HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 01:25:21 GMT
Organization: MTS Univ of Alberta     

 
   Apologies to those of you with intelligent news readers, but my
brain-dead system will only give me the illusion of crossposting. It
shows up locally, but dumps the extra groups when reaching the real 
world. I'll have to do this by hand. (I get a new account on another
machine Real Soon Now.)
 
In article <721@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
In article <1992Jul22.154529.2614@midway.uchicago.edu> rtp1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>|
>|ENSO is a red-herring in this context.  Not only is the resulting
>|warming not global, but since the cycle lasts 3-5 years, the
>|net effects of ENSO average out over the decadal time scale. In
>|contrast, with 2xCO2 warming, we are talking about a warmer climate
>|year-in, year-out.  The fluctuations like ENSO would be superposed
>|(probably not linearly) on top of this generally warmer climate.
> 
>It is true that ENSO is not relevant as a causaive factor in global
>warming, but it may be relevant in estimating the *effects* of such.
> 
 
    ..but much of the earlier discussion claimed that the effects of 
a single ENSO would be similar to the effects of an equivalent global
temperature change. Nick Szabo kept repeating that ENSO happens
in the current climate, and therefore a global change of 2-4C is
not important. ENSO *is* a red herring _in this context_ (as the
earlier posted stated).
 
>ENSO may *not* be superimposed on a warming trend, rather the warming
>trend might 'latch' the ENSO in the El Nino mode more or less permanently.
>(That is if the actual driving force of the El Nino is a West Pacific
>surface water warming).
> 
 
   ...and now the effects are *not* the same as the former ENSO, which
is a transient departure from "normal". The situation you describe
defines a new "normal". A "permanent" El Nino is a subset of previously-
occuring atmospheric circulation patterns, so there doesn't *seem* to
be anything new about it, but the change in frequency does mean the 
climate has changed, and the impact will very likely *not* be analagous
to the effects of periodic El Nino events. Trees survive winter, but
changing to permanent winter will mean the end of trees.
 
>One of the difficulties in figuring out how global warming will effect
>the climate is the fact that the effects may not be *linear*.
>-- 
 
    Global warming *is* the climate. :-)  I think what you mean to
say is that the averaging process implied by "global" and "climate"
(being spatial and temporal averaging respectively) shouldn't be
assumed to be acting on linear phenomena when we look at short term
or local effects. IMHO, it will very likely (rather than may) not be
linear.
 
 
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10077 sci.psychology:3262
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Date: 27 Jul 92 09:26:53 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul26.070132.13837@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
>
>I've been thinking more about the argument that whales lack a complex
>social structure, and therefore lack higher intelligence.  A better criterion
>than complexity, however, is quality: do some whale species have a social
>structure more desirable than our own?  One that leads to a better life?  I
>have only an interested layman's knowledge of whales, but my impression is that
>the social activities of some whale species consists primarily of: playing,
>eating and humping.  I can't imagine a better social structure, and I think
>ours positively sucks in comparison.  A social structure like that is the
>utopian ideal of which we all dream; we are truly inferior beings.  Many
>of our "structures" which we think of as indicative of our superiority
>become irrelevant when "complexity" is replaced by "quality" in the criteria
>for being superior.  And doesn't that substition make sense?

GACK! If playing, eating, and humping were all that there were to life,
then I don't blame whales for beaching themselves. If that's all there
were to my life, I'd suicide too. That's an animal existence with nothing
worthwhile to accomplish, no way to make your mark on the world, leave it
a better (or at least different) place. No thank you Lotus eater.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Careers in environmental science--Science magazine
Followup-To: sci.environment
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul24.205505.14538@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<1992Jul27.205956.14972@michael.apple.com> <92048@bu.edu>
Distribution: sci
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:25:33

In article <92048@bu.edu> jstravis@bass.bu.edu (John Travis) writes:

   Since this worked well for me, my colleague will try a posting....

   attenion environmental scientists

   My name is Richard Stone and I'm a staffwriter at Science Magazine. The 
   reason I'm hailing you is to ask for help with an article on careers in
   environmental careers. But I'm hung on a few minor details:

   --how do you define "environmental science"
   --in what durection is the field moving
   --where are the jobs? inn industry? governement? academia?
   --are there subdisciplines in envir. science that are vastly
   undersatffed or overstaffed.

   I'm interested in hearing your answers to these and any others questions
   I've neglected to ask. please call me ASAP at 202-326-6593 or fax me reply
   at 202-371-9227. You can also email a friend of mine at
    jstravis@bu-pub.bu.edu

   Thanks for the help and feel free to circulate this among your colleagues

Ah, a staff writer for _Science_.  Just what we need to settle some
arguments.  What are the criteria at _Science_ for staff writers putting
their own opinions in the non-refereed parts of the magazine?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
From: carl@aoa.aoa.utc.com (Carl Witthoft)
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Organization: Adaptive Optics Associates
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:16:57 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul20201524@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>BART is currently raking off a half percent sales tax in the counties
>it "serves".  I'm not sure whether this is paying off its bonds
>or if it is just a subsidy of its operating costs.
x
And do all you public-transit bashers out there think there aren't
major league gov't subsidies supporting private transport? Who
builds those roads, plows them (in the north :=) ), feed the hungry
gasoline company mouths, etc?


-- 
Bobby Newmark, aka  Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates
aoa!carl@bbn.com  carl@aoa.utc.com
54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140 617-864-0201
**Just say NO to HMOs**
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Date: 26 Jul 92 07:01:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Jul26.070132.13837
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon

In article <MAGNUS.92Jul25182543@is19e0s00.jaist-east.ac.jp> magnus@jaist-east.ac.jp (Magnus Halldorsson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.191630.12376@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
>
>   Certain categories of human beings, such as infants and mentally retarded
>   people, routinely fall below apes and whales in levels of intelligence, self-
>   awareness, language-ability, use of ideas, etc.  
>
>Right, so perceived or hypothetical intelligence is probably not a
>good argument for not hunting apes and whales.

Do you also accept, then, that it is not a good argument for not hunting
people?

Moving right along....No one said anything about perceived or hypothetical 
intelligence: the claim is that an animal's intelligence determines its rights.
Perceived intelligence might determine whether those rights are recognized.
This distinction has arisen often in our own history: slavery was often
justified on the grounds that the enslaved group was (supposedly) 
intrinsically inferior to the enslavers -- there was a (conveniently) 
perceived difference in ontological quality, which led to a failure to
recognize people's rights. 

I've been thinking more about the argument that whales lack a complex
social structure, and therefore lack higher intelligence.  A better criterion
than complexity, however, is quality: do some whale species have a social
structure more desirable than our own?  One that leads to a better life?  I
have only an interested layman's knowledge of whales, but my impression is that
the social activities of some whale species consists primarily of: playing,
eating and humping.  I can't imagine a better social structure, and I think
ours positively sucks in comparison.  A social structure like that is the
utopian ideal of which we all dream; we are truly inferior beings.  Many
of our "structures" which we think of as indicative of our superiority
become irrelevant when "complexity" is replaced by "quality" in the criteria
for being superior.  And doesn't that substition make sense?

-- 
Liberate the Weirdoes and You Liberate the Squares
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: TW.MB8@isumvs.iastate.edu (craig trumbo)
Subject: Re: More Global Warming
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:56:11 GMT

>If anyone thinks they can make a case for pre-industrial revolution life
>being better and/or easier than life today I would be interested to hear
>it.
>--

Hardly. However, the better/easier which we were able to enjoy during the
early part of the industrail period was possible, to at least some
degree, because the full expense would not be realized until
later generations. And here we are.
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.92Jul28211023@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Jul29.061122.13375@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 29 Jul 92 03:08:30

In article <1992Jul29.061122.13375@leland.Stanford.EDU> ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Jul28211023@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
   |> I have driven in L.A. fairly recently and would not describe the
   |> freeways as parking lots.  I wonder if the perception that they
   |> are would be dispelled by actual timings or is gloom loving stronger
   |> than that.

   I used to live in LA and if you are going with traffic during commuting
   hours it is indeed a parking lot (this was 8 years ago and it is worse now ...
   I was down there a couple of months ago) If you want to experience traffic
   moving at the speed limit during the week on a fairly consistent basis you'd
   probably have to restrict your travel to be between 10am and 3pm or between
   10pm and 7am. Even during those times you are bound to hit a small jam or two,
   when I was down there in June, on only one occasion (on a Sunday) did
   I actually make it from on-ramp to off-ramp without coming to a complete stop
   somewhere in between. Granted that my travel time was not affected that
   much (maybe 10-15mins or so) but driving bumber to bumper is not my idea
   of fun ...

   Larry Edwards
   edwards@sunrise.stanford.edu


Evidently the trouble with freeways is that they lead to excessive
expectations.  To lose 10-15 minutes from travelling at the speed
limit for any substantial distance suggests the freeways are working
ok, certainly better than any large fraction of commuters are likely
to do with the new light rail lines.  Lawyers technology.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Keywords: Cars Transit Cities
Date: 27 Jul 92 09:19:11 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul26.080450.13473@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>I much prefer the vibrant, social atmosphere of the pedestrian
>oriented European cities (or some older N.American cities like Quebec
>City) to the impersonal 6-lane downtown of most American cities
>(including mine).

Your preference is noted. Now how many trillion dollars are you willing
to spend of *your* money to convert it. It's easy to say "there ought to
be a law", but it always winds up costing somebody money. I'm not willing
to subsidize conversion to your preference. (And I've already dealt with
the question of whether the auto culture generates sufficient revenue to
pay for it's modality. 1/4th of the GDP is auto related.)

Gary
From: ajpbart@adam.adelaide.edu.au (Paul Barter)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Polluting Cities
Summary: United States cities have by far the worst gasoline consumption.
Keywords: Gasoline Consumption Cities
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:49:31 GMT

Here are some figures to put the gasoline consumption of US cities into
some perspective.

Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy did a large study of 32 cities around the
world. The results are published in Cities and Automobile Dependence, 1989.
It is published by Gower, Aldershot.

The cities in their sample were (in order of gasoline consumption per person)
Houston, Phoenix, Detroit, Denver, Los Angeles, San Fransico, Boston,
Washington DC, Chicago, NewYork, Toronto, Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide,
Sydney, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Zurich, Stockholm, Brussels, Paris, London,
Munich, Copenhagen, West Berlin, Vienna, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Singapore,
Hong Kong and Moscow.

Their figures include the gasoline equivalents of all energy used by public
transport as well.

They found that the average gasoline consumption per head of the US cities
was a whopping 58,500 MegaJoules per person (1000 MJ is about 29 litres of
gasoline).

Australian Cities  -  30,000 MJ

European Cities  -  13,300 MJ

Asian Cities  -  5,500 MJ.


Paul Barter
University of Adelaide
Internet:  ajpbart@adam.adelaide.edu.au
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil.
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul28.023431.16111@michael.apple.com> <15573@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
	<70644@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 30 Jul 92 12:20:15

I wonder if the State of California program to use methanol fueled
vehicles isn't just more lawyers' technology (perhaps politicians'
technology is better in this case), a politically popular idea
that won't cost too much if done on a small enough scale.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Date: 27 Jul 92 09:21:29 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <13753@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>> Instead, the city should take it's evolution to the logical conclusion and
>> dispense with city centers completely. The revolutions in communications,
>> manufacturing, distribution, and sales no longer require a central hub. ....
>> The downtown is a dinosaur that hasn't got the message that it is dead yet.
>
>Untrue.  Some people _like_ living with lots of people around.  Some people
>like having a large variety of restaurants to choose from, and that high
>density of restaurants and other services depends on an appropriate number of
>patrons within short travel time.  You can't eat via modem, or experience a
>full orchestra at home (it's not the same with a sound system).

*Some* people do like these things, but obviously not *enough* people
to keep downtowns vital in most US cities. 

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:15:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.210930.18559@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.200320.7520@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul21.232009.1209@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>>>photovoltaics plus storage in almost all of the lower 48.  Or maybe you'll
>>>realize the fantastic supply of sustainable wind energy that blows through
>>>Nebraska or the rest of the states of the Great Plains.  This doesn't even
>>>tie up the land -- windmills fit right in with agriculture and grazing.
>>
>>    Agreed completely.  And for around $25,000, I could do just that.
>>    Fortunately, power does not cost me anywhere near as much as the
>>    amortization and maintenence costs (even for all the machines that 
>>    my wife and I rely on to work as well as our household appliances).
>>
>>    And my subdivision does not allow windmills ...
>>
>But a utility could install these more cheaply than they could a
>huge new coal or nuclear plant.

    If they could, they would.  After all they're in it for the money.
    I notice that Luz went belly up;  PV is much worse.

>>     If one assumes market efficiency, there is always a sacrifice 
>>     in cutting electricity usage.  
>
>The upfront capital costs will be paid for with the savings.  Such
>efficiency strategies could be used to prevent the need for new
>capacity until PV is ready.  PG&E in CA plans to meet 75% of its
>new capacity requirements over the next decade or two with efficiency
>and the other 25% with renewables.

     Then I suspect that economic growth will not be concentrated
     in PG&E-space.

>>     I have absolutely no fear of sustainables, just a fear of being
>>     led down the garden path by the incorrect economic assumptions
>>     of advocates.
>>
>>     Show me a renewable system that competes economically with 
>>     the service I get from Virginia Power, and I'll switch tomorrow.
>>     (Oh by the way, I'm not going to rewire all of my capital goods
>>     in anticipation).
>>
>Hybrid solar thermal plants (they use some natural gas, too) are creating
>100's of MW for the grid at about $.085/kwh now.  PV may not be ready for
>utility scale usage now, but it may be by the time many coal plants are
>retired.

     In Virginia?  You must be joking.  As far as 'may be' goes, we
     can never rely on guesses like this for something as critical as 
     power generation.

     Of course, if you are talking about Luz, they went belly up.  Not the
     most promising example for other power producers to follow, though
     it was a noble effort.

                                 dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9900 talk.environment:2935
From: jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM (Jon Roland)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Democrats & Ecology
Followup-To: talk.environment
Date: 24 Jul 1992 04:26:43 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: starflight.corp.sun.com

George Smith writes:
>
>	Who's read Al's book?  I've always been fond of him (being a  
>Tennessean), but I've never read it.  How good is it and what angle does  
>it come from? thanks.
>
>peace and trees,
>george
>gsmith@minyatur.next.nd.edu


Al Gore's book, _Earth in the Balance_, while not as academically informative
as one of Paul Ehrlich's books, covers many of the same ideas, and brings
some of the discussion up to date in a way that other books have not recently
done.

It is also written in a way that moves the reader to take action. Some of 
the other books in the field tend to discourage readers from doing anything.
Gore is a good motivator as well as a good educator.

I would recommend the book for anyone who wants to get a good introduction
to the ecological (and economic) problems we face and a reasonably coherent
concept of how we can all work together to solve them.

---

jdr@starflight.corp.sun.com, starflt@uunet.uu.net
Jon Roland
Starflight Corporation, 1755 E Bayshore Rd #9A,
Redwood City, CA 94063-4142, 415/361-8141

Xref: sparky sci.environment:10292 sci.energy:3795
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:50:30 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Jul19.200144.23612@pbhye.PacBell.COM>, mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:

>                                   Sincerely,
>                                   Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.

Another fine example of the keen scientific insight to be found here
in good ol' SCI.environment.  Of course, the letter is total balderdash,
but doesn't that PhD look good?

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily I'd go over to Congress - that grand old benevolent national asylum - and
report on the inmates there.  Never seen a body of men with tongues more handy,
or information more uncertain.  If one of those men had been present when the
Deity was on the point of saying "Let there be light" we never would've had it.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul21.202320.6596@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:29:54

I think the original poster was mistaken in writing "zero
environmental impact".  He should have said "negligible or small
environmental impact".  This would have promoted a discussion of what
impacts are too small to be taken seriously (negligible) and which
are merely small in comparison with humanity's other problems.

My own opinion is that the environmental impacts of nuclear power
that have mentioned are mostly negligible, while a few of them
are merely small.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment