http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

On 2010-07-30, JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

We're seeing prolonged record highs in CO.

nb

On 7/30/2010 10:03 AM JimT spake thus:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

What global warming? This global warming:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNJI1ELCG7.DTL

"World's scientists call warming 'unmistakable'"

But hey, just continue denying AGW and keep your head in the sand; maybe
it'll help cool your brain.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 7/30/2010 10:03 AM JimT spake thus:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

What global warming? This global warming:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNJI1ELCG7.DTL

"World's scientists call warming 'unmistakable'"

But hey, just continue denying AGW and keep your head in the sand; maybe
it'll help cool your brain.



I see cynicism isn't your stong suit. Did you read the article?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2010-07-30, JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

We're seeing prolonged record highs in CO.

nb

Last summer in Central Tx was murder. We had something like 67 days
continuously over 100 degrees. Of course, hottest in recorded history. We're
getting break this year due to the rain I think. Last year we had a record
breaking drought too.

notbob wrote:
On 2010-07-30, JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

We're seeing prolonged record highs in CO.

nb

Summer here in eastern TN has been hot as hell. Way above average. But
then again this is following the coldest winter in many many years and
there wasn't much of a spring. It seemed to go directly from winter to
summer. I missed those couple months of practically no heating or
cooling bills, went right from heating to A/C. If it stayed warmer all
year round I could handle it, or cooler year round, but not both extremes.

"Tony" wrote in message
...
notbob wrote:
On 2010-07-30, JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

We're seeing prolonged record highs in CO.

nb

Summer here in eastern TN has been hot as hell. Way above average. But
then again this is following the coldest winter in many many years and
there wasn't much of a spring. It seemed to go directly from winter to
summer. I missed those couple months of practically no heating or cooling
bills, went right from heating to A/C. If it stayed warmer all year round
I could handle it, or cooler year round, but not both extremes.

Same here. Freakish weather. It snowed hard in Victoria TX. It never does
that. They liked it though.

JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

It's gonna get warmer before it gets colder. Everything else is bull****.

--
LSMFT

Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin--

"JimT" wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never fully
agreed upon?

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:51:12 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JimT" wrote in message
tnet...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never fully
agreed upon?


I'm not claiming to be one of the sane people-- but I just thought of
2--
1. blood
2. money

How'd I do?

Jim

On 7/30/2010 11:57 AM JimT spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

On 7/30/2010 10:03 AM JimT spake thus:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

What global warming? This global warming:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNJI1ELCG7.DTL

"World's scientists call warming 'unmistakable'"

But hey, just continue denying AGW and keep your head in the sand; maybe
it'll help cool your brain.

I see cynicism isn't your stong suit. Did you read the article?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Whoops. Guess I'm too used to responding to AGW deniers. Will read next
time before posting.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 7/30/2010 11:57 AM JimT spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

On 7/30/2010 10:03 AM JimT spake thus:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend
is supposed change that.

What global warming? This global warming:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNJI1ELCG7.DTL

"World's scientists call warming 'unmistakable'"

But hey, just continue denying AGW and keep your head in the sand; maybe
it'll help cool your brain.

I see cynicism isn't your stong suit. Did you read the article?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Whoops. Guess I'm too used to responding to AGW deniers. Will read next
time before posting.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

no problem.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"JimT" wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this
weekend is supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had
at least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's
not a sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

In the U.S., noxious emissions have been going down since the early 70's.
The air is cleaner than perhaps it ever has been, certainly better than 1850
in London.


Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not
continue pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory
is never fully agreed upon?

Los Angeles is one. I can't think of another.

On 7/30/2010 3:51 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never fully
agreed upon?



It makes sense to be a good steward of the land. I don't know of
anyone on either side of the Global Warming debate who would think
otherwise. Personally I believe in Climate Cycles which span longer
periods of time than recorded history. I've only been around since
the middle of the last century so I've only been witness to a very
small part of the innumerable cycles this planet goes through. As
a kid I saw what pollution from steel mills and paper mills can do
to people's heath including my own. I remember walking to school
one morning when a fog containing pollution from a paper mill descended
upon the neighborhood I was walking through and I think I experienced
something akin to the poison gas attacks of WWI, it made me quite ill.

TDD

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2010 3:51 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not
continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never fully
agreed upon?



It makes sense to be a good steward of the land. I don't know of
anyone on either side of the Global Warming debate who would think
otherwise. Personally I believe in Climate Cycles which span longer
periods of time than recorded history. I've only been around since
the middle of the last century so I've only been witness to a very
small part of the innumerable cycles this planet goes through. As
a kid I saw what pollution from steel mills and paper mills can do
to people's heath including my own. I remember walking to school
one morning when a fog containing pollution from a paper mill descended
upon the neighborhood I was walking through and I think I experienced
something akin to the poison gas attacks of WWI, it made me quite ill.

TDD


I was raised in El Paso next to the Asarco smelter. Would wake up in the
morning with the taste of sulfur.

The history of the planet's "climate cycles" is preserved in ice cores:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

They are hard to argue with but we do anyway. :-)

On 7/30/2010 11:07 PM, JimT wrote:

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2010 3:51 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this
weekend is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not
continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never
fully
agreed upon?



It makes sense to be a good steward of the land. I don't know of
anyone on either side of the Global Warming debate who would think
otherwise. Personally I believe in Climate Cycles which span longer
periods of time than recorded history. I've only been around since
the middle of the last century so I've only been witness to a very
small part of the innumerable cycles this planet goes through. As
a kid I saw what pollution from steel mills and paper mills can do
to people's heath including my own. I remember walking to school
one morning when a fog containing pollution from a paper mill descended
upon the neighborhood I was walking through and I think I experienced
something akin to the poison gas attacks of WWI, it made me quite ill.

TDD


I was raised in El Paso next to the Asarco smelter. Would wake up in the
morning with the taste of sulfur.

The history of the planet's "climate cycles" is preserved in ice cores:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

They are hard to argue with but we do anyway. :-)



Every time I try to argue with one, all I get is an icy stare.

TDD

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2010 11:07 PM, JimT wrote:

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2010 3:51 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this
weekend is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not
a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not
continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never
fully
agreed upon?



It makes sense to be a good steward of the land. I don't know of
anyone on either side of the Global Warming debate who would think
otherwise. Personally I believe in Climate Cycles which span longer
periods of time than recorded history. I've only been around since
the middle of the last century so I've only been witness to a very
small part of the innumerable cycles this planet goes through. As
a kid I saw what pollution from steel mills and paper mills can do
to people's heath including my own. I remember walking to school
one morning when a fog containing pollution from a paper mill descended
upon the neighborhood I was walking through and I think I experienced
something akin to the poison gas attacks of WWI, it made me quite ill.

TDD


I was raised in El Paso next to the Asarco smelter. Would wake up in the
morning with the taste of sulfur.

The history of the planet's "climate cycles" is preserved in ice cores:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

They are hard to argue with but we do anyway. :-)



Every time I try to argue with one, all I get is an icy stare.

TDD

It's the cold hard facts

On 7/30/2010 1:03 PM, JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.
The National Weather Service records that this was the hottest July since they
began keeping records. This pertains to average temperature for (1) entire
world - land and sea, (2) ocean temperatures, (3) continental U.S., and (4)
Washington D.C. metro area.

One micro-climate's conditions cannot be used to generalize.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2010 3:51 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at
least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not a
sane person on the planet who disagrees with these reasons.

Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should not
continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never fully
agreed upon?



It makes sense to be a good steward of the land. I don't know of
anyone on either side of the Global Warming debate who would think
otherwise.


There *are* people on one side of the GW debate who think otherwise, but
they don't realize how absurd they sound. They've been ordered to believe
some funny ****. Example: Retrofitting coal-burning electric generating
facilities with the latest & cleanest technology will have disastrous
effects on the price of electricity, and perhaps even put some utilities
right out of business. Nonsense.

Then there are individuals who are literally broken, and respond to my
question with stuff that does not actually answer the question. Heybub, for
instance: "In the U.S., noxious emissions have been going down since the
early 70's. The air is cleaner than perhaps it ever has been, certainly
better than 1850 in London."

He thought that was the right answer, but clearly it's not.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2010 1:03 PM, JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.
The National Weather Service records that this was the hottest July since
they began keeping records. This pertains to average temperature for (1)
entire world - land and sea, (2) ocean temperatures, (3) continental U.S.,
and (4) Washington D.C. metro area.

One micro-climate's conditions cannot be used to generalize.

Peersonally, I think this nit picking over what's "climate" and what's
"weather change" is useless. I was commenting on the fact we are having a
decent summer after last year's blow out. It's not really a commentary on
the AGW issue. The article (Russia) I think speaks for itself. I have little
doubt something is happening to our overall climate and it's getting hotter.
Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced either way yet.

"JimT" wrote in
net:

I have little doubt something is happening to our overall climate and
it's getting hotter. Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced either way
yet.

That's right. HOWEVER, not restricting industrialized CO2 output seems to
me like continuing to whack your thumb with a hammer because another whack
and then another whack shouldn't make that much difference in the pain
you're already feeling in your thumb.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote in message
...
"JimT" wrote in
net:

I have little doubt something is happening to our overall climate and
it's getting hotter. Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced either way
yet.

That's right. HOWEVER, not restricting industrialized CO2 output seems to
me like continuing to whack your thumb with a hammer because another whack
and then another whack shouldn't make that much difference in the pain
you're already feeling in your thumb.

--
Best regards
Han


Smoking also comes to mind....

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:13:38 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2010-07-30, JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

We're seeing prolonged record highs in CO.

....and lows in CA. It hasn't been *that* bad here in AL, though this is about
the time of year it goes triple (and today it's on the schedule - 95F now and
T-Boomers in the menu for later).

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:50:18 -0400, LSMFT wrote:

JimT wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this weekend is
supposed change that.

It's gonna get warmer before it gets colder. Everything else is bull****.

For a couple of weeks. Then it'll reverse. Yup!

On 31 Jul 2010 16:11:13 GMT, Han wrote:

"JimT" wrote in
tnet:

I have little doubt something is happening to our overall climate and
it's getting hotter. Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced either way
yet.

That's right. HOWEVER, not restricting industrialized CO2 output seems to
me like continuing to whack your thumb with a hammer because another whack
and then another whack shouldn't make that much difference in the pain
you're already feeling in your thumb.

Restricting CO2 output simply is a move back to the stone age. Taxing it is a
simply fueling Washington to do more harm.

" wrote in
news
On 31 Jul 2010 16:11:13 GMT, Han wrote:

"JimT" wrote in
stnet:

I have little doubt something is happening to our overall climate
and it's getting hotter. Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced
either way yet.

That's right. HOWEVER, not restricting industrialized CO2 output
seems to me like continuing to whack your thumb with a hammer because
another whack and then another whack shouldn't make that much
difference in the pain you're already feeling in your thumb.

Restricting CO2 output simply is a move back to the stone age. Taxing
it is a simply fueling Washington to do more harm.

Taxing it would be the Republican way - let the market place take care of
it. Replacing fossil fuels with something else is what I'd prefer. Solar,
wind, hydro, nuclear, plenty of options that CAN be managed responsibly.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 31 Jul 2010 18:30:02 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 31 Jul 2010 16:11:13 GMT, Han wrote:

"JimT" wrote in
astnet:

I have little doubt something is happening to our overall climate
and it's getting hotter. Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced
either way yet.

That's right. HOWEVER, not restricting industrialized CO2 output
seems to me like continuing to whack your thumb with a hammer because
another whack and then another whack shouldn't make that much
difference in the pain you're already feeling in your thumb.

Restricting CO2 output simply is a move back to the stone age. Taxing
it is a simply fueling Washington to do more harm.

Taxing it would be the Republican way

You're an idiot. The Demonicrats are the ones backing Cap and Tax.

let the market place take care of it.

It will, if there is anything to "take care of".

Replacing fossil fuels with something else is what I'd prefer. Solar,
wind, hydro, nuclear, plenty of options that CAN be managed responsibly.

I'd like to repeal some of the laws of physics, too. It would make my life
easier, but it's not going to happen.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2010 3:51 PM, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
net...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/...u_russia_fires

Fortunately, we haven't had one triple digit day yet but this
weekend is supposed change that.


Never mind global warming. Since at least the early 1970s, we've
had at least one or two OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and
there's not a sane person on the planet who disagrees with these
reasons. Can you name either of these reasons, and explain why we should
not
continue
pursuing lower emissions even if the global warming theory is never
fully agreed upon?



It makes sense to be a good steward of the land. I don't know of
anyone on either side of the Global Warming debate who would think
otherwise.


There *are* people on one side of the GW debate who think otherwise,
but they don't realize how absurd they sound. They've been ordered to
believe some funny ****. Example: Retrofitting coal-burning electric
generating facilities with the latest & cleanest technology will have
disastrous effects on the price of electricity, and perhaps even put
some utilities right out of business. Nonsense.

Then there are individuals who are literally broken, and respond to my
question with stuff that does not actually answer the question.
Heybub, for instance: "In the U.S., noxious emissions have been
going down since the early 70's. The air is cleaner than perhaps it
ever has been, certainly better than 1850 in London."

He thought that was the right answer, but clearly it's not.

Oh. Sorry. I thought you could connect the dots.

You said: "Since at least the early 1970s, we've had at least one or two
OTHER reasons for reducing emissions, and there's not a sane person on the
planet who disagrees with these reasons." And asked if anybody could name
them.

I'll take a stab:

1. Because we can.
2. Because, for some, it's fun.
3. Because bureaucrats have to have some enforceable regulations to give
purpose to their otherwise meaningless lives.
4. Because sadists are in charge.
5. Because they "feel our pain"
6. Because those in government do not believe Calvin Coolidge's observation
"If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine
will run into the ditch before they reach you."

In my view, the air's clean enough. Most of the time. And that we've long
since past the point of diminishing returns. There are, however, insane
people on the planet who will disagree.

Han wrote:

Restricting CO2 output simply is a move back to the stone age.
Taxing it is a simply fueling Washington to do more harm.

Taxing it would be the Republican way - let the market place take
care of it. Replacing fossil fuels with something else is what I'd
prefer. Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, plenty of options that CAN be
managed responsibly.

Solar, and wind, are merely nibbling at the margins. Assuming solar
collectors running at 70% efficiency, and adjusting for latitude, cloud
cover, and darkness, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the
Los Angeles basing (1200 sq mi) to provide enough electricty for just
California. Further, the cost to build and maintain a structure large than
all the pyramids on earth would be impossible.

The only way to improve on that is to move the orbit of the earth closer to
the sun.

There aren't any places left to build dams - in fact some are being torn
down so the Wart-faced Faux Salmon can defecate. Further, hydroelectric dams
are the most dangerous of all methods of power generation (dams don't fail
often, but when they do...).

That leave nuclear, but far too many people are too phobic about the
prospect for nuclear energy to be politically viable.

On 7/31/2010 12:29 PM HeyBub spake thus:

In my view, the air's clean enough. Most of the time. And that we've long
since past the point of diminishing returns. There are, however, insane
people on the planet who will disagree.

I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in China lately.

Oh, I'm sorry, my bad: they don't count. They're not really people, just
a bunch of yellow peons who are supposed to make all our crap for us.
Who cares about their air?


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 7/31/2010 12:29 PM HeyBub spake thus:

In my view, the air's clean enough. Most of the time. And that we've long
since past the point of diminishing returns. There are, however, insane
people on the planet who will disagree.

I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in China lately.

Oh, I'm sorry, my bad: they don't count. They're not really people, just a
bunch of yellow peons who are supposed to make all our crap for us. Who
cares about their air?


Apparently, they care about their air more than we do about ours. The
cumulative effect of many "clean" facilities may outweigh what we produce
with fewer "dirty" ones, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/wo...coal.html?_r=1

" wrote in
:

On 31 Jul 2010 18:30:02 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 31 Jul 2010 16:11:13 GMT, Han wrote:

"JimT" wrote in
oastnet:

I have little doubt something is happening to our overall climate
and it's getting hotter. Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced
either way yet.

That's right. HOWEVER, not restricting industrialized CO2 output
seems to me like continuing to whack your thumb with a hammer
because another whack and then another whack shouldn't make that
much difference in the pain you're already feeling in your thumb.

Restricting CO2 output simply is a move back to the stone age.
Taxing it is a simply fueling Washington to do more harm.

Taxing it would be the Republican way

You're an idiot. The Demonicrats are the ones backing Cap and Tax.

let the market place take care of it.

It will, if there is anything to "take care of".

Replacing fossil fuels with something else is what I'd prefer. Solar,
wind, hydro, nuclear, plenty of options that CAN be managed
responsibly.

I'd like to repeal some of the laws of physics, too. It would make my
life easier, but it's not going to happen.

I didn't think you'd get either the sarcasm, or "it". You proved it ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Solar, and wind, are merely nibbling at the margins. Assuming solar
collectors running at 70% efficiency, and adjusting for latitude,
cloud cover, and darkness, it would take a solar collector farm the
size of the Los Angeles basing (1200 sq mi) to provide enough
electricty for just California. Further, the cost to build and
maintain a structure large than all the pyramids on earth would be
impossible.

Check out how much Denmark gets from wind. Admittedly, no really big
cities and plenty of wind, but at least somewhere it can be done. I hear
plenty of talk about people wo installed solar and very much reduced
their use of external power. I know some of the problems too. My home
is very much shaded by trees, and even if it wasn't, the rules around
here might be difficult.

The only way to improve on that is to move the orbit of the earth
closer to the sun.

I think there are other ways that are amost as esoteric, but equally
unreal.

There aren't any places left to build dams - in fact some are being
torn down so the Wart-faced Faux Salmon can defecate. Further,
hydroelectric dams are the most dangerous of all methods of power
generation (dams don't fail often, but when they do...).

I am thinking smaller dams, not everything needs to be Hoover sized

That leave nuclear, but far too many people are too phobic about the
prospect for nuclear energy to be politically viable.

Let's collaborat on promoting nuclear. I happen to believe that nuclear
is an excellent way out. Look at France ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 31 Jul 2010 20:39:46 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 31 Jul 2010 18:30:02 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 31 Jul 2010 16:11:13 GMT, Han wrote:

"JimT" wrote in
news:gpudnbD_bo7YqcnRnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@posted. toastnet:

I have little doubt something is happening to our overall climate
and it's getting hotter. Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced
either way yet.

That's right. HOWEVER, not restricting industrialized CO2 output
seems to me like continuing to whack your thumb with a hammer
because another whack and then another whack shouldn't make that
much difference in the pain you're already feeling in your thumb.

Restricting CO2 output simply is a move back to the stone age.
Taxing it is a simply fueling Washington to do more harm.

Taxing it would be the Republican way

You're an idiot. The Demonicrats are the ones backing Cap and Tax.

let the market place take care of it.

It will, if there is anything to "take care of".

Replacing fossil fuels with something else is what I'd prefer. Solar,
wind, hydro, nuclear, plenty of options that CAN be managed
responsibly.

I'd like to repeal some of the laws of physics, too. It would make my
life easier, but it's not going to happen.

I didn't think you'd get either the sarcasm, or "it". You proved it ...

Your writing is poor, I guess.

On 7/31/2010 1:45 PM Han spake thus:

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

There aren't any places left to build dams - in fact some are being
torn down so the Wart-faced Faux Salmon can defecate. Further,
hydroelectric dams are the most dangerous of all methods of power
generation (dams don't fail often, but when they do...).

I am thinking smaller dams, not everything needs to be Hoover sized

Nor--even better example--Three Gorges-sized.

The term for such smaller dams is "low head hydro". Smaller dams reduce
the negative impact of damming watercourses: loss of wildlife habitat,
farmland, canyons, etc.

That leave nuclear, but far too many people are too phobic about the
prospect for nuclear energy to be politically viable.

Let's collaborat on promoting nuclear. I happen to believe that nuclear
is an excellent way out. Look at France ...

Let's not. Nukes are still a Very Bad Idea.

First of all, they're really not necessary. Even if we eliminate coal as
a source for electrical power generation--by far the worst environmental
offender, by consensus--we can still generate the power we need with a
mix of other technologies (including cogeneration, which captures energy
otherwise wasted), plus conservation. This includes solar, wind, hydro,
biomass, etc.

Nuclear power is still far too dangerous for this planet at this time.
Unlike other technologies, it has significant risks at each step along
the nuclear fuel cycle: mining, milling, fuel-rod fabrication,
transportation, power generation, decommissioning and spent-fuel storage
and disposal. There have been significant accidents at each step of the way.

And worst of all, there is still no viable scheme for long-term waste
disposal. I happen to know something about the subject as I researched
it in college and wrote a paper about it. Even now, 20 years after the
feds ran the nuclear waste railroad into Nevada (Yucca Mountain), things
are no better and we're no closer to a safe storage facility. The stuff
is just too ****ing dangerous for us stupid humans to deal with it,
apparently, despite slews of pointy-headed scientists that have grappled
with the problem.

Perhaps in the future, but not now.

Besides, why not use the greatest *fusion* reactor in the solar system?
It's a nice safe 93 million miles away from us, and provides all the
energy we'll ever need. We just need to learn how to capture and use it.
(And I'm not just talking electricity he somehow, we've seemed to
have forgotten all about simpler, more direct uses of the sun's
energy--remember "passive solar"? Still works, still is extremely
underutilized.)


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 7/31/2010 12:29 PM HeyBub spake thus:

In my view, the air's clean enough. Most of the time. And that we've long
since past the point of diminishing returns. There are, however, insane
people on the planet who will disagree.

I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in China lately.

Oh, I'm sorry, my bad: they don't count. They're not really people, just
a bunch of yellow peons who are supposed to make all our crap for us.
Who cares about their air?

Must not count because Kyoto and the other treaties give China, India
and "developing" countries a pass on complying with with the treaties.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

In article ,
Han wrote:


their use of external power. I know some of the problems too. My home
is very much shaded by trees, and even if it wasn't, the rules around
here might be difficult.



I am thinking smaller dams, not everything needs to be Hoover sized


But even then you have problems with the flooding, etc., that will
cause some problems with something. Heck some of the environmentalists
around here have been fighting with each other because of beaver dams
screwing up the nesting grounds of some weird fish species.
The main problem with all of this is NIMBY. You can't put windfarms
up just over the horizon off the Kennedy Estate because they might see
if you they scrunk their eyes just right.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

In article , z wrote:
On 31 Jul 2010 18:30:02 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 31 Jul 2010 16:11:13 GMT, Han wrote:

"JimT" wrote in
oastnet:

I have little doubt something is happening to our overall climate
and it's getting hotter. Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced
either way yet.

That's right. HOWEVER, not restricting industrialized CO2 output
seems to me like continuing to whack your thumb with a hammer because
another whack and then another whack shouldn't make that much
difference in the pain you're already feeling in your thumb.

Restricting CO2 output simply is a move back to the stone age. Taxing
it is a simply fueling Washington to do more harm.

Taxing it would be the Republican way

You're an idiot. The Demonicrats are the ones backing Cap and Tax.

let the market place take care of it.

It will, if there is anything to "take care of".

Replacing fossil fuels with something else is what I'd prefer. Solar,
wind, hydro, nuclear, plenty of options that CAN be managed responsibly.

I'd like to repeal some of the laws of physics, too. It would make my life
easier, but it's not going to happen.

I thought I knew you well enough to think that you would be in favor of
nuclear energy, as I largely am.

Or am I screwing-up here?
--
- Don Klipstein )

In , David Nebenzahl
wrote:
On 7/31/2010 1:45 PM Han spake thus:

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

There aren't any places left to build dams - in fact some are being
torn down so the Wart-faced Faux Salmon can defecate. Further,
hydroelectric dams are the most dangerous of all methods of power
generation (dams don't fail often, but when they do...).

I am thinking smaller dams, not everything needs to be Hoover sized

Nor--even better example--Three Gorges-sized.

The term for such smaller dams is "low head hydro". Smaller dams reduce
the negative impact of damming watercourses: loss of wildlife habitat,
farmland, canyons, etc.

That leave nuclear, but far too many people are too phobic about the
prospect for nuclear energy to be politically viable.

Let's collaborat on promoting nuclear. I happen to believe that nuclear
is an excellent way out. Look at France ...

Let's not. Nukes are still a Very Bad Idea.

First of all, they're really not necessary. Even if we eliminate coal as
a source for electrical power generation--by far the worst environmental
offender, by consensus--we can still generate the power we need with a
mix of other technologies (including cogeneration, which captures energy
otherwise wasted), plus conservation. This includes solar, wind, hydro,
biomass, etc.

Nuclear power is still far too dangerous for this planet at this time.
Unlike other technologies, it has significant risks at each step along
the nuclear fuel cycle: mining, milling, fuel-rod fabrication,
transportation, power generation, decommissioning and spent-fuel storage
and disposal. There have been significant accidents at each step of the way.

And worst of all, there is still no viable scheme for long-term waste
disposal.

That situation in USA is at the request of those who want lack of
existence of such.

The barriers are political and not technical.

It is easy to dump nuclear waste into such suitable places as depleted
petroleum "reserves" under salt domes, that successfully contained liquids
over 1 Km underground for roughly 200 million years.

It is easy to dump radioactive waste into depleted uranium mines where
radioactive uranium ore sat for at least 10's of millions, probably
100-plus million years as innocently as the Garden of Eden.

I happen to know something about the subject as I researched
it in college and wrote a paper about it. Even now, 20 years after the
feds ran the nuclear waste railroad into Nevada (Yucca Mountain), things
are no better and we're no closer to a safe storage facility.

Primarily at request by political forces desiring a political declaration
that "safe storage" is impossible.

The stuff is just too ****ing dangerous for us stupid humans to deal with
it, apparently, despite slews of pointy-headed scientists that have
grappled with the problem.

Perhaps in the future, but not now.

Besides, why not use the greatest *fusion* reactor in the solar system?
It's a nice safe 93 million miles away from us, and provides all the
energy we'll ever need.

Can you cite how that can meet ourcurrent needs without requirement of
many humans to big-time "let go of" modern comforts and modern
necessities for productivity needed to sustain "modern comforts"?

We just need to learn how to capture and use it.
(And I'm not just talking electricity he somehow, we've seemed to
have forgotten all about simpler, more direct uses of the sun's
energy--remember "passive solar"? Still works, still is extremely
underutilized.)

Please keep in mind how much of that is "low grade heat".

Heat energy collected at a temperature mere degrees or 10's of degrees
warmer than "prevailing ambient" is good for not much other than home
or workplace heating (often only intermittently) and sometimes hot-water
heating.

As for conversion to electrical energy - please consider lack of any
business operation making any gigabuck-class improvement over the
11%-or-so collection efficiency of monocrystalline silicon solar cells.
While over 10 years ago it was diasclosed that GaAs did better, and a
"sandwich" of a "GaAs derivative" ("my words") over monocrystalline
silicon achieved around 30%. IIRC, that was disclosed published
somewhere around 15 years ago. No bigtime commercial product yet for
~30% as opposed to ~11% collecting-efficiency photovoltaic cells or
combos thereof?

As for converting "low grade heat" to mechanical energy:

A "heat engine" has ideally in most-oversimplified-ideal as-far-as
I-know, 3 ports. "Port 1" is input of heat energy. "Port 2" is exhaust
of heat energy, at a temperature lower than that of Port 1. "Port 3" is
output of energy in a form other than heat, preferably mechanical or
electrical.

As far as I understand "The Laws of Thermodynamics", the output of heat
energy from Port 2 is the input of heat energy into Port 1, minus the
energy delivered out through Port 3.

Meanwhile, the heat output from Port 2 is at minimum the heat input to
Port 1, times ratio of absolute temperature of Port 2 divided by that of
Port 1.

At most, non-heat energy delivered from Port 3 is the difference between
the throughputs of Ports 1 and 2. If the temperature difference between
Ports 1 and 2 is small compared to "ambient temperature", then
even-theoretically-best efficiency of converting heat energy entering
"Port 1" to mechanical or electrical energy (output via "Port 3") is low.

--
- Don Klipstein )

(Don Klipstein) wrote in
:

I thought I knew you well enough to think that you would be in favor of
nuclear energy, as I largely am.

Or am I screwing-up here?

I thought so too. And indeed the waste problem s a big problem and needs
to be solved ... At the moment the total volume is manageable, and
reprocessing could reduce the volume very much. The proliferation issues
should be manageable.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid