On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 16:25:46 GMT, the opaque Gunner
spake:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:38:48 GMT, "Poker Joker"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..

Id much rather wrap a bicycle chain around your neck and pull till all
the **** stops coming the stump terminating at your 3rd cervical
vertebrea. How about doing your part in stopping the uncontrolled
release of CO2?

Gunner

Is that a wimper I hear? I knew you were too immature to understand
anything.

Never been around wolves much, have you?

It's much easier to plonk the trolls, Gunner.

And for the Chicken Littles:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec22.html
(text follows)
--snip--

Global Warming? Hot Air.

By George F. Will
Thursday, December 23, 2004; Page A23

In today's segmented America, Michael Crichton's new novel, "State of
Fear," might seem to be reading just for red states. Granted, a
character resembling Martin Sheen -- Crichton's character is a
prototypical Hollywood liberal who plays the president in a television
series -- meets an appropriately grisly fate. But blue states, too --
no, especially -- need Crichton's fable about the ecology of public
opinion.

"State of Fear," with a first printing of 1.5 million copies,
resembles Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" -- about 6 million copies sold
since 1957 -- as a political broadside woven into an entertaining
story. But whereas Rand had only an idea -- a good one (capitalism is
splendid), but only one -- Crichton has information. "State of Fear"
is the world's first page turner that people will want to read in one
gulp (a long gulp: 600 pages, counting appendices) even though it has
lots of real scientific graphs, and footnotes citing journals such as
Progress in Physical Geography and Transactions -- American
Geophysical Union.

Crichton's subject is today's fear that global warming will cause
catastrophic climate change, a belief now so conventional that it
seems to require no supporting data. Crichton's subject is also how
conventional wisdom is manufactured in a credulous and media-drenched
society.

Various factions have interests -- monetary, political, even emotional
-- in cultivating fears. The fears invariably seem to require more
government subservience to environmentalists and more government
supervision of our lives.

Crichton's villains are environmental hysterics who are innocent of
information but overflowing with certitudes and moral vanity. His
heroes resemble Navy SEALs tenured at MIT, foiling the villains with
guns and graphs.

The villains are frustrated because the data do not prove that global
warming is causing rising sea levels and other catastrophes. So they
concoct high-tech schemes to manufacture catastrophes they can ascribe
to global warming -- flash floods in the American West, the calving of
an Antarctic iceberg 100 miles across, and a tsunami that would roar
at 500 mph across the Pacific and smash California's coast on the last
day of a Los Angeles conference on abrupt climate change.

The theory of global warming -- Crichton says warming has amounted to
just half a degree Celsius in 100 years -- is that "greenhouse gases,"
particularly carbon dioxide, trap heat on Earth, causing . . . well,
no one knows what, or when. Crichton's heroic skeptics delight in
noting such things as the decline of global temperatures from 1940 to
1970. And that since 1970, glaciers in Iceland have been advancing.
And that Antarctica is getting colder and its ice is getting thicker.

Last week Fiona Harvey, the Financial Times' environmental
correspondent, fresh from yet another international confabulation on
climate change, wrote that while Earth's cloud cover "is thought" to
have increased recently, no one knows whether this is good or bad. Is
the heat-trapping by the clouds' water vapor greater or less than the
sun's heat reflected back off the clouds into space?

Climate-change forecasts, Harvey writes, are like financial forecasts
but involve a vastly more complex array of variables. The climate
forecasts, based on computer models analyzing the past, tell us that
we do not know how much warming is occurring, whether it is a
transitory episode or how much warming is dangerous -- or perhaps
beneficial.

One of the good guys in "State of Fear" cites Montaigne's axiom:
"Nothing is so firmly believed as that which least is known." Which is
why 30 years ago the fashionable panic was about global cooling. The
New York Times (Aug. 14, 1975) reported "many signs" that "Earth may
be heading for another ice age." Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976)
warned about "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." "Continued
rapid cooling of the Earth" (Global Ecology, 1971) could herald "a
full-blown 10,000-year ice age" (Science, March 1, 1975). The
Christian Science Monitor reported (Aug. 27, 1974) that Nebraska's
armadillos were retreating south from the cooling.

Last week The Post reported that global warming has caused a decline
in Alaska's porcupine caribou herd and has lured the golden orange
prothonotary warbler back from southern wintering grounds to Richmond
a day earlier for nearly two decades. Or since global cooling stopped.
Maybe.

Gregg Easterbrook, an acerbic student of eco-pessimism, offers a "Law
of Doomsaying": Predict catastrophe no later than 10 years hence but
no sooner than five years away -- soon enough to terrify, but far
enough off that people will forget if you are wrong. Because Crichton
remembers yesterday's discarded certitudes, millions of his readers
will be wholesomely skeptical of today's.


--snip--


--------------------------------------------
-- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
================================================== ==========

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 17 Jun 2005 17:55:46 -0700, "BC" wrote:


How about the cosmic truth that if every family unit on the planet got
a 1500 square foot split level home on an acre of land, the resulting
subdivision would not fill Texas?

Gunner

Right - if every "family unit" had about 38 members. And what does the size
of the house have to do with it?

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:23:29 GMT, "Laurie Forbes"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On 17 Jun 2005 17:55:46 -0700, "BC" wrote:


How about the cosmic truth that if every family unit on the planet got
a 1500 square foot split level home on an acre of land, the resulting
subdivision would not fill Texas?

Gunner

Right - if every "family unit" had about 38 members. And what does the size
of the house have to do with it?

Work out the math again.

And it means that the entire population of the planet can live in
Texas, leaving the remainder of the planet to feed em. Only in the
Cities of Europe and India does it look like an ant colony. Get
outside of town..and there is lots of wide open space to grow stuff.

Generally, its dictatorial government that tends to starve its own
peoples to death. Not the lack of farming ability or resources.

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

Gunner wrote:

On 17 Jun 2005 17:55:46 -0700, "BC" wrote:

It's just a matter of understanding the
true scale of things and what we humans
are capable of. Google-up the history of
the "passenger pigeon" -- that's a very
good cautionary tale about what happens
when we go about things cluelessly and
make wholly naive assumptions about
our impact on nature.

Being environmentally conscious is not
being concerned with the entire planet --
just that extremely thin coating around it
that we actually live in.

Here's my last trick quiz for the
machinists out the according this:
http://www.bca-pool.com/play/tournam...es/equip.shtml
billiard balls are suppose to have a
diameter of 2 1/4" +/- .005"

If the earth was shrunk down to a
diameter of 2 1/4," would it meet
the tolerance standard for an official
ball? The mean diameter of the Earth
is 12,742.02 km, the highest point is
8,850 m (Everest), and the lowest is
-10,911 m (Mariana Trench)

Is that cosmic enough for you?

-BC

How about the cosmic truth that if every family unit on the planet got
a 1500 square foot split level home on an acre of land, the resulting
subdivision would not fill Texas?

Gunner


I'd say the cosmic calculator needs new batteries as Texas
only has 167,624,960 acres of land.

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:

On 17 Jun 2005 17:55:46 -0700, "BC" wrote:

It's just a matter of understanding the
true scale of things and what we humans
are capable of. Google-up the history of
the "passenger pigeon" -- that's a very
good cautionary tale about what happens
when we go about things cluelessly and
make wholly naive assumptions about
our impact on nature.

Being environmentally conscious is not
being concerned with the entire planet --
just that extremely thin coating around it
that we actually live in.

Here's my last trick quiz for the
machinists out the according this:
http://www.bca-pool.com/play/tournam...es/equip.shtml
billiard balls are suppose to have a
diameter of 2 1/4" +/- .005"

If the earth was shrunk down to a
diameter of 2 1/4," would it meet
the tolerance standard for an official
ball? The mean diameter of the Earth
is 12,742.02 km, the highest point is
8,850 m (Everest), and the lowest is
-10,911 m (Mariana Trench)

Is that cosmic enough for you?

-BC

How about the cosmic truth that if every family unit on the planet got
a 1500 square foot split level home on an acre of land, the resulting
subdivision would not fill Texas?

Gunner


I'd say the cosmic calculator needs new batteries as Texas
only has 167,624,960 acres of land.

In Gunner's neck of the woods, family units tend to run big -- 38.5 people
per house, apparently. Some of them are even related, in several
simultaneous ways.

Anyway, 38.5 people is a lot to pack into a 1500 sq. ft. (140 sq. meters)
house. The bathroom lines are pretty long, but, if you stack them up three
or four deep to sleep, you only have to run two shifts.

--
Ed Huntress

Cliff wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:21:59 -0400, JohnM wrote:


Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:11:19 -0400, JohnM wrote:



Besides, if you read into it a bit you'd find that the effort to tie
global warming to the ozone thing is taking place.


Ummm ..... in what way, exactly, are they the same thing?

Cliff, work with me here. I didn't say they are the same thing, I said
that the effort to tie them together is being made.


Was that Gunner again?

I can't speak for anyone else, I can only say what I've read on pages
from, for instance, NASA where the two were mentioned together, as I
said before, below.



I feel that this
means that someone mentioning them both in the same sentence isn't
something to be confused with confusing them. The "and such" on the end
of the quote is what I'm referring to, he's presenting the CFC thing as
equal hogwash to the global warming hogwash.


Or one of his close kin?


I find that I'm still not convinced on either issue,


Both are very real and have very sound and known scientific basis.
Quibbles are about some of the finer details of the future but
the wingers don't know that, not evengrasping what the subjects
are about.

Careful, you're starting to sound like a religous zealot..


I blame the educational system.


although some
googling I've been doing indicates that NASA is certainly convinced on
the CFC thing;


You can get sunburned a lot faster too.

And a better tan sooner too- just one of the advances of modern society..



they present it not as a theory but as a demonstrated
fact. Strange that they only consider R12 and R11 in that issue though,


Those were the major things being produced and released that
were making matters worse the fastest. Some of the other
Freons and allied chemicals are less stable in the atmosphere and
break down faster IIRC. And/or contain less Chlorine to begin with.


chlorine released to the atmosphere got no consideration whatsoever,


It rapidly dissolves in any moisture & comes down again in
the rain & snow. It does not get to the upper atmosphere
as almost inert Freons do to be broken down there by the UV.

This is possible.



although I did manage to find one page where they did admit that
volcanoes *are* a goodly source of what bothers them.


Sometimes. Not much that can be done. And, IIRC, they send the
stuff high at times .... but a bit later it all comes back down ....


Where the two are being tied together is in "atmospheric waves",
allegedly a product of global warming and, supposedly, a factor in the
temperature of the stratosphere during the polar winters. You'll have to
look it up for a better explanation..


I seem to recall something but ... ? Memory fades ...

I'm gonna remember that..



Re; global warming.. I read some thoughts on the issue and the one that
stuck with is was "If the climate is changing, we better hope it's
warming and not cooling, 'cause warming is something we can do something
about". I think that makes sense- do you?


We can cut CO2. Hard to get more heat for crops if it's too
cold .....

Indeed.. is there something on which we agree?

John

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 01:17:44 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:23:29 GMT, "Laurie Forbes"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..
On 17 Jun 2005 17:55:46 -0700, "BC" wrote:


How about the cosmic truth that if every family unit on the planet got
a 1500 square foot split level home on an acre of land, the resulting
subdivision would not fill Texas?

Gunner

Right - if every "family unit" had about 38 members. And what does the size
of the house have to do with it?

Work out the math again.

And it means that the entire population of the planet can live in
Texas, leaving the remainder of the planet to feed em. Only in the
Cities of Europe and India does it look like an ant colony. Get
outside of town..and there is lots of wide open space to grow stuff.

Generally, its dictatorial government that tends to starve its own
peoples to death. Not the lack of farming ability or resources.

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

Gunner just had a nasty dream about that many wingers
crowded together ... and most of us know what rats do
in such circumstances ....
--
Cliff

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 03:54:41 -0400, JohnM wrote:

Cliff wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:21:59 -0400, JohnM wrote:


Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:11:19 -0400, JohnM wrote:



Besides, if you read into it a bit you'd find that the effort to tie
global warming to the ozone thing is taking place.


Ummm ..... in what way, exactly, are they the same thing?

Cliff, work with me here. I didn't say they are the same thing, I said
that the effort to tie them together is being made.


Was that Gunner again?

I can't speak for anyone else, I can only say what I've read on pages
from, for instance, NASA where the two were mentioned together, as I
said before, below.

Oak trees and rocks.
There. I've mentioned two things together.
If I plant rocks do I get oak trees?


I feel that this
means that someone mentioning them both in the same sentence isn't
something to be confused with confusing them. The "and such" on the end
of the quote is what I'm referring to, he's presenting the CFC thing as
equal hogwash to the global warming hogwash.


Or one of his close kin?


I find that I'm still not convinced on either issue,


Both are very real and have very sound and known scientific basis.
Quibbles are about some of the finer details of the future but
the wingers don't know that, not evengrasping what the subjects
are about.

Careful, you're starting to sound like a religous zealot..

Not I. Like I said, small quibbles about real effects (or rather,
their long term effects in some of the finer details).

I blame the educational system.


although some
googling I've been doing indicates that NASA is certainly convinced on
the CFC thing;


You can get sunburned a lot faster too.

And a better tan sooner too- just one of the advances of modern society..

Many don't have sunscreen. It impacts cancer rates, animal
populations, plants, building degradation, rubber, Ozone, smog, etc.

they present it not as a theory but as a demonstrated
fact. Strange that they only consider R12 and R11 in that issue though,


Those were the major things being produced and released that
were making matters worse the fastest. Some of the other
Freons and allied chemicals are less stable in the atmosphere and
break down faster IIRC. And/or contain less Chlorine to begin with.


chlorine released to the atmosphere got no consideration whatsoever,


It rapidly dissolves in any moisture & comes down again in
the rain & snow. It does not get to the upper atmosphere
as almost inert Freons do to be broken down there by the UV.

This is possible.

Fact. It's why salt from sea spray is no problem, as an example.

although I did manage to find one page where they did admit that
volcanoes *are* a goodly source of what bothers them.


Sometimes. Not much that can be done. And, IIRC, they send the
stuff high at times .... but a bit later it all comes back down ....


Where the two are being tied together is in "atmospheric waves",
allegedly a product of global warming and, supposedly, a factor in the
temperature of the stratosphere during the polar winters. You'll have to
look it up for a better explanation..


I seem to recall something but ... ? Memory fades ...

I'm gonna remember that..

What? No essay?

Re; global warming.. I read some thoughts on the issue and the one that
stuck with is was "If the climate is changing, we better hope it's
warming and not cooling, 'cause warming is something we can do something
about". I think that makes sense- do you?


We can cut CO2. Hard to get more heat for crops if it's too
cold .....

Indeed.. is there something on which we agree?

Off & on, probably.

John
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 03:54:41 -0400, JohnM wrote:


Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:21:59 -0400, JohnM wrote:



Cliff wrote:


On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:11:19 -0400, JohnM wrote:




Besides, if you read into it a bit you'd find that the effort to tie
global warming to the ozone thing is taking place.


Ummm ..... in what way, exactly, are they the same thing?

Cliff, work with me here. I didn't say they are the same thing, I said
that the effort to tie them together is being made.


Was that Gunner again?

I can't speak for anyone else, I can only say what I've read on pages
from, for instance, NASA where the two were mentioned together, as I
said before, below.


Oak trees and rocks.
There. I've mentioned two things together.
If I plant rocks do I get oak trees?

I suppose that depends on your reasoning. I'm not saying that the ozone
thing and the global warming thing are interconnected, I'm simply
stating that some apparently responsible people are saying that it's at
least possible. If those two issues are rocks and oak trees to you then
you're going to have trouble getting me to dispute the issue with you. I
have been known to take any side on an issue, just to dispute it, but
I'm not going to on this one.




I feel that this
means that someone mentioning them both in the same sentence isn't
something to be confused with confusing them. The "and such" on the end
of the quote is what I'm referring to, he's presenting the CFC thing as
equal hogwash to the global warming hogwash.


Or one of his close kin?



I find that I'm still not convinced on either issue,


Both are very real and have very sound and known scientific basis.
Quibbles are about some of the finer details of the future but
the wingers don't know that, not evengrasping what the subjects
are about.

Careful, you're starting to sound like a religous zealot..


Not I. Like I said, small quibbles about real effects (or rather,
their long term effects in some of the finer details).

No, the "wingers don't know that" statement was what I was referring to.
It's as much a matter of belief as knowlege, and it's also a matter of
whether or not one finds it to be important.. I'm curious- what label do
you assign to yourself to distinguish yourself from "wingers"?



I blame the educational system.



although some
googling I've been doing indicates that NASA is certainly convinced on
the CFC thing;


You can get sunburned a lot faster too.

And a better tan sooner too- just one of the advances of modern society..


Many don't have sunscreen. It impacts cancer rates, animal
populations, plants, building degradation, rubber, Ozone, smog, etc.

I guess you have to pick your issues.. here's one I came across on
another group:

Did you know that:
"Trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per million
(ppm) in some samples to around 10 ppm in others. Generally, the amount of
thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of
uranium."
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html

Did you know that:
"total world consumption of coal in 2001, at 5.26 billion short tons"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/coal.pdf

Doing the math shows that between 5.26 thousand and 52.6 thousand *TONS* or
uranium were dumped into the environment in just that single YEAR, as
by-products of coal-burning. Multiply by 2.5 for thorium...

There's one assumption in there that I don't believe is perfect, but
it's a very interesting issue.. among many.



they present it not as a theory but as a demonstrated
fact. Strange that they only consider R12 and R11 in that issue though,


Those were the major things being produced and released that
were making matters worse the fastest. Some of the other
Freons and allied chemicals are less stable in the atmosphere and
break down faster IIRC. And/or contain less Chlorine to begin with.



chlorine released to the atmosphere got no consideration whatsoever,


It rapidly dissolves in any moisture & comes down again in
the rain & snow. It does not get to the upper atmosphere
as almost inert Freons do to be broken down there by the UV.

This is possible.


Fact. It's why salt from sea spray is no problem, as an example.


although I did manage to find one page where they did admit that
volcanoes *are* a goodly source of what bothers them.


Sometimes. Not much that can be done. And, IIRC, they send the
stuff high at times .... but a bit later it all comes back down ....



Where the two are being tied together is in "atmospheric waves",
allegedly a product of global warming and, supposedly, a factor in the
temperature of the stratosphere during the polar winters. You'll have to
look it up for a better explanation..


I seem to recall something but ... ? Memory fades ...

I'm gonna remember that..


What? No essay?

No. No essay. Hope I didn't disappoint.. I'm sure there's one building
up somewhere though, watch for it.



Re; global warming.. I read some thoughts on the issue and the one that
stuck with is was "If the climate is changing, we better hope it's
warming and not cooling, 'cause warming is something we can do something
about". I think that makes sense- do you?


We can cut CO2. Hard to get more heat for crops if it's too
cold .....

Indeed.. is there something on which we agree?


Off & on, probably.

Strange, ain't it..

John



John

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:47:51 -0500, John Scheldroup wrote:
....
Lets keep in mind that technology alone is not the only great criteria
that makes a civilization advanced, a life philosophy like knowing the
ten commandments are not commands but a philosophy of life to live by,
later on us humans might be the perfect models which other advanced
civilizations will hope to make contact with, sometime soon we both hope
G

You have to redeem your inner devils. I think when enough people heal,
we'll learn how to levitate and stuff:
http://www.godchannel.com/redemption.html
--
Love,
Rich

for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com

yourname wrote:
to Munich, technology so far that means catch-up to Detroit.



Hydrogen is a farce. All it does is move pollution/CO2 to somewhere
else. Unless you know a non electric way of producing hydrogen. How
funny is burning coal to make hydrogen?


John


I'm still voting for ethanol

Same argument. How much tractor fuel is spent planting, growing,
fertilizing, and harvesting the biomass to make the alcohol?

I think the ultimate answer, do-able today, is nuclear electric and
electric cars, perhaps hybrids for trips.

Yes, I know about the fuel disposal issues, but those are solvable with
enough attention given. I expect at some point we will be sending our
non-recycleable radioactive wastes into space, toward the sun perhaps.
Way too expensive now, but the delta will narrow as the footprint grows.

The real kicker is that the same enviro-nuts who are screaming about
global warming and greenhouse gases... are fighting every proposal to do
something about the problem.
We have environmentalists here fighting a wind farm because it will be
too close to a marshland... and they stopped a proposed ethanol plant just
down the road because of "potential environmental dangers".
The "environmental movement" is showing it's true colors... they don't
have any intention of solving the perceived problems; they just want to
prevent anybody else from making a living off the land!
If the "government" was going to build the wind farm or ethanol plant at
a huge cost to the taxpayers... that would be fine; but since some private
firm actually stands to make some money while reducing our dependence on
foreign oil... these clowns fight them tooth & nail.



"Kirk Gordon" wrote in message
news:1119355653.77eb1281c3c0cd113bf5c64522c28485@t eranews...
Edw wrote:

Has it occurred to you that the biosphere has evolved in a climate
that has remained relatively stable for tens of thousands of years?

It hasn't. Earth's climate varies all over the map, even on
relatively short time frames. And "tens of thousands of years" isn't
much in terms of evolution. You're worried about things that aren't
even true.

There are crops and fauna that would not survive such a change.

There are ALWAYS plants and animals that live on the edge of
extinction. And they fall off the edge every day, for reasons that have
nothing to do with humans burning fossil fuels. Come to think of it,
where do you imagine that those fossil fuels came from in the first place?

Extinctions happen constantly, in response to every little change in
anything about the Earth, the sun, the passing of a comet, or just about
any other factor. Species are born, and species die. If they didn't,
evolution wouldn't happen.

Areas that are now productive would shift elsewhere, without respect
to national frontiers. Supplies of fresh, potable water would also
shift, as rainfall patterns, permafrost and snowfall amounts shifted
toward the new temperate zones. Do you know how many wars have been
fought over access to water?

You mean areas like the Northern half of the US, which was once covered
by glaciers, and was an ocean before that; but which now produces enough
food for a significant fraction of the whole world? Or are you thinking
about the Sub-Sahara regions in Africa, which once were an ideal place for
primates to evolve into people, but which are now hostile and hard to live
in? Nature giveth, and Nature taketh away. That's the rules; and we all
have to live (or not) with them.

Are you fimiliar with the shift in patterns of dangerous weather -
tornadoes, tropical storms, flooding and drought? Or the increased
incidence of tidal bores?

Are you familiar with how complex the Earth really is, and how little
science really knows about how and why things work the way they do? Has
it occurred to you that maybe even the most catastrophic changes are
actually nothing more than Earth getting back to normal after having been
unusually friendly for a while?

Little teeny bits of carelessly selected information are NOT a good way
to plan the survival of an entire species.

KG

Cliff wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 01:17:44 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:23:29 GMT, "Laurie Forbes"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
...

On 17 Jun 2005 17:55:46 -0700, "BC" wrote:


How about the cosmic truth that if every family unit on the planet got
a 1500 square foot split level home on an acre of land, the resulting
subdivision would not fill Texas?

Gunner

Right - if every "family unit" had about 38 members. And what does the size
of the house have to do with it?


Work out the math again.

And it means that the entire population of the planet can live in
Texas, leaving the remainder of the planet to feed em. Only in the
Cities of Europe and India does it look like an ant colony. Get
outside of town..and there is lots of wide open space to grow stuff.

Generally, its dictatorial government that tends to starve its own
peoples to death. Not the lack of farming ability or resources.

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown


Gunner just had a nasty dream about that many wingers
crowded together ... and most of us know what rats do
in such circumstances ....

Heh.. they turn into liberals.. Yup, that's a nasty ol' nightmare.

John

So in other words, desperate times require
people to stop being lazy and dumb?

-BC

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:39:37 -0400, JohnM wrote:

Not I. Like I said, small quibbles about real effects (or rather,
their long term effects in some of the finer details).

No, the "wingers don't know that" statement was what I was referring to.
It's as much a matter of belief as knowlege, and it's also a matter of
whether or not one finds it to be important..

Ummm ... but we know about CO2 & the greenhouse effect .... it
all goes back to the IR properties of CO2 & can be rather well
deduced & calculated from there for a given quantity of CO2 in
the atmosphere.
What remains a bit fuzzy is not that the planet takes in more
heat than it radiates now (hence the "warming") but rather
where all the CO2 that's produced goes (much dissolves
in the oceans which may release it later as they warm up)
and some of the fine details of the measurements of where all
the heat is going (now & in the future) and how precisely we
can measure & *predict* the effects.

Wingers tend to be a bit faith based G. And uneducated.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:39:37 -0400, JohnM wrote:


I guess you have to pick your issues.. here's one I came across on
another group:

Did you know that:
"Trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per million
(ppm) in some samples to around 10 ppm in others. Generally, the amount of
thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of
uranium."
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html

Did you know that:
"total world consumption of coal in 2001, at 5.26 billion short tons"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/coal.pdf

Doing the math shows that between 5.26 thousand and 52.6 thousand *TONS* or
uranium were dumped into the environment in just that single YEAR, as
by-products of coal-burning. Multiply by 2.5 for thorium...

There's one assumption in there that I don't believe is perfect, but
it's a very interesting issue.. among many.

You may wish to do some fact & math checking --- I
don't have the time today .....

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Coal...-CCW1jul93.htm
[
Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801
tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971
tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from
combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide
combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium
(containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.
]

99.5% + of this is locked in the fly ash I think.
--
Cliff

Ed Huntress wrote:

However, the energy consumed in manufacturing a vehicle, as we said above,
is a miniscule part of the total life-cycle energy consumption of any
vehicle. There's an interesting, easy-to-read white paper that will show you
what the trends a

A number of years ago a LLNL study put the manufacturing portion of
total life cycle energy consumption of an automobile at close to 50%.
Increased use of plastics, thinner/recycled steel, and greater lifespans
have reduced this somewhat, but it is still in the same order of
magnitude with roughly 1/3 of the total life cycle energy being used
just to build a car. Not what I would call minuscule, but headed in the
right direction.

--
jeff

"jeff" wrote in message
news:P4hue.2132$G4.2010@trnddc09...
Ed Huntress wrote:

However, the energy consumed in manufacturing a vehicle, as we said
above,
is a miniscule part of the total life-cycle energy consumption of any
vehicle. There's an interesting, easy-to-read white paper that will show
you
what the trends a

A number of years ago a LLNL study put the manufacturing portion of
total life cycle energy consumption of an automobile at close to 50%.
Increased use of plastics, thinner/recycled steel, and greater lifespans
have reduced this somewhat, but it is still in the same order of
magnitude with roughly 1/3 of the total life cycle energy being used
just to build a car. Not what I would call minuscule, but headed in the
right direction.

Manufacturing has never been over 5%. Where did you get that data?

It's expected to go up, with increased use of lightweight materials, but
total life-cycle energy consumption will go down.

--
Ed Huntress

Cliff wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:39:37 -0400, JohnM wrote:


I guess you have to pick your issues.. here's one I came across on
another group:

Did you know that:
"Trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per million
(ppm) in some samples to around 10 ppm in others. Generally, the amount of
thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of
uranium."
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html

Did you know that:
"total world consumption of coal in 2001, at 5.26 billion short tons"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/coal.pdf

Doing the math shows that between 5.26 thousand and 52.6 thousand *TONS* or
uranium were dumped into the environment in just that single YEAR, as
by-products of coal-burning. Multiply by 2.5 for thorium...

There's one assumption in there that I don't believe is perfect, but
it's a very interesting issue.. among many.


You may wish to do some fact & math checking --- I
don't have the time today .....

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Coal...-CCW1jul93.htm
[
Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801
tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971
tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from
combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide
combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium
(containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.
]

99.5% + of this is locked in the fly ash I think.

That's entirely possible. I was simply pointing out that there's more
issues than one in the world and we each have to chose which concerns us.

John

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:31:56 -0400, the opaque JohnM
spake:
--snip--
combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide
combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium
(containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.
]

99.5% + of this is locked in the fly ash I think.

That's entirely possible. I was simply pointing out that there's more
issues than one in the world and we each have to chose which concerns us.

Causes? Issues? I have this quote on my wall in the office:

To change one's self is sufficient. It's the idiots who want to change
the world who are causing all the trouble. --Anonymous


-----
= Dain Bramaged...but having lots of fun! =
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

Ed Huntress wrote:

"jeff" wrote in message
news:P4hue.2132$G4.2010@trnddc09...

Ed Huntress wrote:

However, the energy consumed in manufacturing a vehicle, as we said

above,

is a miniscule part of the total life-cycle energy consumption of any
vehicle. There's an interesting, easy-to-read white paper that will show

you

what the trends a

A number of years ago a LLNL study put the manufacturing portion of
total life cycle energy consumption of an automobile at close to 50%.
Increased use of plastics, thinner/recycled steel, and greater lifespans
have reduced this somewhat, but it is still in the same order of
magnitude with roughly 1/3 of the total life cycle energy being used
just to build a car. Not what I would call minuscule, but headed in the
right direction.


Manufacturing has never been over 5%. Where did you get that data?

It's expected to go up, with increased use of lightweight materials, but
total life-cycle energy consumption will go down.

--
Ed Huntress



The "close to 50%" was from a casual conversation some 15 years ago with
an engineer in the precision engineering lab at Livermore when I was out
there on a CRADA. It was in large measure based on the 80000 mile throw
away Detroit junk of the late 70s. I haven't been able to lay my hands
on them, but ANL did a lot life cycle modeling of work in that era as
well. Most of the current analysis I see is based around "green" vehicles.

Here's one that gets it down to 10% by claiming a 14 year life cycle for
a 1990 Taurus: http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html

Here is one that puts it at 30% http://www.co-design.co.uk/green.htm

Here is one that runs about 20%:
http://www.autosteel.org/pdfs/avc_20...t_analyses.pdf

Where is your less than 5% from, because it flies in the face of
everything I've seen in the past 25 years?.

--
jeff

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:50:46 GMT, jeff
wrote:


The "close to 50%" was from a casual conversation some 15 years ago with
an engineer in the precision engineering lab at Livermore when I was out
there on a CRADA. It was in large measure based on the 80000 mile throw
away Detroit junk of the late 70s. I haven't been able to lay my hands
on them, but ANL did a lot life cycle modeling of work in that era as
well. Most of the current analysis I see is based around "green" vehicles.

Here's one that gets it down to 10% by claiming a 14 year life cycle for
a 1990 Taurus: http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html

Here is one that puts it at 30% http://www.co-design.co.uk/green.htm

Here is one that runs about 20%:
http://www.autosteel.org/pdfs/avc_20...t_analyses.pdf

Where is your less than 5% from, because it flies in the face of
everything I've seen in the past 25 years?.

--
My 1995 Mazda/Ford pickup has 366,000 miles on the odometer.

That should tend to squew the amortization. Same engine as the Taurus
btw.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"jeff" wrote in message
news:W6zue.2318$HU.623@trnddc03...

The "close to 50%" was from a casual conversation some 15 years ago with
an engineer in the precision engineering lab at Livermore when I was out
there on a CRADA. It was in large measure based on the 80000 mile throw
away Detroit junk of the late 70s. I haven't been able to lay my hands
on them, but ANL did a lot life cycle modeling of work in that era as
well. Most of the current analysis I see is based around "green" vehicles.

Here's one that gets it down to 10% by claiming a 14 year life cycle for
a 1990 Taurus: http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html

The "14 year life cycle" assumes consumption of only 6,700 gallons (878
thousand megajoules at 130 megajoules/US gallon of gasoline), so it's in
line with the others: an assumption of a 120,000-mile life. MIT uses a
figure of 300,000 kilometers.

I don't remember what SAE used as the "life" of a car, for their life-cycle
analyses. When I was materials editor at AM, the SAE and AISI (not to
mention the aluminum and plastic makers) flooded us with statistics on
life-cycle costs of cars, both current and hypothetical. That was in the
'70s and early '80s. SAE was saying then that the energy cost of manufacture
and materials was around 4.5%. AISI said it was less. I reported the SAE
figures. d8-)

The PDF I pointed to in an earlier message shows some graphs that come in
around those old SAE figures, but it appears the independent, scholarly
analyses have moved up to around 8%, by opening the range of upstream
activities they're counting in the total energy audit.

I just spent some time reading the extensive analysis that MIT did a few
years ago, "ON THE ROAD IN 2020: A life-cycle analysis of new automobile
technologies." It's 160 pages that lay the subject out in detail. They
include a 1996 Toyota Camry for comparison with the new technologies (it's
not their "baseline" vehicle, which actually is one that hasn't been built
yet). There is much of a chapter devoted to how difficult it is to pin the
figures down, because you have to make a lot of assumptions no matter how
you do the analysis. Their bottom line, however, is around 8% (page 113).

Unfortunately the two examples you posted that I looked at don't explain how
they did their accounting, but the "couple of percent" comment at the
co-design site, regarding the energy recovered from recycling, should make
you suspicious. The example I posted a day or two ago
(http://eerc.ra.utk.edu/ccpct/pdfs/2000-01-0595.pdf -- an SAE paper from the
Center for Clean Technologies project at U of Tenn.) goes into more detail
on the accounting. They have graphs but no numbers; still, take a look at
it.

But the MIT paper is the motherlode:
http://lfee.mit.edu/public/el00-003.pdf. For anyone interested in this
subject, as well as projections of where the trends are headed, it's worth
downloading it.

Look at Chapter 4, especially pages (in the PDF) 110 - 113.

Happy reading. If you want to discuss the accounting, I hope you find
someone who also reads the MIT report. I have a load of work to catch up on
and have to drop it here.

--
Ed Huntress

"Why" wrote in message
...

Got you beat Gunner I have 1 1964 El camino, 1 1966 El camino & 1 1966
Chevelle, that's all the cars I own, but then old cars last forever
VBG. Let's see 41 yrs & 39 yrs... Fix them with normal tools..

Pretty soon, the percentage of energy that went into building those cars,
versus the percentage you've used idling them in your driveway, will
disappear to statistical insignificance.

However, when you pull those things into a gas station, they probably make
you turn them off. Not because running them while they're filling your tank
is dangerous, but because you're gaining on them. d8-)

(I'd like to have the Chevelle...)

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:52:33 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I just spent some time reading the extensive analysis

Consider how much gasoline it takes to totally demolish
a car in an accident, reforming all of that sheet metal.
Consider how much energy it took to form that sheetmetal
in the first place .... they have to compare a bit G.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:53:49 -0400, Cliff wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:52:33 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I just spent some time reading the extensive analysis

Consider how much gasoline it takes to totally demolish
a car in an accident, reforming all of that sheet metal.

Have you ever seen a car explode following an accident? I've been to
hundreds of 'em, in a dozen years as a firefighter and EMT, and exactly
none of 'em have exploded. They only do that in the movies.

(checks headers)
Ah. That's the "cliff" entity people have been talking to.
Usually it crossposts more widely. Ah well, easy enough to fix.

On 24 Jun 2005 19:50:05 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:53:49 -0400, Cliff wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:52:33 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I just spent some time reading the extensive analysis

Consider how much gasoline it takes to totally demolish
a car in an accident, reforming all of that sheet metal.

Have you ever seen a car explode following an accident?

Umm .. mechanical deformation was the subject.

I've been to
hundreds of 'em, in a dozen years as a firefighter and EMT, and exactly
none of 'em have exploded. They only do that in the movies.

Always amusing to see a plane do that when it crashes due to
running out of fuel as well G.

(checks headers)
Ah. That's the "cliff" entity people have been talking to.
Usually it crossposts more widely. Ah well, easy enough to fix.
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:52:33 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I just spent some time reading the extensive analysis

Consider how much gasoline it takes to totally demolish
a car in an accident, reforming all of that sheet metal.
Consider how much energy it took to form that sheetmetal
in the first place .... they have to compare a bit G.
--
Cliff

That's actually a high-school physics problem: 4,000 pounds of stuff going
from 60 mph to zero...how many gallons of gasoline is that equivalent to?

You can use 130 mJ (or 125,000 Btu) as a round number for the energy in a
gallon of gasoline.

And the number is...[c'mon, we're waiting g]

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:15:39 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

That's actually a high-school physics problem:

Exercise left to the student G.
Where are BB & Shu when you need them?
--
Cliff

We are still exiting a cold ice age. The fact is the fact.
Stuff popping out of the arctic circle and the glaciers giving up more
is just some of that fact.

It is also a proved fact that a single volcano - e.g. the one that ran the
US off the Phillopines bases - is far more dangerous to the world than what
man (or woman) (or both) and all of the animals and plants (decay is bad) put
together. The tons and tons of chlorine and many other chemicals changes
the earths land as well as the oceans.

With luck, we get a constant supply of fresh water delivered from outer space
in the form of the car size ice 'balls' that fall into the polar regions. Most
that come in below that are vaporized.

The physical pollution made by the earth is massive. Dig down dozens of feet
and you might find something that was on the surface a thousand years ago.
Constant dusting from outer space as well as from eruptions and storms bury
the world and in some cases pollute what man is trying to live on.

Yes man does its share but nothing like in recent years and NOTHING like the
current going on in China, and the south east Asia. Those areas as well as
India and parts of Africa are really backwards and not thinking. The people
are to poor to do for themselves but alternatives are not provided by their
governments.

Martin




--
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Let the record show that Gunner wrote back on Sat,
18 Jun 2005 09:04:07 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:25:46 -0700, Ken Davey
wrote:

So if it ultimately is determined that there is "global warming" and
is naturally occurring, will all the Greens commit sepuku right after
paying me back for the costs we had to incure in changing from CFCs
and such?

Gunner

I think you are a little confused here Gunner.
CFCs have to do with the ozone layer; not global warming.

Regards.
Ken.

Of course. And the ozone hole was destroyed in 1967 when a Nash
Rambler hit a deer head on and the R12 in the air conditioner escaped
from a busted radiator.

What Ozone hole was that again?


[insert ozone video link]

http://www.koreus.com/files/200407/lego-zone.html

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

What was the name of that Catholic priest that helped establish the "Big
Bang" theory?

Guy Consolomagno?