Hi Bev,
With the most recent posts, I almost chickened out at sending a reply to
technet. And I normally try to avoid environmental discussions for fear of
being labeled a heretic. But this topic just "cuts the cake", I can't hold
my tongue any longer.
I've been loosely following "global warming" for several years now, and I am
not convinced that "global warming" is even occurring. Until recently, I
have been somewhat skeptical that man was causing the "global warming" if it
was in fact it was occurring. However, recently, I have come across several
pieces of information that makes me EXTREMELY skeptical that man is the
source of "global warming" which is dubious is even occurring.
Let me make clear that CO2 levels through out the world has in-fact
increased several orders of magnitude. There is no doubt that man is the
source of increasing CO2 levels. So let me state that I do NOT promote
ignoring levels of CO2 emissions, and I do believe pollution levels should
be controlled.
My skepticism comes from two points. One (1), that global warming is
actually occurring and two (2) that the levels of CO2 increases can have a
measurable affect on global temperature.
Addressing point 1:
In my freshmen chemistry class lab, one experiment we had to do involved
calibrating several (large) thermometers. (Do you remember doing the same
experiment?). Not one of them registered zero C in ice water, and each one
had a different offset that had to be incorporated into the data collection.
Furthermore, there was much discussion about significant numbers. While I
could estimate to a 0.1C accuracy, the gage R&R for myself certainly wasn't
0.1C, let alone if another individual read the same thermometer. Bottom
line, if very good accuracy was required, more than one thermometer was used
and more than one individual read the same thermometer more than once. Even
with that, I personally wouldn't trust the numbers better than 0.5C for any
one measurement, even though I can 'technically' use the last digit in
calculations. In any event, the last significant number must be dropped
from the final 'answer' because that is the area of uncertainty.
In the one hundred years of weather temperature data collection, the
thermometers used 50 years ago were not any more accurate than the half
meter laboratory thermometers used in a freshmen college course. While the
data collection that the supposed "global warming" has been very dutifully
collected, the amount of increase of surface temperature has only been 0.5C
over the course of one hundred years. If the reporting tolerance is near
the supposed increase, I find it incredulous that ANY respectable scientist
would stand behind those figures as solid evidence.
Further confusing the issue, anyone who rides a motorcycle can attest to
experiencing sudden and dramatic changes in temperature while riding at
nighttime. This is due to the fact that large thermal masses such as
buildings or trees will re-radiate heat through the night. Open fields tend
to be several degrees colder than wooded areas or populated areas. It is
the populated areas that cause concern. In order for a long term
measurement to be valid, it can not be disturbed. Unfortunately, for many
of the original temperature recording stations, they have either moved, had
buildings grow up around them or have gaps (of a few months) in the
recording. These effects can be seen every night on the evening news. When
the weather is reported and the peak and current temperature is listed, some
stations will have different values for the same city. None of these
factors is relevant in an 'order of magnitude' calculations; however,
"global warming" is based on a very subtle increase in global temperature.
It is a far cry from an 'order of magnitude' calculation.
Further confounding the data set, it is almost exclusively taken from the
northern hemisphere, mostly from North America and Europe. As can be seen
in just one US State, the temperature can vary quite radically from one area
another. To be brash, arguing that "global warming" is occurring because we
have measured a net increase in temperature in the US is like saying the
East Coast can't be having flooding because the West Coast is in a drought.
Casting a big shadow of doubt that earth's air temperature is increasing
comes from the 25 year study performed by NASA specifically to measure
global air temperature. For the past 25 years, the air temperature, just a
couple of miles up, has been cooling. This data set has been verified by
temperature readings from weather balloons. The NASA scientist involved
with the program were on the international group of scientist commissioned
to determine whether or not "global warming" is actually occurring; they
were, unfortunately, out voted by the surface temperature scientist.
Addressing point 2:
The primary example of the green house effect is the planet Venus.
Astronomers are thoroughly convinced that Venus started out much like earth,
with large oceans of water and somewhat similar atmospheres. A runaway
green house effect occurred increasing the surface temperature well above
that of the boiling point for water, and evaporated all of the oceans into
its atmosphere. Because the water molecules were suspended in the
atmosphere, the sun was able to start breaking the molecule down and kicking
them out of orbit. However, much of the water still remains today, but
suspended in the form of clouds so thick that the only photos of the surface
of Venus are from a Soviet probe that landed on the surface. The green
house effect is real!
The second example comes from laboratory experiments that demonstrate how
CO2 is a green house gas.
There is a single flaw in both examples that cast serious doubt that CO2 is
having a measurable affect on the earth surface temperature. That flaw can
be summarize is a single phase; "order of magnitude"! CO2 in our atmosphere
is a 'trace' gas, measured in parts per million. The atmosphere on Venus
contains green house gasses that comprise a majority of the atmospheric
gasses; as in, almost the entire atmosphere is a green house gas.
Laboratory experiments demonstrating green house gasses also replace the
atmosphere in a chamber with mostly green house gasses. I challenge any
experiment that claims that they have taken a standard atmosphere, increased
the trace greenhouse gas by ten times its trace value, and measured an
increase in temperature within the experiment that can not be explained by
other superfluous affects.
The final clincher to my skepticism came the day I learned about a volcanic
explosion in (I think) the year 464 AD This volcano completely blew up an
entire island in the South Pacific. The island no longer exist, but its
remnants have been traced. This explosion cooled the entire earth by
several degrees for many years. It shortened the growing season for many
years and as one researcher (the one who discovered the event) believes,
caused the downfall of the Roman empire. (Because of lack of adequate
grazing land, the nomadic and warring Mongols migrated several thousand
miles into contact with the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire at
Constantinople in search of range land for their horses.)
Apparently, volcano researchers point to volcanoes as being a significant
global temperature influence on earth. However, they do NOT heat up the
atmosphere, but cool it. They point to Mount Saint Helen's explosion, and
the volcano explosion in the Philippines as showing a 'measurable' cooling
across the globe as seen by global surface temperature measurements.
According to volcano researchers, the last century has been mild with
respect to volcanic activity.
It appears to me, that the source of "global warming", if it is occurring,
is a quite naturally occurring phenomenon of volcanic inactivity. The
evidence, data, and 'order of magnitude' calculations are all available, but
obviously ignored, I believe, because disagreeing with "chicken little" (the
sky is falling) means losing research funding and being labeled
environmentally unfriendly. I think many scientist argue that cause is
"noble", even though the science behind it is lousy, so why fight it. While
I agree that funding and research to reduce pollution should be made, I
vehemently disagree with using "scare" tactics as a means to an end.
Thanks for letting me vent.
Ryan Grant
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bev Christian [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 12:50 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] No technical content? I beg to differ! Salvage
> the Age d thread
>
> 1) Somehow I missed the "No technical content rule" for the title, but I
> will adhere to it in the future.
> 2) My one liner (see thread below) was a very calculated sentence. You
> will
> notice I used a good chemist "weasel" word - might. I was hoping to spark
> a
> good technical discussion on global warming. This is something that could
> affect us all in our jobs (technical) and in our daily lives with our
> families. I have made the topic one of my hobbies and am trying to
> collect
> as much information on the subject as possible. And since any human
> activity, including the electronics industry, could be contributing to the
> phenomena, I thought I would see what I could precipitate.
>
> OK, let me see if I can jump start this again.
>
> I am not even sure I believe in man-made global warming. How's that for
> a
> provocative statement? However, if it does exist, I don't want to leave a
> mess for my children and grandchildren. As a result I think we should act
> responsibly and do our best to conserve and change our spendthrift ways.
> Canada is, I think, the biggest offender on a per capita basis and yet
> here
> we are trying to claim credit for the carbon sink of pre-existing trees!
>
> So, to get to the technical part, assuming mankind can have an actual
> effect on the whole process, how do you think that the electronics
> industry
> is contributing, both good and ill to the situation? Diatribes,
> suggestions, statements ,etc. gladly accepted, as long as it ties into the
> electronics industry.
>
> Let the games begin.
>
> regards,
> Bev Christian
> Research in Motion
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: May 4, 2001 5:18 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] Salvage the Aged
>
>
> Hey Bev,
>
> There ain't no "might" about it according to this article below...ain't
> nothing deadlier than a cow fart :^ {
>
> -Steve Gregory-
>
> 3/24/00 Canadian Company Tries To Reduce Cattle Flatulence For Environment
>
> CALGARY, Alberta (http://www.nandotimes.com) - It sounds like a joke, but
> a
> Canadian electric company insists an agreement signed Thursday to reduce
> cow
>
> flatulence - a source of one of the greenhouse gases that cause global
> warming - is no laughing matter. TransAlta, Canada's largest private power
> provider, said it has reached the multimillion-dollar agreement with
> Global
> Livestock Group, a U.S. company, to produce a feed supplement for cattle
> in
> Uganda that would reduce their belching and flatulence.
>
> Sprayed on the cattle's hay and feed, the supplement would ease the
> animals'
>
> digestion to minimize expulsions of methane gas and produce more and
> better
> meat and milk, according to TransAlta. If successful, the decrease in
> methane
> gas expelled would be equivalent to 30 million tons of carbon dioxide,
> company spokesman Tim Richter contended.
>
> "People tend to snicker at the obvious joke, but when they look at the
> size
> of the emissions we're talking about here, they say, `Wow, that's a lot,"'
> Richter said from Vancouver, where the announcement was made at an
> international environmental business conference.
>
> Greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, trap heat in the
> atmosphere and are believed to contribute to global warming. They are
> largely
> produced from burning oil, coal and gas.
>
> TransAlta has pursued the deal as part of its strategy to reduce its
> greenhouse gas emissions to a net equivalent of zero by 2024. Though the
> company's plants will still produce gases, they will be offset by
> eliminating
> an equivalent amount of gases elsewhere through the Uganda deal and other
> planned projects. TransAlta operates power plants in Alberta and has
> holdings
> in the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
>
> The agreement is the type envisioned by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an
> international treaty for industrialized nations to reduce the amount of
> greenhouse gas emissions to pre-1990 levels by the year 2012.
>
> The protocol, which still requires ratification, includes a proposal
> allowing
> companies to continue producing a higher level of greenhouse gases by
> gaining
> "credits" through projects reducing emissions elsewhere. Environmental
> groups
> question the validity of the strategy.
>
> > They also might contribute to global warming. :)
> >
> > Bev
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Werner Engelmaier [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: May 4, 2001 4:13 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [TN] Salvage the Aged
> >
> >
> > Hi Bernie, Brian, and other 'Old Farts" Collectively,
> > Many of us are kicking quite well, thank you very much. I play golf 4
> times
> > a
> > week and play tennis twice---if I am not too (much too busy for my
> taste)
> > busy with work which lately I am. When my company down-sized, I grabbed
> the
> > opportunity of the Early Retirement package offered--the people too
> young
> > for
> > it felt discriminated against--and started consulting; surely one of my
> > better decisions.
> > Bernie, don't let those Senior Moments get to you.
> > Brian, lay off the beans; besides the obvious effect, they also give
> you
> > gout.
> >
> > Werner Engelmaier
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
> To temporarily halt delivery of Technet send the following message: SET
> Technet NOMAIL
> Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases >
> E-mail Archives
> Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for
> additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
> ext.5315
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt delivery of Technet send the following message: SET Technet NOMAIL
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
