HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jjensen@convex.com (James Jensen)
Subject: Re: Computer controlled cars (was re: high-tech highways)
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: USENET news support, CONVEX Computer Corp, Richardson, Tx. USA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:22:43 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Someone wrote: 
>>>Well, as a previous poster pointed out, most of the nations commercial
>>>airlines fly automated systems.

That may be true, but the the environment that these systems deal with
is orders of magnatudes simpler than surface streets.  A robo-car
will have to be able to determine that a child that is about to run out
into the street as well as a human driver. The last I heard computer vision 
wasn't anywhere near to this.
Newsgroups: sci.environment


Last night I watched the James Burke program about global warming. In
it, he showed a plot of the average Earth temperature and CO2
concentration over the last several thousand years. They correlated
almost exactly;  the higher the CO2, the higher the average T. The CO2
concentration was determined by measuring gasses trapped in ice (from
Greenland I think), but he failed to explain how they determined the
average Earth temperature. Can anyone enlighten me on how this could
be measured?

Thanks,

Tom

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9981 sci.geo.meteorology:2577 sci.skeptic:13205
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Younger Dryas? (was Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts)
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:29:19 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <1992Jul23.000540.4176@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.183704.10219@cs.tulane.edu> makrisna@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu (Krishna Achuta Rao) writes:
>
>:      The Younger Dryas was a cold period during the last deglaciation (a 
>:return to near glacial conditions) and not a warming..... wasn't it?

Yes, the last glaciation redeced at about 14,000 BP, and returned for
about 1,000 years at 11,000 BP. Even more than the glaciation itself, the
YD perturbation is centered on the North Atlantic, and is believed to
be related to ocean circulation changes.

>	And what is the time resolution on Younger Dryas data, anyway?

Eyeballing the best curve I've seen, It looks to be about on the order of
a century, obtained from fossil plankton deposits.

See Broecker "Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse?" _Nature_ 328:123 (1987).

mt
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: [transport] using fourteen-seater busses
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:59:53 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <9207282036.AA01862@efi.com> dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung) writes:
>
>     I wonder if anyone know whether it is feasible to use less
>fifty-seater busses and have more small fourteen-seater minibusses
>(or vans, if you will).  This will allow more lines or more frequent
>busses, and a lower cost per bus.  Then we can have more feeder busses
>from/to train stations, and then most people can just take bus-train-
>bus to work.  Ha!

Sure it's feasible. We can even extend the idea a little bit further
and use 1 seater buses that can take direct routes to their destinations.
The only time a bus of any size operates efficiently is when it's near 
capacity. The only time it's near capacity is when it's on a high density 
express route. On low density routes it's less than half full at least half 
the time. A one passenger vehicle is always at capacity when in use.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Ocean Warming and Rising
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:37:27 GMT

An article titled "Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise Along the Southwest
U.S. Coast" appeared in the 17 July 92 issue os Science. It is by Dean
Roemmich of Scripps Institute of Oceonography. The abstract of the article
follows:

"Hydrographic time-series data recorded during the past 42 years in the
upper 500 meters off the coast of southern California indicate that
temperatures have increased by 0.8Deg C uniformly in the upper 100 meters
and that temperatures have risen significantly to depths of about 300
meters. The effect of warming the surface layer of the ocean and thereby
exanding the water column has been to raise the sea level by 0.9 +- 0.2
millimeter per year. Tide Guage records along the coast are coherent with
steric height and show upward trends in sea level that vary from about
1 to 3 millimeters per year."

I wonder how M & M will rationalize this as unimportant.

Richard Foy                       Standard Disclaimer
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Date: 31 Jul 92 06:56:10 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Jul30.142156.7115@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>[...] achieving a social good should be done at the expense of
>*all* the people who benefit, and at no expense to those who don't.

Is this the same person who resents subsidies for electric trains
being crammed down his throat?
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:18:23 GMT

szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.163959.2414@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> orf@scrap.ssec.wisc.edu (Leigh Orf) writes:
> 
>>Increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase agricultural productivity? 

>CO2 is indeed biolimiting for most plants.  Plants originally
>evolved at CO2 levels up to 100 times present levels, so it is
>no surprise that they are adapted to higher levels.  Higher CO2 levels 
>increase the productivity of over 80% of agricultural plants, including 
>most grains and legumes.

>Furthermore, 2.5C warming in the northern lattitudes would increase 
>agricultural productivity a net 10-30% on the planet, mostly from increasing 
>the growing seasons and moving the fertile lands north.  Fertile 
>habitats also move northward, so over the long run there would be a
>net increase in biodiversity.  In the shorter run (decades to centuries), 
>the new habitats provide a place to relocate endangered species.

    What is your source on the productivity increase, Nick? Longer
growing seasons would help where they are needed, but soil moisture
availability is often a factor. Generally, the climate models [you
don't trust ;-)] suggest that soil moisture will be *decreased* in
much of North America during the summer season. Since drought is
already a recurring problem in many areas, this is important. And
areas further north may not have particularly fertile soils.
  
   Were all these factors considered in the source you used?


Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.psychology
From: heff@ki.ch.apollo.hp.com (God of Thunder)
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:37:27 GMT
Reply-To: heff@ki.ch.apollo.hp.com (God of Thunder)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories


In article  <1992Jul23.092233.8083@alf.uib.no>, edmtl@alf.uib.no (Thor
Legvold) writes:
> In article <1992Jul2.103818.41228@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
cromwell@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
> >In article <1992Jun29.180530.11377@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com
> >(Nick Szabo) writes: 
> >
> >
> [deleted]
> >I like to think of whales and dolphins as a high order intellegence
>                    ^^^^^^
> >which evolved in harmony with their environment and humans as high
>
> A 'High order of intelligence'???  Perhaps dolphins and some species
> of whale (as the Orca) demonstrate intelligence levels roughly equivalent
> to a dogs, but most (most - not neccessarily all) are at a level which
> is approximately the same as a cow.  A 'high order of intelligence'?
>Hardly.

So, what are these judgements based upon?  From the articles and research
that I've read, I would disagree completely with you.Given the native language
complexity and capability that many whales and dolphins have, and the 
complexity of their social interactions and relationships, along with 
the complexity of interactions and relationships that people have been
able to develop with these creatures, I would agree that they could be
classified as having a 'high order intelligence'.  

I think it is probably close to impossible at this point to 
compare their intelligence with humans', since the respective 
environments are so completely different, and the respective way
in which the two classes of species interact with their environments
are so different.

But I have no difficulty saying that the complexity of their language
and societies are at LEAST as complex as apes or gorillas.

So, were your comments based completely on a Sea World show?


Jeff Oesterle

================
"No, I don't know that atheists should be consedered as citizens, 
nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."
                                         - George Bush
<choke> <cough> Say WHAT?!?!?!?
================

(Disclaim, disclaim, disclaim.)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Cars vs. Bikes (Was: Why electric cars?) and carpooling stuff.
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:44:33 GMT

In article <4613@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com writes:
>In article <155v0nINNlsl@agate.berkeley.edu>, utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian) writes:
>>o Many people seem to have the impression that they have a "right" to
>>drive a car.  Not so, in California anyway, strange to some of you as
>
>This is a artifact of the doctrine of implied powers.  In fact, no state
>has the right to arbitrarily designate any activity as privilege for the
>purposes of regulation, that is prohibited in no uncertain terms by the 9th
>Amendment.  It is a fiction which is promulgated and protected by people like
>you who believe the Constitution strictly delineates all the rights we are
>allowed to have.  In fact, the 9th specifically reserves all rights NOT so
>delineated.  It requires only recognition of the right, so far withheld by
>most states because they can get away with it so long as people do not under-
>stand the Constitution.

     While I agree with you in principle,  I do not believe that the federal
     courts agree in practice.

                               dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Keywords: Cars Transit Cities
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:10:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.144248.2912@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>	And is walking inside a typical shopping mall REALLY that
>>terrible a burden???
>
>It is if your knees are shot and you're buying a heavy item. I will
>admit that I do sometimes go over to the mall and sit and watch the
>girls. (I'm not dead yet) :-) 

	If the customer service at a store is good,  then I suppose that
any store that sells big and heavy things could have 4-wheel hand trucks
and other devices for moving heavy things.  It's only reasonable for a
store to provide an employee to help you move the stuff out.  Practically,
the only stores that actually seem to sell lots of really heavy things
in malls are the anchor stores that have their own loading area that
you can drive up to (and this is one of the many reasons why you buy a
refrigerator at Sears instead of Radio Shack).  Most of the stores inside
a mall sell things that are generally small enough for most people to carry;
most malls are full of clothing stores and usually have a bookstore or two;
most of the rest of the stores also sell relatively small things.

	The only real exception to this that I can think of right away was
a music store at the mall of New Hampshire that sells pianos.  Of course they
are only two storefronts away from an exit,  so that isn't very bad.  Stores
that sell very large items also tend to deliver them.

	Maybe for some ObEnvironment stuff here,  I could try to bring out
a parallel between the rate of change of the stores in the mall of NH and
the effect of stress on ecosystems.  The mall in Manchester was built
circa 1980,  and it quickly accumulated 80 stores,  which pretty much survived
until 1989 intact.  Since the "recession" or the "recovery" or whatever you
want to call it (The Great Recession?) started,  many stores have gone out
of business -- Tape World,  right across the hallway from Record World,  was
one of the first ones to go.  A phenomenon that I don't really understand
in light of the recession is that new stores have quickly moved in to replace
the old one.  My general impression is that (a) generic clothing stores have
suffered the worst,  and (b) most of the new stores are what I would think
of as speciality boutiques.  (Software Express,  Victoria's Secret,  etc...)
Many stores have also shifted location.  As such,  whenever I go back to
visit my family,  the mall looks very different.  I don't really understand
what is going on here...  Although there are probably many hidden variables
here such as the rent that storeowners pay the mall.

	I can say that the absolute number of customers has gone down;
last Christmas season I didn't have any trouble finding parking at the mall
(very unusual),  and my father (who is a xenophobic misanthrope who likes
Edward Abbey much more than I do) actually seemed to find shopping there
a pleasant experience for a change.


-- 
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: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 07:00:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.221116.2989@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>The numbers refer to "reductions in peak summer demand." 

Once again, dingo drags in reductions in projected peak demand (and in peak
demand in the peak season, at that).  Dean, just how does reduction in peak
demand for one part of the year have anything to do with building new coal or
nuclear (i.e., base-load) plants?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:06:36 GMT
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

In article <76453@ut-emx.uucp> johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>|>	Nothing succeeds like real data.  In LA the subway costs
>|>	300 M$/mile, exclusive of maintenance charges. {...}

The LA subway is a special case and should not be used for comparision to
anywhere else.  The above quoted cost is correct bu is 3 to 4 times what 
the cost almost anywhere esle would bee for two reasons:

1)  The subway is being built under Wilshire Blvd with out tering up the
	street so the whole thing is being done underground.

2)  The idiots decided to build it right through the middle of the
	La Brea Tar Pits.  So they have to deal with support issues, Methane
	Gas, Ventilation adn other stuff noone else does.

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10315 sci.geo.meteorology:2627 sci.skeptic:13412
From: makrisna@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu (Krishna Achuta Rao)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:07:09 GMT
Organization: Tulane University, New Orleans, LA
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-11094]: convex1.tcs.tulane.edu

In article <1992Jul29.101143.5817@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.163959.2414@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> orf@scrap.ssec.wisc.edu (Leigh Orf) writes:
> 
>>Increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase agricultural productivity? 
>
>CO2 is indeed biolimiting for most plants.  Plants originally
>evolved at CO2 levels up to 100 times present levels, so it is
>no surprise that they are adapted to higher levels.  Higher CO2 levels 
>increase the productivity of over 80% of agricultural plants, including 
>most grains and legumes.
>
>Furthermore, 2.5C warming in the northern lattitudes would increase 
>agricultural productivity a net 10-30% on the planet, mostly from increasing 
>the growing seasons and moving the fertile lands north.  Fertile 
>habitats also move northward, so over the long run there would be a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>net increase in biodiversity.  In the shorter run (decades to centuries), 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the new habitats provide a place to relocate endangered species.
>-- 
>szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
>Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 

     The migration rates for (non-agricultural)plant and tree species is a 
     limiting factor here. Just because the climate up north is what the plant
     is used to it cannot up and leave. Hence the rate of climate change is
     very critical. Unless you have the right vegetation you won't have the 
     animal species migrate either. "Biodiversity" is not restricted to 
     agricultural plants.

-krishna

--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Krishna Achuta Rao                         +                               +
+ Tenured Graduate Student                   +   Tulane University           +
+ Department of Mechanical Engineering.      +   The big Easy. LousyAnna.    +
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9677 sci.physics:11257 sci.energy:3471
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Transportation cost (was Re: Is car pooling for real?)
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:33:16 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:


>In article <BrppFE.643@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, rlbell@babbage.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell) writes:

>#- How much do you pay for insurance?  The last time I thought of buying a car,
>#- it would have cost me about $35 a week.

>	Is that Canadian or American dollars?

I can't imagine either at that price.  That works out to $1,820 a year.
That's more than "assigned risk" policies carry around here.  

As a reference, I pay about $600 a year for >35 yr old driver insurance
on 5 vehicles.  The liability only chunk for my daily driver is about
$60.  My insurance went UP when I moved from Tennessee to Atlanta.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |Interested in high technology and computers?  
Marietta, Ga                  |Write me about "Performance Engineering" (TM) 
jgd@dixie.com                 |Magazine. 
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9809 sci.physics:11415
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:01:16 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <JMC.92Jul22091522@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>The Interstate system is financed by the gasoline tax, more than 100
>percent, I believe.  In fact the lawyers want to tap the gasoline
>tax to finance their public transit boondoggles.

	If one does some VERY clever accounting, then just MAYBE. But
total costs are:

	1979 US government agencies on highways:

	$71.2 billion total

which breaks down to

	$44.3 billion in "user fees"

and

	$26.9 billion in subsidies.

The "user fees" include vehicle registration fees, fuel taxes, and
tolls.

The subsidies are all sums whose sources are something other than user
fees -- income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, bond-issue
proceeds, etc.

	Thus, highways are 38% subsidized.

	Does that answer your question?

	So one has a choice of riding in a subsidized mass-transit
vehicle or driving on a subsidized road. Take your pick.

/Loren
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 21 Jul 92 04:29:41 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ

In article <BrJIr0.F7z@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com:, wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
: But you seem to be able to ignore that the fuel isotopes
: are RADIOACTIVE (the main gripe you seem to have with the
: products), have been for billions of years, and will continue
: to be for billions more, unless they are used to make energy.
: Then they are only radioactive for a few tens or hundreds
: of years.

In the research I have done on the toxicity of nuclear waste, it seems that
the waste is less toxic than the ore it comes from in between 300 and 1200
years, depending on how you measure toxicity (its a lot more complicated than
you would think).  Therefore, I've often said to some of my environmentalist
friends that nuclear power is really cleaning up the planet on a long
term basis :-).

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now.
"No problem, here's how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9664 sci.physics:11239 sci.energy:3464
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
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 09:12:08 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>	C'mon, wouldn't you have to do a lot of parking and walking if
>you decided to park at the airport instead of a MARTA station? 

No.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |Interested in high technology and computers?  
Marietta, Ga                  |Write me about "Performance Engineering" (TM) 
jgd@dixie.com                 |Magazine. 
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Jul20215203@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Jul21.080116.18829@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>
Date: 21 Jul 92 11:49:29

I do arithmetic when I have the data.  In the case of BART costs
all I have is a memory of newspaper and magazine articles some
years back which I didn't save.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9817 sci.physics:11428 sci.energy:3554