Bad day in Oklahoma

[GeorgeC]

I was scheduled to fly today; my CFI said I need some work on landings before
he'd sign me off. I checked ADDS before I left the house, and the TAF said there
should have a 14 knot crosswind component, which would be OK. In Oklahoma if you
can't do crosswind T/O's, you can't fly. When I got the field, the flags in
front of the FBO were furling perpendicular to 17/35. I watch a Hawker takeoff
on 17L and went in the flight school and rescheduled. Bummer, I could fly again
today.

When I got home the news said we had two wild fires in Oklahoma. One in the
south. At one time the fire front was eight miles across. The land to the south
is flat rangeland, and the fire spread fast and wide. The other was in Lincoln
County, which is hilly with lots of trees and undergrowth. The fire trucks could
get in to the fires. They had too wait at the roads for the fire to come to
them.

Because of the winds the tankers could not takeoff form Ardmore (KADM). One of
the single pilot tankers did run off of the runway. The pilot is OK and walked
away. The plane did not catch fire. They were worried that a fire might get to
the other tankers. I'm not clear on the story about tankers.

A fire chief said that not all of the fires out to the south, but they had it
contained. As the news helicopter shows someone's house total involved. Hadn't
heard anything about the fire in Lincoln County.

Me not able to fly today, seem a little trivial.

GeorgeC

[Jay Honeck]

> A fire chief said that not all of the fires out to the south, but they had
> it
> contained. As the news helicopter shows someone's house total involved.
> Hadn't
> heard anything about the fire in Lincoln County.
>
> Me not able to fly today, seem a little trivial.

Funny how everything is relative. Sounds like you made the right decision.

I did too. We were supposed to fly to Wisconsin yesterday, to visit
friends. The weather was forecast to be perfect, but things started heading
downhill with the outlook briefing two days ago. Then, yesterday's
prediction was changed to be marginal, but today was supposed to still be
good.

Today absolutely sucks, with freezing rain and snow along the route of
flight. 72 hours ago, it was predicted to be sunny and warm. Had we
departed yesterday, we'd be stuck in Wisconsin for sure.

Weather forecasting computer models are so incredibly flawed that they can't
reliably predict the weather 12 hours in advance -- yet, for some unknown
reason, many people trust computer models that purport to show what the
climate will be like in the year 2100.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

>>>Weather forecasting computer models are so incredibly flawed that they can't
reliably predict the weather 12 hours in advance -- yet, for some
unknown
reason, many people trust computer models that purport to show what the

climate will be like in the year 2100.<<<

Jay, you hit on one of my favorite rants here : )

Vagaries of weather forecasting aside, and I'm certainly no expert -
but you'd think with the bazillion dollar constellation of wx
satellites in orbit the weather-guessers would have it down by now, or
at least better than the .500(?) avg it seems they're struggling
with...

[GeorgeC]

PS

My CFI called to today and he has sinusitis and will be grounded for three days.
Things just keep getting better and better.

On a good note, the "Director of Flight Instruction" was looking at the Prog
charts, and said, "It actually looks like if might rain." I just checked the
patio and it was sprinkling.

GeorgeC

[Jay Honeck]

> btw - back in 1984, NASA was estimating that it would need several orders
> of magnitude more computing power to run better wx models (they had a
> so-so
> model that took 48 hours to run in order to generate a 24 hour forecast!).

Well, they've still got a long ways to go, that's for sure.

I haven't been able to rely on ANY weather forecasts this winter. It's my
impression that the NWS is having a very hard time of it, this year.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave Stadt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:iYJNf.588844$084.268831@attbi_s22...
>> btw - back in 1984, NASA was estimating that it would need several orders
>> of magnitude more computing power to run better wx models (they had a
>> so-so
>> model that took 48 hours to run in order to generate a 24 hour
>> forecast!).
>
> Well, they've still got a long ways to go, that's for sure.
>
> I haven't been able to rely on ANY weather forecasts this winter. It's my
> impression that the NWS is having a very hard time of it, this year.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


In defense of the NWS I doubt this winter in the midwest fit any previous
recorded model. Was heading up to American Champion this morning and ran
into unforecasted near blizzard conditions.

[Jose]

> I haven't been able to rely on ANY weather forecasts this winter.

The BBC has much better forecasts. Here's one from some years back;
it's still valid:

Tonight's forecast - dark. Continued dark throughout the night, patches
of light appearing just before dawn. Increasing brightness throughout
the day, with areas of dark building as evening comes. Darkness will
gather strength throughout the next evening.

If you missed seven forty five last night, don't worry, it will be back
again tomorrow, at a quarter to eight.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RST Engineering]

Does the name George Carlin ring a familiar note?

Jim



>
> Tonight's forecast - dark. Continued dark throughout the night, patches
> of light appearing just before dawn. Increasing brightness throughout the
> day, with areas of dark building as evening comes. Darkness will gather
> strength throughout the next evening.
>
> If you missed seven forty five last night, don't worry, it will be back
> again tomorrow, at a quarter to eight.
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Well, they've still got a long ways to go, that's for sure.
>
> I haven't been able to rely on ANY weather forecasts this winter. It's my
> impression that the NWS is having a very hard time of it, this year.


Hmm, around here, there has been very little to forcast. A few minor rain
events, a couple of temperature dips.

It has just been a mild, nothing of a winter.

Watch it all turn around, and dump a buttload of snow on us, before it is
done! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[JJS]

"GeorgeC" > wrote in message ...
snip
>
> When I got home the news said we had two wild fires in Oklahoma. One in the
> south. At one time the fire front was eight miles across. The land to the south
> is flat rangeland, and the fire spread fast and wide. The other was in Lincoln
> County, which is hilly with lots of trees and undergrowth. The fire trucks could
> get in to the fires. They had too wait at the roads for the fire to come to
> them.
> Because of the winds the tankers could not takeoff form Ardmore (KADM). One of
> the single pilot tankers did run off of the runway. The pilot is OK and walked
> away. The plane did not catch fire. They were worried that a fire might get to
> the other tankers. I'm not clear on the story about tankers.
>
> A fire chief said that not all of the fires out to the south, but they had it
> contained. As the news helicopter shows someone's house total involved. Hadn't
> heard anything about the fire in Lincoln County.
>
> Me not able to fly today, seem a little trivial.
>
> GeorgeC

I guess they forgot the fire just down the road from me! We had fire trucks waiting in line at the hydrant in front
of the house for hours. Monday we had one fire 6 miles North of town that came within a mile of a chemical plant.
The worst part of all of this is the volunteer firemen who were injured. I used to get annoyed at all the news
reports of forest fires during fire season in the mountain states. I'm a little more sympathetic now that we have
fire bombers dropping on prairie fires. I never thought I'd see the day.

Joe Schneider
N8437R



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

[Jose]

> Does the name George Carlin ring a familiar note?

It sure does, but I think I remember this from a Monty Python sketch.

I could be wrong. It has happened before. (once)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> Hmm, around here, there has been very little to forcast. A few minor rain
> events, a couple of temperature dips.
>
> It has just been a mild, nothing of a winter.

We've had three very distinct winters on three months.

December was unbelievable -- like something out of the 1970s. Snow every
day, day after day, and bone-chilling cold. I shoveled something like 17
days in a row. Almost no good flying weather.

January was very warm. Lots of low clouds, ice, not a lot of measurable
snow, but cloud and poor vis nearly every day.
Almost no good flying weather.

February gradually grew colder, and more winter-like. Near the end of the
month, we had a solid 10 days of good flying weather. We actually had a few
fly-in guests during this time.

March? It's sucked, so far. Never got off the ground yesterday or today.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > btw - back in 1984, NASA was estimating that it would need several orders
> > of magnitude more computing power to run better wx models (they had a
> > so-so
> > model that took 48 hours to run in order to generate a 24 hour forecast!).
>
> Well, they've still got a long ways to go, that's for sure.
>
> I haven't been able to rely on ANY weather forecasts this winter. It's my
> impression that the NWS is having a very hard time of it, this year.

One reason the predictions aren't improving as much as hoped/expected
is probably climate change; the data the models are based on aren't so
valid any more. (Which doesn't do *one little thing* to reduce the
force of your point that 10-year general climate forecasts don't seem
all that convincing when they can't bat better than 500 on 24-hour
forecasts.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-02, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Weather forecasting computer models are so incredibly flawed that they can't
> reliably predict the weather 12 hours in advance -- yet, for some unknown
> reason, many people trust computer models that purport to show what the
> climate will be like in the year 2100.

Weather is not equal to climate.

Here's an analogy - take a large pan of water, switch on the gas stove
at a medium setting.

The equivalent of weather forecasting is predicting where exactly each
convection will appear in the next X minutes, and how the water will
flow with the gas heating it (probably unevenly, no burners are
perfect), and what temperatures will be found at different points inside
that volume of water.

The equivalent of climatology in this pan analogy is predicting the rate
of temperature change in the entire pan if, say, I turn the burner from
medium to full power.

The person predicting where all the eddies and temperature variances
within the pan will be pretty accurate for what will happen in the next
few seconds, but fairly inaccurate if you ask him to predict where the
eddies, temperature variances and convections will be in five minutes
time.
However, the person predicting what happens when you go from half burner
to full burner can give you a much more accurate general prediction of
what the heat will be in 30 minutes.

It's the same with climatology versus meterology. If you add a certain
chemical to the atmosphere which has a known effect, you can say with a
reasonable degree of confidence what it will do to the total energy
state of the atmosphere as a whole over a period of decades.
However, you can't say what it will do to an individual eddy current
in the atmosphere from one day to the next.

Dismissing climate change because the NWS 5-day forecasts isn't always
accurate is a complete and utter misunderstanding of the difference
between climatology and meterology (in fact it's so wrong it's not even
wrong).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Jose]

> http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/
> GREAT SITE!! (Most of the skits)

Thanks. You're right - it is a great site!

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[LWG]

Do you think that if you read more than two of these posts you will need to
report it to the AME on your next medical?

[Jay Honeck]

> Dismissing climate change because the NWS 5-day forecasts isn't always
> accurate is a complete and utter misunderstanding of the difference
> between climatology and meterology (in fact it's so wrong it's not even
> wrong).

It's merely an example of how far off weather computer models are at
predicting ANYTHING over time -- nothing more. Your over-simplified example
of how climate works casts some heat -- but little light -- on the subject.

See http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html for
Michael Crichton's excellent discourse on where the "science" of
environmentalism has led us.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Montblack]

("LWG" wrote)
> Do you think that if you read more than two of these posts you will need
> to report it to the AME on your next medical?


For Bp reasons or because of those 2 or 3 "crazy" questions on the exam?

(The 9/11 goofballs have mostly gone away - for now.)


Montblack
I Ballfart'd your Subject line - filters.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-04, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> See http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html for
> Michael Crichton's excellent discourse on where the "science" of
> environmentalism has led us.

Crichton is a fiction writer. I would accept the arguments of one
climatologist over the arguments of ten thousand Crichtons.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Jay Honeck]

>> Michael Crichton's excellent discourse on where the "science" of
>> environmentalism has led us.
>
> Crichton is a fiction writer. I would accept the arguments of one
> climatologist over the arguments of ten thousand Crichtons.

Crichton is a medical doctor, a very successful author (of both fiction and
non-fiction work), and one helluva a smart guy.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-06, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>> Michael Crichton's excellent discourse on where the "science" of
>>> environmentalism has led us.
>>
>> Crichton is a fiction writer. I would accept the arguments of one
>> climatologist over the arguments of ten thousand Crichtons.
>
> Crichton is a medical doctor, a very successful author (of both fiction and
> non-fiction work), and one helluva a smart guy.

He's still not a climatologist, though. I agree about the computer
models by the way, the system is still too chaotic with many unknowns --
but that's not the point. Like it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
work out that turning the burner up under a pan of water will add energy
to the system, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that
changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere will cause climate
changes. There is ample evidence that humans have increased the
quantities of CO2 (amongst other gases) since we have good records of
atmospheric composition going back millenia.

It is not even up for debate that one of the properties of CO2 is that
it helps retain energy in the Earth's atmosphere (many gases, such as
CH4 - methane - have a greater effect). Increasing the concentration of
CO2 will increase the amount of energy that is retained by the Earth's
atmosphere as surely as night follows day, or as surely as increasing
the burner under a pan of water means more energy goes into the pan of
water. It isn't even up for debate that the concentration of CO2 has
increased particularly in the last century.

The specifics of what it will do to climate ARE still up for debate,
though. In my part of the world, the debate is whether it will result in
us opening a ski resort on Snaefell because of changes in the Gulf
stream, or whether we'll be growing oranges and olives in our back yards
(we already have palm trees).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Jay Honeck]

> It is not even up for debate that one of the properties of CO2 is that
> it helps retain energy in the Earth's atmosphere (many gases, such as
> CH4 - methane - have a greater effect). Increasing the concentration of
> CO2 will increase the amount of energy that is retained by the Earth's
> atmosphere as surely as night follows day, or as surely as increasing
> the burner under a pan of water means more energy goes into the pan of
> water. It isn't even up for debate that the concentration of CO2 has
> increased particularly in the last century.

What is up for debate is whether we should care, or not. Iowa, in fact,
will be a huge winner in any "global warming" -- but that's beside the
point.

More importantly, all evidence points toward us being able to change/do
precisely nothing about this phenomenon. Given this fact, all the
hand-wringing and whining isn't going to help do anything but sell
newspapers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> What is up for debate is whether we should care, or not.

If we don't care, we will continue to create disasters like Katrina's
impact on New Orleans.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>> What is up for debate is whether we should care, or not.
>
> If we don't care, we will continue to create disasters like Katrina's
> impact on New Orleans.
>
> Jose


Right Jose, there were no big hurricanes until mean humans started mucking
about. The climate if the planet changes it did it before we were here, it
has done it while we were here, and it will do it after we are gone.

I suppose humans are to blame for the new little Big Red spot on Jupiter?

[Dave Stadt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> . net...
>>> What is up for debate is whether we should care, or not.
>>
>> If we don't care, we will continue to create disasters like Katrina's
>> impact on New Orleans.
>>
>> Jose
>
>
> Right Jose, there were no big hurricanes until mean humans started mucking
> about. The climate if the planet changes it did it before we were here, it
> has done it while we were here, and it will do it after we are gone.
>
> I suppose humans are to blame for the new little Big Red spot on Jupiter?

We would all be much better off without humans.

[Jose]

> Right Jose, there were no big hurricanes until mean humans started mucking
> about.

Of course there were hurricaines. Big ones too. Even humongous ones.
But the ecosystem was able to absorb them in a manner that it cannot any
more. There are unintended consequences to everything we do, and the
bigger we do them, the bigger the consequences. This must be borne in
mind when we decide what to do and how to do it.

Swampland serves many valuable functions, including helping to moderate
the effects of a hurricaine on the shore. When we build levees to hold
the water back, we affect the wetlands. When we build a big city where
those wetlands were, build a wall to hold the water back, and then heat
the earth more than it would normally be heated, it's not surprising
that the water level rises a bit.

It doesn't take but a bit.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Dylan Smith" wrote)
> It doesn't matter whether or not the outer planets are also getting
> warmer; adding the results of burning fossil fuel is changing the
> composition of the atmosphere - and if the Sun's output is increasing,
> will cause *even more* of the sun's energy to be captured. As I said, no
> computer model is necessary to make that assessment.


If the outer planets are getting warmer, and we're an inner planet...


WOW - a separate (OT) thought!

Sometime in Greek/Roman times, or later, in the Middle Ages of Europe, I
wonder if people stood on their western shores and smelled smoke from across
the ocean? There must be something out there, they reasoned - land!

Think of the GIANT grass fires in 352 BC...

I got this idea remembering the GREAT Yellowstone blaze of 1988. We smelled
smoke (SMELLED SMOKE!) in the air for weeks and weeks. Our sky, even at
noon, was darkened. Sunsets were red and hazy all summer (July-Sept).

We live 1,000 miles away from Yellowstone, on the Minnesota/Wisconsin
border.


Montblack

[LWG]

The polar ice caps are melting...on Mars. Natural processes and cycles
dwarf what we do with here with power plants and cars. I think we get
wrapped up in our sense of self-importance. Lots of what passes for
climatology is hand-wringing and alarmism.

At one time, where I presently sit was a jungle, and then later covered with
as much as a mile of ice. Why should I expect that the temperature tomorrow
be *exactly* what it was yesterday, or last month, or last year?


"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> Right Jose, there were no big hurricanes until mean humans started
>> mucking about.
>
> Of course there were hurricaines. Big ones too. Even humongous ones. But
> the ecosystem was able to absorb them in a manner that it cannot any more.
> There are unintended consequences to everything we do, and the bigger we
> do them, the bigger the consequences. This must be borne in mind when we
> decide what to do and how to do it.
>
> Swampland serves many valuable functions, including helping to moderate
> the effects of a hurricaine on the shore. When we build levees to hold
> the water back, we affect the wetlands. When we build a big city where
> those wetlands were, build a wall to hold the water back, and then heat
> the earth more than it would normally be heated, it's not surprising that
> the water level rises a bit.
>
> It doesn't take but a bit.
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> Swampland serves many valuable functions, including helping to moderate
> the effects of a hurricaine on the shore. When we build levees to hold
> the water back, we affect the wetlands. When we build a big city where
> those wetlands were, build a wall to hold the water back, and then heat
> the earth more than it would normally be heated, it's not surprising that
> the water level rises a bit.
>
> It doesn't take but a bit.

So?

The one part of this entire bogus "crisis" that NO ONE -- and I mean no
one -- ever discusses is this: What can we do about it? What, short of
dismantling the world's economy, can be done to alleviate our perceived
impact on the world's climate? (Note: Hand wringing and brow-beating do
NOT count as "doing something.")

I want one, single example of what can be done to change the situation --
with the caveat that the action must not harm humans living on this planet.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Logajan]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> I want one, single example of what can be done to change the situation
> -- with the caveat that the action must not harm humans living on
> this planet.

Just one? Okay:
Artificial carbon sequestration.

Otherwise, see this link for a few more options:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitigation_of_global_warming

Solar thermal and nuclear power are effective alternatives to fossil fuels
that would also greatly reduce the impact on the biosphere.

(There is enough uranium dissolved in the oceans to supply all of
humanities' energy needs for several hundred thousand years - at prices
comparable to today's energy prices.)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-06, Montblack <Y4-NOT> wrote:
> If the outer planets are getting warmer, and we're an inner planet...

The outer planets aren't entirely passive. Jupiter emits more energy
than it receives from the Sun.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Jim Macklin]

Yes, but the current "heat wave" is system wide, on planets
and moons.

My solutions to the problem... not all are seriously
recommended.
1. More bird flu
2. Nuclear war
3. Place a giant sized Venetian blind/solar power station
in orbit between the Earth and Sun to gather power and
regulate the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth.
This needs to be big enough to eclipse 75% of the sun's
radiance.



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
| On 2006-03-06, Montblack <Y4-NOT> wrote:
| > If the outer planets are getting warmer, and we're an
inner planet...
|
| The outer planets aren't entirely passive. Jupiter emits
more energy
| than it receives from the Sun.
|
| --
| Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
| Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
| Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:
http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
| Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Jay Honeck]

> If you claim that no one has discussed how to reduce human impact and
> have a more sustainable industrial society...well, you must really have
> your eyes closed!

You're not answering the question.

I want to hear one, single thing that we can do that will have a measurable
impact on what you claim is the "human impact" on the global climate.

Just one would suffice.

All this talk about adding insulation and nuclear power is fine and dandy --
but the bottom line is this: NOTHING you can propose doing will have the
slightest impact on global climate. Anything that MIGHT have an impact
would be so destructive to human society that it simply will not be done.

So, again, why worry about it? What IS the point of all this hand-wringing?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

>>>My solutions to the problem... not all are seriously recommended. ...snip...
Place a giant sized Venetian blind/solar power station
in orbit between the Earth and Sun to gather power and
regulate the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth.
This needs to be big enough to eclipse 75% of the sun's
radiance.<<<

The "Dark Ages" return :) Think of the military applications of
"turning off the lights" over the bad guys' turf (whoever that might
be)

Ya know, at a high enough orbit the Venutian blind (sp intentional)
would probably only have to be the size of a football field or three.
Okay, I have absolutely no way of rationalizing this, but I just
latched on to the idea of a NASA/Home Depot collaboration and went off
on a tangent...

Continuing with the OT thread...

I just read in Modern Power Systems (www.modernpowersystems.com) about
marine current turbines that generate power by tidal action.
Interesting stuff - kinda like the offshore wind farms, these things
are towers with big rotors that are submerged in littoral waters and
are being developed in the U.K. as the SeaGen system. Interesting the
rotors have a similar profile to an aircraft prop (span vs chord ratio)
whereas I assumed it would look more like a ship propeller. But, I
guess if the prop is *being* driven by the tides instead of the other
way around I suppose the long span is more efficient than shorter,
stubby blades? Anyway, it's a neat technology

[Jim Macklin]

About forty years ago, in Popular Science or Mechanics
magazine, there was an article about putting a dam [or was
that damn?] across the Thames and making power from the tide
both ways.

The Moon totality shadow is rather small, no need to blacken
everything just to drop the temperature a few degrees. A
collection mirror to fry the bad guys would be more
efficient and lots quicker. All together now, sing... Here
come the Sun



> wrote in message
oups.com...
| >>>My solutions to the problem... not all are seriously
recommended. ...snip...
| Place a giant sized Venetian blind/solar power station
| in orbit between the Earth and Sun to gather power and
| regulate the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth.
| This needs to be big enough to eclipse 75% of the sun's
| radiance.<<<
|
| The "Dark Ages" return :) Think of the military
applications of
| "turning off the lights" over the bad guys' turf (whoever
that might
| be)
|
| Ya know, at a high enough orbit the Venutian blind (sp
intentional)
| would probably only have to be the size of a football
field or three.
| Okay, I have absolutely no way of rationalizing this, but
I just
| latched on to the idea of a NASA/Home Depot collaboration
and went off
| on a tangent...
|
| Continuing with the OT thread...
|
| I just read in Modern Power Systems
(www.modernpowersystems.com) about
| marine current turbines that generate power by tidal
action.
| Interesting stuff - kinda like the offshore wind farms,
these things
| are towers with big rotors that are submerged in littoral
waters and
| are being developed in the U.K. as the SeaGen system.
Interesting the
| rotors have a similar profile to an aircraft prop (span vs
chord ratio)
| whereas I assumed it would look more like a ship
propeller. But, I
| guess if the prop is *being* driven by the tides instead
of the other
| way around I suppose the long span is more efficient than
shorter,
| stubby blades? Anyway, it's a neat technology
|

[[email protected]]

>>>The Moon totality shadow is rather small, no need to blacken
everything just to drop the temperature a few degrees. A
collection mirror to fry the bad guys would be more
efficient and lots quicker. All together now, sing... Here
come the Sun <<<

Ever see that Bond flick GoldenEye? Your idea sounds like a giant
magnifying glass where bad guys=ants that go pfffffft! when you focus
the beam on them. SPF 1000 anyone?

[Jim Macklin]

There was a teen flick years ago, the government had a laser
in space and it was aimed at cars. The hero kids re-aimed
it at the evil engineer's house and popped all his popcorn.

Wasn't that Man with the GoldenGun and the Solaris project?
Roger Moore as Bond, flying cars and Bond's seaplane is
destroyed on the beach by the sun's rays.


> wrote in message
oups.com...
| >>>The Moon totality shadow is rather small, no need to
blacken
| everything just to drop the temperature a few degrees. A
| collection mirror to fry the bad guys would be more
| efficient and lots quicker. All together now, sing...
Here
| come the Sun <<<
|
| Ever see that Bond flick GoldenEye? Your idea sounds like
a giant
| magnifying glass where bad guys=ants that go pfffffft!
when you focus
| the beam on them. SPF 1000 anyone?
|

[Jim Macklin]

That was it.

Now for the title of the best teen male or old fart movie
ever, my vote goes to Hardbodies
For show with a plot, Blame it on Rio in the uncut,
unaltered version.


"Rob" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > There was a teen flick years ago, the government had a
laser
| > in space and it was aimed at cars. The hero kids
re-aimed
| > it at the evil engineer's house and popped all his
popcorn.
|
| Real Genius, w/ Val Kilmer.
|
| http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089886/
|
| -R
|

[Jose]

> I want one, single example of what can be done to change the situation --
> with the caveat that the action must not harm humans living on this planet.

In other words, what can we do without doing anything?

We can do about "it" the same kinds of things we can do about the crime
problem (without dismantling the crime business' economy), the drug
problem (without dimantling the drug business' economy) and the war
problem (without dismantling the war business' economy).

First, is to realize that what we are doing is doing harm. Next, is to
stop doing it. When you steal, you are doing harm to the victim. Stop
doing it. If your business depends on stealing however, you may be
reluctant. How would you convince a thief to dismantle his profitable
business?

Doing environmental harm is stealing from the future. The world does
not belong to us. It is on loan to us by our children. We are doing
things to it that benefit us in the near term, but cause harm in the far
term. We've even made a business out of it, and in doing so, think that
this business is legitimate, and rightfully ours. It is not, any more
than my wallet rightfully belongs to the much bigger, meaner, and uglier
person sitting next to me with a knife on the subway.

The first thing that has to be done is to realize, conceptually, that
the above is true. It must of course be balanced against the (equal)
truth that all life steals from other life in order to live. At its
most basic, we kill to eat (or we starve). But granted that it's ok to
kill to eat, is it also ok to kill for sport? Directly, this is why
there are no buffalo. Indirectly, this is why there's an ozone hole.

From this comes basic respect for the earth and all living things on
it, and from this the "single examples" come easily.

Drive less. Drive more efficiently, plan more efficiently, don't use
the SUV when the compact will do.

Turn lights off, recycle, don't throw out perfectly good goods to get
the newest and shiniest.

Support environmental protection and the laws that make it so. This
includes the snail darters, even if it inconveniences people. Oppose
politicians who are allowing, even encouraging, the wholesale undoing of
environmental protections that have kept our wildlife around, not only
for the (largely irreperable) damage they do, but for the damage in
attitude that they cause in the populace.

In design, consider how to minimize harm to the environment (for example
through excess need of heat, cooling, electricity, septic and sewage)
even if the result will cost more. What you save by being wasteful in
design (and causing the occupants to be wasteful in living there) is
stealing from the future. Something as simple as insulation, keeping
trees around (to shade the house), and passive solar water heating would
go a long way.

> Anything that MIGHT have an impact would be so destructive to
> human society that it simply will not be done.

I don't believe that, but if it is true, then the statement can be
rephrased as "present human society is destructive to the future, but we
don't care about the future so we'll do it anyway".

> What IS the point of all this hand-wringing?

.... says the mafia don to the victims.

Jose

--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581]

"Jose" wrote in message
. net...
> How would you convince a thief to dismantle his profitable
> business?

I find a 12-gauge loaded with 000-buck to be rather effective... As long as
you feed their bodies to the gators afterwards, it's even ecologically
sound... <evil-grin>

> Doing environmental harm is stealing from the future. The world does
> not belong to us. It is on loan to us by our children. We are doing
> things to it that benefit us in the near term, but cause harm in the far
> term. We've even made a business out of it, and in doing so, think that
> this business is legitimate, and rightfully ours.

Awh, 'ell... Go hug a ****in' tree...

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-07, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> You're not answering the question.

Sigh. I did answer it.

> So, again, why worry about it? What IS the point of all this hand-wringing?

Perhaps because some of us are interested in the long-term survival of a
human civilisation that has a reasonable quality of life?

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:
>
> I find it supremely ironic that the ultimate solution to our problems
> in the Middle East, as well as the ultimate solution to our so-called
> climate crisis, is being politically quashed by the same people who
> are screaming the loudest against burning petrochemical fuels.
>
I find off-hand comments about "ultimate solutions" a bit concerning. Care
to elaborate?

Neil

[Matt Barrow]

> Doing environmental harm is stealing from the future. The world does
> not belong to us. It is on loan to us by our children.

Bull**** - the world belongs to the living.

> We are doing
> things to it that benefit us in the near term, but cause harm in the far
> term. We've even made a business out of it, and in doing so, think that
> this business is legitimate, and rightfully ours.

That's what humans do to survive and prosper.

Interstingly, the same ones that want to collectivize the earth have never
grasped the ultimate consequences of the actions, known as "the tradgedy of
the commons".

[Grumman-581]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
et...
> I find off-hand comments about "ultimate solutions" a bit concerning. Care
> to elaborate?

His comments seemed pretty clear to me... He was talking about nuclear
energy and the fact that the anti-oil eco-nuts also stand in the way of the
development of new nuclear plants...

[Grumman-581]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Ya know, at a high enough orbit the Venutian blind (sp intentional)
> would probably only have to be the size of a football field or three.
> Okay, I have absolutely no way of rationalizing this, but I just
> latched on to the idea of a NASA/Home Depot collaboration and went off
> on a tangent...

If the sun was a point source of light, then you could put a smaller body
between the Earth and it and cover the entire planet with the shadow...
Since the sun is larger, that doesn't work... You would need an object the
size of the Earth and close to it to cover the entire planet... For 75%
coverage, you would need an object at least 75% the size of the Earth...
Even when we have a solar eclipse, the moon's shadow is only going across a
portion of the planet... If the moon orbited at a greater distance (I'm
don't remember of the exact distance off the top of my head), all we would
see of the eclipse would be the silhouette of the moon obscuring a part of
the sun -- the edges of the sun not obscured by the moon would still be
providing light... Although we would still be getting light, it would be at
a reduced energy level, so theoretically it should affect the warming of the
planet... On the other hand, since polar warming and the subsequent melting
of the polar ice packs is seen as a concern by certain individuals, perhaps
we should just shadow these areas and let them build up more ice... Of
course, while we're at it, maybe we can provide a partial shadow for Houston
during the summer months so that the temperature would be more bearable...

[Jose]

> Electricity created with nuclear fission

Considering the care with which people handle dangerous things
(including airplanes, an endless topic of discussion here), and
considering the number of people with evil intent, both enemies and
citizens, and considering the misplaced priorities and total lack of
understanding we have about security, and considering all the economic
and short term incentives we have to take shortcuts, I am not all that
comfortable with increased use of intense nuclear products.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RST Engineering]

You are coming at it from the wrong direction, Jay. Nuclear fission
requires some rather scarce chemistry (U235 doesn't come out of the faucet
when you turn it on) but FUSION does come out of the faucet. While
"ultimate" solutions are yet to be found (what happens some several millenia
down the road when all our water is turned to helium?), if we had spent one
tenth of one percent of what we spent on foreign oil over the last fifty
years, we could tell the middle east to EAT its oil, we don't need it.

Jim


>
> Electricity created with nuclear fission can be used to create all sorts
> of alternative fuels

[Jose]

> Interstingly, the same ones that want to collectivize the earth have never
> grasped the ultimate consequences of the actions, known as "the tradgedy of
> the commons".

I am well aware of the tragedy of the commons, and am not advocating
"collectivizing the earth". But the attitude that we can do what we
want with impunity is counterproductive.

>>We are doing
>> things to it that benefit us in the near term, but cause harm in the far
>> term. We've even made a business out of it, and in doing so, think that
>> this business is legitimate, and rightfully ours.
>
>
> That's what humans do to survive and prosper.

That worked when there weren't many humans, and their tools were weak.
Our abilities are now far stronger than the environment's ability to
recover, and we need to use discretion in a way that we didn't a
thousand years ago.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>>> I find it supremely ironic that the ultimate solution to our
>>> problems in the Middle East, as well as the ultimate solution to
>>> our so-called climate crisis, is being politically quashed by the
>>> same people who are screaming the loudest against burning
>>> petrochemical fuels.
>>>
>> I find off-hand comments about "ultimate solutions" a bit
>> concerning. Care to elaborate?
>
> Electricity created with nuclear fission can be used to create all
> sorts of alternative fuels, from clean-burning hydrogen, to ethanol.
> For reasons that are clear only to the activists themselves, dirty
> and dangerous coal -- and politically unstable oil and natural gas --
> are seen as "safer" than nuclear energy.
>
Thanks for the clarification! Not that I think that the solution is all
that simple.

Technically speaking, I agree that nuclear fission offers a more efficient
and less poluting source of energy than burning fossil fuels. However,
practically speaking, the process of obtaining nuclear fuel and containing
the waste (we have no real way to "dispose" of it) is problematic, even
disregarding issues presented by those with malicious intent. At this
point in time, these problems more than offset the benefits. Lest someone
gets the wrong impression, I am not an "anti-nuclear" activist. But, I
*do* live in Ohio, downwind from the plant that nearly had a hole eaten
through the reactor lid, and therefore have an interest in the way that
situation is being dealt with (yes, it's not over yet, folks!).

> Thus, when these very same "environmentalists" protest against the
> use of non-renewable energy (oil, coal, gas) and "global warming"
> it's impossible to take them seriously. Their actions speak far
> louder than their words.
>
Is this really an either/or issue, though? We could solve our problems in
the same way that they're solved in other countries; tax the heck out of
gas. How many Hummers with one person in them would we see on the road if
gas was $7.00 a gallon? As I see it, our biggest problem is that we
squander non-renewable energy sources.

Neil

[Grumman-581]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> what happens some several millenia down the road when
> all our water is turned to helium?

We all end up talking in squeaky voices, of course... <snicker>

[[email protected]]

>>> what happens some several millenia down the road when
all our water is turned to helium?

We all end up talking in squeaky voices, of course... <snicker> <<<


An entire nation of citizens talking like Alvin & the Chipmunks? I
gotta work that into my stand-up act :)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> Electricity created with nuclear fission
>
> Considering the care with which people handle dangerous things (including
> airplanes, an endless topic of discussion here), and considering the
> number of people with evil intent, both enemies and citizens, and
> considering the misplaced priorities and total lack of understanding we
> have about security, and considering all the economic and short term
> incentives we have to take shortcuts, I am not all that comfortable with
> increased use of intense nuclear products.
>
> Jose


Ok Jose,

I have a quick test for you.

Name all the people that have died as a result of Nuclear accidents in the
US.

Name all of the people that have died while riding in Ted Kennedy's car.

Which is statistically safer?

[Jose]

> Name all of the people that have died while riding in Ted Kennedy's car.

So we let Ted Kennedy drive all the nuclear fuel around.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave Stadt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> Name all of the people that have died while riding in Ted Kennedy's car.
>
> So we let Ted Kennedy drive all the nuclear fuel around.

No, we give him a few drinks, let him load up a bus with a bunch of his tree
hugger friends and have him drive them across a bridge.

>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Dave Stadt" wrote)
> No, we give him a few drinks, let him load up a bus with a bunch of his
> tree hugger friends and have him drive them across a bridge.


http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/384.html
This kind of bus? :-)

http://www.motortrend.com/future/concepts/112_0107_volkswagen_microbus/
What's old is new again.


Montblack
http://www.adclassix.com/ads/67vwbeetlefloater.htm
Original VW ad.

http://www.terpsboy.com/terpsboyarchives/000141.html
National Lampoon VW ad.

[Dave Stadt]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Dave Stadt" wrote)
>> No, we give him a few drinks, let him load up a bus with a bunch of his
>> tree hugger friends and have him drive them across a bridge.
>
>
> http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/384.html
> This kind of bus? :-)

Nope, those might float. Any busses out there that hold several hundred
people and are made of lead?

[LWG]

And even worse, there is no escaping the fact that even if we adopt nuclear
fission as a long term energy solution, for the short term we are compelled
to depend on oil. We have oil we can develop within the US, and off our
shores. And yet we would rather risk a nuclear weapon detonated in the Port
of Newark hidden in the bowels of an oil tanker than drill in ANWAR or off
the shores of Florida. While we are sitting at home in our frigid houses,
without light or heat, or the ability to go to work, we can comfort
ourselves with the notion that there are three polars bears who are
undisturbed. And the Kennedys don't have to worry about have their view
spoiled by a wind farm.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:KfCPf.602822$084.522499@attbi_s22...
>>> You're not answering the question.
>>
>> Sigh. I did answer it.
>
> You did not. Worse, you're missing the point.
>
> The bottom line is quite simple: There is not one, single, solitary thing
> that you, or I, or ANYONE (including GW Bush) can do to reverse or even
> slow down the rate of global warming. Or global cooling. Or whatever the
> "crisis of the week" is. It's simply out of our control.
>
> People need to drive. Electricity needs to be generated. Houses need to
> be built. Roads need to be paved. Sewers must be built. In short, the
> world must go on, and wringing our hands about turning off the lights when
> we leave for work AIN'T going to change anything. (BTW: I do everything
> possible to conserve energy, not to "save the world" but to "save a
> buck"...)
>
> To make matters worse, the ultimate solution to our energy woes has been
> at hand for decades -- yet the very same people who adamantly advocate
> changing the world's economy are standing four-square in the path to
> clean, cheap, and abundant nuclear energy.
>
> I find it supremely ironic that the ultimate solution to our problems in
> the Middle East, as well as the ultimate solution to our so-called climate
> crisis, is being politically quashed by the same people who are screaming
> the loudest against burning petrochemical fuels.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jay Honeck]

> And even worse, there is no escaping the fact that even if we adopt
> nuclear fission as a long term energy solution, for the short term we are
> compelled to depend on oil. We have oil we can develop within the US, and
> off our shores. And yet we would rather risk a nuclear weapon detonated
> in the Port of Newark hidden in the bowels of an oil tanker than drill in
> ANWAR or off the shores of Florida. While we are sitting at home in our
> frigid houses, without light or heat, or the ability to go to work, we can
> comfort ourselves with the notion that there are three polars bears who
> are undisturbed. And the Kennedys don't have to worry about have their
> view spoiled by a wind farm.

Very well put.

Bitter, surly, and cynical -- but well put, nevertheless.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[GeorgeC]

And to think all of this hullabaloo started because some guy blow a ATF and some
other guy couldn't fly.

GeorgeC

"I don't fly any more. I just sit and talk" My CFI.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-08, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> You did not. Worse, you're missing the point.

No, you're missing the point.

> The bottom line is quite simple: There is not one, single, solitary thing
> that you, or I, or ANYONE (including GW Bush) can do to reverse or even slow
> down the rate of global warming. Or global cooling. Or whatever the
> "crisis of the week" is. It's simply out of our control.

We can stop from WORSENING it which is my point (and the point you were
missing). Recognising that continuing to live unsustainably is...erm...
unsustainable is a good start, then over the next few decades,
migrating to more sustainable methods of supporting our lifestyles
is generally a good idea. Sticking our fingers in our
ears and going 'la la la la la' is never the right solution. You are
presenting a false dilemma.

Energy efficiency is a good start to the process. Finding new and
cleaner ways to make energy are the next steps. Some places are very
pro-active about it. But continuing to throw our hands up and say 'oh
well' and continuing to change the atmospheric composition is not the
answer.

Of course, I could be a cynic and say you're only taking this attitude
because you're assuaging your guilt at flying something that burns 14gph
and only goes 140 ktas :-)
But I won't.

> To make matters worse, the ultimate solution to our energy woes has been at
> hand for decades -- yet the very same people who adamantly advocate changing
> the world's economy are standing four-square in the path to clean, cheap,
> and abundant nuclear energy.

Burning coal apparently puts more radioactivity into the atmosphere than
all the civil nuclear industry (including the Soviet one) put together.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-08, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> Name all the people that have died as a result of Nuclear accidents in the
> US.

Some trivia: Edward Teller claimed to be the only victim of Three Mile
Island - because the stress gave him a heart attack (which he survived).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-08, RST Engineering > wrote:
> You are coming at it from the wrong direction, Jay. Nuclear fission
> requires some rather scarce chemistry (U235 doesn't come out of the faucet
> when you turn it on) but FUSION does come out of the faucet.

There are reactor designs now that run on natural uranium. Reprocessing
means the fuel supplies are good for around 100,000 years.

Fusion is of course the holy grail because the waste problem isn't
nearly as big and it's inherently safer. Of course when people go on
about waste from conventional plants, I say it's a lot easier to deal
with the waste from a nuclear plant (it's all contained on one small
location) than a coal plant (where it's just spread all over the planet
and almost impossible to ever clean up).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-09, LWG > wrote:
> the shores of Florida. While we are sitting at home in our frigid houses,
> without light or heat, or the ability to go to work

I'm just being facetious here, but I have a perfectly servicable
bicycle. And chopping wood gets you warm three times - once when you log
it, once when you chop it, and once when you burn it in the fireplace!

But seriously, there is a minority whose agenda is that we should all go
back to living in an agrarian society (which simply won't work without
killing off a lot of people).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-08, Grumman-581 <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM> wrote:
> Even when we have a solar eclipse, the moon's shadow is only going across a
> portion of the planet... If the moon orbited at a greater distance (I'm
> don't remember of the exact distance off the top of my head), all we would
> see of the eclipse would be the silhouette of the moon obscuring a part of
> the sun

We are actually living in quite a privileged time for eclipses - the
moon is gradually getting further from the Earth (something like 3 or 4
centimetres per year). Given a few million years, eclipses won't be
anywhere near as spectacular.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Dave Stadt]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-03-09, LWG > wrote:
>> the shores of Florida. While we are sitting at home in our frigid
>> houses,
>> without light or heat, or the ability to go to work
>
> I'm just being facetious here, but I have a perfectly servicable
> bicycle. And chopping wood gets you warm three times - once when you log
> it, once when you chop it, and once when you burn it in the fireplace!

Wood burning stoves have been outlawed in some places due to the polution
they produce. In the US we are almost forced to consume unrenewable fuel
and in many cases it is due to environmentalist hard line stands.

> But seriously, there is a minority whose agenda is that we should all go
> back to living in an agrarian society (which simply won't work without
> killing off a lot of people).
>
> --
> Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
> Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
> Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Matt Barrow]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
om...
> Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:
>
>>>> I find it supremely ironic that the ultimate solution to our
>>>> problems in the Middle East, as well as the ultimate solution to
>>>> our so-called climate crisis, is being politically quashed by the
>>>> same people who are screaming the loudest against burning
>>>> petrochemical fuels.
>>>>
>>> I find off-hand comments about "ultimate solutions" a bit
>>> concerning. Care to elaborate?
>>
>> Electricity created with nuclear fission can be used to create all
>> sorts of alternative fuels, from clean-burning hydrogen, to ethanol.
>> For reasons that are clear only to the activists themselves, dirty
>> and dangerous coal -- and politically unstable oil and natural gas --
>> are seen as "safer" than nuclear energy.
>>
> Thanks for the clarification! Not that I think that the solution is all
> that simple.
>
> Technically speaking, I agree that nuclear fission offers a more efficient
> and less poluting source of energy than burning fossil fuels.
>However,
> practically speaking, the process of obtaining nuclear fuel and containing
> the waste (we have no real way to "dispose" of it) is problematic,

Nope!

>
>> Thus, when these very same "environmentalists" protest against the
>> use of non-renewable energy (oil, coal, gas) and "global warming"
>> it's impossible to take them seriously. Their actions speak far
>> louder than their words.
>>
> Is this really an either/or issue, though? We could solve our problems in
> the same way that they're solved in other countries; tax the heck out of
> gas.

Uh huh! Can you think of a few "unintended consequences" that might arise
from that tactic?

> How many Hummers with one person in them would we see on the road if
> gas was $7.00 a gallon? As I see it, our biggest problem is that we
> squander non-renewable energy sources.

Wow! You're so....MORAL!!

As I see it, too many people spew and never think beyond their own nose.

BARF!!

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> Ok Jose,
>
> I have a quick test for you.
>
> Name all the people that have died as a result of Nuclear accidents in the
> US.
>
> Name all of the people that have died while riding in Ted Kennedy's car.
>
> Which is statistically safer?

1) Nuclear energy
2) Hunting with Dick Cheney
3) Riding with Ted Kennedy or being an aide to Gary Condit.

[Matt Barrow]

"LWG" > wrote in message
...
> And even worse, there is no escaping the fact that even if we adopt
> nuclear fission as a long term energy solution, for the short term we are
> compelled to depend on oil. We have oil we can develop within the US, and
> off our shores. And yet we would rather risk a nuclear weapon detonated
> in the Port of Newark hidden in the bowels of an oil tanker than drill in
> ANWAR or off the shores of Florida. While we are sitting at home in our
> frigid houses, without light or heat, or the ability to go to work, we can
> comfort ourselves with the notion that there are three polars bears who
> are undisturbed. And the Kennedys don't have to worry about have their
> view spoiled by a wind farm.

And in all that I'm sure Ted Kennedy and his friends will have plenty of
heat and electricity since they are so crucial to Americas well-being...

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> But seriously, there is a minority whose agenda is that we should all go
> back to living in an agrarian society
> (which simply won't work without
> killing off a lot of people).

Ever notice that people who think the Earth is over populated are never
willing to go first...

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-03-08, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> You did not. Worse, you're missing the point.
>
> No, you're missing the point.
>
>> The bottom line is quite simple: There is not one, single, solitary
>> thing
>> that you, or I, or ANYONE (including GW Bush) can do to reverse or even
>> slow
>> down the rate of global warming. Or global cooling. Or whatever the
>> "crisis of the week" is. It's simply out of our control.
>
> We can stop from WORSENING it which is my point (and the point you were
> missing).

Even if we stop all using fossil fuel in the industrialize west, we'd only
make about 0.08C difference. BFD!

> Recognising that continuing to live unsustainably is...erm...
> unsustainable is a good start, then over the next few decades,
> migrating to more sustainable methods of supporting our lifestyles
> is generally a good idea.

Your version of "sustainable is based on STASIS, not DYNAMIC methods.

>Sticking our fingers in our
> ears and going 'la la la la la' is never the right solution. You are
> presenting a false dilemma.
>
> Energy efficiency is a good start to the process. Finding new and
> cleaner ways to make energy are the next steps.

Been happening for over 50 years.

> Some places are very
> pro-active about it. But continuing to throw our hands up and say 'oh
> well' and continuing to change the atmospheric composition is not the
> answer.


Ummm...BS!

> Of course, I could be a cynic and say you're only taking this attitude
> because you're assuaging your guilt at flying something that burns 14gph
> and only goes 140 ktas :-)
> But I won't.

Hmmmm....guilt feeelings?

>
>> To make matters worse, the ultimate solution to our energy woes has been
>> at
>> hand for decades -- yet the very same people who adamantly advocate
>> changing
>> the world's economy are standing four-square in the path to clean, cheap,
>> and abundant nuclear energy.
>
> Burning coal apparently puts more radioactivity into the atmosphere than
> all the civil nuclear industry (including the Soviet one) put together.

Huh?

[Morgans]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote
>
> Wood burning stoves have been outlawed in some places due to the polution
> they produce. In the US we are almost forced to consume unrenewable fuel
> and in many cases it is due to environmentalist hard line stands.

Aren't there some kind of catalytic converters, for wood stoves, in use?
--
Jim in NC

[LWG]

Yes, there are. And within limits, they help. I am one of the very few in
my suburban neighborhood who actually heated his home almost entirely with
wood that I felled, split and burned. I used a little gas to fell the
trees, haul the wood and split the wood. If you have a decent sized house
and you want to heat with wood, you'd better use gasoline to help, or don't
bother with a full time job.

I didn't heat with wood because I was "environmentally conscious". I had a
house with two heat pumps and I am a cheap SOB. Heat pumps are massive
frauds on the scale of Social Security, but those are two more rants.

The problem with catalytic converters is that they have to be glowing to
work. It takes a while to heat it up and get it "lit off." When the fire
diminishes, the converter doesn't work. The converters really do help the
stove throw out extra heat, and it was neat to lift up the cook plate and
see the ceramic grid glow red. They also cut down on the creosote in your
chimney.

I also went through a converter or more per season, and they weren't cheap.
I also got some of the castings hot enough that they warped.

That stuff about heating with wood just doesn't work for most of the
country. It takes several cords of wood and enormous effort to keep your
house warm. And even if you are willing to spend the time, we were also
talking about getting to work, etc. Hope you have enough extra energy to
ride that bike.

You can wiggle all you want on the issues, there is nothing here or on the
horizon which will replace oil. Consider the humble string trimmer: think
about all the work you can get out of an ounce or two of gasoline. Think of
what you would have to carry around in the way of batteries to equal that
work.

I would like nothing more that to tell the oil-selling countries to take a
leap. Other than Canada and Britain, countries with significant oil
reserves are our arch enemies. But wishing doesn't make it so. We have to
make immediate short term plans to stabilize and protect our oil supply, or
we will lose our way of life.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote
>>
>> Wood burning stoves have been outlawed in some places due to the polution
>> they produce. In the US we are almost forced to consume unrenewable fuel
>> and in many cases it is due to environmentalist hard line stands.
>
> Aren't there some kind of catalytic converters, for wood stoves, in use?
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-10, LWG > wrote:
> talking about getting to work, etc. Hope you have enough extra energy to
> ride that bike.

Well, doing all that stuff would make me as fit as Lance Armstrong, so I
expect so <g>

> horizon which will replace oil. Consider the humble string trimmer: think
> about all the work you can get out of an ounce or two of gasoline. Think of
> what you would have to carry around in the way of batteries to equal that
> work.

Yes, and of course that's what makes it a difficult problem to address
and why we are so addicted to oil. I estimate it takes less than a pint
of gasoline for our glider winch to get a 1500' launch for my Ka-8
glider (dragging the thread somewhere near back on topic). Although you
can buy German-made electric winches now.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-09, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>> pro-active about it. But continuing to throw our hands up and say 'oh
>> well' and continuing to change the atmospheric composition is not the
>> answer.
>
> Ummm...BS!

OK - why *is* it the answer then? Replying 'Ummm...BS' is a pretty
useless non-answer and has no place in rational debate.

>> Burning coal apparently puts more radioactivity into the atmosphere than
>> all the civil nuclear industry (including the Soviet one) put together.
>
> Huh?

Well, to reply in your engagingly abrasive style:
http://just****inggoogleit.com/

But I will add a more constructive reply. Coal contains radioactive
isotopes. Burning coal turns this compact and solid form of matter into
hot gases which goes up the coal fired power station's smokestack,
complete with some of the radioactive isotopes. Since very large
quantities of coal are being burned, this results in a measurable amount
of radioisotopes being spread about the atmosphere.

Some references: the very first return from Google:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Quote:
"Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the
United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040,
cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937
are predicted to be:

* U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):

Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 357,491 tons

* Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):

Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 2,039,709 tons"

There are plenty more similar references. The anti-nuclear lobby who
would rather we burn coal conveniently gloss over things like this.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-03-09, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>> pro-active about it. But continuing to throw our hands up and say 'oh
>>> well' and continuing to change the atmospheric composition is not the
>>> answer.
>>
>> Ummm...BS!
>
> OK - why *is* it the answer then? Replying 'Ummm...BS' is a pretty
> useless non-answer and has no place in rational debate.

When you get rational instead of parroting the usual tripe, then we can have
a rational discussion.

>
>>> Burning coal apparently puts more radioactivity into the atmosphere than
>>> all the civil nuclear industry (including the Soviet one) put together.
>>
>> Huh?
>
> Well, to reply in your engagingly abrasive style:
> http://just****inggoogleit.com/

Well, try being accurate with your snips and then I won't be abrasive.

>
> But I will add a more constructive reply. Coal contains radioactive
> isotopes. Burning coal turns this compact and solid form of matter into
> hot gases which goes up the coal fired power station's smokestack,
> complete with some of the radioactive isotopes. Since very large
> quantities of coal are being burned, this results in a measurable amount
> of radioisotopes being spread about the atmosphere.
>
> Some references: the very first return from Google:
> http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
>
> Quote:
> "Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the
> United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040,
> cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937
> are predicted to be:
>
> * U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):
>
> Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)
> Thorium: 357,491 tons
>
> * Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):
>
> Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)
> Thorium: 2,039,709 tons"
>
> There are plenty more similar references. The anti-nuclear lobby who
> would rather we burn coal conveniently gloss over things like this.
>

Nice, but that wasn't the part I was responding to. As I said, be accurate
and contextual with your snips.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-10, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>> OK - why *is* it the answer then? Replying 'Ummm...BS' is a pretty
>> useless non-answer and has no place in rational debate.
>
> When you get rational instead of parroting the usual tripe, then we can have
> a rational discussion.

Nice way to dodge the question.

(4th nesting, my article)
(3rd nesting, your reply, 2nd nesting, my reply to that):
>>>> Burning coal apparently puts more radioactivity into the atmosphere than
>>>> all the civil nuclear industry (including the Soviet one) put together.
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>
>> Well, to reply in your engagingly abrasive style:
>> http://just****inggoogleit.com/
>
> Well, try being accurate with your snips and then I won't be abrasive.

The snip is entirely accurate. You replied 'Huh?' to the statement
'Burning coal apparently...'. Where was the lack of accuracy? Google
Groups shows that it is entirely accurate.

[snip quotation about radioisotopes, posted by myself]

> Nice, but that wasn't the part I was responding to. As I said, be accurate
> and contextual with your snips.

OK, you replied 'Huh?' immediately below 'Burning coal apparently...'.
What bit WERE you replying to, exactly? Your one word question doesn't
exactly provide any indication that you were replying to any other part
other than the immediately preceeding quotation. All the sole world
'Huh?' indicates is that you didn't understand something.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-03-10, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>>> OK - why *is* it the answer then? Replying 'Ummm...BS' is a pretty
>>> useless non-answer and has no place in rational debate.
>>
>> When you get rational instead of parroting the usual tripe, then we can
>> have
>> a rational discussion.
>
> Nice way to dodge the question.

Here's a start.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html (about
half way through)