
>with this crypto-imperialism of the left. They intend to improve the
>living standards of their people and the white bread silver spoon
>greenie set has not political sway in their nations. So their
>solution is to get BC to allow them into WTO and try to ram trade
>restrictions on the errant third world, who then pulls out of the
>meeting. Result, silverback helps to starve workers in the third
>world.
*****************************************************
zepp, a weasel
Nisbet) wrote:
>On 28 Dec 1999 07:25:50 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>Water vapor is THE greenhouse gas.
>>
>>yup. but now go and tell us how you increase the maximum amount of
>>water vapor in the atm? Come on widdle feller, answer up. The fact
>>remains the amount of water vapor is essentilly a constant as long as
>>the global temp is constant.
>>
>And at what point in the history of the planet can you spot a time
>when the temperature has been constant? So, widdle fella, water vapor
>and global temperature are variables, not constants. CO2
>concentrations have been higher in the past as well and are not acting
>proportionally to the amount of fossil fuels burned. Ever hear of the
>CO2 sink? Notice that many of us are interested in where some of the
>'missing' CO2 has gone? Or do you actually read any journals in
>Geochemistry?
A goodly chunk of it wound up on the floor of the ocean, in the form
of ice. We became aware of this in the past few years when the
Caribbean heated some ten degrees, and some of the CO2 ice started
sublimating.
Some of it went into plant life, most particularly plankton.
Unfortunately, the increased UV irradiation has caused something of a
drop in such at a time when it should be increasing sharply in the
face of a bountiful food supply.
>>>
>>>If global warming is the problem, why does the solution involve the
>>>U.S. cutting back to 1990 levels, but the third world can increase
>>>their carbon output unabated? Why not return ALL nations' output to
>>>1990 levels?
>>
>>because too damn many corporate whores have polluted good science.
>>
>No, because too many enviro-fascists have been defeated in trying to
>impose their will on the third world. Their countries will not put up
>with this crypto-imperialism of the left. They intend to improve the
>living standards of their people and the white bread silver spoon
>greenie set has not political sway in their nations. So their
>solution is to get BC to allow them into WTO and try to ram trade
>restrictions on the errant third world, who then pulls out of the
>meeting. Result, silverback helps to starve workers in the third
>world.
You need to make up your minds. You can't simultaneously claim that
it's not fair that the treaty doesn't apply to the third world and
then whine because it does.
Third world economies, being the libertarian paradises that they are,
will result in people starving either way. It's just that they get to
develop asthma as they are starving under the free trade model.
**********************************************************
"Newt Gingrich showed the country that when he was Speaker
of the House, he was banging more than just his gavel."
-- Mark Russell
For political commentary by Zepp, visit
http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.html
Steve Kangas' brilliant "Liberalism Resurgant"
is mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
Phillip C Nisbet
wrote:
>
>hehe, there are many gasses that are better aborbers of IR radiation,
>but then they are only trace gases vs the 3% or concentration of CO2
>in the atmo.
Neat trick, silverback. You have been going on and on as if you
actually had any knowledge of the subject matter and then you give us
the above. hehe indeed. When did global CO2 levels rise to 3%? Last
I checked we were in the 468 ppm level, which granted is twice the
level it was in the last century. By definition, CO2 is a trace gas.
This planet has not seen CO2 at 3% levels since the Proteozoic,
remember, the time when O2 breathers started to change the atmosphere?
That was over 1.6 billion years ago last I checked.
Phillip C Nisbet
wrote:
>
>A goodly chunk of it wound up on the floor of the ocean, in the form
>of ice. We became aware of this in the past few years when the
>Caribbean heated some ten degrees, and some of the CO2 ice started
>sublimating.
>
Zepp, the CO2 in the Carribean and elsewhere is not held as 'ice'.
It is held as Carbonate. CO2 gas has a strange solubility with
optimum temperatures for maximum disolved concentrations in cooler
waters. When you reach a certain depth, the temperature reaches
optimum and this depth is called the compensation depth after which
carbonate reef materials will begin to disolve. When this happens and
you get a sudden warming of those waters, instant large scale releases
occur. So, if we are truely entering a global warming regime, there
might be small scale mass venting events, butover all, it would move
the compensation zone north and increase reef formation, acting as a
buffer for CO2 accumulation.
>Some of it went into plant life, most particularly plankton.
>Unfortunately, the increased UV irradiation has caused something of a
>drop in such at a time when it should be increasing sharply in the
>face of a bountiful food supply.
UV radiation increase? That is a totally diferent topic. It is
doubtful that UV has much effect on forams. The dominate concern
right now is food supply as in insufficent nutrient loading in the
correct places at the correct times of year. We are tending to create
a uniform emmisions policy which effects riparian and marine pulsed
releases of natural sourced nutrient in our drive to create the ideal
nature. Streams have certain dirty times of the year, as do coastal
regions. Cut the nutrients at those times and the result is reduced
productivity. So the effect you note is human caused, but from a
different source.
>>>>
>>>>If global warming is the problem, why does the solution involve the
>>>>U.S. cutting back to 1990 levels, but the third world can increase
>>>>their carbon output unabated? Why not return ALL nations' output to
>>>>1990 levels?
>>>
>>>because too damn many corporate whores have polluted good science.
>>>
>>No, because too many enviro-fascists have been defeated in trying to
>>impose their will on the third world. Their countries will not put up
>>with this crypto-imperialism of the left. They intend to improve the
>>living standards of their people and the white bread silver spoon
>>greenie set has not political sway in their nations. So their
>>solution is to get BC to allow them into WTO and try to ram trade
>>restrictions on the errant third world, who then pulls out of the
>>meeting. Result, silverback helps to starve workers in the third
>>world.
>
>You need to make up your minds. You can't simultaneously claim that
>it's not fair that the treaty doesn't apply to the third world and
>then whine because it does.
>
Zepp, it was not I who was pushing the 'fairness' routine. I think we
are dealing with economic imperialism. The rich tell the poor, stop
living in squalor or we will ruin your economies, but if you purchase
our latest environmental devices!! It is a standard shell game with
the third world forced to play in order to get any of the pie.
>Third world economies, being the libertarian paradises that they are,
>will result in people starving either way. It's just that they get to
>develop asthma as they are starving under the free trade model.
>
Actually, the third world is no libertarian paridise. They are mostly
authoritarian shit holes. Free markets do not exist. The average
camposino has to buy his cement from a state monopoly at twice the
price he could make the stuff himself for. Portland cement should be
lower in cost then here in the USA, but is more expensive. The only
people who benefit from such economies are the oligarchies and the
giant corporations who flee here to sign up with them.
If you want to end exploitation, increase the goods and servcies
availible to the average person in the third world, and improve the
environment in their countries, start supporting the fair and free
trade opening for small business on both sides of the equation. As it
currently stands, only the monsters can get through the paper work to
trade and having no competition, they can keep the oligarchs in power.
If you help sponser small local businesses, help them grow, they will
overturn the regimes who have been so harmful. That is libertarian,
not the current system.
Gary Carroll
>
> On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 08:48:18 GMT, nis...@salmoninternet.com (Phillip C
> Nisbet) wrote:
>
> >On 28 Dec 1999 07:25:50 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Water vapor is THE greenhouse gas.
> >>
> >>yup. but now go and tell us how you increase the maximum amount of
> >>water vapor in the atm? Come on widdle feller, answer up. The fact
> >>remains the amount of water vapor is essentilly a constant as long as
> >>the global temp is constant.
> >>
> >And at what point in the history of the planet can you spot a time
> >when the temperature has been constant? So, widdle fella, water vapor
> >and global temperature are variables, not constants. CO2
> >concentrations have been higher in the past as well and are not acting
> >proportionally to the amount of fossil fuels burned. Ever hear of the
> >CO2 sink? Notice that many of us are interested in where some of the
> >'missing' CO2 has gone? Or do you actually read any journals in
> >Geochemistry?
See http://www.microtech.com.au/daly/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
> A goodly chunk of it wound up on the floor of the ocean, in the form
> of ice. We became aware of this in the past few years when the
> Caribbean heated some ten degrees, and some of the CO2 ice started
> sublimating.
Are you sure you are not thinking of the methane nodules? C02 ice (also
called dry ice) is at a temperature of about 110 degrees below zero.
This seems an unlikely condition for the bottom of an ocean of liquid
water.
> Some of it went into plant life, most particularly plankton.
> Unfortunately, the increased UV irradiation has caused something of a
> drop in such at a time when it should be increasing sharply in the
> face of a bountiful food supply.
> >>>
> >>>If global warming is the problem, why does the solution involve the
> >>>U.S. cutting back to 1990 levels, but the third world can increase
> >>>their carbon output unabated? Why not return ALL nations' output to
> >>>1990 levels?
> >>
> >>because too damn many corporate whores have polluted good science.
> >>
> >No, because too many enviro-fascists have been defeated in trying to
> >impose their will on the third world. Their countries will not put up
> >with this crypto-imperialism of the left. They intend to improve the
> >living standards of their people and the white bread silver spoon
> >greenie set has not political sway in their nations. So their
> >solution is to get BC to allow them into WTO and try to ram trade
> >restrictions on the errant third world, who then pulls out of the
> >meeting. Result, silverback helps to starve workers in the third
> >world.
>
> You need to make up your minds. You can't simultaneously claim that
> it's not fair that the treaty doesn't apply to the third world and
> then whine because it does.
>
Gary Carroll
silverback wrote:
(snip)
> >And further, methane is a far better green house gas then CO2. Look
> >it up in your CRC, which any real chemist always keeps near and dear
> >to him.
>
> hehe, there are many gasses that are better aborbers of IR radiation,
> but then they are only trace gases vs the 3% or concentration of CO2
> in the atmo.
Your numbers seem to be off by a factor of a thousand or so. Again (or
still.) As discussed earlier, C02 comprises 0.00315% of the atmosphere.
Not 3%. You've been using the incorrect numbers and being corrected on
it for months, now.
silverback
Nisbet) wrote:
>On 28 Dec 1999 16:50:48 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>hehe, there are many gasses that are better aborbers of IR radiation,
>>but then they are only trace gases vs the 3% or concentration of CO2
>>in the atmo.
>
>Neat trick, silverback. You have been going on and on as if you
>actually had any knowledge of the subject matter and then you give us
>the above. hehe indeed. When did global CO2 levels rise to 3%? Last
>I checked we were in the 468 ppm level, which granted is twice the
>level it was in the last century. By definition, CO2 is a trace gas.
>This planet has not seen CO2 at 3% levels since the Proteozoic,
>remember, the time when O2 breathers started to change the atmosphere?
>That was over 1.6 billion years ago last I checked.
too bad the fool still thinks CO2 is a trace gas, He couldn't be more
wrong.
silverback
<garyboun...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>silverback wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:42:38 GMT, Gary Carroll <garyc...@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >silverback wrote:
>> >
>> >> still think you can violate the laws of thermo and quantum, huh? CO2
>> >> is tha [sic] major major [sic] green house gas with global warming [??}, there are
>> >> other factors as well[,] but none as important as CO2. The models did
>> >> correctly predict a rise in temp. And trying to trivialized [sic] the amount
>> >> of the rise as only a[sic] 1/5 degree C or [a] full degree F shows how little
>> >> you really learnt [sic] at the university. After all the peaks and valleys
>> >> of temps [sic] during pass [sic] warm periods and ice ages only vary by[differ?] about 2-5
>> >> degrees from normal.
>> >
>> >Which law of thermodynamics do you postulate is being violated?
>> >You neglected to specify what quantum... quantum chemistry? Quantum
>> >physics? And which quantum law do you postulate is being violated by his
>> >reply?
>>
>> poor widdle carol doesn't understand basic chemistry. Hey moron its
>> called asbortion of black body radiation and the 2nd law of thermo
>> look em up.
>
>No, it’s not. I think you mean "absorption of black body radiation", but
>that is still wrong, as the second law of thermodynamics is *not* black
I never claimed black body wa thermo--it comes from quantum
>body absorption. The second law says that disorder (entropy) is always
>increasing in any closed system. Black body radiation and absorption are
>just two of the many consequences of this law. The second law means that
>heat always flows from a warm area to a cool area. A consequence of this
very good
>is that heat will flow earth to space, greenhouse gasses
>notwithstanding.
oops the poor little fool forgot once absorbed half of that raidiation
is emitted back towards the earth.
>The concern about greenhouse gasses is that visible sunlight can
>penetrate the greenhouse gas unabsorbed, thus allowing heat gain from
>the sun to take place normally. But the sunlight absorbed by the earth
>is re-radiated in infrared, and re-radiation is slowed (not prevented)
another silly semantic arguement from carol. Since the earth is
warming up those green house gasses are doing one hell of a bang up
job in preventing heat from leaving the earth, unless you have came up
for a new miracle way of producing heat on the planet.
Guess you must believe that you can now create energy out of nothings.
>by greenhouse gasses. This *may* raise temperatures, but the amount of
>increase is unknown because greenhouse gasses are not the only mechanism
>to be considered. For instance, the reflectivity of the earth is not a
>constant. If the earth warms even slightly, the amount of cloud cover
>increases, and thus (since clouds are white) reflectivity goes up.
>Sunlight that strikes a cloud is reflected as visible light without the
>greenhouse gasses having any effect.
too bad for you those same clouds hold the heat in even more at night.
>I note that it’s still a mystery what you think any of any of this has
>to do with quantum physics. I suspect you threw in the word quantum
>because you think it sounds neat, and left out physics because it’s to
>hard for you to spell. Any other familiarity is quite limited.
>I base this on our previous exchange on this subject, in which you
>creatively wrote:
>
>> give some people a shovel and damn just sit back and watch them dig a
>> whole to bury themself with. So you are saying that global absorbtion
>> is exactly balanced by global radiation. Nope not by a long shot.
>
>(Incidentally, the *first* law of thermodynamics, says that the total
>amount of energy going into a closed system must be matched by the total
>amount going out.)
*****************************************************
silverback
Nisbet) wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 00:07:57 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (zepp, a weasel)
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>A goodly chunk of it wound up on the floor of the ocean, in the form
>>of ice. We became aware of this in the past few years when the
>>Caribbean heated some ten degrees, and some of the CO2 ice started
>>sublimating.
>>
>Zepp, the CO2 in the Carribean and elsewhere is not held as 'ice'.
>It is held as Carbonate. CO2 gas has a strange solubility with
>optimum temperatures for maximum disolved concentrations in cooler
>waters. When you reach a certain depth, the temperature reaches
>optimum and this depth is called the compensation depth after which
>carbonate reef materials will begin to disolve. When this happens and
>you get a sudden warming of those waters, instant large scale releases
>occur. So, if we are truely entering a global warming regime, there
>might be small scale mass venting events, butover all, it would move
>the compensation zone north and increase reef formation, acting as a
>buffer for CO2 accumulation.
but that means the existing reefs would be in warmer water and would
die as a result. Most corals can only tolerate a ver restricted range
of temps.
So their would be no net gain in the uptake of CO2 by coral, more than
likely the net would be less as the coral would first need to
establish themself fully.
>
>>Some of it went into plant life, most particularly plankton.
>>Unfortunately, the increased UV irradiation has caused something of a
>>drop in such at a time when it should be increasing sharply in the
>>face of a bountiful food supply.
>
>UV radiation increase? That is a totally diferent topic. It is
>doubtful that UV has much effect on forams. The dominate concern
>right now is food supply as in insufficent nutrient loading in the
>correct places at the correct times of year. We are tending to create
>a uniform emmisions policy which effects riparian and marine pulsed
>releases of natural sourced nutrient in our drive to create the ideal
>nature. Streams have certain dirty times of the year, as do coastal
>regions. Cut the nutrients at those times and the result is reduced
>productivity. So the effect you note is human caused, but from a
>different source.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>If global warming is the problem, why does the solution involve the
>>>>>U.S. cutting back to 1990 levels, but the third world can increase
>>>>>their carbon output unabated? Why not return ALL nations' output to
>>>>>1990 levels?
>>>>
>>>>because too damn many corporate whores have polluted good science.
>>>>
>>>No, because too many enviro-fascists have been defeated in trying to
>>>impose their will on the third world. Their countries will not put up
>>>with this crypto-imperialism of the left. They intend to improve the
>>>living standards of their people and the white bread silver spoon
>>>greenie set has not political sway in their nations. So their
>>>solution is to get BC to allow them into WTO and try to ram trade
>>>restrictions on the errant third world, who then pulls out of the
>>>meeting. Result, silverback helps to starve workers in the third
>>>world.
>>
>>You need to make up your minds. You can't simultaneously claim that
>>it's not fair that the treaty doesn't apply to the third world and
>>then whine because it does.
>>
>Zepp, it was not I who was pushing the 'fairness' routine. I think we
>are dealing with economic imperialism. The rich tell the poor, stop
>living in squalor or we will ruin your economies, but if you purchase
>our latest environmental devices!! It is a standard shell game with
>the third world forced to play in order to get any of the pie.
>
>>Third world economies, being the libertarian paradises that they are,
>>will result in people starving either way. It's just that they get to
>>develop asthma as they are starving under the free trade model.
>>
>Actually, the third world is no libertarian paridise. They are mostly
>authoritarian shit holes. Free markets do not exist. The average
>camposino has to buy his cement from a state monopoly at twice the
>price he could make the stuff himself for. Portland cement should be
>lower in cost then here in the USA, but is more expensive. The only
>people who benefit from such economies are the oligarchies and the
>giant corporations who flee here to sign up with them.
>
>If you want to end exploitation, increase the goods and servcies
>availible to the average person in the third world, and improve the
>environment in their countries, start supporting the fair and free
>trade opening for small business on both sides of the equation. As it
>currently stands, only the monsters can get through the paper work to
>trade and having no competition, they can keep the oligarchs in power.
>If you help sponser small local businesses, help them grow, they will
>overturn the regimes who have been so harmful. That is libertarian,
>not the current system.
>
*****************************************************
Phillip C Nisbet
wrote:
>>Zepp, the CO2 in the Carribean and elsewhere is not held as 'ice'.
>>It is held as Carbonate. CO2 gas has a strange solubility with
>>optimum temperatures for maximum disolved concentrations in cooler
>>waters. When you reach a certain depth, the temperature reaches
>>optimum and this depth is called the compensation depth after which
>>carbonate reef materials will begin to disolve. When this happens and
>>you get a sudden warming of those waters, instant large scale releases
>>occur. So, if we are truely entering a global warming regime, there
>>might be small scale mass venting events, butover all, it would move
>>the compensation zone north and increase reef formation, acting as a
>>buffer for CO2 accumulation.
>
>but that means the existing reefs would be in warmer water and would
>die as a result. Most corals can only tolerate a ver restricted range
>of temps.
>So their would be no net gain in the uptake of CO2 by coral, more than
>likely the net would be less as the coral would first need to
>establish themself fully.
>
>>
Listen, silverback, so I can get this through to you. You are
assuming that corrals are the dominate limestone formers. They are
not. Planktonic forams with calcereous tests are the source for most
of the non-direct chemically percipitated carbonate oozes which are
where we get the bulk of limestones. Reefs do have limited
temperature ranges and if some died, it would be a loseto ecological
diversity, but not result in increased CO2. Only disolved CO2
concnetrations are effected by extreme temperature flux. INcreasing
the coastal area in which warm waters prevail will act as a major CO2
sink, equilibrating and regualting the CO2 in the Atmosphere.
Lvis
understand basic chemistry. "
Obvioiusly neither does dumbass glenn yeadon or else he might be able to get
a decent job since he has 'nearly' a PhD.
glenny, YOU are one phony suckass.
Lvis.
--
Make 7- UP YOURS!!!
Gary Carroll
"zepp, a weasel" wrote:
...
> >CO2 sink? Notice that many of us are interested in where some of the
> >'missing' CO2 has gone? ...
>
> A goodly chunk of it wound up on the floor of the ocean, in the form
> of ice. We became aware of this in the past few years when the
> Caribbean heated some ten degrees, and some of the CO2 ice started
> sublimating.
Are you sure you aren't referring to methane nodules? These are where
methane is dissolved in water and trapped in water ice. C02 ice (also
called dry ice) is about 109 degrees below zero. This seems like an
improbable condition to find at the bottom of an ocean of liquid water.
But I certainly don't claim to know everything about what goes on at the
bottom of the ocean.
Gary Carroll
> now you are fibbing.
>
and later in the same post wrote...
>
> hehe, there are many gasses that are better aborbers of IR radiation,
> but then they are only trace gases vs the 3% or concentration of CO2
> in the atmo.
What constitutes a trace gas? Less than 1%?
CO2 is not 3% of the atmosphere, as you claim. It is about 0.0036%.
You have posted the larger, incorrect figure many times before, and been
corrected about it then as well. Your answer has been to say that the
correct figures are misleading or a lie because they make the CO2 look
insignificant(!). Who exactly is fibbing?
For example:
wol...@inficad.com:
>At 360 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's
>atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared
>to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2-
>impoverished.
Silverback:
>So what wolfie, you are trying to lie by making the CO2 content seem
small.
You are consistently incorrect in your description of how greenhouse
gasses work. You state that "they act like an extra layer of insulation
in the attic" and that they would cause the upper atmosphere to cool by
trapping heat at the surface. This is not so. Greenhouse gasses slow
infrared radiation that normally passes unhindered through the
atmosphere by absorbing and re-radiating the heat. They have no effect
whatever on conduction or convection, as attic insulation does. Since
the upper atmosphere is warmed by convection and not by infrared
radiation, greenhouse gasses would not prevent heat from reaching the
upper atmosphere. In fact, more greenhouse gasses would *warm* the upper
atmosphere, both by increased convection (warmer air by greenhouse
gasses would create more convection) and also directly. Directly,
because we also receive infrared radiation from the sun. With low
greenhouse gas content, this reaches the ground unhindered. With high
greenhouse gas concentration it would be absorbed by the atmosphere,
warming the air before reaching the ground.
You also incorrectly state that satellites measure the temperature of
the upper atmosphere, which is unrelated (in your view) to the ground.
In fact, satellites can measure (using infrared sensing) the temperature
of the ground or surface water as well as upper atmosphere. Typically,
The surface temperature can be measured with a standard deviation of
less than 0.3 K and a maximum error less than 1 K for viewing angles up
to 40 degrees from nadir under cloud-free conditions, given satellite
measurements in three infrared channels. Repeat measurements can refine
this further.
silverback
<garyboun...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>silverback wrote:
>(snip)
>> >And further, methane is a far better green house gas then CO2. Look
>> >it up in your CRC, which any real chemist always keeps near and dear
>> >to him.
>>
>> hehe, there are many gasses that are better aborbers of IR radiation,
>> but then they are only trace gases vs the 3% or concentration of CO2
>> in the atmo.
>
>Your numbers seem to be off by a factor of a thousand or so. Again (or
>still.) As discussed earlier, C02 comprises 0.00315% of the atmosphere.
>Not 3%. You've been using the incorrect numbers and being corrected on
>it for months, now.
it still doesn't change the fact that CO2 is the most important green
house gass.
silverback
Nisbet) wrote:
>On 29 Dec 1999 07:29:23 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>Zepp, the CO2 in the Carribean and elsewhere is not held as 'ice'.
>>>It is held as Carbonate. CO2 gas has a strange solubility with
>>>optimum temperatures for maximum disolved concentrations in cooler
>>>waters. When you reach a certain depth, the temperature reaches
>>>optimum and this depth is called the compensation depth after which
>>>carbonate reef materials will begin to disolve. When this happens and
>>>you get a sudden warming of those waters, instant large scale releases
>>>occur. So, if we are truely entering a global warming regime, there
>>>might be small scale mass venting events, butover all, it would move
>>>the compensation zone north and increase reef formation, acting as a
>>>buffer for CO2 accumulation.
>>
>>but that means the existing reefs would be in warmer water and would
>>die as a result. Most corals can only tolerate a ver restricted range
>>of temps.
>>So their would be no net gain in the uptake of CO2 by coral, more than
>>likely the net would be less as the coral would first need to
>>establish themself fully.
>>
>>>
>Listen, silverback, so I can get this through to you. You are
>assuming that corrals are the dominate limestone formers. They are
>not. Planktonic forams with calcereous tests are the source for most
>of the non-direct chemically percipitated carbonate oozes which are
>where we get the bulk of limestones. Reefs do have limited
>temperature ranges and if some died, it would be a loseto ecological
>diversity, but not result in increased CO2. Only disolved CO2
>concnetrations are effected by extreme temperature flux. INcreasing
>the coastal area in which warm waters prevail will act as a major CO2
>sink, equilibrating and regualting the CO2 in the Atmosphere.
no, you are making far too many assumations. The warmareas now would
simply become less productive. The net effect will be more likely zero
or an overall loss in the ability to fix CO2. Colonization takes years
meanwhile reefs can die in a matter of month or so in abnormally warm
water.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Nisbet) wrote:
>On 26 Dec 1999 16:53:19 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>wrong the models have correctly predicted numerous things such as a
>>greater warming of the low temps vs the high temps, the polar warming
>>as evidenced by thining ice caps and melting perma frost and many
>>others.
>>
>Any increase in global temperatures will result in thinning ice caps,
>silverback.
Would any increase produce the pattern of warming primarily in the
daily low?
Isn't that at least partial confirmation of the theory?
The question comes, what generates the warming and what
>temperature conditions can be predicted from the model. Since the
>models for CO2 generated warming do not predicted the temperatures
>observed, it is obvious by Occams Razor, that they are not the source
>of observed climatic conditions.
I doubt Occam would say that. I think he simply said that wisdom is
best served by sticking to simpler models when they suffice to fit
data.
I think what you mean to say is that the theory has been disproved by
the data.
>
>>
>>the gulf war was hardly a nuclear war fellow. A nuclear winter is
>>still not disputed.
>>
>TAPPS was disputed at the very first conference it was presented at.
>Sagan tried to get it accepted by the scientific community, but the
>bugger bombed out. He later tried to claim that the proof of his
>TAPPS conclusions would be proven by the buring of the oil fields in
>the Gulf War. This only showed that no such effect took place in the
>predicted cyclone season or in temperatures in the Indian Ocean. So
>sorry, nuclear winter is disputed and repudiated.
>
>>>The best predictor of heat island factor revised global temperature
>>
>>oh bullshit you damn fools keep lying about the heat island. First off
>>there are only a limited number of sites that exhibit heat islands but
>>you want to claim all sites have one. Well loon I want you to tell us
>>how many recording stations are in Mont, Wy, ND, SD, Idaho, Alsaka,
>>the North West Terrorities, and the Yukon. Then I want you to list the
>>number of heat islands in that same area, an area that is at least a
>>third of North America if not more.
>>
>silverback, the heat island data has been acknowledge by Science and
>most other reputable journals. The most recent global warming data
>has been adjusted to include it. Most of the sites for long term
>temperature data are cities with strong heat island charactoistics.
>That is why we have gone over to sattelite generated maps for
>determining temp variations.
The person usually cited in these pages to stress the importance of
such satellite measures of global temperature, Dr. Christy, said some
months ago that he now believes that we are experiencing man-caused
global warming, though he is not sure of its magnitude.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Phillip C Nisbet
<tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>
>Would any increase produce the pattern of warming primarily in the
>daily low?
>
>Isn't that at least partial confirmation of the theory?
>
Moderate to very low level human induced warming has occured, but its
significants is what I think is the question. Since we can not pin
down even the exact nature of the source and most of it is dwarfed by
the solar input increases we have experianced in the latest solar
energy cycle, taking an action on one green house gas is not likely to
do anything for us. Methane is a better greenhouse gas, for example
and we have other sources of non-gas warming we may be causing. To
simply take action, without thinking and knowing what we are trying to
do would be like trying to put out a grease fire with water.
>
> The question comes, what generates the warming and what
>>temperature conditions can be predicted from the model. Since the
>>models for CO2 generated warming do not predicted the temperatures
>>observed, it is obvious by Occams Razor, that they are not the source
>>of observed climatic conditions.
>
>I doubt Occam would say that. I think he simply said that wisdom is
>best served by sticking to simpler models when they suffice to fit
>data.
>
Occam suggested that the simple explanation is the one which science
should chose. If the data does not fit, there has to be a simplier
explanation then the convoluted arguementation of the pure CO2
greenhouse gas postulate. If their logic was correct, we would have
experianced warming at an order of magnitude higher then we observe.
To make the psotualte work, the CO2 advocates have to come up with
lots of extras to explain why their pure idea is not workable. A
paper back in 1988 in Science pointed out that there was a direct
coorelation between solar flare activity and the observed increase of
a tenth of a degree in temperatures observed for that period. Even
silverback suggests that this is 40% of the effect and according to
other sources, it is more likely in the 80% range. For a temperature
increase of a tenth of a degree to result from an increase to 400 ppm,
a doubling, the projections for an increase in a couple of degrees
would require us to burn one hell of a lot more fossil fuel then the
planet contains. If some of the effect is caused by other factors
which do have importance, we should be looking at them instead of the
holy grail of CO2.
>
>The person usually cited in these pages to stress the importance of
>such satellite measures of global temperature, Dr. Christy, said some
>months ago that he now believes that we are experiencing man-caused
>global warming, though he is not sure of its magnitude.
>
I would be in accord with that observation, but do not see much over
all effect from a slight warming trend. Most earth scientists are in
the same boat. It seems silly to spend the kind of ducats they are
talking about without being sure we are no some sort of logical track
or even if the problem will have a serious environmental effect. We
could use that trillion or so dollars in a lot better pursuits.
>
>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
X Metro Man
<garyboun...@home.com> wrote:
>Are you sure you aren't referring to methane nodules? These are where
>methane is dissolved in water and trapped in water ice. C02 ice (also
>called dry ice) is about 109 degrees below zero. This seems like an
>improbable condition to find at the bottom of an ocean of liquid water.
>But I certainly don't claim to know everything about what goes on at the
>bottom of the ocean.
The ice point of CO2 is -109 F at atmospheric pressure.
What is the ice point of CO2 at a depth of say, 20,000 feet?
Lvis
writes:"yup. but now go and tell us how you increase the maximum amount of
water vapor in the atm? Come on widdle feller, answer up. The fact
remains the amount of water vapor is essentilly a constant as long as
the global temp is constant."
glenny is such a phony asshole. He *claims* to be so educated, but always
resorts to namecalling when he is shown for the lying butthole he is. What a
loony piece of excrement.
X Metro Man
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: ...!newsfeed.direct.ca!skynet.be!pascal.a2000.nl!newsfeed.a2000.nl!69.92.193.70!77.70.55.135!244.67.140.101!35.88.158.54.POSTED!NBEQOCJJIZ.NL
From: X Metro Man <pdc...@excite.com>
Newsgroups: owl.test,schule.test,wales.test,sat.test,muc.test,kiel.test,ka.test,ch.test,mn.test,uk.test,de.test,at.test,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: cmsg cancel <DdZqOMghKKKjTy...@4ax.com>
Control: cancel <DdZqOMghKKKjTy...@4ax.com>
Date: 30 Dec 1999 07:15:23 GMT
Organization: X Metro Man <pdc...@excite.com>
Lines: 1
Approved: X Metro Man <pdc...@excite.com>
Message-ID: <AbDhJScmIMPuSf...@4ax.com>
Reply-To: X Metro Man <pdc...@excite.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: node11be8.a2000.nl
X-Trace: weber.a2000.nl 946538130 12511 24.132.27.232 (30 Dec 1999 07:15:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@a2000.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Dec 1999 07:15:30 GMT
X-Original-Posting-Host: 14.243.9.107
X-Original-Trace: LEMOUSLADE.NL 0400755055/3852331472 (30 Dec 1999 07:15:28 GMT)
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/4.0.1
message was cancelled by X Metro Man <pdc...@excite.com>
silverback
<garyboun...@home.com> wrote:
>silverback wrote:
>
>> now you are fibbing.
>>
>and later in the same post wrote...
>>
>> hehe, there are many gasses that are better aborbers of IR radiation,
>> but then they are only trace gases vs the 3% or concentration of CO2
>> in the atmo.
>
>What constitutes a trace gas? Less than 1%?
CO2 is not considered a trace gas moron
*****************************************************
silverback
Nisbet) wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 10:19:49 -0800, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
><tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Would any increase produce the pattern of warming primarily in the
>>daily low?
>>
>>Isn't that at least partial confirmation of the theory?
>>
>Moderate to very low level human induced warming has occured, but its
>significants is what I think is the question. Since we can not pin
>down even the exact nature of the source and most of it is dwarfed by
>the solar input increases we have experianced in the latest solar
>energy cycle, taking an action on one green house gas is not likely to
we have not seen any increases in solar output. geesh if you are going
to spew bullshit like that you had better back it up with peer
reviewed cites.
>do anything for us. Methane is a better greenhouse gas, for example
>and we have other sources of non-gas warming we may be causing. To
>simply take action, without thinking and knowing what we are trying to
>do would be like trying to put out a grease fire with water.
>>
>> The question comes, what generates the warming and what
>>>temperature conditions can be predicted from the model. Since the
>>>models for CO2 generated warming do not predicted the temperatures
>>>observed, it is obvious by Occams Razor, that they are not the source
>>>of observed climatic conditions.
>>
>>I doubt Occam would say that. I think he simply said that wisdom is
>>best served by sticking to simpler models when they suffice to fit
>>data.
>>
>Occam suggested that the simple explanation is the one which science
>should chose. If the data does not fit, there has to be a simplier
>explanation then the convoluted arguementation of the pure CO2
>greenhouse gas postulate. If their logic was correct, we would have
>experianced warming at an order of magnitude higher then we observe.
>To make the psotualte work, the CO2 advocates have to come up with
>lots of extras to explain why their pure idea is not workable. A
>paper back in 1988 in Science pointed out that there was a direct
>coorelation between solar flare activity and the observed increase of
>a tenth of a degree in temperatures observed for that period. Even
nope, the correlation coefficent of such nonsesne is too low
>silverback suggests that this is 40% of the effect and according to
nope that was the maximum figure for a possible solar increase quoted
from experts.
>other sources, it is more likely in the 80% range. For a temperature
>increase of a tenth of a degree to result from an increase to 400 ppm,
>a doubling, the projections for an increase in a couple of degrees
>would require us to burn one hell of a lot more fossil fuel then the
>planet contains. If some of the effect is caused by other factors
>which do have importance, we should be looking at them instead of the
>holy grail of CO2.
>
>>
>>The person usually cited in these pages to stress the importance of
>>such satellite measures of global temperature, Dr. Christy, said some
>>months ago that he now believes that we are experiencing man-caused
>>global warming, though he is not sure of its magnitude.
>>
>I would be in accord with that observation, but do not see much over
>all effect from a slight warming trend. Most earth scientists are in
>the same boat. It seems silly to spend the kind of ducats they are
>talking about without being sure we are no some sort of logical track
>or even if the problem will have a serious environmental effect. We
>could use that trillion or so dollars in a lot better pursuits.
>>
>>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>
*****************************************************
Duane K. Kelly
>
> On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 14:56:02 GMT, Gary Carroll
> <garyboun...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Are you sure you aren't referring to methane nodules? These are where
> >methane is dissolved in water and trapped in water ice. C02 ice (also
> >called dry ice) is about 109 degrees below zero. This seems like an
> >improbable condition to find at the bottom of an ocean of liquid water.
> >But I certainly don't claim to know everything about what goes on at the
> >bottom of the ocean.
>
> The ice point of CO2 is -109 F at atmospheric pressure.
> What is the ice point of CO2 at a depth of say, 20,000 feet?
Being CO2 is lighter than H2O in a frozen state, the pressure of the H2O
will force it upwards, therefore I must assume you are talking about
brick laden frozen CO2.
--
========================================================
According to the FBI stats for 1997:
Gun Free - DC Surrounding Area (VA-MD - Not Gun Free)
Population 529,000 3,984,915
Murders 301 162
Murder Rate 56.9 4.0
Just one more piece of evidence that gun control does not equal crime
control... unless your trying to increase the crime rate.
========================================================
Phillip C Nisbet
wrote:
>>>
>>> hehe, there are many gasses that are better aborbers of IR radiation,
>>> but then they are only trace gases vs the 3% or concentration of CO2
>>> in the atmo.
>>
>>What constitutes a trace gas? Less than 1%?
>
>
>CO2 is not considered a trace gas moron
>
Yes it is moron. For which please see Atmospheric trace gas numbers
from Turekian and Weidpohl.
You should refrain from questioning the intellect of people who
obviously have both a higher intellect and beter knowledge base. Try
argueing from the facts rather then making them up from whole cloth.
Who knows, you might even have something intellegent to discuss.
Gary Carroll
"Duane K. Kelly" wrote:
>
> X Metro Man wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 29 Dec 1999 14:56:02 GMT, Gary Carroll
> > <garyboun...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Are you sure you aren't referring to methane nodules? These are where
> > >methane is dissolved in water and trapped in water ice. C02 ice (also
> > >called dry ice) is about 109 degrees below zero. This seems like an
> > >improbable condition to find at the bottom of an ocean of liquid water.
> > >But I certainly don't claim to know everything about what goes on at the
> > >bottom of the ocean.
> >
> > The ice point of CO2 is -109 F at atmospheric pressure.
> > What is the ice point of CO2 at a depth of say, 20,000 feet?
>
> Being CO2 is lighter than H2O in a frozen state, the pressure of the H2O
> will force it upwards, therefore I must assume you are talking about
> brick laden frozen CO2.
Actually, I think CO2 ice is heavier than water. And pressure might
reduce it's freezing point. But I don't see frozen C02 at the bottom of
the Caribbean. If we did, then the poles would be the missing C02 sinks.
Any C02 that made it's way to a northern ocean depth would freeze and
precipitate out, drawing more in. This clearly doesn't happen.
Gary
>Lvis.
After posting a reply like this you have the nerve to accuse someone
else of namecalling?
Gary Carroll
At depths of up to 52 meters, CO2 ice in liquid water will sublimate
into gas and bubble to the surface.
At depths greater than 52 but less than about 400 meters CO2 ice will
melt and then either boil or dissolve in seawater, depending on
temperature. If dissolved in seawater, it diffuses evenly and boils out
at as it reaches less depth or warmer temperatures. Then the dissolved
CO2 at lower levels diffuses upwards to replace that which boiled out,
and this continues until equilibrium with the atmosphere is reached.
At depths (and pressures) greater than 400 meters the ice will always
melt and dissolve in seawater, but otherwise the behavior is similar to
the 52-400 meter model.
It requires temperatures lower than can be obtained by liquid water to
keep CO2 ice frozen.
Lvis
Lvis.
--
Make 7- UP YOURS!!!
"Gary" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:386bb5bf...@news.iquest.net...
Not a Republican
news:3866abbb...@news.salmoninternet.com...[snip]
>
> >Sure thing loon any time you think you are ready to prove to me that
> >you can violate the laws of thermo or quantum let me know. The fact
> >remains if you pump more CO2 into the atmosphere the average temp is
> >going to go up as a result dictated by the laws of science.
> >
> What quantum mechanics has to do with this is anybodies guess. As for
> thermodynamics, what violations of either the first or second laws do
> you see in any posting of mine? You infer that a uni-input
> systematics will increase temperature, but the earth and its
> atmosphere are not mono dimesional nor static. CO2 is not the end and
> all and be all of atmospheric temperature nor the most significant
> 'greenhouse' gas. Please find the time to study the CO2 cycle in
> geochemistry before posting and calling geochemists loons.
>
I think, Phillip, that Gdy (aka SB) has long ago run out of content-laden
steam. This conclusion is reinforced by his perceived need to 'punctuate'
his least plausible retorts with the ad hominem 'loon' and his general use
of vulgarity.
Also, it is not uncommon for someone long past the end of one's rope to
resort to mentioning quantum mechanics (something very few understand), in
the hope that you will believe he understands it and you don't.
--
nar
Not a Republican
news:386ae6b8...@news.spiritone.com...[snip]
> >Moderate to very low level human induced warming has occured, but its
> >significants is what I think is the question. Since we can not pin
> >down even the exact nature of the source and most of it is dwarfed by
> >the solar input increases we have experianced in the latest solar
> >energy cycle, taking an action on one green house gas is not likely to
>
> we have not seen any increases in solar output. geesh if you are going
> to spew bullshit like that you had better back it up with peer
> reviewed cites.
Golly, gdi, I have yet to spot one single peer-reviewed cite among your
vulgarity- and ad-hominem laden missives. Care to try taking your own
advice?
--
nar
Not a Republican
news:38665717...@hb.quik.com...
>
>
> silverback wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 16:40:11 -0500, "Not a Republican"
> > <forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"silverback" <gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com> wrote in message
> > >> On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:46:58 -0500, "Not a Republican"
> > >> <forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >And the witch doctor will undoubtedly accord any event to his pet
theory.
> > >> >How can they do this? Because their models very incomplete and as
> > >reliable
> > >>
> > >> nope the models are reliable
> > >
> > >Will you stand there and hold your breath as long as I say they're not?
Or
> > >will you get out your animal bones?
> >
> > naw I will just get out the models and show you how many correct
> > projections those models have already made.
> > You can put on the pointy hat and go sit in the corner now.
>
> There is a projection that the sky will fall on Mar 5, 2000.
> Seriously, I saw it on the History Channel. Be prepared, wear
> your pointy hat.
Weasel won't need a pointy hat. Think about it... LOL
--
nar
silverback
>On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 10:05:46 -0500, "Not a Republican"
><forg...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>"Phillip C Nisbet" <nis...@salmoninternet.com> wrote in message
>>news:3866abbb...@news.salmoninternet.com...
>>> On 26 Dec 1999 16:53:19 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>>> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>
>>> >Sure thing loon any time you think you are ready to prove to me that
>>> >you can violate the laws of thermo or quantum let me know. The fact
>>> >remains if you pump more CO2 into the atmosphere the average temp is
>>> >going to go up as a result dictated by the laws of science.
>>> >
>>> What quantum mechanics has to do with this is anybodies guess. As for
>>> thermodynamics, what violations of either the first or second laws do
>>> you see in any posting of mine? You infer that a uni-input
>>> systematics will increase temperature, but the earth and its
>>> atmosphere are not mono dimesional nor static. CO2 is not the end and
>>> all and be all of atmospheric temperature nor the most significant
>>> 'greenhouse' gas. Please find the time to study the CO2 cycle in
>>> geochemistry before posting and calling geochemists loons.
>
>>I think, Phillip, that Gdy (aka SB) has long ago run out of content-laden
>>steam. This conclusion is reinforced by his perceived need to 'punctuate'
>>his least plausible retorts with the ad hominem 'loon' and his general use
>>of vulgarity.
>
>I guess he has you pretty much down cold, NotAClue
well at least I put another couple knots in his shorts.
>
>>Also, it is not uncommon for someone long past the end of one's rope to
>>resort to mentioning quantum mechanics (something very few understand), in
>>the hope that you will believe he understands it and you don't.
>
>NotAClue assumes that the rest of us are as ignorant as he is.
>
>Quite an argument you have there, Loon.
>
> Volt
>
>
>
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
>========================================================================
>"Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
>respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
>
> -- George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1950
>========================================================================
Zepp
Nisbet) wrote:
>On 28 Dec 1999 07:25:50 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>Water vapor is THE greenhouse gas.
>>
>>yup. but now go and tell us how you increase the maximum amount of
>>water vapor in the atm? Come on widdle feller, answer up. The fact
>>remains the amount of water vapor is essentilly a constant as long as
>>the global temp is constant.
>>
>And at what point in the history of the planet can you spot a time
>when the temperature has been constant? So, widdle fella, water vapor
>and global temperature are variables, not constants. CO2
>concentrations have been higher in the past as well and are not acting
>proportionally to the amount of fossil fuels burned. Ever hear of the
>CO2 sink? Notice that many of us are interested in where some of the
>'missing' CO2 has gone? Or do you actually read any journals in
>Geochemistry?
Notice, too, that there have been six major die-offs for which we have
evidence, and that each of them included the dominent species. All
of them involved major climate change, which may or may not have been
secondary to another event, such as the asteroid that struck some 70m
years ago.
We're more adaptable, and can survive a reasonably gradual climate
change.
But that doesn't mean that we should INVITE climate change, or
accellerate the RATE of the change, and that's what we've been doing.
>>>
>>>If global warming is the problem, why does the solution involve the
>>>U.S. cutting back to 1990 levels, but the third world can increase
>>>their carbon output unabated? Why not return ALL nations' output to
>>>1990 levels?
>>
>>because too damn many corporate whores have polluted good science.
>>
>No, because too many enviro-fascists have been defeated in trying to
>impose their will on the third world. Their countries will not put up
>with this crypto-imperialism of the left. They intend to improve the
>living standards of their people and the white bread silver spoon
>greenie set has not political sway in their nations. So their
>solution is to get BC to allow them into WTO and try to ram trade
>restrictions on the errant third world, who then pulls out of the
>meeting. Result, silverback helps to starve workers in the third
>world.
**********************************************************
>Bush dodged a question about what he would do if the government
>surplus grew at a slower rate than he projected in his $483 billion,
>five-year tax plan.
>
>``I refuse to accept the premise that surpluses will decline if I were
>president,'' Bush said.
>
Newsday, 12/6/99
**********************************************************
Not dead, in jail or a slave?
Thank a liberal!
For more of Zepp's Commentary, go to
http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
Liberalism Resurgent, Steve's brilliant
and well-documented page, is mirrored at
the following locations:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
http://www.wtrt.net/~blarson/institute.htm
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
http://resurgent.virtualave.net
Warning: Contains ideas
************************************************************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Zepp
<garyboun...@home.com> wrote:
>"zepp, a weasel" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 08:48:18 GMT, nis...@salmoninternet.com (Phillip C
>> Nisbet) wrote:
>>
>> >On 28 Dec 1999 07:25:50 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>>Water vapor is THE greenhouse gas.
>> >>
>> >>yup. but now go and tell us how you increase the maximum amount of
>> >>water vapor in the atm? Come on widdle feller, answer up. The fact
>> >>remains the amount of water vapor is essentilly a constant as long as
>> >>the global temp is constant.
>> >>
>> >And at what point in the history of the planet can you spot a time
>> >when the temperature has been constant? So, widdle fella, water vapor
>> >and global temperature are variables, not constants. CO2
>> >concentrations have been higher in the past as well and are not acting
>> >proportionally to the amount of fossil fuels burned. Ever hear of the
>> >CO2 sink? Notice that many of us are interested in where some of the
>> >'missing' CO2 has gone? Or do you actually read any journals in
>> >Geochemistry?
>
>See http://www.microtech.com.au/daly/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
>
>> A goodly chunk of it wound up on the floor of the ocean, in the form
>> of ice. We became aware of this in the past few years when the
>> Caribbean heated some ten degrees, and some of the CO2 ice started
>> sublimating.
>
>Are you sure you are not thinking of the methane nodules? C02 ice (also
>called dry ice) is at a temperature of about 110 degrees below zero.
>This seems an unlikely condition for the bottom of an ocean of liquid
>water.
It was described as CO2. Granted, my source was American Commercial
Television, which is pretty unreliable, and I certainly couldn't tell
just by looking at the screen.
>
>> Some of it went into plant life, most particularly plankton.
>> Unfortunately, the increased UV irradiation has caused something of a
>> drop in such at a time when it should be increasing sharply in the
>> face of a bountiful food supply.
>> >>>
>> >>>If global warming is the problem, why does the solution involve the
>> >>>U.S. cutting back to 1990 levels, but the third world can increase
>> >>>their carbon output unabated? Why not return ALL nations' output to
>> >>>1990 levels?
>> >>
>> >>because too damn many corporate whores have polluted good science.
>> >>
>> >No, because too many enviro-fascists have been defeated in trying to
>> >impose their will on the third world. Their countries will not put up
>> >with this crypto-imperialism of the left. They intend to improve the
>> >living standards of their people and the white bread silver spoon
>> >greenie set has not political sway in their nations. So their
>> >solution is to get BC to allow them into WTO and try to ram trade
>> >restrictions on the errant third world, who then pulls out of the
>> >meeting. Result, silverback helps to starve workers in the third
>> >world.
>>
>> You need to make up your minds. You can't simultaneously claim that
>> it's not fair that the treaty doesn't apply to the third world and
>> then whine because it does.
>>
>> Third world economies, being the libertarian paradises that they are,
>> will result in people starving either way. It's just that they get to
>> develop asthma as they are starving under the free trade model.
**********************************************************
Phillip C Nisbet
>
>Notice, too, that there have been six major die-offs for which we have
>evidence, and that each of them included the dominent species. All
>of them involved major climate change, which may or may not have been
>secondary to another event, such as the asteroid that struck some 70m
>years ago.
>
Zepp, you may find that asteriod impact extinction theory is not a
universal amoung earth scientists either. And your 6 die out figure
is way on the low side. 98% of all species are currently extinct.
Most geologiacl timespans are full of major extinction cycles and
though climate is one thing that may occur to cause them, speciation
is the more likely culprit. This is especially true if you take
speciation of bacteria and plants into account.
As a major example, I give you the Paleozoic-PreCambrian, where oxygen
producing bugs wiped themselves out by dropping the CO2 levels below
breathabl for themselves. Without that event, we would not exist
today.
>We're more adaptable, and can survive a reasonably gradual climate
>change.
>
>But that doesn't mean that we should INVITE climate change, or
>accellerate the RATE of the change, and that's what we've been doing.
>
That is the point, that the change is slow and not very significant.
We are talking a total of 0.3 degrees in the last 50 years based upon
trend line analysis. The original speculation was for a change of 3-5
degrees and it just is not showing up. Loons like silverback (Who
manages to calim that the atmosphere has 3% CO2 in it when the number
is 468 ppm.) figure to alarm everybody and divert budget from where it
is really needed. Ask yourself where you want to spend a trillion
dollars over the next 10 years. Is global warming and climate change
the place? Or do you believe that the same funds could be better
spent in say educating the kids of the world or providing for clean
water in the third world or restoring habitat in critical locations
for endangered species? The one puts a lot of bucks into the hands of
alternative fuel people and environmental device manufacturers, the
other puts funds into the hands of real live people who get a real
live benefit. You can not have both, as there just is not money for
it.
Phil
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Are you, perhaps, cherry-picking the period of years at 50, as opposed
to 70 or 30, so as to minimize the change?
based upon
>trend line analysis. The original speculation was for a change of 3-5
>degrees and it just is not showing up. Loons like silverback (Who
>manages to calim that the atmosphere has 3% CO2 in it when the number
>is 468 ppm.) figure to alarm everybody
Isn't the level of CO2 higher now than, say, in the past few hundred
thousand years, and seemingly continuing to rise? Hasn't this dramatic
change happened fairly recently?
Pretty dramatic, seems to me.
and divert budget from where it
>is really needed. Ask yourself where you want to spend a trillion
>dollars over the next 10 years. Is global warming and climate change
>the place? Or do you believe that the same funds could be better
>spent in say educating the kids of the world or providing for clean
>water in the third world or restoring habitat in critical locations
>for endangered species? The one puts a lot of bucks into the hands of
>alternative fuel people and environmental device manufacturers, the
>other puts funds into the hands of real live people who get a real
>live benefit. You can not have both,
Energy conservation saves money and air, presumably. Seems to be
having both. In addition, some measures probably are good for health,
permitting more production.
as there just is not money for
>it.
>Phil
Maybe we can think up a cost-effective way to cool it.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
X Metro Man
<tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>Energy conservation saves money and air, presumably. Seems to be
>having both. In addition, some measures probably are good for health,
>permitting more production.
Then why not return EVERY nation's CO2 output to 1990 levels? Why
force Nation A to 1990, while allowing Nation C to continue their
increasing trend to 2020?
The so-called Global Warming treaty is a fraud and should not be
ratified.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 12:50:18 -0800, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
><tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Energy conservation saves money and air, presumably. Seems to be
>>having both. In addition, some measures probably are good for health,
>>permitting more production.
>
>Then why not return EVERY nation's CO2 output to 1990 levels? Why
>force Nation A to 1990, while allowing Nation C to continue their
>increasing trend to 2020?
I guess because it currently costs money to control greenhouse
production. Some nations can't afford it, some can. When you're
starving, the philosophy is logically- grub first.
>
>The so-called Global Warming treaty is a fraud and should not be
>ratified.
We have built up the world based on current temperatures. Changes, up
or down, will cost a lot of money - all those expensive Malibu beach
front homes washed out in storms, all the folks in Bangladesh under
water, all the developed farms no longer productive.
IT strikes me as logical to preserve the world we have spent so much
money to develop.
And a treaty obviously is the way to go to do that.
SO I don't agree.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
X Metro Man
<tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>Then why not return EVERY nation's CO2 output to 1990 levels? Why
>>force Nation A to 1990, while allowing Nation C to continue their
>>increasing trend to 2020?
>
>I guess because it currently costs money to control greenhouse
>production. Some nations can't afford it, some can. When you're
>starving, the philosophy is logically- grub first.
Wrong. You can return to 1990 levels simply by reducing industrial
output to 1990 levels. If the U.S. can do it, why not China? Why
allow China to increase their industrial ouput for another 20 years?
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 13:30:11 -0800, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
><tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Then why not return EVERY nation's CO2 output to 1990 levels? Why
>>>force Nation A to 1990, while allowing Nation C to continue their
>>>increasing trend to 2020?
>>
>>I guess because it currently costs money to control greenhouse
>>production. Some nations can't afford it, some can. When you're
>>starving, the philosophy is logically- grub first.
>
>Wrong. You can return to 1990 levels simply by reducing industrial
>output to 1990 levels. If the U.S. can do it, why not China?
The standard of living in CHina started very low. So you can't expect
them to freeze back to an even lower level. In the US, however, we are
so rich we can easily afford a minor change in energy consumption and
not even notice it.
Some countries can not afford cutbacks. That would lead to major
hardship, which WOULD be massively felt.
Not so in US.
That's why it's appropriate to ask the rich to give more than the
poor. PLUS the rich produce almost all the warming pollution. To fix
it, cut backs in the rich nations will get the job done. Cut backs in
the lesser nations wouldn't even make a difference AND it would cause
their folks a ton of pain.
Why
>allow China to increase their industrial ouput for another 20 years?
>
Because they start out so poor that freezing them would really hurt,
AND they produce, so far, almost no particularly harmful smoke.
What we need is for them to restrain their smoke when they are really
pumping away - in 20 years.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Lvis
couple knots in his shorts."
Not hardly glenny-pussy, but YOU keep telling that to yourself and clicking
your heels together.
Sounds more to me he has YOU pegged for the dumbass YOU are. It's really not
difficult.
Lvis
positive. Much more land will be released from permafrost into tillable
soil. Sure, we'll lose a bit of low-lying coastal land, but it's no major
loss considering the acreage that will be gained for farming and golf
greens.
The warmer climates will extend the growing season and we'll be able to
harvest more and feed the world. Imagine no more hunger, no more Sally
Struthers commercials begging to feed the poor starving third-world babes.
silverback
sounds to me he sounds just like you.
>
>Lvis.
>--
>Make 7- UP YOURS!!!
>
>
*****************************************************
Phillip C Nisbet
<tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
<snip to my statement>
>>That is the point, that the change is slow and not very significant.
>>We are talking a total of 0.3 degrees in the last 50 years
>
>Are you, perhaps, cherry-picking the period of years at 50, as opposed
>to 70 or 30, so as to minimize the change?
>
Actually, no. If we go further back, we get into some global cooling
events which would tend to skew the data.
>
>based upon
>>trend line analysis. The original speculation was for a change of 3-5
>>degrees and it just is not showing up. Loons like silverback (Who
>>manages to calim that the atmosphere has 3% CO2 in it when the number
>>is 468 ppm.) figure to alarm everybody
>
>Isn't the level of CO2 higher now than, say, in the past few hundred
>thousand years, and seemingly continuing to rise? Hasn't this dramatic
>change happened fairly recently?
>
Actually, we have a higher CO2 at the close of the last glacial.
Exposure of all the peat deposits, expansion of the compensation line
northward and several other factors were happening which brought use
to the current levels, prior to industrial inputs soaring the level
recently.
>Pretty dramatic, seems to me.
>
It has been a doubling. However, the expected rise in temperatures
has simply not occured. This is largely becuase our models are way
too simplistic and can not contain sufficeint variables to give us a
reasoned response. Most models do not take into account, for an
example, that the solar output in flare cycles increase cyclicly,
which is said to be between 40-80% of the increase in that 0.3 degrees
in temperature increase. The remainder has to be divided amoung al of
the greenhouse gases, not just CO2. Obversely, no cooling factors
from industrial development are considered in the models.
> and divert budget from where it
>>is really needed. Ask yourself where you want to spend a trillion
>>dollars over the next 10 years. Is global warming and climate change
>>the place? Or do you believe that the same funds could be better
>>spent in say educating the kids of the world or providing for clean
>>water in the third world or restoring habitat in critical locations
>>for endangered species? The one puts a lot of bucks into the hands of
>>alternative fuel people and environmental device manufacturers, the
>>other puts funds into the hands of real live people who get a real
>>live benefit. You can not have both,
>
>Energy conservation saves money and air, presumably. Seems to be
>having both. In addition, some measures probably are good for health,
>permitting more production.
>
We are reaching a limit on conservation in the first world. I agree
with you that the programs of the last 10-20 years directed at this
have been important. We have saved building lots of un-neccessary
powerplants, but power demand is now increasing again, as a result fo
reaching conservation limits. So in order for this to be workable, we
have to require a halt to all growth in the first world, while
allowing the third world some growth, and in essence limit all human
activity and production for the sake of lower CO2 levels. And we will
be making this call while not being sure that CO2 is the real problem
or even if the problem will be truely big.
Heck, the obvious thing to do is to increase hydro power generation
from micro and small run of river systems. But the green community
has blocked all attempts for these types of systems to be considered
renewable energy. Because of that, we forego 8 gigawatts of
generation capacity in Idaho alone form possible sites on irrigation
canals. According to DOE, if small hydro was FERC exempted for run of
river systems, 40% of all the oil we burn for generating electricity
could be phased out in 5 years. And those systems operate at a cost
of $0.01 per Kwh, as opposed to solar systems or wind systems which
cost you 6-8 times higher costs. They even have designated methane
gas turbine burners as a renewable energy source, but not a single
hydro system and it takes 7 years to permit a hydro and no permits for
oil and gas burners, all with the approval of the environmental
community. Go figure.
> as there just is not money for
>>it.
>>Phil
>
>Maybe we can think up a cost-effective way to cool it.
Actually, if I thought that CO2 was really a threat, it is just not
that hard to capture and dipose of. All you need is zeolites, a
natural mineral, and a pump. Draw air into the zeolites(Mordenite)
and it strains CO2 from any gas. After capture, all you need to do is
react the CO2 to fix it and problem solved. But we do not need to
look at that type of solution yet. We need to worry about fostering
third world development, moving our economy into a logical footing,
restoring production problems from past generations and developing the
means to do things like mine without pollution,produce chemicals with
complete recycling, etc. Wasting lots of bucks chasing a problem that
may not be one and for which we can do a fix later seems pretty silly
to me.
Phil
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>Most everything I have read about global warming indicates change for the
>positive. Much more land will be released from permafrost into tillable
>soil. Sure, we'll lose a bit of low-lying coastal land, but it's no major
>loss considering the acreage that will be gained for farming and golf
>greens.
When you spend trillions building for one environment, and it changes,
it costs money.
Also, there may be problems in the PATTERN of the changes - really
hard rains taking top soil away and so on.
But maybe you're right. Maybe tropicalismo will be cool.
>The warmer climates will extend the growing season and we'll be able to
>harvest more and feed the world.
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe the pattern of rain will wash crops away.
Imagine no more hunger, no more Sally
>Struthers commercials begging to feed the poor starving third-world babes.
I think we can fix that with genetic engineering - crops which suck
nitrogen fertilizer from the air.
No need to drown all those Bangladeshis. No need to wash Kevin
Costner's house out to sea.
>
>Lvis.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Nisbet) wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 12:50:18 -0800, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
><tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>
><snip to my statement>
>>>That is the point, that the change is slow and not very significant.
>>>We are talking a total of 0.3 degrees in the last 50 years
>>
>>Are you, perhaps, cherry-picking the period of years at 50, as opposed
>>to 70 or 30, so as to minimize the change?
>>
>Actually, no. If we go further back, we get into some global cooling
>events which would tend to skew the data.
Fifty years ago was apparently soon after a local peak. Last thirty
years has also seen .3 centigrade, I guess. Adds up after a while if
that continues.
>>
>>based upon
>>>trend line analysis. The original speculation was for a change of 3-5
>>>degrees and it just is not showing up. Loons like silverback (Who
>>>manages to calim that the atmosphere has 3% CO2 in it when the number
>>>is 468 ppm.) figure to alarm everybody
>>
>>Isn't the level of CO2 higher now than, say, in the past few hundred
>>thousand years, and seemingly continuing to rise? Hasn't this dramatic
>>change happened fairly recently?
>>
>Actually, we have a higher CO2 at the close of the last glacial.
I heard Stephen Hawking say on Larry King live a few days ago that the
CO2 level was now the highest ever. I recall another report that it's
at a peak of 250,000 years, based on measures of ice cores. How come
you say otherwise? Source?
>Exposure of all the peat deposits, expansion of the compensation line
>northward and several other factors were happening which brought use
>to the current levels, prior to industrial inputs soaring the level
>recently.
so you agree industry causes a soar. OK.
>
>>Pretty dramatic, seems to me.
>>
>It has been a doubling. However, the expected rise in temperatures
>has simply not occured. This is largely becuase our models are way
>too simplistic and can not contain sufficeint variables to give us a
>reasoned response. Most models do not take into account, for an
>example, that the solar output in flare cycles increase cyclicly,
>which is said to be between 40-80% of the increase in that 0.3 degrees
>in temperature increase. The remainder has to be divided amoung al of
>the greenhouse gases, not just CO2. Obversely, no cooling factors
>from industrial development are considered in the models.
I guess with more measures the models will improve.
>
>> and divert budget from where it
>>>is really needed. Ask yourself where you want to spend a trillion
>>>dollars over the next 10 years. Is global warming and climate change
>>>the place? Or do you believe that the same funds could be better
>>>spent in say educating the kids of the world or providing for clean
>>>water in the third world or restoring habitat in critical locations
>>>for endangered species? The one puts a lot of bucks into the hands of
>>>alternative fuel people and environmental device manufacturers, the
>>>other puts funds into the hands of real live people who get a real
>>>live benefit. You can not have both,
>>
>>Energy conservation saves money and air, presumably. Seems to be
>>having both. In addition, some measures probably are good for health,
>>permitting more production.
>>
>We are reaching a limit on conservation in the first world. I agree
>with you that the programs of the last 10-20 years directed at this
>have been important. We have saved building lots of un-neccessary
>powerplants, but power demand is now increasing again, as a result fo
>reaching conservation limits. So in order for this to be workable, we
>have to require a halt to all growth in the first world, while
>allowing the third world some growth, and in essence limit all human
>activity and production for the sake of lower CO2 levels. And we will
>be making this call while not being sure that CO2 is the real problem
>or even if the problem will be truely big.
I bet we can still squeeze out a lot of waste. Like replacing, as I
have done just to save a buck, incandescent bulbs with fluorescent.
But you have a good point.
>
>Heck, the obvious thing to do is to increase hydro power generation
>from micro and small run of river systems. But the green community
>has blocked all attempts for these types of systems to be considered
>renewable energy. Because of that, we forego 8 gigawatts of
>generation capacity in Idaho alone form possible sites on irrigation
>canals. According to DOE, if small hydro was FERC exempted for run of
>river systems, 40% of all the oil we burn for generating electricity
>could be phased out in 5 years. And those systems operate at a cost
>of $0.01 per Kwh, as opposed to solar systems or wind systems which
>cost you 6-8 times higher costs. They even have designated methane
>gas turbine burners as a renewable energy source, but not a single
>hydro system and it takes 7 years to permit a hydro and no permits for
>oil and gas burners, all with the approval of the environmental
>community. Go figure.
Or nuclear.
>
>> as there just is not money for
>>>it.
>>>Phil
>>
>>Maybe we can think up a cost-effective way to cool it.
>
>Actually, if I thought that CO2 was really a threat, it is just not
>that hard to capture and dipose of. All you need is zeolites, a
>natural mineral, and a pump. Draw air into the zeolites(Mordenite)
>and it strains CO2 from any gas. After capture, all you need to do is
>react the CO2 to fix it and problem solved. But we do not need to
>look at that type of solution yet. We need to worry about fostering
>third world development, moving our economy into a logical footing,
>restoring production problems from past generations and developing the
>means to do things like mine without pollution,produce chemicals with
>complete recycling, etc. Wasting lots of bucks chasing a problem that
>may not be one and for which we can do a fix later seems pretty silly
>to me.
Some fixes aren't so wasteful.
>Phil
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Phillip C Nisbet
<tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
>>Actually, we have a higher CO2 at the close of the last glacial.
>
>I heard Stephen Hawking say on Larry King live a few days ago that the
>CO2 level was now the highest ever. I recall another report that it's
>at a peak of 250,000 years, based on measures of ice cores. How come
>you say otherwise? Source?
>
Stephen is a great physics head, but he is out on a limb on climate
change. As to your other report for ice core sampling, thats where we
get the data for the peaks at the interglacial. We are not at a peak
presently.
>>Exposure of all the peat deposits, expansion of the compensation line
>>northward and several other factors were happening which brought use
>>to the current levels, prior to industrial inputs soaring the level
>>recently.
>
>so you agree industry causes a soar. OK.
>
Hard to get by that. Doubling is doubling. When you burn
hydrocarbons, you get CO2. That includes that great big source like
home heating and auto emmisions.
>>
>>>Pretty dramatic, seems to me.
>>>
>>It has been a doubling. However, the expected rise in temperatures
>>has simply not occured. This is largely becuase our models are way
>>too simplistic and can not contain sufficeint variables to give us a
>>reasoned response. Most models do not take into account, for an
>>example, that the solar output in flare cycles increase cyclicly,
>>which is said to be between 40-80% of the increase in that 0.3 degrees
>>in temperature increase. The remainder has to be divided amoung al of
>>the greenhouse gases, not just CO2. Obversely, no cooling factors
>>from industrial development are considered in the models.
>
>I guess with more measures the models will improve.
That is hard to do. The huge numbers of variables keep getting in the
way. I think we get stuck waiting for the next generation of super
computers to get the job done with any kind of certainty.
When the rhetoric of left and right calm down, Americans can often
find common ground. Pretty good posting there.
And I did catch the nuclear comment. That is the devil to just about
every environmental group out there. I got a lot better chance
putting in low head hydro in a salmon spawning stream then you would
have of putting a nuke plant on the moon. All the while they keep
calling for no more burning of fossil fuels. Makes you think.
silverback
Nisbet) wrote:
no actually there are many thigns we can still do. Many of the power
plants in use today still have old inefficent boilers.
>with you that the programs of the last 10-20 years directed at this
>have been important. We have saved building lots of un-neccessary
>powerplants, but power demand is now increasing again, as a result fo
>reaching conservation limits. So in order for this to be workable, we
>have to require a halt to all growth in the first world, while
actually you don't know what you are talking about. The Rose has an
article that shows no cut in the standard of living is needed to reach
the goals of the treaty.
>allowing the third world some growth, and in essence limit all human
>activity and production for the sake of lower CO2 levels. And we will
>be making this call while not being sure that CO2 is the real problem
>or even if the problem will be truely big.
>
>Heck, the obvious thing to do is to increase hydro power generation
>from micro and small run of river systems. But the green community
the salmon are already threaten enough as it is.
The green community does not oppose those low head systems on rivers
that don't have migatory fish.
>has blocked all attempts for these types of systems to be considered
>renewable energy. Because of that, we forego 8 gigawatts of
>generation capacity in Idaho alone form possible sites on irrigation
>canals. According to DOE, if small hydro was FERC exempted for run of
>river systems, 40% of all the oil we burn for generating electricity
>could be phased out in 5 years. And those systems operate at a cost
>of $0.01 per Kwh, as opposed to solar systems or wind systems which
>cost you 6-8 times higher costs. They even have designated methane
commericial wind power is the cheapest of all alternative energy
sources. Referrences in the Rose.
>gas turbine burners as a renewable energy source, but not a single
>hydro system and it takes 7 years to permit a hydro and no permits for
>oil and gas burners, all with the approval of the environmental
>community. Go figure.
>
easy to figure the corporate whores in charge of the fossil fuels have
written the laws.
You can thank raygun for converting the DOE into nothing more than
a spoke person for the fossil fuels and nuke industry.
>> as there just is not money for
>>>it.
>>>Phil
>>
>>Maybe we can think up a cost-effective way to cool it.
>
>Actually, if I thought that CO2 was really a threat, it is just not
>that hard to capture and dipose of. All you need is zeolites, a
>natural mineral, and a pump. Draw air into the zeolites(Mordenite)
>and it strains CO2 from any gas. After capture, all you need to do is
>react the CO2 to fix it and problem solved. But we do not need to
hmmmm such nonsense would require expending an enormous amount of
energy. And there isn't much of a market for CO2 so who are you going
to pay to do it?
>look at that type of solution yet. We need to worry about fostering
>third world development, moving our economy into a logical footing,
>restoring production problems from past generations and developing the
>means to do things like mine without pollution,produce chemicals with
>complete recycling, etc. Wasting lots of bucks chasing a problem that
>may not be one and for which we can do a fix later seems pretty silly
>to me.
>
>Phil
*****************************************************
Gary Carroll
> I think we can fix that with genetic engineering - crops which suck
> nitrogen fertilizer from the air.
>
> No need to drown all those Bangladeshis. No need to wash Kevin
> Costner's house out to sea.
Somw would argue that a climate change which will do some good and some
harm but is almost certainly we can adapt to is less worrisome than
genetic engineering.
I suspect that we will get to look back on each with 20-20 hindsight and
judge for ourselves in a hundred years.
Gary Carroll
>
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 06:54:02 -0800, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
> <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote:
> >I guess with more measures the models will improve.
>
> That is hard to do. The huge numbers of variables keep getting in the
> way. I think we get stuck waiting for the next generation of super
> computers to get the job done with any kind of certainty.
That will probably happen faster than more data collection.
Gary Carroll
silverback wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 12:37:20 GMT, nis...@salmoninternet.com (Phillip C
> Nisbet) wrote:
> >Actually, if I thought that CO2 was really a threat, it is just not
> >that hard to capture and dipose of. All you need is zeolites, a
> >natural mineral, and a pump. Draw air into the zeolites(Mordenite)
> >and it strains CO2 from any gas. After capture, all you need to do is
> >react the CO2 to fix it and problem solved. But we do not need to
> >look at that type of solution yet. We need to worry about fostering
> >third world development, moving our economy into a logical footing,
> >restoring production problems from past generations and developing the
> >means to do things like mine without pollution,produce chemicals with
> >complete recycling, etc. Wasting lots of bucks chasing a problem that
> >may not be one and for which we can do a fix later seems pretty silly
> >to me.
>
> hmmmm such nonsense would require expending an enormous amount of
> energy. And there isn't much of a market for CO2 so who are you going
> to pay to do it?
You are mistaken as to the market. There is a big market for carbon
dioxide, or rather many markets. What do you think makes soft drinks
fizz? How many tons do you think Coke ships in an hour? CO2 fills fire
extinguishers. It’s used as a refrigerant and industrial chemical. How
many tons of "dry ice" are sold a day? In general terms, you can assume
anything you see shipped in tanker truckloads has a market.
We probably don’t need much more, though, because it’s cheap now. But
what he was suggesting is that if CO2 is the real problem, it can be
easily extracted from the atmosphere without reducing energy production.
You don’t even need the zeolites; all you do is compress the CO2 rich
gas in question (we are probably talking about flue gasses, here), allow
it to reach room temperature, then allow it to decompress. It cools as
it decompresses, and the C02 liquefies under the combination of high
pressure and low temperature. This does not have to be a high-energy
process as most of the energy used in compressing the air ends up as
heat, and the heat is recoverable. Once the CO2 is isolated, if it’s not
needed it can be pumped back into the oil well to keep up the pressure,
or fixed in some way.
silverback
<garyboun...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>silverback wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 12:37:20 GMT, nis...@salmoninternet.com (Phillip C
>> Nisbet) wrote:
>
>> >Actually, if I thought that CO2 was really a threat, it is just not
>> >that hard to capture and dipose of. All you need is zeolites, a
>> >natural mineral, and a pump. Draw air into the zeolites(Mordenite)
>> >and it strains CO2 from any gas. After capture, all you need to do is
>> >react the CO2 to fix it and problem solved. But we do not need to
>> >look at that type of solution yet. We need to worry about fostering
>> >third world development, moving our economy into a logical footing,
>> >restoring production problems from past generations and developing the
>> >means to do things like mine without pollution,produce chemicals with
>> >complete recycling, etc. Wasting lots of bucks chasing a problem that
>> >may not be one and for which we can do a fix later seems pretty silly
>> >to me.
>>
>> hmmmm such nonsense would require expending an enormous amount of
>> energy. And there isn't much of a market for CO2 so who are you going
>> to pay to do it?
>
>You are mistaken as to the market. There is a big market for carbon
>dioxide, or rather many markets. What do you think makes soft drinks
>fizz? How many tons do you think Coke ships in an hour? CO2 fills fire
>extinguishers. It’s used as a refrigerant and industrial chemical. How
>many tons of "dry ice" are sold a day? In general terms, you can assume
hehehe none of which remove CO2 from the atmosphere for more than a
short period of time.
>anything you see shipped in tanker truckloads has a market.
>We probably don’t need much more, though, because it’s cheap now. But
>what he was suggesting is that if CO2 is the real problem, it can be
>easily extracted from the atmosphere without reducing energy production.
>You don’t even need the zeolites; all you do is compress the CO2 rich
>gas in question (we are probably talking about flue gasses, here), allow
>it to reach room temperature, then allow it to decompress. It cools as
>it decompresses, and the C02 liquefies under the combination of high
>pressure and low temperature. This does not have to be a high-energy
>process as most of the energy used in compressing the air ends up as
oh bullshit, it does have a high energy requirement. And now that you
got it how are you going to remove it from the atmosphere for periods
of a million years or so?
>heat, and the heat is recoverable. Once the CO2 is isolated, if it’s not
>needed it can be pumped back into the oil well to keep up the pressure,
>or fixed in some way.
which requires more energy.
Phillip C Nisbet
wrote:
>
>oh bullshit, it does have a high energy requirement. And now that you
>got it how are you going to remove it from the atmosphere for periods
>of a million years or so?
>
>>heat, and the heat is recoverable. Once the CO2 is isolated, if it’s not
>>needed it can be pumped back into the oil well to keep up the pressure,
>>or fixed in some way.
>
>which requires more energy.
>
just like your BS about the earth's atmosphere containing 3% CO2.
CO2 gas capture from stack gas is not energy intensive. Pass the gas
through a zeolite column to molecularly seive it then do as the
Japanese do and have for the last 25 years in thier CO2 dry ice
manufacturing using zeolite facilities.
Fixing it for a million years? No sweat. Bio-remediate using INEEL
technology for continueous process biohydrometalurgical processing.
The resulting biomass can be used as a soils additive or be deep
injected into the proper thermal maturation zones for the development
of hydrocarbons in the carbonate reef zones there where coal is the
dominate energy to electricity source. I will grant you that it would
double up the cost of coal fired electric generation, but it is still
cheaper then going with limiting all economic growth.
And silverback, it would limit growth to follow the Kyoto accords.
Only the pinheads you listen to say otherwise.
Zepp
Nisbet) wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 15:49:02 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Notice, too, that there have been six major die-offs for which we have
>>evidence, and that each of them included the dominent species. All
>>of them involved major climate change, which may or may not have been
>>secondary to another event, such as the asteroid that struck some 70m
>>years ago.
>>
>Zepp, you may find that asteriod impact extinction theory is not a
>universal amoung earth scientists either. And your 6 die out figure
>is way on the low side. 98% of all species are currently extinct.
>Most geologiacl timespans are full of major extinction cycles and
>though climate is one thing that may occur to cause them, speciation
>is the more likely culprit. This is especially true if you take
>speciation of bacteria and plants into account.
I limited myself to six major die-outs for which there is strong
evidence, and that took out the top of the food chain. As you note,
most species are extinct, and there are any given number of minor
die-outs.
>
>As a major example, I give you the Paleozoic-PreCambrian, where oxygen
>producing bugs wiped themselves out by dropping the CO2 levels below
>breathabl for themselves. Without that event, we would not exist
>today.
>
Actually, that is purely speculative, with no evidence found to
support it. I note that oxygen-producing bugs are still the greater
part of the earth's biomass.
>>We're more adaptable, and can survive a reasonably gradual climate
>>change.
>>
>>But that doesn't mean that we should INVITE climate change, or
>>accellerate the RATE of the change, and that's what we've been doing.
>>
>That is the point, that the change is slow and not very significant.
>We are talking a total of 0.3 degrees in the last 50 years based upon
>trend line analysis. The original speculation was for a change of 3-5
>degrees and it just is not showing up. Loons like silverback (Who
>manages to calim that the atmosphere has 3% CO2 in it when the number
>is 468 ppm.) figure to alarm everybody and divert budget from where it
>is really needed. Ask yourself where you want to spend a trillion
>dollars over the next 10 years. Is global warming and climate change
>the place? Or do you believe that the same funds could be better
>spent in say educating the kids of the world or providing for clean
>water in the third world or restoring habitat in critical locations
>for endangered species? The one puts a lot of bucks into the hands of
>alternative fuel people and environmental device manufacturers, the
>other puts funds into the hands of real live people who get a real
>live benefit. You can not have both, as there just is not money for
>it.
Actually, you can. The clean air/clean water acts saved industry $25
TRILLION between its inception and 1997, according to a joint
DoE/Industry study. Cleaner, more efficient industry ALWAYS pays off.
You're closer on the CO2 levels than Gdy, but off on the temperature
change. The main discriminants you should be looking at over the past
fifty years are the tree line, the permafrost line, and glaciation.
Treelines and permafrost lines have receded, on average, 400 miles
over the past fifty years. That's a major shift, and indicates that
considerably more than .3 degrees C has shifted.
>Phil
silverback
immensely expensive and unworkable
>
>And silverback, it would limit growth to follow the Kyoto accords.
>Only the pinheads you listen to say otherwise.
the only solution is alternative energy sources fruitcake. Wind power
and biomass are fessible today.
Gary Carroll
> >> energy. And there isn't much of a market for CO2 so who are you going
> >> to pay to do it?
> >
> >dioxide, or rather many markets. What do you think makes soft drinks
> >fizz? How many tons do you think Coke ships in an hour? CO2 fills fire
> >extinguishers. It’s used as a refrigerant and industrial chemical. How
> >many tons of "dry ice" are sold a day? In general terms, you can assume
>
> hehehe none of which remove CO2 from the atmosphere for more than a
> short period of time.
I didn't say the markets were intended to remove CO2 permanently... I
said there were markets for CO2. You said ther were very few. See the connection?
> >anything you see shipped in tanker truckloads has a market.
> >We probably don’t need much more, though, because it’s cheap now. But
> >what he was suggesting is that if CO2 is the real problem, it can be
> >easily extracted from the atmosphere without reducing energy production.
> >You don’t even need the zeolites; all you do is compress the CO2 rich
> >gas in question (we are probably talking about flue gasses, here), allow
> >it to reach room temperature, then allow it to decompress. It cools as
> >it decompresses, and the C02 liquefies under the combination of high
> >pressure and low temperature. This does not have to be a high-energy
> >process as most of the energy used in compressing the air ends up as
>
> oh bullshit, it does have a high energy requirement. And now that you
> got it how are you going to remove it from the atmosphere for periods
> of a million years or so?
It does not. But even if it did, removing the CO2 from flue gasses from
energy producing plants allows the energy production without CO2
increasing, which is still a net gain.
(For information on removing it from the atmosphere for a million years,
see below.)
> >heat, and the heat is recoverable. Once the CO2 is isolated, if it’s not
> >needed it can be pumped back into the oil well to keep up the pressure,
> >or fixed in some way.
It requires energy to pump stuff into the ground... but the pressure
causes a reduction in the amount of energy required to pump the oil out,
and increases the total yield. There is a net energy gain, which is why
the process of pumping stuff into the ground was developed in the first
place. And it doesn’t require as much energy to inject CO2 as you would
think. All you have to do is run a pipe deep down, and connect it to a
CO2 reservoir at the top. Liquid CO2 is very heavy, much havier than oil
or even water. A column of liquid CO2 a couple of thousand feet long
will inject itself into the ground, forcing oil up if need be. And you
are rid of the CO2 which was the point, if you remember.
You can also inject it into underground aquifers, since it is water
soluble. There is some evidence that the presence of carbon and the
carbon compounds that result helps aquifers to purify the water.
By the way, when you pump it back into an oil well you *are* rid of it
for a million years, or as long as it would have stayed under anyway.
That's where it came from in the first place, remember?
Another creative technique under exploration is to form the CO2 into
large cylinders, tip them with iron points, and drop them over thick
beds of sediment in the deep ocean. The cylinders fall and gather speed
through the water. There is minimal loss from sublimation, because the
cylinders are coated in ice after the first hundred meters or so. When
the cylinder hits the sediment it penetrates deeply. The CO2 gradually
melts, but does not boil because of the pressure. Because liquid CO2 is
much heavier than water, it sinks further into the sediment. Over a
period of years the C02 forms carbon compounds in the sediment and is
locked away chemically.
There is little to no biological impact because the sediment is
biologically nearly lifeless. And CO2 is not actually toxic, anyway.
Eventually the seabed sediment becomes sedimentary rock, somewhat richer
in carbon compounds than it would otherwise be.
RUSSELL J. HARDEN
warming cycle started about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago when the last ice age ended
and perhaps it realy hasn't ended yet. That plus we had another warm period when the
Vikings visited Vinland. Did we also cause the CO2 during that period also? If we
had not had the last warming period, we would still have an ice sheet covering most
of North America. You had better be thankful for it.
Add to that the fact that vast areas of Northern land would be available for
cultivation and we can feed many more people.
RUSS HARDEN
Gary Carroll wrote:
> silverback wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 19:31:55 GMT, Gary Carroll
> > <garyboun...@home.com> wrote:
> > >> hmmmm such nonsense would require expending an enormous amount of
> > >> energy. And there isn't much of a market for CO2 so who are you going
> > >> to pay to do it?
> > >
silverback
<garyboun...@home.com> wrote:
>silverback wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 19:31:55 GMT, Gary Carroll
>> <garyboun...@home.com> wrote:
>> >> hmmmm such nonsense would require expending an enormous amount of
>> >> energy. And there isn't much of a market for CO2 so who are you going
>> >> to pay to do it?
>> >
>> >You are mistaken as to the market. There is a big market for carbon
>> >dioxide, or rather many markets. What do you think makes soft drinks
>> >fizz? How many tons do you think Coke ships in an hour? CO2 fills fire
>> >extinguishers. It’s used as a refrigerant and industrial chemical. How
>> >many tons of "dry ice" are sold a day? In general terms, you can assume
>>
>> hehehe none of which remove CO2 from the atmosphere for more than a
>> short period of time.
>
>I didn't say the markets were intended to remove CO2 permanently... I
>said there were markets for CO2. You said ther were very few. See the connection?
the topic is global warming, it would require long term removal of CO2
from the atmosphere to be effective. Do try to keep out or just admit
that you don't know a damn thing and then you can be as noisey as you
wish..
>
>> >anything you see shipped in tanker truckloads has a market.
>> >We probably don’t need much more, though, because it’s cheap now. But
>> >what he was suggesting is that if CO2 is the real problem, it can be
>> >easily extracted from the atmosphere without reducing energy production.
>> >You don’t even need the zeolites; all you do is compress the CO2 rich
>> >gas in question (we are probably talking about flue gasses, here), allow
>> >it to reach room temperature, then allow it to decompress. It cools as
>> >it decompresses, and the C02 liquefies under the combination of high
>> >pressure and low temperature. This does not have to be a high-energy
>> >process as most of the energy used in compressing the air ends up as
>>
>> oh bullshit, it does have a high energy requirement. And now that you
>> got it how are you going to remove it from the atmosphere for periods
>> of a million years or so?
>
>It does not. But even if it did, removing the CO2 from flue gasses from
>energy producing plants allows the energy production without CO2
>increasing, which is still a net gain.
not unless that CO2 has been removed for periods measured in terms of
millions of years.
>(For information on removing it from the atmosphere for a million years,
>see below.)
>
>> >heat, and the heat is recoverable. Once the CO2 is isolated, if it’s not
>> >needed it can be pumped back into the oil well to keep up the pressure,
>> >or fixed in some way.
>
>It requires energy to pump stuff into the ground... but the pressure
>causes a reduction in the amount of energy required to pump the oil out,
>and increases the total yield. There is a net energy gain, which is why
>the process of pumping stuff into the ground was developed in the first
no it was developed to recover more oil.
>place. And it doesn’t require as much energy to inject CO2 as you would
>think. All you have to do is run a pipe deep down, and connect it to a
>CO2 reservoir at the top. Liquid CO2 is very heavy, much havier than oil
>or even water. A column of liquid CO2 a couple of thousand feet long
>will inject itself into the ground, forcing oil up if need be. And you
>are rid of the CO2 which was the point, if you remember.
nope you are not rid of the CO2 until it either undegoes litofication
or conversion into fossil fuels. Rocks are porous, the CO2 would
perculate back to the surface in most cases.
>You can also inject it into underground aquifers, since it is water
>soluble. There is some evidence that the presence of carbon and the
>carbon compounds that result helps aquifers to purify the water.
>By the way, when you pump it back into an oil well you *are* rid of it
>for a million years, or as long as it would have stayed under anyway.
>That's where it came from in the first place, remember?
no it did not, it was in an entirely differnet form as either oil of
coal.
>Another creative technique under exploration is to form the CO2 into
>large cylinders, tip them with iron points, and drop them over thick
>beds of sediment in the deep ocean. The cylinders fall and gather speed
>through the water. There is minimal loss from sublimation, because the
>cylinders are coated in ice after the first hundred meters or so. When
>the cylinder hits the sediment it penetrates deeply. The CO2 gradually
>melts, but does not boil because of the pressure. Because liquid CO2 is
>much heavier than water, it sinks further into the sediment. Over a
>period of years the C02 forms carbon compounds in the sediment and is
>locked away chemically.
>There is little to no biological impact because the sediment is
>biologically nearly lifeless. And CO2 is not actually toxic, anyway.
>Eventually the seabed sediment becomes sedimentary rock, somewhat richer
>in carbon compounds than it would otherwise be.
not very practical as of yet now is it?
Phillip C Nisbet
>>
>>As a major example, I give you the Paleozoic-PreCambrian, where oxygen
>>producing bugs wiped themselves out by dropping the CO2 levels below
>>breathabl for themselves. Without that event, we would not exist
>>today.
>>
>Actually, that is purely speculative, with no evidence found to
>support it. I note that oxygen-producing bugs are still the greater
>part of the earth's biomass.
>
Blue green algea giving way to O2, with an attendent major increase of
oxygen in the atmosphere is the cause of the major red beds to the
Cambrian. Prior to that period we have a completely different
geochemical cycle not only for atmospheric action, but also in aquatic
systems. That is why you have ore deposits like the Witwatersrand,
with unusual uranium species and why we get events in the the Cambrian
like natural plutonium formation from critical mass development in
roll fronts of Ghana. So there is abundant evidence in the geological
record for a CO2 rich atmosphere giving way to one richer in O2.
>>>We're more adaptable, and can survive a reasonably gradual climate
>>>change.
>>>
>>>But that doesn't mean that we should INVITE climate change, or
>>>accellerate the RATE of the change, and that's what we've been doing.
>>>
>>That is the point, that the change is slow and not very significant.
>>We are talking a total of 0.3 degrees in the last 50 years based upon
>>trend line analysis. The original speculation was for a change of 3-5
>>degrees and it just is not showing up. Loons like silverback (Who
>>manages to calim that the atmosphere has 3% CO2 in it when the number
>>is 468 ppm.) figure to alarm everybody and divert budget from where it
>>is really needed. Ask yourself where you want to spend a trillion
>>dollars over the next 10 years. Is global warming and climate change
>>the place? Or do you believe that the same funds could be better
>>spent in say educating the kids of the world or providing for clean
>>water in the third world or restoring habitat in critical locations
>>for endangered species? The one puts a lot of bucks into the hands of
>>alternative fuel people and environmental device manufacturers, the
>>other puts funds into the hands of real live people who get a real
>>live benefit. You can not have both, as there just is not money for
>>it.
>
>Actually, you can. The clean air/clean water acts saved industry $25
>TRILLION between its inception and 1997, according to a joint
>DoE/Industry study. Cleaner, more efficient industry ALWAYS pays off.
>
Normally, Zepp, you have a good grasp of things, but where in the heck
do you come up with a 25 trillions dollar savings? That would be
$3030 for every man women and child in the country for 33 years. Even
in todays dollars, that would be 10% per year of incomes and back in
1964, that would be closer to 50%. Who ever came up with those
numbers was a BS artist. You have a better brain then to take that
number seriously, as it would be about 20% of all the GDP for the
nations last 30 years combined.
There are limits to efficiency benefits and clean up may or may not
pay off. I agree with you that we need to minimize our inputs to
ecosystems, but we can never have zero impact. Often that last little
bit of pollution is just about impossible to get and in order to
minimize one set of pollutants, we end up creating other and greater
management problems.
As a quick example would give you sediment control. We can manage
this to almost the zero level. In so doing, we often over manage
sediment inputs, causing streams to down cut and remove riparian
habitat, while stopping important reloading of nutrients. End result
is environmental damges not suspected when the reduction program was
planned.
One other example is nutrient loading. We have set a level for
nutrients which often forgets that fisheries species require the bugs
that live on those nutrients. Rivers in serveal locations and at
least several lakes that are ESA listed critical habitat have been so
nutrient denuded by our clean ups, that they do not support a
fisheries population. On some of these, we are seriously going about
the process of dumping crap into the water in order to restore the
productivity of the system.
So we can get it too clean. We can also end up spending so much to
get the last part per billion on one aspect of a clean up, that we
lose sight of what we were trying to do in the first place. Many
unique ecosystems are being destroyed to give us a sense of pollution
free environments. Thiobacilus that are the base of several food
chains with strong arsenic resistance or copper resistance and the
copper resistant food chain above them have been clean up out of
existancein several locations I can name.
>You're closer on the CO2 levels than Gdy, but off on the temperature
>change. The main discriminants you should be looking at over the past
>fifty years are the tree line, the permafrost line, and glaciation.
>Treelines and permafrost lines have receded, on average, 400 miles
>over the past fifty years. That's a major shift, and indicates that
>considerably more than .3 degrees C has shifted.
Zepp, Tree line has not been drastically altered in the last 50
years. As to perma-frost and glacial ressession, they have been on
going at a pretty uniform rate for some time. At present we do not
have sufficient data to suggest much of a rapid acceleration in
either. And the trend line for the 0.3 degrees C is what is the
accepted number by all scientists working in the field. Other then
the period of the little ice age, recorded data from the glaciers of
Europe shows slow but steady retreat over the last 500 years and we
can use other data to show that the retreat goes back at least 3000
years. Very minor shifts like 0.3 degrees can have impacts like this.
But will reducing CO2 levels significantly modify that trend? Not
according to most of the scientific community.
It is a pleasure debating this with you and you bring up good points
for examination. No single person has all the answers here and that
is why we need to have an open debate of what the problem is and what
possible solutions we can achieve.
Phillip C Nisbet
wrote:
>
>the only solution is alternative energy sources fruitcake. Wind power
>and biomass are fessible today.
>
>*****************************************************
>
>GDY Weasel
silverback,
Biomass is a source of CO2. Windpower is very expensive, which is why
it does not have a bigger following, not counting the recent
restrictions on its application due to viewshed and other
environmental problems. Only low head hydro has a lower cost then
fossil fuel burning. So learn about alternative energy before opening
your mouth and proving your ignorance.
Gary Carroll
> >silverback wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 19:31:55 GMT, Gary Carroll
> >> <garyboun...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >> hmmmm such nonsense would require expending an enormous amount of
> >> >> energy. And there isn't much of a market for CO2 so who are you going
> >> >> to pay to do it?
> >> >
> >> >You are mistaken as to the market. There is a big market for carbon
> >> >dioxide, or rather many markets. What do you think makes soft drinks
> >> >fizz? How many tons do you think Coke ships in an hour? CO2 fills fire
> >> >extinguishers. It’s used as a refrigerant and industrial chemical. How
> >> >many tons of "dry ice" are sold a day? In general terms, you can assume
> >>
> >> hehehe none of which remove CO2 from the atmosphere for more than a
> >> short period of time.
> >
> >I didn't say the markets were intended to remove CO2 permanently... I
> >said there were markets for CO2. You said ther were very few. See the connection?
>
> the topic is global warming, it would require long term removal of CO2
> from the atmosphere to be effective. Do try to keep out or just admit
> that you don't know a damn thing and then you can be as noisey as you
> wish..
Read the exchange between the lines. You said there was no market for
CO2, and thus no one would pay for the scrubbing of CO2 from flue
gasses. I said your were mistaken, there is indeed a market for C02. Now
you say that markets for CO2 are not the topic... I was directly
addressing what you said.
The part about seeing that the CO2 is permanently removed or never added
was adressed later, as you well know. See below.
----------
>Gary:
> >> >anything you see shipped in tanker truckloads has a market.
> >> >We probably don’t need much more, though, because it’s cheap now. But
> >> >what he was suggesting is that if CO2 is the real problem, it can be
> >> >easily extracted from the atmosphere without reducing energy production.
> >> >You don’t even need the zeolites; all you do is compress the CO2 rich
> >> >gas in question (we are probably talking about flue gasses, here), allow
> >> >it to reach room temperature, then allow it to decompress. It cools as
> >> >it decompresses, and the C02 liquefies under the combination of high
> >> >pressure and low temperature. This does not have to be a high-energy
> >> >process as most of the energy used in compressing the air ends up as
> >>
> >> oh bullshit, it does have a high energy requirement. And now that you
> >> got it how are you going to remove it from the atmosphere for periods
> >> of a million years or so?
> >
> >It does not. But even if it did, removing the CO2 from flue gasses from
> >energy producing plants allows the energy production without CO2
> >increasing, which is still a net gain.
>
> not unless that CO2 has been removed for periods measured in terms of
> millions of years.
>
> >(For information on removing it from the atmosphere for a million years,
> >see below.)
See if you can grasp this. If it has been extracted from flue gasses and
re-injected into the oil bearing layer, it has not been added to the
atmosphere at all. Ever. Where does the "remove for millions of years"
come in?
And you keep saying this millions of years... are you of the mistaken
opinion that CO2 is inert and remains in the air for millions of years?
It get used, combined, and / or broken down constantly. All you have to
do is stop adding it and it goes away. Soon, not in millions of years.
----------
> >It requires energy to pump stuff into the ground... but the pressure
> >causes a reduction in the amount of energy required to pump the oil out,
> >and increases the total yield. There is a net energy gain, which is why
> >the process of pumping stuff into the ground was developed in the first
>
> no it was developed to recover more oil.
Carefully reread the above a few times. I said the process was first
developed to increase the total yield ; you said "No, it was developed
to recover more oil." Understand now? Normally water (rather than CO2)
is pumped back into the ground because water is cheaper than CO2. But
CO2 works just fine. You can even mix the CO2 and water, which also
works fine.
----------
> >place. And it doesn’t require as much energy to inject CO2 as you would
> >think. All you have to do is run a pipe deep down, and connect it to a
> >CO2 reservoir at the top. Liquid CO2 is very heavy, much havier than oil
> >or even water. A column of liquid CO2 a couple of thousand feet long
> >will inject itself into the ground, forcing oil up if need be. And you
> >are rid of the CO2 which was the point, if you remember.
>
> nope you are not rid of the CO2 until it either undegoes litofication
> or conversion into fossil fuels. Rocks are porous, the CO2 would
> perculate back to the surface in most cases.
I do not know the word litofication. However, based your spelling of
"percolate", I suspect you really mean "lithification". You are
incorrect that CO2 can only be removed from the atmosphere by conversion
into fossil fuels or into minerals.
Liquid C02 is soluble in oil and water. It is heavier than air. It is
heavier than water, even. And water with dissolved CO2 is heavier than
water without, so it percolates down, not up. It readily combines with
other chemicals, and breaks down into elemental carbon and oxygen. Any
of these would prevent the CO2 from entering the atmosphere.
If you are arguing that it would sublimate into gas and escape from
thousands of feet down, then I argue that it can do this anyway. It is
being returned to the environment from which it came, and there are
continuous CO2 emissions from that source.
In any case, CO2 is actively removed from the atmosphere by plants,
animals, and chemical processes continuously. If we simply refrain from
injecting a high level into the atmosphere, it will be removed normally.
By the way, weren’t you arguing earlier that fossil fuels were minerals?
If so, then saying "either lithification or conversion into fossil fuel"
is redundant. No big deal, though.
--------
> >You can also inject it into underground aquifers, since it is water
> >soluble. There is some evidence that the presence of carbon and the
> >carbon compounds that result helps aquifers to purify the water.
> >By the way, when you pump it back into an oil well you *are* rid of it
> >for a million years, or as long as it would have stayed under anyway.
> >That's where it came from in the first place, remember?
>
> no it did not, it was in an entirely differnet form as either oil of
> coal.
So dissolving it back into oil, or injecting it underground where this
chemically active gas can combine with other chemicals to form carbon
compounds is much different?.
Before the CO2 was CO2 it was carbon and oxygen. Would you like it
better if we simply broke it down into carbon and oxygen? If you pass
CO2 through a solid electrolyte of yttria stabilized zirconia at 750c
(not a difficult condition to attain at a furnace) the oxygen
disassociates from the carbon. Or... but you must get the picture. (By
the way, I don't really suggest the above as appropriate or desirable...
it's just an example of how CO2 can be readily changed.)
> >Another creative technique under exploration is to form the CO2 into
> >large cylinders, tip them with iron points, and drop them over thick
> >beds of sediment in the deep ocean. The cylinders fall and gather speed
> >through the water. There is minimal loss from sublimation, because the
> >cylinders are coated in ice after the first hundred meters or so. When
> >the cylinder hits the sediment it penetrates deeply. The CO2 gradually
> >melts, but does not boil because of the pressure. Because liquid CO2 is
> >much heavier than water, it sinks further into the sediment. Over a
> >period of years the C02 forms carbon compounds in the sediment and is
> >locked away chemically.
> >There is little to no biological impact because the sediment is
> >biologically nearly lifeless. And CO2 is not actually toxic, anyway.
> >Eventually the seabed sediment becomes sedimentary rock, somewhat richer
> >in carbon compounds than it would otherwise be.
>
> not very practical as of yet now is it?
Actually it is very practical. What is not know is if it is a good idea.
Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not very permanent, and percentages
fluctuate reapidly. We should study the system we have now very
carefully and intelligently decide what we should do. Ill planned
remediation efforts may well do more lasting harm than the CO2 itself,
which is not for sure doing any harm at all.
silverback
Nisbet) wrote:
>On 4 Jan 2000 16:39:10 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>the only solution is alternative energy sources fruitcake. Wind power
>>and biomass are fessible today.
>>
>>*****************************************************
>>
>>GDY Weasel
>silverback,
>
>Biomass is a source of CO2. Windpower is very expensive, which is why
yer either ignorant or lying. Biomass does not contribute more CO2 to
the atmosphere on a long term basis. Windpower is competetive on a
cost basis now as is biomass once the corporate welfare programs for
the fossil fuels are removed.
>it does not have a bigger following, not counting the recent
>restrictions on its application due to viewshed and other
>environmental problems. Only low head hydro has a lower cost then
>fossil fuel burning. So learn about alternative energy before opening
>your mouth and proving your ignorance.
*****************************************************
silverback
<garyboun...@home.com> wrote:
no you are just being noisey.
um going to bottle it as soda ?
You gotta do sumpthing with it to remove it from the atmosphere long
term.
>And you keep saying this millions of years... are you of the mistaken
>opinion that CO2 is inert and remains in the air for millions of years?
>It get used, combined, and / or broken down constantly. All you have to
>do is stop adding it and it goes away. Soon, not in millions of years.
you are amazingly dumb.
>----------
>
>> >It requires energy to pump stuff into the ground... but the pressure
>> >causes a reduction in the amount of energy required to pump the oil out,
>> >and increases the total yield. There is a net energy gain, which is why
>> >the process of pumping stuff into the ground was developed in the first
>>
>> no it was developed to recover more oil.
>
>Carefully reread the above a few times. I said the process was first
>developed to increase the total yield ; you said "No, it was developed
>to recover more oil." Understand now? Normally water (rather than CO2)
>is pumped back into the ground because water is cheaper than CO2. But
>CO2 works just fine. You can even mix the CO2 and water, which also
>works fine.
>
all of which require more energy
>----------
>> >place. And it doesn’t require as much energy to inject CO2 as you would
>> >think. All you have to do is run a pipe deep down, and connect it to a
>> >CO2 reservoir at the top. Liquid CO2 is very heavy, much havier than oil
>> >or even water. A column of liquid CO2 a couple of thousand feet long
>> >will inject itself into the ground, forcing oil up if need be. And you
>> >are rid of the CO2 which was the point, if you remember.
>>
>> nope you are not rid of the CO2 until it either undegoes litofication
>> or conversion into fossil fuels. Rocks are porous, the CO2 would
>> perculate back to the surface in most cases.
>
>I do not know the word litofication. However, based your spelling of
>"percolate", I suspect you really mean "lithification". You are
>incorrect that CO2 can only be removed from the atmosphere by conversion
>into fossil fuels or into minerals.
>Liquid C02 is soluble in oil and water. It is heavier than air. It is
>heavier than water, even. And water with dissolved CO2 is heavier than
>water without, so it percolates down, not up. It readily combines with
>other chemicals, and breaks down into elemental carbon and oxygen. Any
man you are dumb, CO2 does not readily breakdown. It takes energy to
break it down or form other chemicals from it, lots of energy. Your
ignorance of basic chemistry and the second law of thermo is noted.
>of these would prevent the CO2 from entering the atmosphere.
>If you are arguing that it would sublimate into gas and escape from
>thousands of feet down, then I argue that it can do this anyway. It is
>being returned to the environment from which it came, and there are
>continuous CO2 emissions from that source.
guess what there are continous emissions from the group of CO2 just as
there is continous removal of CO2 by litification.
>In any case, CO2 is actively removed from the atmosphere by plants,
>animals, and chemical processes continuously. If we simply refrain from
>injecting a high level into the atmosphere, it will be removed normally.
more nonsense, according to your logic then plants should be growing
like wildfire nowdays compare with 200 years ago. But that is not the
case, we have an example that runs counter to your ill stated example.
>By the way, weren’t you arguing earlier that fossil fuels were minerals?
>If so, then saying "either lithification or conversion into fossil fuel"
>is redundant. No big deal, though.
>--------
>> >You can also inject it into underground aquifers, since it is water
>> >soluble. There is some evidence that the presence of carbon and the
>> >carbon compounds that result helps aquifers to purify the water.
>> >By the way, when you pump it back into an oil well you *are* rid of it
>> >for a million years, or as long as it would have stayed under anyway.
>> >That's where it came from in the first place, remember?
>>
>> no it did not, it was in an entirely differnet form as either oil of
>> coal.
>
>So dissolving it back into oil, or injecting it underground where this
>chemically active gas can combine with other chemicals to form carbon
>compounds is much different?.
more ignorance from carol about the second law of thermo. CO2 is not
exactly overly reactive in fact it is the most stable form of carbon
thermodynamically. Yes it can react but it takes energy for it to
react.
>Before the CO2 was CO2 it was carbon and oxygen. Would you like it
>better if we simply broke it down into carbon and oxygen? If you pass
>CO2 through a solid electrolyte of yttria stabilized zirconia at 750c
>(not a difficult condition to attain at a furnace) the oxygen
>disassociates from the carbon. Or... but you must get the picture. (By
>the way, I don't really suggest the above as appropriate or desirable...
>it's just an example of how CO2 can be readily changed.)
and it would require a tremenous amount of energy.
>
>> >Another creative technique under exploration is to form the CO2 into
>> >large cylinders, tip them with iron points, and drop them over thick
>> >beds of sediment in the deep ocean. The cylinders fall and gather speed
>> >through the water. There is minimal loss from sublimation, because the
>> >cylinders are coated in ice after the first hundred meters or so. When
>> >the cylinder hits the sediment it penetrates deeply. The CO2 gradually
>> >melts, but does not boil because of the pressure. Because liquid CO2 is
>> >much heavier than water, it sinks further into the sediment. Over a
>> >period of years the C02 forms carbon compounds in the sediment and is
>> >locked away chemically.
>> >There is little to no biological impact because the sediment is
>> >biologically nearly lifeless. And CO2 is not actually toxic, anyway.
>> >Eventually the seabed sediment becomes sedimentary rock, somewhat richer
>> >in carbon compounds than it would otherwise be.
>>
>> not very practical as of yet now is it?
>
>Actually it is very practical. What is not know is if it is a good idea.
>Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not very permanent, and percentages
>fluctuate reapidly. We should study the system we have now very
>carefully and intelligently decide what we should do. Ill planned
>remediation efforts may well do more lasting harm than the CO2 itself,
>which is not for sure doing any harm at all.
nonsense we have already enough studies proving that the burning of
fossil fules is now changing the climate.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>yer either ignorant or lying. Biomass does not contribute more CO2 to
>the atmosphere on a long term basis. Windpower is competetive on a
>cost basis now as is biomass once the corporate welfare programs for
>the fossil fuels are removed.
>
Heh, heh, everthing comes down to corporate welfare for Gdy. All his
problems would be solved if we did away with corporate welfare. Wind
power is a massively supported with government funds and regulation
and couldn't make a perceptible scratch in the volume of fossil fuel
electric production.
Ace
silverback
actaully wind power could suppy as much as 30-50% of the electrical
power used.
>
>Ace
Phillip C Nisbet
wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 18:10:19 GMT, cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com
>(Steve Canyon) wrote:
>
>>On 5 Jan 2000 16:41:41 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>yer either ignorant or lying. Biomass does not contribute more CO2 to
>>>the atmosphere on a long term basis. Windpower is competetive on a
>>>cost basis now as is biomass once the corporate welfare programs for
>>>the fossil fuels are removed.
>>>
>>
>>Heh, heh, everthing comes down to corporate welfare for Gdy. All his
>>problems would be solved if we did away with corporate welfare. Wind
>>power is a massively supported with government funds and regulation
>>and couldn't make a perceptible scratch in the volume of fossil fuel
>>electric production.
>
>actaully wind power could suppy as much as 30-50% of the electrical
>power used.
>
Actually, it can't.
>>
>>Ace