I Will Never Understand Wind

Jay Honeck wrote:

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.

Even worse, it's speculation driven by transparently political motives -- at
least here in the U.S.

Certainly. The oil industry has a huge interest in this and is spending
millions if not billions into publicity. Successfully, as it seems.

Stefan

In article I1Jee.50866$r53.20170@attbi_s21, Jay Honeck wrote:
But just like turning the stove from low heat to full
power, the fact that more energy is being added to the system is easy to
say with certainty (even though in the case of the whole planet it's
undoubtedly difficult to say exactly how much due to the number of
variables).

Therein lies the rub, eh?

It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the equivalent
of 400 years of man-made air pollution) that throw the whole "science" of
"global warming" into the realm of mere speculation.

How I wish that was true - unfortunately, it's an old wives' tale that
volcanos outproduce human CO2 emissions. Man made CO2 emissions
overwhelm those made by volcanoes by a factor of *150*.

There would have to be volcano eruptions *every year* equalling the
eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, one of the largest eruptions in the last 100
years, to compete with our emissions. Pinatubo was hardly a 'volcano
fart'.

Even worse, it's speculation driven by transparently political motives -- at
least here in the U.S.

I will agree with you that the political motives in the debate are
frustrating and often distasteful.

--
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"

I'm not apoplectic Jay, just amazed. I'm amazed that seemingly
intelligent people like you and many others in this forum can be so
misled, bamboozled, hoodwinked, led astray and run amok that you support
causes, agendas, and world views that do not serve your own best
interests.

It just boggles my mind.

Well, then, Tom, we *do* agree on something.

I was thinking the very same thing about YOU.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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"

Interesting dilemma!
Some say nothing is happening to the earth, some say the earth is doomed
if we keep it up. Myself I do see a ton of political rhetoric on both sides
and nothing else. But one thing I have noticed the "sky is falling" group
gets in there cars and drive all over the place polluting the air and using
valuable resources, then they get in their airplanes and do the same thing.
And of course lets cut down an entire forest every year so we can make paper
to print up flyers and junk mail saying "the earth is being destroyed".
After we take care of all our biz we can go back to our homes which use
energy, and let's not forget all the energy for the products in the home.
Let's not forget the poisons we spray to keep little ants and things
from invading our homes and our crops. Everything we use that is produced by
man makes pollution in one form or another. And we all could be alittle
kinder to dear mother earth, she is the only one we have. But let's not be
hypocrites about it. To say "the sky is falling" while you still drive your
car , plane , even use toilet paper to wipe your butt with ( think how many
trees are cut down for that every year! WOW! And that's just for my
bathroom! ) is not really sincere in your beliefs.
I think people on the opposite end of the "sky is falling" spectrum
would listen to someone alittle more if that person did not use all these
man made things, lived in a simple cabin in the woods with no electricity
etc., and wiped his butt with a fallen leaf or some such. As the old saying
goes," Practice what you preach."

IMHO,
Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

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"

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
We have been in "global warming" some 20,000 - 30,000 years now and the
"warming" continues apace and on schedule...

Uh... I don't know about that. How much of a temperature rise was there
in the last fifty years? How much of a temperature rise was there in
the last twenty thousand years?

Are they on the same straight line?
The long term cycle of temperatures peaked in 1940.

When you use world wide reading and wash out the heat island effects, temps
have actually declined a bit in recent years.

A while back there was hysteria about glaciers in Yellowstone Park that had
now all but disappeared compared to pictures taken in the 1880's. They said
global warming, of course. The hysteria died out, though, when other
pictures showed they had all but disappeared by 1910.

If it wasn't for global warming, we'd still be in the Ice Age.

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article daBee.50320$r53.11838@attbi_s21, Jay Honeck wrote:
Further, when the "climate scientists" (what a farcical name!) can tell
me
what the weather is going to do this weekend, I MIGHT start listening to
their dire warnings about the next 400 years.

There is a HUGE difference between climatology and meteorology. If you
don't understand the difference between a climatologist and a
meteorologist it's no wonder you have the misconceptions you do about
climate change.

A climatologist is NOT a meterologist. They don't try and predict the
weather tomorrow or this weekend; that's up to the meteorologist.

True.

Now, when they had a petition of CLIMATOLOGISTS, (The Heidelberg something
or other) over 100 signed on saying global warming was doubtful at best and
bogus at worst.

I assume based on your profession that you know how models work. When
they've checked the models the hysterical set use they found the assumptions
were, well...pretty asinine. Of course the media (hysteria sells) and
government bureaucrats (Job Program beneficiaries) love telling only the
part that pumps their power lust.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsqKee.51025$r53.9421@attbi_s21...
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.

And, is global warming really a bad thing? 2/3rd of the earth is largely
uninhabitable due to COLD.

"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".