Gas Prices -- Help at last?

Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Newps wrote:


Man couldn't affect the temp of the
globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.


of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
and wait.

We did. No effect.

("Bob Noel" wrote)
Man couldn't affect the temp of the
globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.

of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
and wait.


I'd rather wait for the next volcano to erupt. Less political ...fallout.


Montblack

Matt Barrow wrote:

"Roger" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:48:13 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
will in the not too distant future.

We won't run out and are not RUNNING out; the capacity can't keep up with
demand, and expansion is just about as heavily regulated as the initial
construction.

Ahhh... You just described exactly what he said. We are running out
of generating capacity and refining capacity. He did not say we are
running out of gas or crude.


"Running out" to me infers having ZERO capacity; "running short" means not
being able to keep up with demand. That, to me, is a significant difference.
My take on the other Matt is that he means we're losing _all our capacity_.

What I meant was running out of EXCESS capacity. I think that was
pretty clear from the context, but I realize that some people aren't
able to understand context and need things spelled out literally.

Matt

Newps wrote:
wrote:


That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.

Which shows the arrogance of man. I just finsihed reading a book about
the Viking explorers. They settled Iceland and Greenland around the
years 750-1050 AD. The "scientists" say that they were able to stay
there at all is because about the time they got there corresponded to a
global warming cycle that made the glaciers recede, the winters easier
and the summers warmer and longer. About the time they left corresponds
to the "Little Ice Age".

Well, the descendants of the original settlers are still living in
Iceland, farming it and living a pretty good life. They haven=B4t left
at all.

wrote:

That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.

And a great number of scientists feel that man isn't the root cause.
But these scientists aren't getting grants to study global warming and
thus have less reason to want to perpetuate their studies and even give
reason to increase the money spent studying this topic.

Matt

Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Newps wrote:


Man couldn't affect the temp of the
globe one way or the other if he set out to do it.


of course global temps can be affected. Pop off a few nukes
and wait.


Would the radiation really affect the temperature all that much? Would
it block that much radiation from the sun? I can't find it now, but I
remember reading once how much effort man would have to make to have the
impact of one large volcanic eruption, and it was a huge effort.


Matt

"JohnH" wrote

Worldwide demand causing a 50% increase in fuel price is met with "stop
whining America", whereas a relatively temporary price spike caused by
hurricanes is solved by quickly building more refineries at any
environmental cost. And you imply I'm dense!

And you must be dense to imply he is dense.

We need more refineries, because too many eggs are in one basket, that is,
the refineries in a very small area of the Gulf of Mexico. The fact that
refinery output running so close to the maximum output makes things worse,
in that the refineries not in the damage zones can not take up the slack.

I don't recall anyone ever saying "at any cost to the environment."
--
Jim in NC

wrote:
Well, the descendants of the original settlers are still living in
Iceland, farming it and living a pretty good life. They haven´t left
at all.

they had a few close calls though.... (just finished reading "Collapse"
by Jared Diamond -- you might want to have a look) --

just to get back on topic (well sortof): interesting how often
threads on this newsgroup tend to digress; my theory is that pilots
are folks with lots of varied interests :-)

--Sylvain

"Matt Whiting" wrote

Would the radiation really affect the temperature all that much? Would
it block that much radiation from the sun? I can't find it now, but I
remember reading once how much effort man would have to make to have the
impact of one large volcanic eruption, and it was a huge effort.

True. Even a good super cell thunderstorm has an amazing amount of power.
A hurricane, or volcano..... no contest.

I had a grandfather in law who was getting a little ... senile, or is it
crazy? He was very sharp on pretty much everything. He gave it all away,
when talk of hurricanes came up.

He insisted that if you were to drop a hydrogen bomb in the eye of a
hurricane, it would blow it apart, and thus remove the threat to land. He
said, "they have done it before, why don't they do it again?"

Hummmm. g
--
Jim in NC

Matt Whiting wrote:

Would the radiation really affect the temperature all that much? Would
it block that much radiation from the sun? I can't find it now, but I
remember reading once how much effort man would have to make to have the
impact of one large volcanic eruption, and it was a huge effort.

Back in the 70s the concept of "nuclear winter" was popular. The general idea
was that a nuclear war would put enough dust into the stratosphere to block off
a significant portion of the sun's energy. As I recall, the effects of Krakatoa
were advanced as evidence of what would happen (the explosion of Krakatoa
produced the "year without a summer").

It would take much more than "a few" nukes to do that, though. In 1962 alone,
the U.S. set off 98 devices in the atmosphere. We set off 43 at Eniwetok and 23
at Bikini atoll in other years. So far, the U.S. alone has conducted 1,054 test
explosions. All set off before 1962 were in the atmosphere. Other countries have
conducted about the same number.

When this sort of thing was advanced as an argument against the concept of
nuclear winter, the people who believed in it argued that setting off nukes over
cities would put more dust in the air than setting them off over the Nevada test
grounds. At this point, the discussions began to take on the tone of a religious
argument.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.