RE: [biofuel] Re: Digest Number 459
I am not familiar with hydroflourocarbons (sic) and the only gin I can drink without distress is Bombay. So in my attempt to create an analogy I used a vodka marty. The point is the relative ratio. Lets try again. Various feathers contribute to a raise in ground temperature because they prevent night time radiation. Robins are a major offender due to their abundance (CO2 is robins=CO2 is one of the most commonly discussed greenhouse gases.) The down from a goose is a much worse offender (down is fluorocarbons=Hydroflourocarbons have something like two orders of magnitude more capacity) Even though the down from the goose population amounts to 1 feather per acre we must eradicate geese. If you do the math you will see that 1 feather per acre is a larger coverage of the ground than 1 drop of vermouth (freon) in our Olympic pool sized martini (atmosphere). To believe these concentrations can produce a measurable effect shows a proclivity to believe the fantastic. This is the level of science education in our society. I have caught young men with a bachelors degree, and in engineering no less, who think a kinetic energy foot-pound is an engineering foot-pound (1.356 joules). That is the pathetic level of instruction in Newtonian mechanics by the current institutions of higher education. It is obvious the average grasp of thermo is equally lacking. My gripe is not with your understanding as you are candid enough to express same (I am not a climate scientist and am not aware of what the other factors are which play a part in our planets equilibrium.) My industrial strength b!+ch is with the establishment which promotes such pseudoscience even when they know better.(Yes, many believe this rubbish because they are taught it--but those who could expose it are silent) To promote a lie means you have a motive other than the truth. The motive is social engineering to bring about acceptance of strong central government rather than personal liberty. Believe no one until you review the raw data and do the math. Otherwise you support that which you in truth do not know. Did you know Sagan's nuclear winter model did not include the oceans? 70% of the earth's surface and an enormous thermal source and not in the model. Was he that incompetent? I don't think so. He knew what he was doing. The public didn't. Actually, I am sympathetic to his motive but must we sacrifice truth and honesty on the altar of expedience? Kirk -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 5:58 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: [biofuel] Re: Digest Number 459 Good afternoon Kirk, A few commments: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The major source of influence is the output of the sun. if you mean that the only source of input energy to the earth is the sun, then yes, I agree. But if you're somehow trying to rule out the constituent makeup of the atmosphere as having much to do with anything I am baffled as to your reasoning. Also weather does not constitute climate change. I'm not sure what you mean by this either. snip If the atmosphere was an Olympic size swimming pool full of vodka the fluorocarbon concentration would be the same as taking an eyedropper and adding a drop of Vermouth. Mighty dry Martini. Ok, first of all, a real martini is made with gin, not vodka. Second, WOAH slow down and be careful about your metaphores. I know you've mostly been making refference to the hole in the Ozone, but I've read other's comments here on the general topic of global climate change and wanted to throw out a few considerations to illustrate that what you are trying to imply is a gross oversimplification. CO2 is one of the most commonly discussed greenhouse gases. It has the capacity to capture and store a large amount of IR radiation and is one of the gasses in our atmosphere which keeps us from freezing to death. Methane, partly because of its greater structural complexity, has something like an order of magnitude or more capacity for storing IR radiation( as in your sheep david really MAY be the problem, but more likely it's all the beef we idiot yanks eat). Hydroflourocarbons have something like two orders of magnitude more capacity. I.E. much smaller quantities have much higher capacity for energy storage. I am not a climate scientist and am not aware of what the other factors are which play a part in our planets equilibrium. I am, however, quite aware that there are many many many factors and that these things are debated hotly. I know for a fact that making oversimplified metaphores never helps, especially when used to attempt to contradict widely held beliefs in the scientific community. If you read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx you see elimination of private property as one of the planks. Eco-crises is being promoted as a vehicle to that end. Hysteria is being used as a motivational tool. Kirk I'm sorry, I missed that. was
RE: [biofuel] Re: Digest Number 459
I have a couple of cents to add to this: As I understand some of it, one of the big problems with global warming is the increase in fresh water into the oceans from increased rainfall and the melting of the polar ice caps. The network of currents in the oceans have a great effect on climate. These currents are primarily driven by an oceanic pump created from the sinking of the salt water into the depths of the ocean. This continuous cycle not only acts as a heat exchange mechanism by bringing cold water to warm but also brings up the nutrient rich material found mostly in the deep. As any fisherman knows, that's where you catch the tuna. Fresh water stops this pump simply by diluting the salt water!!! Yes, it is all theory but whether or not something's going to happen is not the point. We can only try to predict the possibilities. I don't think anyone would deny that we, as a race, are and have changed the world irreparably for good or for bad. There is evidence that there is a problem and I, for one, can't take the chance that I might hand over this world in worse shape than I got it. I might have little effect, but I CAN get active. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 1:58 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: [biofuel] Re: Digest Number 459 Good afternoon Kirk, A few commments: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The major source of influence is the output of the sun. if you mean that the only source of input energy to the earth is the sun, then yes, I agree. But if you're somehow trying to rule out the constituent makeup of the atmosphere as having much to do with anything I am baffled as to your reasoning. Also weather does not constitute climate change. I'm not sure what you mean by this either. snip If the atmosphere was an Olympic size swimming pool full of vodka the fluorocarbon concentration would be the same as taking an eyedropper and adding a drop of Vermouth. Mighty dry Martini. Ok, first of all, a real martini is made with gin, not vodka. Second, WOAH slow down and be careful about your metaphores. I know you've mostly been making refference to the hole in the Ozone, but I've read other's comments here on the general topic of global climate change and wanted to throw out a few considerations to illustrate that what you are trying to imply is a gross oversimplification. CO2 is one of the most commonly discussed greenhouse gases. It has the capacity to capture and store a large amount of IR radiation and is one of the gasses in our atmosphere which keeps us from freezing to death. Methane, partly because of its greater structural complexity, has something like an order of magnitude or more capacity for storing IR radiation( as in your sheep david really MAY be the problem, but more likely it's all the beef we idiot yanks eat). Hydroflourocarbons have something like two orders of magnitude more capacity. I.E. much smaller quantities have much higher capacity for energy storage. I am not a climate scientist and am not aware of what the other factors are which play a part in our planets equilibrium. I am, however, quite aware that there are many many many factors and that these things are debated hotly. I know for a fact that making oversimplified metaphores never helps, especially when used to attempt to contradict widely held beliefs in the scientific community. If you read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx you see elimination of private property as one of the planks. Eco-crises is being promoted as a vehicle to that end. Hysteria is being used as a motivational tool. Kirk I'm sorry, I missed that. was that hysteria over ecological problems being used to shove communism down our throats, or hysteria over communism being used to justify selfishness and craming of heads in the sand? -andrew Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
