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.org>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/>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 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>http://www.reminera 
> lize-the-earth.org/don/tsoc.pdf
> > >or here:
> > ><http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010146tsoc.pdf>http://www.soi 
> landhealth.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 impossible
> > >to have a sensible discussion (we've seen it here, often), and with
> > >the row raging on and attention successfully diverted, "business as
> > >usual" is just so much easier.
> > >
> > >>But for me, I'm willing to grant that.  Let's
> > >>say that's the history of some of the matter, for some or many
> > >>environmentalists, and that, furthermore, I'm not inherently
> > >>anti-industrial.
> > >
> > >Neither are environmentalists, by and large, though they have their
> > >polarized, knee-jerk elements too, but that's more of a result than
> > >a cause.
> > >
> > >>But so what?  Is this a scientific discussion?  Or an interpersonal
> > >>motivational-analysis, I want to ask them?
> > >
> > >Ask them! But maybe don't expect a majority of sensible answers.
> > >
> > >>Because I want to know
> > >>about global warming, real or alleged, and it's very tough to get
> > >>straight answers when folks are so angry.  In my view, the
> > >>anti-environmentalists need to stop assuming that everyone who might
> > >>see global warming is looking for an anti-industrial pretext.  I'm
> > >>just trying to pay attention to the science, as best I can, between
> > >>the screaming matches.
> > >
> > >Try to find a non-US forum, or at least a forum where Americans are
> > >heavily outnumbered. That's not anti-American, it's just that
> > >America, Americans, American media, have been exposed to a LOT more
> > >anti-global warming and more recently anti-human caused global
> > >warming anti-science and sheer BS than anyone else has. Virtually
> > >everywhere else the debate is much more practical and science-based,
> > >much less emotional and polarised, less side-tracked, just more
> > >advanced.
> >
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > >Greetings,
> > >
> > >This is a subject that I have studied in the last few months.
> > >
> > >Climate change (will happen, but a matter of when).  This is another
>of
> > >when not if.  It has happen in the past and sign are starting to
>point
> > >to the process is already starting.  The Pentagon secret report
> >
> ><http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.ht> 
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.ht
>m
> > >l states that climate change is the greatest threat to national
>security
> > >in the 21st century, even greater than terrorism and war.  Woods Hole
> > >Inst.
> >
> ><http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_joyce_k> 
> http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_joyce_k
>e
> > >igwin.html and NASA
> > ><http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm?list978252>ht 
> tp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm?list978252
>are
> > >already mapping changes in the Gulf Stream, which could trigger a new
> > >ice age in Europe.  In the past this happens very quickly, minutes
>and
> > >hours not months or years.  That doesn't mean that we won't get any
> > >warning.  Weather doesn't happen in a blink of the eye, but an ice
>age
> > >may move very quickly, so you have to watch the weather maps.
> > >
> > >I think it is important to note that ice ages come and go thru out
> > >history with or without the help of man.  There also seems to be
>large
> > >one and small ones.  At this point there is no way to predict which
>the
> > >next one will be.
> > >If one hits your area you should have 3-9 months before snow and ice
> > >over takes the system to clean it off the roads.  So it isn't the
>panic
> > >rush that "The Day after tomorrow" pictured.  I think it will happen
>in
> > >the 3-10 year time frame instead of the 20-30 year others are saying.
> > >
> > >Good luck!
> > >
> > >--
> > >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>http://www.trustedQSL.org
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Kim & Garth Travis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 9:17 AM
> > > > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [biofuel] climate changes
> > > >
> > > > This is something I have been watching for a few years now, but I
> > >don't
> > > > completely understand what exactly is being predicted.  My
> > >understanding
> > > > to
> > > > date is:  The earth for now is getting hotter and melting the
>polar
> > >ice
> > > > caps.  This is releasing tons of cold fresh water into our oceans
>and
> > >this
> > > > will disrupt the various currents that move the heat from the
>equators
> > >to
> > > > the poles.  Once this disruption happens, we are in an ice age and
> > >very
> > > > quickly most of the northern hemisphere will be covered with
>glaciers.
> > >At
> > > > the same time the equator regions will get extremely hot and have
> > >really
> > > > vicious storms.  All of this is expected in the next 10 to 30
> > > > years.  Unless by some miracle the human race smartens up.
> > > >
> > > > So, if you were about to relocate in semi retirement, where would
>you
> > >pick
> > > > to try and live out your life?
> > > >
> > > > Bright Blessings,
> > > > Kim




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/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/
 


Reply via email to