Anyway to safely tap/deplete these enormous energy reserves then? Glass half full...? -john
-----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 3:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Ticking-time-bomb and hydbrid vigor At 8:10 AM 1/31/5, Jones Beene wrote: >There is a Ticking-time-bomb in the far North of Gaia. > >Sounds a lot like Sci-Fi, but nooo. It is real. Does anyone >care enough to take notice ? >http://www.sqwalk.com/blog/000235.html > >Methane is more than 20 times stronger as a greenhouse gas >than carbon dioxide...so... no problemo, let's just "burn >it" say the petro-pundits. >This is fact, not Sierra Club BS! > >http://www.sqwalk.com/blog/000235.html > >Jones Good grief, Jones, you act like this is new information! Not that I disagree with it, but I do feel compelled to say the source (an anti-gas pipeline group in Georgia) hardly appears more credible than the Sierra Club. As for the information not being new, and if you don't care about the credibility of the source, I've been arguing the same line for years, both here and on sci.physics.fusion. Below, repleat with my many spelling errors, is part of one of the debates I had with Mitchell Jones 6 years ago (gee, whatever happened to him?) Well Jones, when you are an iconoclastic member of the free energy lunatic fringe I guess you just lose all credibility. 8^) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - At 5:40 AM 5/18/98, Horace Heffner wrote [in thread: Re: Global Warming: What fossil fuel companies want you to hear..., on sci.physics.fusion]: >>Originally-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mitchell Jones) > >>***{I got the distinct impression from an e-mail from you, Sam, that you >>are about to play games based on the definition of the term "urban." If >>so, please don't waste our time. The so called "urban heat island effect" >>applies to any surface temperature data set collected at a location where >>nearby development has been taking place. That means that any nearby >>buildup of concrete, tarmac, brick, asphalt roofing, etc., will corrupt >>the data set by inducing a false increase in the readings over time. You >>can't get around the problem by deleting data sets based on somebody's >>definition of "urban." Whether that definition applies to areas with a >>population over 100,000, or over 50,000, or whatever, is not the point. >>The point is that you need to employ strict criteria to exclude every >>surface data collection point where, over the period of time covered by >>the data set, significant accumulation of man-made structures has >>occurred. For practical purposes, in other words, you need records >>collected at sites situated far from human habitations--which means: you >>need to do a specific investigation of the developmental history of any >>site you keep in your data base. This means that any study which alleges a >>longitudinal increase in surface temperatures must present a detailed >>explanation of the protocol by which this artifact was eliminated from >>their data; and it means that any study which fails to do so ought to be >>tossed out on principle. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Mitchell, > > >It takes me several days to post here, so I lag way behind the discussion. >I'd still like to make a few points: > >(1) Based on your above criteria, you seem to imply the need to throw out >every land based piece of temperature data. This would represent a major >*distortion* to the data. Global warming is just that - global warming. >Throwing out a mjor piece of the globe is to skew the data. What is >important is that the data points be representational of the sample space, >i.e. not overly skewed towards urban areas. > >(2) Most weather stations in the US were located on farms in order to get >a good spread of data for graphing purposes, for plotting isobars, etc. >If this is true, then the data may in fact be skewed to the cool side most >of the year due to the cooling effect of the green crops. > >(3) Based on 20 years personal experience living in South Central Alaska, >I can attest to the fact that the weather has changed dramatically, and >that glacier activity indicates the sudden weather change is significant >over an approximately 10,000 year period. I can assure you that Alaska is >not subject to any significant amount of urban development, BTW. > >(4) What is most alarming is the rate of change of the weather, despite >years of volcanic activity, high forest fire activity, and the smoke >release fo desert storm, which cools the earth on a temporary basis. >This, to me, is indicative of a powerful underlying trend towards warming. >If true, then then changes in the earth's albedo due to snow melting, >increased solar activity, and settling of atmospheric dust, could all work >together to cause a significant temperature spike in the near future. > >(5) Studies based upon mountain snowmelt, ocean sedimentation, polar ice >cores, and tree rings, taken in a representative way, can be (and have >been) used to calculate mean global temperatures. > >(6) The real danger to the earth from warming appears to be methane >release. This is already occuring at an alarming rate in the arctic. >Large quantities of methane is being released from the thawing tundra. >Much more important is the fact this rate is accelerating. It is not in >equilibrium. Methane produces ove 20 times the greenhouse effect as CO2. > > >(7) The methane hydrate in frozen pools at the bottom of the ocean >possibly represent a bigger threat. The ice enclosing the methane melts >at about 0 C, so a mojor release can occur suddenly and without warning in >large areas where the sea bottom warms slightly. The earth's atmosphere >at one time contained a large amount of methane, so there is a lot of the >stuff around. > >(8) Low altitude water in the atmosphere increases albedo and cools the >earth. High altitude water vapor, that occurs increasingly with higher >temperatures, however, acts in a greenhouse fasion. This is one of the >reasons why venus is so hot, even though its albedo is very high. It is >possible the earth could be like venus in a very short time if enough >factors all pull together. The possiblity exists for an unstable >temperature runaway regime to develop. We may in fact already be in that >regime. > >(9) If urbanization has such a dramitc effect on land temperature, then it >has significant effect on global temperature. If urbaniztion has such a >dramatic effect on global warming, then urbanization must stop! It is not >just CO2 emission that should be curtailed. > >(10) Any debate about the existance of gloabal warming should exclude >discussion of how disagreeable the political consequences are. Regards, Horace Heffner -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.2 - Release Date: 28-Jan-05
