Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:59:59 GMT
gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote for all
to see:
[edited]
>>I am interested if you have seen a director of the President's
>>Management and Budget office who has *not* falsified budget
>>predictions. The office has always been highly politicized. It has
>
>thank you for admitting supply side eco. was nothing more than a pile
>of shit.
I am sorry I seem to have erred enough to have given you this
impression, for that is not at all the case. Unlike many, I think
that both supply and demand are essential in in consideration of
government policy. In general, it should stay out of both.
My point was that the office is very highly politicized. Sorry for
any misunderstanding, you have my apologies.
>>not been my impression that any of the people who occupied this office
>>has ever told the whole truth about the economy. I am a little
>>surprised that anyone would advance the idea that this is even
>>possible.
Regards, Harold
-----
"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest
complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its
welfare."
---Edmund Burke, "The Present State of the Nation"
(1769).
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: "Steve Conover, Sr."
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:06:40 -0600
John McCarthy wrote:
>
> It is not my position that "unlimited growth is possible at least for
> the farthest forseeable future." I argue in my Web site
>
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
>
> that 15 billion can be supported at the U.S. level of material
> consumption.
>
> I also do not claim that "nothing can go wrong". My ideas of what the
> dangers are differs considerably from that of the political environmentalists.
John,
After reading _Unlimited Wealth_ by Paul Zane Pilzer, I became convinced
that unlimited growth is possible for a long, long time. Don't know if
you read this before making your website's argument, but I'd recommend
it.
If you're interested in a specific emerging technology that could yield
unlimited wealth for everybody on the planet (...one that may be only a
decade or two away), it's described vividly in _Engines of Creation_ by
K. Eric Drexler. If he's correct, we will no longer have any need for
macroeconomics (the economics of scarcity).
Then we'll have to find another newsgroup to have chats in besides
sci.econ, I guess.
-- Steve
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
"The problem of the economists is that despite years of
effort to predict economic change, they remain nearly
oblivious to the vital processes of innovation and new
company formation that constitute economic development."
--George Gilder
"Nothing is more conducive to progress than the widespread
belief that it can occur."
--Charles Van Doren
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:17:26 GMT
"Mike Asher" wrote for all to see:
>Jay Hanson wrote:
>>
>> Here is my working definition of carrying capacity:
>>
>> "Carrying capacity is the maximum load that can be exerted
>> on a life support system by a population of animals without
>> damaging the system itself...
>
>Hehehe. Unfortunately, that is not the correct definition of carrying
>capacity. If you're going to create the meanings as you go along,
>communication becomes impossible.
I may be mistaken, and you can correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect
that Jay does not want communication. He is the only poster I have
seen who references his own (substandard, in my opinion) work, and
redefines accepted scientific terms as he goes along.
Regards, Harold
----
"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity,
bought and sold among individuals, but absolutely limited to
the state."
- Kenneth Boulding, 1982, "Progress and Privilege",
William Tucker, pp. 105-106.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:25:30 GMT
ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) wrote for all to see:
[edit]
>
>And sure, people don't eat that much fish (it's so expensive, after all).
>I'm not claiming that it would be a big deal if no fish was ever
>caught again -- there's plenty of chicken. But it would be kind of
>a waste, and I like eating fish.
I got some catfish I can sell you real cheap.
Regards, Harold
----
"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity,
bought and sold among individuals, but absolutely limited to
the state."
- Kenneth Boulding, 1982, "Progress and Privilege",
William Tucker, pp. 105-106.
Subject: Re: Lawnmower Emissions
From: TL ADAMS
Date: 13 Nov 1996 14:25:56 GMT
conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:
> Can you say lawn mower, which is what this thread centers on?
> Nearly all lawn mowers are powered by 4-cycle engines. Those
> powered by 2-cycle engines are in the definite minority, and
> generally of the bargain basement variety.
Sorry, I am a cheap person. Chainsaws, brush cutters
(weedeater is trademarked), my 3.5 HP Briggs and Stratton
engines. Ok, the Sears riding is a four cycle
>
> Perpaps, but what about their other emissions? (And why are you so
> pre-occupied with Ozone?) Until recently, it wasn't even a major topic
> in the discussion of atmospheric pollution. Ever today, it is largely
> only a niche consideration in very localize and VERY urbanized problem
> areas.
Listen, giewbeata, the NSPS for small engines is a VOC/Ozone standard.
It is designed for for OZONE, That is the subject of discussion.
NOT SO2, not lead. Quit drifting.
>
> The please exclude 98% of the USA, which are not seriously affected by
> Ozone, from your proposals and discussions.
This is a lie, a troll lie, a damn lie. 80% of the U.S population
is exposed to "unhealthy" ozone concentrations. You are trying to confuse
the issues acting as if a health bases standard should be worried
about how much land acreage is involved.
> :
> : Oh please, the manufactur cost of an engine is not greater than the
> : the manufactor cost of pollution control devices.
>
> Then why not give us a basic rundown of these devices and your estimate
> of their costs? Somehow, I seriously doubt that you could even name them.
>
> : Your arguement
> : is so spurious to be laughable. A new $20,000 car, it purchased by buying
> : repair or replacement parts, costs of S150,000 (source Click and Clack,
> : NPR) Don't spout bullshit here
>
> What has this discussion to do with anything? I am stating that the
> cost of pollution control features to a new car (by the manufacturer)
> is equal to the cost of the engine.
The arguement is simple, and concise. You can not compare manufactoring
cost with replacement costs. An ERG valve shouldn't cost more than
a buck to produce. Cost a whole lot more to by it from the dealer.
Go to Parts America, yall will get a better deal.
>
> :
> : > What can one conclude from estimates of this quality? I conclude
> : > that the proponents of such systems, by putting forth estimates of
> : > such poor quality, label themselves as either technically incompetent
> : > or simply liars. Your choice.
> : >
> : Yes, I agree that the above statement describes YOU very well.
I like that above bit so much, I'm leaving it in the post
> :
> : Don't say that air quality in the South Coast Basin (L.A.), has not
> : improved immensely over the last thirty years. Any resident, or
> : former resident will call you a damn liar for that statement.
>
> Perhaps it takes a visitor to tell you that the air there still
> stinks and is unheathful. If you call that success, I hate to see
> what it would take for you to describe it as a failure.
>
> :
> : The CAA has brought attainment to many areas of the country. It has
> : improved the air in all non-atttainment areas.
>
> God, motherhood, apple pie!
Haven't lived in LA for 10 years now. I do follow Southcoast air
trends. If you don't think that they've improved, then you shut
your eyes to all sense and reason. I still remember the choking
hazes that drifted up from the midwest urban centers of my youth.
I remember having "ozone situations" with business's shutting down.
Things are better with air quality. If you want data read your
local EQC document. Look at an EPA trend in air quality document.
(ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov).
Oh, in my culture its
Great Spirit, the sisters of the corn/beans/gourds, and punkin pie.
No more post, your just babbling and wasting band space.
Subject: Re: Stone Age Economics - part two
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:47:04 GMT
pimann@pobox.com (Dan Sullivan) wrote for all to see:
>brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
[edited]
>
>"Public land" has been reduced to a euphemism for federally owned
>government land. Try homesteading on this "public" land, and you
>will still be in the tank for tresspassing.
>
>>Large parts of the West are rarely seen by anyone, and you would be
>>free to make your living on it if you can. Your biggest problem would
>>be game laws.
>
>Rarely seen, yes. Unowned, no. Besides, this land is available
>because it is the least habitable land in the country. Even the
>oases of fertile valleys are sandwiched between rugged, almost
>impassable mountains, making trade difficult, and subject to
>harsh vagarities of weather.
We were not talking about trade. It was my contention that, if one
wanted to "live off the land" in primitive conditions, it is quite
possible to do so, as there is not a shortage of places to do it.
I was already aware that these locations would not be up to the
standards of, say, Los Angeles (a desert), or Toronto (a swamp).
>>"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
>> -----Aneurin Bevan (1962).
>
>Actually, I thought economic surplus was a by-product of freedom.
There is certainly room for disagreement there. I think you would
have to admit there is a very high correlation between the wealth of a
society and freedom.
>It is, if anything, the lure for tyranny, as there is no point
>exploiting people who do not produce a surplus for you to
>expropriate.
Do you have an example? I had always thought tyrants were motivated
by power, not wealth, so I am uncertain what you are talking about. I
can think of occasions when wealthy societies were attacked by outside
forces. Was this what you mean?
Most tyrants seem to find their niche at the head of poor countries.
Cuba, USSR, North Korea, Uganda, and Zaire, in modern times, are
examples. Stealing only a few pennies from everyone in a country
usually is more than sufficient wealth for a tyrant. Everyone always
has a surplus that the tyrant can exploit. The "kings" of primitive
tribes on the shores of small islands, with populations of as few as
20 or 30 people, were exploited.
Regards, Harold
----
"That's free enterprise, friends: freedom to gamble, freedom to lose.
And the great thing-the truly democratic thing about it-is that you
don't even have to be a player to lose."
---Barbara Ehrenreich (1991)
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions(ozone bit)
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:57:27 GMT
gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote for all
to see:
>brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>
>>gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote for all
>>to see:
>
>>[deleted]
>>>
>>>unbelieveable. I haven't seen so much inventive chemsties since I was
>>>a TA for a freshmen lab. By the way Beer's law for absorption is a log
>>>function. Secondly the very nature of ozone(highly reactive) means
>>>that any ozone produced in the lower atmo. reacts immediately and is
>>>destroyed in the process.
>
>>I am not sure what you mean "immediately". As a former Los Angeles
>
>fair perhaps a better word would have been transient or short
>term(week or month)
I apologize if I gave that impression, as I did not intend to. To
clarify this in your mind, I moved to LA in 1959. I attended High
School, enlisted in the Army, got a discharge, went to work for a
newspaper for a few years, got married, had a daughter, then went to
City College for two years. I then moved out of my home in Hollywood
to Arcata in December 1970. Do you consider that "short term"?
Regards, Harold
-----
"Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take
for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and
consider."
---Francis Bacon, Essays, "Of Studies" (1597-1625).
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 13 Nov 1996 15:06:59 +0000
ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> : > Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : > : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> : > : > These figures are from the Consumer Price Index, so it's the price
> : > : > of fish in supermarkets in US metro areas. It's a weighted average
> : > : > of all types of fish, and includes products like canned tuna.
> : > : > Also, I could have been clearer about how I calculated these figures.
> : > : > From 1970-1995, overall inflation was 393%, while the price of fish
> : > : > rose 548%. I quoted 548/393 = 1.4, or a 40% higher relative price.
> : > : Those will then include a different bunch of fish
> : > : in the initial and final figures. Eg in the 80's significant
> : > : amount fresh fish was airlifted to restaurants on the East
> : > : Coast, at a considerable premium, a practise that would
> : > : have been unthinkable in 1970.
> : > The fact that the basket of fish changes implies that the
> : > price change is _understated_. If people hadn't compensated
> : > for the price increase by switching to cheaper fish,
> : > the index would have increased by more than 40%.
> : Ah, no. There other reasons people make choices as
> : to what they eat than the price. eg if fish is perceived
> : at some point as healthy, or even fashionable, people will
> : accept a premium price for it.
>
> I don't see your point. This sounds like an argument about
> the interpretation of an increase in the CPI. Sure, it could
> be caused by in increase in demand. But I thought we
> were discussing bias in the CPI, which I don't see in this
> example.
...deleted...
> : > : A number of different species of fish were introduced to
> : > : US markets in that interval, some "exotics" that again
> : > : commanded a premium price.
>
> : > You misunderstand how new goods are introduced into the CPI.
> : > Expensive new varieties of fish won't increase the index,
> : > unless they are also _increasing_ in price rapidly.
>
> : Expensive new varieties of fish will increase the
> : mean price paid for "fish" if the fish index is
> : calculated with uniform weight. How else do you allow
> : for the introduction of new products in a category
> : when calculating a mean index of cost?
> If they're new goods, we can't calculate a change in
> price the first year they're introduced, right?
> You can only calculate the change in price in
> subsequent years. A price index compares the _same_
> bundle of goods in two years.
What I'm asking is "same" defined consistently.
That is when evaluating "fish" prices, do the good
people adding up the CPI(fish) separate out
Mackerel fillets and Lousiana Spiced Mackerel fillets
(to use DLJs example). If you sell 1000tons of plain
Mackerel one year and 500 tons plain and 500 tons
Loisiana at three times the price, will that show
up as a rise in the cost of "fish", or not?
> The treatment of new goods is a common criticism of the CPI,
> but the usual critique makes the opposite point from yours.
> Expensive new goods like VCRs are introduced, but drop
> in price rapidly: the CPI goes down because of the fall in
> price. It doesn't go up because VCRs are more expensive
> than TVs. (the critique is that new goods aren't
> introduced into the CPI rapidly enough.)
The point is not whether the CPI takes introduction
of new goods into account, the point is that the
change in marketing of goods may lead to price
changes that the market is inelastic to, and hence
the rise in (eg) fish prices may not reflect a change
in supply or demand of the raw goods (fish), which is
what we're arguing here, but the fact that retailed
fish now has value added from the raw product and
people are paying that premium for extraneous reasons.
(eg the convenience of rapid cooking, or pre-spiced,
or "extra fresh"). CPI would have to be incredibly
fine-grained (and rapidly become meaningless) if everytime
the spice blend on cod fillets was changed the basket
of goods contributing to the CPI had to be reinitialised.
> : > : Finally, exchange rates fluctuated in the interval,
> : > : and a fair chunk of US consumption is imported.
> : > This is totally irrelevant. The CPI people check out
> : > the price of fish in retail establishments, and
> : > don't make any distinction between domestic and
> : > imported.
> : Its not irrelevant! If some fraction of the fish is
> : imported and becomes more expensive retail because the
> : dollar reduced in value then this does not reflect
> : an intrinsic supply-demand response but a forcing due
> : to completely extraneous factors
> : If the index of fish prices changes because a currency
> : trader is worried about Sadam Hussein's temper, this
> : can not be argued to be representative of some supply
> : and demand problem with fish itself.
> Ok, granted. I misunderstood your point because you didn't
> claim any trend in the exchange rate. And you still don't.
> I have no idea what's happened to exchange rates over the last
> 25 years. Maybe the increase in the price of fish is even
> more rapid than I thought.
Or it may be slower. Remember the US doesn't import much
fish from Japan, so $-Yen rates are irrelevant, you'd need
the import value weighted basked of currencies of countries
that import fish to the US. I have no idea where the
PP corrected value of the $ was in 1970 relative to the intervening
years, but I do know it changed drastically at times during that
interval.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:00:39 -0500
Harold wrote:
> USDA has been studying soil erosion for years, and would like nothing
> more than to prove it to be a large problem, and hence generator of
> programs for them to administer. Their survey found the average loss
> to be 7 tons a year per acre of farmland, while natural regeneration
> runs at 5 tons a year/acre. Call it a net loss of 2 tons per acre.
> Two tons an acre is 1/65 of an inch. Thus, in 65 years, the average
> farmland will lose 1 inch of topsoil. Assuming it has been farmed the
> entire 65 years. Some fallow years will make up for this loss.
>
Harold - "natural regeneration?" And how many conventional farmers add
anything but petroleum-derived fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides to
their soil? Tell me, what do you know about farming and the pressures
conventional farmers are under to strip-mine the soil? "Fallow years?"
You're sticking your head in that denatured soil and closing your eyes to
reality.
You make assertions, present no references, state that even the press agrees
> with you (like that's a good reference!), then question the motive of
> the character of the previous poster.
You're right - other than name some publications, I couldn't be specific
about studies, stats, numbers - so I'll butt out and leave you to be
refuted by the people who've got the information at their fingertips. Of
which there are many, I see. My point about the mainstream press is that
they're generally unimaginative, unquestioning and not interested in any
new information unless they're cudgeled over the head with it - like alot
of people who prefer not to face the damage we've done to our world.
Betsy
Subject: Re: I will no longer respond to barks from the kennel.
From: snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 14:31:54 GMT
In article <32892BE5.1E78@ix.netcom.com>, wrote:
>You, the man who propagates misinformation by choice, write:
This accusation is from Mark Friesel, who recently admitted posting a
claim about a Malaria vaccine when he was unsure that it really
existed, because someone would correct him if he were wrong.
>> It is useless to complain about insult from Nudds and Friesel and
>> Mason. They prefer flame wars to discussions of fact, as you can see
>> from the answers to your last post.
>...and by so doing wastes more of others' time.
Indeed.
>One might expect you
>to follow your own advice and quit complaining, but you've always
>proven incapable keeping your mouth shut.
Thou hast found thyself.
snark
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:10:43 -0500
> Betsy,
>
> This simply isn't true. The land being covered by suburbia is not
> worn out and useless; it is among the best farmland we have, because
> we naturally build cities where the land is good. It is being pulled
> out of farming because it is more useful as roads and housing.
>
DLJ - I'm not going to argue with you - according to the articles I read
on the subject, some of California's best farmland IS worn-out and useless
from a cropping standpoint, thanks to poor stewardship. "We naturally
build cities where the land is good" - if this somewhat random statement
is true, isn't it a tragedy to lose former cropland and wildlands to
suburpia? But that's another discussion, I suppose. "It is being pulled
out of farming because it is NOW more useful as roads and housing" - add
that one word and we're in perfect agreement, so what's your point?
> And we'll pull it out of the Gulf of Mexico the same way the Dutch
> pull it out of the North Sea, the very moment it becomes worthwhile to
> do so.
Sounds dramatic and exciting - real John Wayne movie material.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions(ozone bit)
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:20:31 GMT
gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote for all
to see:
>brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>
>>"sdef!" wrote for all to see:
>
>>[edited]
>
>>>I remember reading in a properly refernced Womens Environmental Network briefing on
>>>chlorine that originally it was an unwanted byproduct of the extraction of sodium for
>>>weapons among other things.
>
>>I have no idea what elemental sodium would be used for in weapons
>>production. Does someone have a clue?
>
>>I am pretty sure it is not required more conventional weapons, what
>>could be a use for unconventional (like nuclear) weapons?
>
>not really sure on a specific use in weapons. But considering Na2CO3,
>NaHCO3 and NaOH are three compunds that would be listed in the top 25
>to 50 industrial chemicals, I don't find it surprising. Since most
>involves preperation for water electrolysis with Cl2 as a secondary
>product.
We are talking about elemental sodium being a by-product of weapons
production, not aqueous, ionic sodium. In this context, I am puzzled
by your observation. Though it may have changed since 1972 (Advanced
Inorganic Chemistry 3rd Edition, Cotton and Wilkinson, Interscience
Publications) elemental sodium is prepared by electrolysis of fused
salts, not water electrolysis.
Water electrolysis of brine (NaCl in water) is used to produce Cl2,
but the other electrode produces hydrogen gas, with aqueous NaOH as a
byproduct. From this sodium bicarbonate or sodium carbonate could be
manufactured.
None of these involve the elemental sodium under discussion, though.
Regards, Harold
----
"Trade is the natural enemy of all violent passions. Trade loves
moderation, delights in compromise, and is most careful to avoid anger.
.... Trade makes men independent of one another and gives them a high
idea of their personal importance: it leads them to want to manage their
own affairs and teaches them to succeed therein. Hence it makes them
inclined to liberty but disinclined to revolution."
---Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 2, pt. 3,
ch. 21 (1840).
Subject: Food production Was:(Re: Paul...)
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 13 Nov 1996 15:15:25 +0000
jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
> Last year was a bad year for grain because bad weather in several
> parts of the world co-incided with increased acreage restrictions in
> the U.S. and the EEC. Stocks were drawn down to a very low level, but
> now actual food shortages were reported. This year there was a very
^^^^^
now or no? :-)
> wet and cold Spring in the U.S., and this gave rise to considerable
> worry. However, hot weather late in the year made up for the cold
> Spring and the U.S. had bumper crops. As I remember, it was the third
> best year for wheat and the second best year for corn, and soybeans
> also had a bumper crop.
World cereal production is expected to increase 7% in 1996
over 1995, despite the rough spot for the US and continued
efforts in the EU to withdraw land from production.
The EU has been struggling for 25 years to bring stocks
down to the level they are now at because of the enormous
cost of storage. Their budget is now $5+ billion in surplus
because of the success in reducing production.
Production per capita world wide is up 5% in the last 15 years,
regionally sub-Saharan Africa is down 5% per capita over
the same period.
However Eastern Europe and xUSSR are still not up to speed
on modern production, be interesting to see what effect
that has when they do get going.
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 14:21:58 GMT
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>For someone who believes that modern technology and market response to
>need are the cures for so many social ills, it amazes me to think that
>he and you lack faith in the ability of some bright engineer to create
>implementable solar technology with a reduced risk factor if there is
>demand for it. If there is no demand for safety, where is the
>problem?
The problem is not with solar energy; your danger is hundreds of
thousands, or millions, of people climbing on the roof, or shinnying
up the windmill tower.
I want to encourage the Chicken Little folks to recognise the dangers
built into the "simple" technologies they advocate. Somehow they keep
forgeting the ambulance and the emergency room built into their way of
doing things.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: question on conservation of energy
From: hughl@news.an.hp.com (Hugh Lippincott)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 11:47:17 GMT
In article , Nick Eyre writes:
|> In article <560mtl$scm@news-central.tiac.net>, Harry H Conover
|> writes
|> >Nick Eyre (nick@eyrenenv.demon.co.uk) wrote:
|> >: In article <55qk0k$5o2@hpaneqb4.an.hp.com>, Hugh Lippincott
|> >: writes
|> >: >In article <327D7742.323@cyberway.com.sg>, saint
|> >writes:
|> >: >|> the priniciple states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed but
|> >: >|> changed from one form to another.
|> >: >|> then why, when a torch is shone, then switched off, where does all the
|> >: >|> light energy go? it's lost isn't it?
|> >: >|> please enlighten me. i'm an aspiring engineer and the thought just
|> >: >|> popped into my mind.
|> >: >|>
|> >: >|>
|> >: >|> rgds
|> >: >
|> >: >This seemingly simple question exposes the need to have a
|> >: >careful definition of terms and the use of them.
|> >: >
|> >: >The energy and cannot be created or destroyed
|> >: >[without nuclear processes]
|> >:
|> >: Common misconception. Nuclear energy is produced by conversion of mass,
|> >: but so is chemical energy.
|> >
|> >In chemical reactions, mass is conserved. In nuclear reactions,
|> >mass/energy is conserved.
|> >
|> >There's a significant conceptual difference, since chemical reactions
|> >don't require E=MC^^2 considerations.
|> >
|>
|> This is certainly what most people think, but that does not make it
|> right. Where does the energy in chemical reactions come from if not
|> from mass conversion? Why is electrons changing energy levels
|> conceptually different from nucleons doing the same?
|>
|> --
|> Nick Eyre
Please excuse the way I stated my simplifying assumption.
This is just the interesting discussion that I was trying to avoid
so that I could try to address for a beginner the concepts
of energy vs work, and the concept of the quality of the energy.
Does someone have a reference to research on exactly how
stored chemical energy is stored?
Can it be measured by increase in mass?
--
Hugh Lippincott x2955 hughl@an.hp.com
Imaging Systems, SQA, M/S 0105 Bldg4 2nd floor, Col Q15
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:47:54 -0700
Magnus Redin wrote:
>
> It is about as easy as halving the number of people killed in car
> accidens. Everybody only have to drive 20 km/h slower and skip driving
> when drunk or tired...
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> --
> Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society
I reply:
Suit yourselves. But in a week one or more of you will be posting how
technological developmenst are sure to solve some immensely more
complicated problem. By the way, check out passive solar. This
approach uses things like properly designed overhangs, oriented walls
and windows, ordinary convection, etc. etc.
Subject: Re: energy use in Europe in 2100?
From: Dan Evens
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:56:11 -0500
gregorius college wrote:
>
> How many energy is used per person in Europe in 1996 and 2100?
> This question is asked for a project " Energy on the move " by students
> of the St. Gregorius College from Utrecht ; Holland.
> Second question: How many people are there in Europe in 1996 and will be
> in 2100, and where is/will the population rate be the highest and where
> the lowest.
Another group of college students comming to us to get their homework
done.
The 1996 figures are easily available from any good reference book, say,
an almanac or encycolopedia. You can probably pretty easily get trends
and history of use curves from these same books.
The 2100 figures are sheer guesswork. Projecting current trends is
clearly
foolish for a century hence. Think of what the place was like in 1896,
and try to project from that things like MTV. A century more of
technology
could mean nearly anything from a dead radioactive cinder for a planet
to the entire race having found the planet just too boring and pase to
hang around so we all went off to a great party at Stavro Muller Gamma.
--
Standard disclaimers apply.
In an attempt to decrease the junk e-mail advertising I get,
I have made use of a junkmail address. To mail me, change
junkmail to dan.evens in my return address.
Dan Evens
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From:
Date: 13 Nov 1996 15:42:11 GMT
you guys are full of shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" "
wrote:
>==============================================================================
>Please post this EVERYWHERE.
>(also-please remove any source addresses before passing it on it is important
>that this cannot be traced to any one source)
>Hard copies out soon.
>==============================================================================
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------"SEA EMPRESS" TEXACO OIL TANKER DISASTER---------------
>------------------------------------ONE YEAR ON-------------------------------
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------------------------------10,000 SEABIRDS DEAD---------------------------
>--------------------------------FISH NUMBERS HALVED---------------------------
>-------------------------------ECOSYSTEMS DESTROYED---------------------------
>----------------------TOTAL SPENT BY TEXACO ON CLEAN-UP: #ZERO----------------
>---------------------------------NO PROSECUTIONS------------------------------
>-------------------------------NOT EVEN AN APOLOGY----------------------------
>
> THE TIME HAS COME TO
> _SHUT_
> _DOWN_
> MILFORD-HAVEN
>
>14TH/15TH FEBRUARY 1997-FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF THE SEA EMPRESS HOLOCAUST.
>MASSIVE DIRECT ACTION AGAINST THE OIL INDUSTRY AND MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY.
>JAIL THE GUILTY- STOP THE COVER-UP- STOP ORIMULSION- CRUSH THE OIL PARASITES.
>
>------------------------------Earth First! Profits Last!----------------------
>
>MORE INFO NEARER THE TIME. START ORGANISING NOW. GET READY. MAKE THIS THE ONE.
>
> Lest We Forget.
>===============================================================================
>
>
>
>--
>
>!!!!! - IMPORTANT - !!!!!
>please change 'avage' to 'savage' in the address before replying.
>http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
>South Downs EF!, Prior House
>6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY, UK
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 16:10:59 GMT
l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden) wrote:
>Harold - "natural regeneration?" And how many conventional farmers add
>anything but petroleum-derived fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides to
>their soil? Tell me, what do you know about farming and the pressures
>conventional farmers are under to strip-mine the soil? "Fallow years?"
>You're sticking your head in that denatured soil and closing your eyes to
>reality.
Betsy,
When you chop the head off corn, you still leave some stalk above
ground, and a root system comparable in size to the entire
above-ground plant. All of this has been grown out of nitrogen and
carbon in the air, plus water, plus fertilizer, since the previous
spring. All of it will rot into humus, together with the bodies of
dead bacteria, over the forthcoming winter.
This is the regeneration of the soild which goes on every year.
In North American agriculture, fallow years are the planting of an
alternate crop, typically alfalfa, but often soybeans or peanuts, to
fix nitrogen in the soil, hence cutting down on the ammonia bill. In
southern Ontario the alfalfa cycle is typically one year on four, but
people with more cattle in their mix may grow alfalfa every other
year, with winter wheat, oats or barley in between. The nitrogen from
the alfalfa feeds the grain; the stalk and root from the grain feed
the alfalfa.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 16:11:10 GMT
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
>The point is not whether the CPI takes introduction
>of new goods into account, the point is that the
>change in marketing of goods may lead to price
>changes that the market is inelastic to, and hence
>the rise in (eg) fish prices may not reflect a change
>in supply or demand of the raw goods (fish), which is
>what we're arguing here, but the fact that retailed
>fish now has value added from the raw product and
>people are paying that premium for extraneous reasons.
>(eg the convenience of rapid cooking, or pre-spiced,
>or "extra fresh"). CPI would have to be incredibly
>fine-grained (and rapidly become meaningless) if everytime
>the spice blend on cod fillets was changed the basket
>of goods contributing to the CPI had to be reinitialised.
I doubt that we're going to see Louisiana cod: cod is already a luxury
good as it comes. We do, however, have a super-luxury cod: smoked.
Poor man's lox.
Here in Toronto one of the more expensive products on the market is
dry salt cod, which sells for about 1.6 times the price of frozen cod.
That may work out the same per unit of protein if you make allowance
for the dessication, but my point is that it's really a matter of the
market: dried cod is a necessity fo bacalao, a staple among the
Portugese, so they bid it up beyond the price of frozen.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 16:11:03 GMT
l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden) wrote:
>DLJ - I'm not going to argue with you - according to the articles I read
>on the subject, some of California's best farmland IS worn-out and useless
>from a cropping standpoint, thanks to poor stewardship. "We naturally
>build cities where the land is good" - if this somewhat random statement
>is true, isn't it a tragedy to lose former cropland and wildlands to
>suburpia? But that's another discussion, I suppose. "It is being pulled
>out of farming because it is NOW more useful as roads and housing" - add
>that one word and we're in perfect agreement, so what's your point?
Whaddya mean, what's my point? You just got through agreeing with me.
What's _your_ point? :-)
>
>> And we'll pull it out of the Gulf of Mexico the same way the Dutch
>> pull it out of the North Sea, the very moment it becomes worthwhile to
>> do so.
>
>Sounds dramatic and exciting - real John Wayne movie material.
Not a John Wayne fan, and setting up windmills to push the water back
from the vastly expanded Mississippi delta (and to keep New Orleans
dry) does not strike me as high noon material. It is, however, one of
the ways we live by our wits, and improve our standard of living as we
go.
-dlj.
Subject: 130 ways to save energy!!!
From: Brent Coles
Date: 13 Nov 1996 17:05:11 GMT
The National Energy Foundation (NEF), the nation's premier nonprofit
energy and environmental education organization, invites you to its web
site to discover 130 ways to save energy, as included in the publication
Energy Saver's Guide. Along with the Energy Saver's Guide, NEF has many
additional publications that deal with energy conservation and
efficiency, and with alternative energy resources such as solar power.
All NEF educational resources are educator-tested, and priced very
economically.
Come see our full-color, on-line catalog at:
www.xmission.com/~nef
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jgordes@mail.snet.net
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:45:35 GMT
ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote:
>On 10 Nov 1996 08:54:47 -0500, af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
>(Scott Nudds) wrote:
>> If nuclear reactors didn't explode,
>The only power reactor ever to explode (Chernobyl) had a dynamically
>unstable design, in a socialist society that produced inadequate
>maintenance. Such a reactor is currently being built in Cuba.
>Modern power reactors have never exploded or released significant
>radiation.
>> and operated with the safety and
>>efficiency they were sold to the public as having.
>Safety has been there all along. Look at the record. Efficiency is
>off, economically, because of overregulation and very long project
>times greatly delayed by environmentalist obstructionism.
>> If the nuclear
>>industry had not engaged in secrecy and most probably murder,
>Examples? And did the whole industry conspire to whatever this was, or
>just a rogue?
>>if it were
>>not affiliated with the military use of nuclear weapons,
>What in the world is wrong with that?
>>and if the
>>waste problem were solved,
>Not a major problem if people stop demanding absurd levels of
>perfection (a favorite way of environmentalists to obstruct
>everything).
>> I am sure the nuclear industry would be
>>accepted by the majority of the population today.
>I predict in the future it will be even if it doesn't improve its
>ways. But if it doesn't improve its ways, and the enviroonmentalists
>don't stop blocking it, it will not be economical enough to operate.
>> When people look at Rocky Flats, or Chornobyl, they see the nuclear
>>establishment. This is a good thing, as they are creations of the
>>nuclear establishment.
>How silly. Chernobyl has NOTHING to do with nuclear power in the US.
>BTW, Chernobyl is turning out to have been a very useful (if
>unfortunate) experiment. In spite of radiation dosage of a huge
>population of people at far beyond the "acceptable safe limits," there
>have been fewer than 50 deaths, all (but maybe one or two?) were
>workers at chernobyl or disaster workers. Among children with very
>high exposures, there have been a number of non-fatal,
>non-debilitating thyroid problems.
>Chicken little did a real number on us with that one.
I'll say it again since the writers in this thread don't seem to be
aware of utility restructuring (competition) but most of your
arguments become moot since in a competitive environment no financiers
will invest in nuclear plants which depend upon large megawattage
units to meet certain economies of scale which inherently builds in
costly overcapacity. The future belongs to the the modular, highly
efficient aeroderivative gas turbine (probably intercooled) capable of
using natural gas, oil, gasified biomass or hyrdogen. The cost could
be as low as $220/kW as opposed to a $2200 worldwide average for
nuclear. The financial as well as other risks are much lower for
this versitile alternative. Why argue over what is essentially a
closed chapter?
Regards
Joel N. Gordes
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:28:19 -1000
Mike Asher wrote:
> Jay Hanson wrote:
> >
> > Here is my working definition of carrying capacity:
> >
> > "Carrying capacity is the maximum load that can be exerted
> > on a life support system by a population of animals without
> > damaging the system itself...
>
> Hehehe. Unfortunately, that is not the correct definition of carrying
> capacity. If you're going to create the meanings as you go along,
> communication becomes impossible.
============================================================
"Investing in Natural Capital:
The Ecological Approach to Sustainability"
from the International Society for Ecological Economics
CARRYING CAPACITY REVISITED
Ecologists define "carrying capacity" as the population of a
given species that be supported indefinitely in a defined
habitat without permanently damaging the ecosystem upon which
it is dependent. However, because of our culturally variable
technology, different consumption patterns, and trade, a
simple territorially-bounded head-count cannot apply to human
beings. Human carrying capacity must be interpreted as the
maximum rate of resource consumption and waste discharge that
can be sustained indefinitely without progressively impairing
the functional integrity and productivity of relevant
ecosystems wherever the latter may be. The corresponding
human population is a function of per capita rates of material
consumption and waste output or net productivity divided by
per capita demand (Rees 1990). This formulation is a simple
restatement of Hardin's (1991) "Third Law of Human Ecology":
(Total human impact on the ecosphere) =
(Population) x (Per capita impact).
Early versions of this law date from Ehrlich and Holdren who
also recognized that human impact is a product of population,
affluence (consumption), and technology: I = PAT (Ehrlich and
Holdren 1971; Holdren and Ehrlich 1974). The important point
here is that a given rate of resource throughput can support
fewer people well or greater numbers at subsistence levels.
Now the inverse of traditional carrying capacity provides an
estimate of natural capital requirements in terms of
productive landscape. Rather than asking what population a
particular region can support sustainably, the question
becomes: How much productive land and water area in various
ecosystems is required to support the region's population
indefinitely at current consumption levels?
Our preliminary data for developed regions suggest that per
capita primary consumption of food, wood products, fuel, and
waste- processing capacity co-opts on a continuous basis up to
several hectares of productive ecosystem -- the exact amount
depends on the average levels of consumption (i.e., material
throughput). This average per capita "personal planetoid" can
be used to estimate the total area required to maintain any
given population. W call this aggregate area the relevant
community's total "ecological footprint' (see Figure 20.2) on
the earth (Rees 1992).
This approach reveals that the land "consumed" by urban
regions is typically at least an order of magnitude greater
than that contained within the usual political boundaries or
the associated built-up area. However brilliant its economic
star, every city is an entropic black hole drawing on the
concentrated material resources and low-entropy production of
a vast and scattered hinterland many times the size of the
city itself. Borrowing from Vitousek et al. (1986), we say
that high density settlements "appropriate" carrying capacity
from all over the globe, as well as from the past and the
future (Wackernagel 1991).
The Vancouver-Lower Fraser Valley Region of British Columbia,
Canada, serves as an example. For simplicity's sake consider
the region's ecological use of forested and arable land for
domestic food, forest products, and fossil energy consumption
alone: assuming an average Canadian diet and current
management practices, 1.1 ha of land per capita is required
for food production, 0.5 ha for forest products, and 3.5 ha
would be required to produce the biomass energy (ethanol)
equivalent of current per capita fossil energy consumption.
(Alternatively, a comparable area of temperate forest is
required exclusively to assimilate current per capita C02
emissions (see "Calculating the Ecological Footprint").
Thus, to support just their food and fossil fuel consumption,
the region's 1.7 million people require, conservatively, 8.7
million ha of land in continuous production. The valley,
however, is only about 400,000 ha. Our regional population
therefore "imports" the productive capacity of at least 22
times as much land to support its consumer lifestyles as it
actually occupies (see Figure 20.3). At about 425 people/km2
the population density of the valley is comparable to that of
the Netherlands (442 people/km2) [p.p. 369-371]
Even with generally lower per capita consumption, European
countries live far beyond their ecological means. For
example, the Netherlands' population (see Figure 20,4)
consumes the output of at least 14 times as much productive
land as is contained within its own political boundaries
(approximately 110,000 km2 for food and forestry products and
360,00 km2 for energy)(basic data from WRI 1992).8 [p. 374]
THIS IS A FABULOUS BOOK! EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ IT!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PUBLISHED BY:
The International Society for Ecological Economics and
Island Press -- 1994 http://www.islandpress.com
1-800-828-1302 or 1-707-983-6432 Fax 1-707-983-6164
Subject: Re: Paul & Anne Ehrlich's Betrayal of Science and Reason
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:33:36 -1000
Don Ranck wrote:
>
> > A new book by the Ehrlichs is certainly nothing to get excited about.
> After all, most of the other books by these false prophets were misguided
> and mostly wrong, so why would this one be any different. The sad thing
Betrayal of Science and Reason
Paul and Anne Ehrlich Chronicle Anti-Environmental Efforts of the
"Brownlash" in Betrayal of Science and Reason
Here is another review from Publisher's Weekly:
"The time has come to write a book about efforts being made
to minimize the seriousness of environmental problems."
With that opening sentence, the authors (The Stork and
the Plow) take on what they see as the purveyors of
environmental disinformation. In a lively style, they
systematically dismantle claims allegedly made in recent
books-by the likes of Gregg Easterbrook, Stephen Budiansky,
Rush Limbaugh, Dixy Lee Ray and Julian Simon-that global
warming is fiction, ozone depletion should be of no concern
and that the earth can support many times its current
population. Chapters cover population growth, food supply,
natural resources, species diversity, toxic substances,
global warming and economics. In each, direct quotations
from the anti-environmentalists named above are presented,
dissected and refuted. With ample documentation and a great
deal of input from some of the world's most renowned
environmental scientists, such as Stephen Schneider, Peter
Raven and Nobel laureate Sherwood Roland, the overall
effect is powerful.
Shearwater Books/Island Press
Publication Date: October 21, 1996
320 pages, Appendices, index
ISBN: 1-55963-483-9
http://www.islandpress.com/categories/books/BeSciRes.html
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 17:14:13 GMT
l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden) wrote for all to see:
>Harold wrote:
>> USDA has been studying soil erosion for years, and would like nothing
>> more than to prove it to be a large problem, and hence generator of
>> programs for them to administer. Their survey found the average loss
>> to be 7 tons a year per acre of farmland, while natural regeneration
>> runs at 5 tons a year/acre. Call it a net loss of 2 tons per acre.
>> Two tons an acre is 1/65 of an inch. Thus, in 65 years, the average
>> farmland will lose 1 inch of topsoil. Assuming it has been farmed the
>> entire 65 years. Some fallow years will make up for this loss.
>>
>Harold - "natural regeneration?" And how many conventional farmers add
>anything but petroleum-derived fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides to
>their soil? Tell me, what do you know about farming and the pressures
>conventional farmers are under to strip-mine the soil? "Fallow years?"
>You're sticking your head in that denatured soil and closing your eyes to
>reality.
I am sorry you are unaware of the use of modern conservation tillage.
Few farmers wish to "strip mine" the soil, though I am sure that this
situation does occur.
Are you actually Shiela, better known as the Word Warrior? She had a
similar debating style; attack character and intelligence, make
assertions, present no references.
>You make assertions, present no references, state that even the press agrees
>> with you (like that's a good reference!), then question the motive of
>> the character of the previous poster.
>
>You're right - other than name some publications, I couldn't be specific
>about studies, stats, numbers - so I'll butt out and leave you to be
>refuted by the people who've got the information at their fingertips. Of
>which there are many, I see. My point about the mainstream press is that
>they're generally unimaginative, unquestioning and not interested in any
>new information unless they're cudgeled over the head with it - like alot
>of people who prefer not to face the damage we've done to our world.
Same methods exactly!
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic
statements, and make little mention of the doubts we may have.
Each of us has to find a balance between being effective and
being honest."
- Steven Schneider, proponent of CFC-banning.
"Our Fragile Earth", Discover, Oct. 1987. pg 47
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: atanu@are.Berkeley.EDU (Atanu Dey)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 18:05:23 GMT
Bruce Scott TOK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: [argument with set of figures leaving out 1995 omitted]
: : As an aside, I will note that the majority of agricultural land in the
: : world is farmed with low-tech inefficient methods. Expantion of the use of
: : modern agriculture, new species, and good infrastructure, can more than
: : double world food production. All without an additional acre being farmed,
: : though, in the US at least, agricultural land usage has been on the decline
: : for many years. Perhaps you have some statistics here?
: You are welcome to calculate the increase of the crude oil drawdown rate
: if the rest of the world farms the way the US does.
Mike Asher, I suppose, also decries the low-tech inefficient methods
that most of the third-world 'voluntarily' adopts for transportation
(bicyles, etc) instead of the more efficient high-tech v-8 powered
4x4s. Damn those stupid people in the third world - if only they
would become more efficient and use the same level of resources as
the advanced countries, then we would all live better.
Atanu
Subject: CMS Announces Joint Venture in Ghana
From: Bill Toman
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:27:29 -0500
CMS Energy and Ghana's Volta River Authority Announce Joint Venture
DEARBORN, Michigan, USA, November 13, 1996, -- CMS Energy
Corporation's (NYSE:CMS) independent power unit, CMS Generation
Co., today announced that a joint venture has been formed with
the Republic of Ghana's Volta River Authority (VRA) to develop
and manage a series of energy infrastructure projects in Ghana
and the West African region.
CMS' involvement in Ghana is a response to the Government's call
for private foreign capital to participate in the development of
Ghana's energy sector.
Under the agreement, the first project the joint venture will
acquire is VRA's Takoradi thermal plant, a 300-megawatt oil- and
gas-fueled, combined-cycle, electric generating facility under
construction by VRA at Aboadze, near Takoradi. CMS and VRA are
now working to determine the valuation for the Takoradi plant
and establish due diligence requirements. The two companies
will also negotiate a management services agreement under which
the joint venture will manage, operate and maintain the Takoradi
plant. The Takoradi plant is scheduled to enter commercial
operation in the third quarter of 1997.
The joint venture will also pursue the feasibility of developing
the Bui Hydroelectric Plant, a 400-megawatt generating facility
which would be built on the Black Volta River in central Ghana.
Under the agreement an environmental impact assessment of the
Bui Project will be conducted, including an update of topographical and
geological factors, to confirm whether environmental factors are
manageable.
In additional, the agreement contemplates examining the
feasibility of other projects including a natural gas pipeline.
"This agreement combines the highly-respected Volta River
Authority with CMS Energy, which has the capital, operating and
financing experience and technical capability necessary to
develop energy projects to serve Ghana's stable and growing
economy," said Rodney E. Boulanger, CMS Generation's president
and Chief Executive Officer. "We're pleased to establish a
long-term relationship with the Volta River Authority, which is
a world-class organization," Boulanger added.
The Volta River Authority, headquartered in Accra, Ghana, is
responsible for the generation and transmission of electric
power in Ghana and for the distribution of power in the northern
regions of the country. The VRA generates power mainly from two
hydroelectric generating stations on the Volta River, and
operates an extensive high voltage transmission line network
throughout the country. VRA has supplied power to the
neighboring countries of Togo and Benin to the east since 1972,
and has maintained and operated an interconnected system with La
Cote d'Ivoire to the west since 1983.
CMS Energy Corporation is a $4 billion (sales), $8 billion
(asset) international energy company with businesses engaged in
electric and natural gas utility operations; independent power
production; natural gas pipeline and storage; gas and electric
marketing; and oil and gas exploration and production. CMS
Energy Corporation's principal subsidiary is Consumers Power
Company, Michigan's largest utility and the nation's fourth
largest gas an electric utility.
Information on CMS Energy is accessible on the Internet Through
the World Wide Web as the following address:
http://www.cmsenergy.com/
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 13 Nov 1996 18:46:34 GMT
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > Hehehe. Unfortunately, that is not the correct definition of carrying
> > capacity. If you're going to create the meanings as you go along,
> > communication becomes impossible.
> >
> I note:
>
> Actually, communication only becomes impossible when people refuse to
> agree on definitions. You see it here all the time.
Very true, especially when we're dealing with slippery concepts like
'growth' and 'standard of living'. Carrying capacity, however, has a
clear, rigorous, definition: the asymptotic value of the controlling
population equation. Mr. Hanson's definition of CC as "population of a
given species that be supported indefinitely in a defined habitat without
permanently damaging the ecosystem" is fallacious.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
Subject: Re: Give'em Hell, Helen!
From: Arnt Karlsen
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:59:51 +0100
Extremely Right wrote anonymously.
I got curious. So I tried:
gorina3% finger 99@spies.com
[spies.com]
finger: spies.com: Connection refused
gorina3% w 99@spies.com
6:54pm up 3 days, 23 mins, 36 users, load average: 2.87, 2.93, 2.94
User tty login@ idle JCPU PCPU what
gorina3% who 99@spies.com
99@spies.com doesn't exist or isn't readable
Usage: who [-rbtpludAasHTqcRm] [am i] [utmp_like_file]
r run level
b boot time
t time changes
p processes other than getty or users
l login processes
u useful information
d dead processes
A accounting information
a all (rbtpludA options)
s short form of who (no time since last output or pid)
H print header
T status of tty (+ writable, - not writable, x exclusive open, ?
hung)
q quick who
c cluster-wide who
R print host name
gorina3% whois 99@spies.com
No match for mailbox "99@SPIES.COM".
The InterNIC Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet
Information
(Networks, ASN's, Domains, and POC's).
Please use the whois server at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information.
..why the secrecy ? ...
--
..KR f Arnt ;-)
..URL:disclaimer...
Subject: Re: Paul & Anne Ehrlich's Betrayal of Science and Reason
From: alnev@midtown.net (A.J.)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 16:39:13 GMT
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:54:35 -0500, "Don Ranck"
wrote:
>> A new book by the Ehrlichs is certainly nothing to get excited about.
>After all, most of the other books by these false prophets were misguided
>and mostly wrong, so why would this one be any different. The sad thing
>is that these holdovers from the 60's cultural revolution are desperately
>trying to find some remnant of their doom and gloom prophecies that the
>public will accept.
I just read the book and it's probably his most widely-appealing work
to date, since it puts all the anti-environmental rhetoric in context
and doesn't just focus on overpopulation. The same people who've
always criticized Ehrlich will be eager to criticize this book, but
they should actually read it before doing so. Ehrlich successfully
debunks all the standard fallacies posted on Usenet.
Ehrlich also explains why some of his oft-quoted "Population Bomb"
scenarios were overzealous (it's because science is always correcting
itself). And he goes into great detail about the famous 5 minerals
bet with Julian Simon, and Simon's recent refusal to make another bet
on 15 factors that are far more meaningful. The following excerpt
gives a description of the original bet that you'll won't hear from a
Dittohead:
"In 1980, Julian Simon repeatedly challenged environmental scientists
to bet against him on trends in prices of commodities, asserting that
humanity would never run out of anything. Paul and the others knew
that the five metals in the proposed wager were not critical
indicators and said so at the time. They emphasized that the depletion
of so-called renewable resources--environmental resources such as
soils, forests, species diversity, and groundwater--is much more
indicative of the deteriorating state of society's life-support
systems.
Nonetheless, after consulting with many colleagues, Paul and Berkeley
physicists John Harte and John Holdren accepted Simon's challenge
in late 1980, jointly betting a total of $1000 ($200 each on five
metals), rather than listen to him charge that environmental
scientists were unwilling to put their money where their mouths were.
Perhaps it was a mistake, but it can be quite satisfying to skewer an
adversary on his own terms, and they thought they had a good chance
of winning.
Prices of all five metals (chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and
tungsten) had gone up between 1950 and 1975. But the prices of
three of the five went down in the 1980s, in part because a recession
in the first half of that decade slowed the growth of demand for
industrial metals worldwide. Ironically, a prominent reason for the
slower industrial growth was the doubling of world oil prices in 1979.
Indeed, the price of oil probably was a factor in the prices of metals
in both years, being unprecedentedly high in 1980 and unprecedentedly
low in 1990. Paul and his colleagues ended up paying a small sum on
the bet, even though the price of a ton of copper (Simon's favorite
example) had risen in constant 1986 dollars from $1970 per ton in 1975
to $2166 in 1989."
("Betrayal of Science and Nature" pp. 100 - 101)
- A.J.