RE: [biofuel] climate changes
-Original Message- From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 1:22 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [biofuel] climate changes David Edelstein (The Ice Age Cometh) for Slate: http://slate.msn.com/id/2101386/ Trivial. It was clear that David Edelstein had an ax to grind. If anything we will have lows moving very cold polar air masses south, which would have close to the same effect except on a larger scale. Too soon to tell. Not if you understand how and why weather works. The Greenhouse effect, global warming and ice age are all related. Our production of the greenhouse gases MAY have speeded up a natural process but it didn't cause it. The Greenhouse effect is not a natural process, or at least it's never happened before, or not on Planet Earth anyway, or not during the period that Planet Earth has been graced with a biosphere. It seems you don't know what it is. Try Venus. I may not have been clear. Greenhouse gases may be speeding up global warming. There is also many greenhouse gases which are natural created by decay and volcanoes. What I was saying that there is evident that ice ages were triggered by global warming and that it is a natural cycle. There is also evident that hydrocarbons contribute to the global warming process. If instead it flips into an Ice Age, that is a natural process indeed, but causing it to arrive a few hundred years early would amount to something more than just an Ooops! I agree. A few degrees of global warming that then levels off will be quite disruptive and destructive enough. Again I agree, but most of public don't see the problem. As it is, a new Ice Age is still not seen as the most likely scenario. A new Ice Age is a given, it is only a question of when. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter. Uh-huh. So, what? - so go on burning up fossil fuel resources, releasing CO2 and so on and generally living like there's no tomorrow? Our options are fairly limited. At current rate we have at most 30-50 years of oil. :-) A few months ago, and indeed still, so many people in the US were pooh-poohing it all and claiming there wasn't any science, but now it's all cut and dried, eh? Sorry, but that is a preposterous statement. Good science is to learn and adapt based on new data. Until the Gulf Stream started to move it, it was just a theory. Scientist are very slow to change their theories. Discussing the cause is really a waste of time. Without discussion, study and investigation of all types of the cause and all other factors involved, and how they might affect one another, no doubt your claim above that there's nothing to be done would come true. Fortunately, most humans are less passive and stoical than that. For me if the trigger is pulled I don't care who pulled it. I just want to get out of the way of the bullet. Even if the trigger hasn't been pulled yet there is very little to be done even if we knew that stopping use of hydro-carbons would stop global warming and all the problems it may cause. It couldn't be done in less than 20-30 years, which we have to do anyway because of lack of oil. I don't think you checked any of those refs, did you? Or not to much avail anyway. Yes, I did. I also didn't stop at that. I have done my own thought experiments. I believe that global warming will melt the polar ice and cause the ocean conveyor to move and/or shutdown. I believe this process has already started and that we will be in some form of an ice age within 10-30 years or sooner. I hope I am totally wrong. I pray that I am totally wrong. I have said my piece. Take or leave it. I don't care. You can have the last word. 73 -- Darryl Wagoner - WA1GON Past President - Nashua Area Radio Club Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke [1729-1797] Join the TrustedQSL mailing list. An Open Source solution. Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.trustedQSL.org Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM ~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] climate changes
So, if you were about to relocate in semi retirement, where would you pick to try and live out your life? I hear Saturn is nice this time of year. :) --adam Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM ~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] climate changes
Interesting how the term has changed from Global warming to Climate change, at least in the US. That was partly a sort of imposed euphemism by the Bush Administration, when they could bring themselves to mention it at all, when various official reports could no longer be suppressed and so on. And now Climate change seems to mean a sudden Ice Age rather than a Greenhouse Effect, especially with Hollywood chucking its weight in with this apparently very silly movie. The Pentagon report focused more on possible abrupt effects of climate change, not necessarily that such effects were more likely but that they could be more catastrophic and more difficult to plan for. A new Ice Age is one possible scenario; it starts off with rising temperatures anyway, as does Global Warming, but which it will be is not yet certain. Both at the same time? I don't think so. Anyway, both the Observer report and associated reports have been posted previously (no reason not to do it again though): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/32387/ Weathering the Crisis - World Bank, Pentagon: global warming red alert http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/32446/ Pentagon Goes Crazy for Massive Climate Change This is part of a previous discussion here, between me and MM, which you might find interesting: Interestingly, as a followup, the one response I got there was that the possibility of global cooling is not getting enough attention. The author nearly descended into vituperation (obviously my little post must have been super-provocative), though that was not directed precisely against me either. That was the view in the late 60s, and indeed much earlier, up to as much as a century ago I think. Since the early 1980s at least more and better data, better ways of crunching it, further studies, have increasingly indicated the opposite, now overwhelmingly so. I don't think global cooling has been entirely disproved, but it's heavily outweighed. In 1982 a book appeared called The Survival of Civilization, written by a strange person named John D. Hamaker, which predicted global cooling. He paints a picture of rising CO2 levels triggering a sudden and catastrophic ice age. He sees it as a regular phenomenon, tracing it back through the last 17 ice ages, or something like that. The mechanism is that the topsoil runs out of minerals, leading to a decrease in the amount of biomass and a consequent release of CO2 into the atmosphere, which at first triggers warming and then an ice age. The ice grinds up a huge amount of surface rock into dust, as glaciers do but on a much vaster scale, finally retreating to leave a remineralised soil behind via the rock dust. It's quite a persuasive picture, and he does have his evidence for it. He reckons this time we've simply hastened the onset of the process with our fossil-fuel CO2 releases. He also proposes arresting the process by remineralising the land worldwide with rock dust. He even designed a handy machine to grind up rocks on the spot. I read the book at the time (a convert friend sent it to me). It's a cranky book but there's quite a lot of sense in it, particularly about soil mineralisation, but I didn't accept the main conclusion that a rapid transition to a new ice-age was imminent: The broad truth is that without radical and immediate reform (particularly in this nation [the US]), civilization will be wrecked by 1990 and extinct by 1995. Well, maybe he just got the timing wrong. Or was he right and we just didn't notice? :-) He was ignored by the science community (which probably means he's either a misguided nut or a great prophet). And now it's become a bit of a cult book on the Internet, bad timing notwithstanding. You can find it online (pdf) here, FWIW: http://www.remineralize-the-earth.org/don/tsoc.pdf or here: http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010146tsoc.pdf So we'll fry or we'll freeze, or something. But certainly something. And it definitely makes sense to cut the fossil fuels, but fast. I'll try to keep an eye on various opinions as to climate change and form my own opinions, (though I'm generally of the working view that there seems to be enough evidence of man-induced change to warrant action immediately), but it just seems to be this very very very touchy area. A lot of the touchy part is that many anti-environmentalists are convinced that environmentalists have, for centuries, been using concerns about this or that threat as a pretext for an anti-industrial agenda. There is such a history. During the so-called industrial revolution in Britain the industrialists (upstarts) were pitted against the land-owning class (the aristocracy, basically), and those were the issues, pretty much. But I don't think it has much relevance to the issues at stake today. I think there's been just too much Wise Use-type right-wing think-tank spin in the US and too much polarization as a result. It works very well, it's almost
RE: [biofuel] climate changes
The change from Global warming to climate change isn't because of some double think, but because it more accurately describes the event(s). It is also a lot scarier then the Earth warming a few degrees. I wouldn't blow off the movie so quickly. The movie does have it share of flaws mainly because science doesn't have any good ways to explain how cold weather animals are quickly frozen, so they invented cyclones sucking super cold air down from aloft despite the fact that cyclones suck surface air in and push it up. If anything we will have lows moving very cold polar air masses south, which would have close to the same effect except on a larger scale. The Greenhouse effect, global warming and ice age is all related. Our production of the greenhouse gases MAY have speeded up a natural process but it didn't cause it. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter. The chain reaction has already started and nothing that we do at this point will stop or even slow down the climate change. Discussing the cause is really a waste of time. 73 -- Darryl Wagoner - WA1GON Past President - Nashua Area Radio Club Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke [1729-1797] Join the TrustedQSL mailing list. An Open Source solution. Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.trustedQSL.org -Original Message- From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 11:00 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [biofuel] climate changes Interesting how the term has changed from Global warming to Climate change, at least in the US. That was partly a sort of imposed euphemism by the Bush Administration, when they could bring themselves to mention it at all, when various official reports could no longer be suppressed and so on. And now Climate change seems to mean a sudden Ice Age rather than a Greenhouse Effect, especially with Hollywood chucking its weight in with this apparently very silly movie. The Pentagon report focused more on possible abrupt effects of climate change, not necessarily that such effects were more likely but that they could be more catastrophic and more difficult to plan for. A new Ice Age is one possible scenario; it starts off with rising temperatures anyway, as does Global Warming, but which it will be is not yet certain. Both at the same time? I don't think so. Anyway, both the Observer report and associated reports have been posted previously (no reason not to do it again though): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/32387/ Weathering the Crisis - World Bank, Pentagon: global warming red alert http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/32446/ Pentagon Goes Crazy for Massive Climate Change This is part of a previous discussion here, between me and MM, which you might find interesting: Interestingly, as a followup, the one response I got there was that the possibility of global cooling is not getting enough attention. The author nearly descended into vituperation (obviously my little post must have been super-provocative), though that was not directed precisely against me either. That was the view in the late 60s, and indeed much earlier, up to as much as a century ago I think. Since the early 1980s at least more and better data, better ways of crunching it, further studies, have increasingly indicated the opposite, now overwhelmingly so. I don't think global cooling has been entirely disproved, but it's heavily outweighed. In 1982 a book appeared called The Survival of Civilization, written by a strange person named John D. Hamaker, which predicted global cooling. He paints a picture of rising CO2 levels triggering a sudden and catastrophic ice age. He sees it as a regular phenomenon, tracing it back through the last 17 ice ages, or something like that. The mechanism is that the topsoil runs out of minerals, leading to a decrease in the amount of biomass and a consequent release of CO2 into the atmosphere, which at first triggers warming and then an ice age. The ice grinds up a huge amount of surface rock into dust, as glaciers do but on a much vaster scale, finally retreating to leave a remineralised soil behind via the rock dust. It's quite a persuasive picture, and he does have his evidence for it. He reckons this time we've simply hastened the onset of the process with our fossil-fuel CO2 releases. He also proposes arresting the process by remineralising the land worldwide with rock dust. He even designed a handy machine to grind up rocks on the spot. I read the book at the time (a convert friend sent it to me). It's a cranky book but there's quite a lot of sense in it, particularly about soil mineralisation, but I didn't accept the main conclusion that a rapid transition to a new ice-age was imminent: The broad truth is that without radical and immediate reform (particularly in this nation [the US]), civilization
RE: [biofuel] climate changes
passive and stoical than that. I don't think you checked any of those refs, did you? Or not to much avail anyway. Best Keith 73 -- Darryl Wagoner - WA1GON Past President - Nashua Area Radio Club Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke [1729-1797] Join the TrustedQSL mailing list. An Open Source solution. Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.trustedQSL.org -Original Message- From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 11:00 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [biofuel] climate changes Interesting how the term has changed from Global warming to Climate change, at least in the US. That was partly a sort of imposed euphemism by the Bush Administration, when they could bring themselves to mention it at all, when various official reports could no longer be suppressed and so on. And now Climate change seems to mean a sudden Ice Age rather than a Greenhouse Effect, especially with Hollywood chucking its weight in with this apparently very silly movie. The Pentagon report focused more on possible abrupt effects of climate change, not necessarily that such effects were more likely but that they could be more catastrophic and more difficult to plan for. A new Ice Age is one possible scenario; it starts off with rising temperatures anyway, as does Global Warming, but which it will be is not yet certain. Both at the same time? I don't think so. Anyway, both the Observer report and associated reports have been posted previously (no reason not to do it again though): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/32387/ Weathering the Crisis - World Bank, Pentagon: global warming red alert http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/32446/ Pentagon Goes Crazy for Massive Climate Change This is part of a previous discussion here, between me and MM, which you might find interesting: Interestingly, as a followup, the one response I got there was that the possibility of global cooling is not getting enough attention. The author nearly descended into vituperation (obviously my little post must have been super-provocative), though that was not directed precisely against me either. That was the view in the late 60s, and indeed much earlier, up to as much as a century ago I think. Since the early 1980s at least more and better data, better ways of crunching it, further studies, have increasingly indicated the opposite, now overwhelmingly so. I don't think global cooling has been entirely disproved, but it's heavily outweighed. In 1982 a book appeared called The Survival of Civilization, written by a strange person named John D. Hamaker, which predicted global cooling. He paints a picture of rising CO2 levels triggering a sudden and catastrophic ice age. He sees it as a regular phenomenon, tracing it back through the last 17 ice ages, or something like that. The mechanism is that the topsoil runs out of minerals, leading to a decrease in the amount of biomass and a consequent release of CO2 into the atmosphere, which at first triggers warming and then an ice age. The ice grinds up a huge amount of surface rock into dust, as glaciers do but on a much vaster scale, finally retreating to leave a remineralised soil behind via the rock dust. It's quite a persuasive picture, and he does have his evidence for it. He reckons this time we've simply hastened the onset of the process with our fossil-fuel CO2 releases. He also proposes arresting the process by remineralising the land worldwide with rock dust. He even designed a handy machine to grind up rocks on the spot. I read the book at the time (a convert friend sent it to me). It's a cranky book but there's quite a lot of sense in it, particularly about soil mineralisation, but I didn't accept the main conclusion that a rapid transition to a new ice-age was imminent: The broad truth is that without radical and immediate reform (particularly in this nation [the US]), civilization will be wrecked by 1990 and extinct by 1995. Well, maybe he just got the timing wrong. Or was he right and we just didn't notice? :-) He was ignored by the science community (which probably means he's either a misguided nut or a great prophet). And now it's become a bit of a cult book on the Internet, bad timing notwithstanding. You can find it online (pdf) here, FWIW: http://www.remineralize-the-earth.org/don/tsoc.pdf or here: http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010146tsoc.pdf So we'll fry or we'll freeze, or something. But certainly something. And it definitely makes sense to cut the fossil fuels, but fast. I'll try to keep an eye on various opinions as to climate change and form my own opinions, (though I'm generally of the working view that there seems to be enough evidence of man-induced change
RE: [biofuel] climate changes
Darryl W., Every time I see Darryl on the list, I look forward to read the posting, I have been so spoiled by thoughtful and valuable energy postings by Darryl McHone. Read this posting and wondered what happened, what a qualified HM. I suddenly discovered how much I really disconnected the last couple of month and I have to apologize to Darryl M., Keith, Todd, G-Mark and all the others that I have such a large respect for. Hakan At 17:52 05/06/2004, you wrote: The change from Global warming to climate change isn't because of some double think, but because it more accurately describes the event(s). It is also a lot scarier then the Earth warming a few degrees. I wouldn't blow off the movie so quickly. The movie does have it share of flaws mainly because science doesn't have any good ways to explain how cold weather animals are quickly frozen, so they invented cyclones sucking super cold air down from aloft despite the fact that cyclones suck surface air in and push it up. If anything we will have lows moving very cold polar air masses south, which would have close to the same effect except on a larger scale. The Greenhouse effect, global warming and ice age is all related. Our production of the greenhouse gases MAY have speeded up a natural process but it didn't cause it. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter. The chain reaction has already started and nothing that we do at this point will stop or even slow down the climate change. Discussing the cause is really a waste of time. 73 -- Darryl Wagoner - WA1GON Past President - Nashua Area Radio Club Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke [1729-1797] Join the TrustedQSL mailing list. An Open Source solution. Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.trustedQSL.orghttp://www.trustedQSL.org -Original Message- From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 11:00 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [biofuel] climate changes Interesting how the term has changed from Global warming to Climate change, at least in the US. That was partly a sort of imposed euphemism by the Bush Administration, when they could bring themselves to mention it at all, when various official reports could no longer be suppressed and so on. And now Climate change seems to mean a sudden Ice Age rather than a Greenhouse Effect, especially with Hollywood chucking its weight in with this apparently very silly movie. The Pentagon report focused more on possible abrupt effects of climate change, not necessarily that such effects were more likely but that they could be more catastrophic and more difficult to plan for. A new Ice Age is one possible scenario; it starts off with rising temperatures anyway, as does Global Warming, but which it will be is not yet certain. Both at the same time? I don't think so. Anyway, both the Observer report and associated reports have been posted previously (no reason not to do it again though): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/32387/http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/32387/ Weathering the Crisis - World Bank, Pentagon: global warming red alert http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/32446/http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/32446/ Pentagon Goes Crazy for Massive Climate Change This is part of a previous discussion here, between me and MM, which you might find interesting: Interestingly, as a followup, the one response I got there was that the possibility of global cooling is not getting enough attention. The author nearly descended into vituperation (obviously my little post must have been super-provocative), though that was not directed precisely against me either. That was the view in the late 60s, and indeed much earlier, up to as much as a century ago I think. Since the early 1980s at least more and better data, better ways of crunching it, further studies, have increasingly indicated the opposite, now overwhelmingly so. I don't think global cooling has been entirely disproved, but it's heavily outweighed. In 1982 a book appeared called The Survival of Civilization, written by a strange person named John D. Hamaker, which predicted global cooling. He paints a picture of rising CO2 levels triggering a sudden and catastrophic ice age. He sees it as a regular phenomenon, tracing it back through the last 17 ice ages, or something like that. The mechanism is that the topsoil runs out of minerals, leading to a decrease in the amount of biomass and a consequent release of CO2 into the atmosphere, which at first triggers warming and then an ice age. The ice grinds up a huge amount of surface rock into dust, as glaciers do but on a much vaster scale, finally retreating to leave a remineralised soil behind via the rock dust. It's quite a persuasive picture, and he does have his evidence
