Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: CONSERVE, NOW! - A Proposal for Government Action to Reduce Fossil Fuel Burning

Expand Messages
  • hartlod
    It is time for those who claim to be scientists to properly define the phrase global warming to be more than the simplistic it is getting warmer . It is
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      It is time for those who claim to be "scientists" to properly define
      the phrase "global warming" to be more than the simplistic "it is
      getting warmer".

      It is time for clear recognition of the proporgandering of the
      current GHG concepts, to overshadow the poor science actually used in
      producing them, and open and honest discussion of ALL the aspects
      involved in the heating we are seeing.

      Unfortunately, the commitment to reduce "greenhouse gases" will have
      little ability to affect climate alterations due to atmospheric
      heating.
      The "unnatural" heat additions to the atmopshere have nothing to do
      with "greenhouse gases", and everything to do with the surface of
      this planet.

      Apart from the expanses of dry, barren terrain with sparse plant
      covering, Man is adding masses of artifical materials to build roads
      and construct buildings, "desert like reradiative scapes".
      These materials, along with the natural barren terrain, generate
      microwaves when they absorb incident Solar radiation.

      These Microwaves interact with atmospheric water molecules, this is
      the NATURAL method our planets atmopsheric temperature is maintained.
      The problem is that Man has unbalanced the generation of Microwaves
      by recovering great swathes of the surface whilst removing
      photosynthetic mass simultaneously.


      Man cannot control water vapour.
      Man can POSSIBLY reduce CO2 (realising that the additions to the
      atmosphere are not only due to Man), but CO2 is NOT a strong heat
      producer from Microwaves, having a weak interaction with Microwaves.

      Infrared Radiation (the properly defined spectrum, not
      the "modernised concept") interacts in a manner that does NOT produce
      kinetic effects ie "heat".
      SO you are left with H2O inducing a lot of heat for only a small
      absorbance of Microwave energy.

      If you somehow do reduce CO2 (realising that the additions to the
      atmosphere are not only due to Man), then the Microwave energy, not
      undiminished but INCREASING (as Man continues to recover the
      surface), will generate even GREATER heat.

      Why?

      Because the small heat generated by CO2 uses a lot of energy from
      passing Microwaves, small heat from a lot of energy.
      If you reduce the CO2 somehow, the energy will not have been removed,
      it will CONTINUE to generate heat from interaction with H2O instead,
      as H2O will statistically be more likely to be the absorbing molecule.
      Thus, a little more energy absorbed by H2O will generate a LOT more
      heat.
      Thus courses of action, like those espoused in the Kyoto Protocol,
      will NOT be reducing heat additions, but instead will be INCREASING
      these heat additions UNLESS the we commision studies into revision of
      CONSTRUCTION materials and revision of building codes to force use of
      any materials found to lower Microwave generation.


      Your's
      Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)





      --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Neuman" <mtneuman@j...>
      wrote:
      >
      > PREFACE
      >
      > By Michael T. Neuman
      > December 1, 2004
      >
      > It is time for political leaders of all countries to declare war on
      > global warming.
      >
      > There is now overwhelming evidence that cumulative greenhouse gas
      > emissions from human fuel burning activities to the atmosphere must
      be
      > slowed - immeasurably and without delay - or worldwide catastrophe
      > from global warming could result. The concentrations in the
      atmosphere
      > of the major heat-trapping gas greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2)
      > rose from 280 parts per million before the coal-burning industrial
      > age, to 315 in the mid-1950s, to 330 in the 1970s, to a record
      > seasonal peak of 379 in March 2004.
      >
      > Globally averaged temperatures over land - the average of recorded
      > temperatures taken at thousands of locations around the world over a
      > 12 months - rose about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the period of the
      > 20th century. NASA satellite readings now show an accelerating
      > average temperature increase, which reached 0.77 degrees between
      1981
      > and 1998, with 1998 being the hottest year of record since 1880.
      The
      > second and third hottest years of record were 2002 and 2003 (tied);
      > 2000 was the fourth hottest. October, 2004, was the hottest October
      > (over land) of record.
      >
      > The Arctic Ocean and land and mountain glaciers all around the world
      > are rapidly melting; ocean water temperatures are increasing. As
      > ocean water temperatures have risen and continental land ice and
      snow
      > masses have been melting, so also has sea level increases
      accelerated,
      > to the current rate of one-tenth inch per year.
      >
      > Governments at all levels need to take actions which will help
      > encourage people to preserve our climate for future generations and
      > help save the planet from too much fossil fuel burning.
      >
      > CONSERVE ENERGY NOW PROPOSAL
      >
      > CONSERVE, NOW!: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Other
      > Environmental Costs by Offering Financial Incentives that Reward
      Less
      > Driving, Flying and Home Energy Use
      >
      > By Michael T. Neuman, November 1, 2000
      >
      > "For all practical purposes, there is today only one world
      > suitable for man. Measured by nature's standards rather than by
      > those of historical man, it is at present a delicately balanced,
      > highly perishable world that has evolved over long geologic epochs
      of
      > environmental change. And man, acting as if he owned this world, or
      > at least had come into leasehold possession of it, has played his
      > role as lessee very indifferently…" (Lyton Caldwell, 1971)
      >
      > Summary
      >
      > This paper provides the framework for offering temporary positive
      > voluntary financial incentives for reducing automobile driving,
      > airplane travel, and annual home energy use. While the paper is
      > mostly focused on reducing energy use in the State of Wisconsin, the
      > methodology could be applied nationally, or even worldwide.
      >
      > In general, the main source of funding for the financial incentives
      > would be the savings in user fee revenue generated by not having to
      > build the additional highway, airport and energy plant capacity
      > expansion projects. The federal transportation fund, the aviation
      > trust fund and public and private energy utility accounts would fund
      > the program.
      >
      > After significant reductions in public motorized travel and home
      > energy use occur, "transportation fees", as defined in this
      > paper, could be charged on commercial and industrial goods shipped
      > long distances (by truck, air or plane - thus burning up
      considerable
      > fossil fuels), and the revenue generated from that source could also
      > be used to fund the program, if necessary.
      >
      > Finally, and ideally, it would be good, and right, if all
      investments
      > in military preparedness, throughout the world, could be phased out,
      > and eventually eliminated. This "phase out", should begin no
      > later than the end of 2001. Complete abandonment of national
      > militaries should be scheduled for January 1, 2005.
      >
      > The money generated by the phase out of military operations
      throughout
      > the world should be used to fund the Conserve, NOW! Program; thus
      > providing ample world financial resources to eliminate all world
      > hunger, world poverty, disease and ignorance (due to limited family
      > funds for education), for all the world's citizens, and the world
      > society as a complete whole.
      >
      > Offering world citizens and families "financial incentives"
      > for low annual driving miles traveled on highways, whether they
      > choose to drive at all or not, and for low (or no) annual flying
      > miles traveled, and for using less than typical therms of energy in
      > their households, as defined in this paper, would greatly reduce
      > worldwide greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, by at least
      > 25%, on a yearly basis.
      >
      > Bringing into fruition a worldwide environmental mitigation
      strategy,
      > such as the strategy outlined in the text below, would help
      humankind
      > deal not just with one problem, but with many problems. The problems
      > are interrelated, to some degree, but not so much by the commonality
      > of the trouble they cause; but more importantly by the commonality
      of
      > the solution needed to abate them. Rather, than deal with each
      > particular problem and issue by itself, the Conserve, NOW! proposal
      > would bring forth a multifaceted, but uniform, attack on the many
      > interrelated problems that have grown and grown over time in the
      > world, and now threaten to annihilate the world, in its entirety.
      >
      > Rapid Global Heating
      >
      > Global warming of the Earth is now a certainty. Earth's
      > temperatures are rising, faster and faster each year. The reason is
      > too much fossil fuel burning by a growing and ever more energy-
      > dependent human population.
      >
      > Burning fossil fuels for energy releases greenhouse gases (carbon
      > dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, others) to the air, which
      > contributes to the growing stockpiling of those gases in the
      > Earth's atmosphere. The increasing concentrations of greenhouse
      > gases in the atmosphere ultimately increase the ability of the
      > Earth's atmosphere to capture and hold the Sun's heat. And
      > since many of the greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for
      > centuries, their concentrations continue to increase as more and
      more
      > fossil fuels are burned on Earth, resulting in a stronger and
      > stronger "greenhouse effect" in the Earth's atmosphere,
      > over time.
      >
      > Each gallon of gasoline (or diesel fuel) combusted either in cars,
      > trucks, boats, planes, recreational vehicles, equipment, etc., adds
      22
      > additional pounds of carbon dioxide to the Earth's
      > atmosphere's stockpile of greenhouse gases, where it will remain
      > upwards of 120 years (Worrest, 2000).
      >
      > Each ton of coal combusted in power plants or other furnaces adds
      > 7,320 pounds of carbon dioxide to the Earth's stockpile of
      > atmospheric greenhouse gases, where it also will remain upwards of
      > 120 years.
      >
      > Each therm of natural gas combusted in furnaces or appliances adds
      11
      > pounds of carbon dioxide to the Earth's stockpile of greenhouse
      > gases, where it, too, will remain upwards of 120 years.
      >
      > Scientists now say global warming has actually been in progress for
      > several decades already, but that various measurement complexities
      > have prevented them from actually proving it. The rate of global
      > warming has accelerated since the mid-1950s when it was first
      > predicted. The continuously growing stockpile of greenhouse gases
      > being added to the Earth's atmosphere is making Earth's
      > atmosphere much more effective in "trapping" the Sun's
      > energy.
      >
      > And scientists now say the rate at which Earth's atmosphere is
      > heating up is reason for worldwide concern; they are sounding the
      > alarm for urgent, major action to slow global warming down, because
      > the ultimate effect of continued global warming could conceivably be
      > catastrophic to all Earth's life forms.
      >
      > There is only one widely known and currently available method for
      > slowing global warming down, immediately. That method is energy
      > conservation. Energy conservation methods might include driving
      less;
      > flying less, buying more energy efficient (and smaller) homes,
      > automobiles and appliances; buying locally produced goods whenever,
      > and wherever, possible; and greatly reducing (or eliminating)
      > participation in recreational sports or activities that burn fossil
      > fuels for energy.
      >
      > Many energy conservation methods were employed by the public, with
      > considerable success, in the-mid 1970's and early 1980's, in
      > response to the "energy crisis" and relatively high fuel
      > prices. Energy conservation was also successful during time of World
      > War II, when conservation of fuel was necessary for the war effort.
      > Energy conservation was successful then, and it can be successful
      > now, to reduce the threat of continued global warming.
      >
      > Energy conservation is the only realistic and economically feasible
      > option for conserving energy in the next several years. The risk of
      > humans failing to successfully slow global warming today far exceeds
      > any imaginable or real economic or convenience losses that might
      have
      > to be borne in the short term by today's populous.
      >
      > In time, alternative technologies are likely to be developed and
      > available that will allow humans to use energy, without emitting
      > dangerous levels of greenhouse gases to the Earth's atmosphere.
      > But that time has not yet arrived. Consequently, conservation of
      > energy must begin immediately.
      >
      > The effects of continuing to release substantial quantities of
      > greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, by burning fossil fuels or
      > consuming electricity produced through fossil fuel burning, are
      > cumulative and irreversible. "Reducing emissions is the most
      > important action we can take now to minimize damage to people,
      > ecosystems, and economies" (Bloomfield, 2000).
      >
      > Increases in Automobile Driving in Wisconsin and U.S.
      >
      > The population of the State of Wisconsin increased from 4.4 million
      in
      > 1970 to 5.2 million in 1998, an 18% increase (Wisconsin Legislative
      > Reference Bureau, 1999). The number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
      on
      > Wisconsin highways increased from 21.9 billion VMT in 1970 to 50.4
      > billion VMT 1998, a 132% increase. (Wisconsin Department of
      > Transportation (DOT), 1999) (Appendix A: Table 1).
      >
      > The average family of 4 in Wisconsin traveled 19,880 miles in 1970.
      In
      > 1998, they traveled 39,000 total miles, a 96% increase.
      >
      > The per capita vehicle mileage that Wisconsin residents traveled in
      > 1980 (including children and adults choosing not to drive) was 6,358
      > miles per capita. By 1998, this had increased to 9,680 miles per
      > capita (excluding heavy trucks). Result: the average Wisconsin
      > resident traveled 52 percent more miles in a vehicle in 1998 than
      the
      > average Wisconsin resident traveled by auto in 1980.
      >
      > The total highway vehicle passenger miles traveled in the U.S.,
      > excluding miles counted for heavy truck and bus travel, is estimated
      > to be 3.8 trillion miles per year. The total VMT in the U.S. is
      > estimated to be 2.36 trillion miles per year. (U.S. Department of
      > Transportation (1997).
      >
      > Costs of Providing for Increased Automobile Driving in Wisconsin and
      > the U.S.
      >
      > In 1999, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation proposed a plan
      to
      > provide for the projected motor vehicle driving needs in Wisconsin
      > through 2020 called Wisconsin State Highway Plan 2020 (WisDOT,
      1999).
      > The plan recommends $20 billion be spent on new state highway
      > construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation and maintenance through
      > 2020. The plan proposes approximately one third of the $20 billion
      > ($7.3 billion) be used for new highway capacity expansion projects,
      > for the purpose of accommodating increased driving by Wisconsin
      > residents.
      >
      > The cost of the plan is to be paid by users of the state and local
      > highway system through fuel taxes and annual vehicle license fees.
      >
      > The $7.3 billion is the monetary cost of building the new highway
      > capacity expansion projects. It does not cover the cost of
      maintaining
      > those new highways, nor does it cover the non-monetary
      > "environmental cost" of building the new highways. The
      > environmental cost of new highway development can be substantial.
      >
      > New highway building generally creates a direct environmental cost
      as
      > highway corridors often must be built through farmland, wildlife
      > habitat, wetlands and other valuable natural and productive
      > landscape. Indirect costs from improving travel on the highway are
      > many and diffuse. They include: more air pollution and greenhouse
      gas
      > emissions (from increased auto emissions); more vehicle travel
      noise,
      > roadkills and possibly more human injuries and fatalities (because
      of
      > increasing traffic levels), and, of course, more urban sprawl
      > development.
      >
      > Urban sprawl development is really nothing more than misplaced urban
      > development. It is facilitated by improved highways because the
      added
      > auto accessibility the improved highways provide makes longer auto
      > commutes simpler, safer, and, of course, quicker.
      >
      > Improved highways make it easier and safer for people to live
      outside
      > of cities, yet retain reasonable access to the amenities and the
      > services that cities traditionally provide (jobs, entertainment,
      > shopping, etc.). In essence, improved highways enable commuters to
      > take advantage of the city's benefits, regardless of whether they
      > reside or pay property taxes in the city, and irrespective of the
      > environmental costs their automobile driving has on others in the
      > afflicted communities along the way, or the Earth's environment
      > in general.
      >
      > The quantity of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere by
      > automobiles traveling in Wisconsin was 17.6 million tons in 1970
      > (Table 2). In 1998, it was 26.0 million tons, an increase of 47%.
      For
      > the foreseeable future, it will continue to increase with increasing
      > levels of traffic.
      >
      > The increased use and expansion of Wisconsin's highway system
      > through 2020, as approved by the Wisconsin DOT, will increase the
      > quantity of greenhouse gas emitted to the atmosphere even more,
      since
      > it removes impediments to driving more miles on the highway system.
      > This method of addressing travel "needs" (building in more
      > highway capacity) has traditionally been the most popular approach
      to
      > dealing with increasing traffic problems in the United States (and
      > elsewhere). But it clearly has come at considerable economic, social
      > and environmental cost.
      >
      > In contrast, providing incentives to bring about reductions in
      > automobile travel would reduce traffic levels (estimated by up to
      > 25%), negating the need to build more highway infrastructure, and
      > reducing the environmental and social costs of continuously
      > increasing automobile and SUV driving throughout the state.
      >
      > Financial Incentives for Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled in
      Wisconsin
      >
      > Rather than spend $7.3 billion on highway capacity expansion over
      the
      > next 20 years, the State of Wisconsin could establish a program that
      > provides financial incentives to Wisconsin households who
      voluntarily
      > limit their motor vehicle travel in a year. The source of funding
      for
      > the financial incentives program would be the portion of the gas
      taxes
      > and annual vehicle license fees that would have otherwise been paid
      > for the $7.3 billion worth of new highways. Since the projected
      > number of vehicles operating on the highway system will have been
      > reduced by less driving, the need for building more capacity into
      the
      > highway system will have been effectively eliminated, making it
      > possible to return those funds to the public.
      >
      > Following is an example of how the VMT reduction plan would work:
      > A family of four with two drivers voluntarily enrolls in the program
      > by driving its car(s) into the local Department of Motor Vehicles
      > office, paying $30 in administrative fees, and getting the mileage
      on
      > their vehicle's odometer(s) officially recorded. Alternatively,
      > DOT offices could be staffed with employees or volunteers who would
      > travel to neighborhoods to officially record the participating
      > households' vehicle(s) odometer mileage. [Technology also is now
      > available, patented through the auto insurance industry, that
      enables
      > vehicle mileage of many vehicles to be monitored, and recorded, from
      > a central location. This would eliminate the need for manual
      checking
      > of vehicle odometers.]
      >
      > After a year goes by, (based on participant's day of choice), the
      > participant(s) would receive a $400 check if the participant's
      > odometer(s) showed less than 13,500 miles for the preceding year
      > (Table 3). If the family participant managed to lower the household
      > vehicle mileage traveled to 9,000 miles over the year, they would
      > earn $1,200.
      >
      > The fewer miles the family drives in a year, the more money it could
      > earn as a reward for "driving less" for that year. Households
      > not owning or driving personally registered cars would be eligible
      to
      > receive a maximum of $2,800 for that year, as a payment, (or
      reward),
      > for not contributing to the financial, social, or environmental
      costs
      > of automobile driving borne by everybody.
      >
      > Methodology for Calculating Financial Incentives for Reducing Total
      > VMT
      >
      > The methodology used for computing the financial incentives for low
      > annual VMT is as follows:
      >
      > Total Household Mileage Threshold/Year
      > = x + Dx + Px
      > Where x = 1,000 (1…6) household vehicle(s) miles;
      > and
      > D = Number of Additional Drivers (.75)
      > P = Number of Persons in Household (.25)
      >
      > A 25% reduction in vehicular travel is postulated with full
      > implementation of the plan, at a cost of $810 million a year. Using
      an
      > average reward of $400 for each Wisconsin household each year: $400
      X
      > 2,026,000 HH (Wisconsin Bureau of Energy, 1999) = $810,400,000.
      >
      > After 10 years of awarding the financial incentives, the program
      > could be ended, since the behavioral change resulting in reduced
      > driving will have become permanent, eliminating the need to continue
      > offering the incentives. If their was a need to continue the program
      > after 10 years, to maintain the financial incentives program for
      > reduced driving, a supplemental tax on the price of gasoline could
      be
      > levied to continue with the funding on the program.
      >
      > By offering financial incentives to households who record low annual
      > motor vehicle miles traveled in a year, this transportation
      > alternative would encourage people to make more informed choices
      > about where to live relative to where they need to travel. When they
      > do need to travel, the financial incentives would encourage them to
      > choose more environmentally friendly means of travel (bicycling,
      > walking, taking a bus, carpooling), over driving environmentally
      > harmful and greenhouse gas emitting automobiles. Table 4 lists other
      > ways to reduce vehicular travel on public highways. Table 5 provides
      > the corresponding modal energy efficiencies relative to automobile
      > transportation.
      >
      > Increases in Air Travel
      >
      > At an international aviation conference held recently in Chicago,
      > United Airlines chief James Goodwin was reported (Associated Press,
      > 1999) as saying the projected increases in air traffic in the U.S.
      are
      > "frightening", and that "the skies are crowded and
      > getting more so every day". According to the report, Goodwin
      > warned, "the global skies are teeming with so many planes that
      > the entire airline industry is near crisis".
      >
      > The U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics' data shows U.S.
      > enplanements on scheduled domestic flights increased from 297
      million
      > emplanements, in 1980, to 634 million in 1999 (a 114 percent
      > increase).
      >
      > The U.S. Census Bureau reports the U.S. population increased 21
      > percent from 1980-1999, from 226 million to 274 million; therefore,
      > the effective airline emplanement increase, exclusive of population
      > increases from 1980 to 1999, was 93%. This means the average U.S.
      > citizen today flies twice as many times a year as the average U.S.
      > citizen did in 1980.
      >
      > The U.S. commercial airline industry burned 10.7 billion gallons of
      > fuel in domestic and international operations in 1979 (@ $.58/gal).
      > By 1999, the industry burned 19.6 billion gallons (@$.53/gal), an
      > increase of 83 percent over the amount of fuel burned in 1979. The
      > effective increase in gallons of fuel burned in airlines from 1979
      to
      > 1999 was 62 percent.
      >
      > In servicing the increasing number Americans who chose to travel by
      > airplane in 1999, American airplanes discharged 215.6 million tons
      of
      > carbon dioxide to the Earth's atmosphere.
      >
      > Methodology for Calculating Financial Incentives for Reducing AMT
      >
      > The methodology used for computing the financial incentives for low
      > annual airplane miles traveled (AMT) is as follows:
      >
      > Airplane Mileage Threshold/Year/Person
      > = y
      > Where y = 100 (1…6) miles flown in an airplane
      >
      > A schedule for providing financial incentives for encouraging U.S.
      > citizens to fly less is provided in Table 6.
      >
      > The reward threshold is not increased for families having more than
      5
      > persons.
      >
      > No exclusions would be allowed for business trip mileage. This would
      > provide added incentives for business to minimize employee air
      travel
      > requirements.
      >
      > How the program would work:
      >
      > Any person over 18 years of age who chooses to enroll in the AMT
      > reduction rewards program would need to file a one-time application
      > with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), along with a nominal
      > administrative fee. That person would then be registered for the
      > program for life, and therefore eligible for annual rewards each
      year
      > that he or she commercially flies less than the amount of threshold
      > miles specified in Table 6.
      >
      > The FAA would require that each commercial airline document the
      annual
      > mileage flown by all registered AMT participants using its service.
      > Each airline service would be required to prepare and forward
      > individualmileage summaries for each registered AMT participant to
      > the FAA by the end of the calendar year. The FAA would summarize the
      > total annual miles flown for each AMT participant and issue the
      > incentive payments based on the amounts specified in Table 6.
      >
      > Funding for AVT Reduction Incentives
      >
      > Some of the money to fund the financial incentives would be
      available
      > from the money saved by not having to build additional airport
      > runways, taxiways, terminals, and to employ additional airport
      > personal to service the otherwise projected increases in the number
      > of flights. Environmental savings would result from reduced
      > greenhouse gas emissions, reduced air pollution, reduced noise, less
      > air traffic congestion, and less wildlife habitat and farmland loses
      > from airport expansion projects.
      >
      > The remainder of the funds would be provided from federal taxes
      > levied on the price of aviation fuel, as a fixed percentage of each
      > gallon of aviation fuel combusted, in commercial and non commercial
      > aircraft (excluding only military aircraft). If one dollar in tax
      > were charged for each gallon of aviation fuel used by airlines in
      the
      > U.S., this would generate $20 billion to help fund the program.
      >
      > Congress recently authorized nearly $10 billion for airport
      > infrastructure development over the next 3 years (GAO, 2000). This
      > amount, coupled with the $20 billion in fuel tax revenues over the
      > next 3 years would be enough money to provide financial incentives
      of
      > an average of $1,000 per year for 23,000,000 adults in the U.S., or
      > more than 11% of the country's total adult population.
      >
      > Currently, aviation fuel is purchased and combusted by the airline
      > industry to power its planes, tax-free.
      >
      > Financial Incentives for Encouraging Household Energy Conservation
      >
      > Just as positive incentives can be used to encourage reduced fossil
      > fuel burning dependent automobile and airplane travel, so too can
      > positive financial incentives encourage reduced energy use in homes.
      > Utilities could offer financial incentives to encourage people to
      use
      > less energy in heating, cooling and lighting their homes, and for
      > minimizing uses of other forms of electricity in their daily lives.
      > This would reduce cumulative power demands, reducing the need to
      > build more power plants, transmission lines, fuel lines and other
      > expenditures and environmental costs associated with increased
      > capacity demands.
      >
      > Depending on the amount of the reductions, significant cutbacks in
      > global greenhouse gas emissions might be possible from power plants
      > that burn fossil fuel for electricity, or from other utilities that
      > distribute fuel and natural gas for direct burning in household
      > furnaces.
      >
      > Wisconsin's per capita (per individual) resource energy
      > consumption in homes in 1998 was 404 therms (Table 7). A 4-person
      > household in Wisconsin uses, on average, 1,600 therms of energy in
      > the home for heating and electrical conveniences (4 X 400 therms).
      >
      > Financial incentives for encouraging energy conservation in homes
      > would work similar to the systems used for encouraging people to
      > reduce their driving and flying. That is, households using low per
      > family size annual energy amounts could be eligible to receive
      > monetary returns at the end of the year for conserving energy (Table
      > 8).
      >
      > Methodology for Calculating Financial Incentives for Reducing Total
      > Energy Use
      >
      > The methodology used for computing the incentives for low energy use
      > is as follows:
      >
      > Total Household Energy Use Threshold/Year = z + Rz
      > Where z = 100 (1…6) therms; and
      > R = Number of Additional Residents X .25
      >
      > No additional credit is provided for more than 5 person residing in
      > the household, and the enrolled persons must occupy the home at
      least
      > 90 percent of the total number of days in the proposed year of
      > enrollment.
      >
      > There are many things homeowners and renters could do to improve
      > energy efficiencies in their homes and reduce overall fuel and
      > electricity consumption.
      >
      > Appendix B identifies some ways to reduce energy use in the home and
      > recreation activities that burn fossil fuels that should be avoided.
      >
      > The state could also subsidize consumer's purchase of energy
      > efficient compact flourescents. At least one consumer still uses
      some
      > of the less energy efficient condescends simply because the initial
      > purchase price of compact flourescents is several times as costly as
      > the less energy efficient alternatives.
      >
      > Funding for Low Home Energy Use Incentives
      >
      > Assuming 25% of reductions in energy use could be achieved without
      > cost to the economy (DeCanio, 1997), the amount of money that would
      > be needed on an annual basis for this household energy conseration
      > measure would be the same as that required for the VMT reduction
      > incentives ($810 million, annually).
      >
      > The money to fund the financial incentives would be available from
      the
      > money saved by not having to build additional power plants,
      > transmission lines and power stations in the future, money that
      > therefore becomes available because of the reduced energy demands.
      >
      > For example, Wisconsin Energy Corporation has proposed to spend $6
      > billion to build three new power plants in Wisconsin and upgrade
      other
      > WEC power generation facilities to accommodate projected public
      > demands for more power. The plans call for a new power plants in
      Port
      > Washington (gas-fired); Oak Creek (coal-fired) and another coal-
      fired
      > plant in an undetermined location in Wisconsin.
      >
      > As to the nation as a whole, USA TODAY (article by Fred Bayles,
      > 9/11/00), following their review of utility industry projections,
      > suggests the cost of building new power facilities to meet growing
      > demands will approach $80 billion during the next two decades. That
      > amount would fund an annual average financial incentive of $155 per
      > year for 25% per cent of U.S. households, who might be expected to
      > apply for the low energy use financial incentives (by such measures
      > listed in Appendix B.)
      >
      > Additional non-monetary environmental savings would result from
      > reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced air pollution, less
      > wildlife habitat and farmland loss from building more power plants
      > and transmission lines in those areas, and reduced discharges of
      > excess cooling water, since less cooling water would be needed for
      > reduced energy generation.
      >
      > An additional method of funding financial incentives for
      environmental
      > conservation, which would itself help reduce greenhouse gas
      emissions,
      > would be the adoption of a "transportation tax" on raw
      > materials and products requiring transportation over a certain
      > distance. This would lead to reductions in the amount of energy used
      > in transporting products.
      >
      > The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) should be given the
      > authority to collect a "transportation tax" on all raw materials and
      > products sold in the United States, that are transported over 50
      > miles, whether the transportation is via land, water or air. The tax
      > would be applicable to all raw materials, intermediary and final
      goods
      > commercially transported over 50 miles, at a cost of 10 cents per
      > item, 10 cents per pound weight, or 10 cents per cubic foot,
      > whichever unit amount is higher. The total transportation tax for a
      > shipment would thus be the sum of the applicable per unit tax of the
      > products that are shipped, multiplied by the number of miles the
      > products are shipped (from origin to destination).
      >
      > The USDOT would collect the money in this program and place it into
      a
      > "transportation tax fund" (TTF). The money that accumulates into the
      > TTF would be used to provide financial incentives to the public to
      > reduce driving, flying and energy consumed in homes.
      >
      > Other sources federal surpluses available should be used for this
      > purpose as well, since the beneficiary of conserving energy and
      > reducing greenhouse gas and other emissions will spread to all U. S.
      > citizens, and the U.S. economic system should provide higher rewards
      > for environmentally conscientious decisions than is now provided.
      >
      > Conclusion
      >
      > Major new highway, airport and power plant investments require
      > billions of public dollars to build, their construction causes major
      > and significant environmental disruption, and their end uses create
      > significant air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and other
      adverse
      > environmental consequences. Government has the responsibility to
      > protect and uphold the general welfare of its citizenry. Ensuring
      > positive financial incentives are provided to the public, to
      > discourage overuse of highways, air space and energy resources, and
      > thereby to reduce the need to build new highways, airports and power
      > generating infrastructure, is an appropriate and worthwhile function
      > of government.
      >
      > Continuing to burn vast quantities of fossil fuels (coal, oil,
      > gasoline) on Earth for energy is increasing average global
      > temperatures due to the greenhouse effect. Studies show Earth's
      > air, land and water temperatures are rising, at rates some
      scientists
      > say are alarming, greatly exceeding the more conservative
      predictions
      > made only a few years ago.
      >
      > Many scientists throughout the world are saying it is urgent that
      > worldwide actions be undertaken, immediately, to curb, and reduce
      > (some say by 80%!), the increasing quantities of greenhouse gas
      > emissions. Moreover, many scientists concede the potential for
      > worldwide cataclysmic calamity related to global warming is
      possible,
      > not just in eons, but in centuries and perhaps even decades!
      >
      > To this call for urgency, the global warming "skeptics"
      > continue to demand proof. Before the skeptics (who's numbers are
      > dwindling rapidly) agree fossil fuel burning should be cut, they
      want
      > to see proof global warming is occurring, that fossil fuel burning
      is
      > the main cause of it, and that the costs of increasing global
      warming
      > exceed the costs of slowing it down.
      >
      > Scientists claim the buffering characteristics of Earth's natural
      > resources (cool oceans and permafrost store carbon), which have
      > historically kept Earth's atmospheric gases in check, could
      > ultimately become unbalanced by global warming, increasing the
      > potential for a "runaway greenhouse effect" to occur on
      > Earth. If a runaway greenhouse effect got started on Earth,
      > Earth's surface temperatures could increase dramatically.
      > Grinspoon (1997) speculates this could have been what happened to
      > Earth's twin planet, Venus, which now has an average surface
      > temperature of 864 degrees, Fahrenheit (water boils at 212 degrees
      > F.; steak broils at 550 degrees F.).
      >
      > Grinspoon claims the temperature on Venus is much higher than it
      > should be, relative to the planet's mass and distance from the
      > Sun, and that the reason for the hotness is that Venus experienced a
      > runaway greenhouse effect early in its existence:
      >
      > "That brings us to the question of water. Evolutionary models
      > suggest that if Venus started out with an ocean of water, it could
      > have been lost early in the planet's history by a "runaway
      > greenhouse effect". Water vapor is a powerful infrared absorber.
      > A little water in the air can heat things up a lot. But in the
      > presence of liquid water, if the air gets hotter, more water will
      > evaporate. This creates the possibility of a powerful positive
      > feedback loop: evaporating water increases the greenhouse effect,
      > making the atmosphere so hot that more water evaporates, and so on.
      > Any physical system like that, dominated by positive feedback, is
      > inherently unstable. Once it gets going, there is no stopping it.
      > Venus may have had oceans that simply boiled away, leaving large
      > amounts of water vapor high in the atmosphere where solar
      ultraviolet
      > radiation split up the molecules, allowing the hydrogen to escape
      > into space" (pg. 149).
      >
      > A Call for Action
      >
      > When it comes to the long-term sustainability of our planet, it's
      > much better to be conservatively safe, than deeply sorry.
      > Being "deeply sorry", when Earth's populous might have
      > done something to change a final negative outcome is not only being
      > insincere, but even worse: unconcerned and callous.
      >
      > Necessity now demands everyone accept responsibility for making
      energy
      > conserving sacrifices, right away. Greenhouse gases accumulate in
      the
      > Earth's atmosphere, over time. Therefore, they remain in the
      > Earth's atmosphere long after the time of their release, warming
      > the planet for those who had nothing to do with their release.
      >
      > Due to recent (since mid 19th century) and an ever increasing
      > reliance on fossil fuel burning by humans, the Earth's atmosphere
      > has become more saturated with carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
      > gases. The concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has
      > gone from a preindustrial level of 280 parts per million (ppm) to a
      > present day level of 365 ppm+ (and increase of 30%+ over
      > preindustrial levels). The current concentration level of CO2 in the
      > atmosphere is already outside the bounds of natural variability seen
      > in the climate record of the last 160,000 years. "If the world
      > proceeds on a "business as usual" path, atmospheric CO2
      > concentrations will likely become more than 700 PPM (an increase of
      > 150% over preindustrial levels) by 2100, and they will still be
      > rising." (Executive Office of the President, 1997).
      >
      > The balance between the Earth's greenhouse and non-greenhouse gas
      > concentrations has clearly been thrown out of kilter in the last 150
      > years. This imbalance is likely to grow significantly larger over
      > time.
      >
      > Even in the very unlikely event that increases in greenhouse gas
      > emissions from human activity cease, the concentration levels of
      > greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will continue to increase, since
      > there remains no other place for them to go.
      >
      > And, now, with the world's population having doubled since 1960,
      > and expected to increase to 9 billion (by 2054 - Table 14), the
      > potential for reducing - let alone slowing - annual global
      greenhouse
      > gas emissions, and therefore global warming, has become exceedingly
      > difficult.
      >
      > Scientists the world over are now claiming, with increasingly
      serious
      > overtones, that major and significant worldwide action must be
      > initiated, now, to reduce the volumes of greenhouse gases being
      > injected into the Earth's atmosphere. To do so will require a
      > dramatic and abrupt change in humankind reliance on fossil fuel
      > burning.
      >
      > To be unresponsive to the now almost unanimous scientific community
      > call for immediate (not 15 years from now), and drastic (not just
      > slowing the rate of increase) is not prudent. For the world's
      > population to dramatically increase fossil fuel burning and
      > greenhouse gas emissions, with minimal attempts being made to
      > conserve energy in travel, recreational and home energy use, is
      > tantamount to global genocide.
      >
      > In conclusion, the time is now already overripe to drastically cut
      > energy use in homes, cars, planes, trains and trucks. This paper
      > offers an approach to accomplishing that, devoid of instituting
      > regulatory controls over people's everyday lives.
      >
      > Governmental officials should, without delay, create programs that
      > offer financial incentives to the public to encourage environmental
      > conservation and minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Nonessential and
      > all recreational uses of energy derived from the combustion of
      fossil
      > fuels should be greatly reduced, starting immediately, so that the
      > Earth's environment continues to remain habitable, indefinitely,
      > by all forms of life.
      >
      > Acknowledgment
      >
      > I wish to credit my brother, Patrick J. Neuman, for his careful
      > review of this paper throughout its many iterations of development,
      > and to thank him for his personal support as well, without of which
      > this paper would not have been completed.
      >
      > APPENDIX AND TABLES. Please see:
      > http://danenet.danenet.org/bcp/neuman_gw.pdf
    • Mike Neuman
      Peter - Thank you for your comments on Conserve, Now!. Your theory is interesting, but I believe you need to get at least 2,500 scientists to support it before
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Peter - Thank you for your comments on Conserve, Now!.

        Your theory is interesting, but I believe you need to get at least
        2,500 scientists to support it before generalists like me will be
        able to seriously consider it and possibly accept it. I also believe
        it's more of an add-on to the greenhouse theory, rather than a
        replacement.

        Be that as it may - the phrase "global warming" - it seems to me that
        the way the Earth is warming up now, there is really little doubt
        that rapid global warming is already in progress, due to an ever
        stronger and stronger greenhouse effect, caused by the increased
        build up of heat-absorbing greenhouse gases in the neighborhood of
        hundreds of billions of tons in the Earth's atmosphere over the past
        100-150 years.

        Yes, "global warming" is saying more than just "it is getting
        warmer". We have seen a jump in globally averaged 10-year average
        temperatures in the last 25 years (by 1 degrees F)*, a rise in ocean
        water temperatures from 1955 - 1998 of 0.037 F**, Arctic Ocean ice
        has shrunk by as much as 20%, snow cover has diminished on land, and
        the permafrost underlying the tundra has become less stable***.

        These are just a few of the physical factors and measurement. The
        biological factors and measurement include movement of species
        northward (Northern Hemisphere), die-off of some species - golden
        frog in Andes Mtns, threaten birds in Hawaii's mtns, earlier
        flowering in Midwest. Not all can necessarily be linked directly to
        global warming (yet) because data must be collected over time to
        prove impacts from global warming. [Examples: heat wave mortalities,
        rise in sea level, decline in Great Lakes Region lake levels (due to
        increased evaporation with warming temperatures), extended ranges for
        tropical diseases, insect infestations, forest die-back (Alaska).]

        It been said for many years that Earth's average temperature would be
        about 60 degrees cooler without the greenhouse effect, or
        approximately and average of 0 degrees F. This acknowledgement has
        been a part of every science textbook for decades. How does your
        theory explain this?

        But if you really think the greenhouse effect is NOT at work, perhaps
        you might accept the notion that we all just might be a lot better
        off without so much fossil fuel burning everywhere anyway?

        For example, scientific public health journals are now filled with
        articles linking gasoline and diesel fuel burning on highways,
        kerosene burning in airplanes, and coal and natural gas burning coal-
        fired power plants - with increased rates of asthma, heart disease,
        stroke and cancer in the nearby resident populations showing possible
        cause and effect relationships.

        Another huge concern in the state of Wisconsin regarding coal-fired
        power plants is that mercury in power plant emissions has
        contaminated most of our lakes and streams to levels that now require
        fish advisories. A large segment of Wisconsin's population has
        recently been found to have levels of mercury in the body that exceed
        EPA health standards.

        Another concern is simply the amount of land and concrete pavement
        that's being devoted to motor vehicle driving and parking. Over 50%
        of most of the larger urban areas in the U.S. is presently under
        pavement, devoted exclusively to automobile use at the expense of all
        other uses of those lands. In rural areas, vast acreage of
        agricultural, wildlife, forest and wetlands have been replaced with
        paved surfaces for yet even higher volumes of automobile traffic.
        Many of the larger cities in the U.S. have commuting delays in excess
        of 2 hours in the morning, and again during the evening.

        The demand for oil continues to increase while the supplies dwindle.
        Most of U.S. oil comes from overseas sources. Less gasoline, diesel
        fuel, and kerosene burning in motorized transportation would reduce
        the amount of oil shipped, which might result in fewer oil spills.
        Oil spills are often devastating to wildlife and community
        economics.

        Spending money on burning oil also creates negative impacts on family
        budgets, cost which could be otherwise avoided by carpooling, taking
        transit more often, bicycling or walking, or moving one's household
        to reduce commuting times and unnecessary fuel burning. Reductions
        in overall levels of driving might also result in fewer automobile
        collisions, injuries and fatalities, and insurance premium costs for
        everyone.

        * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/

        ** http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/DATA_ANALYSIS/heatcont04.pdf

        *** http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101041122-
        782114,00.html

        Mike


        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "hartlod" <Hartlod@b...> wrote:
        >
        > It is time for those who claim to be "scientists" to properly
        define
        > the phrase "global warming" to be more than the simplistic "it is
        > getting warmer".
        >
        > It is time for clear recognition of the proporgandering of the
        > current GHG concepts, to overshadow the poor science actually used
        in
        > producing them, and open and honest discussion of ALL the aspects
        > involved in the heating we are seeing.
        >
        > Unfortunately, the commitment to reduce "greenhouse gases" will
        have
        > little ability to affect climate alterations due to atmospheric
        > heating.

        [snip]
      • hartlod
        Well it really does not need 2500, science is NOT conducted by committee. WE have seen the inability of committee when it was aggreed to redifine the IR
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Well it really does not need 2500, science is NOT conducted by
          committee. WE have seen the inability of committee when it
          was "aggreed" to redifine the IR spectral boundaries a few years ago,
          and when the Kelvin Temperatuer scale (with a little 'k') was
          produced in hte mid 1950s, confusing the actual work by Kelvin and
          giving two meanings to the phrase "absolute zero".

          It is FACTUAL that the material science will tell you that the
          interaction of CO2 with Microwaves is much weaker than that of H2O.
          It requires much more energy to produce a BTU in CO2 than in H2O.
          This is well known Mike, it is just that the environmental sciences
          seem to have overlooked much of the work conducted in
          engineering "schools of knowledge" over the past decades. Why?

          This is NOT an add on to the "GHG theory" as the present GHG theory
          is so full of holes it is almost nonsensicle, and is certainly non-
          science.
          The present "GHG theory" overlooks everything to play on Manmade
          emmisions, CO2 and the neovague definitions of "global warming"
          and "infrared". This is politicing a social agenda, not science.

          All the "statistics" you quote on "global warming", you still fail to
          recognise your total dependence on CO2. You say "greenhouse gases"
          but mean CO2. The "statistics" fail to properly separate
          natural "GHG" additions, CO2 and H2O and thus identify the component
          of CO2 due to Man, then fail to properly realise that H2O IS the
          major greenhouse gas. You fail torealise that the notion of natural
          heat additions needs to be understood so that Man can determine what
          additions are due to interference with the planetary surface
          unbalancing the proportion of Microwaves in the atmopshere.
          You are still only saying "it is getting warmer", with no more
          definition than previously of the actual Manmade component.

          That H2O is seen as the MAJOR greenhouse gas is MENTIONED in some
          documents, but it is rapidly pushed to one side to browbeat CO2.
          The greenhouse effect is DUE TO water vapour. CO2 infact "buffers"
          the heat production of atmopsheric H2O by utilising the bulk of the
          Microwave Spectrum energy to produce MUCH LESS HEAT than H2O would.

          The ACTION by Man that has UNBALANCED this process is NOT to produce
          too much CO2, but to have introduced TOO MUCH ENERGY in the Microwave
          Spectrum. This has occured by the massive alteration to much of hte
          planetary surface over the last 200 years due to Man's "development"
          of regions.


          You can TRY to lower the atmopsheric volume of CO2, but with no
          alteration to the Microwave reemittence, all you will gain will be
          more heat additions. This is the science Mike, not the overstudy of
          CO2. As it has been shown in the past, science cannot be conducted by
          proxy voting and committee.

          Your's
          Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)

          --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Neuman" <mtneuman@j...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Peter - Thank you for your comments on Conserve, Now!.
          >
          > Your theory is interesting, but I believe you need to get at least
          > 2,500 scientists to support it before generalists like me will be
          > able to seriously consider it and possibly accept it. I also
          believe
          > it's more of an add-on to the greenhouse theory, rather than a
          > replacement.
          >
          > Be that as it may - the phrase "global warming" - it seems to me
          that
          > the way the Earth is warming up now, there is really little doubt
          > that rapid global warming is already in progress, due to an ever
          > stronger and stronger greenhouse effect, caused by the increased
          > build up of heat-absorbing greenhouse gases in the neighborhood of
          > hundreds of billions of tons in the Earth's atmosphere over the
          past
          > 100-150 years.
          >
          > Yes, "global warming" is saying more than just "it is getting
          > warmer". We have seen a jump in globally averaged 10-year average
          > temperatures in the last 25 years (by 1 degrees F)*, a rise in
          ocean
          > water temperatures from 1955 - 1998 of 0.037 F**, Arctic Ocean ice
          > has shrunk by as much as 20%, snow cover has diminished on land,
          and
          > the permafrost underlying the tundra has become less stable***.
          >
          > These are just a few of the physical factors and measurement. The
          > biological factors and measurement include movement of species
          > northward (Northern Hemisphere), die-off of some species - golden
          > frog in Andes Mtns, threaten birds in Hawaii's mtns, earlier
          > flowering in Midwest. Not all can necessarily be linked directly
          to
          > global warming (yet) because data must be collected over time to
          > prove impacts from global warming. [Examples: heat wave
          mortalities,
          > rise in sea level, decline in Great Lakes Region lake levels (due
          to
          > increased evaporation with warming temperatures), extended ranges
          for
          > tropical diseases, insect infestations, forest die-back (Alaska).]
          >
          > It been said for many years that Earth's average temperature would
          be
          > about 60 degrees cooler without the greenhouse effect, or
          > approximately and average of 0 degrees F. This acknowledgement has
          > been a part of every science textbook for decades. How does your
          > theory explain this?
          >
          > But if you really think the greenhouse effect is NOT at work,
          perhaps
          > you might accept the notion that we all just might be a lot better
          > off without so much fossil fuel burning everywhere anyway?
          >
          > For example, scientific public health journals are now filled with
          > articles linking gasoline and diesel fuel burning on highways,
          > kerosene burning in airplanes, and coal and natural gas burning
          coal-
          > fired power plants - with increased rates of asthma, heart disease,
          > stroke and cancer in the nearby resident populations showing
          possible
          > cause and effect relationships.
          >
          > Another huge concern in the state of Wisconsin regarding coal-fired
          > power plants is that mercury in power plant emissions has
          > contaminated most of our lakes and streams to levels that now
          require
          > fish advisories. A large segment of Wisconsin's population has
          > recently been found to have levels of mercury in the body that
          exceed
          > EPA health standards.
          >
          > Another concern is simply the amount of land and concrete pavement
          > that's being devoted to motor vehicle driving and parking. Over
          50%
          > of most of the larger urban areas in the U.S. is presently under
          > pavement, devoted exclusively to automobile use at the expense of
          all
          > other uses of those lands. In rural areas, vast acreage of
          > agricultural, wildlife, forest and wetlands have been replaced with
          > paved surfaces for yet even higher volumes of automobile traffic.
          > Many of the larger cities in the U.S. have commuting delays in
          excess
          > of 2 hours in the morning, and again during the evening.
          >
          > The demand for oil continues to increase while the supplies
          dwindle.
          > Most of U.S. oil comes from overseas sources. Less gasoline, diesel
          > fuel, and kerosene burning in motorized transportation would reduce
          > the amount of oil shipped, which might result in fewer oil spills.
          > Oil spills are often devastating to wildlife and community
          > economics.
          >
          > Spending money on burning oil also creates negative impacts on
          family
          > budgets, cost which could be otherwise avoided by carpooling,
          taking
          > transit more often, bicycling or walking, or moving one's household
          > to reduce commuting times and unnecessary fuel burning. Reductions
          > in overall levels of driving might also result in fewer automobile
          > collisions, injuries and fatalities, and insurance premium costs
          for
          > everyone.
          >
          > * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/
          >
          > ** http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/DATA_ANALYSIS/heatcont04.pdf
          >
          > *** http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101041122-
          > 782114,00.html
          >
          > Mike
          >
          >
          > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "hartlod" <Hartlod@b...>
          wrote:
          > >
          > > It is time for those who claim to be "scientists" to properly
          > define
          > > the phrase "global warming" to be more than the simplistic "it is
          > > getting warmer".
          > >
          > > It is time for clear recognition of the proporgandering of the
          > > current GHG concepts, to overshadow the poor science actually
          used
          > in
          > > producing them, and open and honest discussion of ALL the aspects
          > > involved in the heating we are seeing.
          > >
          > > Unfortunately, the commitment to reduce "greenhouse gases" will
          > have
          > > little ability to affect climate alterations due to atmospheric
          > > heating.
          >
          > [snip]
        • Mike Neuman
          Peter, you did not answer my question about why Earth does not have an average temperature of zero instead of 60 degrees F.? If what you say is true, should
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Peter, you did not answer my question about why Earth does not have
            an average temperature of zero instead of 60 degrees F.? If what you
            say is true, should Earth's temperature been 0.0 degrees F. roughly
            200 years ago, and somewhat above that temperature now?

            I accept the fact the water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and a very
            significant one at that. Greenhouse gases include water and well as
            carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and some human-made
            chemicals, the most abundant one being the chemical they now use in
            automobile air conditioners.

            Mike
          • hartlod
            The flaw is in the calculations and which aspects of science chosen to show what you claim. Why should the Earth have an average temperature of 60 degrees F
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 4, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              The flaw is in the calculations and which aspects of science chosen
              to "show" what you claim.

              Why should the Earth have an average temperature of 60 degrees F at
              all? Yuo have not shown that to be the case in any manner.

              The interaction of H20 and CO2 is wave mechanical. The conversion of
              the energy held in the Microwave needs to be "converted" to kinetic
              motion in the interacting molecules. That is, "WORK" (consult a basic
              physics text) is done, the radiative energy of the Microwaves turns
              into kinetic motion. The relevant consideration is the "efficiency"
              of this conversion by the different molecules. Water is by a long
              margin the most efficient converter of Microwave energy, CO2 is a
              long distant second. Hence also, the proper unit to descrobe
              the "heat" produced is BTU as this is a unit of "thermal work". Your
              mention of air-conditioners is timely, you will see the
              cooling/heating abilities will be given in BTU's.

              The problem with the calculations you wish to propose Mike is their
              complete blindness to this. They concentrate on "photonic"
              interactions with CO2 and Infrared Radiation (notice the use of the
              word "radiation" in this name, NOT "wave") but overlook the basic
              consideration that these interactions do NOT produce physical "WORK"
              (as per your basic physics texts). That is why you place an incorrect
              weighting on H2O, and why the current GHG concepts attempt to
              proporgander CO2's supposed abilites.

              The problem is that Man has unbalanced the amount of energy being
              reemitted by the planetary surface, producing more Microwaves in an
              unnatrual proportion. These Microwaves interact with H20 such that a
              vast amount of HEAT can be made from only a little Microwave energy.
              Much more HEAT than could be made by CO2 due to its relatively
              poor "conversion factor". What is LIMITING the heat additions is the
              SURPLUS of CO2, which acts as an energy soak.

              Curiosly, this is a NATURAL oscillator in the planetary "heat" cycle.
              In nature a vast natural removal of photosynthetic ground cover
              (volcanism, whatever) would expose relatively barren ground to
              incident solar radiation. This would increase the natural Microwave
              reemittence. However, the reduction of the photosynthetic process
              would also lower the consumption of natural CO2, thus the "new"
              Microwave's would encounter "more" CO2 so the atmosphere WOULD NOT
              overheat whislt the photosynthetic mass is recovering the surface.
              Eventually "equilibrium" will return, such as it is.
              There is a lag, nothing in nature (on this scale) is instantaneous.

              WHAT we are witnessing now Mike is a Manmade "Event", we are removing
              photosynthetic mass, and adding to the natural output of CO2 with our
              own CO2.

              BY rights the atmopshere should be cooling, that it is NOT is an
              indication of HOW MUCH Microwave energy Man is adding, in an ever-
              increasing amount, by recovering ("developing") the surface.

              REALISE also that as the atmopshere HEATS, more water vapour WILL be
              held, so the POTENTIAL for an uncontrolled SPIRAL is already present
              IF you do NOT look seriously at what you are thinking. Increasing
              Microwave energy AND increase water vapour partial pressure WILL over
              heat this atmopshere FASTER than CO2 will ever be capable of doing.

              This is the science of the MATERIALS. They are factual, you simply
              need to move away from the theory and go look in those areas of
              knowledge where REAL objects are made from the science. Theory will
              always give way to reality, ask any ENGINEER.

              Your's
              Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
              Quakers Hill NSW Australia.

              --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Neuman" <mtneuman@j...>
              wrote:
              >
              > Peter, you did not answer my question about why Earth does not have
              > an average temperature of zero instead of 60 degrees F.? If what
              you
              > say is true, should Earth's temperature been 0.0 degrees F. roughly
              > 200 years ago, and somewhat above that temperature now?
              >
              > I accept the fact the water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and a very
              > significant one at that. Greenhouse gases include water and well
              as
              > carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and some human-made
              > chemicals, the most abundant one being the chemical they now use in
              > automobile air conditioners.
              >
              > Mike
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.