Newsgroup sci.environment 104066

Directory

Mike Vandeman  writes:
> My heritage is Dutch, but I can't see any reason to take a bike into the home
> of wildlife.
There is one utterly simple reason: to enjoy the wildlife. To actually get
to see it. To breathe fresh air. Alternatively we could create little
sanctuaries of forestry, then put little video cameras in a few trees and
broadcast it. Hell, that'd be just as good, surely? No, of course not.
Yes, the forests are there - flora and fauna - to provide and maintain a
well balanced ecological cycle. But they're also there to be enjoyed. The
fact that they were around long before us and our cities means not only
that they must be preserved but that they are for us to use and enjoy.
By the way, if we are not Dutch, are we less likely to see a reason to
take a bike into the home of wildlife?
> > My club sells stickers for 10 Guilders (about 5 dollars) that you stick to the
> > frame of the bike. The sticker allows you to use the trail for the running year
> > and the national parks service tells us were we're allowed to bike. All the
> > money that selling stickers brings in goes to the national parks service. Our
> > club (the mountainbikers themselves) maintain the trail.
> > It's a great success for all of us. 
> 
> Except for the wildlife, who wish you would stay out altogether. Including the
> ones that are extinct. Take their point of view for once!
To my mind this Dutch system is the ideal way to maintain forests which are
used by groups such as mountain bikers. Those who use the trails pay to keep
them maintained... it's simple and effective. Anyone caught off limits gets
a spot fine which can help pay for trail maintenance, which keeps people
off of areas which are sensitive to erosion, and away from sectors of
sensitive fauna habitat.
You seem to nurture the idea that wildlife drops dead within half a mile
of human intrusion: though I have no categorical evidence, I have absolute
confidence that the existence of a network of well-maintained trails
through a region of forestry has no effect on the wildlife within.
> > The Dutch philosophy is to make people use (but not abuse) the forests in order
> > to gain respect for plants and animals.
> 
> If you "use" them too much, they get destroyed. Aldo Leopold called that "loving
> wilderness to death". You have already done that all over Europe!
And if no-one uses them then no-one cares. There are minorities: you are in
one, in that you care deeply about all areas of wildlife, however it is an
undeniable (and perhaps unfortunate) fact that not all of society - far from
it - is so inclined. People always protect their own, it is human, and
animal, nature. If half the parks in my town were to be torn down, and half
those in yours were to be torn down also, would the same people protest each
action? Of course not, even though neither is less undesirable than the
other.
> > bicycles on the streets! But there's no better way of environmental
> > transportation than using a bike.
> 
> On the street, yes, but not in the wilderness! There, walking is far superior!
This is questionable, surely? There is a suggestion here that hikers cause
far less damage to the environment that bikers... I would disagree. Firstly
there is the effect of the numbers involved. There are far more hikers than
cyclists in wild areas, and as a collective their effect is much more
noticeable, especially where paths constrict, such as gates or junctions.
The presence of a flock of walkers must be as disturbing to any wildlife
as a cyclist or two. In my experience, the only areas in which I have seen
large numbers of riders is near urban areas -- areas where it would be
almost laughable to suggest that a major detractor from the immediate
environment's condition was the presence of cyclists.
	Furthermore, there is little reason to suggest that even on a one-
to-one basis the walker is 'far' superior. I agree that on the whole a
hiker is less detrimental than a cyclist. However, largely because hiking
is a more accessible activity (ie you don't need a bike) it attracts a
higher proportion of 'part-time' hikers. There are any number of terms for
the type, but call them what you will, there are those who go out with
little regard for the countryside: they are often careless with their
litter, leave gates open, allow their dogs to roam unleashed and so on.
I recognise that of course this is far from being true of every walker;
however my opinion is that the 'irresponsible minority' forms a higher
propotion of hikers than it does cyclists; and again accounting for the
larger number of hikers who use forests, the overall number concerned is
far greater.
>  In my club
> > (app. 250 members) no mountainbiker has ever killed an animal.
> 
> Perhaps because you have already chased most of them away!
Surely better than killing them?
Please lay to rest the concept that wildlife cannot cope with intrusion;
this is nonsense: the ecological systems involved are staggeringly complex
and effective. There can be few people who doubt that areas rich in wildlife
are worth preserving; however there is no reason why we should feel forced
to put it in a box and never touch it. If we never see it, touch it, smell
it or experience it in any way then the only point of it being there is to
filter the air. In which case mountain bikes are of no significance and we
should set up alt.rainforest.soc
Nature is to be enjoyed.
Stu

charliew (charliew@hal-pc.org) wrote:
: In article <51kdgb$5uo@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
:    tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) wrote:
: (cut)
: >Many of the proposed methods are energy intensive, and would
: >cause a much larger increase in the effective cost of energy 
: than
: >a carbon tax. Moreover, the carbon tax proceeds would then 
: be in
: >the public sector, allowing for other public expenditures, 
: reduction
: >of public debt, and/or reduction in other taxes.
: So you're willing to see higher CO2 emissions if it benefits 
: your cause.
I presume you mean higher emissions taxes, right? Charlie, Charlie,
Charlie, do try to read and write more carefully. I included
reductions in other taxes among the possibilities. Whether or
not that's my own preference is a separate matter.
:  I'm glad we are getting around to discussing the 
: more subtle issues here.  It seems very convenient that I'm a 
: polluter when I want to let the free enterprise system work 
: this problem out, but you are an environmentalist when you 
: want to see more government intervention, even at the expense 
: of the environment that you claim to be so worried about.  
I do indeed believe that free enterprise only works on time
scales small compared with the time discount rate of capital.
As for wanting to see "more government intervention even at
the *expense* of the environment" I have no idea how you could
reach that conclusion.
: One thing that really "gets my goat" is the issue of 
: environmentalists not only telling me what final result they 
: want to see, but also telling me how I should get there.  
I do not claim to be an "environmentalist", and most people who
do wouldn't want to include me in that category. Please try
to respond to what I am saying rather than to some group you
hope to include me in. This is a common problem in usenet,
and goes both ways, but try to distinguish between someone you
are responding to and the group you perceive them to be a part of.
: This type of intervention invariably results in a substandard 
: solution, because the guys who are controlling the decisions 
: do not have the expertise to implement those decisions.  You 
: were correct in giving me the time to formulate another 
: opinion.  I just have, and I do not like what I am seeing.
I think carbon taxes are a market oriented approach, given that
we accept that carbon emissions need to be constrained. Whether
they do need to be constrained is an issue in science and in
public policy. I am willing to support the hypothesis that they
do need to be constrained on the basis of what I would call
conservative arguments, though that may not correspond to the
"conservative" subculture's preferences. Given that, I think taxes
rather than direct government actions are likely to be the most
effective approach, in that they do allow for maximum market
function. 
: >
: >There is certainly a group that is ideologically committed 
: to changing
: >lifestyles of the majority. (No one objects, I hope, to anyone's choosing 
: >a less energy intensive lifestyle for themselves.)
: So, are you worried about energy consumption per se, or 
: pollution?  The two can be separated, with appropriate 
: mechanical devices.
I didn't express any opinion on this. For what it's
worth, I have no objection to world energy consumption
growing by an order of magnitude or so, but I am worried
about land use issues associated with the suburban
life style, and am interested in promoting alternatives
in an undistorted (not car-zoned and highway-subsidized) market.
However, this is independent of the carbon emissions issue,
and I'd like to keep it in a separate thread. 
As far as emissions go, I think people can use as much energy as
they can get, provided they don't increase carbon emissions.
I personally think that some form of nuclear power would
be the most likely solution, but I'd favor some more
creative solution, like orbiting solar panels and microwave 
transmission.
:  A largely overlapping
: >group opposes any deliberate human intervention in the 
: large-scale
: >environment, even as remediation for inadvertent 
: intervention. 
: >
: What does this have to do with CO2 injection to prevent 
: global warming?
Eh? I am not among those people, but they clearly would
find large scale CO2 reduction to be a form of "geoengineering",
something to which they are opposed in principle.
: In the last few minutes, I have seen several postings that 
: just made many of McCarthy's supposedly "stupid" and 
: "ill-informed" postings that he is so famous for, look 
: relatively benign in comparison.
I for one have never accused McCarthy of either of those things.
Nor do I have any idea how any articles by any fourth party
could possibly reflect on the validity of any opinions 
offerred by himself, myself, or you.
Please stop jerking your knee for a minute, and respond to
what people are saying, not what you assume they are saying.
mt

Couple of nice "news" articles in Science, Sep 13 issue.
One is on the "species problem" and new advances in
understanding how speciation proceeds and just what
exactly is a species (yes, including the great whales ;-)
And, an even better short "news" story on current
and past attempts to estimate human carrying capacity.
Joel Cohen is pinning the problem down further, although
quantitative predicitons still show no sign of
converging. He did manage, apparently, to draw Ehrlich's
ire though, looks like it might get interesting.

Please note that this alert addresses threats to this species from the
trade overseas for food, and pets and asks for not a ban, but better
regulation or control of  the trade.  Also CITES does not restrict the
inter, or intra-state trade.
ACTION ALERT:
Action:  Please write to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in
support of listing the alligator snapping turtle (Macroclemys temminckii)
on Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).  Commercial trade in species on
Appendix II of CITES is regulated and monitored in order to prevent
over-utilization.   
Points that you may wish to include in your letter:
  	Distribution:  Alligator snapping turtles are confined to U.S.
river systems that drain into the Gulf of Mexico.  It is widely
distributed in the Mississippi Valley from as far north as Kansas,
Illinois, and Indiana to the Gulf, and has been found in almost all river
systems from the Suwanee River in Florida to eastern Texas. 
 	Habitat:  Habitat destruction is the primary reason for a decline
in the number of alligator snapping turtles.  These turtles are usually
found large rivers and their major tributaries, as well as lakes, canals,
oxbows, swamps, ponds, and bayous associated with river systems. 
Unfortunately, much of the natural habitat of this species, particularly
lowlands and swamps in northeast Arkansas and southeast Missouri, has been
drained and replaced by soybeans and cotton fields.  A survey of alligator
snapping turtle populations in areas of Mississippi and Missouri revealed
that 90% of the habitat for the species is gone. 
 	Conservation Status:  The IUCN (International Union for the
Conservation of Nature/World Conservation Union) classifies the alligator
snapping turtle as "vulnerable," meaning that  if the causal factors
leading to endangerment continue operating, the species will likely move
into the "endangered" category in the near future.  The FWS considers the
alligator snapping turtle a "candidate species" for a listing as
threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
  	Population Trends:  Researchers note that although the species has
a wide distribution, it is depleted throughout much of its range, in part
due to over-collection, and is in need of protection.  By several accounts
stocks are now seriously depleted in Louisiana as a result of
over-fishing.  Anecdotal evidence collected from fishermen and others
indicates that alligator snapping turtle populations have declined in many
areas in Florida and Georgia as a result of over-collection for the meat
trade. Exploitation by commercial turtle trappers, combined with habitat
alteration resulting from the damming of rivers and human encroachment,
jeopardize the survival of natural populations of this species. 
 	Commercial Trade (for consumption):  Deemed as a highly-edible
delicacy, the relentless harvesting of alligator snapping turtles as a
food source also contributes to   population reductions in some parts of
the species' range.  Alligator snapping turtle meat is consumed in both
domestic and international markets.  In 1982, the meat sold for
US$3.50-$4.50 per pound; a 100 pound turtle can produce 30 pounds of meat.
 In addition to commercial trade, the species is also fished for personal
consumption. 
 	Commercial Trade (for pets):  Juvenile and small adult alligator
snapping turtles are collected for the domestic pet trade, where they can
sell for as much as $750 each, or $1100 per pair. Due to demand, many of
these turtles are harvested and sold at 5, 10, or 15 pounds, which is
several years before they reach sexually maturity and have been able to
reproduce. 
 	Exports:  FWS export data from 1989-1993 reveals that
international trade in alligator snapping turtles for consumption and pets
has increased dramatically during recent years.  In 1989, 290 alligator
snapping turtles where exported from the United States.  By 1993, the
number of alligator snapping turtles exported was 4,477.  Other than
export figures, very little is known about the effect of international
commercial trade on alligator snapping turtle populations.  These export
numbers are for live exports only.
 	Illegal Trade:  Illegal trade in alligator snapping turtles is
known to occur.  As long as there are states in which harvest of alligator
snapping turtles is legal, traders can claim that the turtles are from
these states, or that it was captive bred.  In 1994, a Miami Customs Agent
stated that if alligator snapping turtle shipments come to Florida from a
state where collection is prohibited, there is nothing that they can do
because they have no way of proving that the turtles were collected from
the wild illegally.     
   	Over-Collection:  Commercial harvest of this species is not
sustainable and the efforts of very few trappers can deplete population
levels far below self-sustaining levels.  One crew of trappers with as
little as 30-40 hoop net traps can take almost every turtle in a section
of a stream or within the vicinity of the traps.  If an area is worked for
only two nights, then the population is so severely depleted that it is no
longer self-sustaining.  Commercial turtle dealers have indicated that
alligator snapping turtle populations in Louisiana and other southern
states are seriously depleted. 
 	Biological Characteristics:   Both male and female alligator
snapping turtles reach sexual maturity at eleven to thirteen years.  The
species lays only one clutch per year, with between 9-52 eggs (an average
of 25 eggs) per clutch.  Even in wild nests protected from predators, only
as many as 78% of the eggs hatch.  Hatching success for unprotected wild
nests is unknown.  Given the biological characteristics of turtle species,
and the increasing number of alligator snapping turtles exported, it is
probable that collection of alligator snapping turtles from the wild for
international commercial trade is having a detrimental impact on the
species. 
 	Need for Protection:  At its annual meeting in 1991, the Chelonian
Advisory Group to the American Association of Zoological Parks and
Aquariums recommended that the alligator snapping turtle become a high
priority for future conservation efforts, and reported to the Captive
Breeding Specialist Group of the IUCN and that the alligator snapping
turtle was one of the three North American turtles most in need of
management.  
Please send your letter in support of an Appendix II listing for the
alligator snapping turtle to:
Chief, Office of Scientific Authority
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive; Room 750
Arlington, Virginia  22203 
FAX: 703/358-2276
Deadline:  Letters must be received by OCTOBER 11, 1996!   
Additional Information:  To obtain a copy of the complete proposal for an
Appendix II listing of alligator snapping turtles, please check out the
following  website: http://www. xmission. com/~gastown/herpmed/fedreg1.htm
or contact Allen Salzberg with the New York Turtle and Tortoise Society at
ASALZBERG@aol.com.

I previously wrote:-
...
>6. Satellite-based estimates of surface flux ( using radiative transfer 
>   codes to describe atmospheric absorption ) range between 
>   65 - 83 W m^-2, and the higher figure has been validated against
>   surface observations. The use of such codes is really modelling, so 
>   comparing those results with the above GCM results would effectively 
>   be just a comparison of models.
Oops, 65 - 83 W m^-2 represents the global mean solar flux absorbed 
in the atmosphere estimates. The numbers have been derived from  
satellite-based estimates of surface flux. The value is obviously too 
low for the actual surface flux.  Sorry for any confusion caused by
the poor composition.
                    Bruce Hamilton

socrates@hunter1.com (Socrates) wrote for all to see:
>In article <323d4996.469470@nntp.st.usm.edu> brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) writes:
>>From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
>>Subject: Re: ENVIRONCIDE
>>Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:06:25 GMT
>
>>All locked up and nowhere to go  wrote for all to
>>see:
>
>>I usually don't even read, much less respond, to people who have such
>>a low opinion of their own posts that they refuse to associate their
>>name with it by signing it, but you are in great luck, I have a half
>>hour before I start my day, and noticed your missive.
>
>
>While I am not the poster you are reffering to I felt compelled to respond.  I 
>used to use my real name, until an unfortunate incident about two years ago.  
>I was engaged in a religious debate in alt.atheism, when a rather disturbed 
>fundementalist women began to interject her own postings asserting that I was 
>a child of satan and should be burned.  She also began to send me email where 
>she told me that it was Gods will that I be destroyed,  Finally, using one of 
>the many phone book CDs, she emailed me a letter that had my home address and 
>phone number in it.  Since then I use a pseudonym and have an unlisted phone 
>number.  
>     The internet is a wonderful place of totally free speech, but because of 
>that there are many fruitcakes on it.
This activity is illegal, even on the internet.  The deliberate
harassment of another individual is cause for criminal complaint.
Regards, Harold
---
Is it just or reasonable, that most voices against the main end
of government should enslave the less number that would be free?
More just it is, doubtless, if it come to force, that a less number
compel a greater to retain, which can be no wrong to them, their
liberty, than that a greater number, for the pleasure of their
baseness, compel a less most injuriously to be their fellow slaves.
They who seek nothing but their own liberty, have always
the right to win it, whenever they have the power, be the voices never so numerous that oppose it.
		---John Milton

Please note that this alert addresses threats to this species from the
trade overseas for food, and pets and asks for not a ban, but better
regulation or control of  the trade.  Also CITES does not restrict the
inter, or intra-state trade.
ACTION ALERT:
Action:  Please write to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in
support of listing the alligator snapping turtle (Macroclemys temminckii)
on Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).  Commercial trade in species on
Appendix II of CITES is regulated and monitored in order to prevent
over-utilization.   
Points that you may wish to include in your letter:
  	Distribution:  Alligator snapping turtles are confined to U.S.
river systems that drain into the Gulf of Mexico.  It is widely
distributed in the Mississippi Valley from as far north as Kansas,
Illinois, and Indiana to the Gulf, and has been found in almost all river
systems from the Suwanee River in Florida to eastern Texas. 
 	Habitat:  Habitat destruction is the primary reason for a decline
in the number of alligator snapping turtles.  These turtles are usually
found large rivers and their major tributaries, as well as lakes, canals,
oxbows, swamps, ponds, and bayous associated with river systems. 
Unfortunately, much of the natural habitat of this species, particularly
lowlands and swamps in northeast Arkansas and southeast Missouri, has been
drained and replaced by soybeans and cotton fields.  A survey of alligator
snapping turtle populations in areas of Mississippi and Missouri revealed
that 90% of the habitat for the species is gone. 
 	Conservation Status:  The IUCN (International Union for the
Conservation of Nature/World Conservation Union) classifies the alligator
snapping turtle as "vulnerable," meaning that  if the causal factors
leading to endangerment continue operating, the species will likely move
into the "endangered" category in the near future.  The FWS considers the
alligator snapping turtle a "candidate species" for a listing as
threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
  	Population Trends:  Researchers note that although the species has
a wide distribution, it is depleted throughout much of its range, in part
due to over-collection, and is in need of protection.  By several accounts
stocks are now seriously depleted in Louisiana as a result of
over-fishing.  Anecdotal evidence collected from fishermen and others
indicates that alligator snapping turtle populations have declined in many
areas in Florida and Georgia as a result of over-collection for the meat
trade. Exploitation by commercial turtle trappers, combined with habitat
alteration resulting from the damming of rivers and human encroachment,
jeopardize the survival of natural populations of this species. 
 	Commercial Trade (for consumption):  Deemed as a highly-edible
delicacy, the relentless harvesting of alligator snapping turtles as a
food source also contributes to   population reductions in some parts of
the species' range.  Alligator snapping turtle meat is consumed in both
domestic and international markets.  In 1982, the meat sold for
US$3.50-$4.50 per pound; a 100 pound turtle can produce 30 pounds of meat.
 In addition to commercial trade, the species is also fished for personal
consumption. 
 	Commercial Trade (for pets):  Juvenile and small adult alligator
snapping turtles are collected for the domestic pet trade, where they can
sell for as much as $750 each, or $1100 per pair. Due to demand, many of
these turtles are harvested and sold at 5, 10, or 15 pounds, which is
several years before they reach sexually maturity and have been able to
reproduce. 
 	Exports:  FWS export data from 1989-1993 reveals that
international trade in alligator snapping turtles for consumption and pets
has increased dramatically during recent years.  In 1989, 290 alligator
snapping turtles where exported from the United States.  By 1993, the
number of alligator snapping turtles exported was 4,477.  Other than
export figures, very little is known about the effect of international
commercial trade on alligator snapping turtle populations.  These export
numbers are for live exports only.
 	Illegal Trade:  Illegal trade in alligator snapping turtles is
known to occur.  As long as there are states in which harvest of alligator
snapping turtles is legal, traders can claim that the turtles are from
these states, or that it was captive bred.  In 1994, a Miami Customs Agent
stated that if alligator snapping turtle shipments come to Florida from a
state where collection is prohibited, there is nothing that they can do
because they have no way of proving that the turtles were collected from
the wild illegally.     
   	Over-Collection:  Commercial harvest of this species is not
sustainable and the efforts of very few trappers can deplete population
levels far below self-sustaining levels.  One crew of trappers with as
little as 30-40 hoop net traps can take almost every turtle in a section
of a stream or within the vicinity of the traps.  If an area is worked for
only two nights, then the population is so severely depleted that it is no
longer self-sustaining.  Commercial turtle dealers have indicated that
alligator snapping turtle populations in Louisiana and other southern
states are seriously depleted. 
 	Biological Characteristics:   Both male and female alligator
snapping turtles reach sexual maturity at eleven to thirteen years.  The
species lays only one clutch per year, with between 9-52 eggs (an average
of 25 eggs) per clutch.  Even in wild nests protected from predators, only
as many as 78% of the eggs hatch.  Hatching success for unprotected wild
nests is unknown.  Given the biological characteristics of turtle species,
and the increasing number of alligator snapping turtles exported, it is
probable that collection of alligator snapping turtles from the wild for
international commercial trade is having a detrimental impact on the
species. 
 	Need for Protection:  At its annual meeting in 1991, the Chelonian
Advisory Group to the American Association of Zoological Parks and
Aquariums recommended that the alligator snapping turtle become a high
priority for future conservation efforts, and reported to the Captive
Breeding Specialist Group of the IUCN and that the alligator snapping
turtle was one of the three North American turtles most in need of
management.  
Please send your letter in support of an Appendix II listing for the
alligator snapping turtle to:
Chief, Office of Scientific Authority
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive; Room 750
Arlington, Virginia  22203 
FAX: 703/358-2276
Deadline:  Letters must be received by OCTOBER 11, 1996!   
Additional Information:  To obtain a copy of the complete proposal for an
Appendix II listing of alligator snapping turtles, please check out the
following  website: http://www. xmission. com/~gastown/herpmed/fedreg1.htm
or contact Allen Salzberg with the New York Turtle and Tortoise Society at
ASALZBERG@aol.com.

Michal Zabelka wrote:
> 
> Are there any commercially available (or being developed) processes and
> cell designs for the separate metal electrodeposition from multi metal
> electrolytes (Cu, Sn, Ni, Cd, Fe, Cr, Zn)? Any advice is highly
> appreciated.
> --
> Michal Zabelka
> http://www.twi.ch/~mzabelka
It may depend on whether you are talking about trying to plate two 
distinct metals out of a carefully designed solution, or whether you are 
thinking of selective electrolytic recovery as a waste treatment 
measure.
Under controlled circumstances, "Stainless steel" has been created 
electrolytically by alternately and distinctly plating very thin layers 
of nickel and chromium out of the same solution.
But I think you can safely forget trying to plate chromium out of a 
mixed metal soup, if you are talking about recovery from wastewater. The 
others may be theoretically possible, although I've never heard of such 
a cell, and there are enough difficulties recovering Nickel and Tin 
electrolytically when they are segregated, let alone mixed..
-- Ted Mooney
------------
Visit 'the home page of the finishing industry'
http://www.finishing.com
------------

Heath Carson  wrote:
> Todd O. wrote:
>  
> > I read it, Mike, but I still don't understand it.  How can the U.S. feed
> > it's nearly 300 million people without sacrificing any wildlife?  Go
> > ahead, explain that for all us ignorant types who can't guess what you
> > have in mind.
> > 
> > Todd Ourston
> > Marin County, California
> 
> Well I don't know about meal time in America, but I'd rather go to the
> supermarket to buy my food.  Are you trying to say that native American
> animals are killed in their natural habitat for consumption on some
> grand scale, if so, you wouldn't have any native animals left in the
> country.  That's one of the things that makes us humans intelligent - a
> couple of thousand years ago we managed to domesticate certain species
> for consumption.
I think the point was that the land being used for cultivation of the
food, either directly eaten or eaten by domesticted animals, is land
that the native animals have been chased off of or killed.  In addition,
large amounts of wilderness area are being sacrificed in emerging
nations in order to try and attain a "western" diet for the people, or
because exporting beef is a good money maker.  All of this comes at a
cost to wild like.  Don't think just becasuse the dead cow comes
pre-packaged that it doesn't have an impact on the environment or the
wildlife therin

Mike Vandeman  wrote:
> Yes, it's a rotten example. We oppose discrimination only when it is
> unfair (e.g. on the basis of race or some other irrelevant criterion). But
> no one opposes discrimination on the basis of RELEVANT criteria. For
> example, we freely discriminate against people who kill endangered
> wildlife. For the same reason, discriminating against people riding bikes
> where they don't belong is FINE & very appropriate. It isn't unfair,
> because it isn't on the basis of a hobby, but a (community-banned) ACTION.
Speaking of religions, who gets to make the judgement Mike?  The one you
just glossed over.  "...bikes where they don't belong."  I bet we could
find hundreds of different answers, some ignorant (on both sides) and
some based on actual data as to impact of bikes on trails.  Have you
bothered to look at any of that data, or is what you _know_ to be true
so right that there is no need to support it?
-AP

Thanks to Bruce Hamilton for posting an interesting abstract and summary 
of Arking's Science article. The results on the discrepancy between model 
and observational estimates of cloud forcing remind me of a paper by 
Gleckler, et al. (1995) in Geophysical Research Letters that compared the 
implied oceanic energy transport from fifteen Atmospheric General 
Circulation Models (AGCMs) with observational knowledge of the energy 
transport measured in the ocean.
Each of the models was integrated according to the constraints provided by
the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP), with prescribed sea
surface temperatures and sea-ice concentrations. The AGCMs simulate surface
and top-of-atmosphere fluxes, and the simulated energy fluxes to the ocean
are used to imply the oceanic transport. Note that the surface and 
top-of-atmosphere fluxes are a function of the AGCM model physics, 
particularly the parameterization of clouds.
The interesting result to come from this paper is that all of the fifteen 
models do a poor job at replicating the well-understood heat transports of
the earth system. One expects poleward transport of energy in both 
hemispheres, but the oceanic transports inferred by the AGCMs are 
actually equatorward in the Southern Hemisphere!!
Gleckler et al. (1995) immediately point to cloud-radiation interactions 
as a potential source of error, citing Cess et al. (1990) who showed 
evidence of disagreements between AGCMs of the effects of clouds on the
model radiation budget (i.e. each model responded differently to similar
cloud forcing).
By running two simulations with each AGCM, one with clouds, and one without,
Gleckler et al. (1995) were able to estimate the "cloud radiative forcing"
(CRF), the change in the top-of-atmosphere net radiation do solely to clouds.
In comparison to ERBE data, most models were found to underestimate CRF in
mid-latitudes (clouds too dark) and overestimate it in the tropics (clouds
too bright). These differences in CRF between ERBE data and model results
were translated into differences in oceanic energy transport, and when the
original model results were corrected for this CRF-induced difference, the
results of all models matched very well with observations of global energy
transport, with poleward energy transport in each hemisphere. 
This result implies that it is the cloud radiative parameterizations in 
AGCMs which are the sources of error, the same conclusion reached by 
Arking's Science paper. If the radiative character of water vapor is 
found to be different than that parameterized (more absorptive), the cloud
radiative forcing found in AGCMs could more likely simulate the CRF
measured by ERBE, yielding more accurate oceanic and atmospheric energy
transports, allowing stronger coupling in coupled GCM studies without
"climate drift". 
References:
1. Cess, R.D., et al. "Intercomparison and interpretation of climate 
feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models", Journal
of Geophysical Research, 95, 16601-?, 1990.
2. Gleckler, P.J., et al., "Cloud-radiative effects on 
implied oceanic energy transports as Simulated by atmospheric general 
circulation models",  Geophysical Research Letters, 22, No. 7 (April 1, 
1995), 791-794, 1995.
Bryan Hannegan
Department of Earth System Science, UC Irvine
bjhanneg@uci.edu

Harold Brashears writes:
> rmg3@access5.digex.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote for all to see:
> 
> >In article <32380bc7.166581684@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
> >Harold Brashears  wrote:
> >>system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote for all to see:
> >>
> >>[edited]
> >>>
> >>>Come onto sci.environment and ask for a pointer to RParson's
> >>>Ozone FAQ.  Read it, ask questions if you don't understand parts of
> >>>it, and when you do understand it come back and make some rational
> >>>comments.
> >>
> >>I would not suggest the reading of a FAQ to obtain scientific
> >>information.  FAQ's are created for computer nerds who need their
> >>scientific information predigested, and is not reviewed by any
> >>competent authority.
> >>
> >  And your peer-reviewed publications on the subject are?
  Mr. Brashears apparently felt it a waste of bandwidth to acknowledge
 that access5.digex.net (Robert Grumbine) also pointed out that:
> >  The FAQ includes copious reference to the peer-reviewed scientific
> > literature so that one _can_ find the relevant papers and
> > read them.
> You must be new around here!  I do so love it when someone asks for
> cites.  It gives me a chance to show how lacking in knowledge they
> are.
> 
> Note that there are articles on both sides of the controvery on this
> list.  I can read both sides of a question without fear.
But can you produce a list of those which hold that CFCs are 
insignificant in the destruction of the Ozone?
> Articles from my file on O3:
17 articles including two that deal with HF, (which has no strong effect
on the ozone) one discussing the problems with air conditioning, and one
which appears to be merely the EPA's statement on the ban on CFCs.
i.e. 1/4 of the articles have only a weak link at best with whether CFCs 
are important to the destruction of the ozone.  By ignorance I picked one
of those as my random test of your list...
> "Do Hydrofluorocarbons Destroy Atmospheric Ozone", Science, 263 p 71
> (1994).
Science is the most easily available to me so I wandered over and looked
it up.  The first sentence is "The global phase-out of ozone-damaging 
[CFCs] and [Halons ] has led to various proposed substitutes" and goes 
on to say that one of those substitutes is not a strong ozone damager.
IOW it starts out with the assumption that CFCs are indeed important in
damaging the ozone layer.  
> I got more if you want, but it must be some other time, as I am tired
> at this point.
Ad Hominem (sp?) _is_ a faulty line of attack but in this day of huge
amounts of data (good and bad) "considering the source" is IMHO a 
reasonable filter.
This article merely confirmed my opinion that Mr Brashears is not a
source to take too seriously.

Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
:  
: > The measure is stated as follows: " Observed annual means were computed
: > where there is at least one value in every month in a 5 degree grid box.
: > Observed and simulated data were averaged on a 15 x 15 degree grid, and 
: > decadal means f[o]rmed in grid boxes containing at least one annual 
: > observed value. " 
: > 
: > The inhomeogeneity of the time series is an obvious flaw - remote
: > regions (in practice polar and South Pacific) would be in the latter
: > part of the series but not in the early part. But I see two other
: > serious problems. Firstly, the equal weighting of 15x15 degree areas
: > grossly overweights polar regions, when the data for those exists.
: > It is in fact the case that the behavior of the high Arctic has not
: > been in accordance with models in general, and perhaps with the 
: > particular model used here, but equal weighting by latitude instead
: > of by area would overvalue these errors. Secondly, the naive decadal
:  
: ???? I don't understand your point. While the solar forcing is not
: uniform in area, emissivity is, to first order, hence you must
: weigh in the polar regions.
If I read it correctly, the area between 75 and 90 degrees latitude is
given the same weight as the area between 0 and 15 degrees latitude.
This is such an elementary error that it's surprising that Nature
would let it through. Hopefully I'm misunderstanding, but that does
appear to be what it says.  
In any case, by taking a single mean over a decade, the measure
would appear to be mostly a measure of whether the model El Nino
cycle was in or out of phase with the real world cycle - hardly
a measure of climate performance. The running average should be
long enough to filter out the 2-5 year signal peak, and certainly
more than a single realization of the model should be included.
I'm still a fringe player, which is to say I'm not familiar with
Nature's editorial policy in particular. Perhaps the standard is
looser for letters than for articles. But the graph you point to 
really doesn't say very much in my opinion. I still maintain that
the claim that the predictive value of the spatial distribution of
warming is zero is overly harsh, and that the figure in question
is sufficiently crude that it doesn't even convincingly show the
superiority of the with-aerosol models to the without-aerosol ones.
: That [multiple realizations] 
: I know they have done. You can only put so much in
: Nature, and I can't properly cite "viewgraph I saw at a
: seminar three months ago".
Oh, an improper citiation will do here.
: > In short, I conclude that the poor performance in shown in Fig 3 of
: > Mitchell et al, Nature 376 p 501 ff, 1995, is likely to due the
: > weakness of the model metric rather than weakness of the specific
: > realization of the specific model used, and that the latter weakness,
: > if shown, would be insufficient to make the claim of "zero correlation".
: I think you underestimate the rationale the modelers
: went through to choose their metrics, and why this paper
: appeared in Nature.
If you know more, do tell.
: > I do not understand Sigurdsson's conclusion from that graph that the
: > aerosol-included model performance is spectacularly better than that
: > without aerosol. I believe that this is the case in fact, but do not
: > see that as a clear conclusion from the graph.
: "viewgraph I saw..."  - Sorry, but I don't know which of the
: work done in the last 12 months that I saw is published. I don't
: keep that close a tab on the field. All I know is it convinced
: me, and I'm now starting to trust regional prediction of GCMs.
: That is, my conclusions are not _just_ from that graph, but
: from a number of other data.
I certainly don't mean to question this. I just think that your
oft-stated "zero" is a bit too harsh on the older models. I will
settle for "spatial correlation with observed warming was quite weak".
mt

> I agree and support the concept.  The problem I see is that it may be
> that many of the scientific journals will not be happy about being
> second in line for a paper though it could force them to provide
> electronic subscriptions.
My original suggestion is to hold *abstracts* online, with the provision
to hold full papers where appropriate.   Keeping abstracts in an easily-
searchable website would surely be a valuable service to researchers,
while referring them to the traditional publishing media for full papers.
My software will index and cross-reference the abstracts, and has the option
to hold any or all of the full papers online according to publisher choice.
As others have pointed out, the peer-review process is an important element
of academic publishing.   I believe web-based collaboration software can
be used to facilitate this process, providing a forum ("workgroup") whose
members are a paper's authors together with recognised referees in a
subject area.   Such papers may have readonly access to the general public
(or subscribers-only if a publisher prefers) while in the review process,
thus accelerating the publication cycle.
The technology is ready: we need only apply it!
Nick Kew.

Heath Carson  wrote:
>Todd O. wrote:
> 
>> I read it, Mike, but I still don't understand it.  How can the U.S. feed
>> it's nearly 300 million people without sacrificing any wildlife?  Go
>> ahead, explain that for all us ignorant types who can't guess what you
>> have in mind.
>> 
>> Todd Ourston
>> Marin County, California
>Well I don't know about meal time in America, but I'd rather go to the
>supermarket to buy my food.  Are you trying to say that native American
>animals are killed in their natural habitat for consumption on some
>grand scale, if so, you wouldn't have any native animals left in the
>country.  That's one of the things that makes us humans intelligent - a
>couple of thousand years ago we managed to domesticate certain species
>for consumption.
>-- 
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>| Heath Carson                     | mailto:hca@fmsc.com.au            `~'        `~<| 
>| http://www.ozemail.com.au/~hicarson             | 
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Indirectly - yes. What they're talking about is loss of habitat for
wildlife to make room for farms. While at the same time farms closer
to cities are being destroyed to make room for housing developments
and office parks. The only type of land that isn't expanding is the
land wild animals make their homes on. In a way, the net effect is
similar to a grand scale killing off of native/wild animals. But it's
even worse than a big killoff - without land to reproduce and live on,
they will not recover - they will simply go extinct. Their habitats
are being taken for our use to build our farms, factories, office
parks, condos, roads, etc. This is nothing new. But the 300 million
hungry human mouths in America justify this practice to a lot of
people. The 300 million will turn into 400 million, then a billion.
Since land doesn't grow on trees, where do we keep getting the land to
build the farms and homes and offices and factories? This is a
question I wish anti-environmentalists would answer.
I don't think the answer involves any form of rocket science. Stop the
human population explosion and take responsible care of the resources
we haven't yet consumed or destroyed. That's all it takes. It
shouldn't take a PhD or years of research to realize that growing
population + finite resources = declining quality of life and eventual
anhilation for humanity. There's still plenty of room for farming,
living and recreation today - but there won't be for our grandchildren
unless we slow down the growth!! Is it an acceptable cost of living to
have your grandchildren know that wolves, coyotes, bears, eagles and
many thousands of other wild animals once existed outside of pictures
in textbooks (in the chapter after dinosaurs), but that we let them
disappear, because we just didn't care enough about anything but work,
food and play. Do we want the closest thing to a wildlife area in the
future to be an indoor zoo where animals just sit around waiting to be
fed?  Do we want a world with only humans and a few dozen "domestic"
animals that humans have some immediate use for.
Maybe when even the national, state and city parks we like to play in
start disappearing to make more room for urban growth, maybe then more
people will understand that the human population just cannot keep on
exploding and expanding indefinitely. Unfortunately because the
decline isn't obvious to those who live in urban and suburban areas
and those whose only exposure to the wild is for "recreational
purposes"  a lot of people try to minimize the problems and denigrate
those who call attention to them - as alarmists and kooks - "what's
the big deal if we sacrifice a few wild animals to feed 300 million
people anyway"?
Unfortunately a lot of people won't start to worry about this problem
until it's pretty much too late. Wild animals don't tend to complain
much about discrimination when their land is taken away for human use,
they just fade away into oblivion. So it's much easier to grab wild
land first. But when it's all gone, the parks that a lot of people
like to walk around (even bike around in) will start disappearing too.
The casual way someone can say  "we need to feed 300 million
Americans, so it's just too bad if we lose some wildlife", is very sad
indeed.
Although the man you love to hate in this newsgroup has certainly
irritated you quite a bit, the world does need more champions of
environmental conservation and less people with a callous disregard
for it, and certainly less people making greedy profits by chopping,
slashing, digging and burning OUR land.
I'm a mountain biker and I intend to continue to bike for excercise
and fun on trails specifically constructed and maintained for mountain
biking (I'm fortunate that in the town I live in, there are a lot of
nice greenways and trails constructed for both hiking and biking). I
respect the intelligence and morals of most of my fellow bikers. And
I'm very glad to see that not everyone here has the same attitude
about "who cares if we lose some wild animals - as long as we can
stuff our 300 million mouths" (5 billion worldwide).

Does anybody knows about the software by name "Airpol" ?
This software predicts the concentration of dispersion pollutant in the
atmosphere. Please let me know! If not I will use the name (release) it for
my software in that subject.
Thank you
Musfil AS

>BECAUSE THERE HAS NOT BEEN A PROVEN LINK!!! Is this hard to undestand?
>ALL of the evidence connecting smoking and various "smoking related"
>diseases is statistic in nature and not a single incontrovertable
>experiment has shown otherwise.
I put the above "scientific" statement right alongside some other
famous ones of the past:
The sun revolves around the earth.
The moon is made of cheese.
Eclipses are caused by dragons.
Statistical evidence is significant to me. If you test something often
enough and come up with the same results, what is it then. If not,
then pray tell what you expect an experiment to prove? If I put my
hand on something and it hurts, I'm gonna not do it - and I don't need
"science" to run experiments for three decades searching for a holy
grail" of "incontrovertable proof" that is is harmful. How do we know
that drinking alcohol excessively causes liver damage, or that certain
types of pollution cause cancer and mutations? Or that radiation is
harmful? Or that excessive exposure to sunlight can cause skin cancer?
Are we supposed to not be concerned because the only indication that
they are harmful is  "purely statistical"? Anyone who believes this
could have a promising career as  a "scientist" or public relations
officer at Phillip Morris or Exxon (one and the same at these
companies!)
>I don't smoke and my father died of emphesema contracted, I'm sure, from
>smoking. But there isn't a smoker alive who doesn't know that smoking
>is (PROBABLY) bad for your health. If they want to kill themselves that
>is their own decision.
But they don't have the right to kill me too. Not so many years ago I
had to put up with having my cubicle surrounded by smokers, causing me
"horrendous" coughing fits. When the company finally banned smoking,
these people whined loudly about their "constitutional rights" being
taken away. I don't give a rat's ass if they want to kill themselves
at home, but I do care when it affects me.
>Moreover, smokers more than pay their medical
>expenses in the horrendous taxes on their habits so there is little
>cost to society in real terms.
This is debatable. I  doubt if this newsgroup is the best place though
to discuss whether or not cigarette taxes really make up for all the
problems they cause. Even from a monetary standpoint, this is
doubtful.
>Freedom for one is freedom for all or freedom for none.
Freedom of choice is what you want. Freedom from choice is what you
need.   (Devo).

Biogeochemical Dynamics - the ORNL DAAC
ORNL DAAC Home Page URL - http://www-eosdis.ornl.gov
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center
(DAAC) for Biogeochemical Dynamics is an integral part of the nine NASA
Earth Observing Data and Information System (EOSDIS) DAACs.  In general
terms, biogeochemical dynamics can be described as the biological and
chemical interactions among the elements that comprise the Earth system. The
DAAC is operated within the Environmental Sciences Division at ORNL with the
advantage of access to staff conducting research and assessments on
biogeochemical dynamics as related to global change issues.  Data at the
ORNL DAAC are of interest to the global change research community, policy
makers, educators, and to the public at large.
Users may request information through the EOSDIS Wide Information Management
System (IMS), directly through the local ORNL DAAC IMS; through the 
ORNL DAAC WWW Search & Order Interface, BIOME, or by contacting the User 
Services Office.  Access instructions are provided at the end of this 
message.
-----------------
Data Availability
-----------------
The ORNL DAAC currently archives and distributes data from CDIAC 
(Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center), from the FIFE, OTTER 
& SNF research projects, and various hydrological data sets.  Future 
data holdings include information gathered from the BOREAS project.  
Additionally, the ORNL DAAC is currently working with the FIFE Follow-on 
project investigators to receive and distribute additional FIFE data.  
A pilot project, coordinated with the International Geosphere Biosphere 
Program (IGBP), has been initiated to develop a global terrestrial net 
primary productivity reference database.  Plans are also underway for 
acquiring background data for an international Amazon Basin field 
investigation.  Additional information about our data holdings, both 
current and future, are provided below.
-----
CDIAC
-----
The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) provides information
related to atmospheric trace-gas concentrations and global climate change.
CDIAC is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy to support the Global
Change Research Program and is located at ORNL.  The preponderance of the
data deal with historic and atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane
concentrations and historic weather and climate readings from throughout the
world.  Thus, CDIAC data are relevant to the DAAC user community.
CDIAC datasets are maintained by CDIAC; however, the user community can
access these data on-line through the EOSDIS System-Wide IMS, the ORNL 
DAAC IMS, and the ORNL DAAC WWW Search & Order Interface, BIOME
----
FIFE
----
The First ISLSCP (International Satellite Land Surface Climatology Project)
Field Experiment (FIFE) was conducted on the Konza Prairie located just
outside of Manhattan, Kansas, USA, during the summer of 1987 and 1989.  The
FIFE project is part of NASA's plan to develop a physically-based approach
to the use of satellite remote-sensing systems.  Project data include:
fluxes of heat, moisture, CO2 and radiation measured with surface and
airborne equipment; soil moisture data; atmospheric boundary layer data;
vegetative indices; surface radiance and biological data; and satellite
measurements: AVHRR, LANDSAT, SPOT, GOES.
FIFE tabular data are available on-line through the local ORNL DAAC IMS,
the System-Wide IMS, and the ORNL DAAC WWW Search & Order Interface, BIOME. 
-----
OTTER
-----
The purpose of the Oregon Transect Ecosystem Research (OTTER) Project was to
estimate major fluxes of carbon, nitrogen, and water in forest ecosystems
using an ecosystem-process model driven by remotely-sensed data.  Study
sites included a coastal forest of western hemlock; a mid-elevation forest
of mature Douglas fir; and an inland forest of ponderosa.  Meteorological
data and remotely-sensed measurements of foliar nitrogen and leaf area index
drove the model, while field measurements of monthly changes in canopy leaf
area, photosynthetic capacity, stomatal conductance, foliage biochemistry,
litterfall, and other components of plant production were used to validate
the model.  Each site was instrumented for continuous measurement of surface
meteorology and monitored frequently for carbon exchange, nutrient cycling
rates, and water transport. ASAS, AVHRR, AVIRIS, TMS aircraft and satellite
measurements data were also compiled for the project.
OTTER tabular data are available on-line through the local ORNL DAAC IMS,
the System-Wide IMS, and the ORNL DAAC WWW Search & Order Interface,
BIOME.  
--------------------------------------------------------
Hydrological Data Sets 
(formerly held at the Marshall Space Flight Center DAAC)
--------------------------------------------------------
- Amazon River Basin Precipitation Data Set
This is a 0.2 degree gridded monthly precipitation data set from 
January 1972 through December 1992, based upon monthly precipitation data 
from Peru and Brazil.  It includes empirical and modeling studies of 
rainfall and runoff from sample hillslopes to the entire Amazon basin.  
The purpose of the research project which generated these data was to 
understand the biogeochemistry, hydrology, and sedimentation of the Amazon
River and its drainage basin.  The Amazon was chosen as the first target 
in the study of Earth's continental scale river systems, which represent
some of the largest and most dynamic environmental units on the planet.
- GISS Matthews Wetlands Database and Methane Emmission
This is a global database of wetlands a 1-degree resolution and 
calculated methane emissions. The wetlands database was developed from 
the integration of three independent global, digital sources:
(1) vegetation, (2) soil properties, and (3) fractional innundation in 
each 1-degree cell.  The integration yielded a global distribution of 
wetland sites identified with in-situ ecological and environmental 
characteristics.  The wetland sites have been classed into five major 
wetland groups on the basis of environmental characteristics governing
methane emissions.  The global wetland area derived in this study is
~5.3 x 10(12) m(2), approximately twice the wetland area previously used 
in methane-emission studies.  Methane emission was calculated using 
methane fluxes for the major wetland groups, and simple assumptions about 
the duration of the methane-production season.
- Hydro-Climatic Data Network: Streamflow Data Set
A streamflow data set specifically suitable for the study of 
surface-water conditions throughout the U.S.  The data set consists of
streamflow records for 1,659 sites throughout the U.S. and its 
Territories, for the period 1874-1988.
- Wallis, Lettenmaier, and Wood Hydroclimatology
A daily hydro-meterological data set for the continental U.S.  The data  
are from 1,009 USGS streamflow stations, and 1,036 NOAA climatological 
stations, for which long term (1948-1988) observations have been 
assembled into a consistent daily data set, with missing observations 
estimated using a simple closest station prorating rule.  Care was taken 
in the selection of the streamflow stations to assure that the records 
were free from regulation.  The climatological stations are a subset of 
the Historical Climatology Network (HCN) for which monthly data are 
described by Quinlan et al (1987).
These data sets are available on-line through the local ORNL DAAC IMS,
the System-Wide IMS, and the ORNL DAAC WWW Search & Order Interface,
BIOME.  
------------------------------ 
Superior National Forest (SNF)
------------------------------
This project conducted by NASA, was an intensive remote sensing and field 
study of the boreal forest in the Superior National Forest (SNF), near Ely, 
Minnesota. The purpose of the experiment was to investigate the ability of 
remote sensing to provide estimates of biophysical properties of ecosystems, 
such as leaf area index (LAI), biomass and net primary productivity (NPP). 
The study area covered a 50 x 50 km area centered at approximately 48 degrees 
North latitude and 92 degrees West longitude in northeastern Minnesota at the 
southern edge of the North American boreal forest. The SNF is mostly covered by 
boreal forest. Boreal forests were chosen for this project because of their 
relative taxonomic simplicity, their great extent, and their potential 
sensitivity to climatic change. Satellite, aircraft, helicopter and ground 
observations were obtained for the study area. These data comprise a unique 
dataset for the investigation of the relationships between the radiometric 
and biophysical properties of vegetated canopies. This is perhaps the most
complete dataset of its type ever collected over a forested region. Detailed 
vegetation data were collected on the ground for about 100 sampled sites. These 
sites represent a range of stand density and age for spruce and aspen and also 
include jackpine and mixed stands.
The SNF data sets are available through the local ORNL DAAC IMS, and the
ORNL DAAC WWW Search & Order Interface, BIOME.  Access via the System-Wide 
IMS is expected shortly.  
------
BOREAS
------
The Boreal Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study (BOREAS) was initiated in 1990 to
investigate the interactions between the boreal forest biome and the
atmosphere.  Surface, airborne, and satellite based observations are being
used to develop techniques to measure biological and physical processes and
conditions that govern the exchanges of energy, water, heat, carbon, and
trace gases between boreal forest ecosystems and the atmosphere,
particularly those processes that may be sensitive to global change.
Remote-sensing techniques, along with field measurements, are being used to
develop and test models and algorithms in order to transfer the
understanding of processes from the local to regional scale.  The
investigation is being conducted in the boreal forest of Canada and is
scheduled for completion in 1997.  Intensive Field Campaigns (IFCs) were
conducted throughout the summer of 1994.
BOREAS data will be transferred to the ORNL DAAC as the investigators
complete documentation, quality assurance, and within-project integration
and verification.
------------------------------
Net Primary Productivity (NPP)
------------------------------
A global terrestrial Net Primary Production (NPP) reference database is
being compiled by the ORNL DAAC in coordination with the International
Geosphere Biosphere Program.  Field measurements from worldwide sites
provide parameterization and validation data needed in support of modeling
global primary production and other applications.  Currently there are
detailed biomass dynamics, climate, and site data for 13 grassland
representing 6 biomes in the database with over 150 site-year-treatment
combinations and an average of 30 years of climate data for each site.  An
important component of the database is an abstract of each site with
investigator contact information and a list of key references for each site.
Pending final approval from the Principal Investigators (PI's), release 
to the overall user community is expected soon.  A notification will be 
posted to the appropriate USENET groups/Listservs upon release.
------------------------
World Wide Web Home Page
------------------------
The ORNL DAAC World Wide Web (WWW) Home Page contains detailed information
regarding the ORNL DAAC, EOSDIS, data holdings, and links to many other
relevant sources of information.  The ORNL Home Page can be accessed at the
following location:
	http://www-eosdis.ornl.gov
-------------------
Accessing ORNL Data
-------------------
Users can search and order data through the EOSDIS System-Wide IMS linked to
all of the DAAC's or through the ORNL DAAC IMS, which is tailored to meet
needs of users seeking ecologically-related data specifically held at 
the ORNL DAAC.  In order to access either IMS systems via a Graphical 
User Interface (GUI), you must be using either a workstation or a PC/MAC 
running X-terminal emulation software.  
	To access the EOSDIS System-Wide IMS:  telnet eosims.ornl.gov 12345
	To access the ORNL DAAC IMS:           telnet ornlims.ornl.gov 6493
Also, the ORNL DAAC offers access to its data products through BIOME, the  
Biogeochemical Information Ordering Management Environment.  BIOME is 
the ORNL DAAC World Wide Web (WWW) based interface and users may search 
for data by performing a variety of different searches including: 
keyword, subject name, geographic name, geographic region selection from 
a map, or by data attributes (dataset name, investigator, project, 
parameter, sensor, or source).  
The URL for BIOME is:
	http://www-eosdis.ornl.gov/BIOME/biome.html
Data are available from the ORNL DAAC on a wide variety of media formats.
Both OTTER and FIFE data are currently available on a 5 volume CD-ROM set.
Wallis, Lettenmaier, and Wood Hydroclimatology and Hydro-Climatic Data 
Network: Streamflow Data Set are also available on CD-ROM.
Please contact the ORNL DAAC User Services Office for additional information.
Merilyn J. Gentry
Jerry W. Curry
ORNL DAAC User Services Office
P.O. Box 2008, MS 6490
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6490
Voice: 423-241-3952 Fax: 423-574-4665
Internet: ornldaac@ornl.gov  or  ornl@eos.nasa.gov
Updated 09/16/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Curry - Research Associate                  curryjw@ornl.gov
ORNL DAAC User Services Office                    (423)241-3952 (Ph)
P.O. Box 2008, MS 6407                            (423)574-4665 (Fax)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory   
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6407
ORNL DAAC Home Page URL - http://www-eosdis.ornl.gov
Export Compliance: This information made available under the General 
Technical Data Available (GTDA) general license.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Biogeochemical Dynamics - the ORNL DAAC
ORNL DAAC Home Page URL - http://www-eosdis.ornl.gov
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center
(DAAC) for Biogeochemical Dynamics is an integral part of the nine NASA
Earth Observing Data and Information System (EOSDIS) DAACs.  In general
terms, biogeochemical dynamics can be described as the biological and
chemical interactions among the elements that comprise the Earth system. The
DAAC is operated within the Environmental Sciences Division at ORNL with the
advantage of access to staff conducting research and assessments on
biogeochemical dynamics as related to global change issues.  Data at the
ORNL DAAC are of interest to the global change research community, policy
makers, educators, and to the public at large.
Users may request information through the EOSDIS Wide Information Management
System (IMS), directly through the local ORNL DAAC IMS; through the 
ORNL DAAC WWW Search & Order Interface, BIOME, or by contacting the User 
Services Office.  Access instructions are provided at the end of this 
message.
-----------------
Data Availability
-----------------
The ORNL DAAC currently archives and distributes data from CDIAC 
(Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center), from the FIFE, OTTER 
& SNF research projects, and various hydrological data sets.  Future 
data holdings include information gathered from the BOREAS project.  
Additionally, the ORNL DAAC is currently working with the FIFE Follow-on 
project investigators to receive and distribute additional FIFE data.  
A pilot project, coordinated with the International Geosphere Biosphere 
Program (IGBP), has been initiated to develop a global terrestrial net 
primary productivity reference database.  Plans are also underway for 
acquiring background data for an international Amazon Basin field 
investigation.  Additional information about our data holdings, both 
current and future, are provided below.
-----
CDIAC
-----
The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) provides information
related to atmospheric trace-gas concentrations and global climate change.
CDIAC is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy to support the Global
Change Research Program and is located at ORNL.  The preponderance of the
data deal with historic and atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane
concentrations and historic weather and climate readings from throughout the
world.  Thus, CDIAC data are relevant to the DAAC user community.
CDIAC datasets are maintained by CDIAC; however, the user community can
access these data on-line through the EOSDIS System-Wide IMS, the ORNL 
DAAC IMS, and the ORNL DAAC WWW Search & Order Interface, BIOME
----
FIFE
----
The First ISLSCP (International Satellite Land Surface Climatology Project)
Field Experiment (FIFE) was conducted on the Konza Prairie located just
outside of Manhattan, Kansas, USA, during the summer of 1987 and 1989.  The
FIFE project is part of NASA's plan to develop a physically-based approach
to the use of satellite remote-sensing systems.  Project data include:
fluxes of heat, moisture, CO2 and radiation measured with surface and
airborne equipment; soil moisture data; atmospheric boundary layer data;
vegetative indices; surface radiance and biological data; and satellite
measurements: AVHRR, LANDSAT, SPOT, GOES.
FIFE tabular data are available on-line through the local ORNL DAAC IMS,
the System-Wide IMS, and the ORNL DAAC WWW Search & Order Interface, BIOME. 
-----
OTTER
-----
The purpose of the Oregon Transect Ecosystem Research (OTTER) Project was to
estimate major fluxes of carbon, nitrogen, and water in forest ecosystems
using an ecosystem-process model driven by remotely-sensed data.  Study
sites included a coastal forest of western hemlock; a mid-elevation forest
of mature Douglas fir; and an inland forest of ponderosa.  Meteorological
data and remotely-sensed measurements of foliar nitrogen and leaf area index
drove the model, while field measurements of monthly changes in canopy leaf
area, photosynthetic capacity, stomatal conductance, foliage biochemistry,
litterfall, and other components of plant production were used to validate
the model.  Each site was instrumented for continuous measurement of surface
meteorology and monitored frequently for carbon exchange, nutrient cycling
rates, and water transport. ASAS, AVHRR, AVIRIS, TMS aircraft and satellite
measurements data were also compiled for the project.
OTTER tabular data are available on-line through the local ORNL DAAC IMS,
the System-Wide IMS, and the ORNL DAAC WWW Search & Order Interface,
BIOME.  
--------------------------------------------------------
Hydrological Data Sets 
(formerly held at the Marshall Space Flight Center DAAC)
--------------------------------------------------------
- Amazon River Basin Precipitation Data Set
This is a 0.2 degree gridded monthly precipitation data set from 
January 1972 through December 1992, based upon monthly precipitation data 
from Peru and Brazil.  It includes empirical and modeling studies of 
rainfall and runoff from sample hillslopes to the entire Amazon basin.  
The purpose of the research project which generated these data was to 
understand the biogeochemistry, hydrology, and sedimentation of the Amazon
River and its drainage basin.  The Amazon was chosen as the first target 
in the study of Earth's continental scale river systems, which represent
some of the largest and most dynamic environmental units on the planet.
- GISS Matthews Wetlands Database and Methane Emmission
This is a global database of wetlands a 1-degree resolution and 
calculated methane emissions. The wetlands database was developed from 
the integration of three independent global, digital sources:
(1) vegetation, (2) soil properties, and (3) fractional innundation in 
each 1-degree cell.  The integration yielded a global distribution of 
wetland sites identified with in-situ ecological and environmental 
characteristics.  The wetland sites have been classed into five major 
wetland groups on the basis of environmental characteristics governing
methane emissions.  The global wetland area derived in this study is
~5.3 x 10(12) m(2), approximately twice the wetland area previously used 
in methane-emission studies.  Methane emission was calculated using 
methane fluxes for the major wetland groups, and simple assumptions about 
the duration of the methane-production season.
- Hydro-Climatic Data Network: Streamflow Data Set
A streamflow data set specifically suitable for the study of 
surface-water conditions throughout the U.S.  The data set consists of
streamflow records for 1,659 sites throughout the U.S. and its 
Territories, for the period 1874-1988.
- Wallis, Lettenmaier, and Wood Hydroclimatology
A daily hydro-meterological data set for the continental U.S.  The data  
are from 1,009 USGS streamflow stations, and 1,036 NOAA climatological 
stations, for which long term (1948-1988) observations have been 
assembled into a consistent daily data set, with missing observations 
estimated using a simple closest station prorating rule.  Care was taken 
in the selection of the streamflow stations to assure that the records 
were free from regulation.  The climatological stations are a subset of 
the Historical Climatology Network (HCN) for which monthly data are 
described by Quinlan et al (1987).
These data sets are available on-line through the local ORNL DAAC IMS,
the System-Wide IMS, and the ORNL DAAC WWW Search & Order Interface,
BIOME.  
------------------------------ 
Superior National Forest (SNF)
------------------------------
This project conducted by NASA, was an intensive remote sensing and field 
study of the boreal forest in the Superior National Forest (SNF), near Ely, 
Minnesota. The purpose of the experiment was to investigate the ability of 
remote sensing to provide estimates of biophysical properties of ecosystems, 
such as leaf area index (LAI), biomass and net primary productivity (NPP). 
The study area covered a 50 x 50 km area centered at approximately 48 degrees 
North latitude and 92 degrees West longitude in northeastern Minnesota at the 
southern edge of the North American boreal forest. The SNF is mostly covered by 
boreal forest. Boreal forests were chosen for this project because of their 
relative taxonomic simplicity, their great extent, and their potential 
sensitivity to climatic change. Satellite, aircraft, helicopter and ground 
observations were obtained for the study area. These data comprise a unique 
dataset for the investigation of the relationships between the radiometric 
and biophysical properties of vegetated canopies. This is perhaps the most
complete dataset of its type ever collected over a forested region. Detailed 
vegetation data were collected on the ground for about 100 sampled sites. These 
sites represent a range of stand density and age for spruce and aspen and also 
include jackpine and mixed stands.
The SNF data sets are available through the local ORNL DAAC IMS, and the
ORNL DAAC WWW Search & Order Interface, BIOME.  Access via the System-Wide 
IMS is expected shortly.  
------
BOREAS
------
The Boreal Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study (BOREAS) was initiated in 1990 to
investigate the interactions between the boreal forest biome and the
atmosphere.  Surface, airborne, and satellite based observations are being
used to develop techniques to measure biological and physical processes and
conditions that govern the exchanges of energy, water, heat, carbon, and
trace gases between boreal forest ecosystems and the atmosphere,
particularly those processes that may be sensitive to global change.
Remote-sensing techniques, along with field measurements, are being used to
develop and test models and algorithms in order to transfer the
understanding of processes from the local to regional scale.  The
investigation is being conducted in the boreal forest of Canada and is
scheduled for completion in 1997.  Intensive Field Campaigns (IFCs) were
conducted throughout the summer of 1994.
BOREAS data will be transferred to the ORNL DAAC as the investigators
complete documentation, quality assurance, and within-project integration
and verification.
------------------------------
Net Primary Productivity (NPP)
------------------------------
A global terrestrial Net Primary Production (NPP) reference database is
being compiled by the ORNL DAAC in coordination with the International
Geosphere Biosphere Program.  Field measurements from worldwide sites
provide parameterization and validation data needed in support of modeling
global primary production and other applications.  Currently there are
detailed biomass dynamics, climate, and site data for 13 grassland
representing 6 biomes in the database with over 150 site-year-treatment
combinations and an average of 30 years of climate data for each site.  An
important component of the database is an abstract of each site with
investigator contact information and a list of key references for each site.
Pending final approval from the Principal Investigators (PI's), release 
to the overall user community is expected soon.  A notification will be 
posted to the appropriate USENET groups/Listservs upon release.
------------------------
World Wide Web Home Page
------------------------
The ORNL DAAC World Wide Web (WWW) Home Page contains detailed information
regarding the ORNL DAAC, EOSDIS, data holdings, and links to many other
relevant sources of information.  The ORNL Home Page can be accessed at the
following location:
	http://www-eosdis.ornl.gov
-------------------
Accessing ORNL Data
-------------------
Users can search and order data through the EOSDIS System-Wide IMS linked to
all of the DAAC's or through the ORNL DAAC IMS, which is tailored to meet
needs of users seeking ecologically-related data specifically held at 
the ORNL DAAC.  In order to access either IMS systems via a Graphical 
User Interface (GUI), you must be using either a workstation or a PC/MAC 
running X-terminal emulation software.  
	To access the EOSDIS System-Wide IMS:  telnet eosims.ornl.gov 12345
	To access the ORNL DAAC IMS:           telnet ornlims.ornl.gov 6493
Also, the ORNL DAAC offers access to its data products through BIOME, the  
Biogeochemical Information Ordering Management Environment.  BIOME is 
the ORNL DAAC World Wide Web (WWW) based interface and users may search 
for data by performing a variety of different searches including: 
keyword, subject name, geographic name, geographic region selection from 
a map, or by data attributes (dataset name, investigator, project, 
parameter, sensor, or source).  
The URL for BIOME is:
	http://www-eosdis.ornl.gov/BIOME/biome.html
Data are available from the ORNL DAAC on a wide variety of media formats.
Both OTTER and FIFE data are currently available on a 5 volume CD-ROM set.
Wallis, Lettenmaier, and Wood Hydroclimatology and Hydro-Climatic Data 
Network: Streamflow Data Set are also available on CD-ROM.
Please contact the ORNL DAAC User Services Office for additional information.
Merilyn J. Gentry
Jerry W. Curry
ORNL DAAC User Services Office
P.O. Box 2008, MS 6490
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6490
Voice: 423-241-3952 Fax: 423-574-4665
Internet: ornldaac@ornl.gov  or  ornl@eos.nasa.gov
Updated 09/16/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Curry - Research Associate                  curryjw@ornl.gov
ORNL DAAC User Services Office                    (423)241-3952 (Ph)
P.O. Box 2008, MS 6407                            (423)574-4665 (Fax)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory   
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6407
ORNL DAAC Home Page URL - http://www-eosdis.ornl.gov
Export Compliance: This information made available under the General 
Technical Data Available (GTDA) general license.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am looking for a source for environmental regulations from Peru. 
Please respond to e-mail address.

Ignore

There is a book that you might find interesting called "The gardener's bug
book", published by Whitecap Books.  The book describes many biological
control methods.  To control aphids for example,
1)  Lightly spray dormant oil (horticultural oil) on the plants.  This
sufocates most insects,
2)  Plant flowers such as marigolds and calendula, which produce a strong
scent that repels aphids and other small insects,
3)  Other concoctions such as garlic brew (garlic, onion with cayenne
pepper or hot peppers) sprayed on plants may help too.
Good luck!
Douglas Craig

In article <323ebaf8.9012075@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
   brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>socrates@hunter1.com (Socrates) wrote for all to see:
>
>>In article <323d4996.469470@nntp.st.usm.edu> 
brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) writes:
>>>From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
>>>Subject: Re: ENVIRONCIDE
>>>Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:06:25 GMT
>>
>>>All locked up and nowhere to go  wrote 
for all to
>>>see:
>>
>>>I usually don't even read, much less respond, to people 
who have such
>>>a low opinion of their own posts that they refuse to 
associate their
>>>name with it by signing it, but you are in great luck, I 
have a half
>>>hour before I start my day, and noticed your missive.
>>
>>
>>While I am not the poster you are reffering to I felt 
compelled to respond.  I 
>>used to use my real name, until an unfortunate incident 
about two years ago.  
>>I was engaged in a religious debate in alt.atheism, when a 
rather disturbed 
>>fundementalist women began to interject her own postings 
asserting that I was 
>>a child of satan and should be burned.  She also began to 
send me email where 
>>she told me that it was Gods will that I be destroyed,  
Finally, using one of 
>>the many phone book CDs, she emailed me a letter that had 
my home address and 
>>phone number in it.  Since then I use a pseudonym and have 
an unlisted phone 
>>number.  
>>     The internet is a wonderful place of totally free 
speech, but because of 
>>that there are many fruitcakes on it.
>
>This activity is illegal, even on the internet.  The 
deliberate
>harassment of another individual is cause for criminal 
complaint.
Harold, 
this will not do you much good after a stalker has taken the 
time to find you and kill you.  However, maybe your surviving 
relatives will feel better after that individual is 
prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  I wonder how many 
extra years harrassment adds to the stalking and murder 
sentences?

In article <51mlpe$87@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
   tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) wrote:
>charliew (charliew@hal-pc.org) wrote:
>: In article <51kdgb$5uo@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
>:    tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) wrote:
>
>: (cut)
>
>: >Many of the proposed methods are energy intensive, and 
would
>: >cause a much larger increase in the effective cost of 
energy 
>: than
>: >a carbon tax. Moreover, the carbon tax proceeds would 
then 
>: be in
>: >the public sector, allowing for other public 
expenditures, 
>: reduction
>: >of public debt, and/or reduction in other taxes.
>
>: So you're willing to see higher CO2 emissions if it 
benefits 
>: your cause.
>
>I presume you mean higher emissions taxes, right? Charlie, 
Charlie,
>Charlie, do try to read and write more carefully. I included
>reductions in other taxes among the possibilities. Whether 
or
>not that's my own preference is a separate matter.
>
Based on your response to my previous note, I'll respond to 
what people are saying.  If you inject CO2 into the ground, 
you prevent it from getting into the atmosphere.  If you 
merely tax the carbon contained in the fuel that produces the 
CO2, it still gets into the atmosphere.  The requirement for 
injecting CO2 is a bit onerous, which would definitely 
discourage carbon fuel consumption at the same time that it 
prevented CO2 emissions.  The tax is also onerous, which 
would discourage carbon fuel consumption, but would *not* 
prevent CO2 emissions.
So, which is it?  Inject CO2 and prevent emissions, or tax 
CO2 and allow emissions?  If you are really worried about 
global warming, it would seem that you want to inject CO2.  
However, if you are looking for more government taxes and 
programs (you already implied that you do), then you tax 
carbon and emit CO2.
Michael, Michael, Michael.  I really wish you would keep your 
"story" consistent regarding CO2.  It is getting very 
difficult to determine what the hell you are wanting industry 
and its employees to do concerning environmental issues.

In article <1996Sep17.090910.7165@srs.gov> harry.smiley@srs.gov (Harry Smiley) writes:
>
>If Westinghouse didn't want to be in the nuclear business anymore, they
>didn't have to rebid the contract.   It seems to me that Westinghouse has
>gone to  a lot of trouble to get contracts at DOE facilities, including
>the failed bid at Hanford recently.
>
	They also bid as part of group of companies on the Idaho
	National Engineering Laboratory contract around two years
	ago.  Funny behavior if they are trying to get out of the 
	business.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Baker		   	 baker@groves.neep.wisc.edu 
Engineering Research Bldg., 1500 Engineering Dr., Madison, WI 53706
-------------------------------------------------------------------