By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
Dec 7th 2004, 6:40 am
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:34:21 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Frank F. Matthews"
<[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
...
... As I remember it the Donora problem was actual contamination from local
... industry. A galvanizing plant as I remember but it was a while ago & I
... was young so the memory may be bad.
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/Rache...n/crucible.htm
<[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
...
... As I remember it the Donora problem was actual contamination from local
... industry. A galvanizing plant as I remember but it was a while ago & I
... was young so the memory may be bad.
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/Rache...n/crucible.htm
Dec 7th 2004, 7:12 am
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:34:21 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Earl Evleth wrote:
>> in article [email protected], [email protected] at
>> [email protected] wrote on 6/12/04 11:09:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:43:36 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Global warming was NOT a big subject in the 1960s.
>>>Global cooling was still being suggested at the beginning of the
>>>sixties.
>>
>>
>> The point is that it was not a subject which capture a lot of attention.
>> The rise in CO2 recognized as a long term problem however. So efforts
>> were made to make measurements for the future. This started
>> about 1960. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~martin.../ms/sld028.htm,
>> namely at Mauna Loa.
>>
>> Next, the perception of global warming even hit the popular press.
>> For instance in 1950 the Saturday Evening Post published an
>> article ""Is the World Getting Warmer?"
>>
>> The term "global warming" only appeared from the 1980s on.
>>
>> There is a bibliography on the discovery of global warming
>>
>> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>>and London, where dramatic smogs in the fifties lead to the Clean Air
>>>Act.
>>
>>
>> These were not ozone urban smogs of today, but SO2, coal generated acid
>> smogs and immediate killers.
Yes
>>The London '52 smog which killed an
>> indeterminate number of people (in the thousands).
It led to the UK Clean Air Act.
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Air_Qua..._Air_Acts.html
http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/st...reatsmog52.htm
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Earl Evleth wrote:
>> in article [email protected], [email protected] at
>> [email protected] wrote on 6/12/04 11:09:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:43:36 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Global warming was NOT a big subject in the 1960s.
>>>Global cooling was still being suggested at the beginning of the
>>>sixties.
>>
>>
>> The point is that it was not a subject which capture a lot of attention.
>> The rise in CO2 recognized as a long term problem however. So efforts
>> were made to make measurements for the future. This started
>> about 1960. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~martin.../ms/sld028.htm,
>> namely at Mauna Loa.
>>
>> Next, the perception of global warming even hit the popular press.
>> For instance in 1950 the Saturday Evening Post published an
>> article ""Is the World Getting Warmer?"
>>
>> The term "global warming" only appeared from the 1980s on.
>>
>> There is a bibliography on the discovery of global warming
>>
>> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>>and London, where dramatic smogs in the fifties lead to the Clean Air
>>>Act.
>>
>>
>> These were not ozone urban smogs of today, but SO2, coal generated acid
>> smogs and immediate killers.
Yes
>>The London '52 smog which killed an
>> indeterminate number of people (in the thousands).
It led to the UK Clean Air Act.
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Air_Qua..._Air_Acts.html
http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/st...reatsmog52.htm
--
Martin
Dec 7th 2004, 12:43 pm
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
Magda wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:34:21 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Frank F. Matthews"
> <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
>
> ...
> ... As I remember it the Donora problem was actual contamination from local
> ... industry. A galvanizing plant as I remember but it was a while ago & I
> ... was young so the memory may be bad.
>
> http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/Rache...n/crucible.htm
>
I guess the problem was a bit upstream from the galvanizing plant to the
smelter producing their zinc. I think of smelting as primarily a heat
process. I guess I just assumed the Sulfur came from the galvanizing.
In the early 60s the whole valley looked gray. For some strange reason
the best restaurant in the Pittsburgh area was in Donora. You had to
book months in advance and had no choice of food.
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:34:21 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Frank F. Matthews"
> <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
>
> ...
> ... As I remember it the Donora problem was actual contamination from local
> ... industry. A galvanizing plant as I remember but it was a while ago & I
> ... was young so the memory may be bad.
>
> http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/Rache...n/crucible.htm
>
I guess the problem was a bit upstream from the galvanizing plant to the
smelter producing their zinc. I think of smelting as primarily a heat
process. I guess I just assumed the Sulfur came from the galvanizing.
In the early 60s the whole valley looked gray. For some strange reason
the best restaurant in the Pittsburgh area was in Donora. You had to
book months in advance and had no choice of food.
Dec 7th 2004, 7:31 pm
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
in article [email protected], Magda at
[email protected] wrote on 7/12/04 20:40:
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:34:21 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Frank F. Matthews"
> <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like
> this :
>
> ...
> ... As I remember it the Donora problem was actual contamination from local
> ... industry. A galvanizing plant as I remember but it was a while ago & I
> ... was young so the memory may be bad.
>
> http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/Rache...n/crucible.htm
>
Usually a big killer is via gas and I would have imagined that a
galvanizing plant might emit heavy metal dust. I worked in a brass
foundry once, given the job of shoveling the black dusty sand
they use in the molds, which were hot and emitting a vapor.
I got ill and started shaking, a doctor said I had the "zinc shakes".
So I quit.
I am sensitive to SO2 also and get an asthmatic reaction when exposed
to it. So what I imagine in a acid smog situation is that some people
will have a catastrophic bronchitis, not being able to breath and die
in that manner. Current damage from urban ozone occurs over a longer period
and respiratory problems accumulate, like the elevated incidence of
emphysema in the general population. This occurs in the LA basin.
The other irritants, lung tissue destroying, are peroxides and
nitroperoxides formed the the reaction of ozone with organics coming from
unbrunt gasoline.
This route also regenerates some of the NO2 which photodecompositions
to give oxygen atoms, which reaction with normal O2 to make O3. Limiting
gasoline emissions cuts down on the ozone. However the problem of NOx
emissions remain serious and little reduction in that pollutant is
occurring.
Earl
[email protected] wrote on 7/12/04 20:40:
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:34:21 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Frank F. Matthews"
> <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like
> this :
>
> ...
> ... As I remember it the Donora problem was actual contamination from local
> ... industry. A galvanizing plant as I remember but it was a while ago & I
> ... was young so the memory may be bad.
>
> http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/Rache...n/crucible.htm
>
Usually a big killer is via gas and I would have imagined that a
galvanizing plant might emit heavy metal dust. I worked in a brass
foundry once, given the job of shoveling the black dusty sand
they use in the molds, which were hot and emitting a vapor.
I got ill and started shaking, a doctor said I had the "zinc shakes".
So I quit.
I am sensitive to SO2 also and get an asthmatic reaction when exposed
to it. So what I imagine in a acid smog situation is that some people
will have a catastrophic bronchitis, not being able to breath and die
in that manner. Current damage from urban ozone occurs over a longer period
and respiratory problems accumulate, like the elevated incidence of
emphysema in the general population. This occurs in the LA basin.
The other irritants, lung tissue destroying, are peroxides and
nitroperoxides formed the the reaction of ozone with organics coming from
unbrunt gasoline.
This route also regenerates some of the NO2 which photodecompositions
to give oxygen atoms, which reaction with normal O2 to make O3. Limiting
gasoline emissions cuts down on the ozone. However the problem of NOx
emissions remain serious and little reduction in that pollutant is
occurring.
Earl
Dec 8th 2004, 2:55 am
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
Earl Evleth wrote:
> in article [email protected] , Calif Bill at
> [email protected] wrote on 4/12/04 8:08:
>
>
>
>>The fact that physical scientists disagree over Global warming.
>
>
> I find to the contrary a consensus opinion among those working in
> atmospheric science area.
The consensus on wether there is going to be a global warming or not, and
wether this is man made or not is not that relevant in the discussion about
the Kyoto treaty in my opinion.
Kyoto will not achieve a significant reduction in any man made warming up of
the earth. It might however cause a significant reduction of the capabilities
of the participating countries to cope with what looks to be inevitable. For
that reason it is a bad thing. Good intentions are not enough.
(One of the reasons Kyoto will probably achieve nothing more than keep the
international conference circuit busy for many years to come is that for most
politicians in Europe talk is everything, and actions can be omitted. Hardly
any country in Europe is managing to meet it's Kyoto obligations.)
One of the things people seem to assume automatically is that man made = man
preventable. This is not necessarily true. Assuming there is a man made
global warming racing towards us, this does not mean we should treat it
differently than if there was a natural shift in climate.
The fact is that whenever a natural (or man made) disaster strikes, the human
toll is lesser the richer the area struck. This does lend a lot of credibility
to the argument that jeopardising economic growth in an atempt to avert global
warming might not be wise. Being prepared for the consequences, and weatlhy
enough to be able to afford the necessary countermeasures is imho the most
prudent course of action.
Krist
> in article [email protected] , Calif Bill at
> [email protected] wrote on 4/12/04 8:08:
>
>
>
>>The fact that physical scientists disagree over Global warming.
>
>
> I find to the contrary a consensus opinion among those working in
> atmospheric science area.
The consensus on wether there is going to be a global warming or not, and
wether this is man made or not is not that relevant in the discussion about
the Kyoto treaty in my opinion.
Kyoto will not achieve a significant reduction in any man made warming up of
the earth. It might however cause a significant reduction of the capabilities
of the participating countries to cope with what looks to be inevitable. For
that reason it is a bad thing. Good intentions are not enough.
(One of the reasons Kyoto will probably achieve nothing more than keep the
international conference circuit busy for many years to come is that for most
politicians in Europe talk is everything, and actions can be omitted. Hardly
any country in Europe is managing to meet it's Kyoto obligations.)
One of the things people seem to assume automatically is that man made = man
preventable. This is not necessarily true. Assuming there is a man made
global warming racing towards us, this does not mean we should treat it
differently than if there was a natural shift in climate.
The fact is that whenever a natural (or man made) disaster strikes, the human
toll is lesser the richer the area struck. This does lend a lot of credibility
to the argument that jeopardising economic growth in an atempt to avert global
warming might not be wise. Being prepared for the consequences, and weatlhy
enough to be able to afford the necessary countermeasures is imho the most
prudent course of action.
Krist
Dec 8th 2004, 3:01 am
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
Earl Evleth wrote:
> As of right now, about one third of the CO2 put into the atmosphere
> is not processed by nature and removed. Contrary to popular belief
> it is not photosynthesis which has removed most of the CO2 from the
> earth's atmosphere historically.
But the CO2 that's being put back in to the atmosphere right now _was_ taking
from it by photosynthesis.
> Before life appeared on earth,
> and today, weathering of rocks releases calcium and magnesium into
> the ocean which precipitates out the carbonate ions from by the hydrolysis
> of CO2 in water. So any continued or expanded release of CO2 into the
> atmosphere will result in increased global warming unless other factors
> intercede to cut the solar radiance reaching the surface of the earth.
So burning up all fossil fuel right now will not recreate pre-life conditions
on earth. That's a releif.
> We might consider pie in the sky solutions like constructing gigantic
> reflectors on earth or in orbit. In fact "we" are currently in the process
> of destroying one reflector, the northern ice sheet and making things
> worse!
This all makes me think of a Larry Niven SF story, where a planet housing and
advanced civilization is repeatedly moved further away from it's sun, as
getting rid of waste heat becomes ever harder...
We will eventually find a solution, or end up not needing a solution...
Krist
> As of right now, about one third of the CO2 put into the atmosphere
> is not processed by nature and removed. Contrary to popular belief
> it is not photosynthesis which has removed most of the CO2 from the
> earth's atmosphere historically.
But the CO2 that's being put back in to the atmosphere right now _was_ taking
from it by photosynthesis.
> Before life appeared on earth,
> and today, weathering of rocks releases calcium and magnesium into
> the ocean which precipitates out the carbonate ions from by the hydrolysis
> of CO2 in water. So any continued or expanded release of CO2 into the
> atmosphere will result in increased global warming unless other factors
> intercede to cut the solar radiance reaching the surface of the earth.
So burning up all fossil fuel right now will not recreate pre-life conditions
on earth. That's a releif.
> We might consider pie in the sky solutions like constructing gigantic
> reflectors on earth or in orbit. In fact "we" are currently in the process
> of destroying one reflector, the northern ice sheet and making things
> worse!
This all makes me think of a Larry Niven SF story, where a planet housing and
advanced civilization is repeatedly moved further away from it's sun, as
getting rid of waste heat becomes ever harder...
We will eventually find a solution, or end up not needing a solution...
Krist
Dec 8th 2004, 8:48 am
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: By 2040, Half of Europe's Summers Could Be as Hot as in 2003
/
> Earl Evleth wrote:
>
>> As of right now, about one third of the CO2 put into the atmosphere
>> is not processed by nature and removed. Contrary to popular belief
>> it is not photosynthesis which has removed most of the CO2 from the
>> earth's atmosphere historically.
>
>
> But the CO2 that's being put back in to the atmosphere right now _was_
> taking from it by photosynthesis.
>
>> Before life appeared on earth,
>> and today, weathering of rocks releases calcium and magnesium into
>> the ocean which precipitates out the carbonate ions from by the
>> hydrolysis
>> of CO2 in water. So any continued or expanded release of CO2 into the
>> atmosphere will result in increased global warming unless other factors
>> intercede to cut the solar radiance reaching the surface of the earth.
>
>
> So burning up all fossil fuel right now will not recreate pre-life
> conditions on earth. That's a releif.
>
>> We might consider pie in the sky solutions like constructing gigantic
>> reflectors on earth or in orbit. In fact "we" are currently in the
>> process
>> of destroying one reflector, the northern ice sheet and making things
>> worse!
>
>
> This all makes me think of a Larry Niven SF story, where a planet
> housing and advanced civilization is repeatedly moved further away from
> it's sun, as getting rid of waste heat becomes ever harder...
>
> We will eventually find a solution, or end up not needing a solution...
>
> Krist
>
>
>
>
Unfortunately for the decendents the second option will probably be thru
extinction and replacement by another form of life.
> Earl Evleth wrote:
>
>> As of right now, about one third of the CO2 put into the atmosphere
>> is not processed by nature and removed. Contrary to popular belief
>> it is not photosynthesis which has removed most of the CO2 from the
>> earth's atmosphere historically.
>
>
> But the CO2 that's being put back in to the atmosphere right now _was_
> taking from it by photosynthesis.
>
>> Before life appeared on earth,
>> and today, weathering of rocks releases calcium and magnesium into
>> the ocean which precipitates out the carbonate ions from by the
>> hydrolysis
>> of CO2 in water. So any continued or expanded release of CO2 into the
>> atmosphere will result in increased global warming unless other factors
>> intercede to cut the solar radiance reaching the surface of the earth.
>
>
> So burning up all fossil fuel right now will not recreate pre-life
> conditions on earth. That's a releif.
>
>> We might consider pie in the sky solutions like constructing gigantic
>> reflectors on earth or in orbit. In fact "we" are currently in the
>> process
>> of destroying one reflector, the northern ice sheet and making things
>> worse!
>
>
> This all makes me think of a Larry Niven SF story, where a planet
> housing and advanced civilization is repeatedly moved further away from
> it's sun, as getting rid of waste heat becomes ever harder...
>
> We will eventually find a solution, or end up not needing a solution...
>
> Krist
>
>
>
>
Unfortunately for the decendents the second option will probably be thru
extinction and replacement by another form of life.
