"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
>> Well, if # of refineries had slipped 55% and total capacity has slipped
>> 10%, that trend is no longer in place.
>>
>> If the trend continues, in 100 years we will have one refinery. Just how
>> much can you expand production?
>>
>
> I don't buy the story that capacity has slipped 10%.
>

Then site some CAPACITY numbers, not OUTPUT numbers.

Do you comprehend the manufacturing process?

Do you comprehend percentage of CAPACITY?

Do you comprehend TRENDLINES?

Geeezz

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:48:13 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>> Sylvain wrote:
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>> anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
>>>> blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are running
>>>> out of energy generating capacity,
>>>
>>>
>>> actually we weren't running out of energy generating capacity,
>>> but the analogy is good since this is another example of
>>> price gouging...
>>
>> Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
>> gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
>> will in the not too distant future.
>
>We won't run out and are not RUNNING out; the capacity can't keep up with
>demand, and expansion is just about as heavily regulated as the initial
>construction.

Ahhh... You just described exactly what he said. We are running out
of generating capacity and refining capacity. He did not say we are
running out of gas or crude.

However, increasing our refining capacity is only going to increase
out dependence on foreign crude. Nothing magical is going to happen
to reduce the average American's use of gas unless forced to do so. So
I don't see alternative energy sources happening, or becoming viably
economical until gas prices are high enough to make them so. So in 20
years we will just be using more gas unless the price gets high enough
to force a change.

I do agree that *rebuilding*, or replacing current refineries with
more efficient ones would be a good way to go, but a buddy of mine who
retired from a refinery told me they basically rebuild them every ten
years through incremental maintenance.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>>
>> Matt
>
>The other Matt
>
>

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:48:13 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
>>> gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
>>> will in the not too distant future.
>>
>>We won't run out and are not RUNNING out; the capacity can't keep up with
>>demand, and expansion is just about as heavily regulated as the initial
>>construction.
>
> Ahhh... You just described exactly what he said. We are running out
> of generating capacity and refining capacity. He did not say we are
> running out of gas or crude.

"Running out" to me infers having ZERO capacity; "running short" means not
being able to keep up with demand. That, to me, is a significant difference.
My take on the other Matt is that he means we're losing _all our capacity_.

>
> However, increasing our refining capacity is only going to increase
> out dependence on foreign crude.
Correct -- producing enough crude or other supplies is another issue.

> Nothing magical is going to happen
> to reduce the average American's use of gas unless forced to do so.

Yes, there will; PRICES.No maginc involved, just reality. Prices are the
balance point between supply and demand. There's no thuggery of force
involved. If the utility you get from $4 or $5 a gallon is significant to
you, you use it; if not, you don't. There's always options.

In running my business, fuel for my airplane is worth it, even at $4.00 or
more a gallon. In my case, fuel costs are a tiny portion of running the
business. OTOH, for my private use in my car or PU truck, $2.70 a gallon
gas means I don't make frivolous trips to the store to buy a handful of
goods.

> So
> I don't see alternative energy sources happening, or becoming viably
> economical until gas prices are high enough to make them so. So in 20
> years we will just be using more gas unless the price gets high enough
> to force a change.

Well, I wouldn't use the word "force", but I know what you mean.

>
> I do agree that *rebuilding*, or replacing current refineries with
> more efficient ones would be a good way to go, but a buddy of mine who
> retired from a refinery told me they basically rebuild them every ten
> years through incremental maintenance.

Yes, there is much to encourage keeping them as technically "state of the
art" as feasible. As for "rebuilding them every ten years", that sounds
rather hyperbolic.

The issue I'm addressing is that with shale, tar sands and other options
hopefully coming along, we'd not be able to produce what we need. Running
refineries at 95+% of capacity is an invitation to a boondoggle, both
economically and strategically.

About two years ago, the pipeline that supplies Phoenix with gasoline was
broken for about five days. My in-laws described it as "reminiscent of the
1970's waiting in line for gas".

Katrina was another example, but as Mike Rappoport said, it was a 50 year
incidence. And he's right. It should, though, give a clue as to our
vulnerabilities. What if Rita has gone a bit further south and took out
Houston/Galveston? Most of our remaining refineries are in very tenuous
locations.

Hurricane intensities are cyclical, and I don't buy the BS that they have
anything to do with "Global Warming", but more than half (?) of our refining
capacity is in "hurricane alley". It hasn't been a disaster yet, but why
tempt "fate"?

--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:04:37 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>Hurricane intensities are cyclical, and I don't buy the BS that they have
>anything to do with "Global Warming", but more than half (?) of our refining
>capacity is in "hurricane alley". It hasn't been a disaster yet, but why
>tempt "fate"?

It's true that the number of hurricanes per year appears to vary as a
result of a natural cycle, the reasons for which are not well
understood at this point. There have been years in the past when many
hurricanes developed. However, the intensity of hurricanes is purely
the result of the fuel that feeds them: The warmth of the ocean under
which they develop and travel. Upper level atmospheric pressure also
plays a part, but the biggest factor is the warmth of the ocean. The
warmer the ocean under which the hurricane spawns, the better the
chance it will develop into a strong storm. Katrina is a perfect
example, it reduced in intensity during it's passage over the Florida
penninsula, and then intensified into a category 5 hurricane once it
moved onto the gulf of Mexico where the waters were very warm.

More storms per year are occuring in the last few years and the warmer
oceans are creating storms of high intensity.

That the oceans are warmer than they've ever been in recorded history
is not at question, you only have to look at the temperatures over the
last 100 years or so to see that they've been going up.

Another data point is the melting of most glaciers the world over.
They are melting because the average temperature has increased in the
last several decades. Still another data point is the ocean level is
rising.

That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.

Corky Scott

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Because the price of gas has doubled?
>>
>> "Everywhere, every day on the radio, television, and in the
>> newspapers, all I
>> hear is how the "Record Price of Oil" is killing America.
>>
>> Yet, strangely, Americans keep driving *more*. And I don't see
>> anyone flying less."
>> - you!
>
> Are you being purposefully dense, John, or does it just come
> naturally? I'm sure you know that I wrote that in a thread that
> pre-dated the incredible run-up in gas prices after Katrina.

Worldwide demand causing a 50% increase in fuel price is met with "stop
whining America", whereas a relatively temporary price spike caused by
hurricanes is solved by quickly building more refineries at any
environmental cost. And you imply I'm dense!

wrote:

>
> That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
> What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
> White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
> greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.

Which shows the arrogance of man. I just finsihed reading a book about
the Viking explorers. They settled Iceland and Greenland around the
years 750-1050 AD. The "scientists" say that they were able to stay
there at all is because about the time they got there corresponded to a
global warming cycle that made the glaciers recede, the winters easier
and the summers warmer and longer. About the time they left corresponds
to the "Little Ice Age". The simple fact of the matter is that the
earth cools and warms on its own. Man couldn't affect the temp of the
globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.

What kind of capacity?

Gasoline? From what type of crude?
Heating Oil/Kerosene/Diesel? from what type of crude?
Cracking capacity?

It is pretty clear that you are totally ignorant of the energy industry and
the whole refining process. The fact that you are even asking the questions
indicates that you don't know where the facts are even located or which
facts are important. You are an employee of a *ucking real estate
developer, what the *uck do you know about petroleum or its refining? How
many oil company CEOs do you talk to in an average month? How long ago did
you see the current commodity price increases coming? How much did you
profit from it? An answer rounded to the nearest $10 million will do.

Mike
MU-2


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>> Well, if # of refineries had slipped 55% and total capacity has slipped
>>> 10%, that trend is no longer in place.
>>>
>>> If the trend continues, in 100 years we will have one refinery. Just how
>>> much can you expand production?
>>>
>>
>> I don't buy the story that capacity has slipped 10%.
>>
>
> Then site some CAPACITY numbers, not OUTPUT numbers.
>
> Do you comprehend the manufacturing process?
>
> Do you comprehend percentage of CAPACITY?
>
> Do you comprehend TRENDLINES?
>
> Geeezz
>
>
>

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> Man couldn't affect the temp of the
> globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.

of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
and wait.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

The world is not as simply as you and Barrow want to think it is there are
two issues with changing the rules (any rules) or suspending them.
Everytime you change the rules you advantage or disadvantage those one side
of the time when the rules were changed. If you relax emmissions standards
on Jan 1, you disadvantage the refiner who invested prior to Jan1 and give
his competitors who invest after Jan 1 an advantage. However the real
problem is that pollution is a *real* cost, it isn't something made up by
Democrats. As an example, when coal fired powerplants emit sulpher it forms
sulphuric acit which forms acid rain and this damages everything down wind
both natural and man made. If the powerplant emits more sulpher, then all
metal downwind corrodes faster. It drives up medical costs as more people
have respiratory problems. This is over a huge area, affecting many
thousands or millions of people. Basically allowing that powerplant to
emit more sulpher just transfers cost from the owner of the powerplant to
others downwind. This understates the cost of power and distorts the
market.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Bpv3f.435576$_o.30020@attbi_s71...
>> When you take all the facts together, it seems that refining capacity
>> over the past 25yrs has been driven by economics not regulation. The
>> "lack of refining capacity" hysteria is simply the latest thing for
>> pundits to talk about. The conservatives want to blame the
>> enviornmentalists and the liberals want to blame the greedy oil
>> companies. Hopefully the rules will remain unchanged and economics will
>> continue to drive decision making. Refiners are flush with cash and don't
>> need taxpayer handouts either directly or indirectly through relaxed
>> regulation.
>
> I never thought I'd live long enough to hear a free-marketer like Mike
> refer to "relaxed regulations" as a "taxpayer handout."
>
> What a bizarre world this has become.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:21:36 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>Which shows the arrogance of man. I just finsihed reading a book about
>the Viking explorers. They settled Iceland and Greenland around the
>years 750-1050 AD. The "scientists" say that they were able to stay
>there at all is because about the time they got there corresponded to a
>global warming cycle that made the glaciers recede, the winters easier
>and the summers warmer and longer. About the time they left corresponds
>to the "Little Ice Age". The simple fact of the matter is that the
>earth cools and warms on its own. Man couldn't affect the temp of the
>globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.

As far as the global warming trend goes, it doesn't matter whether the
cause is manmade or natural. The point is it's happening.

Greenhouse gasses can be emitted by nature as well as by industry and
auto pollution.

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>> Man couldn't affect the temp of the
>>globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.
>
>
> of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
> and wait.

We did. No effect.

("Bob Noel" wrote)
>> Man couldn't affect the temp of the
>> globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.

> of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
> and wait.


I'd rather wait for the next volcano to erupt. Less political ...fallout.


Montblack

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Roger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:48:13 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:
>>
>>>>Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
>>>>gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
>>>>will in the not too distant future.
>>>
>>>We won't run out and are not RUNNING out; the capacity can't keep up with
>>>demand, and expansion is just about as heavily regulated as the initial
>>>construction.
>>
>>Ahhh... You just described exactly what he said. We are running out
>>of generating capacity and refining capacity. He did not say we are
>>running out of gas or crude.
>
>
> "Running out" to me infers having ZERO capacity; "running short" means not
> being able to keep up with demand. That, to me, is a significant difference.
> My take on the other Matt is that he means we're losing _all our capacity_.

What I meant was running out of EXCESS capacity. I think that was
pretty clear from the context, but I realize that some people aren't
able to understand context and need things spelled out literally.

Matt

Newps wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >
> > That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
> > What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
> > White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
> > greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.
>
> Which shows the arrogance of man. I just finsihed reading a book about
> the Viking explorers. They settled Iceland and Greenland around the
> years 750-1050 AD. The "scientists" say that they were able to stay
> there at all is because about the time they got there corresponded to a
> global warming cycle that made the glaciers recede, the winters easier
> and the summers warmer and longer. About the time they left corresponds
> to the "Little Ice Age".

Well, the descendants of the original settlers are still living in
Iceland, farming it and living a pretty good life. They haven=B4t left
at all.

wrote:

> That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
> What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
> White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
> greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.

And a great number of scientists feel that man isn't the root cause.
But these scientists aren't getting grants to study global warming and
thus have less reason to want to perpetuate their studies and even give
reason to increase the money spent studying this topic.

Matt

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>> Man couldn't affect the temp of the
>>globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.
>
>
> of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
> and wait.
>

Would the radiation really affect the temperature all that much? Would
it block that much radiation from the sun? I can't find it now, but I
remember reading once how much effort man would have to make to have the
impact of one large volcanic eruption, and it was a huge effort.


Matt

"JohnH" > wrote
>
> Worldwide demand causing a 50% increase in fuel price is met with "stop
> whining America", whereas a relatively temporary price spike caused by
> hurricanes is solved by quickly building more refineries at any
> environmental cost. And you imply I'm dense!

And you must be dense to imply he is dense.

We need more refineries, because too many eggs are in one basket, that is,
the refineries in a very small area of the Gulf of Mexico. The fact that
refinery output running so close to the maximum output makes things worse,
in that the refineries not in the damage zones can not take up the slack.

I don't recall anyone ever saying "at any cost to the environment."
--
Jim in NC

wrote:
> Well, the descendants of the original settlers are still living in
> Iceland, farming it and living a pretty good life. They haven´t left
> at all.

they had a few close calls though.... (just finished reading "Collapse"
by Jared Diamond -- you might want to have a look) --

just to get back on topic (well sortof): interesting how often
threads on this newsgroup tend to digress; my theory is that pilots
are folks with lots of varied interests :-)

--Sylvain

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> Would the radiation really affect the temperature all that much? Would
> it block that much radiation from the sun? I can't find it now, but I
> remember reading once how much effort man would have to make to have the
> impact of one large volcanic eruption, and it was a huge effort.

True. Even a good super cell thunderstorm has an amazing amount of power.
A hurricane, or volcano..... no contest.

I had a grandfather in law who was getting a little ... senile, or is it
crazy? He was very sharp on pretty much everything. He gave it all away,
when talk of hurricanes came up.

He insisted that if you were to drop a hydrogen bomb in the eye of a
hurricane, it would blow it apart, and thus remove the threat to land. He
said, "they have done it before, why don't they do it again?"

Hummmm. <g>
--
Jim in NC

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Would the radiation really affect the temperature all that much? Would
> it block that much radiation from the sun? I can't find it now, but I
> remember reading once how much effort man would have to make to have the
> impact of one large volcanic eruption, and it was a huge effort.

Back in the 70s the concept of "nuclear winter" was popular. The general idea
was that a nuclear war would put enough dust into the stratosphere to block off
a significant portion of the sun's energy. As I recall, the effects of Krakatoa
were advanced as evidence of what would happen (the explosion of Krakatoa
produced the "year without a summer").

It would take much more than "a few" nukes to do that, though. In 1962 alone,
the U.S. set off 98 devices in the atmosphere. We set off 43 at Eniwetok and 23
at Bikini atoll in other years. So far, the U.S. alone has conducted 1,054 test
explosions. All set off before 1962 were in the atmosphere. Other countries have
conducted about the same number.

When this sort of thing was advanced as an argument against the concept of
nuclear winter, the people who believed in it argued that setting off nukes over
cities would put more dust in the air than setting them off over the Nevada test
grounds. At this point, the discussions began to take on the tone of a religious
argument.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Morgans wrote:

> We need more refineries, because too many eggs are in one basket, that is,
> the refineries in a very small area of the Gulf of Mexico.

No, there are several concentrations. Quite a few are located near Newark, for
example.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Running out" to me infers having ZERO capacity; "running short" means
>> not being able to keep up with demand. That, to me, is a significant
>> difference. My take on the other Matt is that he means we're losing _all
>> our capacity_.
>
> What I meant was running out of EXCESS capacity. I think that was pretty
> clear from the context, but I realize that some people aren't able to
> understand context and need things spelled out literally.
>

And there are people that blow context during their responses.

The context of the article/sub-thread was CAPACITY, and Mike Rappaport kept
quoting OUTPUT numbers.

There are also people who don't communicate worth a crap and expect people
to know what they meant. Wives are good for that.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:J_Y3f.628$da1.621@trndny04...
> Morgans wrote:
>
>> We need more refineries, because too many eggs are in one basket, that
>> is,
>> the refineries in a very small area of the Gulf of Mexico.
>
> No, there are several concentrations. Quite a few are located near Newark,
> for example.

How many of the 149? How many are on earthquake fault lines in California?

Having a refinery in Newark, with NJ's corruption, is probably as bad as
having one in California with hurricanes! :~)

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>> Man couldn't affect the temp of the
>> globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.
>
> of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
> and wait.

Like the above ground nuke testing done in the 50's and still done
occasionally today?

wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
>>>What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
>>>White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
>>>greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.
>>
>>Which shows the arrogance of man. I just finsihed reading a book about
>>the Viking explorers. They settled Iceland and Greenland around the
>>years 750-1050 AD. The "scientists" say that they were able to stay
>>there at all is because about the time they got there corresponded to a
>>global warming cycle that made the glaciers recede, the winters easier
>>and the summers warmer and longer. About the time they left corresponds
>>to the "Little Ice Age".
>
>
> Well, the descendants of the original settlers are still living in
> Iceland, farming it and living a pretty good life. They haven´t left
> at all.

Because they went back. Greenland and Iceland were devoid of humans for
quite a while there.

Matt Barrow wrote:

> How many of the 149?

I haven't found anything conclusive on the web. Four companies have refineries
in the State, but each may have several. That's just NJ, of course; PA, UT, ND,
VA, and NY also have refineries. I'm sure there are many other states that host
these facilities.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:21:36 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>>Which shows the arrogance of man. I just finsihed reading a book about
>>the Viking explorers. They settled Iceland and Greenland around the
>>years 750-1050 AD. The "scientists" say that they were able to stay
>>there at all is because about the time they got there corresponded to a
>>global warming cycle that made the glaciers recede, the winters easier
>>and the summers warmer and longer. About the time they left corresponds
>>to the "Little Ice Age". The simple fact of the matter is that the
>>earth cools and warms on its own. Man couldn't affect the temp of the
>>globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.
>
> As far as the global warming trend goes, it doesn't matter whether the
> cause is manmade or natural. The point is it's happening.
>
> Greenhouse gasses can be emitted by nature as well as by industry and
> auto pollution.

And around 95% of greenhouse gases are natural.

> wrote in message
ups.com...

Newps wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >
> > That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
> > What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
> > White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
> > greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.
>
> Which shows the arrogance of man. I just finsihed reading a book about
> the Viking explorers. They settled Iceland and Greenland around the
> years 750-1050 AD. The "scientists" say that they were able to stay
> there at all is because about the time they got there corresponded to a
> global warming cycle that made the glaciers recede, the winters easier
> and the summers warmer and longer. About the time they left corresponds
> to the "Little Ice Age".

Well, the descendants of the original settlers are still living in
Iceland, farming it and living a pretty good life. They haven´t left
at all.

Iceland is not Greenland. Iceland is warmed by ocean currents and has been
inhabited for centuries, unlike Greenland which is pretty much
un-inhabitable ANYMORE except on very limited scale (non-self-supporting).

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> What kind of capacity?
>
> Gasoline? From what type of crude?
> Heating Oil/Kerosene/Diesel? from what type of crude?
> Cracking capacity?
>
> It is pretty clear that you are totally ignorant of the energy industry
> and the whole refining process.

At least I know the difference between capacity and output. Some industry
genius you are if you can't tell the difference.


> The fact that you are even asking the questions indicates that you don't
> know where the facts are even located or which facts are important. You
> are an employee of a *ucking real estate developer, what the *uck do you
> know about petroleum or its refining?

No, ****tard, I AM THE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER.


> How many oil company CEOs do you talk to in an average month? How long
> ago did you see the current commodity price increases coming? How much
> did you profit from it? An answer rounded to the nearest $10 million will
> do.
>

Ahhh...the spin from he master of the non-sequitur when he's caught with his
pants down.

Blow is out your ass; you haven't made even a single relevant point. What
you've done is jump off on irrelevant tangents , blow context and try to
cover your ass.

And Mike, your attempts at argument from intimidation don't work on me no
matter how loud you beat on your chest.

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> The world is not as simply as you and Barrow want to think it is there are
> two issues with changing the rules (any rules) or suspending them.
> Everytime you change the rules you advantage or disadvantage those one
> side of the time when the rules were changed.

Come back when you learn the rules of logic.

PLONK

"George Patterson" > wrote
>
> No, there are several concentrations. Quite a few are located near Newark,
for
> example.

No argument on that. There is somewhat less chance that production could be
halted due to some natural disaster in Newark. They may have a Nor'East'r
from time to time, but not too many level 4 or 5 hurricanes. <g>

A major new refinery at some other location would still be a benefit.
--
Jim in NC

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:ah_3f.1536$Lb1.318@trndny03...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> How many of the 149?
>
> I haven't found anything conclusive on the web. Four companies have
> refineries in the State, but each may have several. That's just NJ, of
> course; PA, UT, ND, VA, and NY also have refineries. I'm sure there are
> many other states that host these facilities.

Yes, Colorado has a few as well, that gives local capacity, and having such
strategic resources spread out is a good thing.


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, the descendants of the original settlers are still living in
>> Iceland, farming it and living a pretty good life. They haven´t left
>> at all.
>
> Because they went back. Greenland and Iceland were devoid of humans for
> quite a while there.

Ah....I believe Iceland has been continuously inhabited since about 1000 AD.
(?)

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:04:37 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:48:13 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
>>>> gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
>>>> will in the not too distant future.
>>>
>>>We won't run out and are not RUNNING out; the capacity can't keep up with
>>>demand, and expansion is just about as heavily regulated as the initial
>>>construction.
>>
>> Ahhh... You just described exactly what he said. We are running out
>> of generating capacity and refining capacity. He did not say we are
>> running out of gas or crude.
>
>"Running out" to me infers having ZERO capacity; "running short" means not
>being able to keep up with demand. That, to me, is a significant difference.
>My take on the other Matt is that he means we're losing _all our capacity_.
>

Ah, the vagarities(sp?) of the English language.
So, I shall rephrase it to we are fast running out of the refining
ability to meet the demand. Like being I/O bound in a computer the
energy system is currently approaching being refinery bound
>>
>> However, increasing our refining capacity is only going to increase
>> out dependence on foreign crude.
>Correct -- producing enough crude or other supplies is another issue.
>
>> Nothing magical is going to happen
>> to reduce the average American's use of gas unless forced to do so.
>
>Yes, there will; PRICES.No maginc involved, just reality. Prices are the
>balance point between supply and demand. There's no thuggery of force
>involved. If the utility you get from $4 or $5 a gallon is significant to
>you, you use it; if not, you don't. There's always options.

We are basically saying the same thing. Nothing is going to reduce
the price except supply and demand. As the average American is not
going to reduce their use of fuel unless *forced* to do so, and I use
the word advisedly as in forced to reduce the use because they can't
afford to maintain the current use. IE, they do not have enough
discretionary income to use except for the most necessary of trips.
I'm not sure starving would convince them to use mass transit, but
then again, we don't have much in the way of mass transit except in
some of the largest cities and on each coast.
>
>In running my business, fuel for my airplane is worth it, even at $4.00 or
>more a gallon. In my case, fuel costs are a tiny portion of running the
>business. OTOH, for my private use in my car or PU truck, $2.70 a gallon
>gas means I don't make frivolous trips to the store to buy a handful of
>goods.

I spend $4.00 a gallon for avgas to play and visit a widely dispersed
family, albeit it I don't play near as much as I used to and I fly a
plane that requires a good many hours a year in which to stay
proficient. I believe the average pilot flies about 30 some hours a
year and it takes that many to stay proficient. So if not flying much
I spend most of my time practicing maneuvers, which I happen to enjoy.

>
>> So
>> I don't see alternative energy sources happening, or becoming viably
>> economical until gas prices are high enough to make them so. So in 20
>> years we will just be using more gas unless the price gets high enough
>> to force a change.
>
>Well, I wouldn't use the word "force", but I know what you mean.

I'd still use it, but qualify it by adding forced by the cost of fuel.

>
>>
>> I do agree that *rebuilding*, or replacing current refineries with
>> more efficient ones would be a good way to go, but a buddy of mine who
>> retired from a refinery told me they basically rebuild them every ten
>> years through incremental maintenance.
>
>Yes, there is much to encourage keeping them as technically "state of the
>art" as feasible. As for "rebuilding them every ten years", that sounds
>rather hyperbolic.

However, there is just so much we can get out of a gallon of crude and
even the most efficient refineries are not going to change that a lot.
Basically the efficiency is how much of each gallon of crude do they
use to run the refinery versus how much product they get out of that
gallon?

Crude, depending on quality contains everything from asphalt on the
high boiler end to highly volatile chemicals on the other with a lot
of stuff in between. The contents are separated out using plain old
distillation. They can change the ratio of high boilers to low
boilers by a process called cracking (generally using platinum as a
catalyst) where they break apart the long molecules of the high
boilers, add hydrogen and create smaller molecule lower boilers. So
in the winter they make more fuel oil which requires less cracking
than making gas for cars. But when they make fuel oil there is less
crude available from which to make gas for cars.

There is sweet and sour crude. Sour contains a high sulphur content
while sweet has a low content and is easier to handle with less
pollutants. "As I understand" the crude from Alaska is relatively
sour so we sell much of that and then purchase a higher quality sweet
crude.

My understanding is *Generally* sour crude like soft coal comes from
shallower depths than sweet.

>
>The issue I'm addressing is that with shale, tar sands and other options

These are all expensive and relatively low returns for the energy
required to get the crude out, although the amount of crude in these
deposits is huge. The same is true with coal. We have very large
deposits of coal that are readily available, but they come with a high
pollution price. We need to develop better scrubbers and ways of
reclaiming the pollutants.

>hopefully coming along, we'd not be able to produce what we need. Running
>refineries at 95+% of capacity is an invitation to a boondoggle, both
>economically and strategically.

Refineries need to run at the 95% plus level to be at their most
efficient. Less than that and the efficiency goes down in a hurry.

>
>About two years ago, the pipeline that supplies Phoenix with gasoline was
>broken for about five days. My in-laws described it as "reminiscent of the
>1970's waiting in line for gas".
>
>Katrina was another example, but as Mike Rappoport said, it was a 50 year
>incidence. And he's right. It should, though, give a clue as to our
>vulnerabilities. What if Rita has gone a bit further south and took out
>Houston/Galveston? Most of our remaining refineries are in very tenuous
>locations.
>
>Hurricane intensities are cyclical, and I don't buy the BS that they have
>anything to do with "Global Warming", but more than half (?) of our refining
>capacity is in "hurricane alley". It hasn't been a disaster yet, but why
>tempt "fate"?

That I do. Science has shown there is a cyclic warming and cooling,
but they have also shown this cycle is accelerating and it'd directly
related to the amount of extra CO2 in the air.
The temperature of the oceans has risen, the levels have risen, and
the glaciers are retreating. Hurricanes are fueled by warm water and
it takes very little increase to make them much stronger.

*Most* scientists now agree that global warming is real. What no one
knows for sure is how much is due to mankind and how much is natural.
What they can do is trace , or compare the temperature rise to the
amount of CO2 in the air and they do correlate fairly well right back
to the beginning of the industrial revolution. That and the huge
amount of slash and burn going on in South America.

Another thing upon which they agree; is with any increase of global
temperature the weather will become more varied and more violent.
We'll have to wait a few more years to see just what is happening.
Once thing is for certain, mother nature will fight any change. The
jet streams and winds are her effort to even out the earth's
temperatures.

One thing they seem to agree on is, fresh water melt could cause the
ocean circulating currents (Gulf Stream as an example) to stop in less
than a decade once the process were started and many hundreds if not
thousands of years to restart.

IF and that is a big IF the Antarctic glaciers (the ones on land not
the ones already floating) were to melt or to slip into the sea all of
out coastal cities would cease to exist, but at least that would not
happen overnight, or at least they don't think so. Of course we don't
know what the fresh water from the floating ones would do. OTOH they
do agree that the state of Florida and the City of New Orleans would
no longer be problem sites and the Gulf of Mexico would be a whole lot
bigger.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:51:16 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Bob Noel" wrote)
>>> Man couldn't affect the temp of the
>>> globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.
>
>> of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
>> and wait.
>
>
>I'd rather wait for the next volcano to erupt. Less political ...fallout.
>
Glad you added the "political" to that. One in the Snake River Valley
deposited ash something like 12 to 15 feet deep clear over in kansas.
Now that is a *lot* of fallout<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Montblack

Sylvain wrote:
> wrote:
> > Well, the descendants of the original settlers are still living in
> > Iceland, farming it and living a pretty good life. They haven=B4t left
> > at all.
>
> they had a few close calls though.... (just finished reading "Collapse"
> by Jared Diamond -- you might want to have a look) --

Jared Diamond is talking total nonsense, he knows nothing at all about
Iceland.

Newps wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Newps wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
> >>>What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
> >>>White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
> >>>greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.
> >>
> >>Which shows the arrogance of man. I just finsihed reading a book about
> >>the Viking explorers. They settled Iceland and Greenland around the
> >>years 750-1050 AD. The "scientists" say that they were able to stay
> >>there at all is because about the time they got there corresponded to a
> >>global warming cycle that made the glaciers recede, the winters easier
> >>and the summers warmer and longer. About the time they left corresponds
> >>to the "Little Ice Age".
> >
> >
> > Well, the descendants of the original settlers are still living in
> > Iceland, farming it and living a pretty good life. They haven=B4t left
> > at all.
>
> Because they went back. Greenland and Iceland were devoid of humans for
> quite a while there.

No, they did not. In Greenland the Inuit returned around AD 1000 and
the Norse settlement lasted until ca 1500 (or longer) and Iceland has
been continously populated since the settlement.

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Newps wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, the descendants of the original settlers are still living in
> >> Iceland, farming it and living a pretty good life. They haven=B4t left
> >> at all.
> >
> > Because they went back. Greenland and Iceland were devoid of humans for
> > quite a while there.
>
> Ah....I believe Iceland has been continuously inhabited since about 1000 =
AD.

Iceland has been continously inhabited since ca 700, Greenland much
longer (when the Vikings arrived the Inuit were only in the extreme
north of the country)

Matt Barrow wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> Newps wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
> > > What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
> > > White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
> > > greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.
> >
> > Which shows the arrogance of man. I just finsihed reading a book about
> > the Viking explorers. They settled Iceland and Greenland around the
> > years 750-1050 AD. The "scientists" say that they were able to stay
> > there at all is because about the time they got there corresponded to a
> > global warming cycle that made the glaciers recede, the winters easier
> > and the summers warmer and longer. About the time they left corresponds
> > to the "Little Ice Age".
>
> Well, the descendants of the original settlers are still living in
> Iceland, farming it and living a pretty good life. They haven=B4t left
> at all.
>
> Iceland is not Greenland. Iceland is warmed by ocean currents and has been
> inhabited for centuries, unlike Greenland which is pretty much
> un-inhabitable ANYMORE except on very limited scale (non-self-supporting).

I know that, but the original poster does not seem to have known that
and it seems quite common misconception that both countries were
uninhabited for long periods.
Greenland has actually quite large areas that are quite inhabitable but
the island is so large that those areas are only a very small part of
the total size of the country. I belive that the "green" areas in
Greenland may well be larger than the "green" areas of Iceland.

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> >> Man couldn't affect the temp of the
> >> globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.
> >
> > of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
> > and wait.
>
> Like the above ground nuke testing done in the 50's and still done
> occasionally today?

(my response is more general in nature and not specific to Matt Barrow)

<sigh>

ok, I shouldn't said "a few nukes." I should have said: pop off a few
thousand nukes with the intent to put billions on tons of dust into
the air. Anyone want to claim that this wouldn't affect global temps?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"Running out" to me infers having ZERO capacity; "running short" means
>>>not being able to keep up with demand. That, to me, is a significant
>>>difference. My take on the other Matt is that he means we're losing _all
>>>our capacity_.
>>
>>What I meant was running out of EXCESS capacity. I think that was pretty
>>clear from the context, but I realize that some people aren't able to
>>understand context and need things spelled out literally.
>>
>
>
> And there are people that blow context during their responses.
>
> The context of the article/sub-thread was CAPACITY, and Mike Rappaport kept
> quoting OUTPUT numbers.
>
> There are also people who don't communicate worth a crap and expect people
> to know what they meant. Wives are good for that.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were a wife.

Matt

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>The world is not as simply as you and Barrow want to think it is there are
>>two issues with changing the rules (any rules) or suspending them.
>>Everytime you change the rules you advantage or disadvantage those one
>>side of the time when the rules were changed.
>
>
> Come back when you learn the rules of logic.
>
> PLONK
>
>

Me too, please? Then I won't have to see your inane replies.

Matt

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>
>>>> Man couldn't affect the temp of the
>>>>globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.
>>>
>>>of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
>>>and wait.
>>
>>Like the above ground nuke testing done in the 50's and still done
>>occasionally today?
>
>
> (my response is more general in nature and not specific to Matt Barrow)
>
> <sigh>
>
> ok, I shouldn't said "a few nukes." I should have said: pop off a few
> thousand nukes with the intent to put billions on tons of dust into
> the air. Anyone want to claim that this wouldn't affect global temps?

I can't claim one way or the other as I don't know if a few thousand
nukes would really put billions of tons of dust in the air. I doubt it.
And I don't know how many tons a large volcano launches, but I doubt
it is billions either. I do doubt that we have enough nukes to launch
enough dust to dramatically alter the global temps, but I don't have
even close to enough data to claim that as fact.

Matt

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

> Come back when you learn the rules of logic.
>
> PLONK

Once again you've gotten yourself into an argument with one of your
betters on a subject you know little about, been shown up as a blowhard,
and run away with your tail between your legs. This is becoming your
trademark.

How about plonking me, too, while you're at it?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>Well, I wouldn't use the word "force", but I know what you mean.
>
> I'd still use it, but qualify it by adding forced by the cost of fuel.

That's appropriate, but what I think of when people say "forced" is
rationing, or those stupid "gas your car on even numbered or odd numbered
days" programs we had back in the 70's.

As for rationing, ask some (really) senior people about the rationing during
WW2. Ask them how many politically connected people got dispensations,
waivers, etc.

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:51:16 -0500, "Montblack"
> > wrote:
>
>>("Bob Noel" wrote)
>>>> Man couldn't affect the temp of the
>>>> globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.
>>
>>> of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
>>> and wait.
>>
>>
>>I'd rather wait for the next volcano to erupt. Less political ...fallout.
>>
> Glad you added the "political" to that. One in the Snake River Valley
> deposited ash something like 12 to 15 feet deep clear over in kansas.
> Now that is a *lot* of fallout<:-))
>
Roger, you're older than I thought!!

(Top posting because this message refuses to indent properly)

I see by the map that Greenland has a few small towns and an USAF base, all
right on the coast. Population is 56K, population of Iceland is 297K five
times more.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gl.html

What am I missing?




> wrote in message
oups.com...

Matt Barrow wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> Iceland is not Greenland. Iceland is warmed by ocean currents and has been
> inhabited for centuries, unlike Greenland which is pretty much
> un-inhabitable ANYMORE except on very limited scale (non-self-supporting).

I know that, but the original poster does not seem to have known that
and it seems quite common misconception that both countries were
uninhabited for long periods.
Greenland has actually quite large areas that are quite inhabitable but
the island is so large that those areas are only a very small part of
the total size of the country. I belive that the "green" areas in
Greenland may well be larger than the "green" areas of Iceland.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> >> Man couldn't affect the temp of the
>> >> globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.
>> >
>> > of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
>> > and wait.
>>
>> Like the above ground nuke testing done in the 50's and still done
>> occasionally today?
>
> (my response is more general in nature and not specific to Matt Barrow)
>
> <sigh>
>
> ok, I shouldn't said "a few nukes." I should have said: pop off a few
> thousand nukes with the intent to put billions on tons of dust into
> the air. Anyone want to claim that this wouldn't affect global temps?

As someone else pointed out, above ground testing my all the nations was
well into the thousands of detonations. More than "a few" and just about the
"few thousands".

Pinatubo in the early 90's actually lowered the world temp a couple degrees
for about two years IIRC.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Running out" to me infers having ZERO capacity; "running short" means
>>>>not being able to keep up with demand. That, to me, is a significant
>>>>difference. My take on the other Matt is that he means we're losing _all
>>>>our capacity_.
>>>
>>>What I meant was running out of EXCESS capacity. I think that was pretty
>>>clear from the context, but I realize that some people aren't able to
>>>understand context and need things spelled out literally.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And there are people that blow context during their responses.
>>
>> The context of the article/sub-thread was CAPACITY, and Mike Rappaport
>> kept quoting OUTPUT numbers.
>>
>> There are also people who don't communicate worth a crap and expect
>> people to know what they meant. Wives are good for that.
>
> Sorry, I didn't realize you were a wife.
>

I'll whack you with a rolling pin!!!

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>
>>>The world is not as simply as you and Barrow want to think it is there
>>>are two issues with changing the rules (any rules) or suspending them.
>>>Everytime you change the rules you advantage or disadvantage those one
>>>side of the time when the rules were changed.
>>
>>
>> Come back when you learn the rules of logic.
>>
>> PLONK
>
> Me too, please? Then I won't have to see your inane replies.

Okay, seeing as you wrote the book on inane replies with seldom, if ever,
any substantive content.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>> Come back when you learn the rules of logic.
>>
>> PLONK
>
> Once again you've gotten yourself into an argument with one of your
> betters on a subject you know little about, been shown up as a blowhard,
> and run away with your tail between your legs. This is becoming your
> trademark.
>
> How about plonking me, too, while you're at it?
>

Hey, Dan, ever find that spokesman for free markets?

I'll leave yours open in case you ever find one.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>> Come back when you learn the rules of logic.
>>
>> PLONK
>
> Once again you've gotten yourself into an argument with one of your
> betters on a subject you know little about, been shown up as a blowhard,
> and run away with your tail between your legs. This is becoming your
> trademark.
>
> How about plonking me, too, while you're at it?
>
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>


Add me to the list. Matt is right up there with Skylune for relevance,
accuracy and intelligent debate.

Michael

Matt Barrow wrote:
> (Top posting because this message refuses to indent properly)
>
> I see by the map that Greenland has a few small towns and an USAF base, all
> right on the coast. Population is 56K, population of Iceland is 297K five
> times more.
>
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gl.html
>
> What am I missing?

I do not know, I was not talking about populations either.
I was answering a poster who claimed that Iceland had been depopulated
because of climate sometime after the settlement period, something that
never happened.
He referred to both Iceland and Greenland and then you felt compelled
to inform me that Iceland is not Greenland, something that I knew
already, as I live right here in Iceland.
No, I do not know what you are missing.

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >
> > Iceland is not Greenland. Iceland is warmed by ocean currents and has been
> > inhabited for centuries, unlike Greenland which is pretty much
> > un-inhabitable ANYMORE except on very limited scale (non-self-supporting).
>
> I know that, but the original poster does not seem to have known that
> and it seems quite common misconception that both countries were
> uninhabited for long periods.
> Greenland has actually quite large areas that are quite inhabitable but
> the island is so large that those areas are only a very small part of
> the total size of the country. I belive that the "green" areas in
> Greenland may well be larger than the "green" areas of Iceland.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jared Diamond is talking total nonsense, he knows nothing at all about
> Iceland.

lol...

If I had to take a random guess between trusting what you write, and
trusting what Jared Diamond writes, I'll pick Diamond every time. I don't
know anything about you, but Diamond has been studying and writing about a
wide variety of topics, but especially genetics and medicine, for coming on
two decades (that I'm aware of), and doing a very good job at it at that.

You might as well have posted "Albert Einstein is talking total nonesense,
he knows nothing at all about the universe".

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 07:00:24 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:51:16 -0500, "Montblack"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>("Bob Noel" wrote)
>>>>> Man couldn't affect the temp of the
>>>>> globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.
>>>
>>>> of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
>>>> and wait.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'd rather wait for the next volcano to erupt. Less political ...fallout.
>>>
>> Glad you added the "political" to that. One in the Snake River Valley
>> deposited ash something like 12 to 15 feet deep clear over in kansas.
>> Now that is a *lot* of fallout<:-))
>>
>Roger, you're older than I thought!!

There's a few of us on here than have been accused of being older'n
dirt.<:-))

BTW, if you look at the US map on the "Weather Channel" you can see a
"smiley" across Utah with the upper right end going into NW Wyoming.
That's the Snake River Basin/Valley. Apparently that is the path
followed by the "hot spot" that now feeds Yellowstone. Currently they
figure the magma chamber is about 50 KM long by 20 or 30 wide by6 or 7
thick. If I recall correctly one estimate put the volume of the
chamber at 20,000 to 3,000 cubic miles. That'd make more of a mess
than the tree full of Gold Finches out front of the house.

However I do need to either wear a rain jacket, carry an umbrella, or
fill the feeders after dark. I counted 30 on the ground, 10 in the
bird bath and 10 plus on each of the two feeders. They wouldn't hold
still long enough for me to count how many were in the tree. I'm
going through 10# of thistle seed every 4 days. It'd be pretty if
they had their summer colors.

Of course the cats have this all figured out so when I let them out in
the morning they head right for the big living room window where they
take up residence waiting for the dumb ones to fly into the window,
knock themselves out and instant fresh meat with no work.

Why are those three cats lined up under your living room window?
They're waiting for lunch. Lunch? Yup and they are well fed
too.<:-)) Darwinism at its best.

I gotta get a picture of that to put up on my page.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:02:39 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:21:36 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>>
>>>Which shows the arrogance of man. I just finsihed reading a book about
>>>the Viking explorers. They settled Iceland and Greenland around the
>>>years 750-1050 AD. The "scientists" say that they were able to stay
>>>there at all is because about the time they got there corresponded to a
>>>global warming cycle that made the glaciers recede, the winters easier
>>>and the summers warmer and longer. About the time they left corresponds
>>>to the "Little Ice Age". The simple fact of the matter is that the
>>>earth cools and warms on its own. Man couldn't affect the temp of the
>>>globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.
>>
>> As far as the global warming trend goes, it doesn't matter whether the
>> cause is manmade or natural. The point is it's happening.
>>
>> Greenhouse gasses can be emitted by nature as well as by industry and
>> auto pollution.
>
>And around 95% of greenhouse gases are natural.

After a thunderstorm the Ozone level is way out of limits permitted by
the clean air act, or what ever it's called.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>

Peter Duniho wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Jared Diamond is talking total nonsense, he knows nothing at all about
> > Iceland.
>
> lol...
>
> If I had to take a random guess between trusting what you write, and
> trusting what Jared Diamond writes, I'll pick Diamond every time. I don't
> know anything about you, but Diamond has been studying and writing about a
> wide variety of topics, but especially genetics and medicine, for coming on
> two decades (that I'm aware of), and doing a very good job at it at that.
>
> You might as well have posted "Albert Einstein is talking total nonesense,
> he knows nothing at all about the universe".

Yes, I could but I know that what he writes about Iceland has not got
any basis in fact and I know this first hand because I live here and
have studied here and I know that his views have no factual grounding,
they are based upon misunderstandings and heresay.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Yes, I could but I know that what he writes about Iceland has not got
> any basis in fact and I know this first hand because I live here and
> have studied here and I know that his views have no factual grounding

I haven't read the book in question, but his reputation precedes himself.
As far as your qualifications to dispute the book go, assuming it's similar
to the kind of studies he's done in the past, his book covers FAR more than
just the short period of time you've lived in Iceland. Absent a parallel
study in the same depth he's likely to have done, your personal experiences
are meaningless.

I doubt you know as much as you claim to.

wrote:
> Jared Diamond is talking total nonsense, he knows nothing at all about
> Iceland.
>

out of interest have you actually read Diamond's book or are you
basing this opinion on my very bad and short summary of the previous
message?

--Sylvain

wrote:
> He referred to both Iceland and Greenland and then you felt compelled
> to inform me that Iceland is not Greenland, something that I knew
> already, as I live right here in Iceland.
> No, I do not know what you are missing.

please don't get all worked up over this: this newsgroup is
populated by a majority of americans (or folks like me having
moved there); the fact that some folks even *know* that your
island exist -- even if they might confuse it with some other
parts and get a few facts wrong like location, population,
history, etc -- is already something you'd be really happy
about, a good base for further discussion (I suspect pilots
have heard about Iceland as a convenient place to refuel on
the way across the Atlantic on the northern route :-) -- don't
get me started on the subject, I don't remember how many times
I have had to explain that I don't come from Swaziland (and how
many times my snail mail transits through this probably
really fine but completely out of the way country) :-)

what kind of GA flying do you guys do out there in Iceland?
hey, it's on my list of places where I really would like
to go eventually (on my way across the pond)

--Sylvain

Sylvain wrote:
> wrote:
> > Jared Diamond is talking total nonsense, he knows nothing at all about
> > Iceland.
> >
>
> out of interest have you actually read Diamond's book or are you
> basing this opinion on my very bad and short summary of the previous
> message?
>

Yes, I have read his book and his conclusions are quite interesting but
they are (at least in the case of Iceland) based on very misleading
information and outdated studies.

Peter Duniho wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Yes, I could but I know that what he writes about Iceland has not got
> > any basis in fact and I know this first hand because I live here and
> > have studied here and I know that his views have no factual grounding
>
> I haven't read the book in question, but his reputation precedes himself.

What kind of a reputation does he have?

> As far as your qualifications to dispute the book go, assuming it's similar
> to the kind of studies he's done in the past, his book covers FAR more than
> just the short period of time you've lived in Iceland. Absent a parallel
> study in the same depth he's likely to have done, your personal experiences
> are meaningless.

I do not base my knowledge on just personal experience but on the
studies on climate and weather that has been made here in Iceland.

> I doubt you know as much as you claim to.

We all become aware, as we grow older, that we always know less than we
imagine
and I do not doubt that the same thing also applies to you.

Sylvain wrote:
> wrote:
> > He referred to both Iceland and Greenland and then you felt compelled
> > to inform me that Iceland is not Greenland, something that I knew
> > already, as I live right here in Iceland.
> > No, I do not know what you are missing.
>
> please don't get all worked up over this: this newsgroup is
> populated by a majority of americans (or folks like me having
> moved there); the fact that some folks even *know* that your
> island exist -- even if they might confuse it with some other
> parts and get a few facts wrong like location, population,
> history, etc -- is already something you'd be really happy
> about, a good base for further discussion (I suspect pilots
> have heard about Iceland as a convenient place to refuel on
> the way across the Atlantic on the northern route :-) -- don't
> get me started on the subject, I don't remember how many times
> I have had to explain that I don't come from Swaziland (and how
> many times my snail mail transits through this probably
> really fine but completely out of the way country) :-)

Thank you, and I did not get at all worked up over this, the ignorance
of some people just never fails to amaze me.

> what kind of GA flying do you guys do out there in Iceland?

All kinds if the weather allows, you can look at some of the activity
here: www.geirfug.is or www.flugheimur.is
among others.

> hey, it's on my list of places where I really would like
> to go eventually (on my way across the pond)
>
> --Sylvain

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> What kind of a reputation does he have?

As I already said, he is a well-respected science author, who has been doing
excellent work in that field for decades.

> We all become aware, as we grow older, that we always know less than we
> imagine and I do not doubt that the same thing also applies to you.

No doubt. The difference here is that I'm not claiming to know more than
someone who has already proved himself to know quite a bit more than the
average human being.

You are.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> (Top posting because this message refuses to indent properly)
>>
>> I see by the map that Greenland has a few small towns and an USAF base,
>> all
>> right on the coast. Population is 56K, population of Iceland is 297K five
>> times more.
>>
>> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gl.html
>>
>> What am I missing?
>
> I do not know, I was not talking about populations either.
> I was answering a poster who claimed that Iceland had been depopulated
> because of climate sometime after the settlement period, something that
> never happened.

That's who I was responding to.

> He referred to both Iceland and Greenland and then you felt compelled
> to inform me that Iceland is not Greenland, something that I knew
> already, as I live right here in Iceland.

If you'd check my post, I was responding to the person who answered you, not
to you.

> No, I do not know what you are missing.


I'm referring to your post that there are large green areas, but in looking
at the map, every inhabited place I see is right on the coast, nothing
inland.

Are you a teacher by some chance?

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Sylvain wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > He referred to both Iceland and Greenland and then you felt compelled
>> > to inform me that Iceland is not Greenland, something that I knew
>> > already, as I live right here in Iceland.
>> > No, I do not know what you are missing.
>>
>> please don't get all worked up over this: this newsgroup is
>> populated by a majority of americans (or folks like me having
>> moved there); the fact that some folks even *know* that your
>> island exist -- even if they might confuse it with some other
>> parts and get a few facts wrong like location, population,
>> history, etc -- is already something you'd be really happy
>> about, a good base for further discussion (I suspect pilots
>> have heard about Iceland as a convenient place to refuel on
>> the way across the Atlantic on the northern route :-) -- don't
>> get me started on the subject, I don't remember how many times
>> I have had to explain that I don't come from Swaziland (and how
>> many times my snail mail transits through this probably
>> really fine but completely out of the way country) :-)
>
> Thank you, and I did not get at all worked up over this, the ignorance
> of some people just never fails to amaze me.

And the inability to follow a thread (who posted what) amazes me, especailly
when people become so condescending after they do screw up attributions.

I also find it interesting, when someone questions another posters claim, or
asks for clarification, some become hostile or pompous.

Matt Barrow wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Sylvain wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >> > He referred to both Iceland and Greenland and then you felt compelled
> >> > to inform me that Iceland is not Greenland, something that I knew
> >> > already, as I live right here in Iceland.
> >> > No, I do not know what you are missing.
> >>
> >> please don't get all worked up over this: this newsgroup is
> >> populated by a majority of americans (or folks like me having
> >> moved there); the fact that some folks even *know* that your
> >> island exist -- even if they might confuse it with some other
> >> parts and get a few facts wrong like location, population,
> >> history, etc -- is already something you'd be really happy
> >> about, a good base for further discussion (I suspect pilots
> >> have heard about Iceland as a convenient place to refuel on
> >> the way across the Atlantic on the northern route :-) -- don't
> >> get me started on the subject, I don't remember how many times
> >> I have had to explain that I don't come from Swaziland (and how
> >> many times my snail mail transits through this probably
> >> really fine but completely out of the way country) :-)
> >
> > Thank you, and I did not get at all worked up over this, the ignorance
> > of some people just never fails to amaze me.
>
> And the inability to follow a thread (who posted what) amazes me, especailly
> when people become so condescending after they do screw up attributions.

As for the inability to follow a thread, I was answering this post:

"Fela tilvitnun -
- Sýna tilvitnun -
Newps wrote:
> wrote:

> > That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
> > What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
> > White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
> > greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.

> Which shows the arrogance of man. I just finsihed reading a book about
> the Viking explorers. They settled Iceland and Greenland around the
> years 750-1050 AD. The "scientists" say that they were able to stay
> there at all is because about the time they got there corresponded to a
> global warming cycle that made the glaciers recede, the winters easier
> and the summers warmer and longer. About the time they left corresponds
> to the "Little Ice Age". "

To which I replied:

Well, the descendants of the original settlers are still living in
Iceland, farming it and living a pretty good life. They haven´t left
at all.

You answeared this with:
"Iceland is not Greenland. Iceland is warmed by ocean currents and has
been
inhabited for centuries, unlike Greenland which is pretty much
un-inhabitable ANYMORE except on very limited scale
(non-self-supporting)."


> I also find it interesting, when someone questions another posters claim,or
> asks for clarification, some become hostile or pompous.

Yes, so do I.

Matt Barrow wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Matt Barrow wrote:
> >> (Top posting because this message refuses to indent properly)
> >>
> >> I see by the map that Greenland has a few small towns and an USAF base,
> >> all
> >> right on the coast. Population is 56K, population of Iceland is 297K five
> >> times more.
> >>
> >> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gl.html
> >>
> >> What am I missing?
> >
> > I do not know, I was not talking about populations either.
> > I was answering a poster who claimed that Iceland had been depopulated
> > because of climate sometime after the settlement period, something that
> > never happened.
>
> That's who I was responding to.

Well, this is how this appears on my computer:
> wrote in message

ups.com...

- Fela tilvitnun -
- Sýna tilvitnun -
Newps wrote:
> wrote:

> > That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
> > What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
> > White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
> > greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.

> Which shows the arrogance of man. I just finsihed reading a book about
> the Viking explorers. They settled Iceland and Greenland around the
> years 750-1050 AD. The "scientists" say that they were able to stay
> there at all is because about the time they got there corresponded to a
> global warming cycle that made the glaciers recede, the winters easier
> and the summers warmer and longer. About the time they left corresponds
> to the "Little Ice Age".

Well, the descendants of the original settlers are still living in
Iceland, farming it and living a pretty good life. They haven´t left
at all.

Iceland is not Greenland. Iceland is warmed by ocean currents and has
been
inhabited for centuries, unlike Greenland which is pretty much
un-inhabitable ANYMORE except on very limited scale
(non-self-supporting).

Svara"

> > He referred to both Iceland and Greenland and then you felt compelled
> > to inform me that Iceland is not Greenland, something that I knew
> > already, as I live right here in Iceland.
>
> If you'd check my post, I was responding to the person who answered you, not
> to you.
>
> > No, I do not know what you are missing.
>
>
> I'm referring to your post that there are large green areas, but in looking
> at the map, every inhabited place I see is right on the coast, nothing
> inland.

I never claimed that there were large inland areas, I just said there
were large green areas but I also said that the green areas were not a
big part of the total area of Greenland because of how big the country
is.
If you look at the south westen part of the country, around Quaqartoq
and also in the Disko area there are substantial farming land.

> Are you a teacher by some chance?

No, I am not.

Peter Duniho wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > What kind of a reputation does he have?
>
> As I already said, he is a well-respected science author, who has been doing
> excellent work in that field for decades.
>
> > We all become aware, as we grow older, that we always know less than we
> > imagine and I do not doubt that the same thing also applies to you.
>
> No doubt. The difference here is that I'm not claiming to know more than
> someone who has already proved himself to know quite a bit more than the
> average human being.

All I can say is that the book in question, (that you have not read)
contains factual errors and bases it´s conclusions on false premises
and misunderstandings that modern research has since refuted.
He does not seem to have done a great deal of research on the subject
and just went off making wild guesses in quite a fanciful way.

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 07:00:24 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>>>>
>>> Glad you added the "political" to that. One in the Snake River Valley
>>> deposited ash something like 12 to 15 feet deep clear over in kansas.
>>> Now that is a *lot* of fallout<:-))
>>>
>>Roger, you're older than I thought!!
>
> There's a few of us on here than have been accused of being older'n
> dirt.<:-))
>
> BTW, if you look at the US map on the "Weather Channel" you can see a
> "smiley" across Utah with the upper right end going into NW Wyoming.
> That's the Snake River Basin/Valley.

Ummm...southern Idaho?

> wrote in message
oups.com...

Matt Barrow wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> And the inability to follow a thread (who posted what) amazes me,
> especailly
> when people become so condescending after they do screw up attributions.

As for the inability to follow a thread, I was answering this post:

"Fela tilvitnun -
- Sýna tilvitnun -
Newps wrote:
> wrote:

> > That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
> > What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
> > White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
> > greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.

> Which shows the arrogance of man. I just finsihed reading a book about
> the Viking explorers. They settled Iceland and Greenland around the
> years 750-1050 AD. The "scientists" say that they were able to stay
> there at all is because about the time they got there corresponded to a
> global warming cycle that made the glaciers recede, the winters easier
> and the summers warmer and longer. About the time they left corresponds
> to the "Little Ice Age". "

:To which I replied:

:Well, the descendants of the original settlers are still living in
:Iceland, farming it and living a pretty good life. They haven´t left
:at all.

That's nice, but the tread here is not your own and you are not the sole
participant.

I was addresing newps and only him; if you wish to add something, especially
since you have a certain expertise, please do. OTOH, don't hog the thread.


You answeared this with:
"Iceland is not Greenland. Iceland is warmed by ocean currents and has
been
inhabited for centuries, unlike Greenland which is pretty much
un-inhabitable ANYMORE except on very limited scale
(non-self-supporting)."

And is that wrong? I cited population stats (56K, a small town by comparison
in the US. You cited...that there is plenty of area...but never said for
what. You did chime in with peoples ignorance (regarding some obscure corner
of the earth like we really should give a damn for every trival point).


> I also find it interesting, when someone questions another posters claim,
> or
> asks for clarification, some become hostile or pompous.

Yes, so do I.

Well, take a good look around. WIthout citing a reference book, tell us what
you know about my town, Montrose, CO. You may want to be a bit careful about
throwing arounf the word "ignorance" (willful rejection of knowledge, and
substitute "naive" (not knowing or being aware).

I notice whatever you're using for a newsreader does not properly indent
previous comments.

Your reply at bottom (Well, this is how..) should be indented with ">"
characters. Take a look.


> wrote in message
oups.com...

Matt Barrow wrote:
> > wrote in message

>
> That's who I was responding to.

Well, this is how this appears on my computer:
> wrote in message

Matt Barrow wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> > And the inability to follow a thread (who posted what) amazes me,
> > especailly
> > when people become so condescending after they do screw up attributions.
>
> As for the inability to follow a thread, I was answering this post:
>
> "Fela tilvitnun -
> - Sýna tilvitnun -
> Newps wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > > That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
> > > What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
> > > White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
> > > greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.
>
> > Which shows the arrogance of man. I just finsihed reading a book about
> > the Viking explorers. They settled Iceland and Greenland around the
> > years 750-1050 AD. The "scientists" say that they were able to stay
> > there at all is because about the time they got there corresponded to a
> > global warming cycle that made the glaciers recede, the winters easier
> > and the summers warmer and longer. About the time they left corresponds
> > to the "Little Ice Age". "
>
> :To which I replied:
>
> :Well, the descendants of the original settlers are still living in
> :Iceland, farming it and living a pretty good life. They haven´t left
> :at all.
>
> That's nice, but the tread here is not your own and you are not the sole
> participant.
>
> I was addresing newps and only him; if you wish to add something, especially
> since you have a certain expertise, please do. OTOH, don't hog the thread.

This is usenet, if you want to adress a single individual, you should
e-mail him.

>
> You answeared this with:
> "Iceland is not Greenland. Iceland is warmed by ocean currents and has
> been
> inhabited for centuries, unlike Greenland which is pretty much
> un-inhabitable ANYMORE except on very limited scale
> (non-self-supporting)."
>
> And is that wrong? I cited population stats (56K, a small town by comparison
> in the US. You cited...that there is plenty of area...but never said for
> what. You did chime in with peoples ignorance (regarding some obscure corner
> of the earth like we really should give a damn for every trival point).

Yes, that is what I mean when I talk about ignorance.

>
> > I also find it interesting, when someone questions another posters claim,
> > or
> > asks for clarification, some become hostile or pompous.
>
> Yes, so do I.
>
> Well, take a good look around. WIthout citing a reference book, tell us what
> you know about my town, Montrose, CO. You may want to be a bit careful about
> throwing arounf the word "ignorance" (willful rejection of knowledge, and
> substitute "naive" (not knowing or being aware).

Are you really comparing Montrose, Colorado with independent countries?
Not knowing about Iceland or Greenland is ignorance, Montrose, CO is
just not comparable.

Matt Barrow wrote:
> I notice whatever you're using for a newsreader does not properly indent
> previous comments.

I am using "groups.google.com" and it shows everybody elses posts
properly indented except yours.

> Your reply at bottom (Well, this is how..) should be indented with ">"
> characters. Take a look.
>
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > > wrote in message
>
> >
> > That's who I was responding to.
>
> Well, this is how this appears on my computer:
> > wrote in message

> wrote in message
oups.com...

Matt Barrow wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> > And the inability to follow a thread (who posted what) amazes me,
> > especailly
> > when people become so condescending after they do screw up attributions.
>
> As for the inability to follow a thread, I was answering this post:
>
> "Fela tilvitnun -
> - Sýna tilvitnun -
> Newps wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > > That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
> > > What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
> > > White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
> > > greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.
>
> > Which shows the arrogance of man. I just finsihed reading a book about
> > the Viking explorers. They settled Iceland and Greenland around the
> > years 750-1050 AD. The "scientists" say that they were able to stay
> > there at all is because about the time they got there corresponded to a
> > global warming cycle that made the glaciers recede, the winters easier
> > and the summers warmer and longer. About the time they left corresponds
> > to the "Little Ice Age". "
>
> :To which I replied:
>
> :Well, the descendants of the original settlers are still living in
> :Iceland, farming it and living a pretty good life. They haven´t left
> :at all.
>
> That's nice, but the tread here is not your own and you are not the sole
> participant.
>
> I was addresing newps and only him; if you wish to add something,
> especially
> since you have a certain expertise, please do. OTOH, don't hog the thread.

)This is usenet, if you want to adress a single individual, you should
)e-mail him.

It doesn't work that way, so stop rationalizing.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:57:38 -0700, Sylvain wrote:

>please don't get all worked up over this: this newsgroup is
>populated by a majority of americans (or folks like me having
>moved there); the fact that some folks even *know* that your
>island exist -- even if they might confuse it with some other
>parts and get a few facts wrong like location, population,
>history, etc -- is already something you'd be really happy
>about, a good base for further discussion (I suspect pilots
>have heard about Iceland as a convenient place to refuel on
>the way across the Atlantic on the northern route :-) -- don't


*hehe* ... very good

>get me started on the subject, I don't remember how many times
>I have had to explain that I don't come from Swaziland (and how

hm, same here. Often enough parcels are routed via Australia and we are
very often seen as Australian. But this is OK as long as we are not seen as
Germans. :-)

>many times my snail mail transits through this probably
>really fine but completely out of the way country) :-)

#m

--
Repeat an assertion four times and it becomes a fact. Repeat an assertion
four times and it becomes a fact. Repeat an assertion four times and it
becomes a fact. Repeat an assertion four times and it becomes a fact.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:59:47 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

>tell us what you know about my town, Montrose, CO.

mabye: "some obscure corner of the earth like we really should give a damn
for every trival point"

#m

--
Repeat an assertion four times and it becomes a fact. Repeat an assertion
four times and it becomes a fact. Repeat an assertion four times and it
becomes a fact. Repeat an assertion four times and it becomes a fact.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 06:58:44 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

><sigh>

very true.

>ok, I shouldn't said "a few nukes." I should have said: pop off a few
>thousand nukes with the intent to put billions on tons of dust into
>the air. Anyone want to claim that this wouldn't affect global temps?

even the stop of commercial airline service after 9/11 had an impact on
global warming. only for a short period, but the effect was visible, IIRC
(according to a BBC report) this was the single worst effect in the last
couple of decades. Yes, NOT flying brought the effect.

#m

--
Repeat an assertion four times and it becomes a fact. Repeat an assertion
four times and it becomes a fact. Repeat an assertion four times and it
becomes a fact. Repeat an assertion four times and it becomes a fact.