Subject: Aviation Fuels - was Re: electric vehicles
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 07:17:43 LOCAL
In article <...> Dodge Boy writes:
>Matt Kennel wrote:
>>
>> However, I see *NO* feasible replacement for aircraft fuel, and no
>> even remote chance of developing any.
>> We can make electric cars, nuclear ships, but aircraft need oil.
Hydrogen has been used - it's light, very high energy/mass
ratio. The reality is that fossil aviation fuels will probably be
replaced with another hydrocarbon fraction ( perhaps even
a single HC ) similar in properties to the Avgas and Jet A1
fractions, probably derived from renewable carbon processes.
The technology is there, but the economics probably won't be
justified until crude reaches about $50/bbl. There were some
synthetic avialtion fuels produced in the 1960s, but economics
killed them early, and catalysis has developed further since
then. I agree that aviation fuels will be the hardest to replace,
if only because of the long design life of aircraft - requiring
backwards compatibity ( because it will probably not be economic
to have multiple fueling systems worldwide ), and because of
the need for large quantities of the Jet A1 fuel to be available
worldwide. It's not such a problem for Avgas, as the quantities
are much smaller, and many engines can now run on Mogas
( Automotive Gasoline ) as well. The increasing use of Jet A1
has meant that it is now the dominant kerosine fraction, and
some countries have abandoned their lighting kerosine grades
altogether, supplyinhg Jet A1 as the sole kerosine. Note that
Jet B ( the widecut military grade ) includes some of the gasoline
fraction, thus isn't a "true" kerosine - and isn't approved for
most commercial passenger aircraft.
> We'll I can see to possibilities to explore. Alcohol for the piston
>engine planes, and for the jets vegtable oil. It has already been
>proven that it is a viable substitute for diesel. Jet fuel is a variant
>of diesel, and with additives it may work. That also gives the
>possiblity of the piston engines being converted to diesel, the Germans
>had many diesel airplanes during WWII.
Firstly, alcohols aren't viable substitutes because they
are low calorific value by mass because they contain
oxygen - it would be preferable to convert them to
hydrocarbons just to maintain the range and capacity
of planes. Secondly, they produce lots of carbonyl
emissions, especially formaldehyde ( MeOH ) and
acetaldehyde ( EtOH ). There are techniques for
making gasoline from alcohols eg the Mobil ZSM-5
zeolite process used in New Zealand
Vegetable oil is a useless fuel for aviation - it
goes solid at -10C, when aircraft fuels have to
remain fluid at -45C. Even if it was transesterified
to make esters it would still have problems with
viscosity at such low temperatures. Also the pure
oil tends to form gums rapidly and readily emulsifies
with water - problems of great significance when the
fuel goes from 40C tropical temperatures to -45C
in flight. The esters have good energy contents, but
would need significant levels of additives to match
the existing stability, viscosity index and water
separation properties of existing fuels.
Jet fuel is not a variant of diesel, it is a form
of kerosine. Diesel is much higher molecular
weight, and many international grades will
solidify at temperatures around - 20C. Diesel
also contains many trace elements that will
produce corrosive compounds in aircraft
turbine engines.
I suggest you read the Aviation Fuels sections
in Modern Petroleum Technology or the Kirk
Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology
to become just a little less ignorant.
I admire your arrogance at being so keen to
display your ignorance around Usenet. I'm
wondering if you even know anything about
Dodge cars as well.
Bruce Hamilton
Subject: Re: Parks Do Not Protect Wildlife
From: macgeek@earthlink.net (Andrew J. Paier)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 15:28:21 -0400
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> There, you just did it again! Who are you to say that the killing of a dozen
> tiger salamanders is "inconsequential"?! What if someone killed a member of
> your family? I doubt that you would call that "inconsequential"!
I don't know, if members of my familly were being eaten every day by
preditors, I really probably wouldn't notice, esp. if there were 50,000
people in my familly.
> > The ability of the population to persist would not be hampered in any
> > measurable way (quantitatively).
>
> That has nothing to do with preserving biodiversity. If it did, we could
> just keep a pair of them in a zoo, & allow the rest to be killed off.
Actually if does, see while it is true that 2 individuals are not enough
to preserve biodiversity, esp. given the problems associated with
inbreeding, the number of individuals required to ensure that a
population can thrive without such (inbreeding) problems can be
calculated.
> > If this was (or is) not a lone incident, and if other snakes are killed
> > by park users, then the park should consider the area off-limits to
> > humans. But contrary to your attitude, while very unfortunate, as long
> > as it is not a pattern, nothing different needs to be done.
>
> This is pure BS! Do you know if the whipsnake is increasing or decreasing?
> Unless you know that, you can't know what the current status o the snake
> is, and whether loss of a couple of snakes (just the ones we KNOW of --
> there are probably many more that are unreported) is important.
I think that the biologist he talked to might Mike. In addition if you
don't know, how can you conclude it _is_ a problem. Without evidence,
neither conclusion can be supported.
> > >I don't want to expose them to the kind of abuse you shower on anyone
> > >who disagrees with you. You are talking about a "biologist" bureaucrat
> > >who cares more about keeping his job than saving threatened species.
> >
> > Geez Mike, do you think we have a pattern here. One more biologist who
> > disagrees with your rantings and once again, they must be wrong and
> > must be corupt. I think you need to improve your interpersonal skills.
>
> What does this have to do with the ISSUE? It is telling that you mountain
> bikers can't resist falling to ad hominem personal attacks, when you fail
> to win a rational argument. It must be a side effect of too much bouncing
> off of crushed wildlife.
Mike, I think you shot the first volley here by refering to Rick as a
"biologist" bureaucrat. (esp with the quotes...) Rick disagreed with
your arguments and you attack him stating he doesn't care about
threatened species simply because he doesn't agree with your stance.
This would be the same as my claiming you don't care about the
environment because you eat meat. Just because we disagree in one area
does not give me the right to judge you as a person, only the right to
judge that one action.
-AP
(Header trimed to protect the uninterested)
Subject: FED EPA - Stops environmentally sound project
From: Mike
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 16:23:45 -0700
Proof that the EPA has abandoned its charter to protect and improve the
environment and turned instead into a bureaucratic dynasty whose only
purposes revolve around playing politics and applying their 'rules' only
to bolster their power.
Lynnfield Massachusetts has 'Pillings Pond' created over 30 years ago by
flooding what was once a farm field. 10 years ago it was decided that
the fertile soil was the cause of the pond's bad smell and its' being
choked off each summer by vegetation. The bacteria count was staggering,
few fish could survive in it and swimming was certainly out of the
question.
Back then, town officials asked the Army Corps of Engineers if a permit
was needed for a plan to dredge the bottom and sell it as loam. The
answer back then was that no permit was needed as long as nothing 'bad'
was being put INTO the pond. The dredging and sale of the loam has been
ongoing now for several years. (The loam is fantastic!)
Along comes the EPA last month to fine the town $75,000 and say that the
fine could have AND SHOULD have been much more. One official was
quoted that 'these towns need to be taught a lesson..." What they contend
is almost beyond comprehension.....
They claim that the contractor is polluting the pond and that the town
has no permit. Polluting with what you may ask? THE DREDGED SOIL!
That's right. The contractor dredges the bottom and uses a portion of
the dreging to build temporary dams to get the soil out and THEY consider
the soil a 'pollutant'. You can't dump soil into a pond even when it
comes from the pond itself.
A project to restore a pond to a status much better than what was, both
environmentally AND esthetically, is now stopped in its tracks. All
local environmental scientists and engineers who have been involved with
the project say this is an excellent project that illustrates a specific
way of how our environment can be IMPROVED. But, the federal agency that
could have shared some glory for doing something right decided instead
that 'teaching the town a lesson' is more important to them than doing
something for the environment!
With the EPA there are only two choices. The town can pay the fine and
leave the half done project as is - half dredged, torn up, a few dams
here and there.... yeccch! Or pay even MORE for the CHANCE to fight this
RIDICULOUS EPA power flex by appealing it.
There is no excuse for this kind of behavior by a federal agency. They
are SUPPOSED to work FOR the environment not AGAINST it.
The EPA must be accountable for their actions and adhere to scientific
methods. As of now - they are on record in this instance for doing
neither.
Is this our EPA the way we want it?
Subject: Re: Recharging EV Stations
From: Will Stewart
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 15:26:39 -0400
Carl Schott wrote:
> Will Stewart (wstewart@patriot.net) wrote:
[...]
> I haven't said or assumed anything about
> the length of a trip. The question I'm raising is, if EV's with
> sufficient battery capacity to go 100 miles on a charge need to be
> charged every night to avoid a 13-hour full recharge or modifications
> to home electrical service, what good is the extra range? Why should
> longer range vehicles be developed or bought if the extra range won't
> be used?
The major argument that anti-EV critics had over the last few years was
that EVs didn't have enough range. Now that the range is increasing,
Carl is asserting that longer range is undesirable.
#1 - EVs don't have to be recharged every night. Recharging is
extremely simple and convienient, though, so that's not an issue.
#2 - If people want to have the flexibility of going 100+ miles, they
can do so with the longer range EVs.
#3 - No one has to buy an EV with a long range.
> And if longer range EV's ARE being developed, shouldn't
> discussions of electrical infrastructure requirements for charging take
> account of that?
This assumes that homes where long range EVs might be used are not
equipped to handle the recharging requirements. You have yet to present
us with any data about the electrical infrastucture configurations of
the US marketplace. Certainly you could show that some homes are not
equipped, but that does not preclude the homes that *do* have the extra
electrical service needed, given that 10 to 12 hour charging cycles can
meet the needs of the commuter.
> This all was centered on the assumption of a 20 kwh maximum recharge
> requirement for EV's. My contention was (and is) that 30-40 kwh is a
> better planning figure since that level of charge is more appropriate to
> a 100+ mile range production EV.
> [...deleted...]
And you deleted my material that shows that this assumption is
erroneous. The material;
"If you visit http://solstice.crest.org/clients/nesea/finres.html , you
will find the 1996 Tour de Sol results, that show the Solectria Sunrise
averaged 11.24 miles/kWh. If this vehicle were to travel 100 miles,
then it would require less than 9 kWh. If we pick a more representative
commuting average, such as 40 miles, then it would require approximately
3.5 kWh."
Even commercially available converted EVs do far better than your
assumption suggests. The Solectria Force achieved 8.7 miles/kWh in the
Tour de Sol.
> : My point, as shown above, is that most people won't drive anywhere 100+
> : miles everyday.
>
> So what? People will still want longer range EV's so they won't have
> to charge them every day.
That is just an assertion. If the charger is right next to the car, and
you can just plug right in, why not? It's not like having to go through
the ritual of going out of one's way to get to a gas station, often wait
in line, go through the fun of credit card processing or pre-paying,
play pump jockey, stand around smelling the fumes you know can't be good
for you, wiping the couple of drops that got on the paint, putting the
cap on, and finally making your way back to you seat to crowd back into
traffic.
With an EV, you plug it in. When it's done, you unplug it at your
convenience.
> If they end up having to charge it every day
> anyway after only having driven 60 miles,
They may also only travel as little as 20 miles.
>why should they pay for the 100+ mile battery?
They can if they desire to have the flexibility to drive 100+ or 300+
miles.
> And you haven't "shown" that people won't drive "anywhere 100+ miles
> everyday"--you simply asserted it.
I didn't say I proved it; if you want to believe that the average
commute is over 100+ miles, I certainly won't stop you.
BTW, here is what I said;
> : > : That assumes that a +100 mile trip is ordinary. If used for commuting,
> : > : then we would be looking at much smaller numbers on the average.
> [...deleted...]
> : I our area, most new houses have a minimum of 100A service, with 200A
> : becoming common.
> : I'll call a Virginia Power rep on monday to try to get more substantial
> : data.
>
> Great. So you agree that a charge of something like 30-40 kwh is more
> appropriate to use in estimating electrical infrastructure requirements?
Again, your 30-40 kWh assumption is off-target.
> : You are trying to establish the perception that simply plugging in an EV
> : is an inconvenience; I would claim that traveling to a gas station and
> : going through that refueling ritual once or twice a week is more
> : incovenient.
>
> I'm not trying to establish a perception of anything. Plugging in an EV
> every night for 5 nights and unpluging it every morning IS an
> inconvenience compared to fueling an ICE car for 10 minutes ONCE for the
> same driving distance.
Again, another assertion. I beleive otherwise, because I have actually
used the chargers. The Saturn EV-1 uses an induction paddle that fits
in a slot in the front of the vehicle. You simply lift the paddle and
insert it into the slot. When you come out in the morning, you lift the
paddle and set it on its hook. Pouring a cup of coffee is more
difficult than that...
> And if one cares to, one can take the ICE car
> to a full service station and not even have to get out of it for the
> fillup.
At these gas prices, only the most dainty employ this practice.
> If the inconvenience isn't obvious to you, I don't think I can
> explain it.
Have you ever even seen an EV being recharged? If not, where do you get
your information?
>But car buyers will certainly be aware of it, especially
> the first time they consider purchasing an EV.
If car buyers visit a dealership that has an EV and a charger, they will
see for themselves how easy it is. Hearing it from someone who has
never done it is meaningless...
Cheers,
--
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free: - J.C.
Subject: Re: Gas is Dirtier tthan We Thought -- EPA
From: Will Stewart
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 14:43:47 -0400
Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>
> stncar@ix.netcom.com(Marty Bernard) wrote:
>
> >This was written by Clare Bell, editor of the Electric Automobile
> >Associatios's newsletter ''Current Events.'' Forwarded with permission.
>
> Another desperation message bought to you by EV proponents.
A typical response from Mr. Gasoline FAQ.
> >Even brand-new gasoline vehicles pollute more than emissions tests
> >show, according to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
> >This makes the pollution reduction benefits of electric vehicles even
> >stronger by comparison.
>
> Given that the first sentence is nonsense, the second is also nonsense.
You actually fail to support these claims below.
> The FTP cycle measures the emissions of the vehicle during a standard
> driving cycle that was derived from an extensive series of trials of typical
> driving patterns decades ago. The amount of pollution from a vehicle following
> the driving cycle is accurately measured, and for vehicles following the
> driving cycle in the real world, the amount of emissions is exactly the same
> as the emssions test shows.
For new cars using the same fuel that the test was administered under.
> What has happened is that the drivers have become more accelerator
> happy over the last few decades, as the performance of the average
> cars has improved, combined with increasing lifestyle pressures
> on available time. Obviously, if drivers become more accelerator happy
> then more fuel will be used. This is not a sudden new perception,
> the FTP driving cycle is regularly informally reviewed, and the
> automakers have been concerned about the increasing difference
> between 1990s actual driving patterns and the 1970s-based FTP.
> The increasing use of surplus engine power for A/C and accessories
> has also been noted, and the test procedures have not reflected
> options available on 1990s cars.
So you agree that drivers are more aggressive in their driving habits.
> This topic was extensively discussed in sci.energy in 1992, and it was
> obvious that a more aggressive procedure would result, but the issue
> was how aggressive. Wide open throttle is open loop in most engine
> management system to obtain maximum acceleration - a perfectly
> valid option - given that the test cycles didn't invoke WOT. Closing
> that omission was inevitable, and it's likely that the modern engine
> management systems will also retain much of the power at WOT,
> something that wasn't possible decades ago as power tended to
> peak at rich fuel settings.
On what basis do you consider this "likely"?
> On some modern engines maximum power
^^^^
Which ones?
> can peak at near-stoichiometric conditions, due to far more
> sophisticated engine design, knowledge of combustion, and
> improved engine management systems.
But you avoid the issue at hand; steady state emissions is not the
issue, but the "accelerator-happy" habits of drivers results in higher
acceleration rates, which in turn does use richer fuel mixtures during
said accelerations.
> >The fact that emissions certification test results have not reflected
> >actual tailpipe outputs during actual driving may in part explain why
> > air quality in California and elsewhere has failed to improve.
> Actually, as far as I'm aware, it has improved, but it hasn't improved
> as much as expected. In part, this may be due to driving style changes
But your thesis and argument states that this is incorrect.
> and the use of A/C, but it is also due to gross polluters. Surveys of
> vehicle populations have demonstrated that emissions systems had
> been tampered with on over 40% of the gross polluters, and an
> additional 20% had defective emission control equipment.
EVs have no such problem.
> The EPA has been very tardy in recognising the problem of gross
> polluters, and CARB was even more stupid in accepting that
> remote sensing systems could be used to detect and compel
> owners of gross polluters to be subject to an expensive emissions
> check, as RS is known to not be 100% reliable.
Here, Bruce attempts to shift the blame away from polluting vehicles and
place it with some faceless bureaucracies.
> Remote sensing
> should be used to identify *suspected* gross polluters, and the
> owners asked to provide evidence of the most recent emissions
> check, if none is forthcoming, then require a emissions check.
> RS needs a lot more work before it can be used for compulsion
> or enforcement - it's unfortunate that CARB didn't listen to more
> experts on remote sensing and emissions that have consistently
> pointed out that the technique has serious limitations, and is
> not unambiguous, but has utility in identifying possible polluters.
Again, EVs don't have this problem.
> >Electric vehicle advocates should seize upon this as an additional
> >argument for EVs.
> Very funny - given that the new regulations will require faster
> acceleration, higher speeds, and functioning A/C, and that EVs
> are range and performance limited due to battery limitations.
You seem to forget you are talking about an emissions test. EVs have no
point source emissions.
[...]
> So let's see what the range of EVs decreases by under the new
> FTP,
This is a hilarious statement; you seem to think that an emissions test
is going to somehow effect the range of a vehicle that doesn't emit
pollutants.
> I suppose they'll just not have an A/C option,
> and try and mandate that drivers of EVs live only in temperate
> climes.
Blah, blah, blah...
> >Furthermore, making existing and future ICE models meet
> >these new requirements is not going to be easy or cheap.
>
> Really?. Strange, because the automakers have been pointing
> out the differences for many years, and the new FTP procedure
> reflects how drivers are currently using their vehicles.
Then you should have some handy references.
The
> companies contributed to designing the new cycle, so I suspect
> they estimated any additional cost,
"Suspect"?
> but I'd be surprised if they
> ever publically stated what their inhouse engineering assessments
> are - for competitive reasons. Their marketing sections may choose
> to badmouth the proposal just to keep the public aware of nasty
> Federal rules that will increase the price of cars, but I haven't
> even seen of that in the journals that appear here.
Again, blaming a faceless bureaucracy for the emission problems of a
gasoline burning vehicle.
> I suspect estimates from EV proponents on the cost of ICV
> improvements have about the same credibility as their estimates
> of when the ( now increased ) energy storage problem of EVs will
> be economically competitive with existing and proposed ICVs.
Ah, you "suspect" again...
> >A rise in fuel prices has already made EVs more competitive with
> >gas.
>
> You mean that increased fossil fuel prices only increased the
> price of gasoline, and the 67% of electricity generated from
> fossil fuels hasn't increased - yet....
3% of the US's electrical generation capacity comes from oil. You know
this, so why are you so blatantly misleading? Fossil fuel includes
coal, which is not imported into the US in any significant quantities.
This was a poor attempt at obfuscation; you're normally much more
subtle. Or perhaps we're getting better at catching on...
> Followups set to Sci.energy
Followups to include sci.environment and rec.autos.tech. We wouldn't
want people to miss out on the other side of the story...
Cheers,
--
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free: - J.C.
Subject: Re: Population Control
From: "Donald L. Libby"
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 15:40:05 -0700
Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> Don Libby wrote:
>
> : I have seen instances where peasant farmers in the Andes have
> : been forced on to marginal lands to practice subsistence
> : farming using "slash and burn" tecniques. They were forced
> : to invade this montane ecosystem not because their numbers
> : are growing rapidly (in fact they are so poor as to be slowly
> : dwindling), rather, because commerical agricultural interests
> : have put all the low-lying agricultural lands in this region
> : into sugar cane for alcohol production. It isn't hard to
> : imagine alternative land-tenure systems and agricultural
> : technologies that could support a larger population with less
> : impact on the montane ecosystem.
>
> Ok...
>
> : Population growth has
> : almost nothing to do with the environmental problems in this
> : specific situation.
>
> Would the sugar and alcohol production be required if it were not for
> larger populations?
>
> --
> <---->
I think not. The utilization of prime lands for commerical agriculture is a
response to national and global commodities markets. One could easily
imagine an alternative social structure (land tenure system) in which the
subsistance farming on marginal lands forced by commercial agriculture were
replaced by subsistence farming on prime lands if, for example, the society
were closed to world trade, or isolated from dominant urban markets.
Alternately, one could easily imagine different technologies that would
support both subsistence and commerical production on the same land, thus
obviating the need of landless peasants to invade montane ecosystems.
Changing social organization and technology would easily mitigate the impact
of the local population on the local ecosystem.
Now, don't jump to conclusions about who I am and what I believe - no need to
put me on your enemies list right away. I am a professional sociologist who
has spent a good bit of time in graduate seminars reading and discussing the
problems of population and environment. I personally do believe that there
are good reasons for population control (in specific situations), but in
general I don't think environmental impact is the top reason - mitigating
social problems is a more important reason IMO.
Summing up, I don't think population growth is the primary cause of
environmental problems, and I don't think environmental problems are the
primary reason for population control. The simple equation of environmental
problems with population growth just doesn't hold up on close examination.
-dl
Subject: Re: Residential woodsmoke
From: bodo@io.org (Byron Bodo)
Date: 7 Oct 1996 21:08:15 GMT
In article <32596BCB.229A@west.darkside.com>, coltom@west.darkside.com says...
>
>Byron Bodo wrote:
>> So where does all the forest fire dioxin/furan go, if it's
>> created in the first place?
>>
>> Looking at the various numbers cooked up for forest fires, all I see
>> are indirect inferences based on old total PCDD data from certain
>> kinds of controlled burns. I have yet to find a report from someone
>> that went out and systematically measured PCDD/Fs in soils, sediments, and
>> biota from areas where forest fires have occurred sometime in the
>> recent, say 1-25 year, past. Until I see some hard direct evidence, > I'll
>> remain skeptical about the significance of forest fires as major PCDD/F
>> sources.
>
>If I were an environmentalist, I wouldn't want a semi-natural source
>like forest fires being the largest single source of dioxin.
My interest is professional. I get paid to crunch numbers, design
surveys, etc. If forest fires, & for that matter residential burning,
produces toxic PCDD/Fs congeners in any significant quantity, the chemicals
should be measurable in soil, sediment, biota. If not, there's no point
in getting worked up about it. I'll reserve judgement until I see
some hard data that directly supports the claim.
>
>Huh, what detection level were you looking at in fish fat?
Somewhere in the ppt-ppq range. Only the 17 congeners that have some
know toxicity, i.e., the ones with published TEQs were measured. I can't
recall exactly now, but the data probably predated Environment Ontario's
renovation of their dioxin lab which pushed detection capability down
to ppq levels or lower. More recent data might show greater occurrences
at low levels, but that doesn't mean much unless the TEQs are significant.
>I would have
>expected getting a detection on almost all samples. I know everything
>caught out of the Ohio has detectable levels, not enough to issue an
>advisery but detectable.
These fish were mostly from inland lakes north Lakes Superior & Huron.
The shield terrain up there is vastly different than Ohio, and if
acid deposition gradients are a fair indicator, subject to much
less long range atmospheric deposition of PCDD/Fs than southern Ontario
or Ohio by air masses sweeping up from the Gulf of Mexico. If no one
can find evidence that naturally produced PCDD/Fs are significant
environmental contaminants in this area then what's the problem?
-bb
Subject: Reinstate the Gas Tax!
From: Will Stewart
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 08:31:02 -0400
Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>
> In article <3256E4F2.17CF@patriot.net>
> Will Stewart writes:
>
> >Visit the USGS and EIA web sites and look at the consumption and
> >resource levels of the US.
> >http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infocard.html
> >http://www-gd.cr.usgs.gov:8080/resass/resass_summary.html
>
> >You'll see that the US has an estimated 110 billion barrels of oil left.
> >Period.
>
> No. You will find that at the time of the last assessment
> the "technically recoverable" quantity of oil was calculated as
> approx. 110 billion barrels of oil. The ultimate quantities of
> oil are far greater, just that they are not considered accessible
> using currently-known technology.
For an excellent analysis that covers far more ground that the chatter
here,
visit http://www.wri.org/wri/energy/jm_oil/oil_conc.html
Unless great strides are made in crude oil recovery, then any other oil
is not technically recoverable. This does not even touch on the
economics of recovery of much of the oil, due to diffuseness or other
factors, such as oil shale.
> The fact that Will continues
> to splatter his version of "truth", when the error has been pointed
> out to him several times, is amusing, tragic, but not surprising
Resorting to ad hominem attacks is the last resort of the those who
attempt to distract readers from the presented information. I encourage
all readers to see the information for themselves.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infocard.html
http://www-gd.cr.usgs.gov:8080/resass/resass_summary.html
> given that he is promoting a transportation alternative that lost
> to fossil fuel 90 years ago.
Current issues demand we look to future solutions. This reference to
the early 1900s has little relevance to our problems of pollution,
global warming, and foreign trade deficits. We should note that Bruce
resides in New Zealand, and does not necessarily have the interests of
US citizens at heart.
> EVs will remain uncompetitive for
> the vast majority of users until the problems of efficient, cheap,
> lightweight energy storage are solved.
Efficient and lightweight are now solved, and indeed will only get
better.
See the results from the Tour de Sol where the Solectria force traveled
over 200 miles on a single charge.
http://solstice.crest.org/clients/nesea/finres.html
Costs are being addressed now through the construction of high-volume
production facilities, such as the GM/Ovonics plant.
> Remember, even CARB
> had to admit that the technology wasn't going to be ready this
> century.
For large scale production volumes that California was about to impose.
> There are sound economic and environmental reasons why we
> should move away from fossil fuels, but impending exhaustion
> isn't one. There are sufficient fossil fuels to last humanity for
> centuries, even if consumption growth continued.
This does not address several important points:
1. 3rd world countries are expected to greatly increase their oil
consumption rates, creating demand far higher above the increase
consumption growth expected in the developed countries. If you thought
the oil price shocks earlier this year were annoying...
2. This relies on the extraction of oil from coal, which is a very
expensive alternative to simply pumping it out of sand.
3. It does not address the technical difficulty of extracting much of
the world's supply of fossil fuels. It's similar to telling
Palestinians that because 3/4 of the world is covered with water, they
don't have a water problem.
Again, for a more complete analysis,
http://www.wri.org/wri/energy/jm_oil/oil_conc.html
> The reality
> is that the economic and environmental reasons are likely to
> force us to reconsider the profligate use of such fuels in
> overweight, oversized, and inefficient internal combustion
> engines that typically convert less than 30% of the chemical
> energy into motive power.
Or, more likely, to force us to reconsider other fuel alternatives.
> As for an earlier claim that there is " a broad consensus" that
> gasoline taxes are too low - I suspect that the reason that
> taxes are not as high as elsewhere *is* because the " broad
> consensus" that Will dreams about excludes the majority of
> taxpayers - otherwise politicians would long ago have raised
> the gasoline tax if they thought they could and also stay in
> office. What people say in greenie surveys, and how they
> actually vote, aren't necessarily linked - ask any politician...
Why not take a look at a survey produced by a Republican pollster?
http://www.igc.apc.org/awea/faq/survey2.html
The voters overwhelmingly support renewable energy development.
You can attempt to tell US voters that they don't believe what they say.
But since you are a citizen of New Zealand, your opinion means little to
me, a US citizen.
Cheers,
--
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free: - J.C.
Subject: Re: Residential woodsmoke
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 96 21:50:47 GMT
In article <32590595.7EB4@nando.net>, Sam McClintock
wrote:
>First, you demonized the AP-42 table, which is not a
>rules table but an emissions estimate reference.
You mean just like most environmentalists demonize U.S.
manufacturing without ever having set foot in a manufacturing
facility?
(cut)
>
>> 1) Is it reasonable to assume that the EPA is telling me
that
>> no fuel is totally safe to burn? If so, it looks like me
and
>> a lot of other people are going to have a problem getting
>> electricity, food, etc.
>
>You confusing safe with relatively insignificant. The
concept
>is one which a lot of Greenpeace folks hate to look at ,the
>overall stance of Greenpeace is to block any new fossil fuel
>plant.
>
>Almost (if not all) fossil fuel burning leads to some
emissions.
>Natural gas has products of incomplete combustion (PICs),
along
>with the production of carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of
>nitrogen (NOx). Coal does also, but I'd rather be burning
>natural gas all things considered. Burning fuel produces
>pollution - bottom line. Can't get away from it (at least
now).
>We can minimize its impact - catalytic converters from cars,
>improved combustion controls, and air pollution control
tech. Or
>we can choose cleaner fuels (such as natural gas). But
don't
>absolve the argument of a fundamental problem - burning
fossil
>fuels produces pollution. And that includes wood.
Since when did wood get lumped into the "fossil fuel"
category? I thought wood was a renewable resource.
The problem you think is a problem, isn't a problem. There
are acceptable levels of "pollution" that nature can clean
up. That is precisely the point that none of you watermelons
can seem to grasp. For many "pollutants", a 1 ppm exposure
level represents insignificant risk regardless of the total
tons emitted. For other pollutants, this is not true.
However, many watermelons look at the absolute number of tons
emitted, and insist that we are emitting too much. This
claim is often ridiculous.
(cut)
>Is it "safe." Sure, everything is relatively safe
(insignificant)
>when burned in small amounts, but MAY become a problem when
other
>of the same or different air pollution problems are
considered.
>So when residential wood fires are controlled, it isn't
because
>we have discovered anything new, or minute quantities of
stuff we
>didn't think existed before, or are claiming huge
differences
>between residential and natural. What is being claimed is
that
>burning wood, combined with other folks burning wood,
localized
>industrial sources, and cars, is bad (no brainpower
required).
>This is why we have the rules and why we have smog watches,
etc.
People who know that a smog watch is in effect should be
asked to voluntarily comply with the no-burning "rule". The
last thing we need is some bureaucratic geek issuing
citations because he sees smoke coming out of someone's
chimney. As I said in a previous posting, we had better be
careful here, or the bureaucrats will be micro-managing our
daily lives.
Or don't you believe that the average population of the U.S.
is smart enough to consciously decide to do the correct
thing? Apparently, many of you watermelons do not think this
way.
>
>> 2) That emissions table you talked about described *very*
>> small emissions per ton for many hazardous chemicals.
Since
>> forest fires occur all the time, there is already a
natural
>> background level of these pollutants in the environment.
Am
>> I to assume that you and others are promoting the concept
of
>> no exposure being the only safe level of exposure for
these
>> hazardous chemicals? If so, tell it to the no-riskers. I
>> intend to burn wood in my fireplace as I see fit.
>
>First, the overall emissions of CO and NOx end up being huge
>when considered from singular sources like boilers and power
>plants, or an aggregate of all the cars, localized sources,
>and woodfires, lawnmowers, etc. The toxics (those with
>relatively small numbers per ton) are likewise treated. One
>source no problem - a lot of sources, then all those
compounds
>start to have an impact. Particularly IN A CITY before
>everything disperses - comparing this to forest fires is
>a huge mistake (freshman high school level) because we are
>talking about immediate exposure to folks living next to the
>source.
Oh, so forest fires never happen anywhere close to cities?
Cities are never downwind of the smoke? What about all of
the tons of pollutants you are so worried about? Those tons
of pollutants are still being emitted by the forest fire. I
guess you are only worried about pollutants emitted as a
result of human activity.
The only way you can ignore this is with tobacco
>comany research (that research that says statistics mean
>nothing in the face of overwhelming research that says
>otherwise).
>
Good point. With 25% of the U.S. population voluntarily
exposing themselves to very high concentrations of
pollutants, and paying high prices to do this (e.g., smoke
tobacco), you are telling me that this problem is less severe
than wood smoke? I suggest you organize your efforts and get
tobacco banned before you worry about burning wood.
>Second, some extremists or others whose only exposure is
>to extremists (see anti ditto-head) think any exposure is
>too much. Again, only education can resolve the lack of
>knowledge some have about their lifestyle (consuming) and
>industry's role in it, and what is reasonable - e.g. you
>can't have a dishwasher or cars and expect no emissions. But
>the current conservative platform is to disband education,
>disembowel student loans and grants, instead of SOLVING the
>problem - which is probably a problem with education also.
The current conservative platform calls for more perspective
and more common sense in what we are trying to do. Often, I
see watermelons point out a big problem, but as soon as a
practical and economic solution is offered, they insist that
only a bureaucratic governmental agency can solve the
problem. I am not now convinced of this, and I am unlikely
to ever be convinced of this.
>> The problem in looking for the very last molecule of a
>> hazardous pollutant involves the scare tactic associated
with
>> its presence. There are bound to be safe levels of some
of
>> these "pollutants" in the environment. Unfortunately,
>> attempts to scare the public create more no-riskers every
>> day. If this is your intent, you seem to be succeeding.
>
>Again, you are failing to realize that finding lower levels
>of pollutants is actually good for industry.
Just like it was good when we could finally measure 30 parts
per trillion of freon in the stratosphere? This certainly
didn't help that industry.
>idea of "scare tactics" is in your court, not mine. And
burning
>wood in your fireplace during times of ozone/smog alerts or
>during seasonal bans when impacts are worse is a personal
>failing of yours in not considering the health of the people
you
>live next to - and if you have children I think you need to
>reevaluate your priorities in life, they don't have a say in
>the matter.
I have never burned wood in my fireplace. I may never burn
wood in my fireplace, as I live in the Houston area.
However, I posted to raise people's awareness of ever
increasing regulation. Apparently, this bothers most
watermelons. Too bad.
============================================================================
For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
http://www.hamblin.com/mf.main/articles.html
Subject: Re: The Gax Tax (Again!)
From: synergy@MCS.COM (Vote for Harry Browne!!!!!!!!!)
Date: 7 Oct 1996 18:28:08 -0500
djlong@magic.mv.com (David Long) writes:
>synergy@MCS.COM (synergy) wrote:
>>I prefer that you pay for the full cost of your usage of it. Since I don't
>>use or receive any significant benefit from transit scams, I shouldn't
>>have to pay for them. In fact, buses do little but slow down my commute
>>as they clog up the roads while carrying very few passengers.
>If you live in a major city, imagine how bad the traffic jams would be
>if, for example, commuter rail just stopped.
>In NY it was a nightmare when there was a transit strike.
>In Boston, you'd be flooding the already overcrowded highways with
>over 50,000 more cars.
>As I recall, you're in the Chicago area. Can you imagine what would
>happen if Metra shutdown?
Well, there would be a slight increase in traffic on many roads, but
all the money wasted on Metra could be used to build new roads and/or
improve existing ones. Since I don't use Metra, I'd like to see it
privatized or funded strictly by user-fees.
--
Annoy a Fascist: Just say NO! to gun control.
"Much is made of the 'haves' and 'have-nots'; little is said of the
'dos' and 'do-nots.'"
-- Thomas Sowell.
"Government doesn't work."
-- Harry Browne, Libertarian Presidential Candidate
Subject: Re: More on Tragedy of the Commons
From: karageor@ucla.edu (Ajax of Telamon)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 18:16:57
In article <325e9216.162002029@nntp.net-link.net> briand@net-link.net (Brian Carnell) writes:
>Hardin essentially argues everything is a commons. Just read the
>section "Freedom to Breed Is Intolerable" for example to see where
>Hardin leads.
This is a total falsehood. It's intellectually dishonest for anyone to say
that 'everything is a commons'. You are lying.
>Hardin on human rights in "Tragedy of the Commons":
>"If we love the truth we must openly deny the validity of the
>Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even though it is promoted by
>the United Nations."
You are something else. Have you ever read the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, Sir? Did you read Hardin's entire argument about it? The above
'Universal' [my foot] Declaration is FULL of unenforceable POSITIVE rights.
Come on, people, make your points, but be honest.
>Mr. Hardin, by the way, emphatically believes the world is
>overpopulated. He believes if we can get the population back to 100
>million worldwise we might have a chance.
What's wrong with the belief that the world is over-populated. Is it NOT?
>Hardin talks openly of his disdain for individuals such as Paul
>Ehrlich and groups such as Zero Population Growth because to him they
>are far too conservative in both their goals and methods.
Care to provide some of the actual text that substantiates this interpretation
of his argument?
>The only thing I wondered after reading his essay was why people took
>it so seriously in the 1960s.
Well, based on your behavior above, it is not surprising.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Brian Carnell http://www.carnell.com/
>brian@carnell.com
SNK
"The distance between failure to riposte owing to fear and non-reply bespeaking
contempt is often infinitessimal, with the result that disdain can always serve as
a mask for pussilanimity"
Pierre Bourdieu _Outline of a Theory of Practice_, p. 14
Subject: Re: Parks Do Not Protect Wildlife
From: hopkins2@ix.netcom.com(Rick A. Hopkins)
Date: 8 Oct 1996 01:56:15 GMT
>Rick A. Hopkins wrote:
>>
>> >Rick is lying, because he has no idea who I talked with.
>
>I have never said who I got my information from, so don't pretend to
know!
Mike: you said I should call Joe D. at EBRP. Who is lying?
>But by your own words, you did nothing to challenge Joe's statement
>that killing 2 whipsnakes is "insignificant" (he talks like you! what
>a coincidence).
Joe and others were able to support their statements using science,
something you have yet to do.
>There, you just did it again! Who are you to say that the killing of a
>dozen tiger salamanders is "inconsequential"?! What if someone killed
>a member of your family? I doubt that you would call that
>"inconsequential"!
The loss to me would be devasting, but to the rest of the world
"incosequential". You simply do not get it. I suggest you read not
the lay books you so frequently misrepresent, but actually the classic
papers which act as the foundation and framework for these nice (but
not very detailed) books.
>> The ability of the population to persist would not be hampered in
>>any measurable way (quantitatively).
>That has nothing to do with preserving biodiversity. If it did, we
>could just keep a pair of them in a zoo, & allow the rest to be killed
>off.
It has every thing with preserving biodiversity. Collecting a
"insignificant" number of tiger salamanders from a population of
500,000 will not compromise the genetic diversity (or even the
probability of unique benificial mutations or recombinations) from
arising. If you are such a brilliant math guy as you would have us
believe, you could easily figure that out. 500,000 is just a tad more
than a pair last time I checked.
> On the otherhand, there are only about 20-30 Florida
>> panthers left. One cougar being hit on the road in Florida can
>> substantially effect this subspecies ability to persist.
>
>I see. Other species are not significant, except as reproduction
>machines to provide future organisms. Is that how you see yourself? I
>doubt it. That is the height of hypocrisy! (But typical, for how
>humans treat wildlife.) I expect more from a biologist. Or am I naive
>to think like that?
It is clear you are taking the position of a individualist (a term
usually used to describe animal rights/welfare people) who believe the
individual animal is the focus. We scientist focus on POPULATIONS or
COMMUNITIES, if this is disturbing sorry, but we are not going to
change. I know of no eminient biologist who would argue anything else.
By the way E.O. Wilson (you hero maybe?, you quote him frequently,
regularly collects insects, does this make him a hypocrit or do you not
believe that insects have feelins too.
>Even if this was a very large, gravid female? I am amazed at how
>little respect you give other species. Are they just "a living" to
>you?
This sentence is clearly rambling. Do you have a point. If you knew
about population ecology you might not say most of the things you do.
>This is pure BS! Do you know if the whipsnake is increasing or
>decreasing? Unless you know that, you can't know what the current
>status o the snake is, and whether loss of a couple of snakes (just
>the ones we KNOW of -- there are probably many more that are
unreported) is important.
the people who do know what is happening to the snake are not concerned
by a single incident. A pattern yes, a single incident no.
>> Geez Mike, do you think we have a pattern here. One more biologist
>>who disagrees with your rantings and once again, they must be wrong
>>and must be corupt. I think you need to improve your interpersonal
>>skills.
>What does this have to do with the ISSUE? It is telling that you
>mountain bikers can't resist falling to ad hominem personal attacks,
>when you fail to win a rational argument. It must be a side effect of
>too much bouncing off of crushed wildlife.
Let me see, you regularly call people liars (as I demonstrated above)
when you are clearly in the wrong, you accuse biologist of being biased
and whores when they do not support your rantings (and by the way your
rantings are philosphically based and not biologically based), you
regularly overextend the work of biologist to fit your preconcieved
notions (am I getting close why how you regularly attack people who
disagree with you as biased) - I have yet to see a rational argument
come from you. I did not in our very first post start out attacking
you, but when you clearly accused me and every one else of being
involved in a grand conspiracy (no I was not on the grassy noll), I
must thing you have some problems.
Rick
Subject: Re: The Gax Tax (Again!)
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 01:05:11 GMT
In article <53aurj$7ue@news.dot.gov>, David Long wrote:
>synergy@MCS.COM (synergy) wrote:
>Some 15,000, IIRC, cars and trucks are using the billion-dollar Ted
>Williams tunnel (first completed segment of the Big Dig, it connects
>South Boston to the airport and will connect, in several years, to the
>Mass Pike).
About $67,000 / car, truck
>For a relative pittance, the entire Old Colony Railway is being
>restored for commuter rail use. Less than $200M if I remember my
>numbers correctly. They're looking at serving over 12,000 riders a
>day on the 3 branches of this line.
About $17,000 / passenger
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Subject: Re: GROUNDWATER Mailing List
From: jjkao@green.ev.nctu.edu.tw (Jehng-Jung Kao)
Date: 8 Oct 1996 02:10:27 GMT
Kenneth E. Bannister (KenBannister@groundwater.com) ����:
: ANNOUNCING: GROUNDWATER and GROUNDWATER-DIGEST
: Internet Mailing Lists
: Please join our global discussion group on groundwater and related topics.
: There are over 2500 subscribers worldwide, from over 50 different countries.
: There are many USGS, EPA and Corps of Engineers members.
: If you have a groundwater question, this is the place to post it.
: ...............................................................
Why not simply open a news group under sci.environment
(or sci.environment.groundwater or sci.groundwater)? I will vote "YES."
| Jehng-Jung Kao, Prof. Email: jjkao@green.ev.nctu.edu.tw
| Inst. of Environ. Engrg. Tel/Fax: 5731869/5725958
| National Chiao Tung Univ., 75 Po-Ai St., Hsinchu, Taiwan 30090, ROC.
| http://green.ev.nctu.edu.tw/~jjkao
Subject: Re: Coal madness (was Nuclear madness)
From: richp@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky)
Date: 7 Oct 1996 14:56:04 GMT
Bruce Hamilton (B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz) wrote:
:Rich Puchalsky wrote:
:>It's almost always a safe bet to guess that any sci.energy/sci.env
:>cross-post is part of a thread about nuclear power. I'm an environmentalist
:>who has heard more than enough of both nuclear power attack and defense
:>to last a good long while -- shall we start on coal for a change? :-)
: OK :-).
: Coal is wonderful!
: It sequesters Carbon, radioactive elements, toxic metals, etc. for millenia.
No, no, you're supposed to *disagree*. Else how can we start a screaming
flame-fest :-) ?
Seriously, though, maybe someone knows the answer to this and will indulge
my casual curiosity rather than telling me to go do some research. Where
do the radioactive elements and toxic metals in the coal come from? Are
they simply a compacted form of naturally occuring elements in the original
plant matter, are they infiltration from surrounding minerals or water,
or is there some other source?
--
sci.environment FAQs & critiques - http://www.mnsinc.com/richp/sci_env.html
Subject: Re: Our Vanishing Lexicon...
From: jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
Date: 8 Oct 1996 03:01:50 GMT
In <530pd2$65u@rainbow.rmii.com> kfoster@rainbow.rmii.com (Kurt Foster)
writes:
>
> One possible consequence of the environmental depredations
wrought by
>human activity, is the loss of richness in human language. The
following
>may serve to illustrate this, with regard to habitat destruction, air
>pollution, light pollution etc. Perhaps readers of this group can
come up
>with additional examples.
> Imagine, if you will, expressions which are well understood now,
being
>used a generation or two hence, and the possible response from a small
>child of that time, upon hearing them for the first time. Luckily,
such a
>child, never having known these things, would probably not feel any
sense
>of loss...
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>"A lone voice, crying in the wilderness..."
>
>Child: "What does `wilderness' mean?"
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>"There was a plague of frogs..."
>
>Child: "What are frogs?"
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>"King Kong was a giant gorilla..."
>
>Child: "What's a gorilla?"
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>"Tony the tiger says that sugar frosted flakes are GREAT!"
>
>Child: "What's a tiger?"
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>"Elephants never forget."
>
>Child: "What's an elephant?"
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>"Singing like a bird..."
>
>Child: "What kind of birds `sing'?"
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>"When you wish upon a star..."
>
>Child: "What are stars?"
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
That last one was a bit far-fetched, wasn't it?
Stars are not an endangered species...
With better telescopes, we can see more of
them than ever.
But all the other conversations above
are quite unlikely, too.
Children today are quite familiar with *dinosaurs*,
aren't they? And dragons?
Why not frogs then, even if all frogs go to their just reward?
Kermit the Frog will remain! Tigers and elephants
will always live on videotapes, whether or
not they survive in nature. They will even live in zoos.
Similar considerations apply to all the examples above.
On the other hand, our lexicon is
being constantly enriched by technical evolution. "Internet",
"fax", "spaceship" - or just "turn the light on, please"
are examples of that.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
Date: 8 Oct 1996 04:35:34 GMT
In <530vkk$e7c@spool.cs.wisc.edu> tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael
Tobis) writes:
>
>Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
>
>: Despite the pissing contests, the questions remain unanswered:
>
>: 1. Since the observed increase in temperatures over the last
century
>: is well within the natural variation, how do you justify connecting
>: this increase to human activity? In other words, how do you
seperate
>: human activity from the natural variation, when natural variation
>: exceeds the observed change?
>
>Observed *global* change does not clearly exceed but is already at
>the upper limit of natural variability.
Well, *if* it does not exceed it, why not
wait till it *does* exceed it,
before claiming anything?
But there's absolutely no reason
to think that it is
"at the upper limit of natural variability".
Pure fantasy. E.g., did the Ice Ages involve smaller
change? Or do you think the change was always *slower* then?
It apparently was not; but you yourself assert here
that an "anomalous" change of the 1940's
was "sharp" compared to the present "shallow"
change which you classify as manmade.
So: take the amplitude of the change, or
the "sharpness", the present change is *well*
within natural variation. It could be several
times greater, and still be within natural
variation.
[...]
>: 2. In addition, since the variation observed occurred substantially
>: prior to the introduction of green house gases, how do you justify
>: attributing this to that introduction?
>
>I've answered this so many times that my understanding of Brashears
>is making a transition from merely stubborn to something worse -
>perhaps stupid, perhaps dishonest.
Your "understanding of Brashears" - of his person -
is irrelevant: he is not the topic of this thread,
but a participant.
Ad hominem remarks are counterproductive as well
as ugly.
If the answers were as unconvincing
as the one that follows, then no wonder that the question
is being asked again.
>The year that you pick as
>the end of the sharp early warming and the beginning of the shallow
>later warming is not picked at random.
Not at random: it is picked to test a conjecture -
or rather to test an argument supporting the conjecture.
>The 1940s were anomalously warm.
The word "anomalously" means here that
the 40's do not fit into the greenhouse
model.
>Since no one claims that greenhouse warming is the only factor
Or the greatest? Then it may be swamped by other factors?
Then these *other* factors may be producing
the phenomena quoted in support of the greenhouse
warming?
>(although we've recently seen straw man arguments against that claim)
>you have to look at the trend,
If other factors exceed this one, looking at the trend
may not help it: because other factors may determine
the trend! Other factors (e.g., solar cycles)
are not all of them short-term...
> not at the year that suits your >argument.
You do have to look at the trend, yes, from *some year*
to *some year*.
Should the year, then, be picked so as to suit *your* argument?
Not so: to test a conjecture, let us pick the very
worst year for that conjecture. It should be picked
for the very reason for which you reject it.
If the earlier, "sharper", warming was possible without
"greenhouse effect" - why not the later, "shallow"
warming as well? And if all the, much greater,
warmings and coolings of history managed to
occur without this faddish explanation - who
needs it now?
>Most of the warming *has* occurred since 1970, just as most of the
>warming occurred before 1940. This is not a contradiction.
Not a contradiction - then these are two equally valid ways of
looking at it?
Then this fact - that they are equally valid - discredits
a conjecture that explains only *one* of them, but
has to wave the other away as an "anomaly"...
[...]
>Despite the contests, Brashears has never acknowledged
>that his question has been answered,
Apparently it has not.
Subject: Re: Trolls, billygoats: defined ....troll types:
From: mws@wt.net (MWSmith)
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 04:50:45 GMT
steegman@angel.heaven.net ( Thomas Steegmann) wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Oct 1996 23:35:29 GMT, mws@wt.net (MWSmith) wrote:
>>
>>No suggestions.
>>You pretty much covered anyone who has ever posted anything to any
>>news group on the 'net..
>>Mike Smith
>>
>>
>>If you want to vote for:
>>
>>A sloppy, socialistic, World-Class Liar;
>>Vote for Bill Clinton
>>
>>A middle of the road Republican;
>>Vote for Bob Dole
>>
>>Irregardless, do vote on November 5.
> I'm not going to take advice from someone who uses non-words like
>Irregardless. That's very cromulent of you.
>Tom Steegmann
>steegman@tomcindy.rotterdam.ny.us
>netheaven.com/~steegman
Unfortunately, I will have to look up cromulent in my Webster's
Twentieth Century Dictionary (unabridged) when I go to work tomorrow.
It's not in my home version.
The same Webster's (unabridged) defines irregardless as an adverb that
means "regardless" or "a substandard or humorous redundancy".
This describes the current presidential race to me.
Do you need a bigger dic
tionary?
Powell/Bennet in '00!!
Mike Smith
If we are spending $350,000,000,000.00 each year to help the poor and
needy, how come only $110,000,000,000.00 gets to them?
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
Date: 8 Oct 1996 04:58:28 GMT
In <5319ms$6ro_002@pm1-84.hal-pc.org> charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
writes:
>
>In article <52ud0r$ds8@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
> tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) wrote:
>>I'll try one last time. Intelligent action is predicated on
>the
>>available evidence, not on certainty, despite your effective
>>demands for certainty. One reason for this is simple logical
>>symmetry - if you require certainty before action, should
>you
>>require certainty of harmfulness before curbing emissions or
>>certainty of harmfulness before allowing any emissions at
>all?
>I'm not asking for certainty. 95% confidence intervals will
>suffice. At present, I have read that we think that 0.6 deg
>F +/- 0.3 deg F of warming have occurred. This doesn't look
>like 95% certainty of warming to me.
>
>>
>>The evidence is overwhelming that unconstrained burning of
>>fossil fuel indefinitely *will* eventually cause severe
>disruption.
>
>The theories are overwhelming. We don't have the evidence to
>verify those theories yet. Also, how long is "indefinitely",
>and how bad is "severe"?
These are valid points. But in addition, it seems to
me that the "logical symmetry" claimed above is
absurd and rather monstrous. Does one need the same degree
of certainty to *allow* as to *forbid* emissions?
This is like saying that you need equally strong
reasons to kidnap a passer-by or to let him pass!
Leaving people alone, not interfering with
their freedom, is the default option;
one needs very powerful reasons to coerce them.
These choices are not symmetrical at all.
Further, even accepting this strange and sinister
symmetry, there *is* a certain reason for
"allowing any emissions at all" - the
economic reason. No such certain reason
exists for curbing them. They *may*,
for all we know, be
doing more good than harm even to the climate.