Which gas contributes the most to the "greenhouse effect"? (Alphabetical order)

There was a big Brittish study published a couple of months ago saying the number 1 producer of greenhouse gases in the world were cows.

Beano sales should skyrocket, buy your stock early. :)

There was a big Brittish study published a couple of months ago saying the number 1 producer of greenhouse gases in the world were cows.

Beano sales should skyrocket, buy your stock early. :)

I sometimes wonder about the people who write these articles. Are they deliberately being misleading or are they just totally ignorant. The same applies to people who claim that forests produce the oxygen we need and remove carbon dioxide from the air.

What do cows feed on? Grass.

How does grass grow? It uses sunlight, water, carbon dioxide and a few minerals to make carbohydrate, a little bit of protein and releases oxygen in the process. This is how all plants grow.

So when a cow eats grass it is eating carbon dioxide that has been removed from the atmosphere by the grass as it grew.

So when a cow releases greenhouse gases it is just putting back what has been removed.

Cows are not a net producer of greenhouse gases. Provided the cow stays alive and has not decomposed away it is a NET remover of greenhouse gases. Only when the cow expires and rots away is the carbon dioxide it was responsible for removing finally released back into the atmosphere; and at that point the NET contribution of the cow is ZERO

In fact all living creatures are NET removers of CO2 for their individual metabolic requirements; so long as they are alive. Then when they die and rot away all they do is put back what they briefly used. Humans fall into a unique category because by burning fossil fuels we are releasing back into the environment CO2 that was removed by plants millions of years ago.

The idea that we need trees to produce the oxygen we need is idiotic; the oxygen we need is produced by growing the plants that we eat. It doesn't make any difference whether we eat the plants directly or whether they are first turned into meat by living animals; food is essential to use trees are not.

In reality mature intact forests whether they are along the Amazon River or anywhere else in the world are completely neutral with regards to carbon dioxide removal and oxygen production. In a mature forest the death and decay of plant mass matches the rate of growth. When a mature forest is logged there is a net release of CO2 but like the dead cow this is only what it had removed in the first place.

Planting a tree does initiate net removal of CO2, very slowly. And it is also possible to figure out a 'barrels of oil equivalency'. On a dry weight basis wood contains about as much carbon as petroleum oil. "About as much" means it is within a factor of two. So the 'dry weight' of the annual growth of a tree is about equal to the weight of petroleum oil that tree has compensated for. Obviously a little sapling an inch or so in diameter is only going to compensate for a few pints of gasoline consumption. In a hundred years time when the tree that was planted as a result of your carbon offset credit is fifty feet high and two or three feet in diameter it may have accounted for a few hundred gallons; and most of that CO2 removal will have taken place during the last fifty years of the hundred not the first.

I think the biggest cause of the "greenhouse" effect and global warming is all the hot air (or is it hot CO2?) that the "humans are destroying the world!" crowd are blowing where my sun don't shine.

i think it must be cigarette smoke , the way people react to it these days is to the extreme,

so now i smoke twice as much just to piss em off

Geof,

I have been trying to think up an argument for what you have said and it finally dawned on me, and the answer was so simple.

You argument is based on conservation of matter, one of the most fundamental laws of physics. And as far as your argument goes it is correct. The earth has a finite amount of carbon and thus a fixed amount of carbon dioxide. This amount hasn’t changed appreciably in 4.7 billion years and still isn’t changing. And it does get constantly recycled from one form to another as you pointed out.

However, taking a large amount of carbon, and turning it into CO2, as with the burning of fossil fuels, which is then dumped into the atmosphere, puts an unusually large amount in a place where it doesn’t belong all at one time. As you pointed out it will eventually get recycled out. However, there is still more than the normal amount in the atmosphere.

Let’s take Aristotle’s argument that a stone sinks in water because it is made of earth and it’s proper place is with other things made of earth and extend it to the human body. You (all of us actually) are approximately 98% water. Having 98% of the stuff in your blood vessels being water is a good thing. The water is where it’s supposed to be. Now lets put 98% water into your lungs, not a pleasant experience (having fallen off a dock as a child before I learned to swim I can vouch that it is not pleasant). There has to be some moisture in the lungs for them to work properly, but nowhere near 98%. Likewise, the excessive CO2 in the atmosphere could be detrimental. Or it could be part of a natural warming cycle.

I’m still in the camp that says we don’t have enough information to tell how much global warming is due to the natural cycle and how much is due to the extra stuff we have caused to be in the air, but there is no harm in being careful about it. The extremists on one side say we are (or have already) pushing the planet past the point where it can recycle and recover. Extremists on the other side say there is no such thing a global warning.

So, just to be safe, I think we should round up all the cows we can get our hands on and have one heck of a CNCzone barbeque.

Steven; I guess by quoting your post I gave the impression I was commenting on or criticising something you had expressed; this was not my intent...the focus of my comments was the British Study saying cows were greenhouse gas producers. This is nonsense and that is what I was getting at.

Life on Earth is carbon based; that is a fact.

For land based life all the carbon that makes up their tissues has been obtained by fixing atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. For most water based life this is also the case but it is Carbon Dioxide that has dissolved into water and some of this comes from carbonates in rocks so it is not absolutely correct to make the same general statement as for land based life.

Therefore all life removes the greenhouse gas Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere by virtue of its very existence. This Carbon Dioxide stays removed until the lifeform dies and decays...there is no net effect.

Cows cannot be the number 1 producer of greenhouse gases; the claim is patently absurd.

I was not expressing any opinion on whether Global Warming is or is not occurring or what the cause is if it is occurring. I was stating that there is a lot of rubbish and misconception about the production or removal of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

For completeness I had to include the statement that humans in using fossil fuels are releasing back into the atmosphere Carbon Dioxide that was removed by living organisms a long time ago.

Geof,

I was just pointing out that you were right in 98% of your argument (probably closer to 100% right). I didn't take the quote personally at all. Your argument is very solid and it took me a few days to figure out a counterargument around it.

Physicists fall into 2 groups. Those who rely exclusively on the mathematics behind what they’re doing, and those of us who are not as good mathematically, who go into the philosophy of what it all means. Sometimes I’ll argue a point to see it this old brain can still think like it did in grad school. You always put together solid points and it’s always great to see if I can counter them. Sometimes I disappoint myself (like this last post which I’ll admit is a flimsy argument based on Aristotle’s 2500 year old argument… but it’s all I could think of). When I see a “scientific” study like the British one I figure I can quote it until is is disproved, no matter now absurd it may sound on face value.

For me, arguing like this is my version of chess or warcraft. And I hate to admit it, but you may be better at this type of argument than I am. There is an old saying “use it, or loose it”. Your probably single handedly doing more to keep me from going senile than anything else I’m doing.

I don't mean to pick on any one in particular, especially the survey writer but:

To me, this survey is all to typical of how the media is handling the "Global Warming" issue. Lets vote on the reason - Let popular opinion decide the matter.

How about objectively looking at the data and I mean all of the data that is available and come up with sound conclusions. Perhaps I am asking too much.

My opinion is that the data does show the climate is warming slightly, but we don't understand enough about the causes to be sure it is human caused. I haven't seen enough data to even say it is likely caused by human activity.

I ate waaaaaaaay to many beans last night.
It's my fault, sorry guys.
Seriously though, everything boils down to two things, money, and power.
Who stands to profit from this whole global warming discussion?
Al Gore and others stands to make a fortune.
Big oil stands to loose a fortune "along with George and Cheney"
We are gonna pay either way.
This whole cows causing global warming garbage is one of the stupidist things
I've ever heard. There used to be millions upon millions of buffalo
roaming the prarie before any white man stepped foot on this continent.
I believe global warming does exist, it's been slowly warming since
the last ice age.
BTW, this was one bitter cold winter, thank god for global warming.
we might have froze to death.
thank you for reading my rambelings.
never could write.

BTW, this was one bitter cold winter, thank god for global warming.
we might have froze to death.

Typical of anyone living in the cold countries to make a statement like this. Think about those living in the hot countries. Imagine if the north gets to be as hot as the equator (May or may not happen) where will the people go to live comfortably?

Typical of anyone living in the cold countries to make a statement like this. Think about those living in the hot countries. Imagine if the north gets to be as hot as the equator (May or may not happen) where will the people go to live comfortably?

DUDE!!!!!!!
I live in Missouri, far from the north country.
you might thank your lucky stars you didn't freeze to death in the
1970's,,,,,, or did you forget we were supposed to have another
ice age.

never, under any circumstances, underestimate the power of the media.
WAKE UP ALEXCCMEISTER!!!!! IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!!
YOU MY FRIEND HAVE SUCCOMMED TO PROPOGANDA!!!!!

don't let the media think for you, dig a little for the truth.

da riverrat

At a previous job we were sticking 15 gallons of trichloro- trifluoro ethylene intot he atmosphere every day... and there was no need for it. Now THAT'S a greenhouse gas and a half.

we were sticking 15 gallons of trichloro- trifluoro ethylene intot he atmosphere every day... .

Under the 'Cap N Trade' program you could have paid me $12 per day and I would have promised not to dump 15 gallons of trichloro- trifluoro ethylene into the atmosphere every day...

You would have been guilt-free, I would have been $12/day richer, and the world would have been the same. Just like the real carbon cap and trade system.

Before anyone thinks I'm being stupid (which is really a different topic anyway..), that is exactly what the chinese are doing this very moment by taking money under the cap and trade scam to close dirty coal plants....that they were going to close anyway.

I have to say that so far I'm impressed by the poll results...

9 people think that CO2, which represents .038% of the atmosphere, is the most significant greenhouse gas.

14 people think that H2O, which represents between .3 and 3% of the atmosphere, is the most significant greenhouse gas.

Me? I voted for H2O, 'cause I think it'll take the series. Unless of course CO2 comes from behind and starts forming clouds, in which case all bets are off.

I have to say that so far I'm impressed by the poll results...

9 people think that CO2, which represents .038% of the atmosphere, is the most significant greenhouse gas.

14 people think that H2O, which represents between .3 and 3% of the atmosphere, is the most significant greenhouse gas.

Me? I voted for H2O, 'cause I think it'll take the series. Unless of course CO2 comes from behind and starts forming clouds, in which case all bets are off.

I think the point I wanted to make is emerging and becoming clear.:)

the Chinese and Indians are dumping tons of crap into the air every day with no regard to "cap and trade" or any kind of international treaties. And their economies are growing rapidly which means their polution volume is also growing rapidly.

In Central America, the Hondouras Mahogony is a prized species of tree. So much so that a lumber company, locating a large one, may clear a logging road several miles into the forest to get to it. After they get the tree the locals move in and have a slash and burn party where they deforest areas on both sides of the logging road to set up small subsistance farms. Once the land is pretty much used up and no longer farmable, they follow the logging truck to the next Hondo tree. So what do we do. Educate them as to the follies of their ways... probably won't do much. Tell then the gods of the forest will be ticked off at them and give then gout... probably won't work for long. The only real thing that will work is to let them screw up enough land the hopefully learn from the folly of their ways before they screw up to much.

Young, formerly third world, beginning industrial countries are kind of like this where it comes to polution. Of course, older more established industrialized economies also make polution too. I'm not laying i all on the Chinese.

One more true story.

Anaconda Copper. Herad of them.. probably not, dissapeared in the early '70's you say. They used to be an American company. Smelting Copper and creating all kinds of really nasty copper byproducts that were highly toxic. So much so that there was a defoliated ring around their main plant, a zone of death to be dramatic. The feds imposed strict regulations on them to control this problem. Where are they now? Out of bussiness? Heck no! Their now a Mexican company with no polution controls.

....Anaconda Copper. Herad of them.. probably not, dissapeared in the early '70's you say. They used to be an American company. Smelting Copper and creating all kinds of really nasty copper byproducts that were highly toxic.....

Yes I have heard of Anaconda. I think they were the ones that left us in BC with a wonderful situation when they abandoned Brittania Mine on Howe Sound.

But I this post is a plea for elucidation from fizzisist.

I found this:

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

Which had the following:

The "greenhouse effect" is the heating of the Earth due to the presence of greenhouse gases. It is named this way because of a similar effect produced by the glass panes of a greenhouse. Shorter-wavelength solar radiation from the sun passes through Earth's atmosphere, then is absorbed by the surface of the Earth, causing it to warm. Part of the absorbed energy is then reradiated back to the atmosphere as long wave infared radiation. Little of this long wave radiation escapes back into space; the radiation cannot pass through the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The greenhouse gases selectively transmit the infared waves, trapping some and allowing some to pass through into space. The greenhouse gases absorb these waves and reemits the waves downward, causing the lower atmosphere to warm.(www.eb.com:180)

I put in the bolding; tell me how do the gases know which way is down and how do they reemit only in that direction?

This was there also:

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless non-flammable gas and is the most prominent Greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere

Are you having difficulty breathing? You should in an atmosphere with no water vapor.

And this:

Carbon Dioxide is emitted into the air as humans exhale, burn fossil fuels for energy, and deforest the planet. Every year humans add over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by these processes,

I guess either we eat fossil fuels or import food from outer space. I can't think how we have any net effect as humans, can you?

Last one:

Fossil Fuels were created chiefly by the decay of plants from millions of years ago

If the plants decayed, i.e. were metabolized by bacteria, etc, into H2O and CO2, where did the carbon in the fossil fuels come from?

I always thought the .edu indicated an educational institution but I didn't know things had degenerated that far.

China and India are going at a rate that will blow past us by 2009-2010 in CO2 emissions and other pollutants...assuming they aren't ALREADY puking other pollutants an order of magnitude more than us....

Check out pics of smog in China...
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=chinese+smog&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

EDIT....
"A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases...."
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html

Geof,
You want me to explain what specifically? The principles of wavelength bandpass/absorbtion for gasses and vapors, or statements made by UMich which are in error? They've got a great weather URL, and a very good lawschool...but that don't mean they're right all the time, and I'm not responsible for what they say or do.

On the matter of cows causing greenhouse gases. Unless they are in a feedlot most cows eat grass. Do away with all the cows and then what happens to the grass?. Also a lot of the pasture land is not suitable for growing any cultivated crop. So cows are harvesting grass produced by sunlight and turning it into some useful i.e. human food. BTW Cave paintings go back what? 30,000 years. Ever see a cave painting showing someone hunting for vegetables?

..Geof,
You want me to explain what specifically? ..

Nothing really. I just find it amusing and annoying that mistakes and mis-statements occur in things like that link. When someone is writing on a controversial topic any mistakes can give a dissenter a seemingly valid arguement to say the writer is wrong. The reemitting waves downwards is something I have seen for years; the emission is non-directional, it goes up as well and sideways and every which ways.

It is that very reason I generally prefer to offer a link to the paper itself when possible, and I try to keep the quotes in context...which I don't always do.
Yes, on occasion I get pissy and don't include quotes or data that can cast a shadow, but for the most part, I'm real careful to not provide ammo for the other side.

With all the media focus on global warming and the comments that the debate is over, it is fabulously amusing to see scientific programs covering non-climate topics where they say that the debate...such as with origins of dinosaurs and their history.....needs to continue for the science to progress.

Yup. It sure does.

....Yes, on occasion I get pissy.....

Whats your definition of occasion :) ? I can guess at 'pissy'.

Does anybody else get irritated by the use of "tons of CO2".
If you don't know what I mean, how much helium is in a ton of helium?
At least they should say metric ton, which is a unit of mass and not weight.

Cows are not a net producer of greenhouse gases.


The people who made fart jokes about cows producing so much greenhouse gas understand it, "... the big British study published a couple of months ago saying the number 1 producer of greenhouse gases in the world were cows" said it was about methane released in farts and burps, not CO2 .

I guess a gram of methane traps as much heat as 25 grams of CO2 .

It was a United Nations report titled "Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars." http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment

And sdantonio's joke about beano is true, see "Pill stops cow burps and helps save the planet"
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2040615,00.html

Does anybody else get irritated by the use of "tons of CO2".
If you don't know what I mean, how much helium is in a ton of helium?
At least they should say metric ton, which is a unit of mass and not weight.

Are you suggesting CO2 does not have any weight?

The people who made fart jokes about cows producing so much greenhouse gas understand it, "... the big British study published a couple of months ago saying the number 1 producer of greenhouse gases in the world were cows" said it was about methane released in farts and burps, not CO2 .

I guess a gram of methane traps as much heat as 25 grams of CO2 .

It was a United Nations report titled "Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars." http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment

And sdantonio's joke about beano is true, see "Pill stops cow burps and helps save the planet"
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2040615,00.html

During their growth cows, like all living things, sequester Carbon in their body tissues. In the case of humans the Carbon used to make their tissues is equivalent to about 50Kg of CO2. Cows are heavier by about 8 to 10fold but made out of basically the same material so a cow will have sequestered the Carbon from up to 500kg of Carbon Dioxide. So taking your 25 to 1 ratio as being correct a cow will have to produce 20kg of methane before it has a net effect. That is before the methane it has produced has a greater effect than the CO2 it has removed. In addition the residence time of methan in the atmosphere is around 12 years so it is being constantly removed.

Are you suggesting CO2 does not have any weight?

No.
Certainly dry ice has weight.
About 28.3 grams of it weighs an ounce,
but 28.3 grams of CO2 at 1 atmosphere and at 25 degrees Celsius
weighs about .33 ounces.

During their growth cows, like all living things, sequester Carbon in their body tissues. In the case of humans the Carbon used to make their tissues is equivalent to about 50Kg of CO2. Cows are heavier by about 8 to 10fold but made out of basically the same material so a cow will have sequestered the Carbon from up to 500kg of Carbon Dioxide. So taking your 25 to 1 ratio as being correct a cow will have to produce 20kg of methane before it has a net effect. That is before the methane it has produced has a greater effect than the CO2 it has removed. In addition the residence time of methan in the atmosphere is around 12 years so it is being constantly removed.

I'm not going argue the validity of the UN report, but when I heard it I did think that methane molecules in the atmosphere must fairly quickly burn into water and CO2 . We certainly know that it's not a stable molecule.

But why would we really care about how much CO2 a cow sequesters? From cow inception until the time we crap them out and exhale their sequestered CO2 can't be much more than 5 years.
I guess the CO2 sequestered in their skin stays locked up for quite a long time. How much leather do you get from a cow?

No.
Certainly dry ice has weight.
About 28.3 grams of it weighs an ounce,
but 28.3 grams of CO2 at 1 atmosphere and at 25 degrees Celsius
weighs about .33 ounces.

28.3 grams of anything weighs an ounce; that is the conversion between metric and imperial measure. Technically not correct because it should be phrased as gram force or some silly unit like that.

More technically correct is; something with a mass of 28.3 grams has a weight of 1 ounce.

But I cannot see how you can claim that 28.3 grams of a substance has a different weight depending on whether it is in the solid or vapor phase.

Possibly what you have done is taken into account the bouyant force of the rest of the atmosphere. I suppose if you took 28.3 grams of CO2 and used it to fill a balloon the apparent weight would be something like .33 ounce.

But this is akin to saying that a ship in drydock weights more than a ship
afloat.

From your other post But why would we really care about how much CO2 a cow sequesters? From cow inception until the time we crap them out and exhale their sequestered CO2 can't be much more than 5 years.

This is more or less what I am getting at. The cow grows by eating grass or grain, or ground up other cows if you are not worried about BSE. The grass or grain contains carbohydrate which was made by the plant using CO2 from the atmosphere. Every Carbon atom in the cow came from a CO2 molecule sequestered from the atmosphere. When the cow is slaughtered and eaten, etc the Carbon atoms go back to being in Carbon Dioxide again. The cows existence has no NET effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

To say that cows are the biggest greenhouse gas producers is nonsensical. Agriculture because it consumes fossil fuel to operate machinery etc is a significant NET producer of CO2. The plants and animals have no net effect.

It does not matter to me where a report originates; hocus pocus is hocus pocus.

I will not argue the fact that the Earth is warming up. The point of fact is it has been for centuries. There are drawings on rocks, deep inside the Sahara desert of animals native to the grass lands and other more airable areas. The questions is that the Earth is warming much faster then past estimates can account for. What is causing the rapid rate of warming? The only answer so far has been attributed to human activities, i.e. industrial activites. But the problem is that there is some, though minor, doubt if that is the only cause. I have recently heard that the other planets of our solar system are also warming up. Why? I have also read in a news release from NASA that one scientist believes the sun will shortly enter a extremely active solar cycle. More so then has been recorded. Is the sun partly the cause? Is there other causes that have not been examined yet? Personnelly I reserve my final views for now. Though, if one episod of the PBS series NOVA is correct, we are so very screwed. Read the trascript of Dimming the Sun
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html

I do feal that the humans have had a major impact on the planet. More often then not, for the worse. How many species have gone extinct, or on the verge? How severely has the general enviroment been contaminated over the years? I used to love fishing, and later eating my catch. Now these days there are warnings about our fish being contaminated with various toxins.

To often, the only thing that motivates humans is greed for wealth and/or power. Rarely looking down the road to see what will come at the end because of what was done today out of greed.

28.3 grams of anything weighs an ounce; that is the conversion between metric and imperial measure. Technically not correct because it should be phrased as gram force or some silly unit like that.


What does 28.3 grams of helium weigh?
what does 28.3 grams of helium weigh on the moon?
An ounce?
I guess you have a different definition of weight than I do, but you do get what I'm saying.

What does 28.3 grams of helium weigh?
what does 28.3 grams of helium weigh on the moon?
An ounce?
I guess you have a different definition of weight than I do, but you do get what I'm saying.

I live on the earth not on the moon. Yes of course on the moon the weight is different. On earth the weight of something is the gravitational attraction for that something; same any place else. But you were differentiating between solid CO2 and gaseous CO2. Most times when you weight something it is not necessary to correct for the bouyant effect but when weighing a quantity of gas that is necessary. That is what you overlook with your .33 ounce result.

The cows existence has no NET effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

To say that cows are the biggest greenhouse gas producers is nonsensical. Agriculture because it consumes fossil fuel to operate machinery etc is a significant NET producer of CO2. The plants and animals have no net effect.

It does not matter to me where a report originates; hocus pocus is hocus pocus.

My original post was to point out that the report blamed methane produced by cows, not CO2.
Your calculation of the net CO2 produced has nothing to do with it.

Most times when you weight something it is not necessary to correct for the bouyant effect but when weighing a quantity of gas that is necessary. That is what you overlook with your .33 ounce result.

I guess we have different definitions of weight.

Dear Geof,

Sulphur Hexafluouride...very bad greenhouse gas? Well, maybe....but let's get it into perspective.

One way of measuring the air change rate in buildings ( or indeed any other enclosure) is to inject a known volume of tracer gas and then detect the rate at which the tracer decays as it is diluted by ventilation air from outside. If the ventilation rate is constant, the tracer gas concentration will fall away exponentially, and the ventilation rate can be calculated.

Obviously, the tracer gas should have a high concentration within the test enclosure , initially, compared to its concentration in the outside atmosphere. Otherwise, you will not measure the decay accurately.

Now, a while ago, a certain Mr Lovelock invented an "electron capture device"
that can detect extremely small concentrations of gasses. I have one, and it is incorporated into a gas chromatograph. The gizmo is tuned to detect sulphur-hexafluoride so that we can detect tracer gas concentrations for measuring building ventilation rates by the method mentioned above.

If we inject SF6 into the enclosure at an initial concentration greater than 50 parts per 10^9 (50 parts per billion), the detector is overloaded and we have to go through a painful purge proceedure. We try to avoid this.

The gizmo is quite capable of reliably reading SF6 concentrations well below 0.5 parts per billion during a tracer decay experiment within a building, and "flat-lines" far below that level.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (say) 350 parts per million

Atmospheric sulphur-hexafluoride (say) below 0.1 parts per billion

Looks like SF6 must be really wicked unless I've missed something. (Probably have!)

Best wishes

Martin

My original post was to point out that the report blamed methane produced by cows, not CO2.
Your calculation of the net CO2 produced has nothing to do with it.

Right, I was adopting a technique used by a lot of people when discussing conflicting points. Focus on something which, in-and-of-itself, is correct but which may not be pertinent to the specific topic under discussion.

And I wonder if it could be validly claimed that the people who go on about methane from cows are using the same technique. Is the methane allegedly released by cows relevant to Global Warming? Is it a new thing, has it been increasing or is it part of the background level that has been there all along. Methane is scavenged from the atmosphere fairly quickly so if bovines have been belching for a long time their contribution has reached a static level. Simply measuring the output at one point in time doesn't really mean much.

...Sulphur Hexafluouride...Martin

Sounds horrible. How come it doesn't just sit and sulk on the floor? It must be quite heavy.

I assume the Lovelock you refer to is the Gaia man. So you are helping make him even richer. :)

Sounds horrible. How come it doesn't just sit and sulk on the floor? It must be quite heavy.

I assume the Lovelock you refer to is the Gaia man. So you are helping make him even richer. :)

Dear Geof,

Yes, it is indeed the very same Mr Lovelock. I suppose there is a certain irony there.

SF6 is heavier than air, but I think it still stays well mixed within a space because the concentration is so low compared to the other gases (random walk or something). We did an experiment in a completely sealed enclosure (an oil barrel) and sampled for a day. There was no sulking.

Best wishes

Martin

...SF6 is heavier than air, but I think it still stays well mixed within a space because the concentration is so low compared to the other gases (random walk or something)....

Doesn't Mr Brown have some responsibility here?

Doesn't Mr Brown have some responsibility here?

Dear Geof,

Yikes! It's been many a long year since I last heard anybody mention Brownian Motion. It all comes flooding back...( unreliably )

Best wishes

Martin

Dear Geof,

Yikes! It's been many a long year since I last heard anybody mention Brownian Motion. It all comes flooding back...( unreliably )

Best wishes

Martin

Obviously you are not past it.......yet. :)

13 people so far have voted for CO2 as the most important gas..vs. 21 for H20

I'm more and more amazed with each vote that those 13 people aren't paying ANY attention.....Of course, how could you expect NASA to have any credibility (the same outfit that employs James Hansen....note the irony in that one!!)

".... Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases...."
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...5humidity.html

Hmmmmm......H20 is typically between .3-3% of our atmosphere, and makes CLOUDS which both cool and trap heat....while C02 is .038%....

Sorry...didn't mean to change the subject. We use SF6 here as an insulating gas for switches and spark gaps, among other things. So far no penguins have perished.

(I inhale virtual SF6 online to lower my voice. It makes me sound sexier on AOL....I do it here sometimes when I need to sound more authoritative.)

....and makes CLOUDS which both cool and trap heat....

Which do which? If you will excuse the poor grammar :) . Tis a serious question; I thought low level caused cooling and high, maybe very high could cause heating. However, recently I read something which suggested high level causes cooling. So am I back asswards?

Cirrus clouds, which form between 30,000-60,000ft can both heat and cool, depending on thickness, altitude, and ice crystal size. Its generally considered that they trap heat though, by reflecting IR that is coming back up from earth.

So, the general idea is that high altitude clouds trap heat, and low altitude clouds reflect. Problem is, we really don't understand enough to quantify what's going on, so general circulation models (GCM) are terrible at giving us a good view of climate influences.

CloudSat and CALIPSO are gathering data on cirrus clouds, and should be giving us some interesting stuff soon...since they've been up for a year now??

Ice crystal formation and clouds are a HUGE unknown in climate science, and that's one reason I have a hard time swallowing the CO2 argument all by itself.

Here's CloudSat's homepage....just one of many links on clouds..
http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/home

Thank you. So I am not entirely upside down; high heating, low cooling to a first approximation. So are aircraft contrails high clouds? They cause heating? When they are not being used for dispersing mind altering drugs :) ?

The 'huge unknown' bit I was more or less aware of. One article I read explained that clouds were left out of some of the models the AGW crowd use because they didn't understand what the clouds did so they ignored them.

Dear climate change dudes,

SF6 is rated at about 22,000 times worse than C02 as a "greenhouse gas"

.http://www.earthfuture.com/stormyweather/greenhouse/


Could be true, but I'm always sceptical about those climate experts. They get bread on the table for "advising" politicians who are, frankly, completely out of their depth on any issues of a technical nature. The politicians, poor dears that they are, probably studied law at university and have no idea at all of the science. A lucky few may actually be able to change a light bulb.

They easily fall victim to the "experts". Not entirely surprising given that shed-loads of money come the "experts" way to report some crisis that only the politicians can legislate against, and incidentally, about which they have zero understanding ,and then attempt to take the credit for . It is a strange kind of symbiotic circle. The more jaundiced might call it (hmm) "playing" with each other.

OK, the rant ends here. How about science?

Atmospheric CO2 concentration about 350 parts per million

Atmospheric SF6 concentration less than 0.1 parts per billion ( could well be a lot less , but I can't measure below that level myself).

If my calculator is working, that suggests that there is a worst case of SF6 molecules being out-numbered by a factor of at least 3.5 million by CO2 molecules in the existing atmosphere. Even if the SF6/CO2 "badness ratio" of 22,000, SF6 is a pigmy.

Then there is the problem of H2O ( bad stuff} ...cows breaking wind.. pine trees giving off methane and all the rest.

You have to have a good laugh...

Best wishes

Martin

...pine trees giving off methane...

I thought it was terpenes.

Thank you. So I am not entirely upside down; high heating, low cooling to a first approximation. So are aircraft contrails high clouds? They cause heating? When they are not being used for dispersing mind altering drugs :) ?

The 'huge unknown' bit I was more or less aware of. One article I read explained that clouds were left out of some of the models the AGW crowd use because they didn't understand what the clouds did so they ignored them.

Contrails, so far as I've heard, tend to cool...which could offset some of the heating effect of the net exhaust components. The major exception being the jets used by AlGore, since they have Zero net effect on climage because he pays himself with carbon credits.

Odd, isn't it, that we don't hear much from the AGW crowd about the effects of depositing the exhaust gasses WAY up in the atmosphere??? Of course we won't hear much from 'em, because THEY like to enjoy the comfort, convenience, and speed of jet travel.

Contrails, so far as I've heard, tend to cool..AGW crowd...like to enjoy the comfort, convenience, and speed of jet travel...

Comfort, convenience and speed have nothing to do with it. They are making a gallant sacrifice for the sake of the planet. You state: "(Jet exhaust} contrails...tend to cool."

Which makes me feel very virtuous about an upcoming trip to Budapest.

I thought it was terpenes.

Dear Geof,

You are almost certainly right. Alas, it almost certainly won't be the last time I parade my stupidity in public.

Anyway, I had a closer inspection of the web link in post #47.

It says the atmospheric concentration of SF6 is about 5 parts per trillion, that it is growing at about 6% per year, and that it is 22,000 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

I had assumed that the background level of SF6 was about 20 times greater.

If you believe their figures, it's going to quite some time for SF6 to make any difference to global warming. It's not a pigmy....... it a pigmy of a pigmy of a pigmy....(etc).

Ah, then there's that problem with H2O.

Best wishes


Martin

We probably ought to be careful about pointing out the inconvenient facts about water vapor.

Why? Because next the environ mentalists will be wanting to tax and regulate your water usage!

You could probably enslave people just as well by throttling their water as you could by throttling their energy. Think about it. Oh, wait, they're already busy on that front!

--97T--

Anyway, I had a closer inspection of the web link in post #47.
Ah, then there's that problem with H2O.


I had a closer look at that link too...and I'm not terribly impressed. One can be easily mislead by the numbers....or lack of...

Notice that there is NO value for radiative forcing for water, which makes up (typically) between .3 to 3% of our atmosphere. There's a radiative value for something that constitutes POINT ZERO THREE EIGHT PERCENT (that's .038% ), but not for something that's an order of magnitude or 2 more???

The reason is simple, of course, it is because we don't know. We do know it is a lot, but it varies, it varies a LOT, and we don't know the net sign. Does that mean we can leave it out of the equation. NOOOOOOOOO!!!!

That is one of the many reasons that the gcm's don't work.

The residence time of H2O is estimated to be around 43 days....and to use IPCC tolerances, make that +/- 21 days. (my value)

..... because we don't know. We do know it is a lot, but it varies, it varies a LOT, and we don't know the net sign. Does that mean we can leave it out of the equation. NOOOOOOOOO!!!!.....

Oh dear, you will never make a good scientist. Of course you leave it out; how are you going to make the model fit your preconceived notions if you don't?

Did you just call him Dear?

Hehe.

--97T--

It's ok...we're on pretty good terms at the moment.. :)

Oh dear, you will never make a good scientist. Of course you leave it out; how are you going to make the model fit your preconceived notions if you don't?

TONIGHT ON CNN'S Headline News!!
http://www.glennbeck.com/tv/climate/globalwarmingsppt1.pdf

Did you just call him Dear?

Hehe.

--97T--

No, lower case 'd'.

"....Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and several other gases present in the atmosphere in small amounts also contribute to the greenhouse effect...."

For those of you who voted for CO2, you're in disagreement with even the IPCC. Really. Honest. That's where I got the quote!!

The IPCC says that H2O is #1. Numero Uno. El Primero. Ichiban.

So there ya have it. The IPCC says it's water vapor, the AGW deniers say it's water vapor. Even Eric Cartman says it's water vapor.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_FAQs.pdf

The IPCC says that H2O is #1. Numero Uno. El Primero. Ichiban.

]


Dear fizzissist,

Presumably boiling water for a cup of coffee is now regarded as a greater global crime that releasing the carbon dioxide in my cans of lager......?

The IPCC is suggesting that the responsible global citizen should go all out to hoard the beer?

Yikes!


Best wishes

Martin

Dear fizzissist,

Presumably boiling water for a cup of coffee is now regarded as a greater global crime that releasing the carbon dioxide in my cans of lager......?

The IPCC is suggesting that the responsible global citizen should go all out to hoard the beer?

Yikes!


Best wishes

Martin

Of course!! Coffee drinking is a multiple sin; first you encourage destruction of Tropical Rain Forests...the LUNGS OF THE PLANET!!!!, then you contribute to GLOBAL WARMING by emitting CO2 and water vapor while boiling your water and to cap it off your coffee grounds contribute to the solid waste problem.

You should feel ashamed of yourself(chair)

Of course!! Coffee drinking is a multiple sin; first you encourage destruction of Tropical Rain Forests...the LUNGS OF THE PLANET!!!!, then you contribute to GLOBAL WARMING by emitting CO2 and water vapor while boiling your water and to cap it off your coffee grounds contribute to the solid waste problem.

You should feel ashamed of yourself(chair)


Dear Geof,

Not wishing to get down to a personal level, but didn't you mention, somewhere hereabouts, that you were a herbivore?????


What about your , (ahem), methane contribution.......?

Best wishes,

Martin

Dear Geof,

Not wishing to get down to a personal level, but didn't you mention, somewhere hereabouts, that you were a herbivore?????


What about your , (ahem), methane contribution.......?

Best wishes,

Martin

I am, as you say, a herbivore...actually an omnivore because I only eschew beef and chicken. However, I am not a ruminant having only one stomach.

I believe beef and chicken should be well-chewed too.

--97T--
Sorry, couldn't resist.

I am, as you say, a herbivore...actually an omnivore because I only eschew beef and chicken. However, I am not a ruminant having only one stomach.

Dear Geof,

I do not doubt that your "carbon footprint" is pigmy-sized compared to mine.

I boil coffee, open cans of beer, and ruminate......

S: (v) chew over, think over, meditate, ponder, excogitate, contemplate, muse, reflect, mull, mull over, ruminate, speculate

Triple whammy for the planet.. we are, indeed, all utterly doomed.

Best wishes

Martin

I boil coffee, open cans of beer, and ruminate......

S: (v) chew over, think over, meditate, ponder, excogitate, contemplate, muse, reflect, mull, mull over, ruminate, speculate.....Martin

I suppose if you ruminate you must be a ruminant.

Courtesy of dictionary. com and other sources:

eschew \es-CHOO\, transitive verb:
To shun; to avoid (as something wrong or distasteful).

ru·mi·nate (rū'mə-nāt')

v., -nat·ed, -nat·ing, -nates.

v.intr.
To turn a matter over and over in the mind.
To chew cud.
v.tr.
To reflect on over and over again.

ru·mi·nant (rū'mə-nənt)
n.
Any of various hoofed, even-toed, usually horned mammals of the suborder Ruminantia, such as cattle, sheep, goats, deer, and giraffes, characteristically having a stomach divided into four compartments and chewing a cud consisting of regurgitated, partially digested food.

adj.
Characterized by the chewing of cud.
Of or belonging to the Ruminantia.
Meditative; contemplative.

I suppose if you ruminate you must be a ruminant.

.

Dear Geof,

I just "came out of the pasture" in my last post. It's taken years to summon up the courage.

Best wishes

Martin

"Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone"

Lettse now, all this planets life forms depend on H2O raining down from clouds,
but NOT raining CO2, Methane, nitrous oxide, or ozone clouds!

Pres

....Lettse now, all this planets life forms depend on H2O raining down from clouds,
but NOT raining CO2, Methane, nitrous oxide, or ozone clouds!

Pres

Most life depends on CO2 as much as H20.

Lettse now, all this planets life forms depend on H2O raining down from clouds,
but NOT raining CO2, Methane, nitrous oxide, or ozone clouds!



All chlorophyll containing plants convert CO2 into carbohydrates (food) and oxygen when exposed to light and water.
Both carbohydrates and oxygen are required for animal (human) life. Without CO2, plants cannot grow; without plants,
animals cannot survive.

Animal life and fossil fuel combustion give off CO2 and water to feed the plants.

By this definition of the cycle of life you must consider water a pollutant if CO2 is a pollutant. Clearly water is not a pollutant,
and neither is CO2.

Just because CO is toxic does not make CO2 a pollutant. Carbon and nitrogen are the building blocks of protein,
but CN is a deadly toxin.

Don’t confuse the attributes of different compounds containing similar elements.

The antidote to this confusion:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global


http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=label%3A%22global%20warming%20swindle%22

.....Animal life and fossil fuel combustion give off CO2 and water to feed the plants....

I put in the bold on your "...and fossil fuel combustion..." because including that in the whole sentence is not correct.

Fossil fuel combustion releases CO2 that was utilized by plants millions of years ago but which were neither consumed by animals nor bacteria or other decay processes. The CO2 released from the combustion of fossil fuels is over and above the CO2 participating in the CO2 cycle in the current biosphere; it is not necessary to maintain the current CO2 cycle.

This is one of the three points of this highly contentious issue:

Human activity in using fossil fuel is releasing extra CO2 into the atmosphere; that is undeniable.

The Globe is warming, that is obvious from retreat of glaciers worldwide, reduction in Arctic ice cover, changes in timing of plant germination in spring and a host of other observations; Global Warming is undeniable.

The third point is the one that may be deniable, some people vehemently claim it is deniable and others equally strongly claim it is an absolute fact that the increased levels of CO2 are causing the warming.

Only time will tell which side is correct.

There are other points: The Human-generated-CO2-is-responsible side claim that the warming will cause worldwide catastrophe and we must act now to prevent this. Their solution is to seriously curb CO2 emission or more popularly it seems, pay someone who says they will do this, and carry on in their own merry way.

Siginificant real reduction in CO2 will create a worldwide economic recession or depression almost instantly; fossil fuel combustion and economic acitivity are inseparable. However, if the CO2 is responsible for the warming it will continue without change for several decade after the start of any reductions in CO2 emission.

So if the CO2-is-the-culprit people are correct there are two choices:

Drastically cut fossil fuel use, wreck the world economy and go into a future of catastrophe with a chaotic economic system.

Recognize that climate change is going to have many adverse effects and go into them with a functioning economy which can respond to the changes in a rational manner.

Fossil fuel combustion releases CO2 that was utilized by plants millions of years ago...
.

That CO2 was in the air long ago before it became part of the plants; then it was locked into the earth as coal or oil. By burning the coal or oil we are simply putting the CO2 back where it came from; the atmosphere.

My main point is that CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of the carbon cycle essential to life. I was not suggesting that we rely on CO2 from fossil fuel combustion to feed plants, but that it doesn't hurt.

Hey guys, just like people green houses gases are not created equal. While there is alot more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane and it's overall effect is much greater, the the methane is about 25 times as potent pound for pound. I don't have the numbers but cattle and other grass eaters produce a lot more methane than you might think. Other sources of methane could be much more significant in the not too distant future as huge ammounts are currently being released from lakes in tundra areas that are thawing out for the first time in thousands of years

Cattle contribute an estimated 12% of the atmospheric methane.

"Eat a steak, drown a Tuvalu."

I always get amused at the "it must be human caused global warming because it has never changed so fast before" crowd. They act like an increase of one degree a century is some kind of astronomical abnormal record.

But they totally overlook the fact that world wide temps DECREASED almost 6C in one century about 600 years ago kicking off the "little ice age". They still don't know what caused the temps to drop so rapidly then and the still have no idea what is causing them to rise now. There "logic" appears to work something like this:

1) Temps are increasing faster than I have ever seen in MY lifetime!
2) There are more people than ever before and
3) These people are releasing more C02 in the atmosphere than before, SO

4) People MUST be causing global warming because of the CO2 increase!!! Panic!!! Scream!!! Run to the hills!!!! Pass a law that will destroy the economy but make me rich!!!!

I had to laugh my butt off at a scientist on a program about lighting. All in all, the program was very interesting. But the best quote was "We still don't understand lightening. According to the laws of physics AS WE KNOW THEM air to ground lightening SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. But at every thunderstorm any idiot with eyes can go out and PROVE that the "laws of physics as they know them" are blatantly WRONG! And yet these same scientist are perfectly willing to go out and say they KNOW that humans are "destroying the earth" with all our activities (well, some of them are at any rate).

This discussion reminds me of the line my undergrad chemistry professor used on fellows with strident positions "the only students worse than uneducated ones are the half educated ones".

There are more chemical reactions taking place on the head of a pin, than you can comprehend, so lets not get carried away with the world guys.

If someone here can simply tell me why basic photo synthesis works. Not how but why. Or how is it that plant trophisms such as gravity or sun direction cause plant cells to project one direction in favor of another. If you cannot explain how the simplest monocot can grow one mm, then maybe this worldly discussion about co2 is a bit proud.

By the way, if someone buried the dead cow, she would go anarobic and create sulfur compounds that smell a lot like some of comments in this thread, and carbon monoxide and methane. If methane using H forms a perfect tetrahedron with carbon, symetrical and all, then it is considered very stable, saturated. Saturated with all of the Cs and total reduction of Hs from the carbohydrates.

See when the discussion goes beyond the aroma of HS hydrogen sulfide, the pH drops below 2 and the next derivative is CH4, that's right, the whole damn thing blows up.

Remember the hallway walls of the Matrix movie, made of 10 to the 23 green bits and bytes. If you could see the chemcial reactions taking place around your personal environment, it would look like that. But they would not be static or linear. Equilibriums would be the norm, atoms, ions, molecules in constant flux. All being pushed and pulled to form more co here, then more co2 there.

Did someone in this forum say the world is changing, YOU BET, and you think your going to do something planet wide about it? THEN IVE WASTED MY TIME HERE TONIGHT.
gh

Glory hallalulu brothers! the world is finally getting warm so that the traumatic conditions of the past ice ages are a thing of the past.

All the pseudo scientists quoting spurious reams of data that taken as a whole, amount to nothing, and the sum total of all your data quotes just adds up to the conclusion that NO-ONE really knows what is happening or is going to happen.

NO-ONE can predict the future weather patterns, a most studied topic that has so many variables, that by the time you reach any conclusion that would indicate that the day is going to start out cool and end up cool with sunny patches in between, it is over.

The theme is the most important greenhouse gas.
This would have to be water vapour in the atmosphere.
Without it there would be no rain, which is the most efficient way to distribute water known to man.

You can forget about ALL the latest figures on green house gasses.
No one is doing ANYTHING to limit or control them.
The USA is not putting pressure on China or India to limit their inhouse activities that so say CONTRIBUTE to the global warming.

Far from it, these third world countries are rapidly overtaking the world economies, and as they become dominant in commerce, just as the Victorians did 100 years ago, it is we who will stand in their shadow and marvel at their achievments, as they gobble up the raw materials that go to make the products that in the past made us rich at their expense.

The important fact that escapes most people is that the global warming is benign, whereas if it was a global cooling it would be a disaster.
The last thing the globe wants is a cooling pattern with ice sheets covering the northern hemisphere.

We forget that in the past with ice age situations, the populations were thinly spread, with nomadic hunter gatherers prowling the planet, unlike the present day with cultivated food crops, populations bursting at the seams, and food production being manipulated genetically to increase the yield per hectare as never before.

Be warned, if there was a recurrence of an ice age, even if it was of miniscule proportions, in the Northern hemisphere, you would get a mass migration of billions of people to the Southern Hemisphere that has not got the capability to support it.
You could forget about ecological values in the fight for survival.

We exist on a very narrow band of temperature regions.
Take for example a region that has a Mediteranean climate with summer temps of 30 deg C and winters of 10 deg C.

All the food crops that are suited to this region are numerous, but the region is small.
Compare this to a region that has a winter that drops to 4 deg C for 6 months of the year and a Summer that barely gets to 15 deg C, probably suited for rice production but not for large scale grain crops like wheat and oats etc.

Then compare the rest of the areas that have winters that drop to -10 deg C and summers that rarely exceed 10 deg C and are mostly overcast with thick cloud cover all the time, and you will soon realise that food crops won't grow out of a narrow band of temperatures.

The global warming is not an issue when there is no warmth.

It is not even an issue if the seas rise and the shorelines of low areas are inundated, compared to the catastrophe that would occur if the seas fell by a metre and the land was covered in a deep blanket of snow and ice.

At the end of the day, despite all the wars spewing noxious fumes from all the ordinance fired without a thought to the health of mankind, and all the volcanic activity producing more poisonous gasses than we could ever produce, the presence of certain fluctuating quantities of CO2 pales into insignificence when we consider that the population growth is the real producer of pollution.

China will not significantly reduce it's population levels, for to do so would deny it the opportunity to dominate the world by sheer manpower alone, and the other bustling populatons like India, Africa, the USA and South America are in the same boat, for to reduce their numbers would put them in a minority group status on the world stage.

At this moment in time, anywhere in the world, the pressure is to provide sufficient quantities of clean water so that you can wash the car each week and hose your driveways down, without the worry that the rains in winter won't fill the dams for the Summer months and water restrictions will ensue.

My opinion is that H2O is the most important greenhouse gas.
Ian.

....At this moment in time, anywhere in the world, the pressure is to provide sufficient quantities of clean water so that you can wash the car each week and hose your driveways down, without the worry that the rains in winter won't fill the dams for the Summer months and water restrictions will ensue.

My opinion is that H2O is the most important greenhouse gas.
Ian.

Well done Mr Handlewanker; remarkably well done for a misplace Limey-come-Ozzie:D.

And I suppose I should relent and be a little serious for once; putting smart aleck comments aside your dissertation is among, if not, the best I have seen on the Global Warming/Climate Change topic. Your only error is right at the end; here on the coast of British Columbia having enough rain in the winter is something we do not need to worry about and it is inconceivable that we ever will.

Hi Geof, "a misplaced Limey"? I left Blighty in 1948 and spent 20 years in South Africa, back to Blighty for 7 years then on to Oz since 1981, so that makes me a rolling stone by anybody's imagination.

I don't suppose you could send a container load of water to OZ seeing as it's coming out of your ears and you lot don't know what to do with it?
Perhaps you could redirect an iceberg and send it to us, it's been proposed by serious thinking people.
Our dams in Melbourne are on the 40% full mark, and so we don't get to pee every day.

They've got the same situation in South Africa, and when I was there last in 2005 they had a phrase to suit the situation, "if it's yellow let it mellow, but if it's brown flush it down".

The whole problem is not with the lack of water but with water distribution.
There's plenty of water about but too much in one quarter and not enough elsewhere.
If I remember rightly San Francisco is watered by the building of a canal some years back to bring water from the mountains, without which the city would not exist.

I blame the politicians, for it's them that have the power of attorney to act on our behalf, and they have the means to create the infrastructure to supply water where it's needed.

Perhaps a little less money spent on making war paraphenalia that soon get obsolete and have to be replaced by bigger and "better" killing machines, instead of a combined effort to build canal systems to redirect the surplus H2O.

Imagine redirecting just some of the water that flooded New Orleans, it certainly would have taken some of the pressure off of the levee banks that collapsed when the Mrs 'sippi went to town.

Even the Incas in Peru recognised the value of a water supply, and who without mechanical means channeled the water to their terraces many hundreds of years ago.
Ian.

Just as an observation, Global warming? better think of Global Warning.
We don't think, we have paid others to think for us, and look where that has left us.

Unless we ensure our water supply we are going to have a problem feeding the growing population, which is not going to go away, unless we ignore the problem, and then some of us ARE going to "go away".
Ian

Hi Geof, "a misplaced Limey"?...

I don't suppose you could send a container load of water to OZ seeing as it's coming out of your ears and you lot don't know what to do with it?...

If I remember rightly San Francisco is watered by the building of a canal some years back to bring water from the mountains, without which the city would not exist.

....Even the Incas in Peru recognised the value of a water supply, and who without mechanical means channeled the water to their terraces many hundreds of years ago.
Ian.

You are as much of a Limey as I am...born in Yorkshire and carried off to New Zealand in '52 by my family; been a Canadian since 1974 though.

Sorry, can't export Canadian water, touchy subject here because of the Greenies, they seem to have the idea that water is a restricted resource:confused::confused::confused:

EDIT because I hit the wrong button:

It is Los Angeles I think not San Fran. Actually I think the San Franites are a bit teed off because South Cal "steals" their water...another touchy subject.

And the Peruvians also had the problems of earthquakes which tipped everything the wrong way so their canals ran backwards.

And I live on a river delta about six inches above high water mark..glub, glub

Los Angeles? I knew it was somewhere over there, saw the making of the canal on the History program on TV, but what the hell, if it's feasible to create a stable environment, it can be done on a greater scale.

Now if we can only find a way to desalinate sea water economically, I'd have a bath every day instead of once a year, and only then if it was really necessary, but for now it's the shower with economy shower rose.

Wow Geof, you do like to live dangerously.
One of the criterior I abide by is to live on high ground.
When I went back to Uk in the late 60's we settled in Bristol, and in the previous August there had been serious flooding when the Chew valley dams released a large amount of water, so when we came to looking at property it was on the highest ground.

In some places the water levels reached 20 feet.
Nothing compares to water when it's out of control, nothing.
Ian.

Geof,
There may be ways to use technology to thwart global warming. If burning fossil fuels proves to be the culprit then a switch to nuclear power would certainly help. In my opinion this is long overdue. Of course the electric energy from nuclear could be used to create hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles. There has even been ideas floated to put reflectors in space to divert some of the suns' energy. Not sure how practical that would be though.
Donna

OOOOOOHHHHHHH, xyz, you do want to walk on dangerous ground.
Nuclear power, remember Chernobyl? if you want a potential disaster go nuclear.

There are better alternatives to power production, but if you just want the cheapest then thinking Nuclear is like taking a dose of nitro glycerine for constipation. It will certainly work, but who wants to clear up the mess afterwards.

There are too many people with vested interests in the Nuclear energy program that will guarantee that everyone will get a dose of the medicine, namely scientists, the very scourge of human creation that have sold their souls down the ages to satisfy their insatiable curiosities at the expense of mankind.

The problem is, when you have discovered a substance and then find a use for it, it doesn't matter if the substance is highly toxic or dangerous, there will always be someone who can design a process that will make it profitable and the dangers therefore will pale into insugnificence when the money rolls in.

Which means that the danger is still there, but we now have the money to compensate the victims that survive afterwards when something goes wrong.
It is a known fact that you can get more energy from geo thermal occurences than any nuclear set-up, but the control of the product is too hard to market internationally as compared to Yellow Cake.

Uranium is a very marketable commodity when you make sure someone is going to use it, whereas geo thermal can only be distributed by a network power system, not very controlable as far as a monopoly is concerned when the technology is relatively simple.

The whole attitude of the human race is to get rich quick at the expense of someone else and make them dependent on you for your future survival.
This is apparent with the super powers and their global economy strategy, whereby they contrive to control large areas of the globe by supplying materials and products unique to the supplier.

This is the torch and battery syndrome, they give the torch away and capture a market of battery buyers for ever.
This is now in turmoil since the advent of the LED light bulb and wind up torches, where NO batteries are used at all.

In just one instance of responsibility, if the battery manufacturers turned their production to wind up power and dropped the throw away battery as being toxic and detrimental to the environment, then we would have practised what we want to preach, if we had the courage to stand up and preach it.
Ian.

...scientists, the very scourge of human creation that have sold their souls down the ages to satisfy their insatiable curiosities at the expense of mankind...


You mean like these scientists studying "climate change"?

Nuclear power, remember Chernobyl? if you want a potential disaster go nuclear.


How many nuke plants have gone bad?

How many oil tankers have sank or caused spills that destroyed much more than Chernobyl ever thought of destroying?

(nuts)

How many nuke plants have gone bad?

How many oil tankers have sank or caused spills that destroyed much more than Chernobyl ever thought of destroying?

(nuts)

At least you can see an oil spill. Nuclear fall-out is invisible - I guess it is best to stay away from the downwind side of the gaping hole in the reactor... "There was a vibration"

Still agree nuclear is the way to go.

At least you can see an oil spill.

So that makes it ok? :confused:

So that makes it ok? :confused:
You know when the oil spill has been contained. Nuclear contamination is invisible; at least during daylight. :)

I was playing devil's advocate for the "other side", but still think nuclear power is the way to go. As an analogy of oil & coal vs nuclear, compare air travel with road travel: The probability of being involved in a crash is much higher on the road than in the air per mile traveled, but the probability of any single accident killing you is much higher for air travel than road travel.

People like me don't even think of dying in a car, although 40,000 people do die on the road in the US every year: http://www.factbook.net/EGRF_Regional_analyses_HMCs.htm . Dying in a plane crash is something I spend a little too much time contemplating. Perhaps this is because some recent crashes were not accidental.

In a similar way, most people largely disregard the risk of shipping and using fossil fuel (except for the more recent GW scare), but are terrified of nuclear power accidents.

I think the thing that worries me about Nuclear is that most times things are built by the lowest bidder; in other words the best corner cutter gets the contract.

If it was possible in some way to guarantee that the best possible design was going to be built to the best possible standards without some people and companies doing the equivalent of selling $750 hammers and $2000 toilet seats then I would be happy with Nuclear.

Quick look up...is it a bird, a plane? No its a flying pig.

What isn't built by the lowest bidder? Precede the word "bidder" with "qualified", then relax. My $50 bid to build the next generation stealth fighter was rejected; I was deemed "unqualified". That's the way it works.

Mariss

OOOOOOHHHHHHH, xyz, you do want to walk on dangerous ground.
Nuclear power, remember Chernobyl? if you want a potential disaster go nuclear.

There are better alternatives to power production, but if you just want the cheapest then thinking Nuclear is like taking a dose of nitro glycerine for constipation. It will certainly work, but who wants to clear up the mess afterwards.
Ian.
There is the danger and you have to be aware of it what with terrorism and accidents a real possibility. I suppose that is where this debate comes in. If global warming is due to man made causes then what better alternatives do you have? Nuclear has proven to be reliable, with Chernobyl or Three Mile Island you didn't have the safeguards that modern plants would enjoy. The technology has advanced. I think that it's the only energy production method that could be implemented rapidly enough to be of benefit. In environmental terms, I think the benefit/cost/risk equation would favor it over coal.
Donna

Well now, aren't we all just patting each other on the backs and keeping our fingers crossed in the process, having solved our energy problems?

We (you all) agree that nuclear is the way to go. LOL.
This is something like taking cyanide to cure aids.

What you all don't realise is the prolification of nuclear is a ticking bomb waiting for the right time to go off.
It won't happen today, and it won't happen tomorrow, but it WILL happen.

There are tons of alternate safe energy sources, but not quite so exciting or space age, that would more than fill our requirements till doomsday, but the problem is we just keep generating more and more human flotsam that in the end will outstrip any energy source capablility no matter if it is nuclear or any other magic method.

The answer to all your problems is staring you in the face but you're all too blind to see it.
So you'd rather take an Aspirin for your headache instead of cutting out the brain tumour that will eventually kill you.

BTW, did you know that the USA population for 1938 was 125,000 000?
Now it's 300,000 000.
Who's the naughty boys now then?
We won't mention China in case we offend them and they stop swamping our shops with their delectable, low cost, everyone must have one exports.

Guess who's going to by hook or by crook ensure that they are going to get a king size slice of the apple pie?
Iraq is only one example.
The Japanese in Manchuria in 1936 is a prime example of the lengths some will go when the devil drives.

You would not equal the devastation and long term destruction that would occur if one single nuclear facility went on the blink, not even if ALL the coal fired, oil fired, geo thermal, solar, water powered producers together were to malfunction.

The term "wasteland" was invented when the scientists were asked to describe the extent of the probability of a malfunction in the nuclear industry
Ian.

Well now, aren't we all just patting each other on the backs and keeping our fingers crossed in the process, having solved our energy problems?

We (you all) agree that nuclear is the way to go. LOL.
This is something like taking cyanide to cure aids.

What you all don't realise is the prolification of nuclear is a ticking bomb waiting for the right time to go off.
It won't happen today, and it won't happen tomorrow, but it WILL happen.

There are tons of alternate safe energy sources, but not quite so exciting or space age, that would more than fill our requirements till doomsday, but the problem is we just keep generating more and more human flotsam that in the end will outstrip any energy source capablility no matter if it is nuclear or any other magic method.

The answer to all your problems is staring you in the face but you're all too blind to see it.
So you'd rather take an Aspirin for your headache instead of cutting out the brain tumour that will eventually kill you.

BTW, did you know that the USA population for 1938 was 125,000 000?
Now it's 300,000 000.
Who's the naughty boys now then?
We won't mention China in case we offend them and they stop swamping our shops with their delectable, low cost, everyone must have one exports.

Guess who's going to by hook or by crook ensure that they are going to get a king size slice of the apple pie?
Iraq is only one example.
The Japanese in Manchuria in 1936 is a prime example of the lengths some will go when the devil drives.

You would not equal the devastation and long term destruction that would occur if one single nuclear facility went on the blink, not even if ALL the coal fired, oil fired, geo thermal, solar, water powered producers together were to malfunction.

The term "wasteland" was invented when the scientists were asked to describe the extent of the probability of a malfunction in the nuclear industry
Ian.
Hi handlewanker,
I'm with you, the main problem is the population time bomb that is ticking. I have no good solution for that.
Your contention that a malfunctioning reactor would cause widespread devastation is problematic. Three Mile Island didn't do that. Chernobyl did but it has since been partially repopulated so at least the damage wasn't permanent. Chernobyl was a primitive reactor by todays standards as it was one of the first built on Ukrainian soil according to Wikipedia.
Donna

XYZ,which would you rather have, green house gasses or the winds of nuclear change?
One you can live with, the other you will die with.

How ironic, it would seem that with the very best of intentions, the peacemakers and do gooders are the ones who will ultimately lead to our downfall, for it is by their very efforts that we make love not war, and so proliferate at a humungeous rate.

One thing is for sure, the genie has been let out of the bottle and now there is no turning back.
The politicians backed by the scientists will see to that.

I think if everybody were to declare themselves gay and come out of the closet, at least there would be a stay in the population boom for a while.
Ian.

......Your contention that a malfunctioning reactor would cause widespread devastation is problematic. Three Mile Island didn't do that. Chernobyl did but it has since been partially repopulated so at least the damage wasn't permanent. Chernobyl was a primitive reactor by todays standards as it was one of the first built on Ukrainian soil according to Wikipedia.
Donna

There are still large areas contaminated by the Chernobyl disaster that are not habitable and contamination still kills people prematurely; or at least that is what I have read in New Scientist. Also the Chernobyl event was not specifically due to it being a primitive reactor it was operator incompetence, as was Three Mile Island and Browns Ferry.

There are still large areas contaminated by the Chernobyl disaster that are not habitable and contamination still kills people prematurely; or at least that is what I have read in New Scientist. Also the Chernobyl event was not specifically due to it being a primitive reactor it was operator incompetence, as was Three Mile Island and Browns Ferry.
The cause of Chernobyl may well have been operator error. But as I recall they lacked a containment building and this is what caused the widespread radiation dissemination.
Donna

The cause of Chernobyl may well have been operator error. But as I recall they lacked a containment building and this is what caused the widespread radiation dissemination.
Donna

Well yes they did after the roof fell in :D. But even with a better containment structure Three Mile Island came close to doing the same thing. The scariest story about Three Mile Island I heard was from a British Airways Concord Pilot. Because the Concord flew so high they had radiation detectors installed for cosmic rays. On one take off from New York just after the event at Three Mile Island the radiation detectors triggered in the Concord at several thousand feet over PA. And the authorities would have you believe there was negligible leakage.

Because the Concord flew so high they had radiation detectors installed for cosmic rays. On one take off from New York just after the event at Three Mile Island the radiation detectors triggered in the Concord at several thousand feet over PA.


Hmm, that is very interesting, can you tell me the source? I would like to know more about it.
Thanks,

Hmm, that is very interesting, can you tell me the source? I would like to know more about it.
Thanks,

The source was the pilot, I met him on board ship on a trans-atlantic crossing a few years ago. I have no idea if he was actually telling a lie but he had no reason to.

The source was the pilot, I met him on board ship on a trans-atlantic crossing a few years ago. I have no idea if he was actually telling a lie but he had no reason to.

I did a fairly extensive search and could not find any reference to the incident. The Concord did have radiation detectors aboard apparently to monitor long term exposure of the crew from Solar radiation. Nothing else showed up.
Thanks anyway.

I did a fairly extensive search and could not find any reference to the incident. The Concord did have radiation detectors aboard apparently to monitor long term exposure of the crew from Solar radiation. Nothing else showed up.
Thanks anyway.

Here is a little more he mentioned. When it happened British Airways informed the Tower at La Guardia, I think it was, continued to London and discovered they had created a diplomatic incident; "what was a British aircraft doing monitoring radiation levels in US airspace?". He said it was suppressed by both governments. He was a very outspoken person who had just retired and was highly pissed off that the Concord was being taken out of service. This was on ly one anecdote he related. Like I said I have no reason to thinking he was making things up and it is water long gone under the bridge now.

Here is a little more he mentioned. When it happened British Airways informed the Tower at La Guardia, I think it was, continued to London and discovered they had created a diplomatic incident; "what was a British aircraft doing monitoring radiation levels in US airspace?". He said it was suppressed by both governments. He was a very outspoken person who had just retired and was highly pissed off that the Concord was being taken out of service. This was on ly one anecdote he related. Like I said I have no reason to thinking he was making things up and it is water long gone under the bridge now.

Hi Geof,
I may have mentioned that I have a friend who was a nuclear engineer who worked at Three Mile Island after the meltdown. I put the question to him and I'll quote his reply:
>Incidentally, I'm having some discussion on a list I'm on and they are saying that 3 mile Island put some radioactivity into the air.

It did. But then so do we when we breathe. C-14O2 is slightly radioactive and we
expel that with every breath. The amount of radioactive gas was so small that
radiation detectors at the plant boundary could not detect it. Neither could a
helicopter that flew over with gas sampling equipment.

>They said a Concord pilot reported that the radiation detectors in the aircraft went off when it flew over Penns. after the event. Apparently the Concord had the radiation detectors installed because it flew so high and they were monitoring cosmic rays. What's the lowdown on this.

That's silly on the face of it. Even if the reactor were sitting out on open ground
running at full power, the radiation emitted could not be detected by the kind of
dosimetry that might be on the Concorde. I've heard that they put some sort of
dosimetry on high altitude birds like the Concorde but by its very nature it would be
too insensitive to detect much of anything happening on the earth's surface.

This kind of stuff is pure ignorant fiction made up by people without even the most
basic understanding of physics. A simple calculation involving the absorption
coefficient of that much air would show how silly the whole concept is.

During atmospheric weapons testing, several high altitude bursts were detonated in
the Swordfish series. Even directly under the blast, no nuclear radiation was
detected, within the capabilities of the instruments employed.

I don't waste time on people like that anymore. They're the gullible type that also
believes in little green men, Roswell and that kind of rot.

Me again: That's what he said about it and he was there. Just quoting him. He, he , you'd love to meet him Geof, he's an opinionated bastard, his idea of a democracy is 3 wolves and a chicken voting on what's for dinner.
Donna
BTW, he's the friend you suggested I should talk to to get an unbrideled opinion on the questions. Not only is he a nuclear engineer, he's also good in electronics, chemistry and I think physics. Certified genius.

I expected something like this. Like I said maybe the guy was stringing a line. Ask your friend about the radioactive rebar from Mexico. See what he says about that one.

So now we can all go to sleep steeped in the knowledge that we'll wake up tomorrow without a care in the world. you wish.

The kind of claptrap I've just read is typical of all the "bury it so deep", "it'll probably never happen, I hope" brigade that couldn't see danger if it jumped out and pecked a hole in their rrrrs.

I do not for one moment wish to go down in history as an "I told you so" freak, but on the evidence presented so far WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM HOUSTEN.

The Nuclear solution is like playing with a box of matches in your trouser pocket, you won't know when they're going to catch alight, but when they do you'd better pray your balls are fireproof.
Nuclear contamination is not an option that you can tolerate to any percentage of any measured scale.

If anyone doubts that nuclear fallout, however insignifcent, is a tolerable price to pay for cheap electricity, you'd better think hard, the land values around Chernobyl are so low they are offering money to anyone who'll live there for 3 months and lives.
BTW, I heard that one down at the local watering hole too.

I say again to all those closed minded people who think that they can get away with messing up the environmrnt they presently occupy, put your money where your mouth is, if you think nuclear is safe buy a block of land next to a nuclear facility and will it to your grandchildren as their total inheritence, they'll love you for it.

All of this has nothing to do with important greenhouse gas, but it is a more significent problem by far, insomuch as it will not cure the global warming effect, just slants the attention in another direction.

The environment can survive a global warming scenario, it's part of natural history anyway, but the human scourge that has overpopulated the planet is jumping up and down at the thought that the conditions might not be to their liking in the near future.

Bad for the tourist industry and all that, nothing to do with a few islands sliding back into the sea again.
Ian.

Uh,.. Didn't all the anti-nuclear types die out in the '80s? I wonder how they would react to electricity if it were discovered today; "You can't see it! It will kill you if you touch it! Stop building the lethal electric plants! We'll all die! I can read just fine by candlelight!". Geez...

Mariss

It would seem that some people really know the difference between a usefull addition to life and a life threatening condition, enough to protest about it.
Not for nothing did they go out of their way to protect the future.

If you did but know it, the nuclear lobby has reaped dividends by making the nuclear dangers so commonplace, that everyone has become conditioned to it and like a hardened criminal who no longer feels the whip, now cease to get concerned about the possible problems their children and grandchildren will inherit from our indiscretions.

As a matter of fact we've all become a bit too blase about nuclear dangers to such an extent that when a disaster occurs (Chernobyl), we get quite excited at the sheer scale of the disaster, like a movie, and forget that real people faced real danger and really died by sacrificing their lives to contain the fallout.

In honour of the people who died at Chernobyl, for a cause that was not of their own making, I hereby observe a period of silence and hope that the lesson so thrust upon them will not be lost on the rest of the world.
Ian.

Uh,.. Didn't all the anti-nuclear types die out in the '80s? I wonder how they would react to electricity if it were discovered today; "You can't see it! It will kill you if you touch it! Stop building the lethal electric plants! We'll all die! I can read just fine by candlelight!". Geez...

Mariss

Have you ever seen this one before Mariss?



This is an extract from European Chemical News published in the 1970's.
-----------------------------------

ICI has announced the discovery of a new fire fighting agent known as WATER (Wonderful And Total Extinguishing Resource). It is particularly suitable for dealing with fires in buildings, timber yards and warehouses, and is fairly cheap to produce. It is intended that quantities of about a million gallons should be stored in open pools or reservoirs near urban areas and installations of high risk.


WATER is already encountering strong opposition from safety and environmental groups. Professor Connie Barrinner has pointed out that if anyone immersed their head in a bucket of WATER, it would prove fatal in as little as three minutes. Each of ICI's proposed reservoirs will contain enough WATER to fill half a million two-gallon buckets. Each bucketful could be used a hundred times, so there is enough WATER in one reservoir to kill the entire population of the UK.

Did we know, asked a Fire Brigades spokesman, what would happen to this new medium when it was exposed to intense heat? It had been reported that WATER was a constituent of beer; did this mean that fireman would be intoxicated by the fumes?

The Friends of the Earth said they had obtained a sample of WATER and found that it made clothes shrink. If it did this to cotton, what would it do to men?

In the House of Commons, the Home Secretary was asked if he would prohibit the manufacture and storage of this new lethal material. A full investigation was needed, he replied, and the Major Hazards Group would be asked to report.

ICI has announced the discovery of ....


Sounds like DHMO:

http://www.dhmo.org/images/poisonbottle.gif

What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?


Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
Contributes to soil erosion.
Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

Geof,

My god, totally dangerous stuff; it's a good thing I looked it up on the internet. It's made from Hydrogen and Oxygen. Hydrogen is what blew the Hindenburg up and it is used in Hydrogen bombs. If that isn't peril then nothing is. Nuclear fire! Oxygen is what you take anti-oxidants for to live a good, progressive and environmentally sensitive lifestyle. Can't have that. In combination it sinks ships, breaks dams and drowns skyward staring turkeys when it rains. Some people drink this stuff?

For Ian: What a graciously unctuous sentiment. A moment of silence. My god, I hope you didn't stand alone like a Hamlet or Moses when you stood in reverent observance of atmospheric compression wave absence. I'm humbled by your observance and obsequiously offer my own. A Moment Of Silence For All The Victims Of Electricity:

This is for all those innocent victims of an unseen lethal scourge. To those who stuck their fingers in a light socket and instantly became metaphysically challenged. To all those who through no fault of their own tipped a radio into their bathtub. To the innocents incinerated when they plugged one too many a cord into a surge suppressor strip. Finally, this is to those who stooped to pick up a downed power line and whose last earthly thought was "I wonder if this wire is live?". A Moment Of Respectful Silence.

They too gave their full measure without any cognizance of consequences. I share your tears.

Mariss

... Hydrogen is what blew the Hindenburg up....Mariss

Now, now Mariss; you must keep up to date with the latest information otherwise you may come across as an uninformed Greenie :D

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/hsseas/releases/blimp.htm


Hydrogen Didn’t Cause Hindenburg Fire, UCLA Engineer, Former NASA Researcher Find

It was not hydrogen that caused the disastrous fire aboard the famous Hindenburg zeppelin, according to a UCLA School of Engineering and Applied Science Professor and a former NASA researcher.


Contrary to popular belief — and the findings of two official investigations — the material used to coat the "skin" of the airship, not hydrogen, was the cause of the disaster, said William D. Van Vorst, professor emeritus of chemical engineering at UCLA and Addison Bain, former manager, Hydrogen Programs Kennedy Space Center, NASA.

Their findings are revealed in a paper titled "Hydrogen and the Hindenburg," to be presented at a symposium in Antalya, Turkey, June 18-20.

Hi Geof,
I may have mentioned that I have a friend who was a nuclear engineer who worked at Three Mile Island after the meltdown. I put the question to him and I'll quote his reply:.....

.... Not only is he a nuclear engineer, he's also good in electronics, chemistry and I think physics. Certified genius.

Sorry it took so long to respond; my awe had to subside first.

The context of your 'certified genius'' response suggests he interpreted what I had related as the medium altitude detection of radiation emitted from a ground based source. Or possibly this is a wrong interpretation on my part?

I do not understand how my anecdotal comments can be interpreted in this manner but still who am I to question a genius.

Here are a couple of links for your perusal. I copied the second one just to make it easier and if you do a Google on "Three Mile Island plume" you will find plenty more.

Possibly, just possibly there exists a chance that the Concord did indeed fly through the plume. Possibly, just possibly there exists a chance that the actual direction and magnitude of the plume was unknown at the time it was occurring.

But I am not a certified genius so I have to stumble through life believing in little green men.



http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/207/4431/639?ck=nck

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb97/wing.html

NEWS

For immediate use Feb. 24, 1997 -- No. 118


Study suggests Three Mile Island radiation may have injured people living near reactor


CHAPEL HILL -- Exposure to high doses of radiation shortly after the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island may have increased cancer among Pennsylvanians downwind of the plant, scientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill say.

Dr. Steven Wing, associate professor of epidemiology at the UNC-CH School of Public Health, led a study of cancer cases within 10 miles of the facility from 1975 to 1985. He and colleagues conclude that following the March 28, 1979 accident, lung cancer and leukemia rates were two to 10 times higher downwind of the Three Mile Island reactor than upwind.

A paper Wing and colleagues wrote appears in the January issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, scheduled to appear Feb. 24. They first presented their findings last July at the University of Portsmouth in Portsmouth, United Kingdom, at the International Workshop on Radiation Exposures by Nuclear Facilities.

"I would be the first to say that our study doesn't prove by itself that there were high-level radiation exposures, but it is part of a body of evidence that is consistent with high exposures," Wing said. "The cancer findings, along with studies of animals, plants and chromosomal damage in Three Mile Island area residents, all point to much higher radiation levels than were previously reported. If you say that there was no high radiation, then you are left with higher cancer rates downwind of the plume that are otherwise unexplainable."

Co-authors of the report are Dr. Douglas Crawford-Brown, professor of environmental sciences and engineering, and Dr. Donna Armstrong and David Richardson, former and current doctoral students in epidemiology, all at UNC-CH.

The new study involved re-analyzing data from a 1990 report that concluded the nation's worst civilian nuclear accident was not responsible for slightly increased cancer rates near the plant because radiation exposures were too low. Wing and colleagues re-examined data from that report using what they believed were better analytic and statistical techniques.

"Several hundred people at the time of the accident reported nausea, vomiting, hair loss and skin rashes, and a number said their pets died or had symptoms of radiation exposure," he said. "We figured that if that were possible, we ought to look at it again. After adjusting for pre-accident cancer incidence, we found a striking increase in cancers downwind from Three Mile Island."

The scientists do not believe smoking and social and economic factors were responsible for the increased cancers found in the downwind sectors.

Many earlier researchers, as well as government and industry officials, accept as fact that only small amounts of radiation were released into the atmosphere, Wing said. But it is known that plant radiation monitors went off scale when the accident started. Plumes containing higher radiation could have passed undetected, he said.

Findings from the re-analysis of cancer incidence around TMI is consistent with the theory that radiation from the accident increased cancer in areas that were in the path of radioactive plumes, the scientist said.

"This cancer increase would not be expected to occur over a short time in the general population unless doses were far higher than estimated by industry and government authorities," Wing said. "Our findings support the allegation that the people who reported rashes, hair loss, vomiting and pet deaths after the accident were exposed to high level radiation and not only suffering from emotional stress."

The UNC-CH scientist said he found it ironic that U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia Rambo dismissed more than 2,000 damage claims filed against the power plant by nearby residents last year citing a "paucity of proof" to support their cases.

"Judge Rambo spent a year or more throwing out scientific evidence presented by the plaintiffs," he said. "After she threw out the evidence that people had been injured by the accident, including part of our work, then she ruled that there wasn't enough to proceed with the case."

He also noted that the court gave attorneys for the nuclear industry the right to review the earlier health effects research before it was made public.

"I think our findings show there ought to be a more serious investigation of what happened after the Three Mile Island accident,"

Wing said. Limitations of the new study, like the earlier work, include the continuing difficulty of determining precise wind direction for several days following the accident.


PS
Notice the bit about "difficulty of determining precise wind direction for several days following the accident.

Perhaps, just perhaps somewhere in some govt records there is some flight path information for a certain Concord take off that could shed some light on this.

I prefer to believe the retired pilot. He related the anecdote in front of an audience of around 700 people during a lecture series presented on board the ocean liner QE2 on its final scheduled trans-atlantic crossing which coincided with the final flight(s) of the Concord.

Sorry it took so long to respond; my awe had to subside first.

The context of your 'certified genius'' response suggests he interpreted what I had related as the medium altitude detection of radiation emitted from a ground based source. Or possibly this is a wrong interpretation on my part?

I do not understand how my anecdotal comments can be interpreted in this manner but still who am I to question a genius.

Here are a couple of links for your perusal. I copied the second one just to make it easier and if you do a Google on "Three Mile Island plume" you will find plenty more.

Possibly, just possibly there exists a chance that the Concord did indeed fly through the plume. Possibly, just possibly there exists a chance that the actual direction and magnitude of the plume was unknown at the time it was occurring.

But I am not a certified genius so I have to stumble through life believing in little green men.



http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/207/4431/639?ck=nck

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb97/wing.html

NEWS

For immediate use Feb. 24, 1997 -- No. 118


Study suggests Three Mile Island radiation may have injured people living near reactor


CHAPEL HILL -- Exposure to high doses of radiation shortly after the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island may have increased cancer among Pennsylvanians downwind of the plant, scientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill say.

Dr. Steven Wing, associate professor of epidemiology at the UNC-CH School of Public Health, led a study of cancer cases within 10 miles of the facility from 1975 to 1985. He and colleagues conclude that following the March 28, 1979 accident, lung cancer and leukemia rates were two to 10 times higher downwind of the Three Mile Island reactor than upwind.

A paper Wing and colleagues wrote appears in the January issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, scheduled to appear Feb. 24. They first presented their findings last July at the University of Portsmouth in Portsmouth, United Kingdom, at the International Workshop on Radiation Exposures by Nuclear Facilities.

"I would be the first to say that our study doesn't prove by itself that there were high-level radiation exposures, but it is part of a body of evidence that is consistent with