HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:21:31 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <STEINLY.92Jul21103654@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.043529.5592@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>
>   The issue is not the doubling time of total CO2, but the doubling time
>   of anthropogenic CO2, which has consistently been about 30 years. His
>
> ??? Surely not? What matters for the radiation budget is total CO2,
>not anthropogenic contribution. 

Of course, you are correct, but the quote is taken out of context.

We were not discussing what matters for the radiation budget, but
WHEN it would be likely to matter.

"The issue" was the time scale to CO2 doubling. Nick Szabo seems to
think that a linear extrapolation using 1800 and 1990 as end points of
the line is perfectly appropriate. This makes as much sense as using 1800
and 1990 as endpoints in an extrapolation of human population. Hmmm, the
population in 1800 was 1 billion, and now it's 5 billion, hence the
population increases by 1 billion every 50 years, so there is no reason to
plan for a 10 billion population anytime soon, is there?

A linear extrapolation of a curve that represents the sum of a
constant background and an exponential growth is arguably inappropriate 
when the instantaneous derivative is used to extrapolate, but to use a trend
_averaged over the past record_ clearly yields a systematic underestimate.
In this case, it is a _drastic_ underestimate of the probable growth. A casual
glance at the data indicates this better than any amount of text could.

I do not claim that a 30 year doubling time for anthropogenic CO2 indicates
a 30 year doubling time of total CO2! (Otherwise, we would be at 64 x CO2
already using 1800 as the base period!)

>The doubling time scale for that is
>only relevant in so far as anthro CO2 is comparable to extant
>atmospheric CO2 - even so, the anthro doubling time scale is clearly
>always shorter than the total doubling time scale, which is the
>relevant one for climate impact - the anthro time scale is relevant
>for deciding policy.

Precisely correct. The motivation of the discussion was to decide 
whether policy decisions were needed in fairly short order.

mt
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: haralds@ifi.unit.no
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Organization: Ifi, University of Trondheim / AVH
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 12:02:49 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul31004008@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John
McCarthy) writes:
>Suppose whales were capable of noticing the general
>proposition that whaling ships hunt whales.  Suppose further
>that they could communicate with each other about it.  Then
>they could have sentries that would warn other whales that
>ships were approaching.  As I understand it, whale hunting
>depends on being able to sneak up on a surfaced whale.  A
                                                             ******    this is
the stoneAge way **
>whale that noticed that it was being hunted could dive
>and come up a long way away.  This would be entirely effective
>against whale hunting methods.

As far as minke whales are concerned:
Whale hunting depends on finding the whale - the hunters
have to search over a very big area. After you have found the whale,
the hunt is more or less over. The whaling boat has normally 2-3
times the speed of a whale, with onboard sonar etc. the whale can be
tracked relatively easy. A minke whale comping up for air normally
surfaces 3 times - something the harpoon shooter knows very well.
He also knows the pattern of movement the whale follows. When
seen by the crew on the whaling boat, the minke whale is dead meat
(literally).

Yes, we could make up fancy theories about a sentry system. Some
land-mammals do this. The most adwanced spieces can also 
communicate what kind of danger the animals are facing.
BUT: The minke whale is a loner without any recigniceable 
social system, it lives alone. The sentry possibility therefore
has its limitations.

Why using minke whale as the example? 
The MW was not hunted during the golden ages of whale hunting
(start of the century). The reason was that is was too small -
it made more sense to catch the bigger ones, thats the reason why 
thy exist in so big numbers today (total of 700 000 ?). Being the
only type of whale we know for shure can not be threthened by
some small-scale hunting - it is also the only type hunted in
the world today.
>

>
>This doesn't settle the question of whether it is ok to hunt
>whales.  However, it removes one argument against it.
>
>The main objection to hunting whales is that many of my fellow
>humans don't like it.
If you don't like whale hunting, but have no other reasons for
beeing against it than "don't like", I think you should spend
your time on something else.

haralds@ifi.unit.no
> 
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>
>


Xref: sparky sci.environment:9907 sci.geo.meteorology:2563 sci.skeptic:13153
From: mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less pollutin
Date: 21 Jul 1992 22:01:52 GMT
Organization: McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company

In article <1992Jul21.140032.23459@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <23978@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>>In article <JPX2NB2w164w@musubi.pubnet.com> ehenigin@musubi.pubnet.com (Edward Henigin) writes:
>>>mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>>>        If we could do a couple things we could really cut down on energy 
>>>expended in transportation:  decrease vehicle weight, ...

	Incidentally, I don't remember writing the above.  Judging from the
">>>" marks, I didn't.

>Yes, a motorcycle offers some advantages over a car. It also suffers
>several disadvantages in bad weather. It becomes markedly less safe
>and comfortable on wet roads. Also, few motorcycles really achieve
>high MPG ratings because of poor aerodynamics. Enclosed, streamliner
>bikes are possible, and have been built for specialized uses, but they
>aren't mass market material yet. The primary demand for power in a
>vehicle is to overcome air resistance at speeds over 30 MPH.

	Sorry, but I think this is wrong. Aircraft are more efficient than cars
precisely because the car loses energy due to causes other than air resistance.
	For example, a Mooney 201, which is pretty crude technology today,
can cruise at >180 mph and tops out around 200 mph on 200 HP.  This is
a four place airplane (thought I'd be the first to admit the back seats
are pretty small).  Can anyone point me to a 200 mph car that only has
200 HP?  No fair pointing to exotic racing machines.  There are other,
smaller, more modern aircraft that put the Mooney to shame.  For example,
the Rutan-designed Q2 cruises >150 mph with a VW engine, carrying two people.
Where is the equivalent car?
	In fairness, I suspect that most cars fall far short of their potential
minimum air drag due to insufficient use of laminar flow.  Just look at
all the crummy antennas, door gaps, sharp angles, etc.
	My '81 Escort gets better gas mileage than the cars of the 70's because
(1) it's lighter, (2) it's more streamlined, (3) the engine has less HP,
and (4) the friction in the wheels has been reduced.  Don't neglect #4;
I can put the car in neutral and barely lean against it on level ground,
and it rolls away from me.
	Motorcycles are a special case, because they have NO streamlining at all.
As an aero engineer, I wouldn't know how to begin to calculate the drag
of a given motorcycle shape; the vortices trailing it would be huge and
nonlinear. The wetted area is not trivial to calculate, nor does it
mean much for such an irregular shape.

>Gary

	-Keith <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 27 Jul 92 06:59:46 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <50875@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.205505.14538@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>     Just an observation.  'Let's have' is a command economy (communist)
>>     concept.  We do things a bit more efficiently 'round these parts.
>>     It makes little sense to do such generation unless it is a priori
>>     profitable or competetive with the utilities.  There is little
>>     intrinsic worth in an expensive distribution of power production
>>     to millions of sites, and there are many many drawbacks.
>
>We do things more efficiently around here? In what way is the AEC/NRC
>an "efficient" organization? In what way have the major investors in
>nuclear energy power supplies, e.g. WHOOPS and TVA, been either "efficient"
>or not part of a "command economy". In what way have the major manufacturers
>of US power plants been either "efficient" or under market discipline?
>Is it your contention that when vast military/government
>contracting corporations like Westinghouse and GE  make deals with the
>TVA to construct power plants which will use fuel enriched by the DOE,
>mined on Federal land, to be put in power plants regulated by the AEC/NRC
>with liablity limits set by federal fiat, and to be operated
>by legally mandated monopolies, under federal laws pre-empting local and
>state oversight , that this process is
>in any ways "efficient" or  "market driven"? Arguments which find 
>mass transit and government subsidies for efficiency to be "big brother"
>while finding the corporate/state organization of nuclear energy to be
>"free-market" driven, are truly strange.

For once you are absolutely right Victor. Government interference in
the power market *has* been a disaster. TVA should be sold. The NRC
scaled back. Military and civilian nuclear programs should be
totally separated. And all lawyers should be shot. Unfortunately, it's
not a perfect world, and we have to deal with what we've got.

Gary
From: Claire Gilbert <cgilbert@igc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 20 Jul 92 20:17 PDT
Subject: Further to:  "How Scientists 'Know
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601723:000:1959
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cgilbert    Jul 20 20:17:00 1992


                      Material herein from
         _Blazing Tattles_, Vol. 1, Issue 12, July 1992.
                 Published by Claire W. Gilbert

             FURTHER TO:  "HOW SCIENTISTS 'KNOW'..."

     In the previous issue of Blazing Tattles, we discussed how
scientists "know" what they know.  An example was provided
regarding how they know the upper atmospheric haze is entirely from
the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.  Larry Stowe of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had provided a good example of
how conclusions are based upon the work of other scientists.  I
spoke with Stowe, who is located in Washington, D.C., when I was in
his area in early June.  To my astonishment he said the following:
     "I plan to investigate your hypothesis that aerosols from
Kuwaiti oil fires did surround the globe.
     "We'll investigate our data set to see what the distribution
of aerosol was from that smoke."
     The above refers to the fact that the Kuwaiti oil fires were
started beginning in late January of 1991, whereas the volcano of
Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in July of the same year,
sending up a massive amount of debris and gasses to the
stratosphere, where it takes a year or several years for them to
disappear.  Most experts (though not all) have taken the position
that since the Mt. Pinatubo eruption(s) was (were) so massive, the
smoke from Kuwait and Iraq oil well fires and bombings either (a)
could not be measured or (b) was insignificant.
     Stowe had noticed in his data increased "albedo" over the
Pacific Ocean prior to the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, but had not
formally analyzed it because he did not think it was meaningful. 
Now he is going to.  Stowe is the person who deals with global
data, and plans to study "cloud-free reflections over the oceans"
to see if he can find evidence that Kuwaiti smoke surrounded the
globe, as far as can be determined with available data.
     --Claire Gilbert

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 02:31:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.184413.3868@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>In article <JMC.92Jul26224246@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>I happened to land in Paris just as the 1987 strike shut down all
>>trains and planes, and I had to be in Marseilles the next day for a
>>lecture.  A Hertz rental got me there.  The point is that the
>>availability of cars gives the transportation system important
>>flexibility in emergencies.
> 
>Neither I nor anyone I know is against the AVAILABILITY of cars for purposes
>such as that.

Then exactly what do you think the limits should be?  For what purposes are
you against the availability of cars?

Let me put it this way: suppose you could design a city in whatever way you
want, and impose whatever rules you wanted on that city.  What would be the
layout of the public transit system?  What would be the layout of the road
system?  What rules would you mandate to govern the use of each?  How would
you accomodate those who wished to live in the suburbs?

Getting back to reality, what methods would you use to address the current
transportation problems of a city like Houston?  New York?  Etc.  Given that
I recall (but, alas, cannot reproduce the posting) that you favor(ed) reducing
the number of lanes on the Bay Bridge to make room for bicyclists, it is not
at all clear to me that the methods you may have in mind would go over very
well with most people who live in the cities that would be affected.

-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:24:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.145630.1530@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>I assume you support the one-step processing plan that appears likely
>to get federal approval.  Do you believe that this post-construction
>review process is not needed?  Are there no issues to examine after
>construction?  Are there no examples of falsified x-ray safety
>inspections?

Can you provide a reference for your claim that the proposed one-step licensing
procedure does away with post-construction review?  Every newspaper reference
I've seen that went into any detail at all seemed to indicate that the proposed
procedure would still have the post-construction review.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:52:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.181145.26274@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
#In article <JMC.92Jul27094125@SAIL.Stanford.EDU# jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
##In article <1992Jul27.145214.23048@s1.gov# lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
#
#:	   I think that the name was the _National_ City Lines. The
#:   GM-led consortium included Firestone Tire and Mack Truck. Firestone
#:   Tire's excuse is rather obvious :-), most rail vehicles run on steel
#:   wheels without rubber tires. However, there is less excuse for GM and
#:   Mack Truck, which could have gotten into the trolley business without
#:   too much trouble.
#
#:I suspect this is a tale that has grown in the telling.  Where is
#:the evidence.  Also did GM take over Adelaide too?
#
#	I've seen this mentioned in several places, but I guess I
#should try to find a primary source for this. The GM-led consortium
#was found guilty of antitrust-law violantions and it was fined $5000.
#
#:He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
#
#	Same to you, buster.
#

I have seen a legal citation to this case. Unfortunately I don't remember
enough about it to add more. Yes the fine was, as I remeber $5000.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9682 sci.physics:11260 sci.energy:3476
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less pollutin
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:00:32 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <23978@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>In article <JPX2NB2w164w@musubi.pubnet.com> ehenigin@musubi.pubnet.com (Edward Henigin) writes:
>>mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>>        If we could do a couple things we could really cut down on energy 
>>expended in transportation:  decrease vehicle weight, ...
>
>Hey, how's this for an idea? Instead of having a box for someone to
>sit in, with a wheel at each corner, the engine in front of the
>passengers, and capable of seating four (and rarely carrying more than
>two), why not have two people sit on top of the engine, and have one
>wheel in front, and one behind? Carries two people, occupies about 1/4
>the road space, requires less than 1/2 the metla, rubber, petrol etc..

Yes, a motorcycle offers some advantages over a car. It also suffers
several disadvantages in bad weather. It becomes markedly less safe
and comfortable on wet roads. Also, few motorcycles really achieve
high MPG ratings because of poor aerodynamics. Enclosed, streamliner
bikes are possible, and have been built for specialized uses, but they
aren't mass market material yet. The primary demand for power in a
vehicle is to overcome air resistance at speeds over 30 MPH.

Crash resistance is a real issue. With a car, even an econobox, there
is a lot of crush volume to absorb energy in an impact. On a motorcycle,
*you* are the primary crush space. Over the general population, it is
unlikely that the increased agility of the motorcycle will negate the
increased likelyhood of serious injury in the crashes that do occur.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9661 sci.physics:11235 sci.energy:3461
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Date: 21 Jul 92 04:36:08 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ

In article <1992Jul17.163846.15871@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU:, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
: When the regulations are properly followed, nuclear power is
: reasonable safe. When regulations are properly followed, medical waste
: is reasonable safe.
[edit]
: When will happen WHEN someone shady operator dumps radioactive waste
: somewhere? It has happened before (Brazil) and will happen again. 

You preempt this by having an audit trail, as (now) exists for medical
waste.  Also you put identifiers into the materials to trace the substances.
Thankfully radioactives are tracible litterally in the part per billion
concentrations.  Furthermore, you put in laws that will nail the bastards
asses to the wall who do violate these laws.

Nuclear waste furthermore does not really have the problems of medical waste
since all nuclear waste is to be handled by the government and (hopefully)
will be somewhat more accountable than the multitude of private companies.
(Government agencies should be, generally only Congress is above the law.)

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now.
"No problem, here's how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Summary: Kinda like "a little bit pregnant"...
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:20:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.232009.1209@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>One
>thing you'll discover is that the average American house,  with average
>appliances,  has enough roof area for it's electricity needs to be met with
>photovoltaics plus storage in almost all of the lower 48.

And how much storage is this?

What are the maintenance and interest costs?

How much does the extra building space for the storage cost?

There's a reason few people are doing this, but you ignore them.
-- 
Russ Cage   wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi.uucp@destroyer.rs.itd.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Question about MPG
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:05:31 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Jul26.052907.2932@agora.uucp> moss@agora.rain.com (Moss Drake) writes:

>	I have a question about pollution vs Mileage:

>	Is it better to drive an older car with less pollution
>	control equipment on it that gets good gas mileage
>	than to drive a newer car that gets worse gas mileage?

>	I notice that most car manufacturers have an fleet
>	average MPG of 27  (which means that most of their
>	larger cars have lower than 27, and their sub
>	compacts get better).  My 1978 VW Rabbit gets 30mpg
>	but has no catalytic converter.  I keep it tuned
>	up, and mostly drive it on the freeway.

It's not even close.  You are evil polluting scum.  Your 1978 car is
several times as polluting as a modern car.  (The exception, of
course, being CO2 which is produced in direct proportion to the amount
of carbon burned.)  The small difference in MPG doesn't even come clse
to outweighing this.

You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.  
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10324 sci.physics:12067