I Will Never Understand Wind

It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the
equivalent of 400 years of man-made air pollution)

Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of CO2 per year, whereas other
sources ("other" means mailny man made) contribute about 10 billion
tons/year.

Have you got a source for that information? I don't have the figures in
front of me, but I believe your "volcano output" figure is not factoring in
major eruptions that alone can (and often do) put out an incredible amount
of emissions.

Which is actually beside the point. Are emissions bad, regardless of
source? Sure. Are they worth laying awake at night, worrying?

Only if you live a very sheltered life.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article pqKee.51025$r53.9421@attbi_s21, Jay Honeck wrote:
Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of CO2 per year, whereas other
sources ("other" means mailny man made) contribute about 10 billion
tons/year.

Have you got a source for that information? I don't have the figures in
front of me, but I believe your "volcano output" figure is not factoring in
major eruptions that alone can (and often do) put out an incredible amount
of emissions.

'I'm feeling lucky' on Google brings the following reference.

From the University of North Dakota:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

Which is actually beside the point. Are emissions bad, regardless of
source? Sure. Are they worth laying awake at night, worrying?
Only if you live a very sheltered life.

As for laying awake worrying, that does no one any good - you need a
good night's sleep to think straight enough to develop fixes. Besides,
no one where I live has a sheltered life, this island is a forbidding
windswept place in the winter! [0]

In any case, it's a problem that cannot be ignored. It's not just that
burning fossil fuels is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, it's:

* fossil fuels are not infinite, and indeed although there may be enough
to outlast everyone alive today, the *cheap* oil is rather more
limited. Our current lifestyles don't just depend on oil, they depend
on oil that is very cheap.
* we are having to depend on hostile nations for energy supply
* the damage will not be reversable, at least not in our lifetimes.

so it's prudent to try and find ways to conserve the fossil fuels we
have and try and figure out how to make better use of sustainable fuels
to ensure that our way of life has a future in the long term. In the
short term, this is probably going to require a serious re-evaluation of
nuclear energy, and in the long term, replacements for oil. (One of the
things that a shortage of cheap oil would bring is the market forces to
increase research into viable alternatives, at the moment oil is still too
cheap for the market to deem it worthwhile).

If we just bury our heads and carry on regardless, ignoring not just the
possibility of man-caused climate change, but all the other things
listed above, sooner or later it WILL turn around and bite us. It's
nothing to do with being a 'tree hugging commie', it's to do with
ensuring that our values of freedom, apple pie and light aircraft
can still be enjoyed in 200 years time.

[0] yes, I'm just being flippant, but if man-made climate change
increases the frequency of the winter storms, it's going to suck. It's
not unusual to have at least one hurricane force storm in the winter
here, and I don't relish the thought of more. Those nights you DO lie
awake worrying, it's difficult to sleep when a house made with three
foot thick stone walls is groaning and vibrating, and you can hear your
neighbour's roof slates bouncing off your roof)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article pqKee.51025$r53.9421@attbi_s21, Jay Honeck wrote:
Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of CO2 per year, whereas
other
sources ("other" means mailny man made) contribute about 10 billion
tons/year.

Have you got a source for that information? I don't have the figures
in
front of me, but I believe your "volcano output" figure is not factoring
in
major eruptions that alone can (and often do) put out an incredible
amount
of emissions.

'I'm feeling lucky' on Google brings the following reference.

From the University of North Dakota:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

"Most of the gases emitted by the ocean return to the oceans."

No support given for this assertion. It's also possibly bogus.

I notice they also used averages from just a couple volcano's including a
couple that a relatively "clean".

In article , Matt Barrow wrote:
'I'm feeling lucky' on Google brings the following reference.

From the University of North Dakota:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

"Most of the gases emitted by the ocean return to the oceans."

No support given for this assertion. It's also possibly bogus.

I notice they also used averages from just a couple volcano's including a
couple that a relatively "clean".

We aren't talking about, say, a 30% difference here - we are talking
about man made sources being *150* times greater. Even if their
estimates were off by an order of magnitude, man made emissions would
still be 15 times greater.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith wrote:
snip
In any case, it's a problem that cannot be ignored. It's not just
that
burning fossil fuels is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, it's:

* fossil fuels are not infinite, and indeed although there may be
enough
to outlast everyone alive today, the *cheap* oil is rather more
limited. Our current lifestyles don't just depend on oil, they
depend
on oil that is very cheap.
* we are having to depend on hostile nations for energy supply
* the damage will not be reversable, at least not in our lifetimes.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first two points. The economic and
political ramifications of relying on cheap oil are not good for
anyone. Of course, the way most economies work, alternatives will not
be exploited until the oil becomes more expensive than the alternative.
I can easily see a day when oil at $500/bbl will result in everyone
flying high-tech solar powered airplanes (*note aviation content!*) and
heating their homes with solar supplied hydrogen. When oil is no
longer economically feasable, something cheaper will take its place.

As for the last point, I'm convinced that the outcry over "global
warming" is just another round of a familiar hysteria. There is ample
anecdotal evidence on both sides of the issue, as seen in this thread
and all over the Internet. The planetary climate is so complex that I
have serious doubts about anyone who says that they underdstand how it
works, what it will do in the future, and why. The earth has been
through warming and cooling cycles for most of its existance, with the
last mini-ice age ending in the mid 1800s, prior to the industrial
revolution.

I'm old enough to remember that in the 70s, "climatologists" were
certain that the earth was fast falling into another Ice Age. In the
U.S. the hysteria was such that they even held highly publicized
Congressional hearings on the topic. The result? Recommendations that
billions should be spent to research the problem and save us from an
icey doom. This latest round is sounding all too familiar.

For the record, I don't know if man-made greenhouse gases are
seriously impacting global climates. From what I've read on the
subject, I'm not convinced that anyone else does either (with the
certainty that they claim).

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"John Galban" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dylan Smith wrote:
snip
In any case, it's a problem that cannot be ignored. It's not just
that
burning fossil fuels is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, it's:

* fossil fuels are not infinite, and indeed although there may be
enough
to outlast everyone alive today, the *cheap* oil is rather more
limited. Our current lifestyles don't just depend on oil, they
depend
on oil that is very cheap.
* we are having to depend on hostile nations for energy supply
* the damage will not be reversable, at least not in our lifetimes.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first two points. The economic and
political ramifications of relying on cheap oil are not good for
anyone. Of course, the way most economies work, alternatives will not
be exploited until the oil becomes more expensive than the alternative.

What you describe is a "market economy", which is rather UNCOMMON. More
common is a COMMAND economy.

I can easily see a day when oil at $500/bbl will result in everyone
flying high-tech solar powered airplanes (*note aviation content!*) and
heating their homes with solar supplied hydrogen. When oil is no
longer economically feasable, something cheaper will take its place.

Probably longgggg before oil becomes $500/bbl.

I'm old enough to remember that in the 70s, "climatologists" were
certain that the earth was fast falling into another Ice Age. In the
U.S. the hysteria was such that they even held highly publicized
Congressional hearings on the topic.

Yes, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. I remember this
"Ice Age" outcry well.

I also remember the many reputable "researchers" claiming that all the "oil
will be gone by the year 2000." (Actually, some were claiming 1990.)

My father, who worked in the gas & electric industry (as it was called
then -- none of this "energy industry" stuff), used to sit at the dinner
table and rant for 30 minutes about the ignorance and stupidity of these
assertions. He *knew* how much oil and gas was in the ground, and could see
right through the political agenda of these so-called "scientists."

Sadly, the media apparently could not.

At the time, as a young, liberal, earnest, "open-minded" Democrat, I thought
he was an idiot, and told him as much. We were doomed to a horrible future
because of the waste and largesse of his generation, and, dammit, we should
all be driving Pintos and building homes in the sides of hills!

Well, I'm sure he's chuckling right now.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:NaVee.54780$NU4.23676@attbi_s22...
I'm old enough to remember that in the 70s, "climatologists" were
certain that the earth was fast falling into another Ice Age. In the
U.S. the hysteria was such that they even held highly publicized
Congressional hearings on the topic.

Yes, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. I remember this
"Ice Age" outcry well.

I also remember the many reputable "researchers" claiming that all the
"oil
will be gone by the year 2000." (Actually, some were claiming 1990.)

Um...the first ones said we'd run out in the 80's...that's the 1880's.
Seriously!!

Those arguments have been with us en mass for 100 years, always with a 10-20
year horizon.

Julian Simon made hash of that nonsense.

A good reference is Charles Maurice and Charles Smithson's _The Doomsday
Myth: 10,000 years of Economic Crisis_.

In article NaVee.54780$NU4.23676@attbi_s22, Jay Honeck wrote:
Sadly, the media apparently could not.

I think we can ALL agree that the media generally prefer hysteria,
because it sells! (You used to be in the newspaper business, right, so I
probably don't need to tell you this!)

because of the waste and largesse of his generation, and, dammit, we should
all be driving Pintos and building homes in the sides of hills!

The irony being that Pintos aren't really that efficient anyway. A car I
had as a student had the Pinto 2.0L engine. It was not only slower than
my current car, it was less economical too. However, the Pinto unit was
simple and pretty easy to work on.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:NaVee.54780$NU4.23676@attbi_s22...
I also remember the many reputable "researchers" claiming that all the
"oil
will be gone by the year 2000." (Actually, some were claiming 1990.)

When I was in school in the 1970s/80s, it was given as being about 300 years
so I'm not sure where the "by the year 1990" came from.

Paul