Slashdot Mirror

• Facilities: In addition to the facilities address, you can store phone numbers, emergency contacts, and a description of Hazardous Chemicals on-site.
• Contacts: Which is essentially an address book module.
• Special Locations: Which allows you to store address and contact data for Hospitals, Schools, Nursing Homes, Prisons. Basically any place without chemicals.
• Screenings and Scenarios: Emergency planners can anticipate certain chemical releases and model their effects. This allows facilities and emergency responders to develop plans that mitigate the release effects, or decrease the liklihood of release.

We have plenty of methane that doesn't even need to be mined. Most public landfills have to vent methane properly to prevent explosions. With the right business model, I'm sure state & local governments could use income from selling off methane to be refined into an energy source Hell, even the EPA supports this course of action. Why bother with underwater mining, when it's practically in our own backyards?

I stopped and checked 'em out this year when I saw the huge (over 200') towers along route 76 (the Pennsy Turnpike).

No dead birds under the towers.

No "annoying noise" as someone else claimed. Of course, annoying is a relative term - I am annoyed by large trucks and trainloads of coal passing by my community, and I am really annoyed by the way refineries in my area keep blowing up. (I regret that I can't find a link to the deadly 1981 explosion that literally shook three counties). But I'm not annoyed by the sights and sounds of the big modern windmills.

See this site for more info.

The government is probably sick of having to use AIM (or MSN, or Yahoo) like everyone else.

But seriously, the DOD is fond of using SGML to process documents, and there's even a govt. website pressing for the adoption of XML standards as a way to facilitate communication between agencies. This would be a good thing.

Jabber clients, as an XML transport mechanism, would definitely facilitate this... For instance, right now the US EPA provides a database program called CAMEO which provides emergency response data for over 6080 different hazardous chemicals. Imagine, not a beowulf cluster, but a US EPA On-scene coordinator who wants data on "Methyl-ethyl-meatloaf", a chemical not included in the program. "Beep beep beep", she sends a query (containing the CAS Number for the chemical) via the Jabber IM client. Then about ten seconds later, she receives a response data information sheet on the chemical from the National Response Center. Her specially-designed US EPA Jabber Client takes the data and (a) loads it into her CAMEO program and/or (b) processes it with XSLT and dumps it into her browser for printing.

I do chemical emergency planning for a living and I'm always seeking to improve the ability to deliver appropriate information on request. One method is "give 'em everything we have and let 'em find it". That leads to (a) a file cabinet full of files on each fire truck or (b) a cd wallet and a computer guru on each shift.

An other alternative is fax them what they need on request (ugh!). A Jabber IM solution would be a powerful way to deliver structured content to the responder on request.

what about contrails and wake turbulence? I know that a 757 will leave a wake trail miles long behind it, now what will happen at 100,000 ft (~30km) where the air is thin and the plane is travelling at mach 7.6. Also, what sort of contrails would be formed, and considering contrails effect the climate, and the fact that the primary ozone depletion is between 15km and 20km up, how would having planes routinely flying through this chunk of the atmosphere effect our planet?

I'm working on a couple of projects they tell me will be open source (I haven't seen the license yet, but I expect it to be fine) for the EPA. There are some good reasons for making it open source:

• The same physics apply everywhere. I write one Gaussian plume atmospheric transport routine, and it works for anyone who wants to use it.
• People can review the work. Other models do the same thing, but the source code is not available. Meteorologists aren't going to reverse-engineer the code and figure out what's going on. They would rather be able to review it outright.
• It helps other organizations which have the same problems.

There are a number of special purpose applications that governments have a particular need for, and there's no reason everyone should develop the software separately.

I'm working on a couple of projects they tell me will be open source (I haven't seen the license yet, but I expect it to be fine) for the EPA. There are some good reasons for making it open source:

• The same physics apply everywhere. I write one Gaussian plume atmospheric transport routine, and it works for anyone who wants to use it.
• People can review the work. Other models do the same thing, but the source code is not available. Meteorologists aren't going to reverse-engineer the code and figure out what's going on. They would rather be able to review it outright.
• It helps other organizations which have the same problems.

There are a number of special purpose applications that governments have a particular need for, and there's no reason everyone should develop the software separately.

Diesels do not burn petrol or any other highly volatile fuel (although they can burn jet fuel, kerosene, or home heating oil, with varying degrees of sucess).

Of course you are right, I simply used the two extremes diesel fuel vs petrol to make a point: fuel has different properties. Peanut oil is not diesel fuel, vegetable oil is not diesel fuel, biodiesel is not 100% diesel fuel and even among the diesel blends the properties differ dramatically.
See the DOE's fuel property database.

Yes, in the good old days of low-pressure distribution pumps (3000-5000psi as one other slashdotter mentioned) you simply could change the injection timing by tampering with the mechanically governor.
With modern cars being sooner a mobile network of dedicated ECU's, you can't do this anymore. Not only because of the inaccessability but also because you now have some more objectives than just burning fuel somehow to release torque on the flywheel: You need to control the combustion in order to comply with emission legislations.
I do not know if your extensive practical experience covers this topic as well. Usually NOx and smoke show contrary tendencies, so does CO2 and NOx, engine response and smoke etc... you have to think about all those factors when designing an engine and a combustion process. Really, it's not the old days anymore!
EPA staff has released an excellent paper where they try to summarize latest trends. Definitely worth a read!

To recap: Modern diesels burn "biodiesel" with no modifications. They can also burn vegetable oil with a few minor modifications, mostly because that's what Dr. Diesel originally designed his machine for.

Theoretically "minor" adjustments but this is only valid for the designer/manufacturer, not the individual customer. See above.
BTW: I am not quite sure that Rudolf Diesel ever was a "Dr.", AFAIK he studied Mechanical Engineering in Munich, but that's it. Just because other web sites keep calling him "Dr." doesn't mean it is true... But I'm not 100% sure about this either.

Diesels do not burn petrol or any other highly volatile fuel (although they can burn jet fuel, kerosene, or home heating oil, with varying degrees of sucess).

Of course you are right, I simply used the two extremes diesel fuel vs petrol to make a point: fuel has different properties. Peanut oil is not diesel fuel, vegetable oil is not diesel fuel, biodiesel is not 100% diesel fuel and even among the diesel blends the properties differ dramatically.
See the DOE's fuel property database.

Yes, in the good old days of low-pressure distribution pumps (3000-5000psi as one other slashdotter mentioned) you simply could change the injection timing by tampering with the mechanically governor.
With modern cars being sooner a mobile network of dedicated ECU's, you can't do this anymore. Not only because of the inaccessability but also because you now have some more objectives than just burning fuel somehow to release torque on the flywheel: You need to control the combustion in order to comply with emission legislations.
I do not know if your extensive practical experience covers this topic as well. Usually NOx and smoke show contrary tendencies, so does CO2 and NOx, engine response and smoke etc... you have to think about all those factors when designing an engine and a combustion process. Really, it's not the old days anymore!
EPA staff has released an excellent paper where they try to summarize latest trends. Definitely worth a read!

To recap: Modern diesels burn "biodiesel" with no modifications. They can also burn vegetable oil with a few minor modifications, mostly because that's what Dr. Diesel originally designed his machine for.

Theoretically "minor" adjustments but this is only valid for the designer/manufacturer, not the individual customer. See above.
BTW: I am not quite sure that Rudolf Diesel ever was a "Dr.", AFAIK he studied Mechanical Engineering in Munich, but that's it. Just because other web sites keep calling him "Dr." doesn't mean it is true... But I'm not 100% sure about this either.

Excuse me?

Actually half the reason we have as much waste as we do is because of the moratorium on breeder reactors. The U-238 (nuclear waste/depleted Uranium) coming out of traditional Light Water Reactors can be used in Breeder Reactors to generate more power (and reducing the need to store waste materials). This end product of the process, however, is weapons grade Plutonium-239 and some more U-238 (a smaller amount of U-235 is required as an initiator for the reaction).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/ fasbre.html

What alarmists also fail to note is that the resulting Plutonium can be used to fuel yet another form of nuclear reactor. Plutonium Pellet based reactors are not only very efficient, but also one of the safer forms of reactor.

Unfortunately concerns about both weapons grade and reactor grade plutonium (the latter produced in small amounts by standard reactors) being potentially used in nuclear weapons has prevented the widespread construction of breeder reactors and a number of moratoriums for such projects came into being.

Most of the problems occurring in areas such as Iraq caused by depleted uranium dust are related to children ingesting it from untreated drinking water that has become contaminated by UN/NATO forces spent ammunition.

The "military" aspect is also at the root of the public's biggest misconception about plutonium; that the radiation off of plutonium is the "strongest". Plutonium in fact gives off mostly alpha particles which can be stopped by shielding as weak as a piece of normal writing paper or the layer of dead skin cells that covers your body.

Plutonium is however very toxic and radioactively hazardous if ingested or placed on open wounds/etc.

http://www.vnh.org/BUMEDINST6470.10A/Plutonium.htm l

Something else that bothers me about everyone screaming bloody murder over the Yucatan and similar storage facilities is this bizzare belief by people that these materials are somehow magical evil concoctions that were given form in a lab. Most people honestly do not understand that uranium is mined from the ground like any other ore. And that the danger posed by nuclear waste is less one of radiation than of toxicity (radioactive damage stems mainly from consumption or absorbtion into the bloodsteam). The concept of shorter half-lifes being more radioactive also seems to elude people.

You are in far far more danger from walking into your house then you are from nuclear storage.

Most people in the US that are getting into a panic over relatively safe nuclear materials being stored in secure facilities many miles away are not even aware of how near they live to a superfund site. Most superfund sites revolve around heavy metals and other exceedingly toxic substances and are far more common than people think.

Nuclear power is (right now) one of the cleanest and safest power sources available. Too many people are stuck in some sort of a terrified cold war stupor and have been failing to do enough research.

And everyone reading this has to go read Zodiac

Excuse me?

Actually half the reason we have as much waste as we do is because of the moratorium on breeder reactors. The U-238 (nuclear waste/depleted Uranium) coming out of traditional Light Water Reactors can be used in Breeder Reactors to generate more power (and reducing the need to store waste materials). This end product of the process, however, is weapons grade Plutonium-239 and some more U-238 (a smaller amount of U-235 is required as an initiator for the reaction).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/ fasbre.html

What alarmists also fail to note is that the resulting Plutonium can be used to fuel yet another form of nuclear reactor. Plutonium Pellet based reactors are not only very efficient, but also one of the safer forms of reactor.

Unfortunately concerns about both weapons grade and reactor grade plutonium (the latter produced in small amounts by standard reactors) being potentially used in nuclear weapons has prevented the widespread construction of breeder reactors and a number of moratoriums for such projects came into being.

Most of the problems occurring in areas such as Iraq caused by depleted uranium dust are related to children ingesting it from untreated drinking water that has become contaminated by UN/NATO forces spent ammunition.

The "military" aspect is also at the root of the public's biggest misconception about plutonium; that the radiation off of plutonium is the "strongest". Plutonium in fact gives off mostly alpha particles which can be stopped by shielding as weak as a piece of normal writing paper or the layer of dead skin cells that covers your body.

Plutonium is however very toxic and radioactively hazardous if ingested or placed on open wounds/etc.

http://www.vnh.org/BUMEDINST6470.10A/Plutonium.htm l

Something else that bothers me about everyone screaming bloody murder over the Yucatan and similar storage facilities is this bizzare belief by people that these materials are somehow magical evil concoctions that were given form in a lab. Most people honestly do not understand that uranium is mined from the ground like any other ore. And that the danger posed by nuclear waste is less one of radiation than of toxicity (radioactive damage stems mainly from consumption or absorbtion into the bloodsteam). The concept of shorter half-lifes being more radioactive also seems to elude people.

You are in far far more danger from walking into your house then you are from nuclear storage.

Most people in the US that are getting into a panic over relatively safe nuclear materials being stored in secure facilities many miles away are not even aware of how near they live to a superfund site. Most superfund sites revolve around heavy metals and other exceedingly toxic substances and are far more common than people think.

Nuclear power is (right now) one of the cleanest and safest power sources available. Too many people are stuck in some sort of a terrified cold war stupor and have been failing to do enough research.

And everyone reading this has to go read Zodiac

Excuse me?

Actually half the reason we have as much waste as we do is because of the moratorium on breeder reactors. The U-238 (nuclear waste/depleted Uranium) coming out of traditional Light Water Reactors can be used in Breeder Reactors to generate more power (and reducing the need to store waste materials). This end product of the process, however, is weapons grade Plutonium-239 and some more U-238 (a smaller amount of U-235 is required as an initiator for the reaction).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/ fasbre.html

What alarmists also fail to note is that the resulting Plutonium can be used to fuel yet another form of nuclear reactor. Plutonium Pellet based reactors are not only very efficient, but also one of the safer forms of reactor.

Unfortunately concerns about both weapons grade and reactor grade plutonium (the latter produced in small amounts by standard reactors) being potentially used in nuclear weapons has prevented the widespread construction of breeder reactors and a number of moratoriums for such projects came into being.

Most of the problems occurring in areas such as Iraq caused by depleted uranium dust are related to children ingesting it from untreated drinking water that has become contaminated by UN/NATO forces spent ammunition.

The "military" aspect is also at the root of the public's biggest misconception about plutonium; that the radiation off of plutonium is the "strongest". Plutonium in fact gives off mostly alpha particles which can be stopped by shielding as weak as a piece of normal writing paper or the layer of dead skin cells that covers your body.

Plutonium is however very toxic and radioactively hazardous if ingested or placed on open wounds/etc.

http://www.vnh.org/BUMEDINST6470.10A/Plutonium.htm l

Something else that bothers me about everyone screaming bloody murder over the Yucatan and similar storage facilities is this bizzare belief by people that these materials are somehow magical evil concoctions that were given form in a lab. Most people honestly do not understand that uranium is mined from the ground like any other ore. And that the danger posed by nuclear waste is less one of radiation than of toxicity (radioactive damage stems mainly from consumption or absorbtion into the bloodsteam). The concept of shorter half-lifes being more radioactive also seems to elude people.

You are in far far more danger from walking into your house then you are from nuclear storage.

Most people in the US that are getting into a panic over relatively safe nuclear materials being stored in secure facilities many miles away are not even aware of how near they live to a superfund site. Most superfund sites revolve around heavy metals and other exceedingly toxic substances and are far more common than people think.

Nuclear power is (right now) one of the cleanest and safest power sources available. Too many people are stuck in some sort of a terrified cold war stupor and have been failing to do enough research.

And everyone reading this has to go read Zodiac

The EPA has a list of vehicles by how "green" they are.

It looks like Ford has a 100% electric Ranger and Toyota has an electic RAV-4.

The two-door VW TDIs (the Bug and the Golf) get better mileage than any other car sold in America except for the Insight.

They're also among the least-polluting cars available, though there are cleaner ones out there.

• The amount of wheat that I consume is a virtually irrelevent point, because that amount of wheat can be grown again

Sure, virtually irrelevant. If you discount the space needed to grow that wheat, the pesticides (and byproducts of pesticide manufacture) entering the water system because of it, the biomass of fertilizer used, and the energy requirements (mostly from fossil fuels) of getting water to the wheat, and the wheat to your mouth. Unless you grow your own organic wheat locally? Do you?

• Resources can be recycled, re-used, and re-allocated. We may not be doing the best job of this... or are we doing such a horrid job? The true answer is difficult to ascertain and cannot be done with such a limited analysis.

Gee, let's just make vague statements, because there isn't anything like a global information repository for us to draw on. No, wait... OK, let's see what the EPA has to say about recycling (which is "is an essential part of EPA's overall plan for reducing the amount of waste we generate", despite not being one of their Key Topics). Key quote "Today, this country recycles 28 percent of its waste, a rate that has almost doubled during the past 15 years." Draw your own inference from that. Will it keep on increasing, or have we already got all the easy stuff? Bear in mind that "recycling" in a US context can just mean "shift the problem offshore", which is hardly a global solution.

• Improved extraction and refining techniques effectively increase the amount of any given resource that can be extracted from the Earth. [...] It may not be reasonable to suppose an infinite supply exists

Strangely, this is the only point on which I agree with you. It's just a shame that you slipped that whacko supposition in at the end. Or do you really believe that maybe if we just keep sucking harder and harder then the oil will just keep flowing?

• As a consequence of much of the above, resources are created, not found.

You haven't shown that at all. You've demonstrated that access to available limited resources can be extended, and that the efficiency of use can be increased. None of that "creates" new resources, it just shifts the inflection point.

Your supposition about space exploitation is just that, and actually agrees with the WWF conclusion, that we're running out of things to dig out of the ground.

And your obsession with linear analysis is just that: a petty obsession, which ignores the qualitative substance of the issue. OK, let's talk non-linear. Human biomass growth is non-linear, as are the minimum resource requirements of that biomass. You've asserted (sight unseen) that the WWF report must be wrong on the assumption that it must be using linear prediction. Fine, then use your superior skills to predict the inflection point. What's your guess? Any idea? Any idea at all?

But worst of all, you are actually supporting everything that the WWF is saying. You just choose to dismiss it by proposing that the future will take care of itself, because "we have woken up". And yet you provide no evidence - none - that this has happened.

To me, 28% recycling - and a withdrawal from Kyoto - doesn't show that we've woken up. It just shows that we've realised that we're in a nightmare, but we don't know what to do about it. And every time that we (the people) shrug and say "Ah, whatcha gonna do?" it just gives our elected representatives a mandate do likewise on the basis that the solution will come from another source, like maybe some super-stable multinationals with long term (50+ year) strategies, or maybe something more believable, like the Tooth Fairy.

• The amount of wheat that I consume is a virtually irrelevent point, because that amount of wheat can be grown again

Sure, virtually irrelevant. If you discount the space needed to grow that wheat, the pesticides (and byproducts of pesticide manufacture) entering the water system because of it, the biomass of fertilizer used, and the energy requirements (mostly from fossil fuels) of getting water to the wheat, and the wheat to your mouth. Unless you grow your own organic wheat locally? Do you?

• Resources can be recycled, re-used, and re-allocated. We may not be doing the best job of this... or are we doing such a horrid job? The true answer is difficult to ascertain and cannot be done with such a limited analysis.

Gee, let's just make vague statements, because there isn't anything like a global information repository for us to draw on. No, wait... OK, let's see what the EPA has to say about recycling (which is "is an essential part of EPA's overall plan for reducing the amount of waste we generate", despite not being one of their Key Topics). Key quote "Today, this country recycles 28 percent of its waste, a rate that has almost doubled during the past 15 years." Draw your own inference from that. Will it keep on increasing, or have we already got all the easy stuff? Bear in mind that "recycling" in a US context can just mean "shift the problem offshore", which is hardly a global solution.

• Improved extraction and refining techniques effectively increase the amount of any given resource that can be extracted from the Earth. [...] It may not be reasonable to suppose an infinite supply exists

Strangely, this is the only point on which I agree with you. It's just a shame that you slipped that whacko supposition in at the end. Or do you really believe that maybe if we just keep sucking harder and harder then the oil will just keep flowing?

• As a consequence of much of the above, resources are created, not found.

You haven't shown that at all. You've demonstrated that access to available limited resources can be extended, and that the efficiency of use can be increased. None of that "creates" new resources, it just shifts the inflection point.

Your supposition about space exploitation is just that, and actually agrees with the WWF conclusion, that we're running out of things to dig out of the ground.

And your obsession with linear analysis is just that: a petty obsession, which ignores the qualitative substance of the issue. OK, let's talk non-linear. Human biomass growth is non-linear, as are the minimum resource requirements of that biomass. You've asserted (sight unseen) that the WWF report must be wrong on the assumption that it must be using linear prediction. Fine, then use your superior skills to predict the inflection point. What's your guess? Any idea? Any idea at all?

But worst of all, you are actually supporting everything that the WWF is saying. You just choose to dismiss it by proposing that the future will take care of itself, because "we have woken up". And yet you provide no evidence - none - that this has happened.

To me, 28% recycling - and a withdrawal from Kyoto - doesn't show that we've woken up. It just shows that we've realised that we're in a nightmare, but we don't know what to do about it. And every time that we (the people) shrug and say "Ah, whatcha gonna do?" it just gives our elected representatives a mandate do likewise on the basis that the solution will come from another source, like maybe some super-stable multinationals with long term (50+ year) strategies, or maybe something more believable, like the Tooth Fairy.

Or, in this case, they know more about it than the wackos who concocted the latest fad climate theory when they really know nothing about it.

The EU, UN, EPA, the Bush administration, and any number of enironmentally oriented groups (although it is to be expected, that doesn't inharently discredit their research) disagree with you. Look here for example : look at this.

the EPA disagrees with you. Do a little bit of reading and you'll find out that yes, we are causing ozone depletion. I guess you're one of the folks that still believes that DDT isn't bad for us either.

But do you think they'll actually do those things? Raise speed limits?

Absolutely. The only reason no one cares to lobby to raise the speed limit is cause it's not enforced. You say "they", but the fact is that "we" have the power to tell "them" what to do.

Car manufacturers tune their vehicles to get their best MPG at 55mph.

Actually it's more like 65, and to the extent that it's done intentionally, they'll just tune them higher.

Montana had virtually no speed limit until they were threatened by the federal government that they'd lose their funding if they didn't enforce the 75mph speed limit.

Clinton eliminated that several years ago. But to the extent that emissions are increased at higher speeds, this is an excellent way to get people to pay for the pollution they are creating.

Insurance providers won't lower rates for those who don't break the law - they'll just really jack up rates for those who do.

That's just not true. In a competitive marketplace profits are minimized. But if it does turn out to be true, I'll be sure to have bought stock in the auto insurance companies far ahead of time anyway.

It's the same with speed/rpm limiters on vehicles - you're more likely to be in an accident at 25-50 mph than 75-100+ because of traffic density and the "I'm almost home" syndrome.

I agree. But I'm not arguing about having the lower speed limits, I'm arguing about fairly enforcing those speed limits. IMHO (and apparently that of Abraham Lincoln), enforcing speed limit laws will tend to get those laws repealed.

EPA ratings, much like ISO ratings, reflect close-to-perfect usage conditions (flat roads, constant speed etc).

Yes of course, YMMV. However I've found that "reviews" of mileage on the hybrids are from test tracks, which don't reflect most people's everyday driving. A mileage database of 172 Insight owners finds that people get mileage within about 5% of the EPA combined rating. I personally do much better. My suspicion is that many car owners could do better if their car simply recorded/reported MPG to them.

Also, the EPA "city" test cycle does have transient accelerations/decelerations. See this example.

Your points about torque are interesting, but don't forget that a hybrid's electric motor has a flat torque curve -- the torque "peak" for the Insight is at about 2000 rpm. The idea that diesel MPG is less sensitive to driving style is another interesting one. I suspect that would be reflected in the numbers -- "city" mileage ought to be relatively close to the "highway" mileage for such a car, if that were the case.

The starter-alternator sounds suspiciously like what a hybrid does, minus the boost/recharging ability while driving.

Finally, the Insight is available in parts of the EU. I know there are owners in Germany and the UK. In fact they are available in colors that we can't get in the U.S.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/dec97/moth12 97.htm Popular-style article
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/factsh eets/fs-generic_lep.htm very technical, EPA-oriented
http://www.wcrl.ars.usda.gov/cec/papers/jce93-9.ht m Article about an insect population simulation program.
http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2174.html Using bt instead
http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/rhgiles/Trevey/Gypsy.htm Vermont, long piece, "gyplure"
http://www.orst.edu/instruction/bi301/chemcont.htm Dr. Pat Muir's notes for a college class, short, readable. Excerpt:
"The advantages of pheromone use include the facts that they:

* are nontoxic
* are biodegradable
* can be used at low concentrations
* are highly species specific

Hazards or difficulties associated with their use include the facts that:

* resistance to pheromones could potentially evolve (although it would then be difficult for insects to find mates!)
* it is expensive and takes a long time to achieve commercial production."
More than you wanted to know about gypsy moths

In reading up about this I found that some of the same people who don't like pesticides also don't like Bt and pheromones. You wonder how they're going to like a deforested Pacific Northwest if those moths get loose up there.

P.S. URL for the meetup

An increase in CO2 can therefore be assumed to increase the amount of heat trapped by the earths atmosphere, since CO2 has been doing that since the beginning of time.

Then why don't satellites show a net change of external energy input and output over the past 20 years? There are studies which show that no net changes are observed, and other studies which detail that surface temperature changes are not uniform, as you would expect CO2 to be; but rather, may be more due to urban concrete heat sinks and soot. Global warming is happening, and we may indeed be able to do something about it and/or be causing it -- but let's make sure we're addressing the proper issue before jumping into anything.

Since there is zero evidence of human activity having an effect, there is no point in being "cautious" in regards to global warming.

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human acitivities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes are also a reflection of natural variablility. ... The predicted warming of 3C (5.4F) by the end of the 21st century ..."

National Academy of Sciences Climate Change Report

For evidence try a report from the EPA, thisfrom a committee of the National Research Council which included "11 of the nation's top climate scientists, including seven members of the National Academy of Sciences", and a page written by a NASA scdientist.

Apparently the difference seems to be that volcanic gases never reach the ozone layer, because rain washes the water-soluble gases out of the atmosphere in the troposphere. CFC's aren't particularly water-soluble, so rain can't scrub them out of the atmosphere.

I'd welcome information to the contrary, to serve as a point of debate. I'll go ahead and cite the Ozone Depletion FAQ, specifically the part dealing with halogens in the stratosphere.

and that site says: cars are the worst

YES

If sea levels do rise because of global warming, the US doesn't get off lightly. Perhaps wet feet will wake some policiticans up?

1. Garvey Products which sells felt markers that can be used to circumvent a digital rights managed compact disk...
2. Exotic Birds which has been teaching children the mechanisms by which felt markers leave an indelible mark, which is the key to defeating the copy protection on a number of protected devices.
3. Instrument Sales which in addition to standard felt markers, sells lumber crayons, which can be used to circumvent even HEAVY DUTY copyright protection!

What about this one. I actually happen to know the developer. (and yes, she is cute) Any suggestions?

Acrylamide

Acrylamide is an organic solid of white, odorless, flake-like crystals. The greatest use of acrylamide is as a coagulant aid in drinking water treatment. Other uses of include: to improve production from oil wells; in making organic chemicals and dyes; in the sizing of paper and textiles; in ore processing; in the construction of dam foundations and tunnels.

So, simply put : don't panic, you are getting it anyway. ;-)

• http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/prius/ide x.html, Toyota Prius, currently available
• http://civichybrid.honda.com/, Honda Civic Hybrid, due out RSN, starting to be available for test drives
• http://www.hondacars.com/models/insight/index.html , Honda Insight, currently available
• http://rav4ev.toyota.com/, Toyota RAV4 EV (it's not a hybrid, sorry), only available in CA currently
• http://uktoyotaestimasite.tripod.com/, Toyota Estima, hybrid minivan. Not currently scheduled for release in the US
• http://hybridford.com/, Ford Escape, SUV, planned to be available in 2003. Ford licensed the Toyota HEV system for this

• http://www.ucsusa.org/vehicles/0mapveh.html, http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/, The EPA's Clean Vehicle Guide
• http://carpoint.msn.com/browse/win_4018922.asp, http://www.cars.com/carsapp/national/?srv=parser&a ct=display&tf=/advice/bestworst/mileage/best_worst . mpl, 2002 overall fuel economy results
• http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml, Vehicle fuel economy by class
• http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/drive.shtml, Tips to improve your gas mileage
• http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/auto/cafe.html, http://www.ucsusa.org/vehicles/CAFE.html, Information about the CAFE standards
• http://www.greenercars.org/, The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)

Offtopic I know but I thought I'd digress anyway.

Global warming isn't real?

I thought I might mod this to Funny but decided to post instead because people seem to be taking it seriously. What makes you think that burning oil will consume less oxygen.

One good thing about burning hydrocarbons is that it produces CO2. Yeah, yeah, global warming etc, but if we increase the CO2 in the atmosphere then it is good for the living things that need CO2 to live--plants. There is already some evidence that higher CO2 levels are causing increased crop yields. Here's one reference that Google brought up. The plants will produce oxygen in return, and life will be good again. So even if we convert to Hydrogen for cars, maybe we'll keep a few dozen coal and oil power plants in service to produce CO2 for our friends the plants.

Nice unsubstantiated claim there...

(speaking as one who is trained to fight fires including the use of installed Halon systems)

Oh, appeal to authority too... good one! Got Documentation(tm)?

• Exposure to 7% halon for 8 hours produces no ill effects.
• Since low concentrations of Halon 1301 are required to extinguish most fires, and as the agent has a low degree of inhalation toxicity in its natural state, it can be successfully used to attack fires quickly in normally occupied areas.
• Halon 1301 ... a medium for extinguishing fires by inhibiting the chemical chain reaction of fuel and oxygen.
• Most authorities agree that the Halon acts as a chain breaker.

The way Halon puts out a fire, quite simply, is to smother it

If that were the case, how does it manage to work in such low concentrations? It shouldn't be any better than flooding the room with CO2, nitrogen, or some other gas that doesn't support combustion. Tell me, what's the minimum concentration of CO2 needed to put out a fire? At least 34%, perhaps? How about Halon 1301? 5% or so.

The question is not "will global warming cause significant property damage and loss of life." The questions are "is an unnatural global warming cycle occuring", "is mankind contributing to the problem, if there is one", and "can mankind reasonably curtail the problem, again if there is one."

Unfortunately enough, most debates have become so mixed up in global ecological politics that answering these three separate questions in any way other than "yes, yes, and yes" damn near politically impossible. (That is, answering any of these questions "i don't know" or "no" turns immediately into images of burly conservative men killing cute little white bunny rabbits while native americans cry in the background.) Worse yet, the ecological movement which is in part driving this whole discussion has become tied up in a strong philosophy of "european primitivism", wereby technology is denounced as the source of all problems, and the ultimate solution is to go back to living a "primitive", technology-free lifestyle. (Of course most modern practitioners of "european primitivism" only count technology they don't like, and insist on technologies they like, such as massive hemp production, as "good".)

As an example of these political and philosophical positions effecting the debate, the EPA notes that methane gas also contributes to global warming. But note we always talk about CO2 emissions, not methane emissions. Why?

Because CO2 emissions comes from the burning of fuels, which can be tied in most debates to a high-techological society and energy production and cars and all of those "bad" things. Methane, on the other hand, is largly a byproduct of agricultural activities--specifically livestock farts and decomposing plant matter in compost heaps contribute significantly to methane emissions. But will Greenpeace go after poor Chinese farmers and blow up their compost heaps, destroying yet another manmade source of greeenhouse gases?

I was in a program for 'smart kids' in middle school, and we had a couple 'top of the line' systems

#1 - A Zenith Data Systems 486DX2/50 with 6MB of RAM and VLB slots. When we weren't using this to run Turbo C++ programs, we were playing Doom! The entire Math class would be huddled around the 14" VGA monitor as one of us would battle the damned

#2 - We had a Quadra Macintosh. This computer was SUPPOSED to be used for internet access with Netscape. We had the Falcon flight simulator. Hi-res graphics at it's best. Kind of a boring game, it had a cult following in our science classes, but the graphics far outshined anything the 486 was capable of.

#3 - We had a Silicon Graphics Indy from the Earth Visions people. I personally didn't do much with it, but from when I seen it was a pretty powerful machine. 133mhz, built in Camera, etc etc

Your post is typical of the 'skepticism by convience' found so often in this debate..

Here are some resources:

BBC Report

EPA website on global warming

Union of concerned scientists.

btw, you forgot to post your evidence.. (typical skeptic evidence: We don't know for 10000000000% sure, so this must be environmentalist propoganda"

-D

p.s. Ok, I'll say It. You, are a mo-ron.

I agree with of Lomborg completely.

In the NYC area, the reverse is essentially true.

Cormorant Population Boom

The 1998 State of the Environment Report shows declines in pollution across the board.

NY State spending billions for environment

After seeing loads of pseudo-science (on both sides), I took the time several months ago to look at the scientific literature and try to learn about the validity of claims that many laypeople made about global warming. The parent touched on a few of these, and I couldn't resist digging in...

1) Global temperature is decreasing.

No. Even the most cursory look into the subject should show this to be false. For an example, check out the graph on this page. Almost all of the literature I have read agrees on this. The debate comes in when you start talking about how much/why/is this natural?

2) The atmosphere already contains carbon dioxide and needs it in order to keep the Earth warm. Thus, more carbon dioxide is not bad.

While the atmosphere does contain significant amounts of CO2, the thing to remember is that it needs to maintain a balance. As an analogy, think of your body. If you don't have enough iron, you get sick (e.g. anemia). If you have too much iron, you also get sick.
One of the biggest sources of natural atmospheric CO2 is plant matter. At the end of the 19th century, human CO2 emissions were comparable to global plant matter emissions (~150 MMt). By the end of the 20th century, human emissions were 40 times greater than the plant CO2 emissions. You can check this up at the CDIAC site.

3) Global temperature increases can be explained by volcanic emissions.

Also not the case. In fact, one of the landmark papers (Mass, Portman 1989) actually showed that the net effect of each of the several largest 20th century volcanic eruptions was a decrease in global temperature. The reason for this is that, while volcanos do put significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, they also release substantial quantities of particulate matter (e.g. ash). The effect of the latter is to decrease the net amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface.

4) Global warming can be explained via sun spots, orbit variations (Earth and/or lunar), etc.

I was unable to find very much evidence of this in the literature. I was, however, able to find a significant amount of "pop sci" articles supporting these theories.

The general consensus is that scientists do not know enough to fully evaluate the problem, but that humans do have a measurable effect on the atmosphere. The scientific side of the debate centers around the size of this effect, and whether or not it is significant. The atmosphere is incredibly complex, and we may never be able to fully describe it. To me, this appears to be as good an argument in favor of reducing emissions as any other.

On a side note, I found the following to be generally true of articles/papers about global warming: The "seriousness" and scientific legitimacy of such an article are inversely proportional to the concreteness of the claims. Papers claiming that "global warming is just a myth", that "global warming can be explained by some never-before-heard theory", or that "global warming is already upon us and will put most of the Earth's land underwater in the next few years" almost never appear in peer-reviewed scientific journals, while papers claiming that "we really don't know enough yet to make firm conclusions" almost never appear in pop sci magazines.

"You get what you pay for," is demonstrably a myth [...] Air is the most valuable substance [...] Yet it costs nothing.

I guess the EPA works for free, too. Oh, wait. Dubya requested $7.7 billion for the agency for FY 2003.

"You get what you pay for," is demonstrably a myth [...] Air is the most valuable substance [...] Yet it costs nothing.

I guess the EPA works for free, too. Oh, wait. Dubya requested $7.7 billion for the agency for FY 2003.

Rule of thumb: If you won't drink or inhale it, don't dump it without cleaning it first.

Anyway, seems like this thing happened years ago but was addressed by EPA not until recently.

I noticed that one post made mention of some ELF towers in Annapolis. Since I live in Annapolis, and had never heard of this, I got rather curious. After a quick Google search, I came up with a few interesting things:

• Although not as old as NAA, NSS is still in operation on VLF. In fact, it is the oldest continuously operating very low frequency station in the entire world! NSS is located on the small peninsula known as Greenbury Point on the northeastern shore of the Severn River, directly across from the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland. Found on http://members.aol.com/k6dc/history.htm. Check this link out for some good info and pics!
• LF (Low Frequency) and VLF (Very Low Frequency) antennas there are no longer used by the Navy and were made available for some experiments by AMRAD ... The Antenna, approximately 400 ft long, is suspended between two towers approximately 300 ft high. Found at http://www.amrad.org/projects/lf/March1999NSS/. More good pics of antennae and info on this link.
• 28. "ELF Communications System Isn't Needed, Might Not Work, GAO Says," Aerospace Daily, March 22, 1979, 107 (cites GAO classified report, The Navy's Strategic Communications System, PSAD-79-48); Seafarer ELF Communications System Final Evaluation Impact Statement for Site Selection and Test Operation (Washington, DC: Dept. of the Navy, December 1977). Found on http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/milgeo/milgeoch4n.ht ml
• The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone covering all waters within a 2,000 foot radius of each of three Very Low Frequency (VLF) towers located between Greenbury Point and Possum Point, near Annapolis, Maryland. Potts and Callahan, Inc. will be demolishing the three towers with explosives. This safety zone is intended to restrict maritime traffic in order to protect mariners from the hazards associated with the demolition. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/1999/Novemb er/Day-29/i30882.htm This was in December, 1999.

So it looks like the Navy did, in fact, have a rather groundbreaking ELF setup back in the day. Unfortunately those antennae seem to be gone now, but hey, technology marches on. Now that I'm reading some of these articles I know exactly which antennae they're talking about, and I do remember noticing that there seemed to suddenly be fewer of them a couple years ago...

Environmentalist's concern about the ozone layer and the hole in the atmosphere brought about the end to natural CFC's (freon) being used throughout the world....when the volcano in the Phillipines erupted it was reported that more CFC's poured into the air than the U.S. could in a hundred years.

If you got your news from something other than right-wing talk radio and press releases from toxic chemical manufacturers, you might know that there are no natural CFCs in any substantial quantity on this planet.

Volcanic eruptions can put chlorine into the atmosphere. But that's meaningless, because chlorine isn't chlorofluorocarbon, and doesn't reach the statosphere.

It's amazing that anti-ecological industrial propaganda has become so widespread that otherwise intelligent people believe shit like this.

If you need chloroform and bromoform to make this work, the question here is how do you make the end products safe enough for people to use? If you search Google for "chloroform toxicity" you'll find (amongst other things), a fact sheet from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) detailing the effects of exposure to chloroform by humans and animals. Likewise, if you search for "bromoform toxicity", you'll find a paper from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) that explains the effects of exposure to bromoform.

If I was a regular person on the street, I would be seriously concerned that superconducting wires (for example) that were being used in my home contained chemicals that have proven to be carcinogenic to animals (chloroform has been classified by the EPA as Group B2, a probable human carcinogen of low carcinogenic hazard) and have nasty long-term effects such liver damage (both chloroform and bromoform are known to have such effects). I would be concerned for my safety and the safety of others who live in the house. What about leakage, or if the wires break? How do we dispose of these things in the future? It's not like we can just throw them away. Even if the solution were to be in crystalline form, it still doesn't answer questions about exposure to hazards like extreme temperatures, fire and explosions. The bottom line is that we seriously need to consider other options before even thinking about employing this solution.

If you need chloroform and bromoform to make this work, the question here is how do you make the end products safe enough for people to use? If you search Google for "chloroform toxicity" you'll find (amongst other things), a fact sheet from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) detailing the effects of exposure to chloroform by humans and animals. Likewise, if you search for "bromoform toxicity", you'll find a paper from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) that explains the effects of exposure to bromoform.

If I was a regular person on the street, I would be seriously concerned that superconducting wires (for example) that were being used in my home contained chemicals that have proven to be carcinogenic to animals (chloroform has been classified by the EPA as Group B2, a probable human carcinogen of low carcinogenic hazard) and have nasty long-term effects such liver damage (both chloroform and bromoform are known to have such effects). I would be concerned for my safety and the safety of others who live in the house. What about leakage, or if the wires break? How do we dispose of these things in the future? It's not like we can just throw them away. Even if the solution were to be in crystalline form, it still doesn't answer questions about exposure to hazards like extreme temperatures, fire and explosions. The bottom line is that we seriously need to consider other options before even thinking about employing this solution.

If somone could figure out how to selectively extract precious metals out of this mess we wouldn't need another hard rock mine in the US for a LONG time, plus our watershed may still have some hope; its probably too late though. The sad part is that, our leaders are more interested in sucking corporate dick while the taxpayers cover defaulted reclamation bonds. This place could be a really great place if there were only some accountibility.

I think the big greenhouse gas culprits are volcanoes and such.

At least in the U.S., think again.
Unfortunately, there are no good global statistics, but I can tell you that there's no reason why volcanos would be contributing more to climate change now than they would have been 150 years ago.

And finally, global warming isn't about lung cancer - it's about global climate change, which has the potential to affect not only the human race, but every other species on the planet as well.