Subject: Re: electric vehicles
From: gfoltz@cs.montana.edu (Greg Foltz)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 96 05:06:57 GMT
In article <323D7CA6.6E69@howellautomotive.com>, Gary wrote:
>First off their is no such thing as a Zero emission vehicle,
Ummm.... Not true. A solar powered vehicle is completly zero emission.
Granted, these days they aren't very practicle, but that doesn't mean they
don't exist.The solar car at MSU (montana state) can cruise at 30 mph on solar
power alone on a sunny day.
>Yes they would be better for the smog problem in the city, but what right does
> a city
>have to move the smog to the country where the coal fired generators are making
> the
>electric
Just because electric vehicles get their power from "the country" doesn't mean
the smog will move there (to the country). Smog arrises from the use of
gasoline, not coal.
>Also since most of the crashes of automobiles happen in urban settings, have
> you given
>any thought to the lead acid batteries being broken up on the streets of the
> cities.
>The risk of environmental damage from electric cars is to great, until the lead
> acid
>battery can be replaced with a envirnmentaly friendly one. The used batteries
> also
>create a major problem in the over crowded land fills, not to mention the
> environmental
>risk of transporting this hazardous waste. The world is not ready for an
> electric car
True, the world is not ready for an electric car, but only because of people
like you. The technology definetly needs to be better, but it's come a long
way. A normal lead acid battery is over 90% recyclable. While the problem of
acid spills in accidents still exists, batteries are becoming more and more
"environmentally friendly" every day.
>Yes it has been presented before. And the technology is not there, and the
> enternal
>combustion engine is still them most environmetaly friendly form of transport.
The whole transportation problem boils down to energy consumption. Obviously,
to move something from A to B is going to take energy, the trick is to be able
to do it as efficiently as possible. Internal combustion engines are between
25 to 30 percent efficient. Electric vehicles are around 90 percent efficient.
Additionally, electric vehicles have the ability to store energy (in a useful
form) simply by sitting in the sun (with solar panels), whereas "normal" cars
simply get so hot they make most people turn on the air conditioning. So you
end up using MORE energy as a result of the build up of solar energy in an
un-useful form. EV's don't use energy when idling, they don't make half as
much noise as an conventional car (sound is another form of energy), and they
can can convert some of their kinetic (energy from movement) energy back into
electrical energy (through the use of regenerative braking). Electric motors
become more efficient as they get warmer, combustion engines become less
efficient. The list goes on...... Now how can you say the Internal Combustion
engine is the most environmentally friendly of them all? Have you ever been to
LA??
You made a _somewhat_ valid point by saying the pollution (notice I
don't say smog) problem will increase closer to the power plants. However, the
production of our transportation energy in power plants rather than in each
indivdual car is still advantageous. Let's pretend that a solution arises that
allows us to produce energy more efficiently. With electric cars, you simply
have to "upgrade" the power plant and you get a more efficient supply of power
to every car. Even if you come up with a new internal combustion engine that
is more efficient, you still have all those thousands of other cars that are
innefficient. You can apply the same logic with pollution management. Its much
easier to place an extra filter of some sort on top of the smokestacks in a
power plant than to put one on each individual tailpipe.
And what about distribution of energy to the individual vehicles. WIth
an electric car, the energy travels down electric lines from the power plant
with a loss of 5 or 10 percent. In the worst case, (coal plants) the power
plant has to get its energy from a mine that is presumably in the vicinity of
the plant. Now let's think about gasoline for a minute. First, oil must be
pumped out of the ground. Then it must be trucked to the ocean where it is put
on an oil tanker (Well, in the US, I think about 50% of our oil comes from
overseas...not positive on that one though), shipped accross the ocean (with
the potential spilling everywhere creating an ecological disaster), where it
is then placed on another truck and shipped to a refinery. FURTHER energy is
then used to refine this oil again and again until you get gasoline. Once
again it is then loaded onto trucks and shipped to the thousands of gas
stations throughout the country. Now, which method do you think would use more
energy?
There are still problems with electric vehicles such as practicality
(very limited range) and storage, but this doesn't mean they should be
discarded as an unviable solution. These problems will be worked out
eventually as the technology improves. And how can we expidite the improvement
of the technology? By buying electric cars (for those of us for which it is a
practical alternitive) to show that there is a market for these new vehicles.
Greg Foltz
gfoltz@cs.montana.edu
Montana State University
Subject: Re: electric vehicles
From: gfoltz@cs.montana.edu (Greg Foltz)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 96 05:06:57 GMT
In article <323D7CA6.6E69@howellautomotive.com>, Gary wrote:
>First off their is no such thing as a Zero emission vehicle,
Ummm.... Not true. A solar powered vehicle is completly zero emission.
Granted, these days they aren't very practicle, but that doesn't mean they
don't exist.The solar car at MSU (montana state) can cruise at 30 mph on solar
power alone on a sunny day.
>Yes they would be better for the smog problem in the city, but what right does
> a city
>have to move the smog to the country where the coal fired generators are making
> the
>electric
Just because electric vehicles get their power from "the country" doesn't mean
the smog will move there (to the country). Smog arrises from the use of
gasoline, not coal.
>Also since most of the crashes of automobiles happen in urban settings, have
> you given
>any thought to the lead acid batteries being broken up on the streets of the
> cities.
>The risk of environmental damage from electric cars is to great, until the lead
> acid
>battery can be replaced with a envirnmentaly friendly one. The used batteries
> also
>create a major problem in the over crowded land fills, not to mention the
> environmental
>risk of transporting this hazardous waste. The world is not ready for an
> electric car
True, the world is not ready for an electric car, but only because of people
like you. The technology definetly needs to be better, but it's come a long
way. A normal lead acid battery is over 90% recyclable. While the problem of
acid spills in accidents still exists, batteries are becoming more and more
"environmentally friendly" every day.
>Yes it has been presented before. And the technology is not there, and the
> enternal
>combustion engine is still them most environmetaly friendly form of transport.
The whole transportation problem boils down to energy consumption. Obviously,
to move something from A to B is going to take energy, the trick is to be able
to do it as efficiently as possible. Internal combustion engines are between
25 to 30 percent efficient. Electric vehicles are around 90 percent efficient.
Additionally, electric vehicles have the ability to store energy (in a useful
form) simply by sitting in the sun (with solar panels), whereas "normal" cars
simply get so hot they make most people turn on the air conditioning. So you
end up using MORE energy as a result of the build up of solar energy in an
un-useful form. EV's don't use energy when idling, they don't make half as
much noise as an conventional car (sound is another form of energy), and they
can can convert some of their kinetic (energy from movement) energy back into
electrical energy (through the use of regenerative braking). Electric motors
become more efficient as they get warmer, combustion engines become less
efficient. The list goes on...... Now how can you say the Internal Combustion
engine is the most environmentally friendly of them all? Have you ever been to
LA??
You made a _somewhat_ valid point by saying the pollution (notice I
don't say smog) problem will increase closer to the power plants. However, the
production of our transportation energy in power plants rather than in each
indivdual car is still advantageous. Let's pretend that a solution arises that
allows us to produce energy more efficiently. With electric cars, you simply
have to "upgrade" the power plant and you get a more efficient supply of power
to every car. Even if you come up with a new internal combustion engine that
is more efficient, you still have all those thousands of other cars that are
innefficient. You can apply the same logic with pollution management. Its much
easier to place an extra filter of some sort on top of the smokestacks in a
power plant than to put one on each individual tailpipe.
And what about distribution of energy to the individual vehicles. WIth
an electric car, the energy travels down electric lines from the power plant
with a loss of 5 or 10 percent. In the worst case, (coal plants) the power
plant has to get its energy from a mine that is presumably in the vicinity of
the plant. Now let's think about gasoline for a minute. First, oil must be
pumped out of the ground. Then it must be trucked to the ocean where it is put
on an oil tanker (Well, in the US, I think about 50% of our oil comes from
overseas...not positive on that one though), shipped accross the ocean (with
the potential spilling everywhere creating an ecological disaster), where it
is then placed on another truck and shipped to a refinery. FURTHER energy is
then used to refine this oil again and again until you get gasoline. Once
again it is then loaded onto trucks and shipped to the thousands of gas
stations throughout the country. Now, which method do you think would use more
energy?
There are still problems with electric vehicles such as practicality
(very limited range) and storage, but this doesn't mean they should be
discarded as an unviable solution. These problems will be worked out
eventually as the technology improves. And how can we expidite the improvement
of the technology? By buying electric cars (for those of us for which it is a
practical alternitive) to show that there is a market for these new vehicles.
Greg Foltz
gfoltz@cs.montana.edu
Montana State University
Subject: Re: Publishing Scholarly Work on the Web -- opinion anyone?
From: dking@amphissa.com (David N. King)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 96 07:16:01 GMT
In article <51kk84$a0c@news.esrin.esa.it>, Nick Kew wrote:
>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.
This is a terrific idea. It was first implemented three decades ago with the
MEDLINE system. There are currently several thousand bibliographic databases
that provide citations and abstracts "pointing" to the printed publications.
A few hundred are widely available through "vendors" like Dialog. Some of
them are already migrating to the web. MEDLINE is available on the web thru
several sites, the best public access being via the National Library of
Medicine's GratefulMed web-based system. Others are getting there.
>
>My software will index and cross-reference the abstracts,
There are already many systems that do this, but the fact is, 20+ years of
R&D; has not yet resulted in a machine indexing system that is satisfying.
Mechanically, you can do it pretty easily; in practical terms, it produces
marginal intellectual access to conceptual content. But maybe your
parsing, weighting, and automated Boolean algorithms are better than anyone
else has conceived yet, and I'd really like to see it, if it is. Have you
published it? If you have, I'm sure you are aware of the large research
literature on the problem of machine indexing of scholarly/technical
literature. If all you are planning to do is parse words from abstracts into
a database searchable with a typical web search engine query mechanism,
thanks but I'll pass.
Of course, that all assumes you have legal right to use the abstracts to
create a publicly accessible, searchable database and serve up the
abstracts. Have you discussed this idea with publishers and agreed upon an
acceptable framework for putting their copyrighted material up on your web
site? Or were you planning to simply download the abstracts from existing
databases, capitalizing on the work of those who create and maintain those
databases? Have you negotiated the legal aspects of that? Or were you
planning to write and keyboard your own abstracts? That's an option with
fewer legal hurdles, but it sounds like a lot of work.
>and has the option
>to hold any or all of the full papers online according to publisher choice.
Ah, now we are getting to the present. You are interested in creating a
digital library! Comparable to a traditional library, only in electronic
form. Tools for bibliographic control and access (electronic indexes with
abstracts) to a collection of literature in electronic form, all accessible
from one electronic "location." Great idea! There is a substantial
literature on this which I'm sure you are familiar with. ACM devoted a
special issue to it last year. There is an electronic journal on the subject
and of course there is a wealth of literature in traditional paper format.
You can find a bit on the web too. Digital libraries. Great idea!
There are some notable R&D; projects under way. National Science Foundation
has funded, I think, 9 major R&D; projects to the tune of $25 million at
major institutions: U of Michigan, Berkeley, Illinois, Stanford, etc. Those
projects are getting under way. But a couple of projects got an
earlier start. Perhaps the most impressive to date is the Red Sage project
at UCSF which is now in its 3rd year. A collaboration between the UCSF
Library & Center for Knowledge Management, AT&T; Bell Labs, and 20 publishers
of the biomedical literature. It is pretty small-scale: 70 medical and
biomedical research journals, including the major titles in clinical
medicine -- bitmapped images of every printed content page including
graphics, tables, photos, etc. The electronic journal collection is linked
to the MEDLINE database with a top-notch forms-based web search interface
called Medsage. Every UCSF doctor, nurse, researcher, student, etc, with a
network link or web access has access to the electronic library from their
office desktop. Pretty slick! Yes, it is fully operational. (Access is
restricted to UCSF of course. If you are interested, you can find out more
at http://www.library.ucsf.edu)
Make a wild guesstimate of the size of the database. 70 journals, maybe 1000
pages per year in each, abstracts and citations, one per article. 3 years in
the collection. That's, let's see, only 210,000 pages of articles. Not all
that small when you think about it, but manageable. But of course, there are
3500 journals in medicine alone. There are around 6 million records in the
MEDLINE database, most with abstracts. Consider the kind of system required
to manage and serve that up. How about if we just limit the system to the
top 500 journals? Maybe 50,000 articles per year. That's only 50,000
abstracts. Then throw in all the journal pages for those articles. Better
limit the collection to just the last couple of years, I guess. That's,
let's see, maybe around 1,000,000 pages of content, plus 100,000 abstracts
plus a database for searching. But to be a major digital library (a Harvard
or Illinois or Berkeley), expand that to include all of the quality journals
in all areas published; a minimum collection would be 50,000 titles out of
the 200,000+ published worldwide. And they can't limit it to the last year
or two; the have to meet the research and academic needs of their
university. I can't add that high.
Consider the mess of irrelevant junk you get trying to search using current
web-based search engines, and that the web at present has relatively little
meaningful content. Multiply that by millions of content-rich pages
annually. This is not something one just does overnight and serves up on
a little Indy. One needs equipment and technical staff to deal with the
technology (easy to come by if you can afford it) and needs people
knowledgeable about conceptual design and construction of complex
knowledge-based systems (harder to come by) and needs economic models and
evolutionary development strategies (virtually non-existant).
But the current, more serious obstacles are economic and legal. You might
want to consider those aspects in developing your system. Do you have any
publishers signed up yet to participate in your project? Have you figured
out how you will pay them for the right to provide access to their
copyrighted publications? And how to cover the costs you incur from them?
There are very thorny problems involved in this, and the publishers don't
really know what economic models to work with, what the "marketplace" of
electronic publishing looks like, or how to price their electronic product
yet. But you can bet for sure that they are not going to give away their
product or sit by and watch others distribute it without reimbursing them.
The long tradition of libraries providing free access to the literature
disguises the truth: information is not free, it is very expensive.
>
>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.
This idea has been floated by a few people. To date, there has not been a
mad rush by authors to abandon the established schorlarly publishing
channels. The realm of print publishing is too closely intertwined with
academic and professional recognition, grants and funding, careers and
livelihood. If you give a researcher the choice of publishing in a major
print journal like "Science" or an IEEE journal, or just tossing their paper
(their ideas and work -- their intellectual property) out there on the web
for others to "contribute to" using collaboration software, I don't think
you'd have a hard time guessing which he would choose. This is a nifty idea
conceptually and an attractive one technologically. It will be interesting
to see if it ever catches on. I'd say that chances are very slim in the
short run, but may be marginally better down the road in a very few
specialized areas like law and engineering.
>
>The technology is ready: we need only apply it!
I'd say current technology is not yet ready on the scale that is needed,
although it is getting there. I'd say the current crop of typical web search
engines and indexing systems are inadequate for current web content and
completely worthless for anything more substantive. But the web is a very
solid foundation for growth and improvement, and there will be real progress
made over the next 5 years.
I think it likely, in the short term, that we'll see print publications
migrating to the web via digital libraries -- first, university libraries
subscribing to electronic versions of print journals with access limited to
their campus (this is already happening per the Red Sage example), then,
professional societies providing access to the journals they publish to
their members free and to non-members for a fee (this is beginning now too;
IEEE journals are going up now for example), and a few publishers testing
marketing models for publishing on the web (Journal of Biological Chemistry
and a few others are doing that now). Then we'll see commercial sites run by
"vendors" of the literature with professional indexing/abstracting linked to
electronic collections (still a year or two away).
Of course, all of the above is just my personal opinion, and I'd be just as
glad to be wrong about any of my predictions. :-)
David N. King
Subject: Re: Carbon in the Atmosphere
From: Leonard Evens
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 10:55:22 -0500
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
>
> Argh. The climate system seems to have recovered stably, and
> repeatedly to something like its initial regime, after large
> (dT > 1 K) sudden (t = 1-3 years) radiative perturbations,
> namely VEI 6-7 events. I'm contending that this is evidence
> of some stability, as one might expect from Le Chatelier's
> principle, and the absence of instability to high frequency
> perturbations. I also noted that this is not an absolute
> stability, there is evidence that sudden dT > 10 K will
> cause a climate shift.
>
It seems to me that you are engaging in argument by analogy. True,it
is scientificly informed analogy, but unless you can present some more
detailed argument on the basis of Le Chatelier's Principle, what you say
is just so much `academic tea' speculation. Note that the IPCC and the
climatologists they quote have engaged in actual research on these
matters which has been published in peer reviewed journals. If you can
present a well reasoned argument that the climate is basically stable
and impervious to perturbations, even large perturbations, which you
seem to have done the last time you raised this point, perhaps, as a
practicing scientist you should submit that paper to a peer reviewed
journal.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois
Subject: Re: Freon R12 is Safe
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 15:22:18 GMT
Dodge Boy wrote:
>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>> What a pity, you wasted so much time spreading so much
>> ignorance. The *really* smart people go and get the Ozone
>> FAQ from the FTP archives at rtfm/mit.edu in
Oops, that should be rtfm.mit.edu
>> pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/sci/environment, and learn facts,
>> rather than swallow nonsense posted by you.
>>If this is site is maintained by the an environment group than it will
>most likely slanted toward their point of view, and a site by the pro
>Freon people will be slanted toward their view.
That site is the official *Usenet* archive site for FAQs that have
been approved for posting to the news.answers groups.
The Ozone Depletion FAQ is also posted monthly to sci.environment,
hence the subdirectory above. It is an excellent document,
comprehensively detailing current scientific knowledge without bias.
>The truth will lie somewhere in the middle, between what both
>group have to say. So "Smart People" will base their opinion off
>more than one sorce of information, not one.
Why don't you get the FAQ and read it - it is unbiased, fairly
comprehensive, and contains plenty of references to more
detailed literature...
>And the Volcanic eruptions do release ozone damaging chlorine radicals
>in large quanities.
You definitely need to read the FAQ, otherwise I'm going to assume
you aren't a "smart person". If you were, you wouldn't confuse
the stratospheric chlorine from CFCs ( implicated in the ozone hole )
with volcanic hydrogen chloride that is washed out of the troposphere.
Incidently, the hydrogen chloride isn't a chlorine radical.
Please read the FAQ....
Bruce Hamilton
Subject: Re: Capping CO2 emissions at 1990 levels
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 07:53:03 GMT
charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>In article <9157cc$7270.3d4@HERMES>,
> B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) wrote:
>>Few industries can afford to waste energy in the
>>new global markets of today, and the harsh reality
>>for some US industries is that they haven't been
>>paying as much attention to energy conservation
>>as their Japanese and European counterparts - who
>>have to pay higher prices for energy. There is
>>huge scope for improvement -....
>Here, you are speculating on something you know very little
>about. It is not an industry that tries to be energy
>efficient - it is the chemical engineers assigned to monitor
>individual process unit performance who try to be energy
>efficient.
No. It is the industry. I would also point out that in
much of industry, chemical engineers are not
charged with improving/optimising energy efficiency.
I've encountered chemical engineers, heating and
ventilation engineers, mechanical engineers,
electrical engineers, and analytical chemists
as in being placed in charge of energy efficiency,
depending on the industry and individual skills.
> I have spent the last 16 years or so continually
>trying to think of ways to obtain production with less
>energy, because it makes economic sense to do so. I don't
>need a novice environmentalist telling me that I can make
>on-specification production with less energy. The whole idea
>is totally ridiculous, and the implication that industry uses
>more energy than they need to is totally ridiculous.
Unfortunately for the US petroleum industry, they
appear to have completely ignored your ability
to decide that they are at maximum energy
efficiency. The industry has joined in partnership
with the DOE.
From the WWW, at a DOE site....
" The Department of Energy and the U.S. petroleum
refining industry are discussing the establishment of a
partnership to develop new process technologies that
will improve the industry's global competitiveness while
helping to achieve the government's broad national goals
of energy efficiency and environmental improvement.
The Refinery of the Future strategy will be based upon an
industry-generated vision of the industry s future.
Cost-shared projects are concentrated in just five areas:
Novel process development
Process modeling, analysis, and simulation
Fundamental catalysis
Gaseous emissions
Component development "
Seems the petroleum industry didn't realise such
endeavours were futile - perhaps a call to the API
is needed to inform them of their error....
> It should be obvious even to an environmentalist,
>that individual companies cannot afford to spend one million
>dollars on an energy conservation project if they only save
>one hundred thousand dollars per year from the capital
>investment.
It also seems that chemical engineers have a problem
understanding that if energy costs more, then justification
for energy conservation usually also increases....
I could look up the comparative costs of energy from
different nations, but the data I have is probably
outdated, however Japanese and EU energy
costs are considerably higher than the US. I could
also note that the high price of energy also means
that the average French automobile in 1990 achieved
fuel economy of 8l/100km, versus 10l/100km for the US
average fuel ecomony. ( " Tomorrow's Engines and
Fuels " A.Douaud. Hydrocarbon Processing.
February 1995 p.55-61. ).
>>There is no doubt that the low price of fossil energy
>>in the USA has meant that efficiency and conservation
>>haven't been considered as carefully as elsewhere,
>>thus there are going to be areas where the 80/20 rule
>>will provide advantages to US industry.
>Oh, but conservation was carefully considered when the Arabs
>cut off the supply of oil in the '70's. Those plant changes
>are still in place today.
BP has reduced their refinery energy performance index
from 170 ( 1980 ), to 140 ( 1994 ). From " Health, Safety and
Environment Report 1994 ", BP August 1995
- I believe the data may also be available on their www site
at www.bp.com ).
Thus, whatever the situation was after the oil shocks,
that hasn't stopped BP from continuing to improve the
energy efficiency of their plants. I've no doubt that
they will continue to do so.
The current and projected situation in the US
is considered in " Formulating a Response to the
Clean Air Act " M.R.Khan and J.G.Reynolds.
Chemtech June 1996 p56-61. They suggest that
the cost of complying with the stationary source
provisions of the CAA will be a more significant
contribution to RFG cost in the year 2010 than
refining/oxygenates. That is a major incentive
to review processes and priorities.
I can't help your negative attitude, but it seems
that some in the US industry are approaching
the forthcoming challenge positively, so my
optimism about the undoubted skills of US
industry to respond remains undiminished..
Bruce Hamilton
Subject: Our Planet Last week (13-09/20-09) (weekly journal)
From: dennis.van.paassen@tip.nl ((((NEWS))))
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:35:49 GMT
Our planet last week is a weekly journal about natural disasters,
global pollution, and natural and environmental topics.
You can subscribe for free to receive a weekly email copy. If you
are interested just sent an email message to:
dennis.van.paassen@tip.nl
and fill in "SUBSCRIBE" as subject
You can also visit the State of the Earths Website at url:
http://www1.tip.nl/users/t000208/index.htm
State of the Earth Magazine --- The Creators of Awareness!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tropical Storms
------------------------
The strong wind produced by the typhoon Fausto killed one tourist
in the state of California (U.S). Several roofs were blown of their
houses.
+++
Hortense , was the first cyclone in 20 years wich reached the Canadian
main-land. Trees were its major victims, further it brought a lot rain
+++
Tropical strom Violet developed above open water last week and is
now headed for Japan.
+++
Hurricane Willi wich has been active above the waters near Hong-Kong
dissapeared before it could be a threat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EarthQuakes
--------------------
The western part of Croatia wich was hit by a heavy earthquake at
the beginning of this month did have some aftershocks last week.
One of them pointed 5.8 on the Richter Scale. Again, the historical
buildings were further damaged.
+++
The Earth also moved in Marocco (4.4),Algeria (3.7), Nicaragua (5.5)
Turkey (5.0),Pakistan (4.8) ,Afghanistan (5.4), the Indonesian Island
Sulawesi(5.4), the Fillipines(4.5), Australia(4.3) and San Francisco
(2.9).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiation
--------------
The level of radiation in and around the nuclear reactor of Tsjernobyl
(Ukraine) has risen last week. The three sensors wich have been in-
stalled since 1986 are showing a tremendous increasment of neutrons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volcanos
--------------
On the carribean Island of Montserrat a volcano errupted. The Lava
burned several houses and the Capitol Plymouth was completely co-
vered with clouds of ashes. Since the erruptions have started, july
last year, at least 4,000 people have left the area to stay with rela-
tives or in shelters.
+++
The volcano Pavlot at the coast of Alaska brought some spectacle last
week, throwing up lava stones as big as cars. However scientists are
reporting that the erruptions will cause no threat to the citizens.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:01:01 GMT
In article <843255611snz@daflight.demon.co.uk>, Hugh Easton wrote :
[snip]
>In other words, the rise in tropical ocean temperatures is almost certainly
>due to global warming. Since there is no warming in polar regions, the actual
>pattern that global warming is following is completely the opposite of what
>climate models predict. If they are so wrong about something as fundamental
>as that, their predictions for future climate are hardly likely to be
>accurate!
>
>
>--
>Hugh Easton
Consider the global climate to be a complex conglomeration of coupled
oscillators, combining both positive and negative feedback mechanisms.
Any conglomeration of oscillators, when fed extra energy, will tend to
increase the amplitude of oscillations at all frequencies.
That includes the zero frequency or permanent polarisation.
This zero frequency is manifested in Earth's climate as a permanent
polarisation of temperature between the equatorial zone and the poles.
An increase in the amplitude of the zero frequency, necessarily
implies that the equatorial zone gets hotter, and the poles get
colder.
Just as the study above would appear to indicate.
A further manifestation of the increase in amplitude at all
frequencies can be found in the increase in magnitude and frequency of
severe storms, or more accurately, in the frequency with which climate
related records are broken.
Treating the entire climatological system as a system of interacting
coupled oscillators, provides an analytical tool which easily yields
various predictions, without any computing power at all that
climatologists are hard pressed to match, even with the most powerful
super computers.
I have previously posted similar sentiments on this forum, and have
been roundly flamed.
I have no doubt this will also be the result this time.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on
temperature.
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Subject: Re: Capping CO2 emissions at 1990 levels
From: jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
Date: 22 Sep 1996 14:31:57 GMT
In <521sls$6rs_001@pm1-88.hal-pc.org> charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
writes:
>In article <521e93$fl@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
> jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>>In <9157cc$7270.3d4@HERMES> B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce
>Hamilton)
>>writes:
>>>
>>>charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>>>>It is becoming obvious to me at this point that some of
>these
>>>>environmental groups are more interested in dismantling
>U.S.
>>>>industry than in limiting emissions.
>>>
>>>Well, you're entitled to your perception, but the harsh
>reality
>>>is that both the science of climate change and the Rio
>>>convention are also under attack from a industry group that
>>>comprises of coal, oil, utility, automobile and chemical
>>>companies ( the Global Climate Coalition ).
>>
>>These two observations are entirely consistent with
>>each other... the industry attacks those who attack it.
>>
>
>Your comment is a bit too cerebral in this instance. This is
>not a case of an "industry" attacking environmentalists.
There certainly are economic *interests* - abbreviated
here by the word "industry" - that stand behind
the resistance to the environmentalist juggernaut -
which is also, of course, propelled by powerful
vested interests. The difference is that the
industry serves itself by serving the public
at large (serving the customer who is always right)
while bureaucrats, politicians and ideologues serve only
themselves, or special interests.
>There are real people, real jobs, real dependents, and real
>financial responsibilities behind the statistics that people
>quote when they talk about the number of manufacturing jobs
>that the USA has recently lost.
No argument here. However, I am consoled
by the thought that people in poorer countries
who get these jobs may need them even more.
> While environmentalists mean
>well,
I doubt it. They don't mean well for *others*.
Many of them feel crowded
by their fellow human beings, and prefer
them not to exist in such quantities. That's
not "meaning well", that's misanthropy.
Most of them feel disturbed by
rapid, uncontrolled technical progress that makes
them irrelevant. That's technophobia and
aversion to change - nothing benign about it.
Their leaders and would-be leaders want control,
want power. And of course environmentalism is
by now an established industry, with many careers
depending on it. The misanthropy, the fear of change,
the power-lust, and the self-interest come first, the
seemingly benign arguments are used to rationalize them.
>and while I tend to agree with them in principle on
>many of their assertions, they don't seem to know where to
>"draw the line".
The above can explain why.
>Their never ceasing insistence that
>industry is still emitting too much pollution is slowly
>driving industry out of the USA and into countries which have
>more lax environmental requirements. The silly thing about
>my whole argument in this particular case, is the fact that
>by going so far in their demands, environmentalists may well
>be contributing to short term increases in global pollution
>as industry re-locates to countries with more lax laws.
But at home they increase the mass of regulations,
the numbers and powers of environmental bureaucracy,
the number and prestige of their academic positions: they
get more power and influence. That's victory for them.
They are trying to extend this system abroad through
international institutions, gaining global
control. This is the real issue at stake, and not
pollution per se.
(And CO2 is not really pollution: it is quite beneficial
for many crops and other plants. There's no known reason
to limit it!)
>Thus, while labelling me an "attacker" of the environmental
>industry, you are simplifying this issue considerably, and
>probably doing injustice to U.S. industry and the
>environmental movement.
I did simplify it very much - because my
point was purely logical and local to the text.
The word "attack" was not used pejoratively; in this
context, it was equivalent to "self-defense".
( "Cet animal est tres mechant:
Quand on l'attaque, il ce defend."
That's French, and means: "This animal
is vicious: when attacked, it defends itself!")
And of course I was not speaking of you personally.
Subject: Re: Capping CO2 emissions at 1990 levels
From: dlibby@facstaff.wisc.edu (Donald L. Libby)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 10:07:19
In article <521sm1$6rs_002@pm1-88.hal-pc.org> charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) writes:
>From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
>Subject: Re: Capping CO2 emissions at 1990 levels
>Date: Sat, 21 Sep 96 23:10:57 GMT
>In article ,
> dlibby@facstaff.wisc.edu (Donald L. Libby) wrote:
>>>From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
>>>Subject: Re: Capping CO2 emissions at 1990 levels
>>>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 20:53:42 GMT
>>snip
>>>In the final analysis, my
>>>industry has a very big constraint imposed on it: it must
>>>be efficient, but product specifications and quality cannot
>>>be allowed to suffer.
>>
>>Too narrow. The efficiency of your industry is not the
>>problem. The inefficient use of your industry's product is
>>a problem, but not the whole problem. A much bigger problem
>>IMO is the utilization of coal under current technology.
>>Substitution of fuel oil or diesel for coal in electric
>>power generation is one partial solution to that problem
>>that would benefit your industry. There are winners and
>>losers in the free enterprise system.
>>
>Substitution of natural gas for coal would provide an even
>bigger improvement in CO2 emissions. Naturally, this would
>cause natural gas prices to rise, and the consumer would have
>to pay more for electricity.
And higher prices cause producers to rush in and competition drives prices
lower and consumers pay less for electricity. That's how markets work.
What's your point?
>>In terms of the whole society, or the whole globe for that
>>matter, we want to maximize the winning and minimize the
>>losing while preventing "dangerous anthropogenic
>>interference with the climate system". That places a new
>>very big constraint on your industry in the final analysis:
>>environmental quality cannot be allowed to suffer.
>>
>>-dl
>If things were this simple! Every activity has an economic
>and environmental impact. Often these two (environmental and
>economic) are at odds with one another. When they are (as in
>this case), the issues get more complex, particularly when
>people want to change things after a hugh infrastructure has
>already been built based on the old way of doing things. If
>we have the patience to deal with this problem with
>technology improvements (e.g., fuel cells, solar voltaics,
>etc.), there are likely to be far more winners than if we
>insist that changes be implemented via regulation.
>Thanks for your thoughtful feedback.
I share your skepticism about regulation, but not about taxes. Regulation
is tactical, taxes are strategic. You're right that technical substitution
is the way to go, if used properly, taxes are just an accelerator to speed
up the technical shift. Taxes (as a stick) take away incentives to pollute,
and subsidies (the carrot) give out incentives to develop and adopt less
polluting alternatives. The reason we might be a little impatient waiting
for technical shifts to occur for internal economic reasons is that the
longer we wait, the higher the risk of incurring REALLY BIG environmental
costs.
I've just finished reading a book called _The Greenhouse Gambit:
Business and Investment Responses to Climate Change_ by Douglas Cogan (1992,
Investor Responsibility Research Group, Washington DC). The gambit is a
move in chess where a lesser piece is sacrified to gain strategic
advantage. The greenhouse analogy is that we sacrifice a little now to reap
great rewards later - the essence of investment. The good news is, we may
actually profit from energy efficiency improvements so the short run "cost"
may actually be negative.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>There is no freedom without economic freedom. Remember that the next time
>a politician says he needs to raise tax rates!
In a democracy, we are the government, and we may occasionally decide to
self-impose taxes as a means toward the common good. The carbon-tax and BTU-
tax "trial balloons" got shot down (how about that for industry feedback!)
but none the less they sent a warning like advertising blimps: coal bad,
gas good. Business is booming for gas turbine manufacturers.
-dl
Subject: Re: Do any religions address the protection of wildlife?
From: "Tim and Cheryl Day"
Date: 22 Sep 1996 15:30:09 GMT
Both Judaism and Christianity maintain that we'll all be held accountable
for our actions... including how responsible we are with the environment,
which, according to the Bible, is God's creation. If everything was made
by Him, and He said it was good, well, you'd think that it deserved our
protection. You won't find outright environmentalism in the Bible, except
for some rules on crop rotation, and things like that, because it seeks to
correct the core problem, not just superficial manifestations. Simply put,
the Bible would attribute our abuse of the environment to greed,
carelessness, lack of submission to God's authority (and respect for His
creation), etc, and rather than dictate our behavior towards the
environment, it details God's efforts to correct our spiritual problems,
out of which all kinds of abuses spring. According to the Bible, we were
created to love Him and be loved by Him, and the farther away we get from
that ideal, the more creation around us suffers. A major concept of the
Christian faith, for example, is that death is a result of Adam and Eve's
rebellion in the Garden of Eden.
Anyway, that's an overview of what I think the Christian perspective is,
according to my understanding of the Bible. A bit long... If you'd like
specific biblical references, you can email me
Tim Day
day@jax-inter.net
cheshire@idir.net wrote in article <523gs5$t7g@sequoia.idir.net>...
>Does anyone know where I might find some strong connections between
>religion and the protection of wildlife? I have long thought that the
>Golden Rule needs to be expanded to include other species.