|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
we are putting a lot s*** into it
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:57:31 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote: That's why I would be opposed to spending trillions of our hard-earned dollars trying to reduce CO2 emissions, when there's very little evidence that it's more than a very, very minor part of the problem. One must wonder how the emissions from a million SUV's compare to a single volcanic eruption-St. Helen's, Pinatubo, etc.. Interestingly, some propose the airborn dust from volcanic eruptions act as a "Sunblock", reducing light that reaches the earth's surface to be reemitted in longer wavelengths that are more readily trapped in the "Greenhouse". So we are back to articles of faith along party lines, that reduces both positions to the stupid "Angels on the head of a pin" speculation. 1: We're all gonna die and we are taking the polar bears with us. 2: Oh, Good. I can grow Super Beefsteak Tomatoes instead of Early Girl Hybrids. 3: President Gore was robbed of his promised Birthright. 4: W, the drooling stammering lackey of Enron and the Oil and War cartels did it all on purpose. _______________________________________ Everybody happy? Now what about CYCLING? _______________________________________ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
we are putting a lot s*** into it
Specialized wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:57:31 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote: That's why I would be opposed to spending trillions of our hard-earned dollars trying to reduce CO2 emissions, when there's very little evidence that it's more than a very, very minor part of the problem. One must wonder how the emissions from a million SUV's compare to a single volcanic eruption-St. Helen's, Pinatubo, etc.. Great example. Remember the uproar over CFCs? They were gonna destroy the ozone 'cuz our air conditioners might leak occasionally. Thing is, a single small volcano released many, many times more of the compounds than mankind has ever produced. So what was our "solution"? We replace the efficient R12 in our air conditioners with R43. Now our cars burn more gas to keep us cool, thereby adding REAL pollutants to the atmosphere. We can repeat the same mistake with CO2 and spend trillions of dollars (and cause more "real problems" than we solve) if we adopt the Kyoto protocol. Another parallel to the current global warming debate - some scientists were convinced that our CFCs were depleting the ozone, and that this was going to cause horrendous changes in our planet. We were going to be forced to become mole people to avoid the sun. Others pointed out the "volcano conundrum", and the fact that the hole over the south pole was much bigger than the one over the north pole, even though the industrial / automotive impact would have been a small fraction of that of the northern hemisphere. Fast forward to today and scientists have figured out that the ozone hole wasn't really shrinking as much as they thought, and naturally shrinks and grows. Interestingly, some propose the airborn dust from volcanic eruptions act as a "Sunblock", reducing light that reaches the earth's surface to be reemitted in longer wavelengths that are more readily trapped in the "Greenhouse". So we are back to articles of faith along party lines, that reduces both positions to the stupid "Angels on the head of a pin" speculation. 1: We're all gonna die and we are taking the polar bears with us. 2: Oh, Good. I can grow Super Beefsteak Tomatoes instead of Early Girl Hybrids. 3: President Gore was robbed of his promised Birthright. 4: W, the drooling stammering lackey of Enron and the Oil and War cartels did it all on purpose. _______________________________________ Everybody happy? Now what about CYCLING? _______________________________________ Heh heh heh. Nice synopsis. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
we are putting a lot s*** into it
Mark Hickey wrote:
Specialized wrote: On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:57:31 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote: That's why I would be opposed to spending trillions of our hard-earned dollars trying to reduce CO2 emissions, when there's very little evidence that it's more than a very, very minor part of the problem. One must wonder how the emissions from a million SUV's compare to a single volcanic eruption-St. Helen's, Pinatubo, etc.. Great example. Remember the uproar over CFCs? They were gonna destroy the ozone 'cuz our air conditioners might leak occasionally. Thing is, a single small volcano released many, many times more of the compounds than mankind has ever produced. So what was our "solution"? We replace the efficient R12 in our air conditioners with R43. Now our cars burn more gas to keep us cool, thereby adding REAL pollutants to the atmosphere. This is untrue. From the FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/stratcl/ "In summary: * Older indirect _estimates_ of the contribution of volcanic eruptions to stratospheric chlorine gave results that ranged from much less than anthropogenic to somewhat larger than anthropogenic. It is difficult to reconcile the larger estimates with the altitude distribution of inorganic chlorine in the stratosphere, or its steady increase over the past 20 years. Nevertheless, these estimates raised an important scientific question that needed to be resolved by _direct_ measurements in the stratosphere. * Direct measurements on El Chichon, the largest eruption of the 1980's, and on Pinatubo, the largest since 1912, show that the volcanic contribution is small. * Claims that volcanoes produce more stratospheric chlorine than human activity arise from the careless use of old scientific estimates that have since been refuted by observation. * Claims that a single recent eruption injected ~500 times a year's CFC production into the stratosphere have no scientific basis whatsoever." We can repeat the same mistake with CO2 and spend trillions of dollars (and cause more "real problems" than we solve) if we adopt the Kyoto protocol. It was not a mistake. It was an example of world agencies recognizing a problem, confronting the economic realities, instituting global policy agreements and getting some progress on the problem. It's an example of what can be done -- not a counter-example. This is a all very reminiscent of the debates that raged over automobile pollution control in the late 60's - early 70's. There was an uproar over the impact on vehicle cost and efficiency, despite the horrific air quality of the time. The right choice was made, nobody debates that now. Another parallel to the current global warming debate - some scientists were convinced that our CFCs were depleting the ozone, and that this was going to cause horrendous changes in our planet. We were going to be forced to become mole people to avoid the sun. Others pointed out the "volcano conundrum", and the fact that the hole over the south pole was much bigger than the one over the north pole, even though the industrial / automotive impact would have been a small fraction of that of the northern hemisphere. Fast forward to today and scientists have figured out that the ozone hole wasn't really shrinking as much as they thought, and naturally shrinks and grows. You are exaggerating and distorting. You are representing sensationalism as fact and marginal opinion as science. You've really got to move past Fox News. The atmospheric chemistry is pretty well understood, and most of the world's leadership came to relatively quick agreement to phase out CFC's. The economic consequences haven't been as dire as the hysterics predicted and atmospheric CFC levels have stabilized. It's a success story, as is that (mostly) of pollution control in the industrialized West. We could use a few more. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
we are putting a lot s*** into it
Peter Cole wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote: Another parallel to the current global warming debate - some scientists were convinced that our CFCs were depleting the ozone, and that this was going to cause horrendous changes in our planet. We were going to be forced to become mole people to avoid the sun. Others pointed out the "volcano conundrum", and the fact that the hole over the south pole was much bigger than the one over the north pole, even though the industrial / automotive impact would have been a small fraction of that of the northern hemisphere. Fast forward to today and scientists have figured out that the ozone hole wasn't really shrinking as much as they thought, and naturally shrinks and grows. You are exaggerating and distorting. You are representing sensationalism as fact and marginal opinion as science. You've really got to move past Fox News. The atmospheric chemistry is pretty well understood, and most of the world's leadership came to relatively quick agreement to phase out CFC's. The economic consequences haven't been as dire as the hysterics predicted and atmospheric CFC levels have stabilized. It's a success story, as is that (mostly) of pollution control in the industrialized West. We could use a few more. I was quoting from memory, and hadn't read up on the subject for a number of years. In doing a little digging, it does appear that the concept of a volcano as a major contributor to the ozone reduction has been pretty well debunked (at least as THE major contributor - there's some debate about how much chlorine from a large eruption reaches the stratosphere it seems). Then there's still the question of why there is a large hole in the ozone over the hemisphere with very little CFC production and use, and why there isn't a corresponding one over the north pole. And the reading I've done does validate the fact that there is still a lot to learn about the subject, and not yet a real consensus among all the atmospheric scientists. But you're right, I was (unintentionally) exaggerating when I brought up the volcano angle, and was no doubt underestimating the effect of man-made CFCs on the ozone. Mea culpa. Still, I remember a lot of panic among soccer moms who seemed to believe that their progeny would burst into flames if they weren't slathered with SPF10000 sunscreen before every exposure to the sun, due to the "hole in the ozone" (which at most resulted in a few % reduction in ozone in the mid-latitudes). That (IMHO) is the real similarity between the current global warming hysteria and the ozone issue. Both have some basis in reality, but have been blown far out of proportion by skewed and inaccurate, sensationalist reporting. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Putting a Coker tire on the Airfoil rim | john_childs | Unicycling | 20 | January 21st 06 07:57 PM |
We're Putting That Bitch On Ice | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | June 24th 05 06:37 AM |
Putting a KH seat on a Miyata--what's involved? | Jethro | Unicycling | 4 | June 20th 05 03:45 PM |
putting video on gmail account | miyata | Unicycling | 1 | December 4th 04 11:25 PM |
Putting cyclists at risk | Wallace Shackleton | UK | 25 | March 19th 04 11:51 AM |