Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Date: 30 Sep 1996 15:38:06 GMT
Eric Anderson (eric@as.arizona.edu) wrote:
: James G. Acker wrote:
: >
: > Eric Anderson (eric@as.arizona.edu) wrote:
: > : James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
:
: > : Non-politicized, yes. But they have a large financial interest in
: > : models that predict disaster. This gives them justification for
: > : charging higher rates. Are you going to deny that? Or are you going to
: > : bring in lawyers as the next set of *credible* experts?
: >
: > Insurance companies also have a large stake in not going
: > bankrupt. Take a look at the shudders Hurricane Andrew sent
: > through the industry.
:
: I don't know if that was your intent. But your statement supports my
: allegation that insurance companies must err on the high side of
: disaster probability in order to prevent bankruptcy. Greenhouse models
: give a high probability for disaster so, naturally, insurance companies
: would be favorable toward them.
I'm not sure if "favorable" is the right word to characterize
their attitude. "Concerned" is probably more accurate. The main
point is that they are taking the predictions seriously, and trying
to anticipate upcoming potential problems.
: > : have risen *slightly* in the last century. But such a rise is
: > : completely within the realm of *natural* processes.
: > : Sure, it's fine to assume that increased CO2 levels have *something* to
: > : do with it. But we really don't know, do we?
: >
: > It's really not an assumption that increased CO2 levels
: > have something to do with it. The uncertainties lie elsewhere,
: > primarily in climate feedback responses.
:
: You are right. The increase of CO2, taken seperately, would normally be
: a precursor to higher temperatures. And I guess that's what started
: this thread was this "uncertainty" supported by the fact that the models
: of climate feedback responses are not matching what was predicted.
They're getting better. One of the best "tests" was
Mt. Pinatubo. The onset of aerosol-induced cooling was delayed,
when the models were compared to reality, by 3-5 months, due to the
occurrence of El Nino at that time, coupled with the fact that the
models don't treat atmosphere-ocean interactions particularly well
(yet). Pinatubo indicated the need for better coupling algorithms.
: > The heat island effect was recognized almost 10 years
: > ago, and the record was corrected using comparisons of rural and
: > urban sites.
:
: I guess I'll just have to take your word on that. (Doesn't sound
: unreasonable afterall.) I still say we've not had any consistant
: long-term data gathering. Not when we've had to "correct" for past
: mistakes.
You don't HAVE to take my word on it. There are references
in journals.
: > : natural phenomenon? I believe it was immediately assumed to be
: > : human-caused even before we studied it. Thus my belief that biased
: > : scientists have found exactly what they were looking for. (No, that
: > : *never* happens, does it?)
: >
: > Not in this case.
:
: Are you sure? The first time *I* ever heard about the ozone hole, circa
: 1980, I was told outright that it was caused by humans. Sounds like an
: assumption to me. I assume that we already knew by then that CFC's
: deplete ozone. Perhaps we didn't know about the abundance of naturally
: occuring CFC's and other ozone depleting compounds. We do now.
It may have happened very quickly. Ozone depletion was
predicted by a trio of recent Nobel Prize-winners in the 1970s.
When the hole was found, it was first an observational report, but
the immediate primary culprit was chlorofluorocarbons, based on
the previous studies. So the attribution of cause and effect
followed quite linearly.
: > With regard to past climate changes (much larger time
: > scale than currently), geochemists and climatologists have a pretty
: > good understanding of the major forces driving the climate system.
:
: Uh huh. Then how come we still can't predict the weather more than a
: few days ahead? If we have such a good understanding of the climate
: system we should be able to do at least that, shouldn't we? (I know
: it's a stupid question. I couldn't resist. Deal with it.)
To answer your question, stupid or not, climate is not
weather.
: From what I gather, we know that ocean currents are probably the biggest
: driving force behind our climate. Of course, we still haven't much clue
: how a given change in ocean currents will affect the climate. Two
: models, two answers. Ten models, ten answers.
Actually, that's a very "hot" area to study right now.
A shutdown in deepwater formation in the North Atlantic could have
profound effects, and many are predictable (with agreement in
the predictions). Wallace Broecker had an article in _Scientific
American_ about this last year. Check it out.
: > There are plenty of causes, the largest one (and also the slowest-
: > moving one) being changes in the rate of plate tectonics.
:
: Primarily because shifting plates change ocean currents. There is a
: theory that plate tectonics may explain the cooler Earth of the last few
: million years. However, the evidence is sketchy at best. And there may
: be something to a 100,000 year cycle in the eccentricity of the Earth's
: orbit that may help explain the actually timing of the ice ages. But
: again, just a theory.
No, the main reason for the effect is that faster tectonism
pumps more CO2 into the atmosphere! (As oceanic plates are subducted
beneath continental plates, the carbonate sediments are subsumed into
the upwelling hot zones at the margins.) So if tectonism speeds
up, even minutely, it can push the CO2 content of the atmosphere up
substantially.
If you can, find some of the papers by Robert Berner and
Antonio Lasaga (and the late Robert M. Garrels) on paleoclimatic
modeling.
: > I can give you some interesting references if you find this intriguing.
:
: Actually, I do find the subject intriguing. I used to be of the belief
: that Antarctica's current position over the South Pole may be acting as
: a large heatsink (in effect) and cooling the planet. That is until I
: learned that Antarctica has been essentially "parked" there for the last
: 25 million years. At best, I now believe it to be yet another
: contributing factor.
Did you read about the Himalayan effect postulated more
recently?
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Subject: Re: future climate (Carbon in the Atmosphere)
From: Brent Lofgren
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 12:41:46 -0400
Bryan Hannegan wrote:
>
> Three comments:
>
> On Sat, 28 Sep 1996, Steve McGee wrote:
>
> > Michael Tobis wrote:
> > > Brent Lofgren (lofgren@glerl.noaa.gov) wrote:
> > >
> > > : Plenty of questions are still open. There are a number of viewpoints on
> > > : the subject of atmospheric eddy transport. One thing that has been
> > > : mentioned (e.g. Held, 1993, Bulletin AMS, 74, 228-241) is that under a
> > > : warmed climate, the same eddy will be able to transport more latent heat.
> > > : To me, this would imply a reduced requirement for synoptic-scale activity
> > > : but, once it is transported, that latent heat must be released, implying
> > > : increased mesoscale activity.
>
> True, assuming that the necessary heat transport in a warmed climate is
> the same as in today's climate. If the tropics respond differently, for
> example, more heat transport might be required to balance the system, and
> thus even though each eddy transports more latent heat, the overall number
> of eddies does not have to increase necessarily. We also are neglecting
> oceanic heat transport, which may or may not respond as well.
>
> GCM studies should be able to give us a pretty good idea of the necessary
> atmospheric heat transport in a warmer atmosphere. Perhaps someone knows
> quickly of such a study? (else I'll look for it)
Sorry, no precise reference here, but see below. And yes, oceanic heat
transport is a separate question.
>
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > Opinions, anyone? If we have to bet (and in some sense we do) should we bet
> > > on weaker baroclinic instability and enhanced static instability,
> > > resulting in less synoptic organization and more mesoscale organization,
> > > resulting in less reliable, more intense convection and arguably the
> > > seemingly paradoxical result that both drought and flooding would be
> > > more likely in middle latitudes? This doesn't appear among the IPCC
> > > conclusions, and of course mesoscale organization is below the resolution
> > > of climate GCM runs, but it isn't (to me) obviously inconsistent with them.
> > >
>
> Weaker baroclinic instability would imply less of a latitudinal temperature
> gradient, and therefore a more responsive polar region compared to the
> tropics, would it not? Has this been established?
Stronger warming trends at higher latitudes are a well-established
feature
of GCM simulations of greenhouse warming. Look in the 1992 IPCC report
at
figures 5.2 through 5.4. Sorry, I don't have the 1995 report handy.
The
greatest warming occurs in the high latitudes of the winter hemisphere.
The main reason for this is temperature-ice feedback (ice cools the
surface and atmosphere by reflecting sunlight). This feedback may or
may
not be adequately simulated in present models. It has been noted
recently
(I believe in sci.geo.meteorology) that larger temperature changes at
high
latitudes may not be as statistically significant, because of the
greater
variability there.
The implication for required heat transport is that less of it is
required. It should also be noted that reduced static stability can
offset the reduced meridional temperature gradient in producing
baroclinic
instability.
>
> >
> > and....
> >
> > If radiative change due to increased CO2( warming the surface,
> > cooling the tropopause) is damped by the change of increased convection
> > (warming the tropopause, cooling the surface) what is the chance that
> > the CO2 signal IS increased convective activity while surface and
> > tropopausal temperatures don't change much?
>
> Good question. GCM studies should have comparisons of convective mass
> flux as a diagnostic, and definitely convective heating rates.
Yes, an excellent question, and the basis of some works of greenhouse
skeptics is a variation on this (e.g. Lindzen, 1990, Bulletin AMS, 71,
288-299). This approach may have some validity, but I would say that it
is still a climate change with possible consequences, instead of using
it
to dismiss the more conventional greenhouse warming results.
Also see the 1992 IPCC report, Fig. 5.2 again. The difference is
striking between the two models which use different formulations of
moist convective precipitation, either of which can make some claim to
being more realistic than the other. This shows that a definitive
answer to this question is highly elusive.
>
> Bryan Hannegan
> Department of Earth System Science
> bjhanneg@uci.edu
Brent Lofgren, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor
Subject: Re: MTBers Trashing One of the Last Virgin Forests in Iowa!
From: markwood@ix.netcom.com (Mark Woodhead)
Date: 30 Sep 1996 18:01:08 GMT
In article , Mike Edgar
wrote:
> In article , Mark
> Woodhead writes
> >Mike,
> > How can you possibly make a statement like the one above and continue to
> >sign your postings as you do below? Nice?!? Does the term hypocracy mean
> >anything to you?
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Mike Edgar
> >> It's nice to be important, but more important to be nice.
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
> Never heard of it Mark,.... but the term hypocrIsy does. My assessment
> is based upon a) Your apparent instinctive trashing of any attempt by
> Mike V, or anyone else who dares to suggest that we humans have NO RIGHT
> to destroy wildlife and habitat in the pursuit of selfish pastimes, and
> b) your unwarranted personal, detrimental remarks about him.
> I only "know" about him via this ng,..... do you know him personally.. ?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Edgar
> It's nice to be important, but more important to be nice.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike,
Spelling mistakes aside, my question about your signature pointed to
your personal attacks on everyone who doesn't share your views. Further...
a. I have trashed no one on this or any newgroup "who dares to suggest
that we humans have NO RIGHT to destroy wildlife and habitat in the
pursuit of selfish pastimes", I agree with this premise. I have only asked
for their evidence, their reasoning, and their interpretation of how mtn
bike damage is any worse than what hikers and campers have done since long
before the mtn bike came into use. In response, *I* have been attacked by
Mike (and you, Mike) in every posting he has made that referenced my
postings. He has *never* answered the question as posed to him, but simply
deflected them by turning them around and calling it my
ignorance/stupidity/refusal to admit the obvious that is keeping me from
agreeing with him. So where, Mike, is my *trashing* of Mike? And where is
your evidence. Simply saying you've documented it and that it's obvious is
a far cry from presenting it in a responsible way.
b. Uh, I think that was pretty well covered in a.
Mark
--
³Then the computers came. At first I dismissed them as mere toys for men with no social skills. Soon they were everywhere. I would invent elaborate excuses to avoid computers. I was caught in my own web of deception!² ‹‹‹Ratbert
Subject: Beneficial use of contaminated sediments
From: jheynen@NL.net (J.J.M. Heynen)
Date: 30 Sep 1996 22:09:58 +0200
Hello,
the following abstract has been submitted for WASCON'97 (Interna-
tional Conference for the Environmental and Technical Implications
of Construction with Alternative Materials; 4 - 6 June 1997, The
Netherlands;for more info about the conference fax: +31.43.6014039).
The abstract describes an alternative way of handling and beneficial
use of contaminated sediments as part of a remediation plan for the
river Maas in The Netherlands.
Perhaps other people are working on a similar subject. An exchange
of experiences could then be well worth-while.
Hoping to hear from you soon,
Kind regards,
Andre Kok and John Heynen (e-mail: J.J.M.Heynen@BWD.RWS.minvenw.nl)
Ministry of transport, public works and water management;
Civil Engineering Division;
P.O. Box 20000;
3501 LA Utrecht;
The Netherlands
fax: +31.30.2857952
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beneficial use of contaminated sediments within the Maas river-
system
A.P. Kok, A.L. Hakstege, H.P. Versteeg, J.J.M. Heynen
Abstract
After two subsequential periods of severe flooding by the river
Maas, the so-called Delta-plan Large rivers has been conceived by
the Dutch government. The project aims at diminishing risks for
future floodings. Also, the river Maas should be adapted to improve
the river for shipping. Both targets are joined in the so-called
"Zandmaas/Maasroute"-project. Several options for improving water
management are available: deepening, broadening, a more gradual
slope of river-banks, construction of parallel conduits, etc. There
are a number of alternatives possible to reach the desired targets.
Each alternative will have a different environmental impact. There
may be about four alternatives to be considered in an environmental
impact assessment.
Sustainable development is one of the key-words in this project:
e.g. river banks will be designed in an ecological friendly way
(gradual slopes, non-erosion protected etc.).
An important issue in the design-process and environmental impact is
the presence of heavy metal contaminated sediments. This
contamination is related to industrial activities upstream and
sedimentation processes in the river-system and is consequently
diffuse. According to present Dutch legislation most of the contami-
nated sediments and soils (ca. 5 million cubic metres) should be
stored in large deposal sites and/or cleaned, mainly because of
exceeding the Dutch intervention level for zinc. However, contami-
nated sediments are still transported by the river: a cleaned up
area would soon be re-contaminated.
Therefore, beneficial use of contaminated sediments, e.g. in nature
development under environmentally sound conditions, is being con-
sidered. An important starting point is the stand-still principle:
re-use of contaminated soils or sediments is acceptable if there is
no local deterioration of environmental quality.
Items to be further defined are: assessment of environmental soil
quality in relation to local back-ground levels and how to
distinguish "Hot-Spots" (which still should be removed).
The following criteria can be used:
- bulk concentration of contaminants: this should be related to
future sediment quality;
- leachability of contaminants: leaching tests on contaminated
sediments (Dutch column test NEN 7343) have shown that leacha-
bility of heavy metals is low and often below detection limits
(despite relatively high bulk concentrations);
- ecotoxicological effects, e.g. by means of bio-assays: an
advantage of this method is an impact assessment of the total
cocktail of contaminants.
When re-use of contaminated sediments within the river-system is
considered, there should be no extra negative environmental effects
on the considered location. The future plan for the considered
location (recreation, industry, nature development etc.) should be
taken into account.
All the above mentioned criteria and assumptions will be used for
judging possibilities of beneficial use of contaminated sediments. A
judgement-system will be developed in the next year and consequently
be validated within the framework of Dutch environmental legisla-
tion.
Subject: Re: Alcohol vs. Electric Cars for reduced emissions (Was Electric Cars)
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 16:51:19 GMT
Dodge Boy wrote:
>Cesar D'Agord wrote:
[ I previously wrote ]
>> >>Brazil had moved to ethanol to reduce oil import costs,
>> >>but didn't have the infrastructure in place to reasonably
>> >>use the ethanol...
>>
>> I being ss close as an expert in this subject as anyone, I can tell you that Bruce
>> Hamilton is right.
Whilst, it's nice that you agree with me, I believe you have not
reported some of the important lessons of Brazil's experience.
>>At the time the Alcohol program started in Brazil (1976 or whereabouts,
>>first commercially sold vehicle running on alcohol was 1979, I
>> believe) the price of oil would manage to have alcohol sold at competitive
>> prices at the pump.
No, even at the start it wasn't competitive. I've seen a 1981 assessment
of the Brazilian programme especially prepared for the NZ government
that noted that it was always going to be uncompetitive until the
price of oil reached $25/bbl, but that the major advantage for Brazil
was the import substitution. With the projected oil prices reaching
$40/bbl it would become competitive in the future - if economies of
scale could be applied to the alcohol production.
>>But, by 1979, oil prices were on downward espiral,
>> coupled with the inefficiencies of a subsidized alcohol program. Alcohol
>> distilleries were all working under heavy subsidies, which I believe, and
>> many others agree lead to inefficiency, though less competiveness with the
>> oil derivatives.
If you had read the reference I provided ( " The production of Ethanol
in Brazil: A good business to the biggest companies, a medium
business to Brazil" M.F.Sinicio S.V.Bajay. Proceedings of the Tenth
International Conference on Alcohol Fuels 1993 ) you would have found
the problem was that the subsidies were the same, regardless of the
size of the producer. This political decision meant that they had to
be set so high that small producers could survive, and consequently
the much larger, far more efficient, producers made huge sums of
money from the subsidies. If Brazil had adjusted the subsidies, some
of the problems would have been mitigated. Regardless, it wasn't
the alcohol fuel that caused the economic problems, it was that
Brazil didn't have a suitable infrastructure in place, *and* the
low price of crude oil made the import substitution gains minimal.
>> If that was not enough, the break down of oil into its derivatives is a
>> process that can be modified only to a certain extent to produce, let's say,
>> more diesel and less gasoline from the same amount of oil. And it is an
>> expensive proposition, anyway. Then what happens is that Brazil still had to
>> produce Diesel (alcohol does not have enough calories to compete efficiently
>> with diesel, in a country where the trucking and bus industry is the major
>> form of commercial/passenger transportation),
This is just not true. There has been almost as much research into using
alcohols in CI engines as in SI engines. Almost all the major truck/bus
manufacturers have had alcohol ( ethanol and/or methanol ) fleet
trials around the world. The technical problems are all covered in
the proceedings of the International Symposiums on Alcohol Fuels
held every two years. The desire to retain diesel was an economic
decision, as it enabled the country to import crudes, obtain the
necessary fractions ( aviation turbine fuels, kerosines, lubricating
oils as well as diesel ) and use exported gasoline to pay for the crude
oil.
The problem was that the refineries were not appropriately
configured to efficiently produce the fractions from the cheapest
crudes, and the world market for international gasoline became
depressed due to conservation measures resulting in excess
refining capacity globally - thus the price for finished gasoline
relative to crude oil decreased, which made the returns for
Brazil on exported gasoline lower than initially predicted. Thus
part of the economics of the import substitution was compromised.
>> To summarize, some facts:
>> - Brazil regulates (used to until recently, at least) fuel prices;
>> - Cars were either to be ran on alcohol or gasoline, but not interchangeable;
This was a problem based on the lack of reliable fuel sensor
technology at the time, the development of Flexible Fuelled Vehicles
in the USA in the late 1980s overcame this significant obstacle.
>> - Heavy subsidies had to be phased out, threatening the stability of alcohol
>> production, henceforth threatening the commercialization of cars running on
>> alcohol;
No. The reduction of subsidies would have only threatened the
many smaller producers, the larger, more efficient producers
would still have survived, although they still wouldn't be
competitive against crude oil at <$25/bbl, they could still have
provided a significant reduction in the amount of precious
overseas funds needed to pay for the crude oil - but the
infrastructure needs to be able to cover the higher local fuel
cost without affecting global competitiveness - that was not
addressed in Brazil, mainly because of political reasons.
One of the reasons for the initial programme was also
that there was approx 30% excess plant capacity in the
Brazilian sugar processing sector. In the 1990s, that number
had increased to around 50%. Sugar production doubled
doubled in the last two decades, and alcohol production
increased from from 0.36 billion litres in 1975 to more than
7 billion litres in 1986.
The largest San Paulo producers were the most efficient
producers of biomass ethanol in the world. ( eg the plants processing
greater than 1.5 million tonnes of sugar cane per year ( the top
10% of plants handling more than 37% of the San Paulo
production) were producing 88.5 litres of hydrated ethanol
per tonne of sugar cane, whereas the plants processing
0.15 - 0.417 million tonnes ( the bottom 5% ) were producing
only 65.2 litres/tonne, with the middle-sized plants ranging
from 76 - 79 litres/tonne according to size ).
>You appear to be the closest thing to an expert on this tread. I don't beleve
>the US would have the conversion problems that Brazil did.
>1) The US a large excess in agriculture production.
You miss the point - using excess production is only viable
if the fuel is econimic - it isn't against crude oil at <$25/bbl
and may not be above that, depending on national economics.
>2) The large amounts of bio degradable garbage could also be
> turned into alcohol.
So could elephant dung, but not economically against current
fossil fuel prices. I suggest you read the extensive "Fuels from
Biomass" monograph in the 4th edition of the Kirk Othmer
Encyclopedia of chemical Technology to understand why the
landscape is not littered with biomass and garbage alcohol
plants.
>3) The US auto makers have already tested cars that run on
> both alcohol and gasoline (petrol).
Most of the FFV designs still tend to favour 85% alcohol
fuels - with 15% of a hydrocarbon fraction added to
overcome starting and safety problems associated with
alcohol fuels. There are some designs that cope with
100% alcohol fuels and 100% gasoline, but, for example,
the "Methanol" fuel usually sold is actually M85, not M100.
>4) The current retail price of alcohol in the US is about
>$1.50 to $1.60 a gallon, $.485 of this is a federal tax.
>Which if the government would eliminate this the price would
>drop to just over a dollar. Now gasoline (petrol) cost about
>$1.50 per gallon for 93 octane. Now it takes twice as much
>alcohol as gasoline, so with out the tax on alcohol gasoline
>would only have a $.50 a gallon advantage. If a $.50 tax were
>put on gasoline they would be equal.
I really wonder at your enthusiasm to spread your ignorance
so far and wide across Usenet. *All* fuel alcohol used in the
USA is *subsidised* with a federal subsidy of $0.54/US gallon.
On top of that, a wide range of states provide additional
subsidies that can range from $0.08/USG ( Mich ) to $0.29/USG
(Tenn ) with a typical subsidy being around $0.27/USG - however
state subsidies have been decreasing because out-of-state
consumers were found to be benefitting, let's assume it is
around $0.15/USG.
According to Rask ( " The economic characteristics of the US
fuel ethanol market " K.Rask - 10th ISOAF 1993 - cited above ),
the typical wholesale price for ethanol for the period ( 1984-90)
was around $1.25/USG. So the actual cost to the gas station would
be $1.25 - ( 0.54 + 0.15 ) = $0.56 / US Gallon if they sold ethanol
( either pure, or more commonly, as a gasoline blending agent ).
If we assume 53% more ethanol is required than gasoline
( based on relative energy content ) then the equivalent
price of the energy of 1 USG of gasoline for the gas station is
1. With subsidy $0.86 / US gallon
2. Without subsidy $1.91 / US gallon
Over that period, Rask reports that the wholesale price
of gasoline for the gas station was $0.64-$0.70 / US Gallon
according to state.
Now, on top of both of those costs, the federal and state
governments will add their taxes to pay for the transportation
infrastructure. Seems to me that your numbers are nonsense.
>5) On the electic car end it can be delivered through
>the existing infastructure.
In some cases yes, in others, no. The problem is that greater
volumes have to be delivered, and some storage tanks have
to be upgraded ( floating roof tanks tend to have water drop
through the gasoline around the walls )
>P.S. The alcohol is corrosive to aluminum in the fuel system,
>that is the need for the coatings, but on the manufacturing
>end the cost would be offset, because the need the
>emssions devices is gone.
Rubbish. I've already pointed out that the carbonyl emissions
from alcohol fuels ( especially the highly toxic formaldehyde )
are much higher ( about 10 times ) from an engine without
exhaust catalyst running on alcohols rather than hydrocarbons.
Emissions devices are still required, in addition to the smaller
cost of making the fuel system alcohol compatibile. Actually,
because of the cold start problems, most of the "Alcohol"
fuels in the USA tend to also have a volatile hydrocarbon
fraction added, thus the emissions from hydrocarbons are
still present as well, making the substitution of alcohols for
gasoline a very dubious proposition for the environment.
It is far better environmentally to overcome the cold start
problem, using devices, or on-board generation of
Dimethylether/Diethylether from the alcohol during operation
for subsequent cold starts ,than to blend alcohols and
hydrocarbons. One of the major problems of the US RFG
programme has been that the environmental benefits of
oxygenates are marginal for smog reduction because can
they produce emissions that have more reactivity than
some of the hydrocarbons used in gasolines. For more
information on the complexity of such issues, I suggest you
read the Gasoline FAQ, posted monthly to rec.autos.tech
and available via FTP from the Usenet FAQ archives at
rtfm.mit.edu in pub.usenet-by-hierarchy/rec/autos/tech.
Bruce Hamilton
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 96 21:52:43 GMT
In article <52o6cg$fb7@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>,
pho@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens) wrote:
>In article 005@news.lm.com, rbossard@nauticom.net (Richard
Bossard) writes:
>>In article ,
>> charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you have read many of my postings, you will find that I
>>>agree with your assessment. The fervor that many
>>>environmentalists follow the current models, even though
>>>those models are recognized as being as yet incomplete,
>>>borders on superstition!
>
>The concern for global warming does not come from the models
but from
>basic physics. The models give us some isight as to what we
>might expect.
>
>*NOBODY* is placing the faith in them that you critise them
>for. They just prefer to be less ignorant than you do.
>
>>>Since I think that "seeing is believing",
>
>Translation - you will not do anything until it is too late.
>Would you play russian roulette if I were to to give you
>$100 per shot.
I will if you go first! BTW, for you, I will *remove* one
bullet from the gun before you go!
>
>>>I have not jumped on the global model bandwagon
>>>yet, because the models' predictions have not yet been
born
>>>out by observation.
>
>If you do not accept the models then you have to rely purely
on
>the basic physics that CO2 will cause warming and that this
>warming could be catastrophic.
Hell, Pete. Hydrogen sulfide is commonly found in refineries
that run sour crude (e.g., the refinery I work in). One good
whiff of this stuff *will* (not could) be catastrophic for
the person who breathes it (he will be dead in short order).
Knowing this, I am still willing to work there because
reasonable precautions are taken to prevent exposure, since
the risk is known. Saying that something "could" be
catastrophic is ridiculous. Is it, or isn't it?
>If you act rationally then the information of the models
>justify less drastic action since they reassure us that
>change is likely to be at the lower end of the
possibilities.
>
>>Besides, during the '70s didn't they start a big hysteria
about the coming
>>"ice age"? They got everyone excited over a near certain
"global cooldown".
>
>NO NO NO,
>They were pointing out the chaotic nature of climaite. ie
>how the climate *COULD* switch to ice age conditions is a
>short period of time rather than gradually over millions of
>years. It was *NOT* a prediction that such a change was
about
>to happen though it does seem to have been taken as such
>by the scientifically illiterate.
>
>>I'm still waiting. Now in the 90's they claim a global
heatup.
>
>The 1890s indeed. Global warming is nothing new.
>
>>Based on
>>their past record, how can anybody believe them?
>
>Try basic physics.
>
And you might want to try a valium. You seem to get excited
over things that are not yet verified as being a problem.
============================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com/mf.main/articles.html
Subject: Vandeman's Gibberish (was: Mountain Bikers Arrested..)
From: bbauer@co.intel.com (Blaine D. Bauer)
Date: 30 Sep 1996 23:24:29 GMT
In article <324F2A13.701C@pacbell.net>, Mike Vandeman says:
>
>Will Stewart wrote:
> Of course, I am not against MTBing
>> in managed trails, or against driving completely. We must all examine
>> those activities we choose to get our thrills for their impact on
>> sustainability considerations.
>
>> Member Electrical Vehical Association of America
>> "The truth will set you free: - J.C.
>
>The truth is, even on "managed trails", MTBs kill lots of animals that happen
>to be on or under the trail. In my area alone, a number of threatened
>Alameda whipsnakes have been killed by mountain bikes. They travel too fast
>for the animals to get out of the way. (After all, they didn't evolve with
>mountain bikes.) Where creeks are crossed, amphibians, reptiles, and their eggs
>in the sand are crushed.
I too see lots of little animals along the trails, most which I never see
when I'm walking because they scatter too fast. Why have I never seen one
killed? Its because those little critters move awfully fast. If they couldn't
get off the trail by the time I get there, they'd never make it in nature.
Than again, Vandeman has a pretty ludicrous idea of how fast we can ride.
>
>Noisy gasoline cars already kill millions of animals every year. Electric cars,
>which are nearly silent, will kill even more! And they still require roads,
>which are the greatest threat to wildlife, fragmenting habitat and bringing
>people into habitat areas.
Can't argue with the fact that cars kill millions of animals. Most of them dogs
or cats. I have seen some racoons or possums hit (those animals tend to have
population explosions in areas where trash is highly accessible, like cities).
I'm not sure how this affects wilderness, though.
Blaine Bauer Any opinions expressed do not necessarily
Beaverton, Oregon (USA) reflect the opinions of Intel Corporation
Subject: US-NJ-EE-CHEMIST-AUTOMOTIV-DIESEL
From: "Larry Gallin"
Date: 1 Oct 1996 00:10:12 GMT
Gallin Associates specializes in recruitment for technology
focused positions. We are currently searching for the following position:
POSITION # 9635
TITLE: Senior Research Chemist/Engineer
LOCATION: New Jersey
SALARY: $65,000 to $80,000 is targeted range
PROFILE: Development of automotive catalysts and future emission
systems control products; define, plan and implement research
projects to provide innovative technology, leading to new products,
systems and processes; work with internal and external resources to
define and address specific technology needs
REQUIREMENTS: PhD in Chemistry or ChemEng with significant exp in
AUTOMOTIVE CATALYSTS, kinetics, product development,
synthesis, or materials science, Auto emission control system
exp is highly desired.
If you are interested:
a. fax resume to 813-724-8503 or
b. email resume to galassc@sprynet.com
c. call for additional details, 800-394-9399 (must reference position#)
Gallin Associates, Inc. ALL RESUME RESPONSES ARE
PO BOX 14004 HELD IN STRICT CONFIDENCE!
Clearwater, FL 34629
Subject: Re: Parks Do Not Protect Wildlife
From: hopkins2@ix.netcom.com(Rick A. Hopkins)
Date: 1 Oct 1996 02:11:09 GMT
> There are two issues that relate to the impact of management
> on wildlife: spacial and temporal. In spacial terms, almost all
> park lands are accessible to all humans during all daylight hours.
> No special skills are required. This practically eliminates parks
> as wildlife habitat. Even if there still are places where wildlife
> have access, any of them can potentially be reached by people, once
> the habitat is designated as a "park".
Mike:
We have been over this before. In most parks, roads and trails make up
less than 0.5% of the land mass and in some parks this can be even
less. This is not to say that only 0.5% of the park is affected by
visitors, certainly the influence to the environment exceeds beyond the
simply boundaries of the trail/road. How far the influence reaches
depends a lot on the environment; is it a large homogenous forest type,
is it a mosaic of several habitats (like Mt. Diablo - chaparral,
grassland, oak woodland, riparian, etc.), do the trails follow cut
through sensitive habitats or enter an area used by a special-status
wildlife species (i.e., listed, candidate species or some other
category), what is the topography, and so on. The inner coast range of
California (e.g., Mt. Diablo) consist of a mosaic of habitats and has
fairly high species richness and diversity indices. A simple review of
the avian and mammalian predators that are common in the park is all
that one has to do to realize that the prey base for these predators
must be quite good.
Most park visitors rarely (if ever) leave the trail. Therefore, as one
moves farther from the trails, any influence from humans of the system
(perceived or real) will decline. Well over 90% of a park in the
Diablo Range rarely receives human use. By our laziness (and I suspect
many park visitors are simply unnerved by the idea of leaving the trail
in a place as rugged as parks in the Diablo Range) we have made most of
the parks de facto free of humans. In otherwords, much of the wildlife
of the park (particularly small animals), almost never come into
contact with humans.
So contrary to your beliefs, parks in the Diablo Range support
relatively high quality wildlife habitat. I use the high density of
the several predator species as evidence of their (parks) health (e.g.,
a partial list includes Red-tailed Hawk, Golden Eagle, Great-horned
Owl, Barn Owl, Screech Owl, Loggerhead Shrike, raccoon, ringtail,
stripe skunk, badger, gray fox, coyote, bobcat, cougar). In fact the
Diablo Range supports one of the highest densities of cougars in the
Western Hemisphere. So Grant Park (10,000 acres) and Coe Park (82,000
acres) with their park visitations for instance, support very high
quality cougar habitat. There is no measurable difference with the
quality of habitat between these parks and the adjacent ranchlands
(that receive much lower human visitation). What are we to conclude.
Your insistence, that an area adjacent to Mt. Diablo State Park remain
free of humans, is unfounded scientifically, but certainly can be
argued on philosophical grounds (you are unlikely to have many
followers I suspect). If on the otherhand, you want to argue/persuade
that trails be sighted to avoid critical habitats of special-status
plant or animal species, or unusually sensitive habitats, this is a
very valid use of your time.
> In temporal terms, nighttime has historically been available
> for wildlife to travel and feed unmolested by humans. Camping
> eliminates that "loophole"! People can potentially camp or explore
> (with the proper equipment, all of which is available) at night
> now, anywhere they want to.
It seems you have any first hand knowledge of the biology of most
animals in the Mt. Diablo area. The vast majority of bird species are
active during the day. They usually have peak activity times at
sunrise and sunset (but show some activity throughout the day); this is
not an adaptation to humans, but more one that occurs throughout their
range (even in areas where human use is very low). This is not to say
that some birds (such as raptors) might avoid high use areas
altogether. Amphibian and reptiles do not show any measurable shift of
areas due to human use. Birds such as owls and goatsuckers are
primarily nocturnal by trade. Ground squirrels are diurnal. Deer are
active throughout the day and night; peak times are (a couple of
hours) pre and post sunrise and sunset. But they feed throughout the
day. Deer sometimes avoid high human use areas and sometimes ar
e drawn to them. It largely depends on the circumstances. Bobcats and
coyotes frequently hunt during the day if they are searching for
diurnal prey such as ground squirrels. These two carnivores also are
quite active at night. Cougars can hunt through the day but usually
show an activity pattern similar to deer (boy what a surprise). Wild
pigs are also active throughout the day and night. All of these
observations are consistent with both the parklands (public moderate to
high human use) and ranchlands (private low human use) in the Diablo
Range. If you do not see wildlife on your hikes through the woods, it
is because you do not know how to look for them or do not know what
time of day to improve your chances. By the way many wildlife do not
run from humans. I frequently get quite close (20 -50 yds) to deer for
example without spooking them. It all depends on your demeanor.
Cougars, on the otherhand, when they get that close to a deer it
usually means lunch. Believe me deer frequently (particularly in parks
where they come into contact with them) show more concern for cougars
than humans.
> I would prefer that you designate this new "parkland" as a
> "wildlife preserve", provide no access to it whatsoever (including
> biologists, who are hard for wildlife to distinguish from other
> humans), and even experiment with making it the first (?) area in
> the world that is truly off-limits to humans. The wildlife will
> thank you!
The issue Mike is not do humans use an area, but how do they use it,
the kind of contact, the amount, time of year, during breeding season,
etc. No rational person would argue that the very high visitation rate
in Yosemite Valley is a good thing for wildlife; but the present use of
the John Muir Wilderness is sufficiently low to cause few if any
problems for wildlife. Coe Park could support a fair increase in human
use and not cause a significant problem for wildlife. The park
presently employs a system to minimize overuse by allowing only so many
backpackers in a “region”. This provides reasonable good control of
park use and reduces the problem of overuse of areas. The most highly
used trails (within 5 miles of the headquarters) support some of the
highest used areas by cougars.
The issue of humans and effects on wildlife is substantially more
complex than you allow for. You want it to be black/white; it simply
is not, it is very gray and murky. You damage your cause by
yourChicken Little approach. There are plenty of opportunities for you
to work on advisory groups or with park administrations to reduce
impacts to wildlife, but as long as you take “do it my way or you must
be a prostitute scum bureacrat” you will continue to fail.
Rick
Subject: Re: Population Control
From: iw@emphasys.com.au (Ian Williamson)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 11:54:29
In article <1996093008140412878@kip1301.calvacom.fr> jp10@calvanet.calvacom.fr (J.R. Pelmont) writes:
>From: jp10@calvanet.calvacom.fr (J.R. Pelmont)
>Subject: Re: Population Control
>Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 08:14:04 +0000
>Don Libby wrote :
>> I think you grossly oversimplify the causes of environmental
>>problems, and the consequences of population growth. Your
>>understanding of the issue and prescriptions for action
>>appear to be about on the level of Rev. Malthus (writing in
>>the 18th Century).
>>--(trunquated)
>I feel as to agree with most of your comments. The problem cannot be
>only a matter of overpopulation. Poverty, ignorance and cultural habits
>are some other factors.
Actually wealth seems to be a bigger factor than poverty. Rates of demand for
resources by the 1 billion wealthy people on this Earth outweigh the rates of
demand of all resources by the 4.5 billion less fortunate inhabitants of this
Earth. The real problem at the moment is the level of expectation we all have.
It is wrong, indeed irresponsible, just to blame overpopulation for
environmental destruction, rather we should be looking at our levels of waste,
inefficiency, environmental hypocracy and ourselves and not the developing
nations.
>You mentionned the case of peasants in Andes. I have done several
>trekkingsin Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. When you go down from La Paz and
>the high sierra to the jungle eastward in Bolivia (to the region of Beni
>River, along the "inca trail"), you can observe different levels of
>degradation, often caused by burning and gold mining. There are no
>roads, no investments. These people live in a state of great precarity.
>The burning of forests down the mountain slopes is a simple way of
>making extra pasture space.
>A small village of Bolivia (Llipi) was wiped
>out by a land slide at the time of Christmas 1992 at night, and at least
>two hundred died instantly. The village and the gold mine have been
>rebuilt, and the threat remains ! Destruction of the environment after
>burning then erosion is very common all over the world in underdeveloped
>countries or elsewhere (for instance... in Corsica !)
I would suspect that deforrestation caused by logging by multi-nationals has
caused far more damage than all the slash and burn practices. Add to this
irresponsible mining practices, excessive destruction in the building of
infrastructure and so on.
>Intensive farming and the pressure of productivity have caused great
>damages in many parts of the United States and in Europe as well.
Not to mention Australia.
> In my opinion this has nothing to do with population growth.
Should we say, little to do with population growth.
> And we still produce too much wheat, milk, etc.
Inflating their prices through protectionist policy, making them unaffordable
to places that need them.
>Some european companies have contributed to destroy valuable forests in
>Africa, especially ebony trees.
So have companies from all over the globe.
> I have seen obvious devastations in the Republic of Central
>Africa, where you still can admire genuine rain forests along the
>Oubangui River (untouched, inhabited by pygmes). This country is very
>poor and its population is still low. Yet, the devastation cannot be
>attributed as a whole to the sole population growth (although the
>african people also do "slash and burn").
>During a long trip across Australia five weeks ago, I have been
>explained how the colonial history of this huge country and the practice
>of land burning by many aborigenous tribes have been very important
>factors. Bad farming, draught and climate warming do not cooperate for
>restoring devastated lands. Also fires are easily propagared by the type
>of vegetation, Eucalyptus, Mulga, dry grass (Spinifex) and others. Also
>there is a problem with imported buffalos in the North Territories, even
>difficulties with camels, various animals introduced by man (and of
>course the rabbits). I noticed that there was in all the places I have
>visited a very great concern about protecting the environment. That is
>good. By the way Australia is a very empty continent ! Well, I suppose I
>am oversimplifying the problem also. This is not a simple question that
>can be summarized in a few lines, and it needs to know much more. This
>is the usefulness of discussion. :-)
>However, I totally dislike all the Sydney's arguments about limiting the
>number of kids (the so-called "offspring"), limiting the number of
>immigrants, and so on. Is it referring to the well-known australian fear
>about immigration from Asia ? This does not sound nice at all in many
>ears of my country, especially after recent history. Ouch !. But maybe I
>am still mistakened or I have misread the post.
On this I agree with you strongly.
>Sincerely, have a good day
Cheers
IW