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

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Paul Tattaglia, Nov 2, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 22:07:27 -0600, Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

    He could do one, or he could do the other. Doing both simultaneously is asking a bit much, don't
    you think?
     


  2. Eric Vey

    Eric Vey Guest

    --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! I could say something
    crass, but I have more class than that.

    >Possibly do? See above. "Extinct" means "never coming back -- ever." A permanent change
    --So? If we were gone, then by your standards, Earth would be far better off.--

    Straw man. Did I say that? I merely disputed what you said about humans not being able to effect
    permanent changes.

    >Oh, a fatalist. Listen, do me a favor, will ya? If you are going to
    kill
    >yourself, don't do anything that kills me, too. Thanks!

    --But I thought that we pollute and destroy our environment? In that case, wouldn't Earth benefit
    from our extinction?--

    Straw man, again. Second time. See here is the deal. You are knee jerking against common sense
    with arguments that make no sense, but you are jerking that knee so hard, you won't even take the
    time to read.

    >Does a bear shit in the woods?<
    --Yes, and somehow, the forest survives. Go figure.--

    About the only thing you don't 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.

    --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.

    --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?

    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.




    "Rick Onanian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:07:24 -0500, "Eric Vey" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >--We are NOT powerful enough to change anything, even by carelessly abusing.--
    > >
    > >I am sorry, but you deny reality. We routinely cause whole species to become extinct. They
    > >taught this to you in Primary School, did you forget? Did you forget how the Dodo bird and the
    > >passenger pigeon
    became
    > >extinct? Perhaps you think it doesn't matter. "Insignificant" -- we
    will
    > >revisit that word.
    >
    > I don't think it matters. Species come and species go. What difference does it make if a
    > particular species lost 10% of it's time on earth due to an early termination by us? The rest
    > adapt to their environment.
    >
    > >--The most we could possibly do is exterminate ourselves--
    > >
    > >Possibly do? See above. "Extinct" means "never coming back -- ever."
    A
    > >permanent change.
    >
    > So? If we were gone, then by your standards, Earth would be far better off.
    >
    > >--and let the earth go on without us, probably better for everybody anyway--
    > >
    > >Oh, a fatalist. Listen, do me a favor, will ya? If you are going to
    kill
    > >yourself, don't do anything that kills me, too. Thanks!
    >
    > But I thought that we pollute and destroy our environment? In that case, wouldn't Earth benefit
    > from our extinction?
    >
    > >--That land doesn't have a natural source of similar sewage; the
    analogy
    > >is broken.--
    > >
    > >I will explain this in basic terms since you seem to think that
    humans
    > >don't have the power to affect nature.
    > >
    > >Does a bear shit in the woods?
    >
    > Yes, and somehow, the forest survives. Go figure.
    >
    > >If your complaint is that nature usually does not concentrate things
    the
    > >way we do, then you are adding to the idea that we affect nature in deleterious (defined as:
    > >harmful often in a subtle or unexpected)
    ways.
    >
    > 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. I then said that
    > the analogy is invalid because while nature has a way of releasing concentrated wholesale
    > amounts of greenhouse gases, it doesn't have a way to release concentrated wholesale amounts of
    > sewage into a lake.
    >
    > >But your complaint that nature has no natural source like the sewage treatment plant fails
    > >as well.
    >
    > It wasn't a complaint, just the invalidation of said analogy. Here, you haven't discredited my
    > invalidation of the analogy. In fact, now that I think about it, there's a whole other thing wrong
    > with the analogy: The greenhouse gases we release AREN'T concentrated. The greenhouse gases
    > released by the eruptions are concentrated. The sewage released into a lake IS concentrated. The
    > bear shitting in the woods is NOT concentrated. Sounds like our greenhouse gases are no worse than
    > the bear shitting in the woods, and the volcanic eruption is very much like the raw sewage dumped
    > into the lake.
    >
    > >Floods, do indeed concentrate toxic wastes and cause them to flow
    into
    >
    > No, they release concentrated waste. Said waste certainly isn't produced by nature; if it is, then
    > it's quite natural for it to end up in lakes and rivers after floods. Either way, it certainly
    > doesn't end up in the concentration of the analogy of piping raw sewage into a lake and thereby
    > destroying it.
    >
    > >lakes and rivers. Generally, an unusual occurrence, floods naturally pollute the water. An
    > >unusual, unavoidable event, unlike the daily
    doses
    > >from the sewage treatment plants. The argument was w-a-y back then in
    >
    > Actually, said daily doses would have bypassed the treatment plant; else we wouldn't call them
    > _raw_ sewage.
    >
    > >--that it is insignificant compared to magnitudally (is that a word?) larger contributions from
    > >nature.--
    > >
    > >An old argument as I have tried to demonstrate. What exactly would
    you
    > >call "significant" anyway?
    >
    > Oh, I don't know...say, enough to make a difference. Certainly more than a minute fraction of what
    > nature produces without us.
    >
    > >I suppose that when they break out the masks in Mexico City and Japan due to auto smog, you would
    > >say that is insignificant because it is really a thermal inversion causing the trouble. I suppose
    > >that when
    only
    >
    > No, I would say it's because they live in high-density cities. That's where the air is bad. That's
    > only one of many reasons why I don't live in such a place.
    >
    > >the lakes downwind of coal plants suddenly turn acidic, while others that are not downwind,
    > >(but in the same area) don't, it is by co-incidence. But the number of acidic lakes is
    > >insignificant. What's
    a
    > >few lakes anyway? We have so many.
    > >
    > >Oops. I forgot. We couldn't have done those things. What was it you said? "We are NOT powerful
    > >enough to change anything, even by
    carelessly
    > >abusing."
    >
    > Okay, by over-focusing my statement, you have been able to invalidate it. Amend it to: We are NOT
    > powerful enough to change the whole world, even by carelessly abusing. Now, add to it: ...until
    > our overpopulation gets even worse.
    >
    > >When fish are killed over and over in a lake due to pollution, we
    should
    > >ignore it? Many people when I was growing up did just that. If they ack'd there was a problem
    > >(hard to ignore the smell of the rotting fish), they said it was too expensive to do anything
    > >about it.
    >
    > When we are having an obvious specific effect, we should certainly do something about it.
    > However, we don't have such an effect on the world's air, especially relative to natural
    > occurrences that do.
    >
    > >Those events have absolutely nothing to do with Mt Pinatubo, and are
    not
    > >naturally occurring events. At the turn of the last century, London
    was
    > >choking on smog and people couldn't hang clothes out to dry without
    them
    > >coming in sooty, yet there are no volcanoes near there. What caused
    the
    > >smog? Now the air is clear. How did that happen? By inaction?
    >
    > Volcanic eruptions affect the air globally. Try doing that with fossil fuel emissions.
    >
    > >__Ooops__ I forgot that you slept in school. Here:
    >
    >http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/aric/eae/Air_Quality/Older/Great_London_Smog.h
    tml
    >
    > This portion of this thread is about fossil-fuel-combustion vehicles causing air pollution. My
    > comments expanded that to global total pollution. All you can do is point out specific locations,
    > all in dense cities. It sounds to me like we must eliminate cities; it is obvious from that link
    > that even WITHOUT cars, cities dirty their air so badly that if it's not dispersed to the rest of
    > us, then the people in the city die from poison air.
    >
    > >I have no doubt that when the internal combustion engine was
    invented,
    > >no thought was given to air pollution. It caused very little
    pollution,
    > >neither did 50,000 engines, or even 500,000, but when the number gets into the hundreds of
    > >millions, well . . .
    >
    > Indeed, when it was invented, the phrase "air pollution" probably didn't even exist. Since then,
    > it has been considered so incredibly much that modern internal combustion engines run very
    > cleanly...unless you're Kevan on a bike drafting an SUV.
    >
    > >I have no doubt that people thought that dumping raw sewage into a
    lake
    > >would not cause it to become a large cesspool, and it didn't while
    the
    > >town's population was in the hundreds. Thousands of people and
    hundreds
    > >of thousands people are another matter.
    >
    > That's why sewage treatment plants are built. What do you suggest we do with millions of people
    > living in a few square miles? Let them shit on the carpet? Insist that each one put it in a paper
    > baggie and bicycle it out at least two hundred miles in a government-assigned direction?
    > Unfortunately, where people concentrate, human waste concentrates. When the concentration is low
    > (a few hundred people shitting in Lake Erie), they only dirty their section of the lake. If all of
    > Detroit dumps it's untreated sewage into Lake Erie, then Lake Erie would be screwed.
    >
    > >It didn't take many years at all to see the fish being killed, nor
    the
    > >air clouding up in Los Angeles. At that point, the question is no
    longer
    > >"What is happening", but "What do we do about it."
    >
    > Personally, I'd move out of LA.
    >
    > >Your argument is to do nothing since bad things are naturally
    occurring
    >
    > No, my argument is that if what we're doing is minuscule compared to what nature is doing to
    > itself, then we can't make a difference anyway.
    >
    > >events anyway. I have pointed out many things we have done. To point
    out
    >
    > Yes, but when somebody says that fossil-fuel-combustion vehicles are destroying the global air,
    > then by their standards, we should be devoting even more resources to stopping volcanic eruptions,
    > which destroy the global air more strongly by orders of magnitude.
    >
    > >that nature does things that are not good for us, denies the reality that we can exacerbate those
    > >bad things. In particular, our
    population
    >
    > We aren't exacerbating global air quality with our motor vehicles. We are completely destroying
    > city air quality, with the combination of many sources of air pollution in cities.
    >
    > >super concentrates things and anything that is super concentrated, becomes toxic.
    >
    > Actually, it's concentration of our population that's the problem. Nature cleanses the air and
    > water quite well when we're less concentrated.
    >
    > >We can control this. . . . We should control this.
    >
    > We can certainly control raw sewage dumping. That's why there are currently no less than two brand
    > new sewage treatment plants up for bid in Eastern Mass, as well as many upgrades and contracts
    > that have already been won (and so aren't listed in any bid news). BTW, how would specialized
    > construction workers get to the new sewage treatment plant under construction before sunrise every
    > day without personal motor vehicles?
    > --
    > Rick Onanian
     
  3. Top Sirloin

    Top Sirloin Guest

    On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:41:43 -0500, David Kerber <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    >> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:27:42 -0800, [email protected] (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?

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

    > 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?

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

    --

    Scott Johnson "I made the best gains of my life when I dumped the "oh me so tired" crap and started
    getting on with it for real." -Bryce Lane
     
  4. Top Sirloin

    Top Sirloin Guest

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 15:46:38 -0500, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 14:26:47 -0500, Top Sirloin <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:27:42 -0800, [email protected] (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.

    Very true. It's more accurate to say that the surface temps claimed by GW advocates are completely
    out of scale with balloon and satellite data.

    Why? Because they're not affected by the Urban Heat Island effect.

    --

    Scott Johnson "I made the best gains of my life when I dumped the "oh me so tired" crap and started
    getting on with it for real." -Bryce Lane
     
  5. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 20:32:47 -0500, "Eric Vey" <[email protected]> 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 shit 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
     
  6. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 21:46:39 -0500, "Eric Vey" <[email protected]> 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 shit.

    >--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
     
  7. Eric Vey

    Eric Vey Guest

    --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 shit 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 20:32:47 -0500, "Eric Vey" <[email protected]> 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 shit 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
     
  8. Buck

    Buck Guest

    "David Kerber" <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > > In article <[email protected]>, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> 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
     
  9. Bernie

    Bernie Guest

    Tom Keats wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Rick Onanian <[email protected]> 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
     
  10. Bernie

    Bernie Guest

    Rick Onanian wrote:

    >On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 14:26:47 -0500, Top Sirloin <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:27:42 -0800, [email protected] (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
     
  11. Trent Piepho

    Trent Piepho Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> 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 bullshit to me.

    From what I've found,
    http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/Emissions/Reports/Pinatubo/pinatubo_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.
     
  12. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "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" <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > > > In article <[email protected]>, Rick Onanian <[email protected]>
    > > > 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.
     
  13. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:41:43 -0500, David Kerber <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    > >says...
    > >> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:27:42 -0800, [email protected] (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.
     
  14. On 5 Nov 2003 03:45:14 -0800, [email protected] (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.
     
  15. R.White

    R.White Guest

    Bernie <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Tom Keats wrote:
    >
    > >In article <[email protected]>, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> 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
     
  16. Buck

    Buck Guest

    "David Kerber" <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > > 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
     
  17. Eric Vey

    Eric Vey Guest

    --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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 21:46:39 -0500, "Eric Vey" <[email protected]> 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 shit.
    >
    > >--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
     
  18. Eric Vey

    Eric Vey Guest

    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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > --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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 21:46:39 -0500, "Eric Vey" <[email protected]> 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 shit.
    > >
    > > >--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
     
  19. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] 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.
     
  20. Bernie

    Bernie Guest

    >
    >
    >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
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...