HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Human Niche
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:39:51 GMT
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden


In article <1992Sep9.041733.12779@nuchat.sccsi.com>, kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:

|> 
|> Even if your argument *is* that humans will suffer nastier consequences
|> by exploiting nature than by working with nature, it will still be an
|> essentially religious argument *unless* you can provide convincing
|> evidence that working with nature *does* yield a greater benefit to
|> cost ratio than exploiting nature does.  And here I think you are at
|> a severe disadvantage, for (as I say above) humans have HUNDREDS OF
|> THOUSANDS OF YEARS of experience that says that exploiting nature works
|> much better (we discovered this when we started using tools).

Note that during most of that time we have had a rather small impact on the
environment. Thus we have been able to take what we want without worrying
about the consequences as nature has been able to replace most resources.
Today, with a much larger population and technical level, we are in a position
to easily destroy our environment and thus ourselves. We therefore has to
learn to care about consequences for nature whether we consider it to have a
value in itself or not.

Considering that we today have rather limited knowledge about what parts of the
ecosystem that can be destroyed without risk to humans it is also hard to
protect the environment as the people wanting to destroy it usually can show
immediate economic profits. If one later finds out that the vanished ecosystem 
was essential, it will usually be hard or impossible to replace.

In order to create a balance between short term profit and long time risks a
ecological "religion" placing an inherent value on nature may actually be of
great survival value. A rational cost-benefit analysis including the cost of
unknown risks would of course be better, but our society seems to be incapable
of that at this point.

To avoid some flames (and probably get some other) I must add that I believe 
that the ethical argument of supporting nature for its own sake is valid. As
our wealth have increased the trend has been to include larger groups in those
with an inherent value, i.e. racism and sexism isn't very popular these days while
slavery is completely out. This is merely a continuation of that trend.

-- 
"Goood planets are hard to find."    Thomas Palm
				     Department of Microwave Engineering
				     Royal Institute of Technology
				     S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
				     tpalm@mvt.kth.se
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: --Warming Threat to Economy
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:34:52 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1466601760@igc.apc.org> tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray) writes:
>
>According to IIE's William Cline, global warming by a predicted 2.5
>degrees Celsius (C) by the year 2050 will reduce U.S. gross
>domestic product (GDP) by about one percent, or $60 billion. 
>However, Cline noted, global warming is cumulative and irreversible
>and is projected to reach 5.7 degrees C by the year 2100 and 10-18
>degrees C by 2300.  The impact of the latter figure would be a drop
>of six to 20 percent of GDP.

Global warming is not certainly cumulative, and for sure isn't
irreversible since it *has* reversed many times in the geological
record. In fact one of the postulated required precursors for the
return of the ice age in the northern hemisphere is the melting of
the Artic pack ice.

>Based on these figures, Cline said, a longer time frame should be
>used in considering the consequences and costs of the greenhouse
>effect.

Based on these figures, we're all dead by 2300, so who cares, it's
cumulative and irreversible. We're DOOMED (tm).

Gary
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Hurricanes
Date: 14 Sep 1992 23:55:14 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

It is my understanding that the strength of hurricanes increases as they pass
over warm water.

Some time ago I read an article in Science which indicated that large areas
of the ocean upper waters are warmer than in the past.

What is the possibility that the severe destruction of the two recent
hurricanes is partially a result of global and therefor ocean warming?

Richard Foy  
Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Solar Fuel Alcohol (Was Re: Mary Jane has a great Biomass)
Date: 10 Sep 92 09:40:34 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <18d2t1INNh5m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
>
>How was corn grown through all those ages before the age
>Dow, etc.?

It was grown at much lower planting density, with one year in four
crop rotation, heavy use of animal manures, and lots of hand labor. 
The yield in a good year, 60 bushels/acre, was about 1/4th the yield 
of a field planted with modern methods in only an average year, 240
bushels/acre. The labor input to modern corn growing is about 2 manhours 
per acre per year. In the past, the labor input was about 35 manhours 
per acre per year.

In 1900, one farmer fed 5 off farm people in the US. Today 1 farmer 
feeds 43 urbanites.

Gary
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Bicycle-Generated Electricity
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:47:19
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
        <1992Sep5.190346.12909@cco.caltech.edu>
        <JMC.92Sep5125824@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU's message of 5 Sep 92 19:58:24 GMT

> Consider the following my candidate for one of the various
> environmentalism prizes.

=o= Only if you can sell 100,000 units.  Wouldn't want just
anyone winning the prizes when we can narrow it down to a
handful of our already-rich friends, would we?

> All those people who operate stationary bicycles for exercise
> could be generating electricity and feeding it into the
> network.

=o= I've often thought that would be a fine arrangement for
powering a television set.  Or a home terminal & modem set up
for writing Usenet news . . .

=o= I don't imagine one could add much to The Grid with such
a setup, but there are plenty of home energy systems that could
contribute to it.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: --Warming Threat to Economy
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:17:28

What is the Institute for International Economics?  Does it study
economics in any conventional sense, or does it exist solely to
decorate the pronouncements of William Cline?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive?
Organization: LSI Logic/Headland Technology
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 01:43:57 GMT

In article <STEINMAN.92Sep2084440@hawk.is.morgan.com> steinman@is.morgan.com (Jan Steinman) writes:
>I didn't think Mr. Carr knew what he was talking about, but was
>unwilling to reply without some data. (After all, this is a "sci"
>group.) The following is not meant to be an utterly flawless
>experiment, but I was as careful as I could be.

Neat!  Actual data!

Something you might want to toss into the pile of things to test
is a bottle of "salt substitute" (KCL).  Since it's the K40 in the
potassium that's of question here...
-- 
  Caution: Thermostellar device.          Mike Van Pelt
       Handle with care.                  LSI Logic/Headland Products
 Do not expose to first-semester          mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
     Philosophy students.                 sun!indetech!hsv3!mvp
From: mweinste@pearl.tufts.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Environ. Decision Making
Keywords: decision making college
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:45:49 GMT
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA

I am currently taking a course at my college (Tufts University) which I think
is very unique and extremely interesting.  It is called "Environmental
Decision Making."  EDM is a multi-disciplinary course taught by about
ten professors from different departments of the school.  There is a civil
engineer, a psychologist, an economist, a biologist (I think), an International
Relations Graduate School professor, a Harvard professor, and more.  The course
deals with the complex processes in determining the optimal and most practical
decisions in all issues that relate to the quality of the environment.  Each
professor lectures on a different subject (usually one lecturer per class
meeting) and the lectures are tied together by discussion groups led by
one or more of the professors.  In addition, there is a grad. student teaching
assistant who is at every class to maintain consistency with grading papers,
answering questions, etc.

The whole class is based on a book put together recently by the same professors
that teach the class.  The book is available and is being utilized at many 
colleges and universities.  If you would like further information about this
class or the textbook, let me know, and I will either get the information for
you or give you the Internet address of the director of the program.

------> Max Weinstein (mweinste@pearl.tufts.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: pruss@helix.nih.gov (dmitry pruss)
Subject: Re: The Human Niche
Organization: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:34:20 GMT

>In article <1893@grivel.une.edu.au> JOHN HUNTER,
>jhunter5@metz.une.edu.au writes:
> >         While in most cases native peoples appear to have blended
>in well 
>>with their environments, I don't believe this has always been the
>case.
>

Lots of peoples of old practisized a nice, environmentally sound approach
to cope with overpopulation:

Instead of exhausting their resources, they choosed to fight their
neighbours to take their lands and resources. Unfortunately, most of human
cultures and languages perished in that way (could one consider it as an
eco-damage?)

In *old* historical times, the process often went on at a mega-scale. Say,
Mongolian plains bursted out conquering hordes on a regular basis during
the last 1.5 millenia. However, Mongolians still retain a lot of their
*primitive* way, honour their sacred mountains, waters and woods, and have
their nature reasonably intact.

Sometimes I think that the Western way to protect the Western nature has
something in common with the above practice :(

	D

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:39:18 GMT

steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>In article <1992Sep14.182707.12523@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:

>Hey, wow, this is turning into a nice thread...

>   In article <STEINLY.92Sep12144323@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>   |> Yup, the problem is that is not the question public policy asks...

>   Now wait just a cotton pickin minute. This thread startes with a typical
>   misrepresentation of the opinion of climate scientists that one sees in
>   certain branches of the media these days. That we did not address the
>   question you wanted answered is not because of evasion, but because that 
>   question hadn't been raised.

>Eek. I'm not sure which side the miscommunication is on, probably
>somewhere in the middle ;-) But, the question being asked was not
>necessarily the question that was heard... plus there is the
>understandable tendency of scientists to obey the drunk-by-a-lightpole
>rule and answer questions that are answerable, not those that need answering...
 

   I agree with Michael. The thread started as a discussion of climatic
forcing and climate models. To interject with a claim that "we need to know
carbon cycling to predict future atmospheric CO2 levels" as a criticism
of climate models is unreasonable. It is sort of like saying to the drunk
that he is in no state to drive. It may be true, but all he is trying to
do is lean on the lightpole, and has no intention of trying to drive....


>Interesting, my guess had been vegetation albedo was negligible.

    Again, vegetation albedo may be a rather important consideration.
I know of one study that has looked vegetation changes over the last
few hundred years - mostly associated with clearing forests and other
natural ecosystems for agriculture - and concluded that the albedo 
change may have caused cooling of up to 0.5C. There is still a great
deal of uncertainty over how vegetation patterns will change - and
how quickly - in a doubled CO2 climate. One of the major problems is
the anticipated rate of climate change: there are virtually no good
analogues in the historical record to suggest how vegetation and
ecosystems can adapt and shift. One expectation is that current
vegetation may tend to remain stable for a while, and new vegetation
will only move in after major disruptions such as fire. With major
ecosystem zones moving poleward, some vegetation types may be squeezed
out as a result of combinations of climate and soil limitations. The
new ecosystem distributions may show large changes in area covered.



Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: witters@tc.fluke.COM (John Witters)
Subject: Re: Bicycle-Generated Electricity
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:07:33 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Sep9170239@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>- for those arithmetically challenged: the human body produces
>about 100W - you might get a couple of hundred watts of power
>for a couple of hours out of a fit marathon runner (easy way is
>to figure food intake per day) - call it a very generous 100W of
>usable electric power for 2 hours. A 25" tube TV requires several hundred
>watts to operate, a small TV might last long enough for us all
>to watch Murphy Brown :-) but not, alas, the season premier,
>unless you save up for a few days - or use one of those
>dinky watchmen thingies. 

Of course, you could use your bicycle generator to charge a battery.  I
believe a modern solid state 25" color TV only draws about 200 watts.  You
could bicycle for four hours at 50 watts per hour to charge the battery, then
watch Murphy Brown for the season premier.  Alternatively, you could charge
the battery for three hours, then use 150 watts from the battery and 50 watts
from your bicycle to run the TV.

(I'm assuming most people would prefer to bicycle at a touring pace, rather
than a racing pace for four hours.  That's why I assumed 50 watts per hour
rather than the 100 watts per hour of "a fit marathon runner.")

Hard core bicyclists should check out "Breaking Away" from their local video
store and power both the TV and their VCR from their bicycle.

Me?  I listen to the radio.

-John

-- 
    *  *  *		John Witters			voice:	(206) 356-5274
  *  \      *		John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc.
 *    \      *		P.O.B. 9090 M/S 241F		fax:	(206) 356-5116
*   DRIVING   *		Everett, Washington  98206-9090	     or (206) 356-5174
 *      \    *
  *      \  *		domain:	witters@tc.fluke.COM
    *  *  *		ARPA:	fluke!witters@uw-beaver.ARPA
			uucp:	{uunet,sun,microsoft,uw-beaver}!fluke!witters
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!  Add me to your .signature and join in the fun!
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Date: 7 Sep 92 05:15:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

I'll believe the 4.3 W/m**2 figure cause I've done the calculation myself.
It's a small part of the NET longwave flux (over 200 W/m**2).  That's
when it has doubled; it hasn't happened yet.  Calculations of other
feedback mechanisms are more speculative -- the contribution of water
vapor dwarfs that of CO2.  The immediate effects of things like volcanic
eruptions and decreases in incoming shortwave radiation are observable now.

I'll believe the American Meteorological Society Bulletin (within the last
year) that discussed the length of record that would be required to 
establish any change as being statistically significant.  It's on the
order of 50 to 100 years with TODAYS's observing network, not the 
historical record which is much sparser.  Separating the human contributed
warming from NATURAL variations is still a problem.  Urban effects are
clear, global effects are not.

As to any cultural bias (or subcultural bias), I don't think so.  I was
a campaign worker for Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern, *before*
I became a meteorologist and oceanographer.  The Navy came after that.
My master's thesis involved sychronously coupled global atmospheric and
oceanic forecast models (something that has yet to become operational) and
systematic evaluation of differences between control (the way the op
models work) and coupled models.  Used 48 CPU *hours* on a Cyber 205 back
when it was a top-line supercomputer.  That's what gives me my extreme
skepticism about climate modeling......... familiarity.

I think climate change is worthy of study.  I have been a student of
paleoclimatology for 20+ years.  Long enough to see some advocates
switch from global cooling and "the next ice age" to global warming
and unspecified future calamities.  

Just call me a skeptic......
 
-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: ketil@svale.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of computer science at the University of Bergen, Norway
Date: 12 Sep 92 15:20:44

In article <1992Sep10.200532.22063@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@kona.cs.ucla.edu (Gregory Frazier) writes:

   Yes, but that isn't the point.  The deal here is that 1) we may be
   accellerating the process to a frightening degree and 2) if this does
   happen, it will cause a great deal of human suffering, *even if it is
   completely "natural"*.  Of course, we may not be warming the Earth at
   all, but if we are, dollars to doughnuts we're in deep doo-doo.

We *may* be, yes.  Though I'd hardly call it a frightening degree the
way things stand *now*.  And even if it *does* get warmer, it's not
nescessarily true that it will 'cause a great deal of human suffering'
(I've read several places that increase in temperature, also will
cause an increase in humidity, which *sounds* resonable.  So what if
global warming would cause Sahara to become fertile?  I'm not saying
that it will, but don't jump to conclusions)

   There's only one Earth - don't bet anything you aren't willing to
   lose, as my Dad always told me (actually, he said don't bring anything
   to the poker table you're not willing to lose, but there it is).

So what do we do, nothing?  Leave things in status quo?  Try to
recreate the world like it used to be xxx years ago?  The way it would
have been without human intervention altogether?

The point is that anything we do is likely to have an effect on the
climate one way or another, and if we do nothing, the climate is
probably going to change anyway.  The earth is alredy been staked, now
that we (assumedly) have technology to affect global climate.  Let's
make sure we don't lose the game.

--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
From: v101q4ct@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Brendon M McNamara)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Environmental Regulations
Date: 10 Sep 92 04:09:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Can anyone mail me the location of a source for electronically transcribed
copies of EPA regulations? In particular, I am seeking the hazardous waste
regulations. E-mail responses to v101q4ct@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Thanks
Larry Darmstedter
c/o Brendon McNamara
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jhunter5@metz.une.edu.au (JOHN HUNTER)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Human Niche
Summary: RE: The Human Niche
Date: 11 Sep 92 02:43:50 GMT


     Just a few short comments about the article posted by Alan McGowen.
         While in most cases native peoples appear to have blended in well
with their environments, I don't believe this has always been the case. A
few examples may include the population on Easter Island which some believe 
was descemated due to environmental degredation. There is also the dissapearanceof large areas of native forest and the large bird fauna with the coming of the Polynesians to New Zealand. There is also the vast changes made to the 
Australian environment by the Australian aborigines with thier fire stick
farming methods, where a different equilibrium was found after the changes
were made. 
         Finally to my knowledge the weakest Carribou may be taken but so are   the young, and that there may be a connection between the distribution of a
parasite for which the wolves are an intermediate host before the Carribou.
In otherwords the wolves may indirectly be weakening otherwise healthy
individual carribou by infecting them with the parasite.

John Hunter
Botany dept.
University of New England

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis)
Subject: Re: "Paper Or Plastic?"
Organization: York University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:47:41 GMT

John Kim (kim@.cs.umass.edu) asks:
> Which is better for the environment, paper grocery bags or plastic ones?

The problem is partly in the question.  "The environment" (singular)
is poorly defined abstraction.  Better that a thousand paper bags go
into the ocean than one plastic bag.  Better that a thousand plastic
bags be made out of fossil hydrocarbon than one paper bag be made out
of vanishing old-growth forest.

Anyway, the question avoids a infraquestion:

Which is better, to use low-reuse containers (such as paper/plastic bags)
or to use high-reuse containers (such as canvas bags, plastic crates) for
grocery shopping ?

The FOUR R's:  Reduce, Reuse, Recycle .. and REFUSE !

--
tony@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, Toronto, Canada

Newsgroups: sci.environment