|
More noise about climate
My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to this
American-Swiss scientific report. The abstract/summary is freely available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488. Or through the Digital Object Identifier site: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488 For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. If anyone is truly interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not totally sure of the copyright rules. Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere). Here is the summary: Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3 Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change. 1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA. 2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication 12 January 2010. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
More noise about climate
Han wrote:
My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to this American-Swiss scientific report. The abstract/summary is freely available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488. Or through the Digital Object Identifier site: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488 For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. If anyone is truly interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not totally sure of the copyright rules. Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere). But who is the "we" and what is to be done about it? The US is not the major producer of CO2 and the US could stop producing CO2 completely without having any effect whatsoever other than slowing the rate of increase a tiny amount. Would you fight a nuclear war with the largest producer if that is what it took to make _them_ stop? Here is the summary: Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3 Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change. 1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA. 2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication 12 January 2010. |
More noise about climate
On 30 Jan 2010 12:18:17 GMT, the infamous Han
scrawled the following: My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to this American-Swiss scientific report. The abstract/summary is freely available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488. Or through the Digital Object Identifier site: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488 For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. If anyone is truly interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not totally sure of the copyright rules. Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere). Here is the summary: Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3 Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change. 1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA. 2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication 12 January 2010. IOW, Mother Nature knows what to do and has been doing it to regulate the climate around her. I, too, feel that Man should tread more lightly on the Earth. For the most part, it is, but coal-fired power is still a ghastly unrepentant part of the process. Spending billions to make "clean coal" is one of the greenies' dumbest concepts. -- Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will. -- George Bernard Shaw |
More noise about climate
On Jan 30, 7:18*am, Larry Jaques
wrote: On 30 Jan 2010 12:18:17 GMT, the infamous Han scrawled the following: My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to this American-Swiss scientific report. *The abstract/summary is freely available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488. *Or through the Digital Object Identifier site: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488 For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. *If anyone is truly interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not totally sure of the copyright rules. Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere). Here is the summary: Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3 Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change. 1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA. 2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication 12 January 2010. IOW, Mother Nature knows what to do and has been doing it to regulate the climate around her. I, too, feel that Man should tread more lightly on the Earth. For the most part, it is, but coal-fired power is still a ghastly unrepentant part of the process. *Spending billions to make "clean coal" is one of the greenies' dumbest concepts. Actually, I think the "greenies" find it an offensive oxymoron. It's the industry that's pushing it. |
More noise about climate
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:11:29 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
But who is the "we" and what is to be done about it? The US is not the major producer of CO2 and the US could stop producing CO2 completely without having any effect whatsoever other than slowing the rate of increase a tiny amount. Would you fight a nuclear war with the largest producer if that is what it took to make _them_ stop? In 2006, China produced 21.5% of the worlds CO2 emissions. The US produced 20.2%. So our stopping would reduce emissions only a "little bit"? I cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions If you have conflicting evidence, please produce it. BTW, considering the difference in population, the US is far ahead of China in emissions per capita. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
More noise about climate
On Jan 30, 9:18*am, Larry Jaques
wrote: On 30 Jan 2010 12:18:17 GMT, the infamous Han scrawled the following: My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to this American-Swiss scientific report. *The abstract/summary is freely available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488. *Or through the Digital Object Identifier site: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488 For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. *If anyone is truly interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not totally sure of the copyright rules. Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere). Here is the summary: Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3 Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change. 1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA. 2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication 12 January 2010. IOW, Mother Nature knows what to do and has been doing it to regulate the climate around her. I, too, feel that Man should tread more lightly on the Earth. For the most part, it is, but coal-fired power is still a ghastly unrepentant part of the process. *Spending billions to make "clean coal" is one of the greenies' dumbest concepts. What a mouth-full. Clean Coal...WTF??? Has anyone ever looked at coal up close? You have any idea what kinda **** is in that stuff? Sure it's a great gob of carbon, but... I am not an alarmist about AGW.. but I DO believe we need to be nice to the planet. That whole Rainforest butcher job is a real problem. There is no need to pollute the oceans. Bad stewardship is just that. Stupid management of our one-and-only planet. I have done some travelling and I have seen what stupid people do with their drinking water.... they **** in it. Not smart. But... one does not deserve the 'greenie' label when one is aware of bad habits. I am no Ed Begley and never will be. Eat what you kill, turn into furniture what you chop down or build a house. |
More noise about climate
Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 30, 9:18Â*am, Larry Jaques wrote: On 30 Jan 2010 12:18:17 GMT, the infamous Han scrawled the following: .... snip Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication 12 January 2010. IOW, Mother Nature knows what to do and has been doing it to regulate the climate around her. I, too, feel that Man should tread more lightly on the Earth. For the most part, it is, but coal-fired power is still a ghastly unrepentant part of the process. Â*Spending billions to make "clean coal" is one of the greenies' dumbest concepts. What a mouth-full. Clean Coal...WTF??? Has anyone ever looked at coal up close? You have any idea what kinda **** is in that stuff? Sure it's a great gob of carbon, but... I am not an alarmist about AGW.. but I DO believe we need to be nice to the planet. That whole Rainforest butcher job is a real problem. and is exacerbated by some of the alarmists. By preventing the sale of timber from the rain forest, the people from those countries now burn down the trees so they can make a living farming and raising livestock on the land. If it weren't for the meddling, more than likely those people would realize that they could make a living with logging and would take care of the forests. There is no need to pollute the oceans. Bad stewardship is just that. Stupid management of our one-and-only planet. I have done some travelling and I have seen what stupid people do with their drinking water.... they **** in it. Not smart. That falls into the "poop in your own bathtub" arena. Taking care of where you live is just plain good sense. Making sure that you, your children and your grandchildren have a nice place to live leads to the idea that maybe controlling where you put your trash, how you handle waste products and how industry around you properly disposes of waste are all good ideas. The idea that such acts "save the planet" or that releases the products of perfect combustion (CO2 and water vapor) into the atmosphere is harmful or will destroy the planet is where it just starts to get silly. Silly vis a vis the common folks parroting this stuff -- diabolical and controlling vis a vis those in power promoting this as a way to garner even more power into those peoples' lives. But... one does not deserve the 'greenie' label when one is aware of bad habits. I am no Ed Begley and never will be. Eat what you kill, turn into furniture what you chop down or build a house. -- There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage Rob Leatham |
More noise about climate
Han writes:
My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to this American-Swiss scientific report. The abstract/summary is freely available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488. Or through the Digital Object Identifier site: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488 For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. If anyone is truly interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not totally sure of the copyright rules. Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere). Here is the summary: Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3 Hm. I seem to recall Susan Solomon's name from the CRUtapes. Contrast with: David C. Frank, Jan Esper, Christoph C. Raible, Ulf Büntgen, Valerie Trouet, Benjamin Stocker, & Fortunat Joos. Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate. Nature, 2010; 463 (7280): 527 DOI: 10.1038/nature08769 In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO2 data from three Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7. The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming. scott |
More noise about climate
Larry Jaques wrote:
On 30 Jan 2010 12:18:17 GMT, the infamous Han scrawled the following: My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to this American-Swiss scientific report. The abstract/summary is freely available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488. Or through the Digital Object Identifier site: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488 For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. If anyone is truly interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not totally sure of the copyright rules. Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere). Here is the summary: Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3 Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change. 1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA. 2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication 12 January 2010. IOW, Mother Nature knows what to do and has been doing it to regulate the climate around her. I, too, feel that Man should tread more lightly on the Earth. For the most part, it is, but coal-fired power is still a ghastly unrepentant part of the process. Spending billions to make "clean coal" is one of the greenies' dumbest concepts. Yes, it's called negative feedback and if the earth was so unstable as to come crashing down from what man could do then most likely we wouldn't be here in the first place. It's very arrogant or just plain ignorant to believe than mankind can compete with the power of mother nature. |
More noise about climate
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:25:44 -0600, Jon Slaughter wrote:
Yes, it's called negative feedback and if the earth was so unstable as to come crashing down from what man could do then most likely we wouldn't be here in the first place. Let's see. The world's population doubles on average every 60-65 years. That probably only holds true since the Black Death, but you get the idea. Not too mention the fact that the Industrial Revolution is a recent thing as history goes. But you seem to equate the damage we can do today with the minor affect of a few million or less primitive homo saps and claim that since they didn't die out anything we can do today isn't going to hurt. Your argument is ridiculous. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
More noise about climate
Dave Balderstone wrote:
Cleaning up the worst pollution on the planet? I'm for it. Let's start with China, India and Africa. You'll note the richest countries generate the least pollution. In the main, that takes energy to do so. Cutting back on energy production will worsen pollution. We can eliminate, for example, electric stoves - thereby cutting down on the amount of coal necessary to produce power - and all cook our meals over charcoal braziers. There goes the neighborhood. |
More noise about climate
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:25:44 -0600, the infamous "Jon Slaughter"
scrawled the following: Larry Jaques wrote: On 30 Jan 2010 12:18:17 GMT, the infamous Han scrawled the following: My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to this American-Swiss scientific report. The abstract/summary is freely available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488. Or through the Digital Object Identifier site: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488 For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. If anyone is truly interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not totally sure of the copyright rules. Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere). Here is the summary: Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3 Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change. 1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA. 2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication 12 January 2010. IOW, Mother Nature knows what to do and has been doing it to regulate the climate around her. I, too, feel that Man should tread more lightly on the Earth. For the most part, it is, but coal-fired power is still a ghastly unrepentant part of the process. Spending billions to make "clean coal" is one of the greenies' dumbest concepts. Yes, it's called negative feedback and if the earth was so unstable as to come crashing down from what man could do then most likely we wouldn't be here in the first place. It's very arrogant or just plain ignorant to believe than mankind can compete with the power of mother nature. ding, ding, ding, ding Give the man a kewpie doll! He got it in one. -- Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will. -- George Bernard Shaw |
More noise about climate
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:52:02 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following: In article , Larry Blanchard wrote: On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:25:44 -0600, Jon Slaughter wrote: Yes, it's called negative feedback and if the earth was so unstable as to come crashing down from what man could do then most likely we wouldn't be here in the first place. Let's see. The world's population doubles on average every 60-65 years. Uh, are we gone yet? Were we gone when it went from 500,000,000 to 1B, or 1B to 2B, 2-4, or 4-6B? Um, no. That probably only holds true since the Black Death, but you get the idea. Not too mention the fact that the Industrial Revolution is a recent thing as history goes. But you seem to equate the damage we can do today with the minor affect of a few million or less primitive homo saps and claim that since they didn't die out anything we can do today isn't going to hurt. Your argument is ridiculous. And your Malthusian rants aren't, Larry? ;) Well, the earth has survived more than one comet impact, and life continued, despite REPEATED mass extinctions that occurred before our ancestors were small shrew-like creatures nibbling on grubs. Whether or not humans are here has SFA to do with the long term "health" of the planet, whatever the **** that means... Is Venus "healthy"? Mercury? Neptune? All my Venusian friends are. g The "damage" that h.Saps can do to the planet is inconsequential in the scheme of things. And given that the stated goal of many of the "Greens" is the death of most of the human race, well... Pardon me if I don't give a rat's ass what they think. They could improve things simply by opening one of their own veins. A Freakin' Men! If we're gone, who cares whether the spotted owl exists? The universe sure as hell doesn't. A friend knew a guy with lots of land in WA state. He had no spotted owls. When the guys next to him clearcut their land, he suddenly got owls. Even though their original habitat was completely gone, they just moved and built up a larger population. Too bad the guys at the top of the regulatory system don't realize that. (That's another little bit of Mother Nature, too.) Cleaning up the worst pollution on the planet? I'm for it. Let's start with China, India and Africa. Why stop there? Clean it up everywhere, starting today. But tell folks like the EPA (who micromanage the **** out of it, making it too expensive to even START cleanup) to STFU and GTFO, so it can happen! -- Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will. -- George Bernard Shaw |
More noise about climate
|
More noise about climate
Doug Winterburn wrote in news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190
@newsfe13.iad: Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll cut it WAY down. How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant? CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or glucose. It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing, please make sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended). -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
More noise about climate
On 1/30/2010 6:52 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
Cleaning up the worst pollution on the planet? I'm for it. Let's start with China, India and Africa. Our own is easier to get at; but let's consider helping China, India, Africa, Bangladesh,... Perhaps we can expand our vision of the possible and perhaps, just perhaps, we can come up with some practical technologies to improve _everyone's_ situation. Or were you thinking that perhaps Exxon, Chevron, BP et al will jump to the fore and wave their corporate magic wands? :-/ -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/ |
More noise about climate
On 1/30/2010 7:44 PM, HeyBub wrote:
You'll note the richest countries generate the least pollution. In the main, that takes energy to do so. Cutting back on energy production will worsen pollution. Good point. Perhaps the poorest countries need some more appropriate means of producing the energy they use for warming their homes, cooking their food, increasing their agricultural production. I don't thing they need anyone to do it for 'em - perhaps they just need for the technologically-advanced (richest) countries to show 'em how... We can eliminate, for example, electric stoves - thereby cutting down on the amount of coal necessary to produce power - and all cook our meals over charcoal braziers. There goes the neighborhood. We could, but don't need to - but already in undeveloped areas people are eager to cook without having to gather fuel, and to improve their own neighborhoods. Increasing numbers are doing just that. :) There's nothing wrong with using electricity to cook, but there are other ways - and, people being the inventive critters we are, we will find more ways still to fry our bacon... -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/ |
More noise about climate
On 1/30/2010 9:06 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In , Morris Dovey wrote: Or were you thinking that perhaps Exxon, Chevron, BP et al will jump to the fore and wave their corporate magic wands? :-/ They're all there in the cap and trade market push, Morris. Every single one of them. So? There _is_ a choice: either give them their corporacracy or build a future in which they play much diminished roles. Everybody gets to make their own choice. [ Suggested reading: "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" , by John Perkins ISBN#978-0-452-28708-2 ] Choose wisely. -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/ |
More noise about climate
Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:310120100434024828%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca: In article , Bob Martin wrote: in 133091 20100131 030530 Dave Balderstone wrote: In article , Han wrote: Doug Winterburn wrote in news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190 @newsfe13.iad: Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll cut it WAY down. How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant? CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or glucose. It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing, please make sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended). There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas of any import. Please produce said evidence. Start he http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/2...e-on-co2-ampli f ication-its-less-than-we-thought/ http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're being fed. Per molecule CO2 is ot a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and some others are much better. But if you have a million more mlecules of CO2 than methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce the number of molecules of CO2, than let's go for imiting CO2. Many ifs, I know. But the advantages of reducing the use of fossil fuels are many. And if it is done through increased efficiency or switching to non-polluting systems like Morris' solar water pumps, than all the better. Morris is showing that it is a technological thinking leap that is needed, not new sources of (for instance) rare earth metals. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
More noise about climate
I have to proofread better. My kayboard is not always transmitting what I
type, here I fill in the missing letters ... Per molecule CO2 is not a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and some others are much better. But if you have a million TIMES more molecules of CO2 than of methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce the number of molecules of CO2, than let's go for limiting CO2. Many ifs, I know. But the advantages of reducing the use of fossil fuels are many. And if it is done through increased efficiency or switching to non-polluting systems like Morris' solar water pumps, than all the better. Morris is showing that it is a technological thinking leap that is needed, not new sources of (for instance) rare earth metals. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
More noise about climate
Han wrote:
Dave Balderstone wrote in news:310120100434024828%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca: In article , Bob Martin wrote: in 133091 20100131 030530 Dave Balderstone wrote: In article , Han wrote: Doug Winterburn wrote in news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190 @newsfe13.iad: Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll cut it WAY down. How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant? CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or glucose. It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing, please make sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended). There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas of any import. Please produce said evidence. Start he http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/2...e-on-co2-ampli f ication-its-less-than-we-thought/ http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're being fed. Per molecule CO2 is ot a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and some others are much better. But if you have a million more mlecules of CO2 than methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce the number of molecules of CO2, than let's go for imiting CO2. Many ifs, I know. But the advantages of reducing the use of fossil fuels are many. And if it is done through increased efficiency or switching to non-polluting systems like Morris' solar water pumps, than all the better. Morris is showing that it is a technological thinking leap that is needed, not new sources of (for instance) rare earth metals. Something that a lot of people don't "get" is that CO2 from biological sources such as respiration is recycled so there's not a net increase. As for methane, methane is a fuel, it reacts with air and produces CO2 and water, sometimes rapidly in a fire, sometimes more slowly. The question I want answered, that the greenies have never tried to address, is "Let's stipulate that everything you say is true. Suppose we let the whole thing run its course, burn up all the oil and coal and shale oil and whatnot. At the end of that process where will we be?" |
More noise about climate
Han wrote:
I have to proofread better. My kayboard is not always transmitting what I type, here I fill in the missing letters ... Per molecule CO2 is not a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and some others are much better. But if you have a million TIMES more molecules of CO2 than of methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce the number of molecules of CO2, than let's go for limiting CO2. Many ifs, I know. But the advantages of reducing the use of fossil fuels are many. And if it is done through increased efficiency or switching to non-polluting systems like Morris' solar water pumps, than all the better. Morris is showing that it is a technological thinking leap that is needed, not new sources of (for instance) rare earth metals. If we could magically make every energy system in the world 200 percent efficient it would not come close to hitting the IPCC targets. If this is a problem of the magnitude they are claiming, it's not going to be fixed by driving a Prius and using fluorescent light bulbs. |
More noise about climate
Han wrote:
.... Per molecule CO2 is ot a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and some others are much better. But if you have a million more mlecules of CO2 than methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce the number of molecules of CO2, than let's go for imiting CO2. .... But CO2 is also very specific in the wavelengths it absorbs and it doesn't take much to make incremental changes in concentration to have less actual effect. Data indicates concentrations are at point of already being past the knee of the curve. If so, won't make much difference at all either way. -- |
More noise about climate
dpb wrote:
Han wrote: ... Per molecule CO2 is ot a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and some others are much better. But if you have a million more mlecules of CO2 than methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce the number of molecules of CO2, than let's go for imiting CO2. ... But CO2 is also very specific in the wavelengths it absorbs and it doesn't take much to make incremental changes in concentration to have less actual effect. Data indicates concentrations are at point of already being past the knee of the curve. If so, won't make much difference at all either way. What "knee" of what "curve"? |
More noise about climate
J. Clarke wrote:
dpb wrote: Han wrote: ... Per molecule CO2 is ot a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and some others are much better. But if you have a million more mlecules of CO2 than methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce the number of molecules of CO2, than let's go for imiting CO2. ... But CO2 is also very specific in the wavelengths it absorbs and it doesn't take much to make incremental changes in concentration to have less actual effect. Data indicates concentrations are at point of already being past the knee of the curve. If so, won't make much difference at all either way. What "knee" of what "curve"? Differential light absorption--energy attenuation vs concentration is exponential. Very low concentrations--high (relatively) attenuation vs concentration but reaches a plateau where adding further makes successively little difference as the particular wavelengths are already heavily filtered. Roughly, it's ~exp(u/x) -- |
More noise about climate
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:34:02 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following: In article , Bob Martin wrote: in 133091 20100131 030530 Dave Balderstone wrote: In article , Han wrote: Doug Winterburn wrote in news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190 @newsfe13.iad: Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll cut it WAY down. How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant? CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or glucose. It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing, please make sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended). There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas of any import. Please produce said evidence. Start he http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/2...-on-co2-amplif ication-its-less-than-we-thought/ http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html After that, I'll leave it to you whether you actually want to examine evidence on all sides of the debate or simply swallow what you're being fed. I'll give you odds that he denies validity...IF he says anything more. ;) -- Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will. -- George Bernard Shaw |
More noise about climate
On Jan 30, 3:25*pm, "Jon Slaughter" wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote: On 30 Jan 2010 12:18:17 GMT, the infamous Han scrawled the following: My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to this American-Swiss scientific report. *The abstract/summary is freely available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488. *Or through the Digital Object Identifier site: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488 For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. *If anyone is truly interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not totally sure of the copyright rules. Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere). Here is the summary: Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3 Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change. 1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA. 2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication 12 January 2010. IOW, Mother Nature knows what to do and has been doing it to regulate the climate around her. I, too, feel that Man should tread more lightly on the Earth. For the most part, it is, but coal-fired power is still a ghastly unrepentant part of the process. *Spending billions to make "clean coal" is one of the greenies' dumbest concepts. Yes, it's called negative feedback and if the earth was so unstable as to come crashing down from what man could do then most likely we wouldn't be here in the first place. It's very arrogant or just plain ignorant to believe than mankind can compete with the power of mother nature. Ignoring your obvious straw men, I think the height of ignorance is the implication that you *know* the whole story, one way or the other. You don't. I don't. We don't. All YOU'VE done is say that anybody who believes other than what YOU believe is arrogant and ignorant. Which is funny and ironic! |
More noise about climate
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:54:45 -0600, the infamous dpb
scrawled the following: Han wrote: ... Per molecule CO2 is ot a very "good" greenhouse gas. Methane and some others are much better. But if you have a million more mlecules of CO2 than methane, and if it is indeed easier to reduce the number of molecules of CO2, than let's go for imiting CO2. ... But CO2 is also very specific in the wavelengths it absorbs and it doesn't take much to make incremental changes in concentration to have less actual effect. Data indicates concentrations are at point of already being past the knee of the curve. If so, won't make much difference at all either way. Y'mean "the knee of the hockey stick?" bseg I haven't yet read all of this paper, but it looks like a fair analysis. (Well, except for the dead polar bear pic. Har!) http://brneurosci.org/co2.html It has a CO2 absorption chart. Please describe what you're talking about via the chart, or show another one to which you refer. -- Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will. -- George Bernard Shaw |
More noise about climate
On 1/31/2010 8:22 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
The question I want answered, that the greenies have never tried to address, is "Let's stipulate that everything you say is true. Suppose we let the whole thing run its course, burn up all the oil and coal and shale oil and whatnot. At the end of that process where will we be?" It's a good question, and I don't think there is a single answer. Where we will be, necessarily, will be determined by the choices we make between now and then. I suspect, and of course have no way of knowing, that we will not completely consume all fuel resources - but I extrapolate that as each resource becomes less readily available it will become increasingly costly, and so diminish in terms of common usage. As that happens, either the usage (what people accomplished with that particular resource) will be discontinued, or another resource or another means of accomplishing that goal will be adopted. Such a scenario leaves a lot of room for all kinds of choices, and I'm not convinced that being a "greenie" (or not being a greenie) has much to do with that answer. Those future choices will be influenced by the importance attached to "green-ness" of each person's outlook at the time - and, FWIW, I don't think "green" is a binary attribute. To me the more interesting questions are "Where do we _want_ to be in five, ten, a hundred, or a thousand years from now?" and "What choices need to be made, and by when, for those visions to be realized?" -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/ |
More noise about climate
Han wrote:
The CO2 seems to be the component that has changed most since the start of the industrial revolution, and as far as I can judge does have an undesirable effect. It is also probably the component that is easiest to limit. Methane has a far greater effect than CO2, but seems quantitatively less important. Not sure whether a tax on meat would help keep the cattle farting down. (sarcasm!!). I need some proof that a trace gas has that much effect. The CO2 in the atmosphere (0.003%) is equivalent to the blood stain left on a football field after an official received 17 stab wounds when he made three consecutive bad calls against the home team (i.e., less than two square feet). I suspect that if power plants exhaled Argon or Helium, proof would be constructed that these gases are sealing our doom. Also, I think that changing black asphalt to white concrete in roads could have an effect, but I am not an engineer. Many other simple examples could be given to reduce energy consumption. Not the least of which is to stick it to the oil and gas producers in some countries ... And asphalt costs what? Ten times that of installing concrete? I can see it now: In an effort to increase the earth's albido, concrete is mandated. States with thousands of miles of two-lane Farm-To-Market or rural roads, each hosting 50 vehicles per day, are to be resurfaced. Two-lane concrete roadways cost a bit over $1 million per mile to construct. (Asphalt is about $150,000 per mile and can be recycled.) There are over 41,000 miles of Farm and Ranch roads in Texas. |
More noise about climate
On Jan 31, 9:10*am, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 1/31/2010 8:22 AM, J. Clarke wrote: The question I want answered, that the greenies have never tried to address, is "Let's stipulate that everything you say is true. *Suppose we let the whole thing run its course, burn up all the oil and coal and shale oil and whatnot. *At the end of that process where will we be?" It's a good question, and I don't think there is a single answer. Where we will be, necessarily, will be determined by the choices we make between now and then. I suspect, and of course have no way of knowing, that we will not completely consume all fuel resources - but I extrapolate that as each resource becomes less readily available it will become increasingly costly, and so diminish in terms of common usage. As that happens, either the usage (what people accomplished with that particular resource) will be discontinued, or another resource or another means of accomplishing that goal will be adopted. Such a scenario leaves a lot of room for all kinds of choices, and I'm not convinced that being a "greenie" (or not being a greenie) has much to do with that answer. Those future choices will be influenced by the importance attached to "green-ness" of each person's outlook at the time - and, FWIW, I don't think "green" is a binary attribute. To me the more interesting questions are "Where do we _want_ to be in five, ten, a hundred, or a thousand years from now?" and "What choices need to be made, and by when, for those visions to be realized?" Well said. The other thing that is NOT binary is the pricing of the finite resources as they become less and less plentiful (whether that's in terms of absolute supply or the costs of extraction, refinement, and delivery). Or ... simple market manipulation by the monopoly currently in control. As that cost-to-consumer curve steepens, carnage ensues. We saw it, in micro, as gas reached -- what -- four bucks a gallon, rather recently? Jobs are lost. Industries are wiped out. LIVES are horrifically impacted. The much vaunted "market" will take an immeasurable toll on real human beings if we let it play out, vis-a-vis fossil fuels. |
More noise about climate
Neil Brooks wrote in
: On Jan 30, 3:25*pm, "Jon Slaughter" wrote: Larry Jaques wrote: On 30 Jan 2010 12:18:17 GMT, the infamous Han scrawled the following: My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to this American-Swiss scientific report. *The abstract/summary is freely available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488. *O r through the Digital Object Identifier site: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488 For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. *If anyone is trul y interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not totally sure of the copyright rules. Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere). Here is the summary: Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3 Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change. 1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA. 2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication 12 January 2010. IOW, Mother Nature knows what to do and has been doing it to regulate the climate around her. I, too, feel that Man should tread more lightly on the Earth. For the most part, it is, but coal-fired power is still a ghastly unrepentant part of the process. *Spending billion s to make "clean coal" is one of the greenies' dumbest concepts. Yes, it's called negative feedback and if the earth was so unstable as to come crashing down from what man could do then most likely we wouldn't be here in the first place. It's very arrogant or just plain ignorant to believe than mankind can compete with the power of mother nature. Ignoring your obvious straw men, I think the height of ignorance is the implication that you *know* the whole story, one way or the other. You don't. I don't. We don't. All YOU'VE done is say that anybody who believes other than what YOU believe is arrogant and ignorant. Which is funny and ironic! Exactly. In science it is implied that your theory is based on ALL the facts, and usually it is a given that you do NOT have all the facts. Hence further tests/trials/whatever. Yes that is a contradiction. In this case, however, it seems without doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that human activity has increased the quantity of it, and that reducing the quantity of free CO2 would be beneficial by preventing further greenhouse heating of the earths atmosphere. That leaves out of the equation other greenhouse gases, cooling/heating effects of (volcanic?) particulates, and smog, among probably many more things affecting climate. Despite the anomaly of a totally erroneous statement about retreating glaciers in the Himalayas, most glaciers worldwide are indeed retreating, for whatever reasons. In high school 50 years ago, the Rhone glacier in Switzerland was already an example of sorts. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
More noise about climate
Larry Jaques wrote:
.... I haven't yet read all of this paper, but it looks like a fair analysis. (Well, except for the dead polar bear pic. Har!) http://brneurosci.org/co2.html It has a CO2 absorption chart. Please describe what you're talking about via the chart, or show another one to which you refer. .... I've not read any of it, but Fig 4 shows the effect. (Whether the fits are meaningful quantitatively is another question, but the shape is...) -- |
More noise about climate
"J. Clarke" wrote in
: The question I want answered, that the greenies have never tried to address, is "Let's stipulate that everything you say is true. Suppose we let the whole thing run its course, burn up all the oil and coal and shale oil and whatnot. At the end of that process where will we be?" That would take a very long time, and economics would largely prevent it. Coal is extremely abundant, though the ost usable quality is not. You know of course that oil-poor countries such as Nazi Germany and a prior version of South Africa used coal as a basis for producing oil/gasoline. Another conversion process is the well-known conversion of coal plus steam to CO and hydrogen, a mixture that used to be pumped around to homes as cooking gas. SO the question will langish for an answer for a very long time, since nuclear power, wind and water power, as well as solar power will eventually be more economical than fossil fuel power. Politics will need to steer economics so as to find the most acceptable fuels/sources of power. Hence the debates, and the struggles between economic interests. Stay tuned grin. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
More noise about climate
"HeyBub" wrote in
m: And asphalt costs what? Ten times that of installing concrete? I think you inadvertently switched them. Bu I do get the drift. I can see it now: In an effort to increase the earth's albido, concrete is mandated. States with thousands of miles of two-lane Farm-To-Market or rural roads, each hosting 50 vehicles per day, are to be resurfaced. Two-lane concrete roadways cost a bit over $1 million per mile to construct. (Asphalt is about $150,000 per mile and can be recycled.) Concrete can be recycled as well, and I doubt that the cost differential is as big as you say. And I note you have come down from a factor of 10 to a factor of less than 7. There are over 41,000 miles of Farm and Ranch roads in Texas. I don't care about Texas (smile!!). IMNSHO a lot can be done by altering our approach for future work just slightly. This example is for moderate climates with freeze-thaw cycles, like around New York. For instance, a road surface on a local village road with good cracks in it (not HUGE, but just good cracks) can be rather easily repaired well, using a little extra effort. Not just slapping some asphalt repair stuff on it, and patting that down with a shovel, but heating the old surface, patching it and sealing it with liquid tar (whatever). The road could easily last another 10 years or more then while the slapping patching stuff just lifts in a year or two. Yes the initial repair is more than twice as costly, but it lasts much more than 3 times as long. You get what you pay for! Then when real resurfacing is needed, a decision could be made to hae a lighter colored top layer. Many factors go into these choices, but albedo could easily be included. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
More noise about climate
In article , Han wrote:
Despite the anomaly of a totally erroneous statement about retreating glaciers in the Himalayas, most glaciers worldwide are indeed retreating, for whatever reasons. In high school 50 years ago, the Rhone glacier in Switzerland was already an example of sorts. Ummmmm.... Don't look now, but retreating glaciers isn't anything new. About ten thousand years ago, the area where I sit as I type this was under half a mile of ice. Good friend of mine has a master's in geology, and obviously know more about this than I do, but according to him, we're actually still *in* the last Ice Age -- "normal" conditions, on a geologic time scale, are a *lot* warmer than we have now. |
More noise about climate
On Jan 31, 11:52*am, Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote : The question I want answered, that the greenies have never tried to address, is "Let's stipulate that everything you say is true. *Suppose we let the whole thing run its course, burn up all the oil and coal and shale oil and whatnot. *At the end of that process where will we be?" That would take a very long time, and economics would largely prevent it. * Coal is extremely abundant, though the ost usable quality is not. *You know of course that oil-poor countries such as Nazi Germany and a prior version of South Africa used coal as a basis for producing oil/gasoline. * The hospital I was born in, was right next to a 'Gas Fabriek" They made gas from coal and distributed to people's houses via pipes.... and I'm not that old. I do remember the smell of sulphur. It looked a bit like this: http://img.mobypicture.com/edaafee47...e4c9e_view.jpg |
More noise about climate
|
More noise about climate
Robatoy wrote in
: On Jan 31, 11:52*am, Han wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote uy.com: The question I want answered, that the greenies have never tried to address, is "Let's stipulate that everything you say is true. *Suppos e we let the whole thing run its course, burn up all the oil and coal and shale oil and whatnot. *At the end of that process where will we be?" That would take a very long time, and economics would largely prevent it. * Coal is extremely abundant, though the ost usable quality is not. *You know of course that oil-poor countries such as Nazi Germany and a prior version of South Africa used coal as a basis for producing oil/gasoline. * The hospital I was born in, was right next to a 'Gas Fabriek" They made gas from coal and distributed to people's houses via pipes.... and I'm not that old. I do remember the smell of sulphur. It looked a bit like this: http://img.mobypicture.com/edaafee47...e4c9e_view.jpg Yes I too remember the smell of sulfur by the gasfabriek in Wageningen. What you show in the picture is the reservoir of the gas, which went up and down as the supply increased or was used up. This is a pdf of a story about Wageningen that you made me dig up (in Dutch): http://wageningen.sp.nl/docs/070501_1_mei_wandeling_A5.pdf -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter