Disc Jockey Bob Dumas Allegedly Advocates killing Bicycle Riders For Fun! - Page 4

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 21:46:39 -0500, "Eric Vey" <junk@ericvey.com> wrote:
>--I said that our small contribution is a drop in the bucket compared to nature's own
>contribution--
>
>What drop in the bucket? The smoggy skies in London and LA and Mexico City and Tokyo did not get
>that way naturally. Are you saying that because you don't live there it doesn't matter?

Those places are not representative of the global condition. Those are localized. If I filled a
house with sewage, I wouldn't tell you that the whole town is full of ****.

>--Well, I suppose that if the million idling motors are in one square mile,-- --They're not.
>They're spread all over the place.--
>
>How about a million in a hundred square miles? About 10,000 per square mile? That's a whole lot
>more concentrated than when Henry began making the "T" and yet, that is what we have now in lots of
>places and I am not just talking LA. Medium sized cities now sport more than a million people in
>their vicinity if not actually inside the city limits. That's what I call concentrated. What is out
>in LA is super concentrated.

Yup, sounds to me like cities are icky. That sucks, because cities produce so much art, technology,
culture, etc...but they destroy their local environment. So be it.

>--In this discussion, however, I have neither shifted nor backpedalled. I've said it over and over,
>and I'll say it again: Our contribution to the environment from auto emissions is so small,
>relative to much larger natural occurrences, as to be meaningless.--
>
>And I point at Mexico City and Tokyo and LA for evidence where emissions not so meaningless. I
>suppose, there is nothing to be done there.

I will amend what I said above, then: Our contribution to the total global environment from auto
emissions is so small, relative to much larger natural occurrences, as to be meaningless.

Your localizations are only valid for those locales. The rest of the world is doing just fine, thank
you very much.
--
Rick Onanian

--I said that our small contribution is a drop in the bucket compared to nature's own contribution--

What drop in the bucket? The smoggy skies in London and LA and Mexico City and Tokyo did not get
that way naturally. Are you saying that because you don't live there it doesn't matter?

--How is a flood going to release CONCENTRATED anything?--

Actually, what happens is that most lakes and rivers and lakes are in basins. The rain water grabs
all the bear **** and what ever else it can find and flushes it down toward the body of water. When
the body of water absorbs this polluted water, the pollution numbers go crazy high because the stuff
that normally would have stayed put didn't. The floodm occurs because there is so much water.

It is a temporary condition, unlike constant day after day dumping or day after day absorbtion of
runoff from fields full of cows.

--Well, I suppose that if the million idling motors are in one square mile,-- --They're not. They're
spread all over the place.--

How about a million in a hundred square miles? About 10,000 per square mile? That's a whole lot more
concentrated than when Henry began making the "T" and yet, that is what we have now in lots of
places and I am not just talking LA. Medium sized cities now sport more than a million people in
their vicinity if not actually inside the city limits. That's what I call concentrated. What is out
in LA is super concentrated.

--In this discussion, however, I have neither shifted nor backpedalled. I've said it over and over,
and I'll say it again: Our contribution to the environment from auto emissions is so small, relative
to much larger natural occurrences, as to be meaningless.--

And I point at Mexico City and Tokyo and LA for evidence where emissions not so meaningless. I
suppose, there is nothing to be done there.

"Rick Onanian" <spamsink@cox.net> wrote in message
news:melgqv0k3o48p1o2ou9io4hcsu3s5p5bac@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 20:32:47 -0500, "Eric Vey" <junk@ericvey.com> wrote:
> >--I don't think it matters. Species come and species go.--
> >
> >And according to you, it doesn't much matter if *our* species goes.
LOL!
>
> What's funny about that?
>
> >>Does a bear **** in the woods?<
> >--Yes, and somehow, the forest survives. Go figure.--
> >
> >About the only thing you don't rail against.
>
> Er...exactly what _do_ I "rail against"?
>
> >--No complaint at all. After I compared greenhouse gases released by human devices to volcanic
> >eruptions, somebody else made the analogy to dumping raw sewage into a lake.--
> >
> >That was me mentioning that I heard the same thing said when I was a youth.. It was once thought
> >that the lake's tolerance was unlimited.
You
> >say the air's tolerance is unlimited. You say it doesn't matter since nature does bad things. I
> >say it does matter because we can control
what
> >we do. Simple.
>
> Where do I say that the air's tolerance is unlimited? Where do I say that it doesn't matter
> because nature does bad things? You're fabricating. I said that our small contribution is a drop
> in the bucket compared to nature's own contribution, and that's why it doesn't matter. Let's put
> it into some numbers -- I don't know what the actual numbers are, but here's some exaggerated
> numbers, using fake units, to demonstrate my point (which is the scale, not that the air can take
> any and all amount of abuse): One volcanic eruption: 140,000 pumblits of greenhouse gases Sum
> total of greenhouse gases from auto emissions: 100 pumblits You will attack that saying that the
> numbers are wrong and the units make no sense. I agree. I'm not saying that the ratio is 1400:1,
> just that the ratio is very strongly tipped in that direction -- so much so that what we do
> results in nearly zero effect; the effects that we observe are caused by natural occurrences that
> generate much worse stuff than us.
>
> >--it doesn't have a way to release concentrated wholesale amounts of sewage into a lake.--
> >
> >And I specifically pointed out the way that it does, by flood. Apparently you ignore what doesn't
> >jibe with your arguments.
>
> Okay, let's take that at face value: Nature is going to destroy lakes. No, I don't believe that.
>
> How is a flood going to release CONCENTRATED anything? A flood is a _whole_lot_of_water_, which is
> DILUTING whatever it mixes with. Then, some of the flood, with some sewage mixed in (where did it
> get that sewage?) ends up in the lake.
>
> >--The greenhouse gases we release AREN'T concentrated--
> >
> >Yes, they are. A million motors sitting a lights idling and you
wouldn't
> >call that a high concentration? compared to what?
>
> Well, I suppose that if the million idling motors are in one square mile, that's pretty
> concentrated. They're not. They're spread all over the place. Maybe you don't know what
> "concentrated" means.
>
> >Are you saying that we can't control what we do? Or that we don't
want
> >to? Or that it doesn't matter? Pick one. You keep shifting and back pedaling that it is hard to
> >find the target.
>
> I do shift and back pedal. While fixed gear riders feel that it is wasteful to do so, I find that
> my legs enjoy the rest and the reversal of direction.
>
> In this discussion, however, I have neither shifted nor backpedalled. I've said it over and over,
> and I'll say it again: Our contribution to the environment from auto emissions is so small,
> relative to much larger natural occurrences, as to be meaningless.
> --
> Rick Onanian

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a11c9be5a83971a989759@news.ids.net...
> In article <eju8ob.vv3.ln@bud.garden.local>, tomk2003@hotmail.com says...
> > In article <itsdqvkav50hh7em2088f50l8eehvi6nnn@4ax.com>, Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> writes:
> >
> > > All of these things, both warming and cooling, are part of the natural system of Earth. This
> > > planet will survive and prosper no matter what we do to it, and it will absorb most of what we
> > > do without becoming unbearable.

> > Meanwhile, global warming is already exacting its toll, as Mountain Pine Beetles, whose
> > populations are (were) normally attenuated by winter freezes, destroy vast areas of harvestable
> > trees -- which incidentally also perform as atmospheric carbon sinks. Then we have recent forest
> > & brush fires on unprecedented scales also taking carbon sinks out of the picture. And shrinking
>
> Not necessarily; once the new growth starts up on the burned-out areas, it will pull carbon out of
> the air in a hurry, because the rate of change of plant mass (much of which is carbon) in a forest
> during the regrowth phase after a fire is quite high compared to the equilibrium conditions in a
> mature forest.

In addition, many of the fires these days are the direct result of human intervention in normally
occurring small fires. Stop the small fires and you increase the buildup of fuel (leaf litter). Let
it build up long enough and we can't control the next big fire. This is why prescribed burning is
becoming a more accepted practice. Well, not so accepted when it comes to the clean-air folks. This
interruption of the burning cycle is also to blame for many of our grasslands being converted to
brushland. The native grasses need the fire to clear out old growth, control for non-native plant
growth, and prepare the seeds for new native plants.

-Buck

Tom Keats wrote:

> In article <itsdqvkav50hh7em2088f50l8eehvi6nnn@4ax.com>,
> Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> writes:
>
>>All of these things, both warming and cooling, are part of the natural system of Earth. This
>>planet will survive and prosper no matter what we do to it, and it will absorb most of what we do
>>without becoming unbearable.
>>
>
>
>Kewl! A Global Warming thread. We haven't had one of those in years. That trumps even Critical
>Mass threads.
>
>AIUI, Global Warming is a fact. So is a correlation between increasing human-produced &
>reintroduced greenhouse gases, and rising global temperatures. The dispute is whether the
>correlation is causal or coincidental, and if causal, what to do (or not do) about it. I guess it's
>all academic now anyways, since the Kyoto Accord is just an ineffectual gesture without both the
>USA and Russia on-board.
>
>Meanwhile, global warming is already exacting its toll, as Mountain Pine Beetles, whose populations
>are (were) normally attenuated by winter freezes, destroy vast areas of harvestable trees -- which
>incidentally also perform as atmospheric carbon sinks. Then we have recent forest & brush fires on
>unprecedented scales also taking carbon sinks out of the picture. And shrinking polar ice caps
>result in less refectivity and greater absorption of solar radiation. It seems the Global Warming
>phenomenon tends to be self-sustaining. Scary, eh?
>
>
>cheers, Tom
>
There some biggish cycles going on on this planet. One cycle is the coming and going of ice ages.
For many thousands of years we've had ice ages. They are either 1) a full blown ice age or 2)
between ice ages or
3) a beginning ice age or 4) the ending of an ice age. We are currently in 4). Within those "big"
ice ages there are blips like the "little ice age" of the Dark Ages. That blip was enough to
finish Viking settlements in Greenland. Not just settlements, but actual cities. They became
unable to farm and had to leave. My point is: it's hard to tell if global warming is a natural
event or human created, partly because we still tapering down from the last ice age. I certainly
agree that the events you described have impact. I read somewhere (sorry for no reference) that
the prairies of North America were covered with forests. Best regards, Bernie

Rick Onanian wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 14:26:47 -0500, Top Sirloin <scottjohnson@iamacrackho.kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:27:42 -0800, tomk2003@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
>>
>>>AIUI, Global Warming is a fact.
>>>
>>Except that balloon and satellite data show no evidence of it, only unreliable
>>
>
>As well, global warming (and cooling) can be detected much further back than the existence of homo
>sapiens. It's part of the natural cycle...unless somebody thinks that human fossil fuel emissions
>are what caused the last ice age to end.
>--
>Rick Onanian
>
EdZackery! Those big wheels keep turning. Bernie

In article <itsdqvkav50hh7em2088f50l8eehvi6nnn@4ax.com>, Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> wrote:
>-=- Natural occurrences, such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (more widely known for it's temporary
>cooling effect caused by ash and dust in the air), have spewed forth more greenhouse gases than
>mankind has ever caused.

Do you have any source for this statement? It smells like bull**** to me.

From what I've found,
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/E...atubo_abs.html

"Thus, the minimum volatile emissions for the climactic eruption--from preeruption vapor
phase and degassing of melt--were 17 Mt SO2, 42 Mt CO2, 3 Mt Cl, and 491 Mt H2O."

That's 42 million tons of CO2. Certainly a lot, but this level of eruption has only occurred 39
times in the last 10,000 years. That's an average of around .15 megatons per year. Total
human-produced CO2 is around 7,700 megatons per year. Only about 1000 times MORE than eruptions the
scale of Mt. Pinatubo.

In article <2J0qb.11905$f53.11602@twister.austin.rr.com>, "Buck" <s c h w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @
h o t m a i l . c o m> says...
> "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1a11c9be5a83971a989759@news.ids.net...
> > In article <eju8ob.vv3.ln@bud.garden.local>, tomk2003@hotmail.com says...
> > > In article <itsdqvkav50hh7em2088f50l8eehvi6nnn@4ax.com>, Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net>
> > > writes:
> > >
> > > > All of these things, both warming and cooling, are part of the natural system of Earth. This
> > > > planet will survive and prosper no matter what we do to it, and it will absorb most of what
> > > > we do without becoming unbearable.
>
>
> > > Meanwhile, global warming is already exacting its toll, as Mountain Pine Beetles, whose
> > > populations are (were) normally attenuated by winter freezes, destroy vast areas of
> > > harvestable trees -- which incidentally also perform as atmospheric carbon sinks. Then we have
> > > recent forest & brush fires on unprecedented scales also taking carbon sinks out of the
> > > picture. And shrinking
> >
> > Not necessarily; once the new growth starts up on the burned-out areas, it will pull carbon out
> > of the air in a hurry, because the rate of change of plant mass (much of which is carbon) in a
> > forest during the regrowth phase after a fire is quite high compared to the equilibrium
> > conditions in a mature forest.
>
> In addition, many of the fires these days are the direct result of human intervention in normally
> occurring small fires. Stop the small fires and you increase the buildup of fuel (leaf litter).
> Let it build up long enough and we can't control the next big fire. This is why prescribed burning
> is becoming a more accepted practice. Well, not so accepted when it comes to the clean-air folks.
> This interruption of the burning cycle is also to blame for many of our grasslands being converted
> to brushland. The native grasses need the fire to clear out old growth, control for non-native
> plant growth, and prepare the seeds for new native plants.

Very true. Unfortunately, the forest service sometimes screws up the prescribed burn and it gets out
of control, as happened last year in NM.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

In article <ndlgqv0kq390ld0q7hvmsstnb6in3ak3hv@4ax.com>, scottjohnson@imacrackho.kc.rr.com says...
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:41:43 -0500, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <btufqvg1l06ggipq5c7a3nhlq3qqbg4u9a@4ax.com>, scottjohnson@iamacrackho.kc.rr.com
> >says...
> >> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:27:42 -0800, tomk2003@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >AIUI, Global Warming is a fact.
> >>
> >> Except that balloon and satellite data show no evidence of it, only unreliable surface readings
> >> affected by the Urban Heat Island effect.
> >
> >Not true. There are many other sources of temperature data as well. Many of the early European
> >explorers took ocean water temperatures, and they have been rising just like atmospheric temps.
>
> When we are talking a matter of a few degrees or tenths of degrees do you really think data
> collected from early European explorers is going to be reliable enough to base any form of
> policy on?

Tenths of degrees, probably not, but whole degrees, yes. Tree ring and ice core data also
supports this.

> >Besides, surface temperatures are what matter for the purposes of human life.
>
> Surface temperatures are typically gathered where there are humans, and those locations have
> become more built-up over the past 100 years, which is why is appears that global warming is
> happening.

There are plenty of non-built up areas which also show warming...

> If the planet really was hotter balloon and satellite data would should it, but they don't.

Possibly, but not necessarily. The effect of temperature variation on cloud cover and atmospheric
circulation can significantly affect what happens with temperatures at various levels in the
atmosphere.

>
> > No legitimate climate scientist I've read about disputes the conclusion that global temperatures
> > have risen significantly over the last 200 to 400 years, nor do they generally disagree that the
> > rate of warming has accelerated over the last 100 years or so. The fight is about what is
> > causing it, and whether we can or should try to do anything about it.
>
> If the planet _is_ getting warmer, how are they going to prove it's the doing of humans and not a
> naturally occuring phenomena?

That's where the big debate is, and is where climate models come in. I'm not going to weigh in on
that part of it.

> "Global Warming" is nothing more than a crappy theory propped up by bad evidence solely for the
> purpose of pushing a radical environmentalist agenda.

I disagree. Warming is happening, and it was noticed by scientists long before the environmentalists
got ahold of it. Once we figure out whether humans are responsible for part or all of, then we can
decide if we should try to do anything about it.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

On 5 Nov 2003 03:45:14 -0800, tap@venturi.cfr.washington.edu (Trent Piepho) wrote:

>
>That's 42 million tons of CO2. Certainly a lot, but this level of eruption has only occurred 39
>times in the last 10,000 years. That's an average of around .15 megatons per year. Total
>human-produced CO2 is around 7,700 megatons per year. Only about 1000 times MORE than eruptions the
>scale of Mt. Pinatubo.

Sounds like we need more volcanoes and fewer people.

Bernie <bmcilvan@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message news:<3FA8D324.5050403@mouse-potato.com>...
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
> >In article <itsdqvkav50hh7em2088f50l8eehvi6nnn@4ax.com>, Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> writes:
> >
> >>All of these things, both warming and cooling, are part of the natural system of Earth. This
> >>planet will survive and prosper no matter what we do to it, and it will absorb most of what we
> >>do without becoming unbearable.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Kewl! A Global Warming thread. We haven't had one of those in years. That trumps even Critical
> >Mass threads.
> >
> >AIUI, Global Warming is a fact. So is a correlation between increasing human-produced &
> >reintroduced greenhouse gases, and rising global temperatures. The dispute is whether the
> >correlation is causal or coincidental, and if causal, what to do (or not do) about it. I guess
> >it's all academic now anyways, since the Kyoto Accord is just an ineffectual gesture without both
> >the USA and Russia on-board.
> >
> >Meanwhile, global warming is already exacting its toll, as Mountain Pine Beetles, whose
> >populations are (were) normally attenuated by winter freezes, destroy vast areas of harvestable
> >trees -- which incidentally also perform as atmospheric carbon sinks. Then we have recent forest
> >& brush fires on unprecedented scales also taking carbon sinks out of the picture. And shrinking
> >polar ice caps result in less refectivity and greater absorption of solar radiation. It seems the
> >Global Warming phenomenon tends to be self-sustaining. Scary, eh?
> >
> >
> >cheers, Tom
> >
> There some biggish cycles going on on this planet. One cycle is the coming and going of ice ages.
> For many thousands of years we've had ice ages. They are either 1) a full blown ice age or 2)
> between ice ages or
> 3) a beginning ice age or 4) the ending of an ice age. We are currently in 4). Within those "big"
> ice ages there are blips like the "little ice age" of the Dark Ages. That blip was enough to
> finish Viking settlements in Greenland. Not just settlements, but actual cities. They became
> unable to farm and had to leave. My point is: it's hard to tell if global warming is a natural
> event or human created, partly because we still tapering down from the last ice age. I
> certainly agree that the events you described have impact. I read somewhere (sorry for no
> reference) that the prairies of North America were covered with forests.

Yes, the prairies used to be covered in forests. A detailed, scientific explanation can be
found here:

http://tinyurl.com/tq7k

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a120cad95514f429897b1@news.ids.net...

> > What do federal standards say clean air is? That might be a good
starting point
> > for discussion. How does you air compare to that standard?
>
> Plenty of ozone on a hot, humid summer day, and NOx on any day when the winds are blowing from
> NYC. Other than that, it's pretty good.

Get yourself one of those "ionic" air cleaners and you can have all of the ozone you want *inside*
your house. There have been lots of stories recently about how the air inside our homes is worse
than the air outside. How people can be duped into bringing in an ozone generator to "clean" the air
is beyond me.

-Buck

--The rest of the world is doing just fine, thank you very much.--

What you mean is you think you're okay. The rest of the world knows they have a problem. What goes
up will come down. And you can't stop that city crap from blowing down or raining down on your
little section of God's Green Acre.

I used to live in the country. Then my neighbor sold off his property in little lots. Same with the
guy across the street. Next thing I know, I don't live in the country anymore. While this was
happening, (and it happened all over around here) I noticed how the blue skies were no longer as
blue and had turned a kind of light grey. The new people thought that was normal.

So breath easy while you can.

"Rick Onanian" <spamsink@cox.net> wrote in message
news:44qgqvogdcfjva1socqciqj8otkd9rledi@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 21:46:39 -0500, "Eric Vey" <junk@ericvey.com> wrote:
> >--I said that our small contribution is a drop in the bucket compared
to
> >nature's own contribution--
> >
> >What drop in the bucket? The smoggy skies in London and LA and Mexico City and Tokyo did not get
> >that way naturally. Are you saying that because you don't live there it doesn't matter?
>
> Those places are not representative of the global condition. Those are localized. If I filled a
> house with sewage, I wouldn't tell you that the whole town is full of ****.
>
> >--Well, I suppose that if the million idling motors are in one square mile,-- --They're not.
> >They're spread all over the place.--
> >
> >How about a million in a hundred square miles? About 10,000 per
square
> >mile? That's a whole lot more concentrated than when Henry began
making
> >the "T" and yet, that is what we have now in lots of places and I am
not
> >just talking LA. Medium sized cities now sport more than a million people in their vicinity if
> >not actually inside the city limits.
That's
> >what I call concentrated. What is out in LA is super concentrated.
>
> Yup, sounds to me like cities are icky. That sucks, because cities produce so much art,
> technology, culture, etc...but they destroy their local environment. So be it.
>
> >--In this discussion, however, I have neither shifted nor
backpedalled.
> >I've said it over and over, and I'll say it again: Our contribution
to
> >the environment from auto emissions is so small, relative to much larger natural occurrences, as
> >to be meaningless.--
> >
> >And I point at Mexico City and Tokyo and LA for evidence where
emissions
> >not so meaningless. I suppose, there is nothing to be done there.
>
> I will amend what I said above, then: Our contribution to the total global environment from auto
> emissions is so small, relative to much larger natural occurrences, as to be meaningless.
>
> Your localizations are only valid for those locales. The rest of the world is doing just fine,
> thank you very much.
> --
> Rick Onanian

I forgot to mention that I saw the air quality degrade while I was in the Navy back in the '80's. I
stood as a lookout and bridge watch for about 3 years and then I joined the Merchant Marine and
stood lookout more years. I had lots of time to observe and reflect.

When I first started, it was fairly easy to find the horizon (needed for navigational purposes).
Over the years I saw it become more difficult. Rather than seeing a nice straight line, this
greyish/whiteish smudge was there. That smudge became more opaque over the years until the line was
completely obscured.

This was a thousand miles out in the Atlantic, and the winds blow West to East, so I got to actually
see first hand, all the crap that was blowing out from the US.

"Eric Vey" <junk@ericvey.com> wrote in message news:bobegm$1cibf1$1@ID-61706.news.uni-berlin.de...
> --The rest of the world is doing just fine, thank you very much.--
>
> What you mean is you think you're okay. The rest of the world knows
they
> have a problem. What goes up will come down. And you can't stop that city crap from blowing down
> or raining down on your little section of God's Green Acre.
>
> I used to live in the country. Then my neighbor sold off his property
in
> little lots. Same with the guy across the street. Next thing I know, I don't live in the country
> anymore. While this was happening, (and it happened all over around here) I noticed how the blue
> skies were no longer as blue and had turned a kind of light grey. The new people thought that
> was normal.
>
> So breath easy while you can.
>
>
>
>
> "Rick Onanian" <spamsink@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:44qgqvogdcfjva1socqciqj8otkd9rledi@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 21:46:39 -0500, "Eric Vey" <junk@ericvey.com> wrote:
> > >--I said that our small contribution is a drop in the bucket
compared
> to
> > >nature's own contribution--
> > >
> > >What drop in the bucket? The smoggy skies in London and LA and
Mexico
> > >City and Tokyo did not get that way naturally. Are you saying that because you don't live there
> > >it doesn't matter?
> >
> > Those places are not representative of the global condition. Those are localized. If I filled a
> > house with sewage, I wouldn't tell you that the whole town is full of ****.
> >
> > >--Well, I suppose that if the million idling motors are in one
square
> > >mile,-- --They're not. They're spread all over the place.--
> > >
> > >How about a million in a hundred square miles? About 10,000 per
> square
> > >mile? That's a whole lot more concentrated than when Henry began
> making
> > >the "T" and yet, that is what we have now in lots of places and I
am
> not
> > >just talking LA. Medium sized cities now sport more than a million people in their vicinity if
> > >not actually inside the city limits.
> That's
> > >what I call concentrated. What is out in LA is super concentrated.
> >
> > Yup, sounds to me like cities are icky. That sucks, because cities produce so much art,
> > technology, culture, etc...but they destroy their local environment. So be it.
> >
> > >--In this discussion, however, I have neither shifted nor
> backpedalled.
> > >I've said it over and over, and I'll say it again: Our contribution
> to
> > >the environment from auto emissions is so small, relative to much larger natural occurrences,
> > >as to be meaningless.--
> > >
> > >And I point at Mexico City and Tokyo and LA for evidence where
> emissions
> > >not so meaningless. I suppose, there is nothing to be done there.
> >
> > I will amend what I said above, then: Our contribution to the total global environment from auto
> > emissions is so small, relative to much larger natural occurrences, as to be meaningless.
> >
> > Your localizations are only valid for those locales. The rest of the world is doing just fine,
> > thank you very much.
> > --
> > Rick Onanian

In article <bobgnp$1cm7nf$1@ID-61706.news.uni-berlin.de>, junk@ericvey.com says...
> I forgot to mention that I saw the air quality degrade while I was in the Navy back in the '80's.
> I stood as a lookout and bridge watch for about 3 years and then I joined the Merchant Marine and
> stood lookout more years. I had lots of time to observe and reflect.
>
> When I first started, it was fairly easy to find the horizon (needed for navigational purposes).
> Over the years I saw it become more difficult. Rather than seeing a nice straight line, this
> greyish/whiteish smudge was there. That smudge became more opaque over the years until the line
> was completely obscured.
>
> This was a thousand miles out in the Atlantic, and the winds blow West to East, so I got to
> actually see first hand, all the crap that was blowing out from the US.

You're sure that wasn't your eyes going bad? <G,D&R>

I was also on the bridge (on CGN's) during the mid- and late-80's looking at the horizon, but
haven't been at sea since then, so don't have any recent comparisons.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

>
>
>Yes, the prairies used to be covered in forests. A detailed, scientific explanation can be
>found here:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/tq7k
>
RW - I'd like to read it, but the tinyurl didn't work. I got an error msg instead. Bernie