OT: The US is changing
Curt
I like the names they use for these acts. The Patriot act and the USA act.
lol
WASHINGTON, DC -- The anti-terrorism bills just passed by the House and
Senate will allow the government to secretly search your home, spy on bank
accounts around the world, and monitor your e-mail -- provisions that
Congress has rejected before and that Americans overwhelmingly oppose, the
Libertarian Party said today.
"These bills could be called 'Spying on Americans: The Sequel,' " said Steve
Dasbach, national director of the Libertarian Party. "It appears that
politicians are trying to use terrorism as an excuse for imposing
anti-privacy measures that the American public has soundly rejected in the
past. That's not just wrong -- it's unpatriotic."
This week, the U.S. House and U.S. Senate are working to reach agreement
about conflicting provisions of two anti-terrorism bills: The USA Act,
passed by the Senate on Thursday (by a 96-1 vote), and The PATRIOT Act,
passed by the House on Friday (337-79).
A conference committee is working to resolve the differences between the two
bills, and President Bush is expected to sign the final version by week's
end.
Both bills dramatically expand law enforcement agencies' power to conduct
searches, wiretaps, and other forms of electronic surveillance -- and those
provisions should be stripped out of the final bill, said Dasbach.
"Politicians claim they're struggling to 'strike a balance between liberty
and safety' in the fight against terrorism," he said. "Here's a simple rule
to follow when trying to strike that balance: Don't turn an anti-terrorism
bill into a Christmas tree, festooned with all sorts of anti-privacy
regulations that have been rejected before."
Phil Hendrie
1984 has been arriving on an incremental basis for over 100 years. It
has come in big chunks during the regimes of FDR and LBJ, and dribbled
down the legs of of Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. In the last half
century only two men of the major political parties have run on a
platform to reduce the scope of government, or as some say return it
to its Constitutional basis. These two men, icons of liberty, are
Ronald Reagan and Barry M. Goldwater. In fact, the legacy of the great
Barry M. Goldwater is growing today. Another ten or twenty years are
needed for the great legacy of Ronald Reagan to blossom. Curt, I would
suggest you turn your attention to studying the lives and ideas of
these two great men, as freedom never had better protectors. The more
you learn about them, the more you will realize that America will
always stand tall, always be proud and always be right as long as men
such as these are amongst us.
Phil
"Curt" <hcs...@home.com> wrote in message news:<SZgz7.137952$5A3.44...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>...
Douglas King
Phil Hendrie wrote:
> ....... In the last half
> century only two men of the major political parties have run on a
> platform to reduce the scope of government, or as some say return it
> to its Constitutional basis. These two men, icons of liberty, are
> Ronald Reagan and Barry M. Goldwater.
Boy are you deluded.
> In fact, the legacy of the great
> Barry M. Goldwater is growing today.
If you mean that the political ideals of Barry Goldwater are gaining credence, guess again. If you mean
that a lot of fascist blow-hards are misquoting Goldwater and claiming to follow his ideals, then you're
right.
And apparently it's working.
> Another ten or twenty years are
> needed for the great legacy of Ronald Reagan to blossom.
What, the legacy of electing a poorly-educated doofus to the highest office in the land? I don't think
it's going to take twenty years, it happened again just last year.
DSK
Curt
Curt
"Douglas King" <dou...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3BCDDA26...@bellsouth.net...
Babs Johnson
Neal = Gilligan = Babs = xganon1 = xganon2 = Curt = xganon3 = Hell Remailer
= Tamara = Gangplank = Gangbang = Phil = JL Rogers = xganon4 = Dirk
Schleaderhausen = Bluto = Peabody = Nobody = Jax = Xavier Cougat = Wombat 2
= Alan Smithee = Dirac = William Bendix? I think I missed about a half dozen
others too.
Babs Johnson, America's premier sailorette
"Douglas King" <dou...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3BCDDA26...@bellsouth.net...
Phil Hendrie
stop immediately. No harm done, but please keep it in bounds.
The real Phil
Curt
person. Well, it would have to be two because I am me. I don't know how to
trace a poster, but some people do. I don't have anything blocked so I am
easy to trace.
Respectfully,
Capt, I mean Curt
"Babs Johnson" <bigbadb...@pink.com> wrote in message
news:#GQrzz0VBHA.1396@cpimsnntpa03...
> Is it possible that:
>
> Neal = Gilligan = Babs = xganon1 = xganon2 = Curt = xganon3 = Hell
Remailer
> = Tamara = Gangplank = Gangbang = Phil = JL Rogers = xganon4 = Dirk
> Schleaderhausen = Bluto = Peabody = Nobody = Jax = Xavier Cougat = Wombat
2
> = Alan Smithee = Dirac = William Bendix? I think I missed about a half
dozen
> others too.
>
> Babs Johnson, America's premier sailorette
>
>
> "Douglas King" <dou...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3BCDDA26...@bellsouth.net...
> > Gosh, I didn't think Phil Hendrie was a NelliBabsŽ sock puppet.
Curt
Enjoy,
Curt
"Phil Hendrie" <hendr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c44b32d.01101...@posting.google.com...
katy
A qualified yes to all....
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
katy
person.
Nope....I've met too many people from this group already and none of them
looked like the other...and I know you're not me and I'm not you....
Gilligan
> it's going to take twenty years, it happened again just last year.
>
> DSK
Doug:
Poorly educated? Back then not many went to college. Did your parents?
Most importantly, you "claim" to be a mechanical engineer. You have
called Fourier Transforms "big brain math". Doug, fourier analysis is
sophomore level engineering math - second year studies. You have no
inkling of the analytical purpose of fourier transforms, you've said
so yourself. How can an "engineer" (especially mechanical) have no
working knowledge of the most basic sophomore math. We're not talking
rocket science here, we're talking fundamentals. If anyone is poorly
educated it is you. You either really slacked off on your four year
degree or you think a two year degree makes you an "engineer". Please
don't confuse "engineer" with "technician", the main difference
between the two is in the science dealing with quantification
(measurement) - mathematics. It's really sad that you can't even
quantify the vibrations of a simple cantilever beam or the heat pulse
travelling on a flat metal plate.
Gilligan, almost in disbelief
Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
"Babs Johnson" <bigbadb...@pink.com> wrote:
>
> Is it possible that:
>
> Neal = Gilligan = Babs = xganon1 = xganon2 = Curt = xganon3 = Hell
Remailer
> = Tamara = Gangplank = Gangbang = Phil = JL Rogers = xganon4 = Dirk
> Schleaderhausen = Bluto = Peabody = Nobody = Jax = Xavier Cougat =
Wombat 2
> = Alan Smithee = Dirac = William Bendix? I think I missed about a half
dozen
> others too.
>
> Babs Johnson, America's premier sailorette
You're also one smart cookie, you big, beautiful bombshell with the
brain of an Einstein.
Tamara
katy
Douglas King
> Poorly educated? Back then not many went to college.
Back when? The 1980s?
>
> Most importantly, you "claim" to be a mechanical engineer.
Nope. I simply am one. If I was going to "claim" something don't you think there are far more glamorous choices?
> You have called Fourier Transforms "big brain math". Doug, fourier analysis is sophomore level engineering math - second year studies. You have no inkling of
> the analytical purpose of fourier transforms, you've said so yourself. How can an "engineer" (especially mechanical) have no working knowledge of the most basic
> sophomore math. We're not talking rocket science here, we're talking fundamentals.
Hardly. I learned that stuff well enough to pass tests, and that was about ten years ago. Since then I have been rather busy with other things.
> If anyone is poorly educated it is you.
Perhaps.
> You either really slacked off on your four year
> degree or you think a two year degree makes you an "engineer". Please don't confuse "engineer" with "technician", the main difference between the two is in the
> science dealing with quantification (measurement) - mathematics. It's really sad that you can't even quantify the vibrations of a simple cantilever beam or the
> heat pulse travelling on a flat metal plate.
Frankly, I don't care about such because nobody is paying me for those operations.
I think it's sad that you waste so much time & effort playing psycho games on the internet.
>
>
> Gilligan, almost in disbelief
Gilligan
Douglas King <dou...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<3BD18188...@bellsouth.net>...
> Gilligan wrote:
>
> > Poorly educated? Back then not many went to college.
>
> Back when? The 1980s?
It's in reference to Ronald Reagan. He went to college in the 20's or
30's. You called him poorly educated. I was just curious about what
you considered "poorly".
>
> >
> > Most importantly, you "claim" to be a mechanical engineer.
>
> Nope. I simply am one. If I was going to "claim" something don't you think there are far more glamorous choices?
Then you are a licensed professional engineer? Or are you in the
category of engineer as in "sanitation"?
>
>
>
> > You have called Fourier Transforms "big brain math". Doug, fourier analysis is sophomore level engineering math - second year studies. You have no inkling of
> > the analytical purpose of fourier transforms, you've said so yourself. How can an "engineer" (especially mechanical) have no working knowledge of the most basic
> > sophomore math. We're not talking rocket science here, we're talking fundamentals.
>
> Hardly. I learned that stuff well enough to pass tests, and that was about ten years ago. Since then I have been rather busy with other things.
>
> > If anyone is poorly educated it is you.
>
> Perhaps.
>
> > You either really slacked off on your four year
> > degree or you think a two year degree makes you an "engineer". Please don't confuse "engineer" with "technician", the main difference between the two is in the
> > science dealing with quantification (measurement) - mathematics. It's really sad that you can't even quantify the vibrations of a simple cantilever beam or the
> > heat pulse travelling on a flat metal plate.
>
> Frankly, I don't care about such because nobody is paying me for those operations.
>
> I think it's sad that you waste so much time & effort playing psycho games on the internet.
It's even sadder when you waste your employer's resources on the
internet, technically it is theft of service. Just think, if you spent
that time studying you could improve yourself and be a better
employee/engineer. Your myopic view - since I'm not getting paid for
it so why know it - is short sighted. As every year goes by you'll
forget more and more and the day may come when you have to change
jobs. The only thing you'll be able to do is the exact same job as you
did before. As outplacement people will tell you, the expectations of
getting the same job are unrealistic. Your employment contract may
also limit you from work in the same field. Hopefully you negotiated
some type of payment in exchange for the non compete after all you are
giving something up to them.
Psycho Gilligan
>
> >
> >
> > Gilligan, almost in disbelief
Douglas King
> It's in reference to Ronald Reagan. He went to college in the 20's or 30's. You called him poorly educated. I was just curious about what you considered "poorly".
An actor who knows noting about Shakespeare and a President who does not know which continent our major allies are located on is butt-ignorant whatever his level of
"education." Furthermore, the man genuinely believed that trees cause air pollution!
> > > Most importantly, you "claim" to be a mechanical engineer.
> >
> > Nope. I simply am one. If I was going to "claim" something don't you think there are far more glamorous choices?
>
> Then you are a licensed professional engineer?
Maybe....
> Or are you in the
> category of engineer as in "sanitation"?
Perhaps......
>
> > I think it's sad that you waste so much time & effort playing psycho games on the internet.
>
> It's even sadder when .....(crazed ranting snipped).
I see that you no longer bother to deny that Crapton Kneel® and Tamara and all the others are just figments of your putrid imagination. Are you JAXASs too? You need
help, whoever you are and whereever you live.
If you were the computer/internet genius that you wish you were (perhaps you should invest your time more wisely and study) you could figure out whether or not I am a
licensed engineer and why my employer is not likely to complain about how I spend my time. Nope, you don't have the cojones nor the brainpower (despite your bragging),
you're just another whining malcontent using up bandwidth.
DSK
Bobsprit
He thought this because he actually believed that trees and cars expell the
same emmissions.
Sad and sadder still for those who voted for him for both terms.
Capt RB
Gilligan
Douglas King <dou...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<3BD44A4F...@bellsouth.net>...
> Gilligan wrote:
>
> > It's in reference to Ronald Reagan. He went to college in the 20's or 30's. You called him poorly educated. I was just curious about what you considered "poorly".
>
> An actor who knows noting about Shakespeare and a President who does not know which continent our major allies are located on is butt-ignorant whatever his level of
> "education." Furthermore, the man genuinely believed that trees cause air pollution!
Check this link: http://forests.org/archive/general/plwrtree.htm
What do you know that scientists don't? Are you ignorant of everything
you say?
>
> > > > Most importantly, you "claim" to be a mechanical engineer.
> > >
> > > Nope. I simply am one. If I was going to "claim" something don't you think there are far more glamorous choices?
> >
> > Then you are a licensed professional engineer?
>
> Maybe....
>
> > Or are you in the
> > category of engineer as in "sanitation"?
>
> Perhaps......
>
> >
> > > I think it's sad that you waste so much time & effort playing psycho games on the internet.
> >
> > It's even sadder when .....(crazed ranting snipped).
>
> I see that you no longer bother to deny that Crapton Kneel® and Tamara and all the others are just figments of your putrid imagination. Are you JAXASs too? You need
> help, whoever you are and whereever you live.
They are figments in my imagination, but reality in yours. I am Capt.
Neal and Tamara. When I dress up I'm Katysails.
>
> If you were the computer/internet genius that you wish you were (perhaps you should invest your time more wisely and study) you could figure out whether or not I am a
> licensed engineer and why my employer is not likely to complain about how I spend my time. Nope, you don't have the cojones nor the brainpower (despite your bragging),
> you're just another whining malcontent using up bandwidth.
I'm not a computer engineer or internet genius, I never claimed to be
one. I don't wish to be one either. Where did you get that impression?
I don't brag either, I just correct your continuous stream of mistakes
and misinformation. I know if you are a licensed engineer or not, I
checked the registry. I know your employer personally.
What am I whining about? I can easily double any bandwidth I use by
trolling you - you at least equal it and in a timely fashion. I not
unhappy at all, watching you self destruct gives me a good laugh.
Doug get a grip. I'm playing on your psychological weaknesses and
character flaws. You can't resist, you are compelled by your demons to
respond no matter what. You have programmed yourself to act a certain
way and now you are out of control. Rationality, who sometimes rode in
your backseat has lept out the window as you careen through this and
other newsgroups. I do need help - help to stop me from laughing - oh
it hurts! HAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!
Do you think I'm winning now? Others do.
Gilligan
>
> DSK
Gilligan
> Furthermore, the man genuinely believed that trees cause air pollution!>>>
>
Planting the wrong tree increases air pollution
Tuesday, July 24, 2001
By Environmental News Network
Avocado trees like this Persea americana are among those with low
emissions.
Air pollution can damage trees, but certain varieties of trees can
emit air pollutants, creating ozone and fine particulate matter that
make it hard to breathe.
Planting a peach or an avocado tree can reduce air pollution, but the
California Air Resources Board says that not all trees provide cleaner
air. Planting a California sycamore, for instance, can add to air
pollution.
Research by the California Environmental Protection Agency's Air
Resources Board shows that it takes informed selection and planting of
trees to reduce urban air pollution. In a study presented to the Board
July 9, over 1,400 tree species were compiled and rated for their
various pollution impacts and pollen production.
Air Resources Board Chairman Alan Lloyd said, "People plant trees for
many reasons: to beautify their home, provide shade, and reduce energy
bills. But, they may not be aware that certain trees can decrease air
pollution and pollen counts. Necessary information is now available to
choose the most effective smog and pollen reducing species."
When considering a new tree, there are three main concerns: intended
use, such as shading needs, climate of the area, and the tree's
emissions types and amounts.
The emissions of trees are classified as low, moderate, or high, based
on the sum of the hourly emission rates of the chemicals isoprene and
monoterpenes.
These compounds are very reactive and play a role in tropospheric
ozone formation and aerosol production according to the Washington
State University Laboratory for Atmospheric Research.
Large scale planting can affect air quality through regional
concentrations of ozone and fine particles. To reduce ozone
concentrations in urban areas, it is particularly important to use low
emitting species.
The emissions from deciduous trees such as oak, poplar, aspens and
willows are mainly isoprene, whereas coniferous trees such as pines,
cedars, redwood and firs emit mostly monoterpene. There are several
species which emit both isoprene and monoterpenes such as spruce and
eucalyptus.
When selected with attention to what each tree emits, trees and other
plants can improve local cooling, reduce energy use and slow the
chemical reactions that lead to the formation of ozone, or urban smog.
The differences in emission rates from one species to the next can
vary significantly. Some plant species can release as much as 10,000
times more biogenic, naturally formed, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) than the more atmospherically friendly low emitters.
For more information about selecting appropriate trees, see Cal Poly
San Luis Obipso's website Selectree.
The Air Resources Board recommends that people consider a tree's
capacity to emit biogenic VOCs before they plant. These compounds are
particularly important because they create ozone and fine particulate
matter (PM 2.5), which are damaging to the human respiratory system.
Plants positively affect air quality by local cooling and removing
some pollutants. But they may negatively affect air quality by
emitting biogenic volatile organic compounds and releasing potent
allergens.
Low-emitters include the Chinese Hackberry, Avocado, Peach, Ash,
Sawleaf Zelkova and the Eastern Redbud.
A few of the high emitters include the London Plane, California
Sycamore, Liquidamber, Chinese Sweet Gum, Goldenrain Tree, and the
Scarlet, Red and Willow Oaks.
The Air Resources Board aims to promote and protect public health,
welfare, and ecological resources through effective reduction of air
pollutants while recognizing and considering effects on the economy.
The ARB oversees all air pollution control efforts in California to
attain and maintain health based air quality standards.
Copyright 2001, Environmental News Network
All Rights Reserved
katy
to be around them once in the spring to know that the air you're breathing is
not good.
katy
No you're not...I'm Katysails....
Lady Sailor
Lady B.
> katy wrote:
> No you're not...I'm Katysails....
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
katy
Thank you, ma'am....
Douglas King
The main point is not that "Reagan was right, trees cause air pollution" (unless you're stupid). The
main point was that some trees help reduce pollution more than others.
And a curious thing is that while this article compared the emissions of various species of trees, it
did not compare the emissions of trees to the emissions of, say, cars or coal-fired generating plants.
Think about it.
DSK
Douglas King
> Hi again Doug! Read on-->
>
> Douglas King <dou...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<3BD44A4F...@bellsouth.net>...
> > Gilligan wrote:
> >
> > > It's in reference to Ronald Reagan. He went to college in the 20's or 30's. You called him poorly educated. I was just curious about what you considered "poorly".
> >
> > An actor who knows noting about Shakespeare and a President > who does not know which continent our major allies are located > on is butt-ignorant whatever his level of
> > "education." Furthermore, the man genuinely believed that trees cause air pollution!
>
> Check this link: http://forests.org/archive/general/plwrtree.htm
>
> What do you know that scientists don't? Are you ignorant of everything you say?
Nope.
Which causes more pollution, a palm tree, an oak tree, or a Lincoln town car?
>
>
> > I see that you no longer bother to deny that Crapton Kneel® and Tamara and all the others are just figments of your putrid imagination. Are you JAXASs too? You need
> > help, whoever you are and whereever you live.
>
> They are figments in my imagination, but reality in yours.
My reality is this: you're a sad little man.
> ... I know if you are a licensed engineer or not, I
> checked the registry.
Which registry? Go on, tell the group what licenses and professional certifications (if any) I hold.
> I know your employer personally.
Do tell. Is my employer a multinational or a family firm?
You know doodley-squat, and make a poor bluff.
>
> What am I whining about?
The fact that you are a lonely creep.
(remainder left rather than snipped)
JC
"Douglas King" <dou...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> The
> main point was that some trees help reduce pollution more than others.
Aren't trees our main source of co2 scrubbing and o2 replenishment? Or did
I hear wrong?
Jeff
Gilligan
Note the first paragraph, the discussion of reactivity and ozone
creation. BVOC's are more reactive than man generated hydrocarbons.
There's a flood of papers on this topic. In some areas the car
generated pollution has been so reduced that the vegetation actually
accounts for up to 33% of the pollution. There's even several papers
on the forests in North Carolina. The last time I sailed on Lake
Grandby the boat came back yellow from all the pollen emissions. There
where literally yellow clouds crossing the lake. That nice pine smell
is what contains the pollutants.
Gilligan
3.4 DEVELOPMENT OF A BIOGENIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR A SOUTHWESTERN,
SEMI-ARID CITY
Jeremy E. Diem * and Andrew C. Comrie
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
1. INTRODUCTION
Biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) are important contributors
to regional/local photochemical oxidant formation (i.e. ozone). Ozone
formation involves the oxidation of biogenic hydrocarbons and other
volatile organic compounds in the presence of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and
sunlight (Chameides 1992). Besides being potentially abundant, BVOCs
are also more reactive than anthropogenic hydrocarbons, thus they may
have a greater ozone-forming potential (Abelson 1988; Chameides et al.
1988). These hydrocarbons need to be quantified accurately; accurate
estimates of biogenic emissions allow for more accurate predictions of
changes in ozone concentrations resulting from proposed changes in
anthropogenic emissions. From an ozone control perspective, the
development of a complete and accurate biogenic emissions inventory is
crucial, for high BVOC levels are a difficult obstacle to overcome.
This paper describes the development of a biogenic emissions inventory
for the Tucson, AZ region. The Tucson metropolitan area is a rapidly
growing area with a population exceeding 700,000 people. Situated
within the Sonoran Desert, the region (approximately 11,000 square
kilometers) contains nine distinct vegetation zones that cover the
range from 2,000 feet (610 meters) to over 8,000 feet (2440 meters)
a.s.l. The zones (listed from lowest to highest elevation) are as
follows: desert saltbrush, creosotebush, paloverde-saguaro, Chihuahuan
Desert zone, deciduous riparian forest, grassy phase grassland, woody
phase grassland, evergreen woodland, and evergreen conifer forest
(Turner 1974).
Specific objectives of the study are as follows: (1) develop a
vegetation-based land cover map of the region, (2) sample each class
to determine species composition and biomass estimates, and (3) apply
leaf biomass constants and hydrocarbon emission rates to the land
cover information to create standardized hydrocarbon emission maps.
The ultimate goal is to determine the impact that BVOC emissions have
on ozone formation within the Tucson region.
_____________________________________________
pony express
Or did I hear wrong?
Steve & Suzanne
S/V Pony Express
Express 30
www.express-sailing.com/owners
"JC" <myst...@NSmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9r407i$7nj$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Gilligan
Vegetation does create its own pollution. Here's a CSIRO article
stating it as fact.
10 January 2001
Australia's native plants emit chemical compounds that can interact
with other air pollutants to exacerbate smog formation over Australian
cities, CSIRO researchers have found.
Scientists from CSIRO Energy Technology and Atmospheric Research have
been commissioned by the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
to investigate emissions of organic compounds from Australian eucalypt
trees and grasses that
contribute to the formation of photochemical smog.
"It's not just cars and industry that cause air pollution," says Mr
Ian Galbally, from CSIRO Atmospheric Research.
"Plants release highly reactive hydrocarbons that can add
significantly to photochemical smog problems. That is, smog caused by
the reaction of sunlight with chemical compounds like those from
industry, car exhausts — and now, as we've discovered,
plants," he says.
"The blue haze you often see over the Dandenongs in Victoria and in
the Blue Mountains near Sydney is caused in part by the gases released
by vegetation. We found that grasses, particularly when cut, are
potent emitters of reactive hydrocarbons."
"Plants release these compounds into the atmosphere in large
quantities. These volatile compounds add to the photochemical smog in
the same way as emissions from human sources — there is no
discrimination," says Dr Peter Nelson, senior research scientist with
CSIRO Energy Technology.
"We are measuring the emissions rates of hydrocarbons from three
Australian eucalypt species, using large branches of mature trees,"
says Dr Nelson.
"We deliberately sought trees that hadn't been grown under controlled
conditions, but were 'real world' specimens. Previous studies have
concentrated on a small number of single leaves of cultivated plants
and performed measurements under very controlled conditions of
temperature and radiation," says Dr Nelson.
"One of the things we have found already is a close relationship
between the amount of the sun's radiation, of the type that is
important for photosynthesis and the plant's growth, and the level of
hydrocarbons they emit. Emission rates are highest during the day and
drop off towards evening.
"We can use this information to assist the EPA to more accurately
estimate chemical emissionsfrom Australian trees and grasses," he
says.
Researchers measured the emissions by two enclosure methods: a
flexible Teflon film bag and a Teflon film Chamber.
The enclosures were ventilated with ambient air to control
temperatures to near ambient conditions. Concentrations of carbon
dioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone and non-methane
volatile hydrocarbons were monitored continuously with gas analysers
to determine emission rates.
The plant compounds being measured include volatiles like isoprene and
monoterpenes. "Such compounds were always the major contributors to
hydrocarbon fluxes," says Dr Nelson.
Gas samples were periodically collected for detailed, high resolution,
gas chromatographic analysis of isoprene and other hydrocarbons. Other
physical parameters measured included temperature, total light
intensity and photosynthetically-active radiation (PAR), or the
portion of the sun's radiation spectrum that is important to plant
photosynthesis.
By measuring each of these parameters, the emission rate of these
hydrocarbons can be linked to both plant temperature and light
intensity.
Douglas King
> I had heard that the algae in the oceans produce far more o2 than the trees.
> Or did I hear wrong?
AFAIK that's correct. But trees are not an insignificant source of O2, and they
also help filter out a lot of stuff (as well as dumping a lot of pollen it's
true).
>
>
> "JC" <myst...@NSmindspring.com> wrote...
Scott Vernon
Douglas King wrote
Dale Anderson
(Gilligan) wrote:
>Doug:
>Vegetation does create its own pollution. Here's a CSIRO article
>stating it as fact.
>
And don't forget those farting cattle, ants, termites, and overweight
people in Valdosta, Georgia!
;^P
Dale Anderson
spec...@frontier.net
Durango, Colorado
pony express
--
Steve & Suzanne
S/V Pony Express
Express 30
www.express-sailing.com/owners
"Scott Vernon" <sbve...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:9r4f77$rbvqv$1...@ID-46445.news.dfncis.de...
Brian Grant
It is, as usual, a lot more complex than that. The idea that trees
breathe CO2 and release O2 is correct during the day but, it stops or
reverses at night. Plants are net producers of O2 so long as they are
growing rapidly. The old growth forests are therefore net producers of
CO2.
Japan is actually cutting down old growth forest in Tasmania and
replanting with fast growing Eucalyptus to get carbon credits so that
they can claim to be compliant with the Kyoto treaty (which they, like
every other nation but Romania) have not signed.
Brian Grant
Guess what, as those leaves rot, they use O2 and produce CO2.
Flying Tadpole
> I had heard that the algae in the oceans produce far more o2 than the trees.
Puh-LEEEASE! What are you DOING Steve? Have Bobsprit's trolls finally
rotted your brain, that you've become so unwise as to attempt to inject
some reality and rationality into the Great Forest Debate? On .asa of all
places?? You MUST NOT let the facts obscure a good story, or you'll rapidly
find yourself nailed to a tree, which is where all those who attempt to
seek truth in such matters seem to end up. Though there's plenty of room up
here...
Forests, particularly tropical rainforests (tho' not tropical monsoon
forests which is what the bulk of them are) generate much more net O2 per
unit area than even the most fertile ocean areas, those with major
upwellings and high nutrient status. O2 production per unit area over much
of the ocean is on a par with production from the better-class terrestrial
deserts (eg Oz). But there is so much more ocean, and so much less forest
in real terms--even before the nasty evil westerner humans invented
hamburgers (compulsory green content)--that the sum of production from the
sea is hugely above that from the land. But that's only fact, so immaterial
in the green argument.
Golly gee, next thing you'll be suggesting that the oceans are a major sink
for CO2, in a semi-homeostatic biogeochemical cycle with a bit of a lag,
and greenhouses and global warming through CO2 buildup is over-rated. Then
there won't even be enough of you left to nail to a tree...
--
Tim & Flying Tadpole
----------------------------------
The Light Schooner Website http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/index.htm
SquareBoats! http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/sbhome.htm
Bolger Boats netted! http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/sites2.htm
Scott Vernon
Brian Grant wrote in message
<3BD5D3B4...@nospam.please.worldnet.att.net>...
Brian Grant
The_navigator©
Cheers MC
Flying Tadpole
The navigatorŠ wrote:
>
> Hey Pteroneorana where ya bin?
>
--
Gilligan
In review of our exchange ----->
Douglas King <dou...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<3BD569F9...@bellsouth.net>...
> > >
> > > An actor who knows noting about Shakespeare and a President > who does not know which continent our major allies are located > on is butt-ignorant whatever his level of
> > > "education." Furthermore, the man genuinely believed that trees cause air pollution!
To which I provided ample proof that Mr. Reagan was correct in his
belief. Your response now assumes that he was correct, but questions
the degree to which trees pollute! Doug trees don't put out the same
pollutants as cars. It's apples and oranges. Why is it so hard for you
to admit error? I've seen the trait in you over and over and over. You
cover your trail of mis information with bullcrap. Are you not man
enough to admit you were wrong? Why does everyone else see what you
don't? With a mental cognition process such as yours, how can you
learn anything?
>
> Which causes more pollution, a palm tree, an oak tree, or a Lincoln town car?
This is easy, the trees, specifically the oak. It runs 24 hours a day.
The Lincoln sits in the garage.
Question which causes more societal harm - ignorance or disease?
The root of poverty is ignorance. The worst kind of poverty is from
people who chose to be ignorant. Someday you'll turn the wrong valve,
issue the wrong order, or provide a subordinate the wrong
instructions. Harm will be the result of it and you will make it worse
with your coverups and backsliding. The man most full of crap is
usually the scapegoat as he cannot defend his actions from a solid
stance. Learns some ethics.
Gilligan
>
> >
Douglas King
> To which I provided ample proof that Mr. Reagan was correct in his
> belief.
Then let's cut down ALL the trees! They cause air pollution, cutting them all down will eliminate the problem, won't it?
Won't it?
> Your response now assumes that he was correct
Nope. He was wrong, and quoting some scientific discussion about what trees "emit" doesn't change cold hard fact.
Besides, isn't it a root of "conservative thought" that scientists are all sucking up gov't grant money and cannot be relied on to provide facts?
Make up your mind (or what passes for such).
> ..... Why is it so hard for you
> to admit error? I've seen the trait in you over and over and over. You
> cover your trail of mis information with bullcrap.
You must be thinking of somebody else. When I am wrong, I admit it. Just this morning in fact.
> The root of poverty is ignorance. The worst kind of poverty is from
> people who chose to be ignorant.
Is that why you are a lonely starving hermit and a cyber-stalker?
Gilligan
>> To which I provided ample proof that Mr. Reagan was correct in his
>> belief.
>Then let's cut down ALL the trees! They cause air pollution, cutting
them all >down will eliminate the problem, won't it?
>Won't it?
Doug it will eliminate pollution from trees. Reagan stated, as you
have said, "trees cause pollution". You made him to be an idiot for
saying it. But it is true.
> Your response now assumes that he was correct
Nope. He was wrong, and quoting some scientific discussion about what
trees "emit" doesn't change cold hard fact.
I don't follow you - how was he wrong? What am I missing here? What
are the cold hard facts? Do you have a link or any references to show
what Reagan said was wrong? At times you are very hard to understand.
>Besides, isn't it a root of "conservative thought" that scientists
are all >sucking up gov't grant money and cannot be relied on to
provide facts?
I'm relying on you to provide some facts here. There's lots of
scientific studies showing trees emit pollutants. Reagan said trees
emit pollutants. How is he wrong? This is not conservative or liberal
thought. It is the pursuit of truth - the basis of science. Proper
science has no room for politics. So again would you please give me
your source that proves Reagan was wrong.
>Make up your mind (or what passes for such).
What should I make up my mind about? A fact is a fact regardless of
the source. You can attack Conservatives all day long if you like, I'm
not a Conservative. I am a Liberal, a real one (pre-Roosevelt).
> ..... Why is it so hard for you
> to admit error? I've seen the trait in you over and over and over. You
> cover your trail of mis information with bullcrap.
>You must be thinking of somebody else. When I am wrong, I admit it.
Just this >morning in fact.
No Doug, I'm thinking of you in the context of this discourse. You
attack the source, kill the messenger but the truth remains. When will
you confront it?
> The root of poverty is ignorance. The worst kind of poverty is from
> people who chose to be ignorant.
>Is that why you are a lonely starving hermit and a cyber-stalker?
Where do you get this impression? I'm 6', 230 pounds, 10% body fat.
That's not starving. A hermit lives alone and avoids people. I don't
live alone and deal with many people on a daily basis face to face.
What is your criteria for a cyber stalker - one who holds another to
his word?
The one thing you have done is suceeded in pushing one of my few
buttons. I have no patience for intellectual cowards, there's always
one at the root of every problem or disaster. If you are an engineer
you would hold the truth above all things and hold this as sacred.
My question is very simple and easy to answer if you have the
knowledge:
"How was Ronald Reagan wrong in saying that trees cause pollution?"
I and others (who have dealt with you in the past) await your answer.
It's your show.
Gilligan
Doug, I'm serious. If you can prove to me that Reagan was wrong about
"trees causing pollution" I'll send you a money order for $100. If you
feel this isn't sufficient then name your price. I'll even put my
Coronado 15 on the line. No risk on your part except your reputation.
Deal?
Gilligan
Scientists roared with laughter when Ronald Reagan fingered trees as a
major source of pollution. Now two botanists from The University of
Wisconsin support Reagan's view in an article in Nature. They found
that plants produce large quantities of isoprene (3-methyl
3-butadiene), a volatile compound which may contribute to the
formation of photochemical smog. Much greater amounts of isoprene are
produced at higher temperatures and the researchers suggest that
isoprene acts as a protectant against heat shock at ambient
temperatures above 35 C. This could mean that attempts to control smog
by cutting back on hydrocarbon emissions from automobiles are
misguided.
Nigel Hawkes, The Times of London, May 1, 1995
Douglas King
> ....... Reagan stated, as you
> have said, "trees cause pollution". You made him to be an idiot for
> saying it. But it is true.
If "trees cause pollution" is true, then cutting down all the trees will
improve air quality.
Right or wrong?
Who is the bigger idiot, Reagan for saying it, you for trying to dig up
esoteric science unrelated to Reagan's premise and claim he was right, or me
for even bothering to reply to a whacko sock puppet?
DSK
Gilligan
>> ....... Reagan stated, as you
>> have said, "trees cause pollution". You made him to be an idiot for
>> saying it. But it is true.
>If "trees cause pollution" is true, then cutting down all the trees
will
>improve air quality.
>Right or wrong?
It's true, the best air quality on the planet is where there are no
trees - antarctica, the arctic, the large deserts and in the middle of
oceans.
Can one conclude that you want to eliminate all people to reduce
pollution?
>Who is the bigger idiot, Reagan for saying it, you for trying to dig
up
>esoteric science unrelated to Reagan's premise and claim he was
right, or me
>for even bothering to reply to a whacko sock puppet?
Doug it's not esoteric science. It's atmospheric chemistry. If Reagan
said "trees cause pollution" he was right. But you don't even know
what Reagan originally said. It's silly to claim you have some type of
knowledge, beat around the bush about it, be evasive, attack those who
question you and in the end produce nothing. If you had any proof it
would be simpler (and the act of a rational man) to present it. I have
seen not a single shred of evidence from you and yet the burden of
proof rests on you. You haven't refuted any evidence I have presented,
you only attack me. This is an emotional issue for you and in the end
facts always win over emotion. The fact you have lost this entire
argument to a whacko sock puppet about one of our less than genius
presidents makes you the biggest idiot.
Gilligan, "and when I end the refrain - strike home!"
Gilligan
Killer Trees
Yes, some of that leafy green stuff really does cause smog
It was that controversial remark by then-presidential candidate Ronald
Reagan 15 years ago that trees, volcanoes and other natural sources
were to blame for many air-pollution problems that set Arthur Winer on
his quest. As it turns out, says Winer, “at the time, there was
a growing recognition that certain plants emit highly reactive organic
compounds, for reasons that are still not fully understood.”
Little, too, was known about the importance of these emissions
relative to man-made hydrocarbons in forming photochemical smog. So
when the California Air Resources Board, piqued by Reagan’s
assertion, approached the atmospheric scientist (then still at UC
Riverside) about conducting the first systematic analysis of biogenic
hydrocarbon emissions in the state, Winer readily agreed.
Assembling a team of interdisciplinary plant scientists and analytical
chemists, Winer, now professor of public health at UCLA and director
of the university’s Environmental Science and Engineering
Program, surveyed the types of vegetation present in Southern
California, estimated their biomass and then measured the rates of
hydrocarbon emissions from more than 60 of the most important plant
species. The emission-rate measurements were made by placing the
plants in a Teflon chamber, introducing humidified air and carbon
dioxide into the chamber, and using a gas chromatograph to sample the
air for isoprene and monoterpenes, the major biogenic hydrocarbons.
“Teflon allows sunlight to penetrate,” Winer explains.
“We’re fooling the plant into thinking it’s still
out in the open atmosphere.”
In 1983, in the first estimate of biogenic emissions in the basin, the
researchers concluded that vegetation contributed no more than
one-tenth of the basin’s total hydrocarbon emissions. Taken
alone, that made natural hydrocarbon emissions in Los Angeles —
where there is such an enormous concentration of man-made hydrocarbon
sources — relatively insignificant as a factor in producing
smog. But two recent developments render the biogenic emissions more
relevant today. The latest Air Quality Management Plan for the basin
calls for an approximately 80-percent reduction of man-made
hydrocarbons by 2010 — from roughly 1,500 tons per day to about
300 tons per day. If that is achieved, the current level of vegetative
emissions (approximately 125 tons per day in the summer) would loom
larger, particularly considering that the major biogenic hydrocarbons
are on average three times more ozone-forming than most hydrocarbons
from gasoline vapor, vehicle exhaust, solvents and other man-made
sources.
Moreover, a follow-up study by Winer demonstrates tree emissions could
have ramifications for a recently proposed panacea for the
basin’s air quality problem which, if not implemented wisely,
could actually increase photochemical smog. Over the past several
years, with funding from the California Institute for Energy
Efficiency, Winer and four of his doctoral students have explored the
potential impact of large-scale tree planting in Los Angeles as a way
to mitigate the “urban heat island” phenomenon. Tree
planting, currently being implemented in Sacramento and several other
municipalities in California, the nation and abroad, has plenty of
merit. Urban centers are typically 3-7 degrees-Fahrenheit warmer
relative to comparable rural areas, due in part to absorption of
sunlight by asphalt and the roofs of commercial buildings and
residential homes. Planting three appropriately placed and sized trees
on the south side of half the homes in Los Angeles, for example
— some 6 million trees in all — would lower temperatures
through increased shade, evapotranspiration and albedo, resulting in
potential energy savings from reduced use of air conditioning of as
much as 20 percent during peak times in the summer months, while
simultaneously lowering the amount of smog-causing oxides of nitrogen
generated by power plants to produce that electricity. These new trees
would also act to store carbon dioxide, a major global greenhouse gas,
and serve as a scavenger of air pollutants.
But, according to Winer’s most recent data, planting the wrong
trees could have serious consequences. Since 1992, he and students
Michael Benjamin, Laura Bloch, Mark Sudol and Diana Vorsatz have been
using a taxonomic method to assign hydrocarbon emissions for the
several hundred tree and shrub species in Southern California for
which no direct emission measurements are available. The differences
among the species they have examined are profound: Winer’s group
discovered that four orders of magnitude separate the lowest-emitting
trees from the highest emitters. “If we were to plant a massive
number of high-emitting trees, we could create an urban forest in 20
years that makes a substantial contribution to photochemical smog in
the basin and sets a floor on how low we can reduce smog,” Winer
cautions. Among the lowest-emitting trees in the basin: the Chinese
Elm, California Sycamore, Italian Cypress and Evergreen Ash. Among the
highest: the Blue Gum Eucalyptus, Weeping Willow and many varieties of
oak. Of the latter, Winer stresses: “That doesn’t mean
we’re in favor of cutting down oaks; we’re just saying
don’t plant millions of them.”
The research also suggests that California should continue to focus on
reducing oxides-of-nitrogen emissions, as well as hydrocarbon
emissions — a policy that differs from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s policy, which regulates only hydrocarbons.
Eliminating man-made hydrocarbons in the Los Angeles basin would still
leave enough biogenic hydrocarbons to produce smog, but reducing
oxides of nitrogen to a negligible level would shut off the
smog-producing reaction. “You have to examine each airshed on a
case-by-case basis,” Winer says. “We are focusing next on
the Central Valley, which has a growing air-pollution problem.”
Though headline writers have had fun with the topic of biogenic
emissions, musing about whether Los Angeles residents will one day
need to smog-check their trees, atmospheric scientists have estimated
that more than half of the hydrocarbon emissions both nationwide and
globally come from natural sources.
But don’t get out the saws too quickly. “There isn’t
a smog problem in the forested mountains of Idaho,” says Winer.
“In Los Angeles, with the worst air quality in the country, the
problem is nine million vehicles and millions of stationary sources,
not trees.”
— D.G.
Bobsprit
Capt RB
"Gilligan" <glen_harri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ad50c0b9.01102...@posting.google.com...