Newsgroup sci.environment 104650

Directory

Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz (uncleal0@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Strongly tapping together two quartz pebbles in the dark will give you an 
: adequate glow for dark-adapted eyes.  Pulling cellophane tape off the 
: roll in the dark will also do it.
Unsealing prestickified envelopes (you know what I mean) gives a nice
display too.
Ian

Nick Eyre  wrote for all to see:
>In article <3246ab0a.71583726@nntp.st.usm.edu>, Harold Brashears
> writes
[edited]
>>I will repeat the rest of the question: If you know what a peer review
>>consists of, in what way is this government funded report similar?
>>
>I thought we had been through all this before:
>1. It is not Govt funded in the normal sense - being funded through UNEP
>and the WMO, both of which are supported by a wide range of Govts with
>different views.  Even if it was, lots of Govt funded research is
>published in peer reviewed articles, so your obsession with public
>funding is irrelevant.
No it is not.  Are you saying that no one who wrote that article was
concerned about its affect on his future grant status?  I am sure this
was not your intent.  If then, they were aware of the effect on future
grant status, how are you so certain that they would never allow this
to affect what they write?
>2. It was reviewed by a huge range of people, largely in their own time
>and without Govt support or interference.
>3. The comments of individual reviewers were not published.  
>4. The review comments were reflected in the final report. 
I am still uncertain you know what the difference between this and a
peer review is, so I will go over it again:
In all scholarly work with multiple authors there is the writing
phase, one person or a small group of people determine who will
contribute, how and what.  This is then put together into one lump.
The work then circulates, people suggest changes they would like, many
are made, many are argued about, etc.  Eventually some consensus, if
only of fatigue, emerges.
If the document is a report, not to be peer reviewed, it is generally
then submitted, often in draft form, to a person or relatively small
number of people, who read it, make suggestions or comments, and, in
some cases, demand changes.  These reviewers, as you pointed out
earlier, are known to everyone.
By contrast, in a peer review process, the reviewer(s) are anonymous.
They are not (usually) known to the author(s).  For reasons which only
you can enlighten us of, you seem to imply that this process of
anonymity is not important.  I would have to disagree with you, I
think it is central to the entire process, since it,  theoretically,
allows great freedom for the reviewer.  Without this anonymous aspect,
pressure can readily be brought on reviewers by other interested
parties. 
Regards, Harold
----------
"We do not need to be shoemakers to know if our shoes fit, and just as 
little have we any need to be professionals to acquire knowledge of 
matters of universal interest."
	---Georg Hegel, The Philosophy of Right, no. 58 (1821; tr. 1942)

Nick Eyre  wrote for all to see:
>In article <3246abbb.71760680@nntp.st.usm.edu>, Harold Brashears
> writes
>>Nick Eyre  wrote for all to see:
>>
>>>In article <3245b25d.7913087@nntp.st.usm.edu>, Harold Brashears
>>> writes
[edited]
>>I am sorry if I gave that impression, I cannot imagine how.  I was
>>commenting on the relative power of government and business.  In the
>>US, government spends a Billion dollars every six hours, 24 hours a
>>day and 6 days a week.  If that is not power superior to any
>>corporation, I would have difficulty definig it.  
>
>1. Business spends even more!
"Business" spends more?  Sure, in the aggregate.  Do you think they
all agree on how to spend the money?  DO you think they all can get
together to decide how much money you give them this year (only with
government help!)? 
It has been my experience that generally I can't get two to even
whistle "God Save the Queen" together, much less talk about how they
will get a police force to make you buy Wheaties instead of grits.
Since they are competitors, they generally do not have the same
interests.  
This is part of the reason that a collectivist economy is so
anti-human, in that it contains the elements of coercion as economic
policy.
>2. Governments are elected!
And your point is?
Business is much more vulnerable to the consumer than is the
government.  While it remains true that governments are elected, and
you express this every two years or so, no business survives without
satisfied customers every single day (except government enforced
monopolies, of course).  
If you do not believe me, look at the hundreds and thousands of
business, both large and small, that fail in the US each year.
>>
>>As for the UK, I was recently readin a biography of a UK government
>>official, and was so struck by one comment I remember it til this day.
>>The comment, from one high official to another was, "There is no way
>>we can do this unless we raise the price of prescription drugs by 5%".
>>Now that is power!  One group of officials, sitting in an office, and
>>deciding how much the whole country will pay for their prescriptions!
>>Irrespective of the manufacturer, the demand, any substitutes, and the
>>consumer, no way!  I don't care if your drugs are cheaper, that is
>>still raw power.
>
>Of course socialised medicine places more power in the hands of elected
>Govts and less in those of the drug companies - that is the point.  And
>it gives us a better health service than you have for much less money.
I won't argue health services, but if that is the point of giving up
your individual freedoms, I think you can make a better bargain for
them than drug prices.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
----
"Trade is the natural enemy of all violent passions.  Trade loves 
moderation, delights in compromise, and is most careful to avoid anger.  
...  Trade makes men independent of one another and gives them a high 
idea of their personal importance: it leads them to want to manage their 
own affairs and teaches them to succeed therein.  Hence it makes them 
inclined to liberty but disinclined to revolution."
	---Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 2, pt. 3, 
	ch. 21 (1840).

I am presently working on a project which will allow me to recognize the words 
"FREON", "refrigerant" and "coolant" in documents not written in English. 
Consequently I am requesting your assistance in obtaining the names and 
spelling, in the Roman alphabet, of these words in as many languages as 
possible. I realize that since many of these words were never meant to be 
written in English, there may be some difficulty in coming up with an English 
spelling. In those cases, it would be helpful if you could provide spelling 
options.
If anyone knows of a handy reference that would give me some of this info, I 
would appreciate hearing of that too.
Please e-mail responses to me at aggettd@ns.ec.gc.ca
TIA
Dave Aggett
Environment Canada

B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) writes:
> of life around the deep ocean plume. I hope the above is sufficient to
> indicate that CO2 capture and disposal are being seriously considered
> and researched, and aren't just sci.environment discussion material.
I gather there is a US NAS Proc. article discussing
in part "geo-engineering" solutions to climate change,
its 1991, I can dig out the exact ref if anyone wants it,
haven't read it myself - this is 2nd hand.
Oh, and I gather Schneider proposed some radical geo-engineering
solutions back in 1989 (again 2nd hand source, but can get
primary source if desired) ;-)

The Space Science and Engineering Center (SSEC) at the University of 
Wisconsin - Madison has a position open for a User and Software support 
person. This position is responsible for testing, documenting and training 
on SSEC developed Meteorological software package, McIDAS (Man computer 
Interactive Data Access System). The needs of our meteorological and earth 
science communities are rapidly changing as new concepts in remote sensing 
are developed. A person with a strong meteorological background, good 
communications skills and programming knowledge is needed to work with our 
development staff to continue the evolutionary process of the McIDAS 
package.
Qualifications required:	B.S. in Meteorology and strong 
communications skills. FORTRAN and C programming, McIDAS and UNIX 
experience are desirable.
The UW-Madison has a very competitive employee benefit package. SSEC is a 
research and development center with an international reputation in the 
Meteorological and Space Flight Hardware related communities. SSEC's 
mission includes the support of faculty led research, development, 
fabrication and implementation of space flight experiments, as well as the 
research and development of new meteorological research tools for national 
and international usage. Please send your cover letter, resume and salary 
requirements to: Bruce Hellmich, Personnel Manager, Space Science and 
Engineering Center, 1225 West Dayton, Madison, WI 53706.

Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: Leonard Evens  writes:
: > Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
: > >
Snip....:  
: BTW, the reason CO2 emissions were not a worry early on
: (eg no one really worried about runaway greehouse effects
: in the literature as far as I'm aware of) - _is_ Le Chatelier's
: Principle. 
It is not clear to me that LeChatelier#s Principle is 
appropriate for discussion chaotic systems such as
the atmosphere.  It is after all, at the bottom a
statement that all equilibria that can be reached
by changing conditions infinitesimally are stable.
(i.e. there are no metastable equilibrium points
such as the top of a hill for a rolling ball).
Josh Halpern
: 

In article 96Sep21091555@Steam.stanford.edu, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
>Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
>
>In article <51vm0q$q1i@lex.zippo.com> dietz@cin.net (Paul F. Dietz) writes:
>   > 
>   > David Burton  wrote:
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > >	I don't have the SA reference but check out:
>   > 
>   > >	1. What's So Bad About CFC's, Machine Design, 22 Oct 1993.
>   > 
>   > >	2. The $5 Trillion Mistake, Machine Design, 24 Jan 1994.
>   > 
>   > 
>   > And after you have done that, revise (radically downward) your opinion
>   > of Machine Design magazine.
>   > 
>   > BTW, isn't a little strange to use a mech eng trade rag as a primary
>   > source on atmospheric chemistry?   Reviews of Geophysics would be
>   > more appropriate, don't you think? 
>
>As a mechanical engineering trade magazine _Machine Design_ might have
>a more accurate view of the costs that he CFC ban will impose than
>does _Reviews of Geophysics_,
I would have thought it very unlikely that _Reviews of Geophysics_ would
come up with a figure greater than $5 Trillion (or even more unlikely
a negative figure) which would be required to produce worse accuracy
Than what from the title appears a blatent piece of doomsaying.
---
Pete Owens
P.Owens@dl.ac.uk 

In article ,
Rod Adams   wrote:
[...]
>It is also absurd to believe that potable water piping is "safety
>related", that a small leak in a seawater cooling system should
>cause a plant to be shut down for a week (currently in progress in
>New England) or to believe that it is logical to shut down three
>functional plants during the height of the cooling season because
>of procedural issues related to refueling.
Any portion of a potable water system which is located where its
failure could lead to failure in safety-related systems, such as near
safety-related electrical equipment, is considered safety-related
itself. But not the entire potable water system.
>Unfortunately, most "nukes" refuse to publically criticize stupidity.
>Perhaps that is because most have the contractor mentality that they
>will accept any job, no matter how ridiculous as long as the customer
>is willing to pay the appropriat hourly fees.
Cases of stupidity are routinely reported in Incident Reports. These
are public records. 
>People state over and over again that new nuclear plants cannot
>compete because "the capital costs are too high." The fact of the
>matter is that capital costs (and most other costs) are controlable!
>We have to sharpen our pencils, infuse ourselves with the knowledge of
>what measures really enhance safety, and eliminate excess costs 
>wherever possible.
Great half-time pep talk. but of little practical consequence.
>This might even eliminate some nuclear jobs in the short term, but
>at least there will be a future for those of us who are far too young
>to retire, far to stubborn to leave the industry, and far too aware
>of the limitations of our competitors to think that nuclear power
>cannot compete.
You have confused your own argument about why capital costs can be kept
down (new construction) with layoffs of existing people
(non-construction personnel). There are virtually no current nuclear
construction jobs to eliminate.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

In article <523kg1$igt@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
jw  wrote:
>
>The voodoo analogy is unexpectedly apt -
>it says more than just the word "unscientific" would 
>say. Reliance on mere *models*  is a form of 
>*sympathetic magic*, just as a rain-dance is.
        This might almost sound like other than ignorant
     babbling if one didn't take five seconds to realize
     that all scientific research that isn't purely and
     solely measurement proceeds by the use of models.
     "F=ma" is a model; "E=mc**2" is a model; etc.   If
     it isn't the real thing, then it's a model.  Perhaps
     this poster could enlighten we shamens as to how we
     could proceed in a more enlightened fashion without
     the use of models.
                                                         skb
-- 
%  Steven K. Baum (baum@astra.tamu.edu) // Physical Oceanography Dept. //
%  Texas A&M; // Ultimate trendy science paper: "Chaotic fuzzy neural
%  wavelet genetic multigrid model of greenhouse warming" //
%  URL = http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/~baum 

All the life that we are familiar with on the planets surface would become
extinct.  The temperature would drop, the oceans would freeze and some parts
of the atmoshpere would probably condense.  The amount of energy that would
remain within the earths core would be the only "external" (strange concept)
source of energy that could be available to any living organism that might
survive.  The only habitat that I can think of off hand where that would occur
would be one of the deep ocean vents.  If the earth's core retained enough
energy to keep the vents open and prevent the freezing of the water in some
limited volume of deep ocean, the existing ecological communities that have
been found there might continue to survive.  The biological energy used
by these system to support the food web within the community is based on
chemical synthesis.   A slim hope, to be sure, but "where there's life,
there's hope.  Good luck on your essay, and I hope that someone out there who
knows more about this will send more.  8-)>>

In article <528jfl$1qea@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
Mike Baker  wrote:
>>This might even eliminate some nuclear jobs in the short term, but
>>at least there will be a future for those of us who are far too young
>>to retire, far to stubborn to leave the industry, and far too aware
>>of the limitations of our competitors to think that nuclear power
>>cannot compete.
>>
>
>	Perhaps it won't eliminate any nuclear jobs, just "nuclear related"
>	jobs.  The guy who decides who decides a water foutain needs a safety
>	valve or who can't perform a simple evaluation of his work practices
>	to reduce waste, or designs a reactor system that costs 10 times
>	more without an ounce of increase in safety margin, isn't really a
>	nuclear worker.  He just thinks he is.
While non-standardization has probably raised the capital cost of
nuclear power plants in teh USA, I really doubt that anyone is
needlessly designing a reactor system that costs 10 times what it
should (or must due to mandated provisions). The NSSS is NOT the
principal cost of a nuclear power plant.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

In article ,
Bob Bruhns  wrote:
>Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
>
>  OK, I have spent enough time arguing with nuclear industry goons.
You betray your lack of objectivity in labelling anyone who defends
nuclear power against ignorant posts as "goons".
>I have separated my followups and responded in this group as
>appropriate, but now I will return to the sci.environment group where
>I got involved with this cross-posted thread in the first place, and
>my responses to threads appearing there, will appear there.
>
>  Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net
So noted.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

In article <3247563D.13AF@wam.umd.edu>,
Spence Spencer   wrote:
>Once again: 
>Please remove this thread to another forum. It is not appropriate here!
Um. Where is "here"? Do you understand how this works?
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

In article <5274ct$9bu@news.idt.net>,
John Theofanopoulos  wrote:
>Jeff Brinkerhoff  wrote:
[...]
>>add more flywheels. I think the article said a "pack" of about 8-10 
>>flywheels could give a car the magic '300' mile range and would fit in 
>>the average engine compartment. The other advantage of flywheel 
>>technology over chemical is that the re-charge time is very fast (spin 
>>'em up)- something like 5-10 minutes on a high-current connection.
>
>What is the 'high current' you are referring too.   Currently I have
>seen 150KW chargers which are able to recharge battery packs in about
>20 minutes.  
Your lack of knowledge here undermines your credibility. A 150KW
charger would draw more than 1363 amps from a 110 volt line, and 625
amps from a 240 volt line. No one is going to install this equipment at
home, that's for sure.
[...]
>These flywheels must be proven safe, not only in the laboratory, but
>also in an automotive environment.  
But only in hand-crafted prototypes.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

In response to my little annecdote about a relief valve on a
water fountain at a nuclear site,
Rod Adams wrote:
> However, it is patently absurd to put a relief valve on a water
> fountain!!
Well, it's not as absurd as all that. I emphasized things for
dramatic effect. The building with the water fountain does
occasionally get irradiated fuel (it was the lab/office
building of the fuel branch of AECL) and so there are real
safety concerns. The water fountain in question was the kind
that has a pressure tank that gets cooled so the water is
cold as soon as you turn it on.
Picture the mess if this thing were to burst causing a flow
of water (maybe with some small amount of shrapnel) into one
of the labs with hot isotopes. The cleanup could well cost
millions. The incident could easily produce several
person-rem doses.
What it demonstrates is that there is a safety culture.
The reason THIS fountain had a relief valve was because
ALL fountains EVERYWHERE ON SITE had safety valves.
Instead of having a big argument about every drinking
fountain on site, it is simply decreed that all will
be fitted this way.  This helps to emphasize that when
you are on site, you have to meet a higher standard.
Now, there is a great deal of truth to the claim that
regulators have (in some number of incedences) gone
overboard. Many of the regulatory burdens do not in
fact increase safety to any significant extent.  In fact,
since they divert effort and consume finite resources,
they may well prevent safety efforts that would have
far better used the resources.
In this case, though, it really is not absurd. The valve
and pipe were really these tiny little things, the copper
tube was maybe 4mm in diameter, about half a meter long,
maybe cost $100 installed. Now, if the chances of this
container bursting are 1 in 10^4 over the life of the fountain,
then it makes sense to have this valve if the potential damage
would be as little as $1 million. If you think about the
potential consequences of water pouring throug a lab
for some hours (think if it happens at night when nobody
is around), and the cleanup, and the investigation that
would result, the disruption, and the bad publicity,
it would EASILY be a million.
-- 
The preceding are my opinions alone and have nothing
whatever to do with my employer.  I don't even know what my
employer thinks. I'm not even real sure who the CEO is.
Dan Evens

In article <3247D13F.59CC@dreamscape.com>,
Jeff Brinkerhoff   wrote:
[...]
>According to most articles I have read (more than just the Discover one) 
>the unwinding of the carbon fiber during a failure results in less of an 
>explosion than an "unspooling" of the disc. If this is the case (and I 
>have never seen the data on one that has failed) then a container strong 
>enough to ensure safety shouldn't be a major problem. (There's a lot of 
>rotating mass in a combustion engine, and a lot of gasoline in the tank, 
>and no one seems too afraid of that)
Nevertheless, an "unspooling" fo the disc still results in the release
of all the stored energy, and the course of that released energy must
be carefully considered. There may be a lot of rotating mass in a
conventional engine, but it does not store the energy of the flywheel. 
[...]
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

I´m an environmental chemist and now I´m development some projects. Now 
I´m working in Europe.
I would like to know if in the U.S. that legislation will soon be 
introduced governing levels in drains. If it would be correct I need to 
know will be the maximun level of peroxide (H2O2) in the final drain.
Please send the answer to: 
	jmanyo@tinet.fut.es
Thanks for your help. Bye.

The flywheel battery systems will take longer to charge up 
than this post says. Four hours is closer.
The flywheel battery systems ARE the most efficient.
The magnetic bearing system IS frictionless.
The cars will be affordable, and they will accelerate
fast enough to smoke the tires.
The problem of flywheel explosion has been solved
by Lawrence Livermore labs, they have a mass-producable
design for containing fragments, hence, crash tests will
prove ok.
This IS the wave of the future.
Lead-acid and other chemical systems will not go into
mass production...flywheels will prove themselves as
the single most efficient alternative to combustion
engines.
All the technology mentioned has already been perfected.
All problems have been solved mechanically. Now the issue
is mass-production. 
-edzo
Jeff Brinkerhoff  wrote:
>> 
>> >>Dodge boy said:
>> 
>I wonder if anyone else read a recent (Sorry, I don't have it here) 
>issue of Popular Science (or maybe Discover, I can't remember)that 
>contained an article about electric vehicles. The one article was about 
>the production of a flywheel energy storage system (battery) that is at 
>the point of real-world testing. 
>I think that this technology might be the future of electric powered 
>vehicles. No acid, no heavy metals, more compact, higher energy 
>density, it never wears out and will most likely be more efficient than 
>chemical batteries.
>Briefly for those of you not familiar with the technology: you create a 
>flywheel of optimum size/density and spin it very quickly in a vaccum 
>while suspending it on magnetic bearings. The once spun up (Via an 
>electric motor) flywheel will store A LOT of energy for a really long 
>time, and when you want to use some energy (go somewhere) the motor 
>becomes a generator and away you go. If you need more energy storage you 
>add more flywheels. I think the article said a "pack" of about 8-10 
>flywheels could give a car the magic '300' mile range and would fit in 
>the average engine compartment. The other advantage of flywheel 
>technology over chemical is that the re-charge time is very fast (spin 
>'em up)- something like 5-10 minutes on a high-current connection.
>I know there will probably be flames about this technology, but if you 
>are thinking of the hybrid flywheel/gas engine indy car from a few years 
>ago I beg you to read the article first. There apparently have been 
>quite a few advances in the technology in the past few years. (mainly in 
>the design of the bearings and the construction of the flywheel).

G. Rowland Williams (rowlandw@world.std.com) wrote:
: Non-linear effects: Don't overlook the fact that observable change 
: in the world heat engine might be sudden rather than smooth.  Years of 
: energy input might not show in the high latitudes until the ocean 
: currents suddenly "flip" into a new regime, for example.  I suspect 
: that anthropogenic climate forcing is more likely to result in 
: non-linear rather than linear effects, and to catch us off-guard.
Exactly this is what I was saying earlier that I thought the more
'practical' engineers and all of the corporates had no understanding of.
Anyone care to convince us (me and Mr Williams) otherwise?
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                Congratulations to
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                    Ghada Shouaa,
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik      Olympic heptathlon champion!

In article  ulysses1@ix.netcom.com (ulysses1@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
> On 20 Sep 1996 14:46:48 GMT, swestin@dsg145.nad.ford.com (Stephen
> Westin ) wrote:
> >
> >How about sodium-sulfur batteries? You wouldn't want to spray water on
> >molten sodium after it spills on the pavement.
> No you wouldn't.  But then again, if your battery pack is contained,
> you shouldn't have to worry about that.  Sodium-Sulfur packs will
> probably not take off (commercially) due to the inherent "nastiness"
> of the contents and the need to keep the mix in a molten state.  
> 
> Hey, you work for Ford!  You should know all this stuff (or have
> access to the info).  I thought the EcoStar was kinda wierd anyway -
> butt ugly too, but so was my car....  :-) 
> 
> (For those who are unaware, Ford's answer to the EV thing 
You must mean "Ford's answer to getting real-world experience with EV
technology". The Ecostar was never intended as the "answer to the EV
thing".  Only about 150 were made, and most are still in service at
various places around the world.
> was the
> "EcoStar" van.  It sorta looked like a Ranger pickup with a large
> camper-type shell on the back. 
What it actually *is* is a converted European Escort van. The platform
was chosen to give a reasonably lightweight vehicle capable of
carrying the battery while providing a reasonable cargo space. Most
are used for around-town delivery and such.
> It featured a sodium-sulfur battery
> pack and was shown around the country a little.  It was not as well
> received as the GM Impact (it had a huge price tag too). 
I'm not aware that the Ecostar was ever offered for sale.
> They were
> targeting it as a "fleet" type vehicle (delivery vans and such).  
Exactly. There is enough ambitious technology involved (e.g. the
sodium-sulfur battery) that I'm sure Ford wanted some real-world
experience under reasonably controlled conditions. The same sort of
thing has been done with, for example, methanol-fueled vehicles: the
Dearborn police department has had a small fleet of Taurus FFV's in
service for several years. In much the same way, GM built a small
fleet of Impacts (around 50, I think) to get customer reaction. I
think they focused on short-term loans (2-3 weeks) to private
citizens.
I guess the point is this: there are still many unanswered questions
when it comes to EVs. The Ecostar is a step toward answering some of
them.
--
-Stephen H. Westin
swestin@ford.com
The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford's.

I Johnston (ianj@tattoo.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz (uncleal0@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: : Strongly tapping together two quartz pebbles in the dark will give you an 
: : adequate glow for dark-adapted eyes.  Pulling cellophane tape off the 
: : roll in the dark will also do it.
: Unsealing prestickified envelopes (you know what I mean) gives a nice
: display too.
As does opening the individual packages of Curad brand adhesive bandages
(I could never get as good results from Band-Aids).
-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry                      tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel       fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
 "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

Robin van Spaandonk (rvanspaa@netspace.net.au) wrote:
: 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. 
This sounds like what I am arguing with Steinn in another thread, but
it's grotesquely overstated. First of all, you neglected the necessary 
caveats with nonlinearity. Secondly, you neglected to distinguish
between response at the systems natural frequencies versus frequencies
at which it does not respond significantly. This is a matter of
mush more significance than in, say , electrical engineering models
because the fluid dynamical response is trivially small at many
spatial/temporal frequencies. Thirdly, you neglect to discuss the
physics of the oscillators, so as to demonstrate your implicit
assertion that they are being "fed extra energy". I acknowledge
that some of them are being fed extra energy, but some of them are
definitely not. Note that while the thermal energy of the system
increases, the energy flux through the system is unchanged, being
determined by the sun and not the atmosphere. Note that many phenomena
of interest are driven not by the thermal energy but by its gradient.
You must conclude that the gradient increases to show that such
phenomena also increase. The expectation is currently to the contrary,
on physical grounds.
: 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.
You'll have to explain how the zero frequency "polarization" could amount
to a free mode. Further, you'll have to explain how that mode is
being "fed extra energy", when the solar input is unchanged and the
transparency to the visible is, if anything, decreasing.
This whole argument is rather silly. It is the difference in solar
input between poles and equator that is the basic energy source of the
whole climate system. It is the forcing, not the response. If we alter
the forcing such that it is harder for energy to escape from the poles
while not easier for it to arrive at the equator, we decrease rather
than increasing the latitudinal surface temperature gradient.
: An increase in the amplitude of the zero frequency, necessarily
: implies that the equatorial zone gets hotter, and the poles get
: colder.
In a word, no.
To take a tip from Steinn, consider a simple mechanical counterexample.
Consider a brick standing on its smallest face. Jiggling it will cause
it to wiggle in various modes, but with sufficient jiggling it will
tip over. The difference in gravitational potential (height) between
the top and bottom of the brick can be considered its zero-frequency
response. When you applied energy to the system, this "polarization"
obviously decreased.
: 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. 
It's really hard to cast severe storms, i.e., local convection, into
a wave argument. Sever storms are probably incerasing because of
decreased static stability and increased available energy of condensation
due to more moisture in the atmosphere. You'll have to do a lot more
work to turn that into a transform space type argument.  I'd venture that
you need to know the free modes of a linearized fluid on a rotating sphere
just to have a claim to do this. You do know them, don't you?
: 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.
It can yield some qualitative results. If the system were perfectly linear
it could yield quantitative results if used with great care. Unfortunately
you haven't shown any signs of knowing how to do either.
: 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.
roundly and flamingly yours,
mt

Fellow Environmental Scientist/Engineer,
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) is hosting a bioremediation discussion
group (BioGroup) on the Internet.  The BioGroup consists of an unmoderated
mailing list serving over 750 members worldwide.  The BioGroup was
established to provide a global forum for the engineering and scientific
community to discuss intrinsic/enhanced bioremediation topics.  GZA hopes
this forum provides a medium to transfer technology, standardize
biotreatability protocols, and advance the science and engineering of
bioremediation technologies.
GZA expects the forum to be a springboard for the pursuit of innovative
approaches to bioremediation engineering.  Because the success of the
BioGroup is a function of the participation of its members, GZA invites
anyone with an interest and/or experience in bioremediation to join the
BioGroup.  Due to the complexities of biogeochemical processes which control
biotransformation, we welcome input from environmental engineers,
hydrogeologists, soil scientists, microbiologists, environmental chemists,
and all who wish to contribute to this important topic.
GZA recognizes that bioremediation is not a treatment panacea; however, we
feel it is an under-utilized remediation technology, its limitations
notwithstanding.
Postings to the mailing list are currently archived as a collaborative effort
of the Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, the
Groundwater Remediation Project, National Water Research Institute,
Environment Canada, and GZA. You can visit the archive at
http://gwrp.cciw.ca/internet/bioremediation/biorem-archive.html
To subscribe to the mailing list, visit our home page at http://www.gzea.com
and scroll to "Let's Talk".  Choose the "Bioremediation Mailing List"
selection and follow the directions therein.  BioGroup members may post
messages to the mailing list by sending them to "bioremediation@gzea.com".
There is no subscription fee!
Please direct any questions about the discussion group to me.
Regards,
I. Richard Schaffner, Jr., P.G.
BioGroup Manager
E-mail:   rschaffner@gzea.com
Phone:    603.623.3600
Fax:      603.624.9463
[----------------------------------------------]
[**********GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.**********]
[***********Engineers and Scientists***********]
[----------------------------------------------]

Thanks for the reply. I was sorry about not getting much from 
sci.environment before then when the newsgroups were increased I received 
email criticism from alt.politics.greens that it was off topic. But I 
think it does impinge on where budgets need to be put - it is politics. I 
am wondering what else is discouraged there. But this is followup to 
sci.environment unless you can relate the answer to other groups and 
include them in the newsgroup header.
I think it is getting unrealistic to read every article in a newsgroup 
with the expansion of Usenet. I just choose some titles from quite a 
number of groups and I like to get some intros to other groups from 
slightly off topic subjects.
Leonard Evens (len@math.nwu.edu) wrote:
: Brian Sandle wrote:
: > 
: > Hugh Easton (hugh@daflight.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : For years, climatologists have been telling us that "global warming" will
: > : affect polar regions more than anywhere else, but no clear evidence of
: > : warming in polar regions has so far emerged.
: > 
: > I have already given (Sep 20 sci.environment) some theory on this repeated
: > article which was under the title
: > 
: > Re: Tropical ocean warming - are climate models wrong?
: > 
: > I imagine when it is said that the warming will affect polar regions more
: > than anywhere else what is being spoken of is the melting of the polar
: > ice? How much has that raised sea level in comparison to the melting of
: > tropical ice caps?
: >
: 
: I don't believe you are correct.   What Hugh Easton is referring to is
: that most of the models to date have shown more warming relatively
: speaking in the polar latitudes than in tropical latitudes.   There is
: some dispute about whether or not this has been happening.   As Michael
: Tobis has noted several times, you have to distinguish between warming
: in the Arctic Ocean and warming in northern continental areas.   I don't
: think anyone can yet say for sure that warming of the type predicted by
: models has not occurred.   In addition, the latest models, which
: incorporate the effect of aerosols and some other factors might produce
: somewhat different results.
Though according to Hugh the tropical warming is being shown, and should 
be less than what you say might be occurring, according to models but not 
fact. What effects do aerosols have? And how is the latent heat of ice 
dealt with anyway?
: With respect to continental ice caps, the two major ones are in 
: Greenland and covering Antartica.   The IPCC as usual notes many
: uncertainties, but concludes that there may be some likelihood of
: melting of the Greenland ice cap contributing to sea level rise but the
: situation is much less clear for the Antarctic ice cap.  If anything, it
: appears more likely that with global warming the extra precipitation
: would lead to more water being tied up there.   However, there is some
: chance of a catastrophic collapse of part of the Antarctic ice cap,
: and this would lead to very large increases in sea level.   However, the
: IPCC does not consider this likely in the near term.
: 
: There of course have not ever been continental ice caps in tropical
: latitudes as far as I know.
So did the following which Hugh quoted mean glaciers, or snow burden?
***********************************************************************
Recent changes in tropical freezing heights and the role of sea surface
temperature (Nature vol 383 p152, 12 Sept 1996)
                                   ABSTRACT
     A widespread retreat of alpine glaciers and melting of tropical ice-
     cap margins has been observed in recent decades, over which time a
***********************************************************************
   There are world wide mountain glaciers
: including in the tropics.   The IPCC says that the evidence shows that
: on the average these glaciers have been retreating and probably
: contributing to sea level rise, although of course local situtations may
: differ.   Some glaciers may be expanding.
:  
: My source for this information is the IPCC Reports, including the
: latest, Climate Change, 1995.
Has anyone been doing topography maps of the under side of the ice shelves?
Are any air/water vapour pockets appearing where ice has been melted away 
by rising water?
The heavy 4 degree Celsius water might travel far under the shelf and 
there melt the thick ice which would only later show cracks above.
And what time scale does alt.politics.greens consider when discussing 
apportioning of research resources for best needs?
Brian Sandle

In article <5286jn$5ct@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
tjebb@srd.bt.co.uk (Tim Jebb) writes:
> 
> OK. So what will the average motorist do when fuel becomes prohibitively 
> expensive for use in private vehicles? 
> 
> And what will truck companies use when there is insufficient diesel fuel 
> for moving goods around? 
> 
> What will the military use to make their tanks go? 
> 
> Are you envisaging an ever-decreasing elite of privileged people able to 
> make use of oil, while the rest of us starve to death because the 
> tractors don't work any more and we can't grow enough potatoes in our 
> back gardens? 
> 
> Or, perchance, will some replacement technologies come along to help us 
> out a bit? If so, what will they be?
> 
> Answers from petrol fiends only please.
 I'm not a petro-fiend, but I play one on TV.  Let me answer.
There is a lot more oil out there then people think, there have been
predictions of oil running out for over a century.  Back in 1973
almost nobody (except savvy free marketers like Milton Friedman) 
thought gas would actually be CHEAPER 20 years later.  What a 
country!  But yes, in 100, 500, 0r 2000 years petroleum will 
be substantually depleted.
As far as what truck companies etc will use, they will find
something.  There are already many alternatives, and whatever
one is cheapest and works best will be implemented.  Free markets
work.
Resources don't deplete suddenly, there will be decades of rising
prices. 
This  will encourage conservation (stretching supplies) and
alternatives.
But don't believe me, just look at history.  We have switched from
whale
oil to petrol, and from wood to coal. In both cases market mechanisms 
worked beautifully.
As far as a few rich dudes being able to afford petrol, energy
companies make big money selling to MASS markets.  Someone will
have to chase the real demand, millions of people who want their
own personel transport.  Cars are truly the REAL mass transit in
the USA.
Andrew
I was cheering the steep gas price rise a  few months ago  . . .
this would cut pollution, encourage alternatives, and make 
traffic less. AND earn EXXON more money.  I love this country.

Mike Edgar (Mike@edgarco.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: You saved me having to compose a similar post Rob, thanks. We have the
: same problem here (UK) but on a much smaller scale of course, and the
: damage done to habitat by MB'ers is quite catastrophic. In any
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What catastrophic damage is caused my MTB's that isn't caused by hikers?
The only thing I can think of _may_ be increased erosion, but trail
erosion harms neither the habitat or wildlife.  It only harms the trails.
justen

Go ask someone at Allstate or any other large home-owners insurance
company if they don't think the effects of global warming are real. I'm
not joking.
It is irrelevant if the effects of global warming are not manifesting
themselves exactly as was originally predicted. The point is that
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are increasing at a steady (and
accelerating) pace. This *is* causing large and more frequeny dangerous
anomolies in our weather. That's the point.
Kirk Johnson

We developed a on-line Respirometer that utilizes a patented
principle of measuring O2 consumption in gaseous stage in the
head space of the bioreactor instead of immersed dissolved
O2 probes, utilized in most other designs. Although the advantages
of measuring head space gas exchanges are numerous, the most
important advantage is the separation of the O2 sensor from the
aggressive media of sludge or wastewater and therefore, avoiding
the sensor’s damage or contamination. Besides measuring O2
consumption, there is the possibility of measuring additional gases
evolved from the wastewater or sludge such as CO2 and H2S. The
principle of Respirometer is based on measuring the respiration of
bacteria culture in the form of the fixed film attached to ceramic
granules. This bacterial culture is alternatively exposed to clean
water to measure background respiration and to waste water to
measure the increase of O2 consumption due to available nutrients.
If you are interested in receiving more information about this instrument,
please e-mail your street address.
GHOSH

agent@netcom.com (Billy D) thought hard about this before
writing:
>In article <3245BCC6.50E@ids2.idsonline.com> ypark@ids2.idsonline.com writes:
>>
>>Well the Wint-o-green effect is actually called.. oh what was it called,
>>something about sparking.. like scintillation (sp?) or something like
>>that.  I think it's caused because the crystal structure / chemical
>>bonds within the crystals are being forcibly broken -> therefore release
>>of energy, in this case in the form of light.
>>
>	Tribo-luminescence.
>	[no... really]
Stop, stop, you're both right.  (With appologies to Certs,
"two mints in one".)
______
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of 
opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. (1777)
I have sworn on the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of 
tyranny over the mind of man. (1800)  Thomas Jefferson
Whenever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found 
state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure 
implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery. (1874) 
Benjamin Disraeli

>In article <843088857snz@daflight.demon.co.uk>,
>Hugh Easton  wrote:

>For years, climatologists have been telling us that human-induced 
>"global warming" will mainly affect high latitudes. So far, there has 
>been no clear evidence of a large-scale temperature increase in either
>the Arctic or Antarctica (or here in the U.K. for that matter!), a fact 
>which has led many sceptics to claim that global warming is a myth. 

   I can't comment upon your Arctic/Antarctic assertion, but *do* query
your statement regarding the UK.
   It is clear from the CET series that average temperatures over the
English lowlands have been rising for some time -- see for example
graphs for average CET held at the MetOffice/Hadley Centre site. Taking
the long period series, since 1750, there is an overall increase of 1
deg C, with obvious variation, but of more note in the light of your
comments, and recent concerns, is the *sharp* increase in recent years.
Of course, arguments will rage about urbanisation, standard of
observations, stations chosen etc., but the signal surely is too strong
to be ignored. 
   I have maintained my own series of average winter time minima for the
southeast of England; these show a clear increase in night minima from
about the middle of this century - I estimate by a value around 1.5
degC. Again, urbanisation interferes, but these are *real* temperatures
that affect *real* people -- the nights are, on average, getting warmer
for a large slice of the English population. 
   I also maintain a check on the difference from average of the total
thickness (500-1000 hPa) month-by-month for lowland England: During the
1980's, apart from 1989, (a notable warm year), months with above
average total thickness balanced out those below; from 1989, there has
been a marked bias towards warmer lower tropospheric temperatures over
central England as measured by this parameter:  a cumulative difference
of +52 degC. Indeed, every year since 1987 inclusive, has shown more
months with above average total thickness than below -- this year we are
running roughly even, though I havn't got August values, which I suspect
will put the total very slightly above. 
  The English wine industry is now accepted in the *mainstream* of wine
producers due to the altered summer/autumn climate. More vineyards are
in production across southern England than at any time since the last
climatic optimum around the end of the first millenium AD. If we had
detected this evidence in a record 100's of years ago, we would accept
this as evidence of local climate warming, yet because it is happening
*now* it passes unremarked.
  On the wider scene, hemispherically averaged temperatures series also
show warming, though I accept that this does not prove individual
latitude belts have significantly warmed, though the strength of the
detected warming over the past 10 years must have leaked across latitude
bands, even if highly attenutated.   
  On what do you base your initial assertion that there is little
evidence for high latitude warming? In the case of the UK, as noted
above, it would seem to be taking place. That doesn't mean it will
continue of course -- which brings us on to the following:-
and: In article <51ute8$3oj@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, "Grant W. Petty"
 writes
>I would mention that although the warming is predicted by
>models to be greatest in the polar regions, they also predict greater
>natural interannual variability at those latitudes than is the case
>for the tropics.  In other words, the signal (i.e., expected warming
>trend) to noise (i.e., natural variability) ratio is decidedly poorer
>at high latitudes.  That means that the high latitudes may be the
>wrong place to try to actually prove that global warming is occurring,
>even if the absolute temperature change were indeed larger there.
 -- the 'rapid change' theory, based on either marked changes in Jet
Stream/Hadley Cell configuration, or other factors not yet known, is
attractive. The article in New Scientist28Aug93, regarding ice core
samples from Greenland is very interesting in this respect, and confirms
caution in expected 'straight-line' trends.  
  A highly personal view this, but I suspect we won't know about how the
climate is going to change until it changes! My job entails trying to
forecast the weather on a time-scale of 3-24 hrs for aviation; my
experience leads me to believe that the atmosphere can play nasty
tricks, and the more we know about the atmosphere and its workings, the
more we *don't* know. 
-- 
Martin Rowley

Joris D inhuurkracht (jorisd@bcl1.seri.philips.nl) wrote:
: Hi,
: And guess what, I suspect that Mike travels all the way to
: work in his comfortable POLLUTING car. Oh, I forgot, pleople
: like him don't have jobs, they are just a burden on the
: welfare-system.
He takes public transit, and seems not to realise many of us that would
like to cannot (yes, that happens even in Germany).
In order to get to the less-polluting paradise, something has to be done
about the concentration instability in land ownership (ie, death to
landlords). 
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                Congratulations to
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                    Ghada Shouaa,
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik      Olympic heptathlon champion!

In article <323806fd.165355562@nntp.st.usm.edu>, brshears@whale.st.usm.edu
(Harold Brashears) wrote:
> I dispute this assertion, many scientists do not believe there is any
> credible evidence of UV-B increase due to ozone loss measured at
> ground level, and is that not what we are worried about?
> 
Which scientists?  From the sound of your assertion, likely those who are
being employed by R-12 manufacturers.  The ozone depletion which was first
noticed over Antarctia has spread as far north as Argentina in recent
years.  When there is a measurable depletion in stratospheric ozone, there
is certainly an increase in measurable UV at ground levels.
-- 
Shawn London
st942432@pip.cc.brandeis.edu

In article <323A0DF3.58B7@injersey.com>, Rob Gray 
writes
>This whole "debate" reminds me of a similar situation that I observed in 
>my hometown while I was in high school. Here are the specifics: In my 
>hometown, alot of middle and high school kids loved to skateboard on the 
>sidewalks around town, especially on Main Street. At first, people 
>thought that it was good that the kids had an activity that they 
>enjoyed, but after a while, when more kids got into skateboarding, and 
>more accidents occured involving pedestrians, etc, the town council 
>decided to ban skateboarding on streets or sidewalks downtown. 
>
>The kids were up in arms. They started protesting and making bumper 
>stickers with slogans like "Skateboarding is not a crime", etc. My point 
>is that this ban was not an attack on the skateboarders, but was an 
>attempt to protect the public safety due to a new activity that proved 
>to be damaging. The parallel fits for mountain biking. The inevitable 
>and desireable ultimate ban on mountain biking on dirt trails will not 
>be an attack on mountain bikers, but will be an attempt to protect the 
>land and the wildlife. So mountain bikers, don't take these opinions as 
>personal attacks, but instead look at your activity, look at the ground 
>on which you ride, and observe how damaging your activity is. I think 
>that then you will also support the banning of mountain biking on 
>unpaved surfaces. Mountain biking on trails is not the same as hiking. 
>Neither is ATV use or 4-wheeling, etc.. In the same vein, skateboarding 
>on the sidewalk is not the same as walking on the sidewalk. Neither is 
>driving your motorcycle or car on the sidewalk the same as walking.
>
>                                               Rob Gray
You saved me having to compose a similar post Rob, thanks. We have the
same problem here (UK) but on a much smaller scale of course, and the
damage done to habitat by MB'ers is quite catastrophic. In any
discussion relating to "sports"/pastimes/hobbies that seriously affect
wildlife and habitat (eg hunting, off-roading, MB'ing) the practitioners
consistently adopt the pouting, selfish "what about my rights" posture.
If the choice is between protecting the natural valid rights of
wildlife, habitat and ecosystems and the self-awarded "rights" of
selfish, thrill seeking, weekend habitat vandals....... the latter
should *lose* every time.
If the good Lord wanted it that way, deer and other wildlife would have
targets on their foreheads, 4x4 transmission systems, and wheels on each
corner.  
Suggestions: Try another less selfish more mature pastime, or the
marines..? and grow-up.
In 50 years time when your children are existing on a large concrete
covered golf-ball, relying on Encarta to see green stuff and wild-
animals, and wondering why their parents were so stupid and selfishly
short-sighted........ Mike Vandeman will be (sadly) vindicated.
Mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Mike Edgar      
It's nice to be important, but more important to be nice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

In article , bbaka@syix.com wrote:
> It is interesting that all these arguments over Ozone are justified by
the one 
> small penalty we as humans might have to pay. Increased skin cancer and 
> cataracts of the eyes. Big deal. 
I'm amazed that this gentleman has the audacity to bitch about a $400
expenditure to update the cooling system of your car while in the same
posting you say that the tens of billions of dollars in health costs
associated with the millions of cases of cataracts and skin cancer in this
country are a perfectly acceptable price of progress.
> I neither want a new car with mandatory airbags, ...
Maybe I don't want to subsidize your medical care with my insurance
premiums when your brains get knocked out unneccessarily in a car
accident.
-- 
Shawn London
st942432@pip.cc.brandeis.edu

Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: Not everything I do has to be submitted to a peer reviewed
: journal. I happen to enjoy "academic tea" (well, I prefer coffee)
: speculation. 
Me too; that's fair enough.
                I'm also the person who first (as I far as I could tell)
: raised the issue of Atlantic Conveyor instability _on this newsgroup_
: as a major possible climate change hazard.
When?  First in the newsgroup or first at all?  I heard of that in 1991
or so (Nature article, with refs to earlier ones).
: BTW, the reason CO2 emissions were not a worry early on
: (eg no one really worried about runaway greehouse effects
: in the literature as far as I'm aware of) - _is_ Le Chatelier's
: Principle. It is still valid, the interesting question is where
: does it fail. CO2 levels have had > 10% excursions in the recent
: past - with apparent timescales of centuries or less - we know 
: dropping the CO2 much below pre-industrial values would be disastrous.
: We also know of secular CO2 draw down on geological time scales,
: and at least one major ramping up of CO2 levels, on relatively short
: time scales and in the not too distant past - possibly through 
: volcanic action, and possible this averted the planet already
: having entered a permanent ice age.
This idea is interesting; I've heard of it for years (Analog Magazine,
circa mid 70s was the first time); what is its status?  Have climate
simulations of any sort yielded answers like this?
I'm not harping; I just would like to know if anybody has done this
(were I in the field, I would have).
: What I was doing, because _I_ am interested in it as an intellectual
: speculation, is considering what absolute CO2 level we would like
: to stabilise at, why, when, and what the optimal way to get there
: would be.  I am relaxing, deliberately, one of the main assumptions
: that people carry with them in discussing this, which is that
: such change is necessarily detrimental or injudicious.
Perfectly OK.  Here we are discussing mechanism, not politics or
sociology. 
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                Congratulations to
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                    Ghada Shouaa,
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik      Olympic heptathlon champion!

Leonard Evens (len@math.nwu.edu) wrote:
[...]
: I also am fully aware of the Mt Pinatubo eruption and the fact that it
: lowered average global temperatures by about 1 deg c (if I remember
: correctly), and that the effect was pretty much what the models
: predicted.   It damped out because the straospheric dust settled,
: not because of Le Chatelier's Principle.   If in fact it is possible
: that fairly small perturbations could shift the climate system to a
: different equilibrium through changes in thermohaline circulation, we
: are more likely to find out about such matters by studying the
: literature, including the IPCC Reports than by engaging in idle
: speculation.   In fact Manabe, et. al. ran a computer experiment on that
: matter at least two years ago, and I suspect there have been several
: other such experiments done more recently.   If I remember correctly
: Manabe, et. al. ran a steady increase, according to one of the usual
: scenarios in CO_2 concentration and followed what happened for something
: like 400 years.  They found that the thermohaline circulation decreased
: but then eventually reasserted itself.  Of course, that is hardly the
: last word on the matter.   Right now models which couple oceans and
: atmosphere are incomplete and have some serious problems.  So one would
: have to take anything they say about the matter with a grain of salt.
: However, we don't have much choice in the matter because such models are
: the only theoretical tools available to investigate such matters in
: depth.   Back of the envelope, or even back of the head, calculations
: aren't going to do it.
Only serious three dimensional models are going to do this, which is why
it must be a topic of active research.  Has anyone looked at the
response to a more sudden change (ie, what if there is a backlash and
CO2 emissions actually grow sharply)?
I'd really be surprised if the next century's worth of CO2 emissions
could actually trigger a thermohaline disruption, but not actually
shocked.  But I had the impression that the strongest effect would be on
greater instability in the mid-latitude eddy-transport mechanism (ie,
more disruptive storms).
In general, is this Le Chatelier's principle just a bit of handwaving
people do to duck the real issues?
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                Congratulations to
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                    Ghada Shouaa,
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik      Olympic heptathlon champion!

The Pink Swastika "Book-On-Line"

Latest Edition of Here & Now is on the WEB :)
This Environmental Magazine is general Environmental Web Site, Covering
issues of a International, UK, South East England and especially the
Hastings an Rother areas.
Take a look NOW! Issue number 20.
http://homepages.enterprise.net/zzone/herenow.html
john a wood

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> 
> Robert Horvatich wrote:
> > > we have FOUND a solution that is equitable for all parties: everyone can hike,
> > > and no one can mountain bike off-road. Everyone is treated equally. Can't get
> > > any better than that.
> >
> > Can't you read Mike.  Better yet, can't you comprehend what is being
> > discussed here.  We are talking about bikers enjoying their activity
> > just like hiker do.  The biking activity we are talking about is biking
> > off road.  This involves riding a bike on a trail that is not paved.
> > It's just that simple but you still persist in avoiding this issue and
> > play semantics instead.  Keep squirming Mike.
> 
> I understand it quite well. Now explain why my bulldozer-racing club shouldn't
> have the same privileges you bikers have -- to enjoy the wilderness the way WE
> like to do it! You can't explain that, because it would point out how inane your
> thinking is.
1. If you understand so well, why do you waste our time with semantics.
2. You say bulldozer racing is too much impact.  You then say bicycles are too much
impact.  You then say walking is not too much impact.  This is all your subjective
opinion.  Why do you subjectively draw the line where you do? It sounds like you
want the trail all to yourself. This sounds like the writings of a pissed off hiker
that doesn't wan't bikers on "their" trails.  Tell me why walkers and horses are
the only ones to enjoy the wilderness the they like to do it.
You then have the stupidity to talk out the other side of your mouth and then say
that walking is too much impact.  You contradict yourself.  
Rob
-- 
email:                           |"You can't take life too seriously,
rhorvati@ae0119.pd8.ford.com     | you don't get out alive." Buggs Bunny