Nothing good about Ethanol

[180pilot]

Conflict with aircraft fuel systems and Ethanol are many:

http://www.pmawwacs.org/downloads/gov_affairs/ethanol/Dept_Commerce_ethanol.pdf

California formulation is only about 5.7 percent Ethanol, so that
Cherokee 235 may get away with it for awhile, especially if it flies
to other airports and refuels with avgas cutting the percentage even
more.

The bottom line is that at the moment producing Ethanol from corn
wastes more energy than it makes according to experts. The EPA has
ruled California no longer has to use it. But will be some time
before stocks no longer contain it. That's what I read anyway.

[darthpup]

The heat of combution of ethanol is about one third of gasoline, also.

An ADM Corporation scam?

[Dan Luke]

"180pilot" wrote:

> The bottom line is that at the moment producing Ethanol from corn
> wastes more energy than it makes according to experts.


I ain't got a dog in this fight, but any time I read a sentence like that,
my bs meter starts to twitch.

What experts? Employed by whom? What are their qualifications? What
peer-reviewed studies did they publish?


--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

On 31-May-2006, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

> > The bottom line is that at the moment producing Ethanol from corn
> > wastes more energy than it makes according to experts.
>
>
> I ain't got a dog in this fight, but any time I read a sentence like that,
> my bs meter starts to twitch.
>
> What experts? Employed by whom? What are their qualifications? What
> peer-reviewed studies did they publish?



Excellent questions. I note that "experts" also dispute the danger of
global warning, and other "experts" claim that species evolution is a myth.
Yet other "experts" (hired by the tobacco industry, but of course that's
just a coincidence) were unable to find any linkage between smoking and lung
cancer. At one point many "experts" could prove that powered flight was
impossible.

Truth is, if you want to use the Internet as a source of information, a
finely tuned BS meter is an absolute necessity!


-Elliott Drucker

[Roger]

On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:51:14 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"180pilot" wrote:
>
>> The bottom line is that at the moment producing Ethanol from corn
>> wastes more energy than it makes according to experts.
>
>
>I ain't got a dog in this fight, but any time I read a sentence like that,
>my bs meter starts to twitch.
>
>What experts? Employed by whom? What are their qualifications? What
>peer-reviewed studies did they publish?

Well, you can do a search and find a good many studies by legit?
universities and corporations. Unfortunately the results for "Net
energy Gain" for alcohol production vary from a negative 50% to an
outlandish positive of several hundred percent (by a university). IOW
if you hunt you will be able to find a study that will support just
about any position.

Some of these studies are commissioned and come with criteria. You
some times really have to dig to find said criteria and often it's not
available. Without knowing the criteria under which the study was
undertaken leaves the study pretty much meaningless to me. That is
unless you place complete blind faith in both who ever did the study
and who ever commissioned it.

"Department of Energy" should be a good starting point for the feds
and states although they have a way of cataloging docs that could be
considered camouflage.<sigh>

The validity of Wipi is often questioned, but it's a good starting
place to find the referenced studies and then hunt for the studies.
The good articles will have references back to specific studies.

I've been following/studying alternative energy sources for some time
and have had to devote far more time digging than I would have liked,
or planed. I've also worked with some researchers with both passive
and active solar as well although it was some time back.

As near as I can discover the "general consensus" is a small "net
energy gain" when producing alcohol. This took into account using the
byproducts as well and came up with about a 50% net energy gain. That
is not a lot and the real price of alcohol when subsidies for both
growing the corn and producing the alcohol is around $3.50 a gallon.

"They" are going to be building a large Ethyl Alcohol plant about 30
miles from here in an industrial park at Alma Michigan. Probably
close to the site where one failed back in the 70s energy crisis.

"Currently" there is no large scale, "wide spread", economical
alternative energy source, but there are several areas where large
farms of wind generators are proving to be viable. They are running
into environmental concerns as far as locations particularly here in
Michigan. We have few areas within the state that would work well,
but we have several "off shore" that would work very well. However
the "shore dwellers" in both Wisconsin and Michigan are basically
saying "Not in the middle of our tourist industry!". Nor are these
farms cheap with a price tag some times passing several billion. (That
was with a "B".)

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

[RST Engineering]

The ethanol is blended with the gasoline right at the tanker truck.
Shake'n'bake with the tanker truck on the road does further mixing, so the
gasoline "stocks" are devoid of ethanol contamination right now. THe
problem is to get suppliers back to giving us straight gasoline.

Jim


>
The EPA has
> ruled California no longer has to use it. But will be some time
> before stocks no longer contain it. That's what I read anyway.
>

[Guy Byars]

Most of the stations in the Cincinnati metro area are now selling gasoline
with 5-6% ethanol. My regular supplier didn't sell gas with ethanol until
recently. Unfortunately I didn't check it often enough and ended up putting
50 gallons of 5% ethanol in my Skylane. When I discovered this, I went
through a great deal of trouble to immediately de-fuel the plane, and refill
with 100LL. Needless to say I was quite annoyed by this.

I have done the water/jar test on most stations in the area and the ONLY
ones not containing ethanol were EXXON and the fuel sold at the Kroger fuel
center.

Looks like you need to test for ethanol each and every time you buy autogas
for your plane.

Guy




"180pilot" > wrote in message
...
> Conflict with aircraft fuel systems and Ethanol are many:
>
>
http://www.pmawwacs.org/downloads/gov_affairs/ethanol/Dept_Commerce_ethanol.pdf
>
> California formulation is only about 5.7 percent Ethanol, so that
> Cherokee 235 may get away with it for awhile, especially if it flies
> to other airports and refuels with avgas cutting the percentage even
> more.
>
> The bottom line is that at the moment producing Ethanol from corn
> wastes more energy than it makes according to experts. The EPA has
> ruled California no longer has to use it. But will be some time
> before stocks no longer contain it. That's what I read anyway.
>

[Denny]

> >
> >> The bottom line is that at the moment producing Ethanol from corn
> >> wastes more energy than it makes according to experts.
> >
> >

Well, use some rational thinking... We grow corn to make alcohol...

What does the tractor that plowed and planted the field burn? <diesel
mostly>

What do the fertilizer and pesticides put on the field come from?
<petroleum base>

What does the combine that harvests the field burn? <gas or diesel>

What does the truck that takes the corn to the local elevator burn?
<diesel or gas>

What does the train that moves the corn to market burn? <diesel>

What does the electric motor(s) at the alcohol plant get the current
from - and ditto the lights, air conditioners, furnaces, etc? (natural
gas mostly)

What do the employees at the alcohol plant burn to get there for work
each day? <gas mostly>

Where does the heat to distill the mash come from? <natural gas>

What does the truck burn to take the alcohol to the gasoline terminal?
<diesel>

************************************************** ***********************************************
Where the oil company cheerfully puts 5% of that 70 cents a gallon
alcohol at their cost into the gasoline and charges you three bucks or
so for each gallon of alcohol they sell you - a vastly bigger profit
margin than they get on the gasoline... Plus, the alcohol decreases
your gas mileage so you have to buy fuel more often... Jeez, if you
are an oil executive on a pay plus bonus salary, what's not to like
??????
************************************************** **************************************************

Anyway, those of you who favor alcohol explain to me how burning
alcohol reduces oil imports...

denny

[B A R R Y]

RST Engineering wrote:
> The ethanol is blended with the gasoline right at the tanker truck.

I heard an interview on a financial show a few weeks back that had an
oil company executive telling a completely different story. He
explained that plants and storage facilities needed certain parts and
seals changed to switch from MTBE laced gas to a gas / alcohol blend.

Could this be a regional thing?

[darthpup]

I know of no Homo sapiens trying to conserve himself into prosperity.
The yankee dollar reigns supreme. You pilots putting auto gas in your
planes need to think again, carefully.

[Dan Luke]

"Denny" wrote:

>> >> The bottom line is that at the moment producing Ethanol from corn
>> >> wastes more energy than it makes according to experts.
>> >
>> >
>
> Well, use some rational thinking... We grow corn to make alcohol...
>
> What does the tractor that plowed and planted the field burn? <diesel
> mostly>
>
> What do the fertilizer and pesticides put on the field come from?
> <petroleum base>
>
> What does the combine that harvests the field burn? <gas or diesel>
>
> What does the truck that takes the corn to the local elevator burn?
> <diesel or gas>
>
> What does the train that moves the corn to market burn? <diesel>
>
> What does the electric motor(s) at the alcohol plant get the current
> from - and ditto the lights, air conditioners, furnaces, etc? (natural
> gas mostly)
>
> What do the employees at the alcohol plant burn to get there for work
> each day? <gas mostly>
>
> Where does the heat to distill the mash come from? <natural gas>
>
> What does the truck burn to take the alcohol to the gasoline terminal?
> <diesel>

Those kinds of questions also apply to the exploration for and extraction of
oil, the transportation and refining of crude, and the transportaton of
gasoline. It takes energy to make energy; this is not news. Also, gasoline
has enormous hidden costs related to our (U. S.) international efforts,
military and otherwise, to maintain the security of imported oil sources.

The question is: what are the real figures on energy margin recovery for
ethanol? I can find a lot of hand-waving pro and con, but I'm having
trouble locating any scientific/economic study that seems objective and
trustworthy.

[snip]

> Anyway, those of you who favor alcohol explain to me how burning
> alcohol reduces oil imports...

Amen.

--
Dan

'Gut feeling'

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any rational
thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well known.

[Guy Byars]

> You pilots putting auto gas in your planes need to think again, carefully.

Not much thinking required, you *MUST* now test each and every load of fuel
for the presence of ethanol before you put it in your plane. Ethanol free
autogas is geting much harder to find. And it is certainly not labeled at
the pump anymore like it used to be.

[xyzzy]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "180pilot" wrote:
>
> > The bottom line is that at the moment producing Ethanol from corn
> > wastes more energy than it makes according to experts.
>
>
> I ain't got a dog in this fight, but any time I read a sentence like that,
> my bs meter starts to twitch.
>
> What experts? Employed by whom? What are their qualifications? What
> peer-reviewed studies did they publish?

Coincidently, yesterday the latest Car and Driver arrived in my mailbox
with a long article summarizing the case against ethanol pretty
succinctly -- it quotes several studies including a meta study done by
the University of California. It might be worth picking one up at
the newsstand if this issue really interests you. I checked their
website, the article isn't up there yet.

One thing I learned is that one reason car makers love E85 is that it
gives them a bonus on the CAFE standards. Only the gasoline that is
burned counts, which means they get to multiply the gas mileage of an
E85 car by 7 (1/0.15)when computing its contribution to fleet average
MPG. This was estimated be with $200 million a year to GM alone.

Damn, everywhere you look with ethanol, there's a subsidy or preference
of some sort involved, isn't there?

[[email protected]]

B A R R Y > wrote:
> RST Engineering wrote:
> > The ethanol is blended with the gasoline right at the tanker truck.

> I heard an interview on a financial show a few weeks back that had an
> oil company executive telling a completely different story. He
> explained that plants and storage facilities needed certain parts and
> seals changed to switch from MTBE laced gas to a gas / alcohol blend.

Which explains why the blending is done at the truck instead of the
plant.

> Could this be a regional thing?

You think it could take a while to shut down a plant and do the
conversions required?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[ktbr]

Dan Luke wrote:
> What experts? Employed by whom? What are their qualifications? What
> peer-reviewed studies did they publish?
>

Think about it logically. Besides, in order to be "energy independent"
with Ethanol alone, we would haqve to plant corn on every arcre of
farmland in this country.... forget growing any actual food.

Ethanol is a pipe dream, and except as an additive to boost octane
it is not cost efective.

[ktbr]

Exactly. But it makes dumb people *feel* good so lets do it.

[Montblack]

("xyzzy" wrote)
> One thing I learned is that one reason car makers love E85 is that it
> gives them a bonus on the CAFE standards. Only the gasoline that is
> burned counts, which means they get to multiply the gas mileage of an E85
> car by 7 (1/0.15)when computing its contribution to fleet average MPG.
> This was estimated be with $200 million a year to GM alone.


Simple enough to correct - call it Fuel Mileage.


Montblack

[B A R R Y]

ktbr wrote:
> Exactly. But it makes dumb people *feel* good so lets do it.


Right up there with the "safety" aspects of vehicles with tendencies to
roll over and terrible panic maneuver habits?

Let the marketeers roll... <G>

[B A R R Y]

wrote:
> B A R R Y > wrote:
>> RST Engineering wrote:
>>> The ethanol is blended with the gasoline right at the tanker truck.
>
>> I heard an interview on a financial show a few weeks back that had an
>> oil company executive telling a completely different story. He
>> explained that plants and storage facilities needed certain parts and
>> seals changed to switch from MTBE laced gas to a gas / alcohol blend.
>
> Which explains why the blending is done at the truck instead of the
> plant.
>
>> Could this be a regional thing?
>
> You think it could take a while to shut down a plant and do the
> conversions required?
>

The whole point of the comment was that they DID spent a lot of time
with plants shut down. According to this guy, it's a done deal.

[Newps]

ktbr wrote:

>>
>
> Think about it logically. Besides, in order to be "energy independent"
> with Ethanol alone, we would haqve to plant corn on every arcre of
> farmland in this country.... forget growing any actual food.

Bah, we've got millions of acres here in Montana, any wheat producing
state will, that are not farmed right now because it won't support sweet
corn. But it will grow the field corn that you use to produce ethanol
quite nicely.

[Dan Luke]

"Newps" wrote:

>>
>> Think about it logically. Besides, in order to be "energy independent"
>> with Ethanol alone, we would haqve to plant corn on every arcre of
>> farmland in this country.... forget growing any actual food.
>
> Bah, we've got millions of acres here in Montana, any wheat producing state
> will, that are not farmed right now because it won't support sweet corn.
> But it will grow the field corn that you use to produce ethanol quite
> nicely.

And the only reason we're talking about ethanol from corn is the mighty U. S.
corn lobby. Other crops--sugar beets up North, sugar cane down South--can
give much higher ethanol yields/acre.

--
Dan

"Gut feeling"

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain
any rational thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well known.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:


> Those kinds of questions also apply to the exploration for and extraction of
> oil, the transportation and refining of crude, and the transportaton of
> gasoline. It takes energy to make energy; this is not news. Also, gasoline
> has enormous hidden costs related to our (U. S.) international efforts,
> military and otherwise, to maintain the security of imported oil sources.

The same military is used to protect the land and people who would
grow corn for ethanol.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[[email protected]]

Roger > wrote:
: >What experts? Employed by whom? What are their qualifications? What
: >peer-reviewed studies did they publish?

: Well, you can do a search and find a good many studies by legit?
: universities and corporations. Unfortunately the results for "Net
: energy Gain" for alcohol production vary from a negative 50% to an
: outlandish positive of several hundred percent (by a university). IOW
: if you hunt you will be able to find a study that will support just
: about any position.

Well-said. As has been said before, there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics." Depending on which
studies you want to read making various assumptions on "environmental costs," "incidental costs," and "byproduct
credits," the studies tend to ready anwhere from a 20% on the Joule fossil-fuel energy budget to a 1-4x per
Joule fossile-fuel budget. In any event, it is certainly not the magic-bullet that many people tout. In Brazil
it works well due to the relative ease of conversion sugar cane as compared to corn. Check out the papers by
Pimentel for the last 30 years. He may be at one extreme end of the spectrum (20%), but the other extreme end
(1-4x) isn't enough to devote huge resources to encourage.

-Cory


************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Dan Luke]

"Bob Noel" wrote:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>
>> Those kinds of questions also apply to the exploration for and extraction
>> of
>> oil, the transportation and refining of crude, and the transportaton of
>> gasoline. It takes energy to make energy; this is not news. Also,
>> gasoline
>> has enormous hidden costs related to our (U. S.) international efforts,
>> military and otherwise, to maintain the security of imported oil sources.
>
> The same military is used to protect the land and people who would
> grow corn for ethanol.

....and everything else *at home*. But how much extra expense do we entail
because we must protect our foreign oil supply?

I seriously doubt we would be at war with terrorism instigated mostly by
Arabs if imported oil were not a vital national interest that has required a
military presence in the Middle East for decades. The cost of Homeland
Security and the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan should count in the price
of gasoline, IMO.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

> Not much thinking required, you *MUST* now test each and every load of
> fuel
> for the presence of ethanol before you put it in your plane. Ethanol free
> autogas is geting much harder to find. And it is certainly not labeled at
> the pump anymore like it used to be.

It is here in Iowa -- by law.

Ironic, no?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke > wrote:

> "Bob Noel" wrote:

> > "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Those kinds of questions also apply to the exploration for and extraction
> >> of
> >> oil, the transportation and refining of crude, and the transportaton of
> >> gasoline. It takes energy to make energy; this is not news. Also,
> >> gasoline
> >> has enormous hidden costs related to our (U. S.) international efforts,
> >> military and otherwise, to maintain the security of imported oil sources.
> >
> > The same military is used to protect the land and people who would
> > grow corn for ethanol.

> ...and everything else *at home*. But how much extra expense do we entail
> because we must protect our foreign oil supply?

> I seriously doubt we would be at war with terrorism instigated mostly by
> Arabs if imported oil were not a vital national interest that has required a
> military presence in the Middle East for decades. The cost of Homeland
> Security and the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan should count in the price
> of gasoline, IMO.

> --
> Dan
> C-172RG at BFM

Yeah, that World Trade Center thing is not worth getting excited about...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Montblack]

("Dan Luke" wrote)
> I seriously doubt we would be at war with terrorism instigated mostly by
> Arabs if imported oil were not a vital national interest that has required
> a military presence in the Middle East for decades. The cost of Homeland
> Security and the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan should count in the
> price of gasoline, IMO.


East Timor and Rwanda come to mind.

Thousands of Mini (micro) Nuclear Power Plants, for a variety of uses (all
of the same design) is my answer. (1) Micro-NPP + (1) Ethanol Plant ...corn,
sugar beets, hemp, whatever.

Cost? - This one's too easy. <g>

[Montblack's reply after linked newspaper story]

Minneapolis [Red] Star-Tribune story today (Friday)
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/468717.html

Public paid for idled wind farms

Xcel lacks the capacity to transmit all the wind power, so it pays for some
machines to remain idle, and passes the cost to customers.

Tom Meersman, Star Tribune
Last update: June 01, 2006 – 11:12 PM

Xcel Energy electricity customers have paid millions of dollars for wind
energy that was never produced, according to documents filed with state
regulators.

The utility guarantees payments to wind farm owners whenever their machines
produce electricity, but it doesn't have enough transmission lines to
deliver all of that power to consumers. As a result, wind machines have been
routinely disconnected, sometimes on the windiest days, when the most power
could be generated.

Xcel paid wind developers about $10.4 million -- called "curtailment
payments" -- for wind-generated electricity that it could not accept from
February 2004 through May 2005, according to a report by the Minnesota
Department of Commerce.

Those costs were passed directly to Xcel electricity customers through the
fuel clause adjustment, which is added to monthly bills. The extra costs for
a typical residential customer amounted to 20 cents per month, or $3.20
during that 16-month period, according to the report.

Xcel officials said curtailment payments are a legal and effective tool to
develop wind power. The payments are unavoidable, they said, because it
takes only a few months to build a large wind farm but it requires several
years to construct the transmission lines to move the power the farm
produces.

[Later in the story]
The developers have contracts that require Xcel to buy the power when it's
available. In early 2004, wind generators were capable of producing 466
megawatts of electricity on the ridge, but Xcel could accept only about 56
percent of it.

The wind developers set up a rotation system in which they took turns
reducing output or turning off their generators.

[Montblack here]
For the love of ...#%^&*$%^#^*!!

Here it is again:

1. Build a 12-ft diameter (silo??) in the ground. 25-ft? 50-ft?
2. Make it 30-ft deep. 50-ft deep? Whatever. Build it above ground - who
cares!

3. Fill (round) weight box with rocks, or sand, or lead, or scrap iron. Or
water.

4. When the transmission lines are full, active wind farm starts lifting
weights.

5. When one weight is lifted, switch to second silo, then third...

6. Hire smart people to tell you how big to make your various silos, how
much weight to lift, DC motors?, earth's rotational affect on the hanging
weights, etc.

7. Sell electricity back to Xcel Power (Minnesota) when grid opens up (no
wind) or demand (price) is higher.

8. There. We now have a way to store the energy commodity our wind farm(s)
have harvested. I'm sticking with the term silo - seems applicable.

9. Not efficient you say? Well, it's a lot more efficient than letting windy
days pass without harnessing/harvesting ANYTHING - and yet paying for it,
ANYWAY!

10. Questions: See Split Rock Light House system using weights (in a long
tube) to rotate the lamp. Weights needed to be cranked up twice daily, IIRC.
Maybe four times, daily? Every four hours? ...you get the point.


Montblack
Have "them" ring my NEW cell phone. We'll set up a time to take a meeting
:-)

[RST Engineering]

Jim, buddy, you're a nice guy, but for the love of Orville, can you please
snip for those of us on limited bandwidth?

Jim


> wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke > wrote:
>
>> "Bob Noel" wrote:
>
>> > "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Those kinds of questions also apply to the exploration for and
>> >> extraction
>> >> of
\
The cost of Homeland
>> Security and the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan should count in the
>> price
>> of gasoline, IMO.
>
>> --
>> Dan
>> C-172RG at BFM
>
> Yeah, that World Trade Center thing is not worth getting excited about...
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jay Honeck]

<Lots 'o good ideas snipped>

> Montblack
> Have "them" ring my NEW cell phone. We'll set up a time to take a meeting

No way! You got a cell phone?? After all these years?

You were the last hold-out in North America.

Assimilation complete.

We are Borg...

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

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:

>> I seriously doubt we would be at war with terrorism instigated mostly by
>> Arabs if imported oil were not a vital national interest that has required
>> a
>> military presence in the Middle East for decades. The cost of Homeland
>> Security and the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan should count in the
>> price
>> of gasoline, IMO.
>
>> --
>> Dan
>> C-172RG at BFM
>
> Yeah, that World Trade Center thing is not worth getting excited about...

Huh??

[Montblack]

June <g>

Montblack

("RST Engineering" wrote)
> Jim, buddy, you're a nice guy, but for the love of Orville, can you please
> snip for those of us on limited bandwidth?

[Montblack]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> You were the last hold-out in North America.
>
> Assimilation complete.
>
> We are Borg...


Hugh's having some issues with the Menu Options. :-)

Hugh wonders why 7 of 9 hasn't called back, yet?

Hugh wants 7 of 9 to be receptive to getting her picture taken
....IYKW[H]M's!!


Montblack

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke > wrote:

> > wrote:

> >> I seriously doubt we would be at war with terrorism instigated mostly by
> >> Arabs if imported oil were not a vital national interest that has required
> >> a
> >> military presence in the Middle East for decades. The cost of Homeland
> >> Security and the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan should count in the
> >> price
> >> of gasoline, IMO.
> >
> >> --
> >> Dan
> >> C-172RG at BFM
> >
> > Yeah, that World Trade Center thing is not worth getting excited about...

> Huh??

Do I really have to explain this?

The US military presence in the Middle East was tiny until the invasion
of Kuwait (1990). The post Gulf War presence was larger than before,
but still small until 9/11.

Homeland Security and the invasion of Afghanistan were direct results
of 9/11.

As for Iraq, if 9/11 hadn't happened, Saddam would probably still be
in power.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

RST Engineering > wrote:
> Jim, buddy, you're a nice guy, but for the love of Orville, can you please
> snip for those of us on limited bandwidth?

> Jim

<snip>

Geez Jim, the whole thing was only 37 lines long; are you using a
wood burning modem?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:


>
> Homeland Security and the invasion of Afghanistan were direct results
> of 9/11.

Duh!

And 9/11 was a result of what? What is the root reason our nation is so
intimately involved with these scum?

--
Dan

"Gut feeling"

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any rational
thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well known.

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke > wrote:

> > wrote:


> >
> > Homeland Security and the invasion of Afghanistan were direct results
> > of 9/11.

> Duh!

> And 9/11 was a result of what? What is the root reason our nation is so
> intimately involved with these scum?

Wild eyed, Islamic religious extremists who are still fighting the
Medieval Crusades against the infidels, i.e. us.

BTW, care to guess which country exported the most crude oil to the
US in March of 2006?

Care to guess of the top 5 crude oil exporters how many can be
considered to be Islamic?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Montblack]

wrote)
> Care to guess of the top 5 crude oil exporters how many can be considered
> to be Islamic?


Um, does being "controlled" by Islamic Fundamentalist nut-jobs count?

Let's see, did you see the Mohammad cartoon in your local papers?
No?

How about on your local TV "news"?
No again?

National "news"?
Nothing?

See the South Park (episodes) about Jesus? Scientology? Jews?

How about the (one scene) with Mohammad standing in the doorway?
No again?

Maybe "our women" should cover their heads, too. Wouldn't want to offend...

Oh hell, I'm heading out for a Friday evening Graduation Party ... the
drinking kind!


Montblack

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Jay Honeck" wrote)
>> You were the last hold-out in North America.
>>
>> Assimilation complete.
>>
>> We are Borg...
>
>
> Hugh's having some issues with the Menu Options. :-)
>
> Hugh wonders why 7 of 9 hasn't called back, yet?
>
> Hugh wants 7 of 9 to be receptive to getting her picture taken
> ...IYKW[H]M's!!
>
>
> Montblack

Oh my god is that both a Star Trek:TNG, Star Trek: Voyager and Boston Legal
reference all rolled into one?

[[email protected]]

Montblack > wrote:
> wrote)
> > Care to guess of the top 5 crude oil exporters how many can be considered
> > to be Islamic?


> Um, does being "controlled" by Islamic Fundamentalist nut-jobs count?

Not much.

According to the DOE, the top 5 exporters to the USA for March, 2006 were:

Country Thousands of barrels/day
1 Canada 1716
2 Mexico 1697
3 Saudia Arabia 1322
4 Venezuela 1183
5 Nigeria 1114

And for what its worth;

6 Angola 510

<snip remainder>

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dante]

It would be best to try to keep 9/11 in perspective. Yes it was sad,
unfortunate loss, escpecially for the families involved. BUT.. The U.S.
loses 40,000+ to traffic accidents per year. The U.S. loses roughly 400,000
to smoking related disease per year. American soldiers killed fighting in
Afghanistan and Iraq will surpass the 2800 World Trade Center deaths very
shortly.

And yet the U.S. soldiers on! Your country is so strong, so omnipotent, just
so damn resilient and powerful in it's capacity to absorb this sort of
punishment that terrorism need have no significant impact at all. It would
have been better for your President to get up on TV and say straight into
the camera, "Yeah? What else have you got!" and go on to build it bigger and
better.

Don't sweat the ragheads, collectively you can take it. And when you get
tired of taking it, you have the ability to deal with it. The biggest
problem you have is that you really want to be loved, when I expect it would
be better to be feared.

[Doug]

Kick some A-rab ass....

[Dan Luke]

> wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke > wrote:
>
>> > wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> > Homeland Security and the invasion of Afghanistan were direct results
>> > of 9/11.
>
>> Duh!
>
>> And 9/11 was a result of what? What is the root reason our nation is so
>> intimately involved with these scum?
>
> Wild eyed, Islamic religious extremists who are still fighting the
> Medieval Crusades against the infidels, i.e. us.
>
> BTW, care to guess which country exported the most crude oil to the
> US in March of 2006?

I don't have to guess; I know.

> Care to guess of the top 5 crude oil exporters how many can be
> considered to be Islamic?

Which ones of the top five are governed by stable democracies? What
military action is the U. S. prepared to take in the ones controlled by nuts
and criminals--besides the one controlled by infidel-hating religious
fanatics, I mean? Does this seem like a long term, secure, affordable
energy situation to you?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> > The same military is used to protect the land and people who would
> > grow corn for ethanol.
>
> ...and everything else *at home*. But how much extra expense do we entail
> because we must protect our foreign oil supply?

actually, a lot of effort goes into protecting the sea lanes for all trade, not
just oil.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Roger]

On Wed, 31 May 2006 23:30:40 GMT,
wrote:

>
>On 31-May-2006, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>> > The bottom line is that at the moment producing Ethanol from corn
>> > wastes more energy than it makes according to experts.
>>
>>
>> I ain't got a dog in this fight, but any time I read a sentence like that,
>> my bs meter starts to twitch.
>>
>> What experts? Employed by whom? What are their qualifications? What
>> peer-reviewed studies did they publish?
>
>
>
>Excellent questions. I note that "experts" also dispute the danger of
>global warning, and other "experts" claim that species evolution is a myth.
>Yet other "experts" (hired by the tobacco industry, but of course that's
>just a coincidence) were unable to find any linkage between smoking and lung
>cancer. At one point many "experts" could prove that powered flight was
>impossible.

Or breaking the sound barrier.

>
>Truth is, if you want to use the Internet as a source of information, a
>finely tuned BS meter is an absolute necessity!

Don't blame the Internet. How could it be any more reliable than main
stream science?

Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
camp that say it aint so.

If we truly had "experts" then opposing camps on any topic would only
find one view available from the experts for support and that is not
the case.

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

>
>
>-Elliott Drucker

[Roger]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:27:39 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Dan Luke" wrote)
>> I seriously doubt we would be at war with terrorism instigated mostly by
>> Arabs if imported oil were not a vital national interest that has required
>> a military presence in the Middle East for decades. The cost of Homeland
>> Security and the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan should count in the
>> price of gasoline, IMO.
>
>
>East Timor and Rwanda come to mind.
>
>Thousands of Mini (micro) Nuclear Power Plants, for a variety of uses (all
>of the same design) is my answer. (1) Micro-NPP + (1) Ethanol Plant ...corn,
>sugar beets, hemp, whatever.
>
>Cost? - This one's too easy. <g>
>
>[Montblack's reply after linked newspaper story]
>
>Minneapolis [Red] Star-Tribune story today (Friday)
>http://www.startribune.com/462/story/468717.html

And they want to have all electric cars on the highways.

As I've said before. We don't have the infrastructure to handled much
more load even when using real time load management which is decades
off.

This is a good example of being unable to use a non polluting,
alternative energy source even when it is in place.

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

[Roger]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:01:37 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"Newps" wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Think about it logically. Besides, in order to be "energy independent"
>>> with Ethanol alone, we would haqve to plant corn on every arcre of
>>> farmland in this country.... forget growing any actual food.
>>
>> Bah, we've got millions of acres here in Montana, any wheat producing state
>> will, that are not farmed right now because it won't support sweet corn.

There is a *lot* of field corn grown in Michigan and the Mid West. In
both Michigan and Wisconsin a lot of that is used to feed dairy
cattle. We also have large farms producing cattle for beef.

>> But it will grow the field corn that you use to produce ethanol quite
>> nicely.
>
>And the only reason we're talking about ethanol from corn is the mighty U. S.
>corn lobby. Other crops--sugar beets up North, sugar cane down South--can
>give much higher ethanol yields/acre.

Well, we are limited to how many acres of sugar beets we can grow and
they bring a premium price compared to corn. As a SWAG I say we
might be able to come up with another 15% in acreage planted to beets
up here in the frozen north. We might get more alcohol and we might
not. I don't know what the net energy yield would be, but it most
likely would be more expensive than corn alcohol.

I don't know what the yield would be from Sorghum. Too bad, we as a
country, have such a fixation against growing commercial hemp. (not
the recreational kind)

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

[Roger]

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:55:05 GMT, "Guy Byars" >
wrote:

>Most of the stations in the Cincinnati metro area are now selling gasoline
>with 5-6% ethanol. My regular supplier didn't sell gas with ethanol until

Try and find on in Michigan that doesn't have Ethanol and it's
probably going to be 10% Ethanol.


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

[Dan Luke]

"Roger" wrote:

> Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
> been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
> mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
> camp that say it aint so.

Cite for the latter, please?

--
Dan

"Hell hath no fury like a noncombatant."
-Mitchell Coffey

[Aaron Coolidge]

Roger > wrote:
: As I've said before. We don't have the infrastructure to handled much
: more load even when using real time load management which is decades
: off.

Pray forgive a non-aviation related aside.
I've been working in the electrical distribution industry for a long time.
My company makes real-time load flow profiling equipment (see your
transformer loads LIVE on the internet!), and real-time load management
hardware, software, and systems (amoung other hardware & software).
We have several programs on-line TODAY with real-time load management.
There is a fundamental problem with real-time load management.
No one will pay for it.
The consumer says, "you want to be able to shut off MY airconditioner
when it's hot out, and you want ME to pay for that privilege? Drop dead."
The utility says, "My income comes from spinning meters. You want ME to
reduce my income, and you want ME to pay for that privilege? Get lost."

Attitudes are slowly changing. It costs $billions to build new generation
plants, and takes at least 10 years - probably 25 is more like it. If the
utility can defer generation construction it has a high value. (I know that
utilities no longer own generation directly but the concept holds.)

PS, in this widely spread out country purely electric cars are not useful
until they have the same performance as gasoline cars, particularly in
their recharge time. My gasoline car recharges in 10 minutes and goes
450 miles per charge. Each charge costs $55. It's really pretty cheap,
all things considered.

: This is a good example of being unable to use a non polluting,
: alternative energy source even when it is in place.

With electrical generation primarilly coal-powered in this country,
changing to electric powered anything moves the polution center to
the power plant, and centralizes the place where pollution control needs
to be applied. This is good in many ways, because it's easier to keep
one big engine tuned than millions of smaller ones.
--
Aaron C.

[[email protected]]

On 2-Jun-2006, Roger > wrote:

> Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
> been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
> mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
> camp that say it aint so.


Hogwash!

-Elliott Drucker

[Dante]

>> Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
>> been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
>> mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
>> camp that say it aint so.
>
>
> Hogwash!
>

http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

http://talk.ocregister.com/showthread.php?p=357152&mode=threaded

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

The debate still rages. Because there is so much money to be made in this
and every endeavor, it's hard to be sure what is correct. It's more a matter
of choose a belief and then find the evidence.

[LWG]

Just 20+ years ago Newsweek was running stories about the impending Ice Age
which was upon us. The worry was Global Cooling. The "scientists" read the
same archival data and came to the conclusion that the Earth was cooling at
an alarming rate.

Where I sit was once a jungle. It also was once covered by thousands of feet
of ice. Isn't it just a bit presumptuous for us to think, "Ok, *I'm* here
now, so all you little natural processes can just stop." Why should we
expect that the temperatures today are the same as yesterday? "It's a
right!." "I'll sue!" "We'll see what the ACLU has to say about this!"

What about the measurements that show the sun is hotter the past few years
than it was before?

The OP's comment about money is right on. There's plenty of money out there
for those who read the tea leaves to see "global warming," with extra bonus
points if my SUV is responsible. There is nothing for someone who argues
that there is no warming, or that other natural processes are responsible.

The discourse has been so poluted by ideology and money that I think the
science is almost worthless.

> wrote in message
news:Y0ugg.2384$9f2.1277@trnddc04...
>
> On 2-Jun-2006, Roger > wrote:
>
>> Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
>> been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
>> mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
>> camp that say it aint so.
>
>
> Hogwash!
>
> -Elliott Drucker

[Dan Luke]

"LWG" wrote:

> Just 20+ years ago Newsweek was running stories about the impending Ice
> Age which was upon us. The worry was Global Cooling. The "scientists"
> read the same archival data and came to the conclusion that the Earth was
> cooling at an alarming rate.

Magazines such as Newsweek are in the business of pumping up subscriptions
to sell ad copy. What they said 20 years ago--or yesterday--has nothing to
do with scientific consensus.

> Where I sit was once a jungle. It also was once covered by thousands of
> feet of ice. Isn't it just a bit presumptuous for us to think, "Ok, *I'm*
> here now, so all you little natural processes can just stop." Why should
> we expect that the temperatures today are the same as yesterday? "It's a
> right!." "I'll sue!" "We'll see what the ACLU has to say about this!"

What's all that got to do with science?

> What about the measurements that show the sun is hotter the past few years
> than it was before?

A red herring used by ideologues.

> The OP's comment about money is right on. There's plenty of money out
> there for those who read the tea leaves to see "global warming," with
> extra bonus points if my SUV is responsible. There is nothing for someone
> who argues that there is no warming, or that other natural processes are
> responsible.

Then why do energy industries lobby so hard for those ideas and against
massive scientific consensus against them?

> The discourse has been so poluted by ideology and money that I think the
> science is almost worthless.

In the popular media, yes. Real science is much drier and harder to
understand, so most people don't bother with it.

--
Dan

'Gut feeling'

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any rational
thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well known.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "LWG" wrote:
>
>> Just 20+ years ago Newsweek was running stories about the impending Ice
>> Age which was upon us. The worry was Global Cooling. The "scientists"
>> read the same archival data and came to the conclusion that the Earth was
>> cooling at an alarming rate.
>
> Magazines such as Newsweek are in the business of pumping up subscriptions
> to sell ad copy. What they said 20 years ago--or yesterday--has nothing
> to do with scientific consensus.

Just so you know, _consensus_ is a political term, not a scientific one.
(IOW, your ass is showing...oh, get real indignant now!!!)

Politics vs. Science:

Science Method
1) Gather all pertinent FACTS
2) Analyze
3) Reach conclusions

Political Method
1) Establish pre-ordained conclusions
2) Cherry pick "facts" that (maybe) pertain to predetermined conclusion (or
spin the hell out of them)
3) Draft press release or Congressional testimony
4) (Optional) Loudly and shrilly condemn critics as fascists an racists.
5) (Optional) Bury data sources and data streams

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

>
> Just so you know, _consensus_ is a political term, not a scientific one.
> (IOW, your ass is showing...oh, get real indignant now!!!)

Oh, please, Matt. I ain't Green Peace.

> Politics vs. Science:
>
> Science Method
> 1) Gather all pertinent FACTS
> 2) Analyze
> 3) Reach conclusions
>
> Political Method
> 1) Establish pre-ordained conclusions
> 2) Cherry pick "facts" that (maybe) pertain to predetermined conclusion
> (or spin the hell out of them)
> 3) Draft press release or Congressional testimony
> 4) (Optional) Loudly and shrilly condemn critics as fascists an racists.
> 5) (Optional) Bury data sources and data streams

I have no argument with any of that. The former is what real scientists do;
the latter is what I hear on talk radio and TV every day. But I am a layman
with a business to run; at some point, I have to decide: shall I return to
university and become thoroughly educated on climatology, or shall I judge
by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed science has concluded?

What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change? Why?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>>
>> Just so you know, _consensus_ is a political term, not a scientific one.
>> (IOW, your ass is showing...oh, get real indignant now!!!)
>
> Oh, please, Matt. I ain't Green Peace.
>
>> Politics vs. Science:
>>
>> Science Method
>> 1) Gather all pertinent FACTS
>> 2) Analyze
>> 3) Reach conclusions
>>
>> Political Method
>> 1) Establish pre-ordained conclusions
>> 2) Cherry pick "facts" that (maybe) pertain to predetermined conclusion
>> (or spin the hell out of them)
>> 3) Draft press release or Congressional testimony
>> 4) (Optional) Loudly and shrilly condemn critics as fascists an racists.
>> 5) (Optional) Bury data sources and data streams
>
> I have no argument with any of that. The former is what real scientists
> do; the latter is what I hear on talk radio and TV every day.

Really? The second is what I hear in the MSM and news releases from
academia.

As for 4) and 5), I think you're "stretching".

> But I am a layman with a business to run; at some point, I have to decide:
> shall I return to university and become thoroughly educated on
> climatology, or shall I judge by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed
> science has concluded?

The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of HAGW.
Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus".

I suggest you be a little more skeptical of your own "pre-ordained
conclusions".

I, too, have a business to run and I highly suspect it's a bit larger and
more diverse than yours, but I manage to dig through both sides of the issue
and one side is psychopatically stunted.

Guess which side.

(Hint: see the latter method above)

>
> What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change?
> Why?

In a nutshell: GW is real. It's CYCLICAL. Anthropogenic factors as down at
the level of "noise".

I notice, too, that all the studies that show the leftist/PC end of things
conveniently cherry-pick around the data.

Main Point: In science, you NEVER cherry pick your data. The name for that
is FRAUD.

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

>> But I am a layman with a business to run; at some point, I have to
>> decide: shall I return to university and become thoroughly educated on
>> climatology, or shall I judge by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed
>> science has concluded?
>
> The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of HAGW.
> Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus".

If that is true, (where'd you get that number?) what does that mean to you?

> I suggest you be a little more skeptical of your own "pre-ordained
> conclusions".

You, of course, are utterly objective. I can only aspire to reach that
level of critical clarity some day.

> I, too, have a business to run and I highly suspect it's a bit larger and
> more diverse than yours,

Dear me--I'm in awe!

> but I manage to dig through both sides of the issue and one side is
> psychopatically stunted.

I can't tell if you're talking about scientific papers or political
journals. It sounds like the latter.

Which side are most--and I mean a large majority--of scientists currently
on? Are they all deluded leftists doctoring the data to suppress the truth?
Do you think real scientists actually get away with that sort of thing on a
large scale? I will remind you that that is exactly what the creationists
claim about biologists.

> Guess which side.

Depends on where you look. If you want political bias on a scientific
subject, it certainly is to be found across the ideological spectrum. Or
are you claiming one side is free of such spin doctoring?

> (Hint: see the latter method above)
>
>>
>> What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change?
>> Why?
>
> In a nutshell: GW is real. It's CYCLICAL. Anthropogenic factors as down at
> the level of "noise".
>
> I notice, too, that all the studies that show the leftist/PC end of things

Now there's a real scientific term for you.

> conveniently cherry-pick around the data.

Are you seriously claiming that rightists aren't doing exactly the same?
And, again: are you speaking of scientific papers or political journals?

> Main Point: In science, you NEVER cherry pick your data. The name for that
> is FRAUD.

Indeed. But you have made the definite assertion that human influence on
climate is down at the level of "noise". What's peer reviewed studies are
you basing that on?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>>> But I am a layman with a business to run; at some point, I have to
>>> decide: shall I return to university and become thoroughly educated on
>>> climatology, or shall I judge by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed
>>> science has concluded?
>>
>> The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of HAGW.
>> Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus".
>
> If that is true, (where'd you get that number?)

The IPCC report on Climate
The Road from Rio to Kyoto: How Climate Science was Distorted to Support
Ideological Objectives , Dr. Fred Singer


Statement Concerning Global Warming

Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology

Presented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, July 10,
1997 (He refers to the same source).

Facts about CO2 , L. Van Zandt, Professor of Physics, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana

I have about 30 of these documents stored, should I send you a ZIP file so
you can read them at your leisure?

>what does that mean to you?

Like I said in the original, such "consensus" is bogus.

>
>> I suggest you be a little more skeptical of your own "pre-ordained
>> conclusions".
>
> You, of course, are utterly objective. I can only aspire to reach that
> level of critical clarity some day.
>
>> I, too, have a business to run and I highly suspect it's a bit larger and
>> more diverse than yours,
>
> Dear me--I'm in awe!



You have no prblem making up your mind on half-baked data, so your "awe" is
evidently aimed at the "authorities" that tell you what you want to hear.


>
>> but I manage to dig through both sides of the issue and one side is
>> psychopatically stunted.
>
> I can't tell if you're talking about scientific papers or political
> journals. It sounds like the latter.

You still don't get it that in todays world, the two have been *******ized.

>
> Which side are most--and I mean a large majority--of scientists currently
> on?

You still don't get it either that the (real) scientifc world doesn't work
that way.



> Are they all deluded leftists doctoring the data to suppress the truth?

Well, when each and every report DOES use a lot of doctored data, made up
"facts", etc., what would YOU think?


> Do you think real scientists actually get away with that sort of thing on
> a large scale?

Yes.

>I will remind you that that is exactly what the creationists claim about
>biologists.

I notice, too, that creationists are pretty flakey (to say the least)
"data".

Okay, Dan, here's the clincher and it pertains to the original topic: ****
the claims, show me the data, and anyone with even high school
science/physics can make a proper assessment. I do have time to peruse
articles that persent DATA, but not time to give you lessons in epistomology
or critical thinking.



If you want to rely on press reports, have at it.

Again, get past the notion of claims, especially the ones using the logical
falacy of "Arguments from Authority".


>
oss the ideological spectrum. Or
> are you claiming one side is free of such spin doctoring?
>
>> (Hint: see the latter method above)
>>
>>>
>>> What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change?
>>> Why?
>>
>> In a nutshell: GW is real. It's CYCLICAL. Anthropogenic factors as down
>> at the level of "noise".
>>
>> I notice, too, that all the studies that show the leftist/PC end of
>> things
>
> Now there's a real scientific term for you.
>
>> conveniently cherry-pick around the data.
>
> Are you seriously claiming that rightists aren't doing exactly the same?
> And, again: are you speaking of scientific papers or political journals?
>
>> Main Point: In science, you NEVER cherry pick your data. The name for
>> that is FRAUD.
>
> Indeed. But you have made the definite assertion that human influence on
> climate is down at the level of "noise". What's peer reviewed studies
> are you basing that on?


Aside from the fact that "peer review" is bogus on any issue that has been
taken over by politics .



Here's a good summary:

The climate change doomsayers are always quick to point out that the IPCC
climate change report was signed by more than 2,000 scientists. That's true,
as far as it goes, but, there are scientists, and then there are scientists.
In the case of the IPCC report, the vast majority of the scientists were, in
fact, political representatives of their countries, with degrees in social
sciences. While social sciences might be an important field of study, they
do not provide the holder of doctorates with any particular expertise about
global warming. And, of those representatives who signed the report, only 78
of them were even involved in the 1996 IPCC conference that produced the
report. As James Hogan relates in his book:

[T]he world was told there was a virtually unanimous scientific consensus on
the existence of a clear and present danger. On July 24, 1997, President
Clinton held a press conference at which he announced that the catastrophic
effects of man's use of fossil fuels was now an accepted scientific fact,
not a theory. To underline this, he produced a list stated as being of 2,500
scientists who had approved the 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) report preparing the ground for Kyoto. That sounded
conclusive, and most of the world at large accepted it as such.

However, upon further delving, things turn out to be not quite that simple.
For a start, by far the majority of the signers were not climate scientists
but political representatives from their respective countries, ranging all
the way from Albania to Zimbabwe, with degrees in the social sciences. Their
listing as "contributors" meant, for example, that they might have been
given a part of the report and asked to express an opinion, and even if the
opinion was a negative one they were still listed as "reviewers." 162 Only
seventy-eight of the attendees were involved in producing the document. Even
then, to give it even a hint of supporting the global warming position, the
executive summary, written by a small IPCC steering group, was purged of all
politically incorrect skepticism and modified-after the scientists had
signed it!-which caused an uproar of indignation from the qualified
atmospheric specialists who participated.

[Atmospheric scientist] Fred Singer later produced a paper entitled "The
Road from Rio to Kyoto: How Climatic Science was Distorted to Support
Ideological Objectives," which couldn't have put it much more clearly. 164
The IPCC report stated the twentieth century to have been the warmest in six
hundred years of climate history. Although correct, this avoided any mention
of the Little Ice Age that the twentieth century was a recovery from, while
going back just a little further would have brought in the "medieval
optimum," which was warmer than today. Another part of the report told that
increases in carbon dioxide in the geological past were "associated with"
increases in temperature. This is disingenuous in that it obviously aims at
giving the impression that the CO2 increases caused the temperature rises,
whereas, as we've seen, the temperature rises came first. If any causation
was involved, there are stronger reasons for supposing it to have been in
the opposite direction.

These are just two of twelve distortions that Singer's paper discusses, but
they give the general flavor. Two phrases edited out of the IPCC report
were, "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases
in greenhouse gases" and "When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be
identified? . . . [T]he best answer is, 'we do not know.' "

Frederick Seitz, former head of the National Academy of Sciences and
Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, wrote (Wall Street Journal,
June 12, 1996), "But this report is not what it appears to be-it is not the
version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title
page. . . . I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the
peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." Yet a
year later it was being cited as proof of a consensus by the scientific
community.

So how did atmospheric physicists, climatic specialists, and others with
scientific credentials feel about the issue? To find out, Dr. Arthur
Robinson, president and research professor of the Oregon Institute of
Science and Medicine, also publisher of the newsletter Access to Energy, in
February 1998, conducted a survey of the professional field by circulating a
petition calling for the government to reject the Kyoto agreement of
December 1997, on the grounds that it would harm the environment, hinder
science, and damage human health and welfare; that there was no scientific
evidence that greenhouse gases were or were likely to cause disruption of
the climate; and on the contrary there was substantial evidence that such
release would in fact be beneficial. After six months the petition had
collected over seventeen thousand signatures.

At about the same time the German Meteorologisches Institut Universitat
Hamburg and Forschungszentium, in a survey of specialists from various
branches of the climate sciences, found that 67 percent of Canadian
scientists rejected the notion that any warming due to human activity is
occurring, while in Germany the figure was 87 percent, and in the US, 97
percent. Some consensus for Kyoto!

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2952



So, do you want the ZIP file? It has the links to the originals so you can
follow up?




--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Roger]

On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 08:34:49 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" wrote:
>
>> Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
>> been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
>> mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
>> camp that say it aint so.
>
>Cite for the latter, please?

I'll have to hunt for it, but there is a group of scientists that have
formed a group. There is a web site with a listing of their
outstanding members. Now as to how many of them are "real
scientists"? I don't know.

However when even our current leader aknowledges it and our
contribution, it must be serious. <:-))

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

[Roger]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 05:16:40 GMT,
wrote:

>
>On 2-Jun-2006, Roger > wrote:
>
>> Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
>> been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
>> mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
>> camp that say it aint so.
>
>
>Hogwash!

Hog wash what? Ur a wee bit vague there. Hogways GW doesn't exist,
or there is a camp that say it ain't so?

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 08:34:49 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roger" wrote:
>>
>>> Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
>>> been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
>>> mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
>>> camp that say it aint so.
>>
>>Cite for the latter, please?
>
> I'll have to hunt for it, but there is a group of scientists that have
> formed a group. There is a web site with a listing of their
> outstanding members. Now as to how many of them are "real
> scientists"? I don't know.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

>
> However when even our current leader aknowledges it and our
> contribution, it must be serious. <:-))

That's funny!!

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-06-04, LWG > wrote:
> The OP's comment about money is right on. There's plenty of money out there
> for those who read the tea leaves to see "global warming," with extra bonus
> points if my SUV is responsible. There is nothing for someone who argues
> that there is no warming, or that other natural processes are responsible.

I think you are greatly mistaken: there is an ENORMOUS amount of money
for the global warming deniers - the entire oil industry for starters,
which is more profitable than ever.


--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-06-04, LWG > wrote:
>> The OP's comment about money is right on. There's plenty of money out
>> there
>> for those who read the tea leaves to see "global warming," with extra
>> bonus
>> points if my SUV is responsible. There is nothing for someone who argues
>> that there is no warming, or that other natural processes are
>> responsible.
>
> I think you are greatly mistaken: there is an ENORMOUS amount of money
> for the global warming deniers - the entire oil industry for starters,
> which is more profitable than ever.

Okay, how about a cite of one prominent denier who has accepted a research
grant from the oil industry?

Oh, and tell us how they fabricated their data.

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>>
>>>> But I am a layman with a business to run; at some point, I have to
>>>> decide: shall I return to university and become thoroughly educated on
>>>> climatology, or shall I judge by what the preponderance of peer-reviewed
>>>> science has concluded?
>>>
>>> The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of HAGW.
>>> Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus".
>>
>> If that is true, (where'd you get that number?)
>
> The IPCC report on Climate
> The Road from Rio to Kyoto: How Climate Science was Distorted to Support
> Ideological Objectives , Dr. Fred Singer
>
>
> Statement Concerning Global Warming
>
> Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology
>
> Presented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, July 10,
> 1997 (He refers to the same source).
>
> Facts about CO2 , L. Van Zandt, Professor of Physics, Purdue University,
> West Lafayette, Indiana
>
> I have about 30 of these documents stored, should I send you a ZIP file so
> you can read them at your leisure?
>
>>what does that mean to you?
>
> Like I said in the original, such "consensus" is bogus.
>
>>
>>> I suggest you be a little more skeptical of your own "pre-ordained
>>> conclusions".
>>
>> You, of course, are utterly objective. I can only aspire to reach that
>> level of critical clarity some day.
>>
>>> I, too, have a business to run and I highly suspect it's a bit larger and
>>> more diverse than yours,
>>
>> Dear me--I'm in awe!
>
>
>
> You have no prblem making up your mind on half-baked data, so your "awe" is
> evidently aimed at the "authorities" that tell you what you want to hear.
>
>
>>
>>> but I manage to dig through both sides of the issue and one side is
>>> psychopatically stunted.
>>
>> I can't tell if you're talking about scientific papers or political
>> journals. It sounds like the latter.
>
> You still don't get it that in todays world, the two have been *******ized.
>
>>
>> Which side are most--and I mean a large majority--of scientists currently
>> on?
>
> You still don't get it either that the (real) scientifc world doesn't work
> that way.
>
>
>
>> Are they all deluded leftists doctoring the data to suppress the truth?
>
> Well, when each and every report DOES use a lot of doctored data, made up
> "facts", etc., what would YOU think?

You have read each and every study that concludes their is human influence on
climate? Man, you *are* efficient!

>> Do you think real scientists actually get away with that sort of thing on
>> a large scale?
>
> Yes.

That is quite a remarkable claim. It seems you are accusing climate
scientists world wide of mendacity in the service of a left wing agenda, and
that the normal peer review checks on such things aren't working--is that
right?

>>I will remind you that that is exactly what the creationists claim about
>>biologists.
>
> I notice, too, that creationists are pretty flakey (to say the least)
> "data".
>
> Okay, Dan, here's the clincher and it pertains to the original topic: ****
> the claims, show me the data, and anyone with even high school
> science/physics can make a proper assessment. I do have time to peruse
> articles that persent DATA, but not time to give you lessons in
> epistomology or critical thinking.

You persist in this patronizing tone. Why?

> If you want to rely on press reports, have at it.
>
> Again, get past the notion of claims, especially the ones using the logical
> falacy of "Arguments from Authority".

> oss the ideological spectrum. Or
>> are you claiming one side is free of such spin doctoring?
>>
>>> (Hint: see the latter method above)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you conclude about the issue of anthropogenic climate change?
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> In a nutshell: GW is real. It's CYCLICAL. Anthropogenic factors as down
>>> at the level of "noise".
>>>
>>> I notice, too, that all the studies that show the leftist/PC end of
>>> things
>>
>> Now there's a real scientific term for you.
>>
>>> conveniently cherry-pick around the data.
>>
>> Are you seriously claiming that rightists aren't doing exactly the same?
>> And, again: are you speaking of scientific papers or political journals?
>>
>>> Main Point: In science, you NEVER cherry pick your data. The name for
>>> that is FRAUD.
>>
>> Indeed. But you have made the definite assertion that human influence on
>> climate is down at the level of "noise". What's peer reviewed studies
>> are you basing that on?
>
>
> Aside from the fact that "peer review" is bogus on any issue that has been
> taken over by politics .

Does that mean you don't have any?

And that is a truly astonishing claim: that the very foundation of scientific
error correction has been rendered void!

> Here's a good summary:
>
> The climate change doomsayers are always quick to point out that the IPCC
> climate change report was signed by more than 2,000 scientists. That's
> true, as far as it goes, but, there are scientists, and then there are
> scientists. In the case of the IPCC report, the vast majority of the
> scientists were, in fact, political representatives of their countries,
> with degrees in social sciences. While social sciences might be an
> important field of study, they do not provide the holder of doctorates with
> any particular expertise about global warming. And, of those
> representatives who signed the report, only 78 of them were even involved
> in the 1996 IPCC conference that produced the report. As James Hogan
> relates in his book:
>
> [T]he world was told there was a virtually unanimous scientific consensus
> on the existence of a clear and present danger. On July 24, 1997, President
> Clinton held a press conference at which he announced that the catastrophic
> effects of man's use of fossil fuels was now an accepted scientific fact,
> not a theory. To underline this, he produced a list stated as being of
> 2,500 scientists who had approved the 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on
> Climate Change (IPCC) report preparing the ground for Kyoto. That sounded
> conclusive, and most of the world at large accepted it as such.
>
> However, upon further delving, things turn out to be not quite that simple.
> For a start, by far the majority of the signers were not climate scientists
> but political representatives from their respective countries, ranging all
> the way from Albania to Zimbabwe, with degrees in the social sciences.
> Their listing as "contributors" meant, for example, that they might have
> been given a part of the report and asked to express an opinion, and even
> if the opinion was a negative one they were still listed as "reviewers."
> 162 Only seventy-eight of the attendees were involved in producing the
> document. Even then, to give it even a hint of supporting the global
> warming position, the executive summary, written by a small IPCC steering
> group, was purged of all politically incorrect skepticism and
> modified-after the scientists had signed it!-which caused an uproar of
> indignation from the qualified atmospheric specialists who participated.
>
> [Atmospheric scientist] Fred Singer later produced a paper entitled "The
> Road from Rio to Kyoto: How Climatic Science was Distorted to Support
> Ideological Objectives," which couldn't have put it much more clearly. 164
> The IPCC report stated the twentieth century to have been the warmest in
> six hundred years of climate history. Although correct, this avoided any
> mention of the Little Ice Age that the twentieth century was a recovery
> from, while going back just a little further would have brought in the
> "medieval optimum," which was warmer than today. Another part of the report
> told that increases in carbon dioxide in the geological past were
> "associated with" increases in temperature. This is disingenuous in that it
> obviously aims at giving the impression that the CO2 increases caused the
> temperature rises, whereas, as we've seen, the temperature rises came
> first. If any causation was involved, there are stronger reasons for
> supposing it to have been in the opposite direction.
>
> These are just two of twelve distortions that Singer's paper discusses, but
> they give the general flavor. Two phrases edited out of the IPCC report
> were, "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
> attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases
> in greenhouse gases" and "When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be
> identified? . . . [T]he best answer is, 'we do not know.' "
>
> Frederick Seitz, former head of the National Academy of Sciences and
> Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, wrote (Wall Street Journal,
> June 12, 1996), "But this report is not what it appears to be-it is not the
> version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the
> title page. . . . I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of
> the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." Yet
> a year later it was being cited as proof of a consensus by the scientific
> community.
>
> So how did atmospheric physicists, climatic specialists, and others with
> scientific credentials feel about the issue? To find out, Dr. Arthur
> Robinson, president and research professor of the Oregon Institute of
> Science and Medicine, also publisher of the newsletter Access to Energy, in
> February 1998, conducted a survey of the professional field by circulating
> a petition calling for the government to reject the Kyoto agreement of
> December 1997, on the grounds that it would harm the environment, hinder
> science, and damage human health and welfare; that there was no scientific
> evidence that greenhouse gases were or were likely to cause disruption of
> the climate; and on the contrary there was substantial evidence that such
> release would in fact be beneficial. After six months the petition had
> collected over seventeen thousand signatures.
>
> At about the same time the German Meteorologisches Institut Universitat
> Hamburg and Forschungszentium, in a survey of specialists from various
> branches of the climate sciences, found that 67 percent of Canadian
> scientists rejected the notion that any warming due to human activity is
> occurring, while in Germany the figure was 87 percent, and in the US, 97
> percent. Some consensus for Kyoto!
>
> http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2952

Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked past
peer review, only to be caught later:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/draft-do-not-post/

--

Dan

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>> ...

>> http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2952
>
> Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked past
> peer review, only to be caught later:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/draft-do-not-post/
>

Michael Mann? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

What else can you pull out of your ass.

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>>
>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>
>>> http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2952
>>
>> Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked
>> past peer review, only to be caught later:
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/draft-do-not-post/
>>
>
"Thus, while un-peer-reviewed claims should not be given much credence, just
because a particular paper has passed through peer review does not
absolutely insure that the conclusions are correct or scientifically valid.
The "leaks" in the system outlined above unfortunately allow some
less-than-ideal work to be published in peer-reviewed journals. This should
therefore be a concern when the results of any one particular study are
promoted over the conclusions of a larger body of past published work
(especially if it is a new study that has not been fully absorbed or
assessed by the community).

Indeed, this is why scientific assessments such as the Arctic Climate
Impact Assessment (ACIA), or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) reports, and the independent reports by the National Academy of
Sciences, are so important in giving a balanced overview of the state of
knowledge in the scientific research community."

Guess you didn't read the Q&O article, huh?

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

> Guess you didn't read the Q&O article, huh?
>

Guess you didn't read the rest of the article, did you?

Still waiting for you to back up your assertion that anthropogenic factors
are nothing but noise in global climate change.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>> Guess you didn't read the Q&O article, huh?

Did you read the Q&O article?

>
> Guess you didn't read the rest of the article, did you?

After three pages of schizophrenia, I gave up.

> Still waiting for you to back up your assertion that anthropogenic factors
> are nothing but noise in global climate change.

I'm still waiting for you to read the article and respond to the sixteen
points I already made.

Until then, I'm not going to waste any more time with your typical evasion.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>> Guess you didn't read the Q&O article, huh?
>>
>
> Guess you didn't read the rest of the article, did you?
>
> Still waiting for you to back up your assertion that anthropogenic factors
> are nothing but noise in global climate change.

Who are you going to refer to after nutjob Michael Mann?, Michael Moore? Are
you going to tell me his movie was viewed by 18 million people?

Peer review by a bunch of bought lackies?

Hey, using your other analogy, all the creationist **** was "peer reviewed".

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked past
> peer review, only to be caught later:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/draft-do-not-post/

Here's your thoroughly discredited Michael Mann
http://www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked
>> past peer review, only to be caught later:
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/draft-do-not-post/
>
> Here's your thoroughly discredited Michael Mann
> http://www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm
Whoops, this too http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

[NobodyYouKnow]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked
> >> past peer review, only to be caught later:
> >>
> >>
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/draft-do-not-post/
> >
> > Here's your thoroughly discredited Michael Mann
> > http://www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm
> Whoops, this too http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Michael Mann continues to be a respected scientist. On the other hand, John
Daly, the school teacher funded by big oil to provide pseudoscience, is
dead, though his industry sponsored propaganda site lives on.

[z]

"Matt Barrow" wrote:


>
> The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of
HAGW.
> Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus".

Well, what does that tell us about the folks who do not agree with the
consensus regarding evolution? Or are they another embattled band of
truth seekers battling the vast wealth and power of the geneticist
empire, the way the What-AGW folks are battling the allpowerful
climatology cartel and their grim desire to destroy the US economy for
murky reasons nobody can fathom?

[z]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> Michael Mann? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
>
> What else can you pull out of your ass.

Another impeccably unimpeachable piece of scientific logic. Curses!
Foiled again!

[z]

Dan Luke wrote:
> > Okay, Dan, here's the clincher and it pertains to the original topic: ****
> > the claims, show me the data, and anyone with even high school
> > science/physics can make a proper assessment. I do have time to peruse
> > articles that persent DATA, but not time to give you lessons in
> > epistomology or critical thinking.
>
> You persist in this patronizing tone. Why?

You must have realized by now that the What-AGW folks do not really
believe what they are saying, but just can't help being niggling
hectoring contrarian puffed-up supercilious twits whose pretense of
being obviously smarter, more knowledgable, more honest, more moral,
and more ethical than anyone who disagrees with them masks a
deep-seated despair that this "superiority" is the only source of their
worth, and if they were to fail to "win" these kind of arguments for
any reason, even by discovering that objective reality did not match
their predetermined position, they would have to face the horror of
existence as just another piece of meat in a world where the leaders
they slavishly support treat them as shabbily as they do the rest of us.

[raylopez99]

Ah, Z, you overreached yourself, as usual.

You should not make fun of the creationists since they are your AGW
allies. They think, like Dodger Crappock, that evil Industrialists are
not keeping good stewardship of the earth, and want to scale back
progress. The AGW controversy gives them the perfect opportunity to do
so, under the guise of science.

As for the AGW lobby, their motives are clear: grant money. You
cannot publish a anti-AGW paper as easy as you can a pro-AGW
paper--that's well known.

RL


z wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>
> >
> > The "peer-reviewed" reports are supposedly running 100% in favor of
> HAGW.
> > Not even evolution gets that high of "consensus".
>
> Well, what does that tell us about the folks who do not agree with the
> consensus regarding evolution? Or are they another embattled band of
> truth seekers battling the vast wealth and power of the geneticist
> empire, the way the What-AGW folks are battling the allpowerful
> climatology cartel and their grim desire to destroy the US economy for
> murky reasons nobody can fathom?

[z]

raylopez99 wrote:

> As for the AGW lobby, their motives are clear: grant money. You
> cannot publish a anti-AGW paper as easy as you can a pro-AGW
> paper--that's well known.

Did you know the Bushies run the government now?
Oh, and by the way, for those forced to pervert their views by
publishing AGW in order to maintain their wealth and power as
climatologists, here is a list of 40-odd think tanks, media outlets,
and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups which have
received more than $8 million from ExxonMobil to free them to publish
the truth about the AGW lie. Since none of them have taken anything
other than the what-AGW? position since receiving this money, that must
mean that that is the truth! No doubt ExxonMobil would be glad to free
more scientists from bondage if you asked! In fact, looking at the
table, you don't even have to do anything climatology related!
<http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html>

[Greg Copeland]

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:43:09 +0000, Aaron Coolidge wrote:

> PS, in this widely spread out country purely electric cars are not useful
> until they have the same performance as gasoline cars, particularly in
> their recharge time. My gasoline car recharges in 10 minutes and goes
> 450 miles per charge. Each charge costs $55. It's really pretty cheap,
> all things considered.

For what it's worth, they are making huge strides in battery
technology...at least in the lab. They are working on using nanotubes in
capacitors which vastly increase their surface area. The result is a
"battery" which can be charged like a capacitor (means fast charge) and
can survive hundreds of thousand charge cycles. Currently, making them are
painful and costly...but research and technology is heading in the right
direction.

They are also starting to create ICE which create steam from its heat
byproduct, which in turn, turn turbines attached to generators, which can
keep batteries fully charged. This means, in the short term, better
hybrid technology may help out until better battery technologies allow for
a pure (or nearly so) electric solution can be found.


Greg

[Roger]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:15:29 -0500, Greg Copeland >
wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:43:09 +0000, Aaron Coolidge wrote:
>
>> PS, in this widely spread out country purely electric cars are not useful
>> until they have the same performance as gasoline cars, particularly in
>> their recharge time. My gasoline car recharges in 10 minutes and goes
>> 450 miles per charge. Each charge costs $55. It's really pretty cheap,
>> all things considered.
>
>For what it's worth, they are making huge strides in battery
>technology...at least in the lab. They are working on using nanotubes in
>capacitors which vastly increase their surface area. The result is a
>"battery" which can be charged like a capacitor (means fast charge) and
>can survive hundreds of thousand charge cycles. Currently, making them are
>painful and costly...but research and technology is heading in the right
>direction.
>
>They are also starting to create ICE which create steam from its heat
>byproduct, which in turn, turn turbines attached to generators, which can
>keep batteries fully charged. This means, in the short term, better
>hybrid technology may help out until better battery technologies allow for
>a pure (or nearly so) electric solution can be found.
>
But where will the electrical energy come from? We do not have the
electrical grid capacity to power more than a small fraction of the
cars. Solar will not be a viable option until the power grid can
undergo a great increase in its size. Solar is still expensive on
any but a small scale.

Nuclear would take a considerable time to bring on line.

And that means new power plants that will most likely be burning coal.
Coal can be burnt efficiently and cleanly with the proper technology
although that too is costly and results in lots of waste products.

Smaller cars that get good gas mileage be they hybrid or just small
would make a big difference. Just driving fewer miles could make a
good portion of this unnecessary, but as a whole drivers are not going
to make that sacrifice.

Just to add a side note, if we start using electricity at those rates
the electrical rates will become quite high. There is no painless way
to lower costs except to conserve and to many that is the most painful
price.

Watch the Discovery channel's show next month on global warming. If
most of what they have seen is true there may be a good many who read
this still around when realestate starts to get scarce.


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

>
>Greg

[Juan Jimenez]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:15:29 -0500, Greg Copeland >
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:43:09 +0000, Aaron Coolidge wrote:
>>
>>> PS, in this widely spread out country purely electric cars are not
>>> useful
>>> until they have the same performance as gasoline cars, particularly in
>>> their recharge time. My gasoline car recharges in 10 minutes and goes
>>> 450 miles per charge. Each charge costs $55. It's really pretty cheap,
>>> all things considered.
>>
>>For what it's worth, they are making huge strides in battery
>>technology...at least in the lab. They are working on using nanotubes in
>>capacitors which vastly increase their surface area. The result is a
>>"battery" which can be charged like a capacitor (means fast charge) and
>>can survive hundreds of thousand charge cycles. Currently, making them are
>>painful and costly...but research and technology is heading in the right
>>direction.
>>
>>They are also starting to create ICE which create steam from its heat
>>byproduct, which in turn, turn turbines attached to generators, which can
>>keep batteries fully charged. This means, in the short term, better
>>hybrid technology may help out until better battery technologies allow for
>>a pure (or nearly so) electric solution can be found.
>>
> But where will the electrical energy come from? We do not have the
> electrical grid capacity to power more than a small fraction of the
> cars.

Huh? You're kidding, right? You think we can power all the ACs but not the
battery chargers?




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Roger]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:09:59 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" >
wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:15:29 -0500, Greg Copeland >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:43:09 +0000, Aaron Coolidge wrote:
>>>
>>>> PS, in this widely spread out country purely electric cars are not
>>>> useful
>>>> until they have the same performance as gasoline cars, particularly in
>>>> their recharge time. My gasoline car recharges in 10 minutes and goes
>>>> 450 miles per charge. Each charge costs $55. It's really pretty cheap,
>>>> all things considered.
>>>
>>>For what it's worth, they are making huge strides in battery
>>>technology...at least in the lab. They are working on using nanotubes in
>>>capacitors which vastly increase their surface area. The result is a
>>>"battery" which can be charged like a capacitor (means fast charge) and
>>>can survive hundreds of thousand charge cycles. Currently, making them are
>>>painful and costly...but research and technology is heading in the right
>>>direction.
>>>
>>>They are also starting to create ICE which create steam from its heat
>>>byproduct, which in turn, turn turbines attached to generators, which can
>>>keep batteries fully charged. This means, in the short term, better
>>>hybrid technology may help out until better battery technologies allow for
>>>a pure (or nearly so) electric solution can be found.
>>>
>> But where will the electrical energy come from? We do not have the
>> electrical grid capacity to power more than a small fraction of the
>> cars.
>
>Huh? You're kidding, right? You think we can power all the ACs but not the
>battery chargers?

<sigh>

No, I'm not kidding. They aren't going to turn off the air
conditioners to charge the batteries.

BTW, cars are second in CO2 production only to our power plants.

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>Huh? You're kidding, right? You think we can power all the ACs but not the
>>battery chargers?
>
> <sigh>
>
> No, I'm not kidding. They aren't going to turn off the air
> conditioners to charge the batteries.
>
> BTW, cars are second in CO2 production only to our power plants.

Which is a good thing. CO2 makes plants and trees grow.

And cars and power plants are way down on the list compared to natural
sources.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-06-29, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> Which is a good thing. CO2 makes plants and trees grow.
>
> And cars and power plants are way down on the list compared to natural
> sources.

Human CO2 is something like only 3% of global CO2 emissions.

It's not absolute quantities in this context that are important - it's
the relative addition of man made CO2. If (as an example) the Earth's
system could keep a steady concentration of CO2 for a natural output of,
say, 100 units - and man made sources then started adding just 1 unit,
instead of a steady concentration (all things being equal) you start to
get an increase of 1 unit per unit of time.

The evidence is conclusive that recent rises in CO2 concentrations (from
280ppm in 1900 to 320ppm now) are entirely caused by human activity. We
can see that CO2 levels have only varied between 270 and 290ppm for a
good 10,000 years prior to this point. Carbon dating the CO2 in the
atmosphere shows that the recent additions of CO2 (i.e. the change from
~280ppm to 320ppm) are from the burning of fossil fuels.

It may all be well if we increased the carbon dioxide sinks by 3% also,
but generally the kind of activity that leads to the burning of fossil
fuels also leads to a reduction in the CO2 sinks.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Ray Andraka]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> The evidence is conclusive that recent rises in CO2 concentrations (from
> 280ppm in 1900 to 320ppm now) are entirely caused by human activity. We
> can see that CO2 levels have only varied between 270 and 290ppm for a
> good 10,000 years prior to this point. Carbon dating the CO2 in the
> atmosphere shows that the recent additions of CO2 (i.e. the change from
> ~280ppm to 320ppm) are from the burning of fossil fuels.

More likely, the increase is due to the decrease in forests which absorb
the CO2 and release oxygen in exchange. Still it can be traced back to
human activity, but not due to emissions...the decrease in the scrubbing
capacity due to deforestation is much greater than the small percentage
increase in emissions due to human activity. Same is likely true of
global warming.

[Jim Logajan]

Ray Andraka > wrote:
> More likely, the increase is due to the decrease in forests which absorb
> the CO2 and release oxygen in exchange. Still it can be traced back to
> human activity, but not due to emissions...the decrease in the scrubbing
> capacity due to deforestation is much greater than the small percentage
> increase in emissions due to human activity. Same is likely true of
> global warming.

Just FYI, the impact of deforestation on atmospheric CO2 content is
discussed here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-06-29, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>> Which is a good thing. CO2 makes plants and trees grow.
>>
>> And cars and power plants are way down on the list compared to natural
>> sources.
>
> Human CO2 is something like only 3% of global CO2 emissions.
>
> It's not absolute quantities in this context that are important - it's
> the relative addition of man made CO2. If (as an example) the Earth's
> system could keep a steady concentration of CO2 for a natural output of,
> say, 100 units - and man made sources then started adding just 1 unit,
> instead of a steady concentration (all things being equal) you start to
> get an increase of 1 unit per unit of time.
>
> The evidence is conclusive that recent rises in CO2 concentrations (from
> 280ppm in 1900 to 320ppm now) are entirely caused by human activity. We
> can see that CO2 levels have only varied between 270 and 290ppm for a
> good 10,000 years prior to this point. Carbon dating the CO2 in the
> atmosphere shows that the recent additions of CO2 (i.e. the change from
> ~280ppm to 320ppm) are from the burning of fossil fuels.
>
> It may all be well if we increased the carbon dioxide sinks by 3% also,
> but generally the kind of activity that leads to the burning of fossil
> fuels also leads to a reduction in the CO2 sinks.

Regarding the environmentalists' concern over CO2, here are some facts
nobody argues with:





1. Atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi (pounds/in./in.).



2. Earth's radius is about 4,000 miles.



3. CO2 constituted about 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere in 1950--.



4. CO2 now constitutes more like 0.06 per cent of the atmosphere.



From #2 we calculate that the Earth's surface area is 0.8 billion billion

square inches. And from #1 that the atmosphere weighs 11.9 billion billion
pounds. This is 6 million billion tons. Now take fact #3; 0.04 per cent is
2,400 billion tons of CO2. Half (the change since 1950) is 1,200 billion
tons. Let's call this fact #5:



5. There were 2,400 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1950; 3,600
billion tons now, give or take a psi or two--.



6. Human activity currently releases 6 billion tons of CO2 per year.



7. Non-human activity (oceans, trees, Pinatubo, Mauna Loa, etc.) releases
200 billion tons of CO2 per year--.



Now compare fact #5 with fact #6. Simple division tells you that if every
molecule of human-released CO2 at the current rate of production stayed in
the atmosphere, it would take another 200 years for the post-1950 change to
be matched. Or looking at it backward, since minus 200 years takes us back
to before the Industrial Revolution, it means that if every CO2 molecule
from every factory, car, steam engine, barbecue, campfire, and weenie roast
that ever was since the first liberal climbed down out of a tree right up
until today was still in the atmosphere. It still wouldn't account for the
change in CO2 since 1950.



Fact #7 has been going on for a long time, a lot longer than any piddling
200 years. Comparing #5 and #7 means it takes about 12 yearsfor the average
CO2 molecule to be recycled back out of the atmosphere.



Given the above, here are some conclusions that nobody can argue with and
still claim to be a reasoning creature:



8. Human activity, carried out at the present rate indefinately (more than
12 years) cannot possibly account for more than 6 per cent of the observed
change in CO2 levels.



9. Entirely shutting off civilizationor even killing everybodycould only
have a tiny effect on global warming, if there is any such thing--.



That leaves two questions that no one knows how to answer:



Q-1. Why do all these supposedly educated, supposedly sane people want to
end civilization?



Q-2. Since humanity can't possibly be causing the CO2 level to go up, isn't
it time to start wondering about what is?



L. Van Zandt, Professor of Physics,

Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Ray Andraka > wrote:
>> More likely, the increase is due to the decrease in forests which absorb
>> the CO2 and release oxygen in exchange. Still it can be traced back to
>> human activity, but not due to emissions...the decrease in the scrubbing
>> capacity due to deforestation is much greater than the small percentage
>> increase in emissions due to human activity. Same is likely true of
>> global warming.
>
> Just FYI, the impact of deforestation on atmospheric CO2 content is
> discussed here:
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160

Interesting...especially the comments! (Many sound like someone just
finished a High School book report :~) )

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"z" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> Michael Mann? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
>>
>> What else can you pull out of your ass.
>
> Another impeccably unimpeachable piece of scientific logic. Curses!
> Foiled again!

What's next, how sheep's bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes?
Here's your Michael Mann and his Hockey Stick:

www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

The Hockey Stick has got to be the joke of the 90's environuts.

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"NobodyYouKnow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked
>> >> past peer review, only to be caught later:
>> >>
>> >>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/draft-do-not-post/
>> >
>> > Here's your thoroughly discredited Michael Mann
>> > http://www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm
>> Whoops, this too http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
>
> Michael Mann continues to be a respected scientist.

He continues as a discredit fraud! Like you!

> On the other hand, John
> Daly, the school teacher funded by big oil to provide pseudoscience, is
> dead, though his industry sponsored propaganda site lives on.

Liar!

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:15:29 -0500, Greg Copeland >
> wrote:
>>
>>They are also starting to create ICE which create steam from its heat
>>byproduct, which in turn, turn turbines attached to generators, which can
>>keep batteries fully charged. This means, in the short term, better
>>hybrid technology may help out until better battery technologies allow for
>>a pure (or nearly so) electric solution can be found.
>>
> But where will the electrical energy come from? We do not have the
> electrical grid capacity to power more than a small fraction of the
> cars. Solar will not be a viable option until the power grid can
> undergo a great increase in its size. Solar is still expensive on
> any but a small scale.
>
> Nuclear would take a considerable time to bring on line.

I take it you're factoring in the EPA 20-years-worth-of-paperwork rules?

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
news:Lpdpg.52402$ZW3.39236@dukeread04...
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>
>> The evidence is conclusive that recent rises in CO2 concentrations (from
>> 280ppm in 1900 to 320ppm now) are entirely caused by human activity. We
>> can see that CO2 levels have only varied between 270 and 290ppm for a
>> good 10,000 years prior to this point. Carbon dating the CO2 in the
>> atmosphere shows that the recent additions of CO2 (i.e. the change from
>> ~280ppm to 320ppm) are from the burning of fossil fuels.
>
> More likely, the increase is due to the decrease in forests which absorb
> the CO2 and release oxygen in exchange. Still it can be traced back to
> human activity, but not due to emissions...the decrease in the scrubbing
> capacity due to deforestation is much greater than the small percentage
> increase in emissions due to human activity. Same is likely true of
> global warming.

It isn't scrubbing and it isn't trees. You need to look a little closer at
the science that's coming out of all this study of global warming. The vast
majority of CO2 is stored elsewhere, and the problem is that that natural
capacity to absorb excess and store it is being depleted. And yes, the vast
majority of this is due to human emissions.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
> news:Lpdpg.52402$ZW3.39236@dukeread04...
>> Dylan Smith wrote:
>>

>
> It isn't scrubbing and it isn't trees. You need to look a little closer at
> the science that's coming out of all this study of global warming. The
> vast majority of CO2 is stored elsewhere, and the problem is that that
> natural capacity to absorb excess and store it is being depleted. And yes,
> the vast majority of this is due to human emissions.

1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what portion
is natural?

2) What are the short-term and long-term effect of CO2 concentrations?

[Coby Beck]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Hockey Stick has got to be the joke of the 90's environuts.

The infamous "Hockey Stick" graph was featured prominently in the IPCC TAR
Summary for Policymakers. It was important in that it overturned the concept
of a global Medieval Warm Period warmer than the 20th century and a
pronounced Little Ice Age, both long time (cautiously) accepted features of
the last 1000 years of climate history.

This caused quite an uproar in the sceptic community, not least because of
its visual efficacy. Two Canadians, an economist and a petroleum geologist,
took it apon themselves to verify this proxy reconstruction by getting the
data and examining the methodology used for themselves. They found that
there were errors in the description of data used as published in Nature.
Mann et al., the Hockey Stick's creators, published a correction in Nature,
noting where the description of the study did not match what was actually
done. The Canadians, McIntyre and McKitrick, then proceeded to publish a
paper that purported to uncover serious methodological flaws and problems
with data sets used.

Everything from this point on is hotly disputed and highly technical.

All the claims made by M&M have been rebutted in detail by many other
climatologists and they insist that these folks are completely in error.
This of course fits nicely with the expectations of both sides of the Global
Warming issue, the conspiracy theorists as well as the champions of peer
review. All the rebuttals have been objected to and the objections denied
and the denials rejected. The issues are highly technical and require
considerable time and energy to truly investigate. Steve McIntyre has a
website devoted to his continued probe of this study and Michael Mann is a
contributor to Real Climate which devotes considerable web space to refuting
the attacks. In short, M&M raise many specific and technical objections and
the climate scientists seem pretty unified in denying the charges. To my
knowledge, the worst indictment from the climate science community came from
a study led by Hans Von Storch that concluded M&M was right about a
particular criticism of methodology but correcting it did not change the
study results.

If you want to try to evaluate this issue fairly you must read the copious
material at the sites mentioned above. You must also be prepared to get into
dendrochonolgy and statistical analysis.

Where does that leave the rest of us?

For myself, I will confess immediately that the technical issues are over my
head, I don't know PCA from R^2 from a hole in the ground. But I think the
most critical point to remember, if you are researching this in the context
of determining the validity of AGW theory, is that this row is about a
single study that was published 8 years ago. This is starting to be ancient
history. If you feel it is tainted (as I prefer to just assume, because as I
said I do not want to put the required effort into unraveling it all for
myself) then simply discard it.

The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other
reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98, ie the
handle of the hockey stick is not as straight, but they *all* support the
general conclusions that the IPCC TAR came to in 2001: the late 20th century
warming is anamolous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's
are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand
years.

Here is a nice superimposition of numerous global, hemispheric and regional
reconstructions for the last 2000 years and the last 12000 years together
with an average. References are all presented at the bottom of the pages.
Regional variations are of course greater than global, so don't be surprised
by how wavy some of the lines in there are. Does the 20th century stand out?

(Disclosure: one of the reconstructions used in those pages is by the same
team that did the infamous hockey stick, but it is not the same study. To
the best of my knowledge, M&M have claimed no problems with that one, though
they have expressed some concerns that span the entire field of
dendrochronology).

I have read as much about this controversy as I ever will, and I have come
to the firm conviction that I do not have the technical background and/or
time required to make a scientific judgment on this issue one way or
another. That is the best objective opinion I can offer you. I suspect 95%
of the people you will come across arguing about this have chosen their
position ideologically.

And while MBH, in my mind, are in no way guilty of fraud or incompetence
until solidly proven to be so (many of the accusations do go this far), the
judgement of their research must be approached in reverse: given a reason to
doubt, I will not accept it until it is proven to me that the criticisms are
invalid. Neither case can I decided for myself until I devote the required
time to both the statistical background and the technical details of M&M vs
MBH98.

So where does that leave me? With the dozens of other proxy reconstructions,
some by the same team or involving members, some by completely different
people, some using tree rings, some using corals, some using stalagtites,
some using borehole measurements, all of which support the general
conclusions. And it is that general conclusion which is important to me, not
whether or not one Bristlecone pine was or was not included correctly in a
single 8 year old study.

The general conclusion is:


"Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to
differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar
patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most
striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the
warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after
1920."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

I also urge anyone worried about this study and what its conclusion means
for the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to remember this: the study
of the past can be very informative, but it is not explanatory of the
present or predictive of the future.

The scientific basis for the dangers we face and their cause is about much
more than a few tree-rings and the temperature during the Medieval Warm
Period.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what portion
> is natural?

Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.

> 2) What are the short-term and long-term effect of CO2 concentrations?

Ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years plus other
evidence show that global temperature closely correlates with CO2
levels.

What has this got to do with aviation? Well, most of us GA people make
SUV drivers look like fuel misers.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck > wrote:

<snip>

> Where does that leave the rest of us?

Ancient literature.

England was a big wine producer during the Roman period and for a while
after the Romans.

England became too cold for wine production about a millenium ago.

It is now almost warm enough in England *AGAIN* to produce decent wine.

A little more waming and England will be back to the climate of 2000
years ago and once again English wine will be available in the civilized
world.

Oh the horrors.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Coby Beck]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Where does that leave the rest of us?
>
> Ancient literature.

Why not scientific evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

> England was a big wine producer during the Roman period and for a while
> after the Romans.
>
> England became too cold for wine production about a millenium ago.

Uh, that is supposed to have been the Medieval Warm Period. You have a poor
grasp of the facts.

> It is now almost warm enough in England *AGAIN* to produce decent wine.

In specific answer to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, I like to
point people here:

http://www.english-wine.com/index.html


--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Where does that leave the rest of us?
> >
> > Ancient literature.

> Why not scientific evidence?

Why not the records from the people that were alive at the time?

Perhaps the Romans were the pawn's of Big Oil?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

> > England was a big wine producer during the Roman period and for a while
> > after the Romans.
> >
> > England became too cold for wine production about a millenium ago.

> Uh, that is supposed to have been the Medieval Warm Period. You have a poor
> grasp of the facts.

You have a poor grasp of reading graphs.

According to your graph refenced above (depending on who's data your use),
the "little ice age" started about a millenium ago.

So what's your problem?

As an aside I find it interesting the graph is asymetrical with the
positive varience going to +.6 and the negative going to about -1.1
degrees.

It makes the positive excursions look impressive.

I would also question the placement of zero and the lack of any mention
of what zero is supposed to represent.

Looking at the same source for a period of 450 thousand years, it looks
like we are currently a little on the cool side.

From that graph I would be more worried about global cooling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

> > It is now almost warm enough in England *AGAIN* to produce decent wine.

> In specific answer to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, I like to
> point people here:

> http://www.english-wine.com/index.html

I'm well aware England is again growing grapes and making wine.

I'm also well aware from writting of the times that England grew a
lot of grapes during Roman times and up to about the beginning of the
little ice age, at which time production just about ceased.

It is only in recent time (in terms of centuries) that it has been
warm enough to start producing in quantity again.

Perhaps you should close your web browser, turn off the computer,
and read a few good books, preferably in the original Latin.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Coby Beck" wrote)
> In specific answer to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, I like to
> point people here:
>
> http://www.english-wine.com/index.html


Alexis Bailly Vineyard - Hastings, MN
http://www.abvwines.com/about.htm
French winemakers have long held that in order to produce great wine, the
grapevines must endure hardship - wind, sleet, snow, drought.
Enthusiastically, Bailly adopted the motto, "Where the grapes can suffer."

http://www.mngrapes.org/varieties.html
"The grape varieties listed on this page all are hardy to at
least -20F/-28.9C."

<http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/199911/16_idelsons_wine/>
Minnesota wines - Gopher Grapes


Montblack :-)

[Dave Stadt]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>> 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what
>> portion
>> is natural?
>
> Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.
>
>> 2) What are the short-term and long-term effect of CO2 concentrations?
>
> Ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years plus other
> evidence show that global temperature closely correlates with CO2
> levels.
>
> What has this got to do with aviation? Well, most of us GA people make
> SUV drivers look like fuel misers.

Don't think so. SUVs have us outnumbered by what, several tens of thousands
to one?

>
> --
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Coby Beck]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck > wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> Where does that leave the rest of us?
>> >
>> > Ancient literature.
>
>> Why not scientific evidence?
>
> Why not the records from the people that were alive at the time?

Why don't you provide them?

"It is not exactly clear why the number of vineyards declined subsequently.
Some have put it down to an adverse change in the weather which made an
uncertain enterprise even more problematic. Others have linked it with the
dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII. Both these factors may have
had some part to play but in all probability the decline was gradual (over
several centuries) and for more complex reasons. "
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html#domesday

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
>
>> > England was a big wine producer during the Roman period and for a while
>> > after the Romans.
>> >
>> > England became too cold for wine production about a millenium ago.
>
>> Uh, that is supposed to have been the Medieval Warm Period. You have a
>> poor
>> grasp of the facts.
>
> You have a poor grasp of reading graphs.
>
> According to your graph refenced above (depending on who's data your use),
> the "little ice age" started about a millenium ago.

One thousand years ago was about the peak of the MWP. I think you are the
one having trouble reading that graph. The LIA is generally considered to
have started around 1400 though it is not well synchronzed globally.

> So what's your problem?
>
> As an aside I find it interesting the graph is asymetrical with the
> positive varience going to +.6 and the negative going to about -1.1
> degrees.
>
> It makes the positive excursions look impressive.
>
> I would also question the placement of zero and the lack of any mention
> of what zero is supposed to represent.

Relax, put away the tinfoil hat, 0 on these plots is generally a
multi-decadal mean centered a few decades ago or thereabouts. The
description states "The instrumental data are anomalies from the 1950-80
reference period." Then the bottom and top range are just what the data
require, no insidious manipulation...

> Looking at the same source for a period of 450 thousand years, it looks
> like we are currently a little on the cool side.
>
> From that graph I would be more worried about global cooling.

The Milankovitch cycles that controled that saw-tooth pattern would have us
very gradually cooling, though the best estimates say we would not be in an
iceage for another 30-50Kyrs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovich_cycles#The_future

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
>
>> > It is now almost warm enough in England *AGAIN* to produce decent wine.
>
>> In specific answer to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, I like to
>> point people here:
>
>> http://www.english-wine.com/index.html
>
> I'm well aware England is again growing grapes and making wine.
>
> I'm also well aware from writting of the times that England grew a
> lot of grapes during Roman times and up to about the beginning of the
> little ice age, at which time production just about ceased.

"It is said that Julius Caesar brought the vine to England. Nice though that
story is, some scholars think it apocryphal - wine was certainly brought to
Britain by the Romans, but it is less certain whether the vine was grown
here, or if it was, whether it was in sufficent quantity to satisfy the
local requirement for wine or just as an ornament to remind Romans of home
and wealthy Romano-Britons of the source of their civilisation and
prosperity."
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html#roman

> It is only in recent time (in terms of centuries) that it has been
> warm enough to start producing in quantity again.

"The period from the end of the First World War to shortly after the end of
the Second World War may well be the only time in two millennia that vines
to make wine on a substantial scale were not grown in England or Wales.
Doubtless, during that time, there were some vines being grown on a garden
scale by amateur growers, but for more than 25 years there was a total
cessation of viticulture and winemaking on a commercial basis. "
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html#20thcentury

> Perhaps you should close your web browser, turn off the computer,
> and read a few good books, preferably in the original Latin.

Perhaps you should provide some more substance and less bluster.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-07-03, Dave Stadt > wrote:
>> What has this got to do with aviation? Well, most of us GA people make
>> SUV drivers look like fuel misers.
>
> Don't think so. SUVs have us outnumbered by what, several tens of thousands
> to one?

This is of course how I personally rationalise my use of planes that get
half the gas mileage of a Hummer!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-07-02, > wrote:
> It is now almost warm enough in England *AGAIN* to produce decent wine.
>
> A little more waming and England will be back to the climate of 2000
> years ago and once again English wine will be available in the civilized
> world.

Interesting point of note: I have two Washingtonia Filifera (California
fan palms) in my back yard. Only little ones at the moment. I went and did
my medical on Friday. My AME has a 20 foot California fan palm in
his front garden.

I live further north than the entire lower 48 states of the Continental
US!

Our small mountain, Snaefell, means Snow Mountain. It seldom gets snow
on it (and this isn't recent: cabbage trees (known as Manx Palms here)
have been endemic for at least a couple of hundred years, and if
Snaefell really was snowy, then it'd be too cold for the cabbage trees
which are natives of New Zealand, and not as hardy as native trees).

The point? The climate of the British Isles is less about the average
global temperature, but more about the influence of the Gulf Stream. The
Irish Sea in particular is relatively warm, and that's why despite me
living further north than the entire lower 48, I have to scrape ice off
my car windscreen about as often as I did when living in Houston, Texas
- i.e. about twice a year. If the warm ocean currents go elsewhere, the
British Isles could become a very cold place just as easily, and we
could be opening a ski resort on Snaefell rather than growing tropical
plants!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck > wrote:

<snip>

> Relax, put away the tinfoil hat, 0 on these plots is generally a
> multi-decadal mean centered a few decades ago or thereabouts. The

Bingo, we have a winner!

An ad hominem attack on one who would dare to doubt The One True Word.

I knew you could do it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>> 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what
>> portion
>> is natural?
>
> Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.
>
>> 2) What are the short-term and long-term effect of CO2 concentrations?
>
> Ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years plus other
> evidence show that global temperature closely correlates with CO2
> levels.

NOTE: The warming PRECEDES the CO2 increases by about 800 years.

>
> What has this got to do with aviation? Well, most of us GA people make
> SUV drivers look like fuel misers.

"Everyone" is in a panic and that will redound to pilots.

What's worse, the questions being asked as wrong if not backasswards.

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>> 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what
>>> portion
>>> is natural?
>>
>> Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.
>>
>>> 2) What are the short-term and long-term effect of CO2 concentrations?
>>
>> Ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years plus other
>> evidence show that global temperature closely correlates with CO2
>> levels.
>>
>> What has this got to do with aviation? Well, most of us GA people make
>> SUV drivers look like fuel misers.
>
> Don't think so. SUVs have us outnumbered by what, several tens of
> thousands to one?

In that case, we need to use guerilla tactics.

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-07-03, Dave Stadt > wrote:
>>> What has this got to do with aviation? Well, most of us GA people make
>>> SUV drivers look like fuel misers.
>>
>> Don't think so. SUVs have us outnumbered by what, several tens of
>> thousands
>> to one?
>
> This is of course how I personally rationalise my use of planes that get
> half the gas mileage of a Hummer!
>
I stopped rationalizing these things when I actually started answering
myself.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>> 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what
>> portion
>> is natural?
>
> Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.

Very good!!

Follow-up: What is the most common greeenhouse gas and what is the breakdown
on human vs. natural sources?

>
>> 2) What are the short-term and long-term effect of CO2 concentrations?
>
> Ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years plus other
> evidence show that global temperature closely correlates with CO2
> levels.

Yes, with a rather large delay; IOW, warming CAUSES CO2.

[Coby Beck]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Relax, put away the tinfoil hat, 0 on these plots is generally a
>> multi-decadal mean centered a few decades ago or thereabouts. The
>
> Bingo, we have a winner!
>
> An ad hominem attack on one who would dare to doubt The One True Word.
>
> I knew you could do it.

Don't forget to shut the door behind you as you run away!

The following question and points remain unanswered:

>> >> Where does that leave the rest of us? [wrt reconstructions of past
>> >> climate]
>> >
>> > Ancient literature.
>
>> Why not scientific evidence?
>
> Why not the records from the people that were alive at the time?

Why don't you provide them?

"It is not exactly clear why the number of vineyards declined subsequently.
Some have put it down to an adverse change in the weather which made an
uncertain enterprise even more problematic. Others have linked it with the
dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII. Both these factors may have
had some part to play but in all probability the decline was gradual (over
several centuries) and for more complex reasons. "
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html#domesday

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
>
>> > England was a big wine producer during the Roman period and for a while
>> > after the Romans.
>> >
>> > England became too cold for wine production about a millenium ago.
>
>> Uh, that is supposed to have been the Medieval Warm Period. You have a
>> poor
>> grasp of the facts.
>
> You have a poor grasp of reading graphs.
>
> According to your graph refenced above (depending on who's data your use),
> the "little ice age" started about a millenium ago.

One thousand years ago was about the peak of the MWP. I think you are the
one having trouble reading that graph. The LIA is generally considered to
have started around 1400 though it is not well synchronzed globally.

> Looking at the same source for a period of 450 thousand years, it looks
> like we are currently a little on the cool side.
>
> From that graph I would be more worried about global cooling.

The Milankovitch cycles that controled that saw-tooth pattern would have us
very gradually cooling, though the best estimates say we would not be in an
iceage for another 30-50Kyrs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovich_cycles#The_future

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
>
>> > It is now almost warm enough in England *AGAIN* to produce decent wine.
>
>> In specific answer to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, I like to
>> point people here:
>
>> http://www.english-wine.com/index.html
>
> I'm well aware England is again growing grapes and making wine.
>
> I'm also well aware from writting of the times that England grew a
> lot of grapes during Roman times and up to about the beginning of the
> little ice age, at which time production just about ceased.

"It is said that Julius Caesar brought the vine to England. Nice though that
story is, some scholars think it apocryphal - wine was certainly brought to
Britain by the Romans, but it is less certain whether the vine was grown
here, or if it was, whether it was in sufficent quantity to satisfy the
local requirement for wine or just as an ornament to remind Romans of home
and wealthy Romano-Britons of the source of their civilisation and
prosperity."
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html#roman

> It is only in recent time (in terms of centuries) that it has been
> warm enough to start producing in quantity again.

"The period from the end of the First World War to shortly after the end of
the Second World War may well be the only time in two millennia that vines
to make wine on a substantial scale were not grown in England or Wales.
Doubtless, during that time, there were some vines being grown on a garden
scale by amateur growers, but for more than 25 years there was a total
cessation of viticulture and winemaking on a commercial basis. "
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html#20thcentury

> Perhaps you should close your web browser, turn off the computer,
> and read a few good books, preferably in the original Latin.

Perhaps you should provide some more substance and less bluster.


--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Relax, put away the tinfoil hat, 0 on these plots is generally a
> >> multi-decadal mean centered a few decades ago or thereabouts. The
> >
> > Bingo, we have a winner!
> >
> > An ad hominem attack on one who would dare to doubt The One True Word.
> >
> > I knew you could do it.

> Don't forget to shut the door behind you as you run away!

Bingo, yet another ad hominem, with the implication I am a coward incapable
of facing The Truth!

What makes you think you are worth bothering to respond to any further
now that you've shown your true colors?

<snip remaining>

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Coby Beck]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In rec.aviation.owning Coby Beck > wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> Relax, put away the tinfoil hat, 0 on these plots is generally a
>> >> multi-decadal mean centered a few decades ago or thereabouts. The
>> >
>> > Bingo, we have a winner!
>> >
>> > An ad hominem attack on one who would dare to doubt The One True Word.
>> >
>> > I knew you could do it.
>
>> Don't forget to shut the door behind you as you run away!
>
> Bingo, yet another ad hominem, with the implication I am a coward
> incapable
> of facing The Truth!

Ad hominem is when I attempt to refute your argument by attacking you in a
personal way. Since you offered no argument whatsoever, my empirical
observation of your cowardice can not be interpreted as any kind of
refutation, thus not ad hominem. It is not even an insult as it is a
statement of fact: I presented detailed, substantiated and logical
discussion and you snipped it all, made up a transparent excuse, insulted me
and ran away from the discussion.

Your unsupported assertion that the MWP was globally warmer than today does
not match the available evidence. Your anecdote about Romans, England and
wine is apparently a myth and does not logically imply anything about global
climate at that time nor today's climate change.

There is no shame in being wrong, being wilfully ignorant on the other hand
is inexcusable.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

[Repost in case you have a change of heart]
The following question and points remain unanswered:

>> >> Where does that leave the rest of us? [wrt reconstructions of past
>> >> climate]
>> >
>> > Ancient literature.
>
>> Why not scientific evidence?
>
> Why not the records from the people that were alive at the time?

Why don't you provide them?

"It is not exactly clear why the number of vineyards declined subsequently.
Some have put it down to an adverse change in the weather which made an
uncertain enterprise even more problematic. Others have linked it with the
dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII. Both these factors may have
had some part to play but in all probability the decline was gradual (over
several centuries) and for more complex reasons. "
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html#domesday

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
>
>> > England was a big wine producer during the Roman period and for a while
>> > after the Romans.
>> >
>> > England became too cold for wine production about a millenium ago.
>
>> Uh, that is supposed to have been the Medieval Warm Period. You have a
>> poor
>> grasp of the facts.
>
> You have a poor grasp of reading graphs.
>
> According to your graph refenced above (depending on who's data your use),
> the "little ice age" started about a millenium ago.

One thousand years ago was about the peak of the MWP. I think you are the
one having trouble reading that graph. The LIA is generally considered to
have started around 1400 though it is not well synchronzed globally.

> Looking at the same source for a period of 450 thousand years, it looks
> like we are currently a little on the cool side.
>
> From that graph I would be more worried about global cooling.

The Milankovitch cycles that controled that saw-tooth pattern would have us
very gradually cooling, though the best estimates say we would not be in an
iceage for another 30-50Kyrs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovich_cycles#The_future

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
>
>> > It is now almost warm enough in England *AGAIN* to produce decent wine.
>
>> In specific answer to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, I like to
>> point people here:
>
>> http://www.english-wine.com/index.html
>
> I'm well aware England is again growing grapes and making wine.
>
> I'm also well aware from writting of the times that England grew a
> lot of grapes during Roman times and up to about the beginning of the
> little ice age, at which time production just about ceased.

"It is said that Julius Caesar brought the vine to England. Nice though that
story is, some scholars think it apocryphal - wine was certainly brought to
Britain by the Romans, but it is less certain whether the vine was grown
here, or if it was, whether it was in sufficent quantity to satisfy the
local requirement for wine or just as an ornament to remind Romans of home
and wealthy Romano-Britons of the source of their civilisation and
prosperity."
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html#roman

> It is only in recent time (in terms of centuries) that it has been
> warm enough to start producing in quantity again.

"The period from the end of the First World War to shortly after the end of
the Second World War may well be the only time in two millennia that vines
to make wine on a substantial scale were not grown in England or Wales.
Doubtless, during that time, there were some vines being grown on a garden
scale by amateur growers, but for more than 25 years there was a total
cessation of viticulture and winemaking on a commercial basis. "
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html#20thcentury

> Perhaps you should close your web browser, turn off the computer,
> and read a few good books, preferably in the original Latin.

Perhaps you should provide some more substance and less bluster.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-07-03, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>> 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what
>>> portion
>>> is natural?
>>
>> Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.
>
> Very good!!
>
> Follow-up: What is the most common greeenhouse gas and what is the breakdown
> on human vs. natural sources?

Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas. In fact, the greenhouse effect
is necessary for life as we know it in the first place. Without solar
energy being retained by H2O, CO2 and other gases, the Earth would quite
probably be rather frigid (although, if there was no water, it wouldn't
be icy of course!)

The human effect in the grand picture isn't that big (the Earth won't
turn into another Venus) but that's not to say that it won't be
significant. It's not necessary to "destroy civilization" either to have
less effect on the atmosphere. However, there's very strong evidence
(overwhelmingly strong) that the current increase in CO2 concentrations
is caused by us.

> Yes, with a rather large delay; IOW, warming CAUSES CO2.

Cite?

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-07-03, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>
>> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>>> 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what
>>>> portion
>>>> is natural?
>>>
>>> Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.
>>
>> Very good!!
>>
>> Follow-up: What is the most common greeenhouse gas and what is the
>> breakdown
>> on human vs. natural sources?
>
> Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas. In fact, the greenhouse
> effect
> is necessary for life as we know it in the first place. Without solar
> energy being retained by H2O, CO2 and other gases, the Earth would quite
> probably be rather frigid (although, if there was no water, it wouldn't
> be icy of course!)
>
> The human effect in the grand picture isn't that big (the Earth won't
> turn into another Venus) but that's not to say that it won't be
> significant.

How much is "significant? The IPCC has (IIUC) estimated human influence to
be 0.07C over the next 50 years. During the last 100 years, temps have
increased 0.25F.

> It's not necessary to "destroy civilization" either to have
> less effect on the atmosphere. However, there's very strong evidence
> (overwhelmingly strong) that the current increase in CO2 concentrations
> is caused by us.

Cite? And if your statement is correct, why did we have significant COOLING
from 1940 to 1975?

"Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim
Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels
and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2
levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years
ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last
half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this
evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small
increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest
warming?" http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

And

"We are told, however that man-made carbon dioxide is the source of the
global warming problem. As Professor Essenhigh (Robert Essenhigh, Professor
of energy conservation at Ohio State University-MB) asks, "what has carbon
dioxide to do with this"?



He explains, "the two principled thermal-absorbing and thermal-emitting
compounds in the atmosphere are water and carbon dioxide. However – and this
point is continually missed – the ratio of water to carbon dioxide is
something like 30-to-1 as an average value. At the top it is something like
100-to-1. This means that the carbon dioxide is simply ‘noise’ in the water
concentration, and anything carbon dioxide could do, water has already
done." "So," he asks, "if the carbon dioxide is increasing, is it the carbon
dioxide driving the temperature or is the rising temperature driving up the
carbon dioxide"? In other words, the carbon dioxide issue is irrelevant to
the debate over global warming. "


>
>> Yes, with a rather large delay; IOW, warming CAUSES CO2.
>
> Cite?

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/vostok-ice-core.jpg

Also:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/seeu/atlantic/restrict/modules/images/Vostokicecoregraph.jpg

[Mike Noel]

Those graphs don't support your claim that increasing temperature causes
increasing C02. They only show correleation between C02 levels and
temperature.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2006-07-03, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>>
>>> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>>>> 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what
>>>>> portion
>>>>> is natural?
>>>>
>>>> Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.
>>>
>>> Very good!!
>>>
>>> Follow-up: What is the most common greeenhouse gas and what is the
>>> breakdown
>>> on human vs. natural sources?
>>
>> Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas. In fact, the greenhouse
>> effect
>> is necessary for life as we know it in the first place. Without solar
>> energy being retained by H2O, CO2 and other gases, the Earth would quite
>> probably be rather frigid (although, if there was no water, it wouldn't
>> be icy of course!)
>>
>> The human effect in the grand picture isn't that big (the Earth won't
>> turn into another Venus) but that's not to say that it won't be
>> significant.
>
> How much is "significant? The IPCC has (IIUC) estimated human influence to
> be 0.07C over the next 50 years. During the last 100 years, temps have
> increased 0.25F.
>
>> It's not necessary to "destroy civilization" either to have
>> less effect on the atmosphere. However, there's very strong evidence
>> (overwhelmingly strong) that the current increase in CO2 concentrations
>> is caused by us.
>
> Cite? And if your statement is correct, why did we have significant
> COOLING from 1940 to 1975?
>
> "Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable
> Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor
> Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2
> levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact,
> when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450
> million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest
> period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On
> the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent
> relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the
> past century's modest warming?"
> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
>
> And
>
> "We are told, however that man-made carbon dioxide is the source of the
> global warming problem. As Professor Essenhigh (Robert Essenhigh,
> Professor of energy conservation at Ohio State University-MB) asks, "what
> has carbon dioxide to do with this"?
>
>
>
> He explains, "the two principled thermal-absorbing and thermal-emitting
> compounds in the atmosphere are water and carbon dioxide. However - and
> this point is continually missed - the ratio of water to carbon dioxide is
> something like 30-to-1 as an average value. At the top it is something
> like 100-to-1. This means that the carbon dioxide is simply 'noise' in the
> water concentration, and anything carbon dioxide could do, water has
> already done." "So," he asks, "if the carbon dioxide is increasing, is it
> the carbon dioxide driving the temperature or is the rising temperature
> driving up the carbon dioxide"? In other words, the carbon dioxide issue
> is irrelevant to the debate over global warming. "
>
>
>>
>>> Yes, with a rather large delay; IOW, warming CAUSES CO2.
>>
>> Cite?
>
> http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/vostok-ice-core.jpg
>
> Also:
> http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/seeu/atlantic/restrict/modules/images/Vostokicecoregraph.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

Think about what causes natural increases in CO2 (evaporation, etc).

"Mike Noel" > wrote in message
...
> Those graphs don't support your claim that increasing temperature causes
> increasing C02. They only show correleation between C02 levels and
> temperature.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Mike
>
> http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2006-07-03, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>>>>> 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what
>>>>>> portion
>>>>>> is natural?
>>>>>
>>>>> Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.
>>>>
>>>> Very good!!
>>>>
>>>> Follow-up: What is the most common greeenhouse gas and what is the
>>>> breakdown
>>>> on human vs. natural sources?
>>>
>>> Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas. In fact, the greenhouse
>>> effect
>>> is necessary for life as we know it in the first place. Without solar
>>> energy being retained by H2O, CO2 and other gases, the Earth would quite
>>> probably be rather frigid (although, if there was no water, it wouldn't
>>> be icy of course!)
>>>
>>> The human effect in the grand picture isn't that big (the Earth won't
>>> turn into another Venus) but that's not to say that it won't be
>>> significant.
>>
>> How much is "significant? The IPCC has (IIUC) estimated human influence
>> to be 0.07C over the next 50 years. During the last 100 years, temps have
>> increased 0.25F.
>>
>>> It's not necessary to "destroy civilization" either to have
>>> less effect on the atmosphere. However, there's very strong evidence
>>> (overwhelmingly strong) that the current increase in CO2 concentrations
>>> is caused by us.
>>
>> Cite? And if your statement is correct, why did we have significant
>> COOLING from 1940 to 1975?
>>
>> "Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable
>> Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor
>> Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2
>> levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact,
>> when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450
>> million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest
>> period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee,
>> "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the
>> recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause
>> of the past century's modest warming?"
>> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
>>
>> And
>>
>> "We are told, however that man-made carbon dioxide is the source of the
>> global warming problem. As Professor Essenhigh (Robert Essenhigh,
>> Professor of energy conservation at Ohio State University-MB) asks, "what
>> has carbon dioxide to do with this"?
>>
>>
>>
>> He explains, "the two principled thermal-absorbing and thermal-emitting
>> compounds in the atmosphere are water and carbon dioxide. However - and
>> this point is continually missed - the ratio of water to carbon dioxide
>> is something like 30-to-1 as an average value. At the top it is something
>> like 100-to-1. This means that the carbon dioxide is simply 'noise' in
>> the water concentration, and anything carbon dioxide could do, water has
>> already done." "So," he asks, "if the carbon dioxide is increasing, is it
>> the carbon dioxide driving the temperature or is the rising temperature
>> driving up the carbon dioxide"? In other words, the carbon dioxide issue
>> is irrelevant to the debate over global warming. "
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, with a rather large delay; IOW, warming CAUSES CO2.
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>
>> http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/vostok-ice-core.jpg
>>
>> Also:
>> http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/seeu/atlantic/restrict/modules/images/Vostokicecoregraph.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Roger[_2_]]

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:18:11 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>> 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what portion
>> is natural?
>
>Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.

Mt St Helens produced about 10 Million tons of CO2
Annual production from fossil fuel is about 26 Billion tons.
(Figures from National Geographic)

>
>> 2) What are the short-term and long-term effect of CO2 concentrations?

It's difficult to separate out long and short term until you define
them. In this case we can now navigate open water across the north
polar cap in the summer. They figure within several decades there
will be no north polar ice cap at mid summer.

This has the possibility of opening up access to even more oil
reserves.

Currently many glaciers in Greenland are receding at over a Kilometer
per year. Although the global average is up only about one degree F
over the last 100 years when you get to more northerly latitudes such
as Alaska and Siberia the change has been more dramatic with 5 to 6
degrees being the norm. That has lead to buildings sinking that were
built on the permafrost and bugs that were never a problem destroying
large tracts of forest.

Short term (likely less than a century and possibly a few decades) we
are looking at ocean levels rising 3 to 5 feet with 20 feet not out of
the question. If all the polar ice caps and glaciers were to melt
(which probably won't happen even long term) we'd be looking at
roughly 200 feet. We are also looking at storms becoming more violent
and with greater frequency.

Long term we are looking at unpredictable weather shifts at the local
level. As the permafrost melts and the peat decomposes there will be
even more CO2 released. Currently the oceans are absorbing (serving
as a sink) for far more CO2 than expected. Long term if the waters
rise about 8 to 10 degrees (takes a long time) the frozen methane
under the ocean floors near the continental shelves will be released
as it was in the Permian extinction which was far greater than the one
around the time of the dinosaur extinction.

AT some point enough fresh water will be released to stop the Gulf
Stream conveyor belt. When that happens NW Europe including the UK
will become much colder.

On the positive side growing green matter is a good sink for CO2 as
are new forests, BUT the forests are a temporary measure.

>
>Ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years plus other
>evidence show that global temperature closely correlates with CO2
>levels.

And show CO2 levels to be well above the highest found in the cores.

>
>What has this got to do with aviation? Well, most of us GA people make
>SUV drivers look like fuel misers.

With our old technology engines the level per engine is high, but when
the total is taken into account it's a tiny drop in the bucket
compared to cars and trucks.

Most airplanes are not fuel economical per distance. The newer ones
and quite a few home builts are although the engines of most would
still be considered polluting.

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

[Roger[_2_]]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 08:41:27 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>> 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what
>>> portion
>>> is natural?
>>
>> Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.
>>
>>> 2) What are the short-term and long-term effect of CO2 concentrations?
>>
>> Ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years plus other
>> evidence show that global temperature closely correlates with CO2
>> levels.
>
>NOTE: The warming PRECEDES the CO2 increases by about 800 years.

Under normal circumstances.
So if this is the case already that means things are already headed
down hill.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>>
>> What has this got to do with aviation? Well, most of us GA people make
>> SUV drivers look like fuel misers.
>
>"Everyone" is in a panic and that will redound to pilots.
>
>What's worse, the questions being asked as wrong if not backasswards.
>

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:18:11 -0000, Dylan Smith
> > wrote:
>
>>On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>> 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what
>>> portion
>>> is natural?
>>
>>Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production.
>
> Mt St Helens produced about 10 Million tons of CO2
> Annual production from fossil fuel is about 26 Billion tons.
> (Figures from National Geographic)
>
>>
>>> 2) What are the short-term and long-term effect of CO2 concentrations?
>
> It's difficult to separate out long and short term until you define
> them. In this case we can now navigate open water across the north
> polar cap in the summer. They figure within several decades there
> will be no north polar ice cap at mid summer.

And I guess that's why Antartica's and Greenland icepacks are INCREASING.

>
> This has the possibility of opening up access to even more oil
> reserves.
>
> Currently many glaciers in Greenland are receding at over a Kilometer
> per year. Although the global average is up only about one degree F
> over the last 100 years when you get to more northerly latitudes such
> as Alaska and Siberia the change has been more dramatic with 5 to 6
> degrees being the norm. That has lead to buildings sinking that were
> built on the permafrost and bugs that were never a problem destroying
> large tracts of forest.


What, you just come from watch Algores movie?
>
> Short term (likely less than a century and possibly a few decades) we
> are looking at ocean levels rising 3 to 5 feet with 20 feet not out of
> the question. If all the polar ice caps and glaciers were to melt
> (which probably won't happen even long term) we'd be looking at
> roughly 200 feet. We are also looking at storms becoming more violent
> and with greater frequency.
>
> Long term we are looking at unpredictable weather shifts at the local
> level. As the permafrost melts and the peat decomposes there will be
> even more CO2 released. Currently the oceans are absorbing (serving
> as a sink) for far more CO2 than expected. Long term if the waters
> rise about 8 to 10 degrees (takes a long time) the frozen methane
> under the ocean floors near the continental shelves will be released
> as it was in the Permian extinction which was far greater than the one
> around the time of the dinosaur extinction.
>
> AT some point enough fresh water will be released to stop the Gulf
> Stream conveyor belt. When that happens NW Europe including the UK
> will become much colder.
>
> On the positive side growing green matter is a good sink for CO2 as
> are new forests, BUT the forests are a temporary measure.
>

Geezlouise!!! Diversify your inputs man!!

[John Godwin]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in
:

> What, you just come from watch Algores movie?
>
Awww, come on. After inventing the Internet, Al went on to conduct
this massive study on Global Warming.

--