Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 06 16:50:15 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

And of course, Bush responded admirably to it, right?

It wasn't Bush's job to respond to it.

Sure it was. It was a national disaster, and he's the president.

No. Just because presidents have gotten photo ops in the past by
going to national disaster sites doesn't mean that it's their job. It
certainly says nothing about it in the Constitution.

"The Buck Stops Here" has been replaced with "Blame Somebody Else"?

FEMA is a federal agency. Bush is head of the executive branch.


The federal government didn't
do that great a job, but it rarely does, federal government being what
it always is. It certainly didn't anticipate how completely
incompetent the local government would be, though perhaps it should
have.
FEMA was supposed to manage emergencies. That's its name.

It has never been chartered to be a first responder. That has always
been understood to be a local responsibility. FEMA's position has
always been that locals are on their own for the first few days.

"FEMA’s continuing mission within the new department is to lead the effort to
prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and
recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates
proactive mitigation activities, trains first responders, and manages the
National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration."

Not much leading, not much managing, and certainly not much proactive anything
went on.

In article ,
Jo Schaper wrote:
Scott Nudds wrote:

"Jo Schaper" wrote

Ok, smart fellow. What is the answer if it isn't burning something?
Don't say solar. Something burns to generate solar.


Nothing burns to generate the sun's energy output Jo. There ain't no
oxygen in space for one thing, and secondly no chemical reaction could
continue with such vigour, as is seen with the sun, for 4.5 billion years.

You have a rather narrow definition of burning. I did not say
'oxidation' which would be the case. One gas is consumed in the
manfacture of another gas. Energy is released. Hence, burning.

And no you don't have to feed me the solar gas reactions. I first put
them in a research paper in 7th grade.



Actually the only thing I can think of is nukes, but in order to build
those really cool nuke plants, someone has to burn the limestone to make
cement. Which causes CO2 pollution.


Sorry, the limestone isn't burned either. It's simply dehydrated.

Oh? Have you ever been to cement plant and seen one run? Limestone is
not 'simply dehydrated' to make cement. A hell of a lot of energy is
consumed in the cement making process.

Energy efficiency is the fastest and most economical source of energy.
Nuclear is a distant second, and this even though it is heavily subsidized
by government.


Which was my point in the second email to Mr. Elfritz.

Burning means combustion. My freshmen students sometimes say "the sample was
burned" when they mean it was "heated." I correct them for that.

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Alastair McDonald" k
wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
. ..
: "Alastair McDonald" k
: wrote:
: :
: :"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
: oups.com...
: : "BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2
: : levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm)
: : - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average."
: :
: : The phrase "BBC News has learned" makes it very
: : UNoffical. Let's leave the rumors to the fossil fools,
: : please.
: :
: :Try this link then.
:
: I would have thought the phrase "BBC News has learned" would qualify
: more as an oxymoron than as anything else.
:
: :http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/sr..._trend_mlo.png
: :and this
: :http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/sr...2_data_mlo.png
:
: Most of us don't live on top of active volcanoes (which emit CO2, by
: the way).
:
: What's the measure look like where people live?
:
:Much worse. That is why the measurements were done on top of a
:mountain, in the middle of the ocean, near the equator, well away
:from the distorting effects of man and vegetation.

But right smack in the middle of an active volcano which belches CO2?


Uh, quite wrong.

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Lloyd Parker) wrote:

:Then why hasn't the current level caused accelerated plant growth and kept
the
:level from growing?

Then why doesn't the rate of growth of the 'current level' correlate
to human output?

Sinks -- plants, oceans. But they obviously are not absorbing it all.


As someone just pointed out, plant growth IS accelerating. Why's that
happening and do you seriously think it has no effect?

Yet plant growth cannot even absorb all the added CO2 humans are putting out
now. Why do you think it will in the future?

"Alastair McDonald" k
wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Alastair McDonald" k
: wrote:
: :
: :"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
: oups.com...
: : "BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2
: : levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm)
: : - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average."
: :
: : The phrase "BBC News has learned" makes it very
: : UNoffical. Let's leave the rumors to the fossil fools,
: : please.
: :
: :Try this link then.
:
: I would have thought the phrase "BBC News has learned" would qualify
: more as an oxymoron than as anything else.
:
: :http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/sr..._trend_mlo.png
: :and this
: :http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/sr...2_data_mlo.png
:
: Most of us don't live on top of active volcanoes (which emit CO2, by
: the way).
:
: What's the measure look like where people live?
:
:Much worse. That is why the measurements were done on top of a
:mountain, in the middle of the ocean, near the equator, well away
:from the distorting effects of man and vegetation.

But right smack in the middle of an active volcano which belches CO2?

--
"It's over now, or so they say.
But sometimes it don't work out that way.
And you're never the same when you've been under fire."
-- Huey Lewis and the News "Walking On A Thin Line"

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Alastair McDonald" k
wrote:
:Much worse. That is why the measurements were done on top of a
:mountain, in the middle of the ocean, near the equator, well away
:from the distorting effects of man and vegetation.

But right smack in the middle of an active volcano which belches CO2?

Yes, it's true, Mauna Loa is an active volcano, in fact it's the biggest
volcano on earth! So, Charles Keeling didn't know that? Well, yes, he did.
And using subtle scientific indicators like "wind direction" he was even
able to ensure that his readings were not contaminated by any outgassing
when it was occuring.
But, ok, let's throw out Mauna Loa. There are dozens of other sampling
stations scattered all over the globe, including one in the Antarctic
(http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-spl.htm), far from cities, SUV's,
cement plants and active volcanoes. It also shows the same rise though the
southern hemisphere tends to lag a few years behind the northern hemisphere
where the majority of the CO2 is produced. Here are eight others, same
results. (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.htm)

Sorry, its all of us Joes, not the volcanos.


--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

(Lloyd Parker) wrote:

:Then why hasn't the current level caused accelerated plant growth and kept the
:level from growing?

Then why doesn't the rate of growth of the 'current level' correlate
to human output?

As someone just pointed out, plant growth IS accelerating. Why's that
happening and do you seriously think it has no effect?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

(Lloyd Parker) wrote:

:That wasn't what I asked. If plants growing will absorb all the CO2, why
:haven't they done so already? Why is CO2 still increasing?

Why does your car ever skid, since you are going to engage in
corrective steering?

You're this stupid and claim to teach science? Small wonder things
are going to hell in a hand basket.

Why doesn't the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 correlate to the
rate of increase in CO2 emissions? It's not even CLOSE, Lloyd. Why
not?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

richard schumacher wrote:

:In article ,
: Dave Head wrote:
:
: You got that right. Buses suck. Sharing space with strangers sucks.
: Waiting
: on buses sucks. Having to walk blocks because that's as close as the bus
: gets
: to where you want to go sucks. Not having service when you want it (like
: 1:00
: AM after the late movie) sucks. Buses suck.
:
:Frequently-running trains, OTOH, don't suck. Mass transit != buses.

Yeah, they do.

: Public transportation is for people that can't afford a car!
:
: Absolutely.
:
:Hmm, then why were all those Lexuses and BMWs in the train station
arking lot this morning?

Because you live in some conurb where they restrict parking?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:53:29 +0000, Fred J. McCall wrote:

As someone just pointed out, plant growth IS accelerating. Why's that
happening and do you seriously think it has no effect?

I think plants are reacting to change, and that we are as well. The fact
that it is behind the increase in CO2 emissions is not too different than
an emitter follower circuit in electronics. We probably caused a part of
the problem in the way we've had a collective disregard for some of the
larger forests but that's just a small part of the equation. One item to
consider is to what level would CO2 levels be if plant life wasn't
reacting to change?

--
Listed? You must be joking http://relays.osirusoft.com
Pallorium V. Jared ruling http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/ruling.pdf
http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/