Han wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0na0502lr3
@news2.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
@news3.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:
... snip
that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage
volume?

Of course there will always be NIMBY, but I think that filling
underground voids generated by mining would be a good place.


This is just amazing. The fear of a natural compound that is a very
minor
atmospheric constituent and the product of perfect combustion. The
idea that humans can somehow influence the climate of the entire
planet (of which 3/4 is ocean) by the production of a minor
atmospheric constituent is pure hubris.

Can we foul our own nests? Absolutely, that's why smog controls and
making
sure that industrial smokestacks are not causing severe local
pollution. But destroying the planet? It doesn't pass the laugh test.
Yet so many are buying in to it that they are willing to cause
economic (and in other countries survival) hardships on others rather
than taking logical steps to increase energy production. A growing,
prosperous economy cannot continue to use less and less energy
(conservation) yet continue to grow and prosper. When alternate
sources become competitive, they will be used; forcing their use and
subsidizing it with other peoples' money is not the development of
alternate energy sources.

From your sig, and with all respect:
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
very convincing.

Is this why we haven't experienced warming since about 1998? And why last
year has been one of the coolest on record? Also is this why
climatologists are indicating that for the next 10 to 12 years we can
expect to see a decrease in global average temperature due to "natural
causes"? These causes, by the way that weren't predicted by the models
extrapolating a rise in global average temperature over the next 5 decades.

Sure, one can apply models of increased CO2 concentration and show an
increase in temperature. What these models fail to do (and are frankly
incapable of doing) is take into account that the atmosphere is a
remarkably complex closed-loop control system that will mitigate those
effects by increased plant growth. Get the models to properly predict,
from only a posteriori data the average climate in a known time period,
then use those models to predict climate within a reasonable future period
(say a period of 10 years). After that, if the models have shown
reasonable agreement with real measurements, then maybe the GW community
will have a valid leg to stand upon. Until then, using hysteria and
unreliable models to dismantle and destroy our society is beyond
reprehensible.

Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much worse, but because it
is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not reach the importance
of CO2.
Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much? On a scale of 0 to a
million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5 degrees
K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase! But less
than a few hours and you're cooked.

You have to realize that things that in relative terms are minor can
still affect life in a major way. Can we adjust? We don't know, because
we don't really know how much things are going to change. Will the
planet survive? Sure, by all records Earth has been much hotter and much
cooler before, compared to now, but our society may not. Should we try
to prevent extremes like we are seemingly having success in combating air
pollution in our big cities? I think we should.

The temperature swings predicted by even the most rabid GW zealots nowhere
approach a 10 degree F temperature increase in the coming years (your 5K
increase). The question of whether human action could affect that in any
significant way is quite debateable.

What leads one to believe that the current average temperatures are/were
ideal? The climatological changes over the centuries, including the
mini-ice age during the Middle Ages and other such swings in climate show
that natural state of the climate is to be unstable. Cooling is as bad for
humans as greater warming, probably even more so as it affects food
production adversely (just ask the farmers in Greenland).



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Garage_Woodworks wrote:

The oceans are known to be a huge sink for CO2 and with cooler
temperatures absorb it. Also, with warmer temperatures, the oceans
release CO2. So the question is which is cause and which is effect. Does
CO2 increase precede heating or does heating precede CO2 increase.

I would think that CO2 increases would precede heating. Which causes more
CO2 release.

Do you have any true scientific cites for this? This sounds like it
would be a runaway situation which couldn't be stopped until all the CO2
from the oceans was in the atmosphere!

Garage_Woodworks wrote:
"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
...
Garage_Woodworks wrote:

The oceans are known to be a huge sink for CO2 and with cooler
temperatures absorb it. Also, with warmer temperatures, the oceans
release CO2. So the question is which is cause and which is effect.
Does CO2 increase precede heating or does heating precede CO2 increase.
I would think that CO2 increases would precede heating. Which causes
more CO2 release.
Do you have any true scientific cites for this? This sounds like it would
be a runaway situation which couldn't be stopped until all the CO2 from
the oceans was in the atmosphere!


No! Remeber that solubility is also a function of pH. As temp rises, CO2
is released and pH climbs. As pH climbs CO2 is more soluble.

That would mean that the oceans and atmosphere will always be trying to
reach equilibrium.

I think their is a lot of research being done on this with a lot of
contradicting data.

I hope so - I'd hate to think we we're going down this man made GW path
with no firm scientific evidence.

Before I read the replies to this...

We could blow em up and take it from them.

K.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:cGmXj.523$%g.206@trnddc08...
"Leon" wrote:

Take over.

A take over is probably going to happen along about NOV.


---

and THAT scares the hell outt me.

K.

On May 17, 11:40 am, Tom Watson wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:37:05 -0500, "Leon"

wrote:

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
.. .

Are these Islamofascists then - Republican Muslims?

Nope, they are Independents Muslims

Now that's really funny.

Think we can con them into voting for Nader?

Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnetwww.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

If Grease Pit Denizen were an elective office, Nader would be a shoo-
in. Instead, all he gets is the "shoo."

"Garage_Woodworks" .@. wrote in
:


"Garage_Woodworks" .@. wrote in message
...

CO2(g)------ CO2(aq) ---- H2CO3----- HCO3-1 ------ CO3-2.
---increasing pH------

The opposite is also true. As CO2(aq) goes to CO2(g) and leaves the
ocean the equilibrium shifts to the left and the CO2(aq)
concentration doesn't change. And the pH rises.

ABOVE should have read equilibrium shifts to the right. pH rises
(more basic) shifts to right. pH falls (more acidic) shifts to left.

Yes. In principle this is a very simple set of equations. The
difficulty is that oceans are not homogeneous, and we do not exactly know
where in the oceans their is really a good totaal capacity to dissolve
more gaseous CO2 (whether as truely dissolved gas or transformed into
bicarbonate and carbonate). Also, it is not yet known whether ocean
acidification will indeed kill off corals or not. Or whether more
dissolved CO2 in whatever form will enhance coral growth. Very
complicated indeed, mostly because ocean mixing is still hotly discussed
science. What effects chanes in salinity will have is also important
when more arctic and antarctic ice will melt, and mix into the oceans.

Hopefully it will all only happen in a disastrous way after my adult
teeth have stopped hurting me ... Which brings up the question whether
cremation or burial is the "greener" way to go ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

(snipped for brevity).

I believe that there is a very significant correlation between the human
production of CO2 and global warming (GW), a correlation that is very, very
suggestive of a causal relationship. Maybe cooling (as when volcanoes
erupt and throw stuff up into the atmosphere, sometimes causing winter-like
summers, and famine) is more harmful in a relatively short time period.
However, I am very fearful that we may start a feed-forward loop wherein
CO2 increases cause global warming which in turn causes more CO2 to leave
the oceans, etc.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article , Han wrote:


The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
very convincing.

Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous temperature
increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. Kinda hard to show a
cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed "cause" follows the "effect".

Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much worse, but because it
is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not reach the importance
of CO2.
Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much?

First off, there's *no* evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels
*cause* the very slight warming that has been observed...

On a scale of 0 to a
million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5 degrees
K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase! But less
than a few hours and you're cooked.

... and second, this is an entirely specious comparison. The slight
temperature increase that has been observed so far is NOWHERE NEAR 5 degrees
Kelvin.

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

Han wrote:

... snip

Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
expensive....

Not so. I signed up for electricity delivery from renewable sources,
and I hope I am not hoodwinked. The info and bills say I am getting
100% of my electricity from wind and water, all for ~$4/month more.
OK, on a $50/month electric bill it is by percentage a lot, perhaps,
but not much in impact on my pocketbook.


But are you really paying 100% of the cost of the difference for
those
renewables, or it this where you are paying for one of those "green
watts" programs where you donate a certain amount per month for so
development of so many kilowatt hours of wind or solar?

I am surcharged to pay for the difference in cost (or subsidy - what's
the difference?) between ordinary electricity and high-faluting
electricity. Thereby I believe I am doing something good, and I am happy
that I can afford it.

Conservation makes a good sound bite but no one ever
rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly worthwhile for getting
through hard times but never for solving hard times. Rod

Conservation can be as easy as walking to the post office 200 yards
away, instead of starting up the car from cold,

Not sure that many people would actually drive that short a distance
and even those who do are using miniscule amounts of energy in so doing

I was making a point, and using close to an actual distance between my
home and the USPS office in 07410. At night, when getting a prescription
in the rain from the CVS 100 yards further, I have chosen to use the car.

just for getting a few stamps.
Or turning off the lights when not needed. Conservation need not be
a measure of last resort, but is just a showing of respect for
natural resources.


If you are doing it to save money, that's one thing. If you think
you are saving the planet, you've been hoodwinked.

One does not exclde the other. Do not demean the "rush" of realizing
you're doing something "good" grin.

All in my opinion, of course! And I do leave my computers on too
much grin.


One of the biggest wasters of resources is the idiotic "sleep mode"
on copiers and printers at places of business. It takes on the order
of minutes for those things to wake up while the person using them has
to wait. When you compute the cost of the person's time vs. the
electricity savings, the electricity savings pale in comparison.
That's a real drag on productivity and output

That's true for a gadget that is used every few minutes, or at least
every half hour on a 24/7 basis. I was more thinking of the TV being
really on while everyone is asleep or at work. Or the copier is on
during the long weekend. (Our copier at work goes into deep sleep when
not used in an hour or so, so then it is less of a factor).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Han
wrote:


The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
very convincing.

Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous
temperature increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Kinda hard to show a cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed
"cause" follows the "effect".

That makes GW still more scary, IMO. The CO2 increase like now
(industrial revolution) has never before occurred (unless there was
indeed volcanic CO2 output).

Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much worse, but because
it is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not reach the
importance of CO2.
Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much?

First off, there's *no* evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2
levels *cause* the very slight warming that has been observed...

The papers I have seen in reputable journals like Science indicate to me
otherwise.

On a scale of 0 to a
million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5
degrees K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase!
But less than a few hours and you're cooked.

.. and second, this is an entirely specious comparison. The slight
temperature increase that has been observed so far is NOWHERE NEAR 5
degrees Kelvin.

I was trying to make a point, but apparently didn't succeed. The point
was that human life (and society in general) is predicated on
agriculture, which is really bound to a rather narrow temperature range.
You can shift things somewhat to or from the equator, but that's it.

I hope I am just seeing the dark side of things and that it won't be as
bad as the doomsayers suggest, but wouldn't you want to be on the safe
side?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0na0502lr3
@news2.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
@news3.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves?
A
few nuclear reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba
Clinton
not prohibited drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would
take 10 years before anything resulted anyway, we would now be
getting 1 million barrels a day from that field.

But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in
equilibrium. You don't believe your friends grin?

Conservation should be first and renewable energy second.
Developing
coal strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent
accumulation
of
greenhouse gases),

So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
forever?

Mother Gaia has done it, in clathrates, or whatever they call the
complexes in the cold nether regions of the oceans. It can be
done
other ways as well.

And where do we put these clathrates or "other ways"?

I really think we agree on the need for responsible use and
generation of renewable energy . I'd suggest to put clathrates in
the voids of coal or other mines, to help prevent sinkholes.

nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of
nuclear waste),

Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal
and
the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that
produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more
sense.

I'm all for nuclear energy, but the volume of waste is not the
problem. The problems with nuclear waste are the heat generated

How much heat do you believe to be generated by nuclear waste once
the short-half-life elements have decayed?

I'm not a nuclear engineer, so I can't quote you numbers, but I do
believe that the heat generated by nuclear waste can be
considerable.
Obviously it depends on the energy of the decay step(s) and their
respective energies expressed per unit mass or volume (ducking).

Short term it's "considerable" which is why high-level waste stays at
the power plant until it's decayed enough for shipment. By the time
it gets to a long-term storage facility the heat generated is
negligible.

and
the need to contain it for a very, very long time.

Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's
no point in warehousing it.

Warehousing would suggest you're going to use it again, which does
not
seem logical if you couldn't possible get energy or other use out of
it. I think it has to be put away permanently, really.

Whatever word you use, it still has to be kept forever.

Definitely
problems that can be conquered, but there is a lot of NIMBY to
contend with.

And you think there won't be a lot of NIMBY once people figure out
that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage
volume?

Of course there will always be NIMBY, but I think that filling
underground voids generated by mining would be a good place.

Will those voids be sufficient, considering that what you're putting
in them has had two atoms of oxygen added to each atom of carbon that
was taken out? And will those voids be sufficiently secure to keep it
segregated _forever_? If so then why not put nuclear waste there?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
forever?

Why not?......Is the capture and storage cost prohibitive?......Are
not rising levels of CO2 simply the release of naturally stored CO2?

So how much are you going to have warehoused after, say, a thousand
years? Remember, that warehouse has to be _absolutely_ secure--if it
ever gets busted open then we have 1000 years worth of CO2 emission
happening in an instant.

Rising levels of CO2 are not "simply the release of naturally stored
CO2". They are the result of burning carbon--one atom of carbon
burned with two atoms of oxygen gives one molecule of CO2 plus a
certain amount of energy. To store it "naturally" in the state it was
in before it was burned you have to unburn it, which means putting as
much energy _into_ it as you got out of it (more actually, considering
that the process is not 100% efficient), which defeats the purpose of
burning it in the firt place.

Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and
the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that
produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more
sense.

I'd agree with current technologies and costs nuclear is the only or
the largest viable energy crisis alternative.......Renewables are
simply stop gaps and niche products and often
expensive....Conservation makes a good sound bite but no one ever
rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly worthwhile for getting
through hard times but never for solving hard times. Rod

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:


Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
expensive....

Jeff Immelt, CEO, General Electric, obviously doesn't share your
point
of view.

Seems he has made the decision to invest significant GE resources in
the renewable energy business.

Wonder where the assets from the sale of the GE major appliance
business will be invested?

Wind turbine anyone?

The fact that GE thinks they can make money selling the things doesn't
make them any less a stopgap.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Han wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Han
wrote:


The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
very convincing.

Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous
temperature increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Kinda hard to show a cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed
"cause" follows the "effect".

That makes GW still more scary, IMO. The CO2 increase like now
(industrial revolution) has never before occurred (unless there was
indeed volcanic CO2 output).

My word, haven't you seen figures for the amount of greenhouse gases
spewed by Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Pinatubo, and now the volcano in Chile.
Dwarf the amount of gases emitted since the beginning of the industrial
revolution.


Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much worse, but because
it is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not reach the
importance of CO2.
Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much?

First off, there's *no* evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2
levels *cause* the very slight warming that has been observed...

The papers I have seen in reputable journals like Science indicate to me
otherwise.



On a scale of 0 to a
million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5
degrees K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase!
But less than a few hours and you're cooked.

.. and second, this is an entirely specious comparison. The slight
temperature increase that has been observed so far is NOWHERE NEAR 5
degrees Kelvin.

I was trying to make a point, but apparently didn't succeed. The point
was that human life (and society in general) is predicated on
agriculture, which is really bound to a rather narrow temperature range.
You can shift things somewhat to or from the equator, but that's it.

I hope I am just seeing the dark side of things and that it won't be as
bad as the doomsayers suggest, but wouldn't you want to be on the safe
side?

If it means destroying our way of life and standard of living? No, for
something as shaky and goofy as the idea that humans have the ability to
change the temperature of the entire planet by only altering the CO2
concentration in the atmosphere by a few 1/10's to 1 ppm and that we should
thus make major alterations that have severe impacts upon our economic
security, I @#$% well want a whole lot more than some models that can't
even predict what *has* happened, but want me to believe that they can
predict what will happen. The fact is, a critical view of the data would
indicate we don't even know what the global average temperature has been
prior to widespread dissemination of the thermometer. If you want to give
up your way of life because of speculation based upon the size of tree
rings and ice core samples, go ahead -- don't expect me to jump off that
bridge with you.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Han wrote:
"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in
acquisition:

J. Clarke wrote:
So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
forever?

Why not?......Is the capture and storage cost prohibitive?......Are
not rising levels of CO2 simply the release of naturally stored
CO2?


Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and
the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that
produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more
sense.

I'd agree with current technologies and costs nuclear is the only
or
the largest viable energy crisis alternative.......

If it were not for the problems of waste control and control of
plutonium (apart from cheap nuclear weapon material, it is also
very,
very toxic), nuclear would be ideal. Hence the '60's ideas of
fusion
energy, still a great potential source.

Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
expensive....

Not so. I signed up for electricity delivery from renewable
sources,
and I hope I am not hoodwinked. The info and bills say I am getting
100% of my electricity from wind and water, all for ~$4/month more.
OK, on a $50/month electric bill it is by percentage a lot, perhaps,
but not much in impact on my pocketbook.

So they ran wires from the wind turbines and dams direct to your house
without interfacing them with the rest of the grid? Yeah, you're
being hoodwinked.

Conservation makes a good sound bite but no one ever
rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly worthwhile for getting
through hard times but never for solving hard times. Rod

Conservation can be as easy as walking to the post office 200 yards
away, instead of starting up the car from cold, just for getting a
few stamps. Or turning off the lights when not needed. Conservation
need not be a measure of last resort, but is just a showing of
respect for natural resources.

And of course you're going to get rich this way.

All in my opinion, of course! And I do leave my computers on too
much
grin.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Garage_Woodworks wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's
no point in warehousing it.

What about converting the CO2 to carbonate? I think this is how
some
scrubbers operate.

The product of which (Na2CO3, K2CO3, CaCO3) could be sold to off set
the cost of scrubbing.

The product carbonates also take up less volume to store.

And how much market is there for them?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Han wrote:

"Garage_Woodworks" .@. wrote in
:


"Garage_Woodworks" .@. wrote in message
...

CO2(g)------ CO2(aq) ---- H2CO3----- HCO3-1 ------ CO3-2.
---increasing pH------

The opposite is also true. As CO2(aq) goes to CO2(g) and leaves the
ocean the equilibrium shifts to the left and the CO2(aq)
concentration doesn't change. And the pH rises.

ABOVE should have read equilibrium shifts to the right. pH rises
(more basic) shifts to right. pH falls (more acidic) shifts to left.

Yes. In principle this is a very simple set of equations. The
difficulty is that oceans are not homogeneous, and we do not exactly know
where in the oceans their is really a good totaal capacity to dissolve
more gaseous CO2 (whether as truely dissolved gas or transformed into
bicarbonate and carbonate). Also, it is not yet known whether ocean
acidification will indeed kill off corals or not. Or whether more
dissolved CO2 in whatever form will enhance coral growth. Very
complicated indeed, mostly because ocean mixing is still hotly discussed
science. What effects chanes in salinity will have is also important
when more arctic and antarctic ice will melt, and mix into the oceans.


Sanity check time. Find the volume of water contained in the world's
oceans, take the absolute worst-case CO2 concentrations that are being
bandied around. Determine the amount of CO2 required to have even a
measureable effect upon that volume of water.


Hopefully it will all only happen in a disastrous way after my adult
teeth have stopped hurting me ... Which brings up the question whether
cremation or burial is the "greener" way to go ...


Good heavens, I hope that was sarcasm. If not, I fear we are wasting our
time here.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

(snipped for brevity).

I believe that there is a very significant correlation between the
human production of CO2 and global warming (GW), a correlation that
is very, very suggestive of a causal relationship. Maybe cooling
(as
when volcanoes erupt and throw stuff up into the atmosphere,
sometimes causing winter-like summers, and famine) is more harmful
in
a relatively short time period. However, I am very fearful that we
may start a feed-forward loop wherein CO2 increases cause global
warming which in turn causes more CO2 to leave the oceans, etc.

I am far more fearful that if we change whatever we're doing the
glaciation cycle that for some reason has been long delayed will
happen at a greatly accelerated pace.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Han wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

Han wrote:

... snip

Renewables are simply stop gaps and niche products and often
expensive....

.... snip

If you are doing it to save money, that's one thing. If you think
you are saving the planet, you've been hoodwinked.

One does not exclde the other. Do not demean the "rush" of realizing
you're doing something "good" grin.


Ahh, the Church of Global warming. Repentance, penance, and absolution
(carbon credits). I get it


All in my opinion, of course! And I do leave my computers on too
much grin.


One of the biggest wasters of resources is the idiotic "sleep mode"
on copiers and printers at places of business. It takes on the order
of minutes for those things to wake up while the person using them has
to wait. When you compute the cost of the person's time vs. the
electricity savings, the electricity savings pale in comparison.
That's a real drag on productivity and output

That's true for a gadget that is used every few minutes, or at least
every half hour on a 24/7 basis. I was more thinking of the TV being
really on while everyone is asleep or at work. Or the copier is on
during the long weekend.

Over weekends and at night I'll buy.


(Our copier at work goes into deep sleep when
not used in an hour or so, so then it is less of a factor).

... and that's where the problem lies. One hour, two hours, during the
business day -- that is what is really expensive. Even if the copier takes
1 kW (not true, but I don't have the numbers to hand) in idle mode -- that
is at most 20 cents worth of electricity (50 cents in California probably).
OTOH, the employee waiting for that copier to wake up from deep sleep --
typically 3 to 5 minutes can easily cost on the order of $3 to $5 worth of
time once you figure labor and overhead into the time accounting for that
person. It becomes even more expensive when the copies are critical for
some last-minute deadline and one has to wait for the copier to "wake up"
because it was idle for more than an hour.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Han wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Han
wrote:


The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up
are very convincing.

Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous
temperature increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2
levels.
Kinda hard to show a cause-and-effect relationship when the
supposed
"cause" follows the "effect".

That makes GW still more scary, IMO. The CO2 increase like now
(industrial revolution) has never before occurred (unless there was
indeed volcanic CO2 output).

How do you know that it has "never before occurred"? We only have
data back a few hundred thousand years. Such events as the Deccan
Traps took place long before that. Then there's the question of what
a large meteor strike does--how much CO2 did the Chicxulub strike
release?

Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much worse, but
because it is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not
reach the importance of CO2.
Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much?

First off, there's *no* evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2
levels *cause* the very slight warming that has been observed...

The papers I have seen in reputable journals like Science indicate
to
me otherwise.

Based on climate models that are working from a couple of hundred
years of data no doubt. If the model when run for a simulated hundred
thousand years or so doesn't show the glaciation cycle then it's not
to be trusted. We're in the boundary of a cycle--the model has to be
able to separate what's part of the cycle with what's not. If it
can't show the cycle then it can't do that. And none of these climate
models have been tested that way.

These are basically the same models that told us that if Saddam fired
his oil fields we'd all freeze to death in the dark. They were wrong
then, what makes you think that they're right now?

On a scale of 0 to a
million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5
degrees K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2%
increase!
But less than a few hours and you're cooked.

.. and second, this is an entirely specious comparison. The slight
temperature increase that has been observed so far is NOWHERE NEAR
5
degrees Kelvin.

I was trying to make a point, but apparently didn't succeed. The
point was that human life (and society in general) is predicated on
agriculture, which is really bound to a rather narrow temperature
range. You can shift things somewhat to or from the equator, but
that's it.

I hope I am just seeing the dark side of things and that it won't be
as bad as the doomsayers suggest, but wouldn't you want to be on the
safe side?

Eventually the event you fear is going to happen anyway you know. Why
not have it happen now and get it over with? Ice ages are not the
normal state of the planet.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On May 18, 12:13 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Han wrote:

The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
very convincing.

Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous temperature
increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. Kinda hard to show a
cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed "cause" follows the "effect".

Yes really. Thermodynamics and molecular spectroscopy provides
that scientific basis, not meteorlogical or geological records.

The greenhouse effect is on a sound theoretical footing. Climate
change is not.

You are confusing causality with correlation--So does Al Gore.


Is CO2 the worst of the gases?

The are neither good, nor bad. Although without a greenhouse
effect the Earth would be frozen solid. That is very easy to
demonstrate *scientifically*.

No, methane is much worse, but because it
is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not reach the importance
of CO2.
Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much?

First off, there's *no* evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels
*cause* the very slight warming that has been observed...

There is no question that increasing greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere drives temperatures up. There is also no question
that there are many other factors.


On a scale of 0 to a
million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5 degrees
K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase! But less
than a few hours and you're cooked.

.. and second, this is an entirely specious comparison. The slight
temperature increase that has been observed so far is NOWHERE NEAR 5 degrees
Kelvin.

Of course he didn't say it was. He was pointing out that what is
a small change in the purely physical sense is important to
us.

But of course you knew that.

--

FF

J. Clarke wrote:

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0na0502lr3
@news2.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
@news3.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves?
A
few nuclear reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba
Clinton
not prohibited drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would
take 10 years before anything resulted anyway, we would now be
getting 1 million barrels a day from that field.

.... snip


I'm not a nuclear engineer, so I can't quote you numbers, but I do
believe that the heat generated by nuclear waste can be
considerable.
Obviously it depends on the energy of the decay step(s) and their
respective energies expressed per unit mass or volume (ducking).

Short term it's "considerable" which is why high-level waste stays at
the power plant until it's decayed enough for shipment. By the time
it gets to a long-term storage facility the heat generated is
negligible.


It's been a bunch of years since my Modern Physics course, but I recall
the fact that the highest-level wastes that generate such heat also have
the shortest half-lives.


and
the need to contain it for a very, very long time.

Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else there's
no point in warehousing it.

Warehousing would suggest you're going to use it again, which does
not
seem logical if you couldn't possible get energy or other use out of
it. I think it has to be put away permanently, really.

Whatever word you use, it still has to be kept forever.


Back before Hanoi Jane and others got the the nuclear industry effectively
shut down, there was significant research on means to deal with nuclear
waste. One of the means involved vitrification (basically encapsulating
in, or turning to, glass) and then launching the waste into space
(destinations varied, from solar incineration to out of the solar system).
The vitrified product would be recoverable and not pose significant danger
in the event of a launch malfunction. There were other approaches under
consideration as well.

Definitely
problems that can be conquered, but there is a lot of NIMBY to
contend with.

And you think there won't be a lot of NIMBY once people figure out
that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage
volume?

Of course there will always be NIMBY, but I think that filling
underground voids generated by mining would be a good place.

Will those voids be sufficient, considering that what you're putting
in them has had two atoms of oxygen added to each atom of carbon that
was taken out? And will those voids be sufficiently secure to keep it
segregated _forever_? If so then why not put nuclear waste there?


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On May 18, 1:56 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0na0502lr3
@news2.newsguy.com:



So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
forever?

Mother Gaia has done it, in clathrates, or whatever they call the
complexes in the cold nether regions of the oceans. It can be
done
other ways as well.

Yes clathrates. Methane forms them too. There are large
deposits of methane clathrates on the ocean floor, metastable
at their present temperature of pressures. But if they warm
up just a little, they'll let lose.

It might have happened in the past, google methane
gun hypothesis.

..

Of course there will always be NIMBY, but I think that filling
underground voids generated by mining would be a good place.

Will those voids be sufficient, considering that what you're putting
in them has had two atoms of oxygen added to each atom of carbon that
was taken out? And will those voids be sufficiently secure to keep it
segregated _forever_? If so then why not put nuclear waste there?


They're talking about pumping it into the voids under the
North Sea left over from petroleum extraction. At those
depths it will liquefy, or maybe form clathrates.

Sounds nuts to me.

--

FF

Garage_Woodworks wrote:



"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
Han wrote:

"Garage_Woodworks" .@. wrote in
:


"Garage_Woodworks" .@. wrote in message
...

CO2(g)------ CO2(aq) ---- H2CO3----- HCO3-1 ------ CO3-2.
---increasing pH------

The opposite is also true. As CO2(aq) goes to CO2(g) and leaves the
ocean the equilibrium shifts to the left and the CO2(aq)
concentration doesn't change. And the pH rises.

ABOVE should have read equilibrium shifts to the right. pH rises
(more basic) shifts to right. pH falls (more acidic) shifts to left.

Yes. In principle this is a very simple set of equations. The
difficulty is that oceans are not homogeneous, and we do not exactly
know where in the oceans their is really a good totaal capacity to
dissolve more gaseous CO2 (whether as truely dissolved gas or
transformed into
bicarbonate and carbonate). Also, it is not yet known whether ocean
acidification will indeed kill off corals or not. Or whether more
dissolved CO2 in whatever form will enhance coral growth. Very
complicated indeed, mostly because ocean mixing is still hotly discussed
science. What effects chanes in salinity will have is also important
when more arctic and antarctic ice will melt, and mix into the oceans.


Sanity check time. Find the volume of water contained in the world's
oceans, take the absolute worst-case CO2 concentrations that are being
bandied around. Determine the amount of CO2 required to have even a
measureable effect upon that volume of water.

You need to elaborate here. How would you determine what you are
proposing?

You can measure the drops in pH directly and make projections.

See: http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
http://www.science.org.au/nova/106/106key.htm


It seems that there is a confusion of cause and effect here. The presumed
cause in the articles you cite is human activity increasing the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 concentration is on the order
of 300 ppm. My point was that in order to lower the pH of a volume of
liquid, a specific volume of acidic substance must be added. Even the most
hysterical of the GW believers don't place human impact at more than
several ppm. If one were to compute the volume of water in the ocean, the
question is how much volume of acidic substance must be added to that
liquid volume in order to change the pH even 0.1? The ultimate point being
that it is ludicrous to blame human activity on the ability to influence
that large a volume of liquid and even more ludicrous to blame it on
western (particularly US) society when areas such as India and China
produce far larger volumes of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants that can
contribute to acidification. Yet, all the GW believers seem to feel that
if they can just choke the life out of US industry and citizens, the world
will return to its previous balances.





....snip

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On May 18, 2:04 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Han wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Han
wrote:

The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
very convincing.

Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous
temperature increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Kinda hard to show a cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed
"cause" follows the "effect".

That makes GW still more scary, IMO. The CO2 increase like now
(industrial revolution) has never before occurred (unless there was
indeed volcanic CO2 output).

My word, haven't you seen figures for the amount of greenhouse gases
spewed by Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Pinatubo, and now the volcano in Chile.
Dwarf the amount of gases emitted since the beginning of the industrial
revolution.


Haven't you?

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from
subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at
the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total
global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. T
his is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic)
CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150
times."

and, courtesy of the minions of the Bush administration who
are routinely accused of 'suppressing' real science:

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...sti_id=5271302

"Volcanic CO{sub 2} presently represents only 0.22%
of anthropogenic emissions but may have contributed
to significant greenhouse` effects at times in Earth history"

And look at the Mauna Loa data:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...on_Dioxide_png

You might be able to detect an effect from volcanic
eruptions in there, but it is subtle at best.




...

I hope I am just seeing the dark side of things and that it won't be as
bad as the doomsayers suggest, but wouldn't you want to be on the safe
side?

If it means destroying our way of life and standard of living? No, for
something as shaky and goofy as the idea that humans have the ability to
change the temperature of the entire planet by only altering the CO2
concentration in the atmosphere by a few 1/10's to 1 ppm

You would seem to be unclear on the concept of rate. The rate of
increase is between 1 and two ppmv/year.

--

FF

"J. Clarke" wrote:


The fact that GE thinks they can make money selling the things
doesn't
make them any less a stopgap.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous the above sounds?

GE doesn't "think", they "know" there is money to be made long term,
in the renewable energy business, which is why the major capitol
investment is being made to develop products for it.

Renewable energy products have an international market while major
appliances (ovens, stoves, refrigerators, etc) are limited to the
domestic market.

Maybe that is why major appliances are for sale.

Maybe they need the $'s to build more and bigger wind turbines.


Lew

Garage_Woodworks wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else
there's
no point in warehousing it.

Warehousing would suggest you're going to use it again, which does
not
seem logical if you couldn't possible get energy or other use out
of
it. I think it has to be put away permanently, really.

Whatever word you use, it still has to be kept forever.

Why? Can't we convert the CO2 into carbonate? I'm pretty sure we
can.

And where do we put it? Now you're increasing the volume even more.

This whole notion of capturing the output of chemical power plants and
warehousing it is IMO just, well, _nuts_.

At least with nuclear the volume is manageable.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On May 18, 2:08 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Han wrote:
"Garage_Woodworks" .@. wrote in
:

"Garage_Woodworks" .@. wrote in message
. ..

CO2(g)------ CO2(aq) ---- H2CO3----- HCO3-1 ------ CO3-2.
---increasing pH------

The opposite is also true. As CO2(aq) goes to CO2(g) and leaves the
ocean the equilibrium shifts to the left and the CO2(aq)
concentration doesn't change. And the pH rises.

ABOVE should have read equilibrium shifts to the right. pH rises
(more basic) shifts to right. pH falls (more acidic) shifts to left.

Yes. In principle this is a very simple set of equations. The
difficulty is that oceans are not homogeneous, and we do not exactly know
where in the oceans their is really a good totaal capacity to dissolve
more gaseous CO2 (whether as truely dissolved gas or transformed into
bicarbonate and carbonate). Also, it is not yet known whether ocean
acidification will indeed kill off corals or not. Or whether more
dissolved CO2 in whatever form will enhance coral growth. Very
complicated indeed, mostly because ocean mixing is still hotly discussed
science. What effects chanes in salinity will have is also important
when more arctic and antarctic ice will melt, and mix into the oceans.

Sanity check time. Find the volume of water contained in the world's
oceans, take the absolute worst-case CO2 concentrations that are being
bandied around. Determine the amount of CO2 required to have even a
measureable effect upon that volume of water.


Go ahead and show us. I'll check your arithmetic.

These people have a done a little work in the area:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/Ocea...on%20FINAL.pdf

http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce/ac...ature04095.pdf

--

FF

Garage_Woodworks wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
....snip

It seems that there is a confusion of cause and effect here. The
presumed
cause in the articles you cite is human activity increasing the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 concentration is on the order
of 300 ppm. My point was that in order to lower the pH of a volume of
liquid, a specific volume of acidic substance must be added. Even the
most
hysterical of the GW believers don't place human impact at more than
several ppm. If one were to compute the volume of water in the ocean,
the question is how much volume of acidic substance must be added to that
liquid volume in order to change the pH even 0.1?

How do you determine this? Define your experiment for me. I think you
will begin to see the complexity. The ocean is not just water. There's
lots of stuff in it.


Why do I have to define the experiment? I'm not trying to prove that
humans are changing the ocean pH. I'm merely pointing out that there is a
heck of a lot of volume of water, that were everything else to remain
constant would require huge volumes to change the pH.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

How about if you guys who start political threads make that
the standard subject line?

--

FF

Garage_Woodworks wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else
there's
no point in warehousing it.

What about converting the CO2 to carbonate? I think this is how
some
scrubbers operate.

The product of which (Na2CO3, K2CO3, CaCO3) could be sold to off
set
the cost of scrubbing.

The product carbonates also take up less volume to store.

And how much market is there for them?

Not sure. But, there is a need for them, so the market must be
there. The goal is not really to market the product, but to
produce
the product and reduce the raw material.

But if there's no market you still end up storing it.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:


How about if you guys who start political threads make that
the standard subject line?

Since starting this thread, have enjoyed the twists and turns it has
taken.

All that heat and no useful work.

Doesn't take much to be a real **** disturber around hereG.

Lew

Garage_Woodworks wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Garage_Woodworks wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
...snip

It seems that there is a confusion of cause and effect here. The
presumed
cause in the articles you cite is human activity increasing the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 concentration is on the
order
of 300 ppm. My point was that in order to lower the pH of a volume of
liquid, a specific volume of acidic substance must be added. Even the
most
hysterical of the GW believers don't place human impact at more than
several ppm. If one were to compute the volume of water in the ocean,
the question is how much volume of acidic substance must be added to
that
liquid volume in order to change the pH even 0.1?

How do you determine this? Define your experiment for me. I think you
will begin to see the complexity. The ocean is not just water.
There's lots of stuff in it.


Why do I have to define the experiment?

Because you proposed determining "how much volume of acidic substance must
be added to that liquid volume in order to change the pH even 0.1"

This type of experiment can't be done in a jar. Which is why I was
interested in how you would go about computing "the volume of acidic
substance" needed.


The oceans contain a specific volume of water, that volume of water
possesses a certain pH level. Holding all other things constant (as the GW
adherents appear to be doing), then it will take a certain volume of acidic
substance to lower the pH of that volume of ocean water.

I'm not trying to prove that
humans are changing the ocean pH. I'm merely pointing out that there is
a heck of a lot of volume of water, that were everything else to remain
constant would require huge volumes to change the pH.

Well guess what? The pH is changing.
So what was the point to your "sanity check"?

The point of my sanity check was to establish cause. The data says pH is
changing, that is the data, and if true, is a fact. The GW zealots scream
that it is man-made increases in CO2 that is causing this change. That is
speculation, theory, and conjecture. My challenge to the luddites (who are
ultimately trying to reduce human industrial activity) is how much CO2
would have to be produced by humans to be able to produce sufficient acidic
substances to make a measureable change in ocean pH? That provides a sanity
check vis a vis whether it is even possible for humans to have any impact
upon ocean pH. Shoot, I could posit the theory that Madonna peeing the
shower is responsible for the change in ocean pH -- wouldn't make it so,
but if I screamed loud enough and had a fax machine with an impressive
letterhead I could probably get Reuters or AP to pick up on it.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Garage_Woodworks wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else
there's
no point in warehousing it.

What about converting the CO2 to carbonate? I think this is how
some
scrubbers operate.

The product of which (Na2CO3, K2CO3, CaCO3) could be sold to off
set
the cost of scrubbing.

The product carbonates also take up less volume to store.

And how much market is there for them?


I dug up a reference for ya. This guy is using NaOH as the base so
he ends
up with NaHCO3 (baking soda). Is there a market for super pure
baking
soda??

Chem:
CO2+H2O ---- H2CO3
H2CO3 + NaOH ----- NaHCO3 + H2O

Not carbonate in this reference, but bicarbonate. I suppose if you
adjust
the amount of NaOH and monitor the pH you could also make Na2CO3
with
his
process.

http://www.news.com/Can-baking-soda-...3-6220127.html

Now, find out what the major use of baking soda is. I believe that
you will find that it is, well, _baking_. Then look at what baking
soda does when baking. It reacts with acidic components of the recipe
to release CO2. So the CO2 is not locked away where it doesn't
contribute to greenhouse emissions, it's just released a little later.

Of course you could make baking soda and store it in a warehouse
somewhere forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and pray that
the warehouse doesn't burn down, because when you get the stuff hot,
what does it do? It breaks down and releases CO2.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:


The fact that GE thinks they can make money selling the things
doesn't
make them any less a stopgap.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous the above sounds?

GE doesn't "think", they "know" there is money to be made long term,
in the renewable energy business, which is why the major capitol
investment is being made to develop products for it.

Renewable energy products have an international market while major
appliances (ovens, stoves, refrigerators, etc) are limited to the
domestic market.

Maybe that is why major appliances are for sale.

Maybe they need the $'s to build more and bigger wind turbines.

Your quibbling over "think" vs "know" instead of addressing the point
being made tells me that you don't really have a viable
counterargument.

As for ovens, stoves, refrigerators, etc being limited to the domestic
market, are you saying that Americans are the only people who cook
food and store it in refrigerators? If so, you really need to talk to
your doctor about your medication.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Garage_Woodworks wrote:
Why? Can't we convert the CO2 into carbonate? I'm pretty sure
we
can.

And where do we put it? Now you're increasing the volume even
more.

Really?

CO2(aq) +H2O ----- H2CO3 (1 mole of co2 makes 1 mole of carbonic
acid) H2CO3 + NaOH ----- NaHCO3 + H2O (1 mole of carbonic acid
reacts with 1 mole of sodium hydroxide and yields 1 mole of sodium
carbonate)
NaHCO3 + NaOH ----- Na2CO3 + H2O (1 mole of sodium hydroxide
reacts with 1 mole of NaOH and yields 1 mole of sodium carbonate)

A mole of Na2CO3(s) takes up more volume than a mole of CO2(g) ??
Show me the math here.

What'd the density of dry ice? How about of Na2CO3?


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Garage_Woodworks wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Garage_Woodworks wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Whereas the CO2 has to be kept warehoused _forever_ or else
there's
no point in warehousing it.

What about converting the CO2 to carbonate? I think this is
how
some
scrubbers operate.

The product of which (Na2CO3, K2CO3, CaCO3) could be sold to off
set
the cost of scrubbing.

The product carbonates also take up less volume to store.

And how much market is there for them?

Not sure. But, there is a need for them, so the market must be
there. The goal is not really to market the product, but to
produce
the product and reduce the raw material.

But if there's no market you still end up storing it.

You could give it away free. People use carbonate compounds in
industry. They would gladly take it away for you.

And what would they do with it? Remember, you can't allow any uses
that result in it releasing CO2--if you do then you may as well not
have wasted your time making it in the first place. That means no
baking with sodium bicarbonate, no making cement out of calcium
carbonate, etc.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:22:54 -0700 (PDT), Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:

How about if you guys who start political threads make that
the standard subject line?


A thread title of " O/T: Up Yours" isn't enough of a hint that you
might want to skip it? G

---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

Hopefully it will all only happen in a disastrous way after my adult
teeth have stopped hurting me ... Which brings up the question
whether cremation or burial is the "greener" way to go ...


Good heavens, I hope that was sarcasm. If not, I fear we are
wasting our
time here.

Sarcasm is a good guess!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid