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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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/

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

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:30:00 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:




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?


My rants? Your response totally ignored the text I was responding to.


Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

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/

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/

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

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!

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

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.

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.

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

Larry Blanchard wrote:
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.


Well, Mr. Clarke has posted many missives to this group since my post
above, and none of those have responded to it. I assume that means he
has no conflicting evidence and was merely spouting BS. Typical.

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

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in
:

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

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!!).

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 ...


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
(Scott Lurndal) wrote in
:

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

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.

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?

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!!).

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 ...

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

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.

"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

Han wrote:
"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.

Albedo be damned, if using concrete results in roads that don't have to be
rebuilt every ten years or so then I'm all for it. The Romans built roads
through swamps that Moshe Dayan could drive tanks over 2000 years later, but
we can't build roads in a desert that you can drive a Jeep over 50 years
later (try to follow the original path of Route 66 if you disbelieve).

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.

On 31 Jan 2010 17:16:27 GMT, the infamous Han
scrawled the following:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

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!

If the bean counters got their way, that would be the standard
everywhere. But they can't get that kind of funding package together
-and- give all the payouts in the rest of the political infrastructure
at the same time...and get away with it. If we could keep track of it
(IE: keep it out of pols' hands) and get competitive bids for
everything, it would actually cost taxpayers a lot less money in the
long run. The question is: How do you stop the pols from spending
every last cent in the kitty (and then some) every year?


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.

That's a great idea. I really like the gold and ruddy roads in AZ and
NV.

--
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

Han wrote:

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.

Psst! Concrete is seldom recycled.


There are over 41,000 miles of Farm and Ranch roads in Texas.

I don't care about Texas (smile!!).

You would if the federal government is to pay to replace all the asphalt
roads with concrete. Some of the dump trucks used to haul sand and cement
would have to be diverted to haul money from your state to mine.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
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.

Concrete would be extremely expensive in the north. It would have to be
extensively repaired, if not replaced, each spring.

CW wrote:

Concrete would be extremely expensive in the north. It would have to
be extensively repaired, if not replaced, each spring.

So what! It's for the children.

"CW" wrote in news:08qdnZV-
:

Concrete would be extremely expensive in the north. It would have to be
extensively repaired, if not replaced, each spring.

Not if it were poured by competent people, I think.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote:

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).

Small traces can have big effect. The tetanus toxin is fatal at doses at 2.5
nanograms per kilogram of body weight or 0.0000000000025%.

-- Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

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).

Small traces can have big effect. The tetanus toxin is fatal at
doses at 2.5 nanograms per kilogram of body weight or
0.0000000000025%.

I agree. For the rest of the game, not a single flag was thrown.

On Jan 30, 7:18*am, Han wrote:
My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl)

Thanks for that link/tip. I have been reading that online paper and
must say that fits me and my outlook perfectly.
Then, upon reading where that paper came from, it became clear why I
like it as much as I do.
It was a combination of two very different newspapers, one artsy-
fartsy from Amsterdam and one all-business/international paper from
Rotterdam/The Hague.
Well, guess what... where I was born and raised was almost exactly
dead-centre between those 3 cities. Alphen Aan Den Rijn. In the 1960's
we had influences from all three cities, in terms of fashion, music,
etc. Then also wedged between Leiden and Utrecht, there was an
academic influence as well.


Then all hell broke loose when I first tuned in to Radio Caroline..G

Really cool stuff. Again, thanks for that.

r