HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eapg137@orion.oac.uci.edu (Bryan Joseph Hannegan)
Subject: Re: Chemical Composition of the Atmosphere - Why Mass Doesn't Matter
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 24 Jan 93 07:26:56 GMT

This also has a similar impact on the governing equations, as one would guess.
Though the viscosity coeffiecient varies with chemical composition for the 
equations governing the atmosphere, the relative composition of the atmosphere
remains constant since it is so well-mixed with respect to nitrogen and oxygen
(which together make up 99% of the components). Trace gases are not important
for momentum exchange, then, since their presence would not affect the viscosity
by any appreciable margin.

They do, however, affect the energy exchange, by means involving radiative 
transfer, and this is where the effects of increasing trace gases are most felt.
Chemical exchanges and release of energy by chemical reactions may or may not
affect the energy distribution. I'm not sure whether studies have been done 
which have dealt with this. 

So for those of you who may wish to question atmospheric sciences in the face
of a changing atmosphere, you might stop and think about how much is actually
changing (very little) and what effects these changes have (only with respect
to energy distribution, which should change the climate/weather, but in ways
which do not violate previously-used meteorological principles).

*** Just an attempt to start rational, new areas of discussion! ***

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Hannegan                              eapg137@orion.oac.uci.edu
Dept of Geosciences, UC-Irvine              hannegan@halo.ps.uci.edu
If you fall on your face, at least take heart in making forward progress.
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rod Anderson)
Subject: Re: Cars and suburbs
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 18:11:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.083941.13852@truffula.sj.ca.us> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:
>
>In article <21JAN199323271566@pearl.tufts.edu> ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu (DANIEL M. DEOCAMPO) writes:
>>Are there no realistic ideas for a mode of transportation which caters to the
>>individual while avoiding serious environmental harm?
>
>Many commuters could get to work by bicycle most days.  Bicycling is good
>for you, clears the head in the morning, and creates approximately zero
>environmental harm.  It's also a lot less dangerous than most people think.
>
>Cameron

ONLY if you live were it is warm year round.  If the streets are snow
packed and slippery it is difficult to ride.  And what about those who are
over 60. Not all of them are  comfortable rideing bicycles.  Bicyclig is a
option only for those who are healthy and active.  Bicycling on ice is only
for the young and foolish.

Just because bicycling works for you does not mean that it is the solution
for all of the country.

--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO            | A life consisting exclusively of things
Boulder, CO                    | that are Good for You is bad for you.
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu         |                      Kelvin Throop
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16      |
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Re: Another ozone question
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:35:13 GMT

 In article <1466602062@igc.apc.org>, 
 wandab@igc.apc.org (Wanda Ballentine) writes:
> =
> =I have a question I hope someone out there can answer.
> =
> =The facts as I understand them:  The beginning of life on Earth
> =slowly evolved deep in the oceans, eventually creating oxygen
> =that bubbled to the surface and then floated up to the
> =stratosphere.  About 30 miles from the surface, ultraviolet
> =radiation acted upon it to create ozone, and ultimately there was
> =enough created to form a buffer between the UV rays and the
> =Earth.
> =
> =Question:  As the UV rays were already bombarding the Earth, WHY
> =did the reaction with the oxygen not create ozone at the ground
> =level??
>
 
 Just a couple things to add to Carl's answer:

1. The whole process took hundreds or thousands of millions of years,
 with the oxygen content of the atmosphere slowly creeping upwards. 
 The ozone profile undoubtedly looked different in the early stages,
 when there was a lot less oxygen in the atmosphere (and even less 
 at high altitudes.) It's interesting to speculate about whether there
 was any kind of atmosphere-biosphere feedback.

2. The ozone layer isn't just _in_ the stratosphere, it _makes_ the
 stratosphere. The temperature in the strat. _increases_ with altitude
 (that's why vertical motion in it is so slow, it's a global-scale 
 inversion layer). The source of the heat is the absorption of UV by
 ozone. So the ozone layer must have evolved together with the stratosphere.
 
From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:16:16 GMT
Subject: Re: Constructive Posts and Bells of Hope
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment

>Life must be very strange in the world of absolutes Alan
>(at least rhetorically) inhabits. 

The mote in his eye? 

Which side of the net are his perceived absolutes really on?

------------
Alan McGowen

Newsgroups: sci.environment,soc.culture.usa
From: yschin@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Yu-Shin Chin)
Subject: Re: Cars and suburbs
Organization: University of Manitoba, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:25:00 GMT

In article <PA142548.873.0@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
|> In article <C1C08B.BBs@ccu.umanitoba.ca> yschin@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Yu-Shin Chin) writes:
|> >
|> >You still have spring, summer, and fall when the weather allows you to cycle to work.  Cycling does end when someone reaches 60 years of age.  I have heard of two elderly ladies (60+ and 80+) who were riding their bicycles across Canada.  I think that th|> >re are two big reasons why people don't cycle to work.  One is that they are 'lazy' and lead seditary lives(couch potatoes).  The second is that their workplace doesn't have proper shower facilities.  Oh and a possible third reason is that they are 



|> 
|> Bingo.  When I excercise, I sweat like a PIG, but I have to wear a coat and 
|> tie at the office. I TRIED cycling for excercise and to cu tmy gas bills.  I 
|> was not at an acceptable level of hygine for the day when I arrived.


I had a summer job which required me to dress up(without the coat) and I still cycled to work.  I also had the same problem in that there wasn't a shower at work.  So instead of taking a shower, I went into the men's room and used a wet towel to remove the sweat and another to dry myself off. 

sam
From: 471-1@air.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Constructive Posts and Bells of Hope
Date: 22 Jan 93 00:37:58 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <1993Jan21.062158.16993@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.222126.19053@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 471-1@sleet.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield) writes:
>>Actions and ideas of peace and peacful means are ALWAYS meet with
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>
>>hostility and/or violence.    
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>This reflects a unique level of certainty, perhaps inclined to dogmatic.
>What is the source of this wisdom?  Holy writ, perhaps?
>
>Please remember the thoughts of George Santayana, who said, "Skepticism
>is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too
>soon or to the first comer..."
>
>Perhaps the _inferred_ hostility (or violence...on Usenet?) is a
>visceral reaction to the incondite. 

To make it a little more clear as to what I mean by ALWAYS...
the above statement applies to actions and ideas that are known
to the public in general. I am not talking about some guy or gal
sitting in a closet practicing peace thoughts.

Which is poorly constructed Usenet or my unique level of certainty?

I realize that it is quite common to site sources for such claims,
however in this case of clairvoyance I stand with my claim, and
leave it to you to refute. 

 
-- 
Take 'er easy.... Shane
.watch out for the lightning (a large-scale high-tension natural electric
discharge in the atmosphere)......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..informal... a sudden usually improbable stroke of fortune.......
From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 01:13:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Constructive Posts and Bells of Hope
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment

/ hpindda:sci.environment / alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) / 10:58 am  Jan 18, 1993 /
>In these days of the Bells of Hope and calls for Reunion, I'd like to try
>something which flopped for lack of participants the last time I suggested
>it -- a "constructive posts" campaign.

A couple of emailers have asked me to "structure" this proposal a bit.

In my view, the first approximation to the structure of the topics for
discussion here ought to be Agenda-21, the major result of last year's
Earth Summit in Rio. 

That is, any topic which was given a chapter in Agenda-21 and recognized 
by the international community as a part of the interlocking network of 
problems we face ought to be a legitimate topic for discussion in 
sci.environment. That includes such "nontraditional" (for us) areas as 
the status of women, as well as obvious areas like biodiversity and 
climate. 

In addition, some areas which many NGOs have complained received short
shrift -- e.g. population, biocentric or ecocentric ethics -- to name a
few -- are also legitimate subjects. [Those areas are discussed in many 
of the NGO treaties of the broader Earth Summit.]

Now some will argue that much of this has no business in a sci.* group
-- that the only topics we should ever entertain here are topics which
can be dealt with via a few sums on the back of an envelope. 

My view is that the *environment* and our *impact* on it is the topic here,
and the sci.* appellation of the group is a challenge to us to bring to bear
whatever scientific knowledge we have on all questions which pertain to that
topic, to the best of our ability -- it is not primarily a limitation of 
scope. 

Again, I'd like to point out that the de novo construction of frameworks 
for discussion about the environment is a complete waste of time when the
planet has already adopted one. That framework is Agenda-21, and if we
want our cogitations to impinge on the implementable at any point, that
should be our basic initial framework for discussion here.

And, yes, I'm afraid the bad news is that this *does* mean that all of us 
ought to read it, or at least *aspire* to read it among everything else on 
the reading list.... [No, I haven't read all of it. About half.]

A much less ambitious but still very worthy goal would be to pick just 
*one* chapter -- your favorite subject -- and read only that one. 

If you can't *find* a favorite subject anywhere in Agenda-21, the three
UNCED treaties (climate, biodiversity, deforestation) or in the NGO 
treaties (the documents from the broader participation of the Earth Summit,
outside the UN delegations), I'd think there was a serious question as
to why you are here in sci.environment, or even *.environment.

------------
Alan McGowen
From: srgxbhh@grace.cri.nz
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Real Challenge
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 19:15:36 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Ltd., New Zealand.
NNTP-Posting-Host: grv.grace.cri.nz

John McCarthy wrote

>You won't get a whole treatise out me.  I don't do this much work
>for a newsgroup posting.
>
>Are you arguing that without such a treatise, we should assume that
>the problems cannot be solved?
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>

No, I was hoping for quantitative information that would enable me to 
assess the validity of your position. Without such information your
post appears to me as speculative. I was just being lazy, and hoping
you would provide sufficient data for me to assess your assertion,
which appeared to conflict with my belief ( I haven't studied the
subject ) that it would be very difficult to sustain worldwide
consumption/capita at existing US levels. 

   Bruce Hamilton    srgxbhh@grv.grace.cri.nz
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace's alternative refrigerant
Date: 21 Jan 93 12:48:18 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <C11D2q.Ds7@panix.com> dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein) writes:

>Way back, we had a NATURAL GAS powered refrigerator in our apartment.  In
>fact, thinking back, it was probably in place before the switch from
>manufactured to natural...

>I KNOW it worked, and somehow or other it used the heat of combustion to
>make cooling.  It was NOT a motor driven unit.

They are still made. The advantages are no noise (no motor), no
electrical interference (no thumps on radio and hifi) and no moving
parts to wear out. But note that the gas is simply the power, not the
refrigerant. You can also buy electric versions which simply use a
heating coil instead of a motor. But public ignorance is killing the
market and they may soon disappear: I've met countless people who have
have exclaimed with delight over mine and said that if only they'ld
known such a thing was possible they would have bought one, but...

I blame underfunding of science education in schools. The principles
of refrigeration can be taught to primary school kids, and you can
knock up demos with little more than kitchen equipment. Yet most people
haven't a clue.

Someone once said that a civilisation is doomed when most people
haven't a clue how the technology they own and use every day works.
The first stage of the decline is being ripped off by repairmen who
overcharge for fixing it. The second stage is being swindled by
repairmen who charge you and don't fix it. The third stage is giving
up and buying a new one when the old one needs fixing. The fourth
stage is making throw away products designed to be unfixable. And so
on. And the root is simply poor education, monkeys in charge of a
civilisation they don't understand.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: sci.environment,soc.culture.usa
From: shenry@cs.rice.edu (Sam Henry)
Subject: Re: Cars and suburbs
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:21:11 GMT

In article <C1AvEr.8MB@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us
(Brian K. Yoder) writes: 

>Why can't you mind your own business and stop trying to make people's
>lives more miserable?  I LIKE my car, I don't care what you think.

But don't you understand that your blind addtiction is making this
person's life more miserable?



-- 
sam henry <shenry@rice.edu>
Wanna ride?
From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Subject: Re: Did Greenpeace look at Estonia?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:24:27 GMT

Seeing that there was a message from Greenpeace (Jim Dyer) "NEWS: Damage of
Braer Spill Assessed", does Greepeace know anything know anything about the
spill that happened when a tanker ran aground off the coast of Estonia?
After all, Greenpeace could have an office in Helsinki or somewhere else in
the region.  Except for hearing on the news that the tanker had run aground
and was spilling, I haven't heard or seen anything on our media.  I think I
heard that the tanker either might break up or had broken up, but I am not
sure.

So was the spill a small one?  Or is the Baltic so badly polluted that any
kind of spill won't make any difference?  Just curious.  If anybody knows
anything, I might not be the only person who is interested.

Desiree Bradley

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Re: Chemical Composition of the Atmosphere - Why Mass Doesn't Matter
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:36:23 GMT

In article <2B62466E.4170@news.service.uci.edu>, eapg137@orion.oac.uci.edu (Bryan Joseph Hannegan) writes:
|> Before the cynics declare that some scientist from UCI says he knows
|> everything, I should state that because trace gases are so "trace", any attempt
|> to measure them accurately on a global scale is somewhat like looking for 
|> needles in haystacks. 

Well, the long-lived substances are well-mixed, so detecting them isn't
that hard. Of the radiatively active gases, only ozone and water have
significant variations in concentration in the troposphere, which,
due to band spreading effects at higher pressure, is whre the action is 
in the greenhouse effect problem. So this bit seems too pessimistic.

On the other hand, in your previous post you were, I think, a bit too
optimistic about the ability to extend weather experience to predicting
the perturbed climate. Fluid dynamicists (in the heady days when the
motivation was pure science) were fond of rotating cylinder experiments
which showed various distinct flows, often changing from one to another
abruptly with small changes in parameters. The parameter space we are 
moving to (high CO2, large ice caps) is unprecedented, and we are hard
pressed to say how the climate system will respond. A major shift
is not an easily disproved prospect.

Furthermore, the ocean and the cryosphere, reasonably treated as a boundary
condition in weather prediction, are themselves subject to phenomena on
varying and long time scales and of course are tightly coupled to the
atmosphere. The models that suffice for weather prediction or even El Nino 
modelling are grossly inadequate for projecting long term climate change. See, 
e.g., "Unpleasant Surprises in the Greenhouse", W.S.Broecker, _Nature_  328 
pp 123-126.

We do know it's gonna warm up. How much and when are the salient questions.
I don't go along with your claim that what is changing is "very little".
Fluids are really easy to push around. That's what makes them fluid.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, the surface temperature of the 
planet in the global mean won't change very much, maybe 3 % at most on an
absolute temperature scale. But what's trivial on an astronomical scale can
be enormous on a human scale, especially if you consider that a global
average smooths out the larger changes.

mt
From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ca.environment,ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Oppose Signal Synchronization Projects!
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:26:04 GMT
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC

Joe Buck <jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu> writes:

	I think it's better to design things so that the main bicycle
	through-routes aren't the same as the main auto through-routes,
	so you can time different streets differently.

An excellent point.  But, even with well-designed bike routes, you
*still* see lots of ("too damn many") bicycles on College Avenue in
Berkeley during rush hour for instance.  There's a great bike route
system in the East Bay (particularly Berkeley-Oakland) and there's just
no excuse for seeing bikes on a street not designed for it.

/jordan
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: The Real Challenge
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1k42ljINNid7@zephyr.grace.cri.nz>
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:05:32

I have previously offered to discuss specific alleged limitations,
e.g. minerals or water or food.  I won't get into a dialog, where
someone says "What about this?", I answer and get hit with "What
about that?"
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 08:01:06 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <59085@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
=In article <C1Dvpn.92G@world.std.com> moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
=>constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
=>
=>>In article <1993Jan24.202500.2302@truffula.sj.ca.us> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:
=>>>The scandal is that plutonium was released at all, not in what
=>>>concentration it was released.  It shows the plant is not being
=>>>operated responsibly.
=>
=>>Every time a neutron hits a U-238 atom (occurs naturally, from a few ppm in 
=>>seawater to many percent in ore) and is absorbed, a U-239 atom results, which
=>>kicks off a beta to get to Np-239, and another one to become Pu-239, the
=>>Great Satan (tm).
=>
=>Also, there were several tons of plutonium released into the environment
=>over the course of atmospheric atomic weapons testing by the US, USSR and
=>the others.  This is still in the environment.  So, while Greenpeace
=>can rightly be upset that this plutonium got into the environment,
=>they can't say that finding a tiny trace of plutonium is proof of
=>Sellafield's lax operation.
=
=Since Sellafield is acknowledged to be pumping Pu into the Irish sea,
=on purpose, and since the British government has had to actually move
=some beaches near Sellafield, and since there was a major fire at
=Sellafield in the 1950's, we know that "tiny trace" quantities are not
=as issue here.

Then, Yackadamn, perhaps you would explain to us why GeeenHype (and *YOU*
are so reticent about mentioning the actual quantities?  When Jym posted the
propaganda, there were repeated requests for info on the quantities.  Jym's
only response was "Any at all is too much" or something to that effect.  You
were silent.

So, shit-head, what quantities are we talking about here?  Or are you one of
the many, who when it comes to counting plutonium atoms, uses a number system
that works like:
	One, two, three,  MANY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: mcdermot9211@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: HELP!!  Info about LANDFILL PAPER
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:09:04 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

HELP!!  I am in a research class, and I am writing my paper on landfills and
recycling.  I know that much.  What I don't have is a good thesis.  I also am
trying to decide who I want my audience to be.  Any suggestions about these
would be great, and also any information for my paper would be greatly
appreciated!

Thank You!

Jessica McDermott, University of Northern Iowa
From: SENGELS@CIPVAX.BIOLAN.UNI-KOELN.DE (Stephan Engels)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: help_environmental databases
Date: 28 Jan 1993 15:37:06 GMT
Organization: BIOLAN - COLOGNE UNIVERSITY (FRG)
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cipvax.biolan.uni-koeln.de
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.22


I'm new to this info newsgroup and I would like to know more about it 
and newsgroups that contain environmental news...and how to access  
them.  
I 'm working about  the problem of  nitrite and nitrate in freshwaters 
and its influence of the development of waterinsects. 
I'm very grateful if anybody could help me to find environmental  or ecological databases 
...Thanks