========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Government gives in to organic superstitions From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.econ,sci.agriculture Message-ID: <19990126.162528.726@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:25:28 GMT References: <36A8EA91.A52D428D@erols.com> <36A9C526.DB7EE83E@erols.com> In article , on 24 Jan 1999 15:07:47 -0800, John McCarthy writes (in part): >I'll have to concede the point here and qualify my statement. > >Is there more information about food standards not based on >health and safety? I believe there are many such standards or regulations. Consider prime, choice etc. cuts of meat. Isn't use of the word "fresh" regulated? Also, I seem to recall regulations about things like how much chicken is required to call something "chicken soup". I also think your general claim that the proposed organic food regulations are uniquely irrational is shaky. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Panel: Climate Watcher Inadequate From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990208.153358.292@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 20:33:58 GMT References: <36bb6b07.182016671@news.earthlink.net> <79ifql$f7c@spool.cs.wisc.edu> In article <79ifql$f7c@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, on 6 Feb 1999 22:30:44 GMT, tobis@scrap.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes: >By the way, this is the second consecutive year in which midwinter conditions >are essentially absent in Wisconsin. Last year's El Nino rationalization >won't work. Winter warming is becoming noticeable at the fringes of the >snowbelt around the turn of the century, just about on schedule. Coincidence? It has been a second mild winter here too. Personally I prefer mild winters. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Panel: Climate Watcher Inadequate From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990210.103111.400@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 15:31:11 GMT References: <36bb6b07.182016671@news.earthlink.net> <19990208.153358.292@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <79nov3$lt0@spool.cs.wisc.edu> In article <79nov3$lt0@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, on 8 Feb 1999 22:37:23 GMT, tobis@scrap.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes: >jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com wrote: >: In article <79ifql$f7c@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, >: on 6 Feb 1999 22:30:44 GMT, >: tobis@scrap.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes: >: >By the way, this is the second consecutive year in which midwinter conditions >: >are essentially absent in Wisconsin. Last year's El Nino rationalization >: >won't work. Winter warming is becoming noticeable at the fringes of the >: >snowbelt around the turn of the century, just about on schedule. Coincidence? > >: It has been a second mild winter here too. Personally I >: prefer mild winters. > >I would too, were it not for what they harbinge. More global warming scare stories? Good point. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Scientists' taboos From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.astro Message-ID: <19990216.153627.440@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 20:36:27 GMT References: <7acfpc$6re@spool.cs.wisc.edu> In article <7acfpc$6re@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, on 16 Feb 1999 19:09:32 GMT, tobis@scrap.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes: >Surely it is exactly the science which currently anticipates that >human activity will cause dangerously rapid and large warming in >the near future that will be called upon to calibrate the response >to ice age onset in the more distant future. I don't believe there is a consensus that warming will be "dangerously rapid and large". James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Scientists' taboos From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.astro Message-ID: <19990216.154254.285@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 20:42:54 GMT References: In article , on 16 Feb 1999 11:43:40 -0800, John McCarthy writes: >I see from several responses that I didn't make myself entirely clear. >The part of the article I reacted most strongly to was > > Most experts believe the ice will come again, as surely as > the earth turns on its axis and revolves around the sun. > > > >I'd have settled for: "will come unless our descendants prevent >it." ... This appears to me to be more dramatic license on the part of the reporter than anything else. John McCarthy also posted: > ... Ideology among scientists is a subject worthy of >scientific investigation. Ideology among reporters is probably more important. Also exaggeration to make a story more compelling isn't really ideology in the usual sense. Btw to revisit another thread did it ever occur to you that reporters might vote for Clinton for selfish professional reasons (after all if you are a scandalmonger ...)? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: 1600 ton-miles per gallon From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990222.171157.889@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:11:57 GMT References: In article , on 18 Feb 1999 20:10:34 -0800, John McCarthy writes: >Conclusion: The cost of shipping grain long distances won't force >countries to be independent in food. Actually I expect gettting the grain to and from ports is the hard part. Another question, at what fuel cost does sail become competitive for ocean shipping? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: AAAS on FOIA From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990315.124556.622@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 17:45:56 GMT References: <36E95455.3ED3@facstaff.wisc.edu> In article <36E95455.3ED3@facstaff.wisc.edu>, on Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:52:21 -0600, "Donald L. Libby" writes: >I noted that AAAS has written in opposition to proposed legislation to >extend Freedom of Information Act access to scientific data collected by >federally funded research projects. > >Personally, I am ambivalent. As a researcher, I understand the need to >maintain "intellectual property rights" in order to get first crack at >analyzing and publishing data and analysis thereof. OTOH, I think data >should be in the public domain to facilitate continuing peer review and >scientific progress. > >The case that provoked the legislative proposal was the refusal of a >Harvard School of Public Health researcher to release data from a study >of the health effects of air pollution to scientists employed by >industry who want to re-analyze the data. > >I tend to lean in the direction of letting scientists have open access >to environmental health data: should I lean the other way and toe the >AAAS line? Is the data at issue here people's personal medical records? Then they have a privacy interest which makes the question more complicated than if the data were photos of Mars or something like that. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: MR. POTATOHEAD AND "LIMITS TO GROWTH" From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990323.125058.669@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:50:58 GMT References: <7bsm19$lfs@igc.apc.org> <7bu3i0$a44@newsops.execpc.com> <7cs2n2$it5$6@hirame.wwa.com> <7ctaao$gu4$1@news1.epix.net> <7d150e$lhp$2@hirame.wwa.com> <7d2vnd$2v3@newsops.execpc.com> <7d5h5o$bol$4@hirame.wwa.com> In article , on 22 Mar 1999 10:14:58 -0800, John McCarthy writes in part: >1. In the 1970s, the unconventional oil options being explored >included shale oil, oil from coal and tar sands. My faith in the >energy companys' engineers' knowledge of the law of conservation >of energy which they learned in high school and in freshman >physics and in thermodynamics is such that I believe they >wouldn't have built pilot plants if they ran at an energy >deficit. However, if the Viking wants to challenge this, we can >try to look it up. This is not a convincing argument. If I remember correctly the pilot projects were subsidized by the government. Consider the gasohol industry entirely created by government subsidy. John McCarthy >What zapped the unconventional oil projects (except for tar sands >which survived) was the price collapse of conventional oil. Once >Chevron became convinced that import of oil would remain viable, >i.e. that the Arabs couldn't maintain the price, because of being >undercut by the Soviets, they abandoned their oil shale project. Actually I think the government subsidies stopped. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Is mankind a gardener or an intruder on the earth. From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990426.210857.643@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 01:08:57 GMT References: In article , on 24 Apr 1999 21:51:12 -0700, John McCarthy writes: >Ian ST. John includes: > > I follow sci.space.* newsgroups. Many debates. Many > proposals. No agreement on any feasible system. Many fall > down from lack of knowledge of the composition of the > asteroid. Even the best have to assume a very long lead > time. And the ones using nuclear explosions come down to the > fact that we don't have that sort of stockpile of tactical > nukes. Work out the mass of a one kilometer asteroid. Nukes > are impressive but then so is the mass of such a beast. > >If you won't do arithmetic, you are doomed to talk nonsense. > >A one kilometer asteroid has a mass of about 1015 kg. Giving it >a velocity of 1 m/sec requires about 5 x 1014 joules. A ton of >tnt is 5 x 109 joules. Thus we need 100 kilotons of energy to >get a velocity of 1 m/sec. If we assume one percent efficiency >of delivery of kinetic energy to the asteroid from a a nuclear >explosive standing off by 1/4 the diameter of the asteroid, a ten >megaton nuclear device would do the job. > >1 m/sec a year in advance would deflect the asteroid by 3 x 107 >meters, i.e. 30,000 kilometers. That will make it miss the >earth. > >I haven't followed more recent discussions of the problem. > That's a mighty dense asteroid. On the other hand your 1% efficiency assumption is optimistic. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: frogs From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990503.121524.916@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 16:15:24 GMT References: <7gebnv$fql$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au> <7gg4og$44$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au> In article <7gg4og$44$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au>, on 2 May 1999 00:03:28 GMT, Andrew Taylor writes: >>6. At present science is most affected by environmentalist and (to a >>lesser extent now) by leftist ideology. > >I think the reverse is more important - science is driving >environmentalism. It is apparent in E.O. Wilson's autobiography that >he has little interest in politics or ideology, its his science that >has made him an environmentalist. I think the vilification he received for his work on sociobiology might have something to do with it. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Doomsday Scenarios From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990504.120755.244@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 16:07:55 GMT Massive volcanism. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Doomsday Scenarios From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990506.115616.866@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 15:56:16 GMT Galactic core explosion. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Clean up anyway From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,sci.environment Message-ID: <19990513.123424.118@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 16:34:24 GMT References: <372CE9DC.C6001CF7@inch.com> <37397b20.2193186@nntp.usace.army.mil> <7hd798$6lv$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au> In article <7hd798$6lv$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au>, on 13 May 1999 00:44:24 GMT, Andrew Taylor writes: >In article <37397b20.2193186@nntp.usace.army.mil>, >Mike wrote: >>How many species evolve or are discovered every day? Surely enough to >>balance Pulitzer Prize Winning estimates of 137/day. > >Background speciation and extinction rates are presumably similar. >Species lifetimes for many taxa of 10e6-10e7 years have been inferred >from the fossil record. If you assume 10e7 extant species and a species >lifetime of 10e7 years then you expect 1 extinction/year and ~1 new >species per year. This is nonsense. The fossil record is extremely biased towards long lived widespread species. The lifetimes of such species cannot be taken as typical for species in general. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Clean up anyway From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990517.183452.264@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 22:34:52 GMT References: <372CE9DC.C6001CF7@inch.com> <19990513.123424.118@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <7hfie4$11v0$1@news.doit.wisc.edu> In article <7hfie4$11v0$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>, on 13 May 1999 22:07:00 GMT, tobis@scat.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes: >Will the non-worriers stipulate that 1) fragmented regions can support >less diversity than large regions, 2) human activity is replacing large >ecosystem areas with monocultures and remnant fragmentary ecosystems >3) exchange of exotic species as well as other forms of anthropogenic >stress enhance the viability of invasive wild species that also reduce >diversity? I would have thought these results to be sell-established. Actually fragmented regions can support more diversity than large regions. When two previously isolated regions are joined (such as North and South America) extinctions are expected as some species are unable to compete against new rivals. Michael Tobis continued: >I think the tendency of argument to focus on the uncertainties of >counterarguments is tiresome and pretty much prevents whatever small >chance there is of making progress in a discussion. Whatever the actual >current rate of species decline there is a balance of evidence that >makes it obvious to practitioners in the field that the effective >rate of extinction is extraordinarily high and rising. Quibbling about >numbers seems beside the point. Is there any reason to believe that >the three numbered points above aren't valid or significant? I think accuracy is more important than political correctness. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Clean up anyway From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990517.184824.479@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 22:48:24 GMT References: <372CE9DC.C6001CF7@inch.com> <37397b20.2193186@nntp.usace.army.mil> <7hd798$6lv$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au> <19990513.123424.118@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <7hfq03$s0l$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au> In article <7hfq03$s0l$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au>, on 14 May 1999 00:16:03 GMT, Andrew Taylor writes: >In article <19990513.123424.118@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com>, > wrote: >> This is nonsense. The fossil record is extremely biased >>towards long lived widespread species. The lifetimes of such species >>cannot be taken as typical for species in general. > >My next sentence said these estimates probably weren't typical, but >I feel a compulsion to defend palaeontologists here. They do actually >realise that there are biases in the fossil record and consider at length >how to compensate for them. One recourse, for example, is comparison with >lifetimes of higher level taxa. > >So some of the species lifetime estimates do attempt to compensate for >fossil record biases. For some taxa, e.g. hard-shelled marine inverts, >the estimates should be useful. The initial claims by paleontologists that the fossil record showed that the KT extinction event was gradual and hence that the Alvarez impact hypothesis could not be correct make me skeptical that they know what they are doing. I suppose it is possible that they learned something from that fiasco and are more careful now but I have my doubts. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Clean up anyway From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990521.174811.164@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 21:48:11 GMT References: <372CE9DC.C6001CF7@inch.com> <19990517.183452.264@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <7hshd2$mdg$1@news.doit.wisc.edu> In article <7hshd2$mdg$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>, on 18 May 1999 20:09:06 GMT, tobis@scat.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes: >jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com wrote: >: Actually fragmented regions can support more diversity than >: large regions. When two previously isolated regions are joined (such >: as North and South America) extinctions are expected as some species >: are unable to compete against new rivals. > >True, but different from the "island effect". I expect Andrew will have >a better explanation than I, but I understand that combining two formerly >disparate ecologies will reduce biodiversity as you describe, but that >typically the species from the larger landmass will be more successful >because the larger mass supports a larger population in the first place. >In the very long run, the combined mass will evolve higher diversity. This is not true. When North and South America joined the Atlantic and Pacific oceans were separated (fragmented). As a result the biota in the Atlantic and Pacific (along the coasts of Panama) have diverged increasing diversity. There has been concern expressed that a sea level canal through Panama would in effect rejoin these now isolated marine environments causing many extinctions and reducing diversity. The basic reason that fragmentation increases diversity is that given sufficient time reproductively isolated populations of a species will become separate species. Michael Tobis continued: >A reductio ad absurdum might appeal to you (if not to a biologist). >A million 1-meter-square islands cannot support the species diversity >of a single 1 km-squre island. Actually if you assume a standard species area relation of the form N = C * A ** z (where N is the number of species, C is a scale factor, A is area and z is an empirically determined parameter) the diversity will be much greater on the million small islands. This will be true whenever z<1 and a typical value for z is .3. This sort of relation is used to estimate eventual extinctions from habitat loss. Of course there is a lower limit on the area which can support life and the species area relations can not be expected to hold near or below this point. However within the range of validity of the species area relations fragmented environments clearly have more diversity. I believe this is rather fundamental and generally accepted. Michael Tobis continued: >However, I think there is an essential distinction between being accurate >and quibbling. Whether or not we have a good estimate of past or present >extinction rates, we do have confidence that biological information is being >lost at a rate far above the rates common in pre-technological years. Or >at least that is my impression. > >To my reading, your counterargument is a clever debating turn but not >a serious counterargument to that assertion. Well I have no such confidence. For one thing many of the extinctions attributed to humans predate modern technology. It has been claimed that we now in an anthopogenic great extinction (comparable to that at the KT boundary). I think the evidence for this is quite weak and that the claim is basically propaganda. Evaluating this requires some sort of quantification. In this regard using an average species lifetime of 10 million years to compute a background extinction rate is in my opinion absurd. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Clean up anyway From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990601.185310.836@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:53:10 GMT References: <372CE9DC.C6001CF7@inch.com> <19990521.174811.164@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <7imkfo$fem$1@news.doit.wisc.edu> In article <7imkfo$fem$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>, on 28 May 1999 17:41:12 GMT, tobis@scat.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes: >Shearer seems to miss the point, though perhaps this is my fault as I >could have made my argument mroe clear. > >I concede that all else equal, fragmentation will increase diversity on >evolutionary time scales, but of course this is untrue on human time >scales, and is irrelevant to the question of whether we are presently >experiencing a major extinction event. > >On the short time scale, each fragment will support some small subset >of the diversity of the whole. What is more, the subset is likely to >be very similar for each fragment. All species that require a large >range will become extinct, and many others will be stressed by the resulting >change etc. > >It's certainly clear that the instantaneous result of fragmentation can't >be an increase in diversity. > >The exact decline is not easy to predict (biological models hiding so much >more descriptive complexity than, say, meteorological ones), but to argue >that there is no decline is to confuse the relevant time scales quite >spectacularly. Your original statement to which I objected was "fragmented regions can support less diversity than large regions". It appears you are now conceding that it was wrong. As to your new statements, it may well be that the initial effect of splitting a region is a temporary loss of diversity. I have seen the distinction between human and evolutionary time scales made before. I consider it rather vague. Perhaps you can quantify what you mean by it. This also brings up the question of which time scale should we be considering in worrying about loss of diversity. Somehow I suspect the worriers would be bothered by human actions which would reduce diversity in the long run even if they increased it in the short run. Btw the extinctions caused by loss of habitat will not necessarily be quick. They could take thousands of years. Actually merging regions will cause more immediate extinctions. I suspect exotic species (an effect of merging habitats) are currently causing more extinctions than fragmentation. It makes a difference whether CO2 forcing is large or small compared to natural fluctuations in forcing. Similarly it makes a difference whether anthropogenic extinctions are large or small compared to natural extinction events. I don't understand why you object to attempts to quantify this. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Clean up anyway From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990603.204525.391@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:45:25 GMT References: <372CE9DC.C6001CF7@inch.com> <19990521.174811.164@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <7imkfo$fem$1@news.doit.wisc.edu> <19990601.185310.836@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <7j4mmn$ok8$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au> In article <7j4mmn$ok8$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au>, on 3 Jun 1999 01:44:55 GMT, Andrew Taylor writes: >In article <19990601.185310.836@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com>, > wrote: >>compared to natural fluctuations in forcing. Similarly it makes a >>difference whether anthropogenic extinctions are large or small >>compared to natural extinction events. I don't understand why you >>object to attempts to quantify this. > >The problem is that you reject the best efforts to quantify either >the background or current extinction rates as too uncertain and >imply hence people concerned about biodiversity loss are >irrational worriers. This is not exactly accurate. I object to proclaiming a single number to be the "best" (who decides) estimate without giving error estimates especially in cases like this where the estimates are quite uncertain. Regarding species lifetime estimates, when this came up before Alan McGowen suggested looking at species family tree data (derived from dna data). Has anyone done this? I expect my main disagreement with the worriers about biodiversity loss is that I am not much concerned about biodiversity loss which does not seriously impact humans. To me much of the environmental ethos is irrational quasi-religious mysticism. I do believe that the worriers have a tendency to exaggerate the extent of biodiversity loss so as to encourage action to prevent it. It would be fair to point out that others have a tendency to minimize the extent of biodiversity loss. Andrew Taylor continued: >> As to your new statements, it may well be that the initial >>effect of splitting a region is a temporary loss of diversity. > >On what timescale do you believe speciation occurs and do you believe >geographic patterns of human land use will be stable on those time >scales? I expect in favorable conditions speciation could occur in 100-1000 generations. It can also occur more slowly. What is your estimate? By the way I believe that there are species in which some populations can not interbreed directly but exchange genes through mating with intermediate populations. For example suppose a species has populations A,B,C where A and C cannot interbreed directly but both can and do interbreed with B. Then I believe this is considered a single species, but if we wipe out B then presto A and C are now considered separate species. In this case speciation could be very rapid indeed. However it might be fair to object that this does not really constitute an increase in biodiversity. I think future human land use patterns are uncertain. I believe it is possible some fragments will remain separated long enough for speciation to occur. In any case this is irrelevant to the question of whether the claim of Tobis (to which I objected) that fragmented regions can support less diversity is correct. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Corporations From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990604.151333.119@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 19:13:33 GMT References: <7in1sb$bf5@crl3.crl.com> <7ipnbv$5jv$18@hirame.wwa.com> <7iqq8c$ljc@crl3.crl.com> <3759e0ac.3462809@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <37533afe.1679581@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <375bfbc3.10594405@news.mindspring.com> <3759f48b.6969544@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <37582ff5.479091@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <375761e1.949138@nntp.ix.netcom.com> In article , on 03 Jun 1999 23:29:54 -0700, John McCarthy writes: >Mason C gave the example of Keating about whom I had forgotten. He is >in prison, apparently. The last I heard he had gotten his conviction reversed and was out. John McCarthy >It seemed to me that the original statement was much more sweeping. >Would he restate his opinion of the present extent of "corporate >ownership" of legislators? While the level of corruption in the US is not currently high enough to endanger the system it certainly exists and I think it is unwise to be complacent about (as you appear to be). You ask for a corporation buying a politician, this is sort of a strawman. More common is buying a vote on a specific issue in exchange for money either directly (which is very illegal and for which people regularly go to jail) or indirectly in the form of campaign contributions (less clearly illegal and hard to prove). Recently the laws (or regulations) regarding campaign contributions by municipal bond underwriters were changed because of perceptions of widespread corruption (and/or extortion), so called "pay to play". There are also numerous examples of regulations that are clearly against the public interest but remain in force because of lobbying, including large campaign contributions, from the private interests they benefit. The sugar tariff alluded to by another poster is an example. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Corporations From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990609.153320.701@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:33:20 GMT References: <3759e0ac.3462809@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <37533afe.1679581@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <375bfbc3.10594405@news.mindspring.com> <3759f48b.6969544@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <37582ff5.479091@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <375761e1.949138@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <19990604.151333.119@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> In article , on 04 Jun 1999 17:51:13 -0700, John McCarthy writes: >I agree that the sugar tariff is a longstanding bit of harmful >protectionism. However, the reason such anomalies remain is localism >rather than corruption. The Congressmen from American sugar growing >areas want to preserve the tariffs for the benefit of their >constituents. They are a small minority in Congress, so how do they >do it? They do it by making deals with other Congressmen. To take a >hypothetical example, they might agree to vote for a bit of >environmental legislation, and even make speeches in favor of it, in >exchange for those who really care about the environmental legislation >helping preserve the hundreds of year old American sugar industry. > >Consider how hard it was to get NAFTA passed, and look at who opposes >it. Liberals, who would ordinarily favor free trade, have an alliance >with unions which favor protectionism. > >Campaign contributions are a factor but not the main factor. This depends on to some extent on what you mean by corruption. If a politician alters a vote to obtain campaign contributions this is arguably corrupt and happens all the time. Regarding the sugar tariff, there is an entire uneconomic industry, high fructose corn syrup, which has grown up because of the sugar tariff. So it's not just the sugar producers lobbying for the tariff. A big producer of high fructose corn syrup is Archer Daniel Midlands (ADM). ADM is also big in gasohol another useless industry created by government subsidy. ADM is notorious for large campaign contributions to politicians to protect these favors. ADM has recently had antitrust ("the customer is the enemy") problems perhaps indicating their attitude towards the laws of this country. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Clean up anyway From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990609.154109.282@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:41:09 GMT References: <372CE9DC.C6001CF7@inch.com> <19990601.185310.836@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <7j4mmn$ok8$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au> <19990603.204525.391@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <7jdqgf$8ss$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au> In article <7jdqgf$8ss$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au>, on 6 Jun 1999 12:45:03 GMT, Andrew Taylor writes: >Most papers I've seen survey estimates without nominating any "best" >estimate, for example, Lawton, May & Stork discuss various estimates >and their weakness in in 1 but you've already dismissed them as >propagandists. I did not dismiss anyone as a propagandist, I suggested the claim (made by Wilson) that we are currently in a great extinction was propaganda. Andrew Taylor also posted: >But very relevant to the claim Michael Tobis was trying to make - >that habitat fragmentation is a cause of loss of biodiversity which is >textbook orthodoxy. Ok, suppose we are going to lose 80% of a habitat and be left with one region (20% of the original) or two regions (10% each of the original). Is it suppose to be obvious (textbook orthodoxy) that the two fragment case is worse for diversity? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: High-altitude pressures confirm surface warming From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990614.000820.936@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:08:20 GMT References: <7jpmc8$96t$1@news.hal-pc.org> <3760cabf.0@news.nwl.ac.uk> In article <3760cabf.0@news.nwl.ac.uk>, on 11 Jun 1999 09:37:19 GMT, wmc@bas.ac.uk writes: Since we are on this subject, won't the warming induced expansion of the atmosphere change the amount of outgoing radiation absorbed? Is this a positive or negative feedback? How important is it? I haven't seen it discussed. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Clean up anyway From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990614.001448.322@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:14:48 GMT References: <372CE9DC.C6001CF7@inch.com> <19990603.204525.391@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <7jdqgf$8ss$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au> <19990609.154109.282@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <7jo94v$cob$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au> In article <7jo94v$cob$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au>, on 10 Jun 1999 11:56:15 GMT, Andrew Taylor writes: >In article <19990609.154109.282@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com>, > wrote: >> Ok, suppose we are going to lose 80% of a habitat and be left >>with one region (20% of the original) or two regions (10% each of the >>original). Is it suppose to be obvious (textbook orthodoxy) that the >>two fragment case is worse for diversity? > >No, its not obvious and it will not be true in some instances but this is >not relevant to the statement I made - habitat fragmentation is a cause >of loss of biodiversity. I interpreted your statement as meaning habitat fragmentation causes additional loss of biodiversity as compared to that expected from destruction of habitat alone. The above question then seems relevant. Andrew Taylor continued: >This basis for this is observation rather than inference. > >They causes include factors related to population levels within fragments, >such as when no fragment is large enough to contain a viable population. > >Factor related to edge effects are also important including physical >effects, such as changes to light and temperature, and a myriad of >ecological efects. To quote Simberloff, "propbaly any species that >has evolved in large relatively continuous habitat has traits that are >maladaptive in small, isolated fragments". Going from large relatively continuous habitat to small isolated fragments appears to involve considerable habitat destruction. Is accompanying fragmentation causing significant additional loss of diversity? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Clean up anyway From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990614.002335.721@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:23:35 GMT References: <372CE9DC.C6001CF7@inch.com> <19990603.204525.391@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <7jdqgf$8ss$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au> <19990609.154109.282@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <7jo94v$cob$1@mirv.unsw.edu.au> <7jrm4n$27i@spool.cs.wisc.edu> In article <7jrm4n$27i@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, on 11 Jun 1999 18:56:23 GMT, tobis@scrap.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes: >Andrew Taylor (andrewt@cse.unsw.edu.au) wrote: >: In article <19990609.154109.282@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com>, >: wrote: >: > Ok, suppose we are going to lose 80% of a habitat and be left >: >with one region (20% of the original) or two regions (10% each of the >: >original). Is it suppose to be obvious (textbook orthodoxy) that the >: >two fragment case is worse for diversity? > >: No, its not obvious and it will not be true in some instances but this is >: not relevant to the statement I made - habitat fragmentation is a cause >: of loss of biodiversity. > >I claimed that fragmentation obviously leads to an immediate loss of >diversity, regardless of the long range outcome. I should be more careful >in responding to Shearer. More correctly, fragmentation is neutral at >best on short time scales, because the fragmentation cannot in itself >create new genetic information. > >: This basis for this is observation rather than inference. > >Logically, fragmentation *cannot* lead to *immediate* increases in total >planetary diversity. That it leads to immediate decline is hardly surprising >or subtle, but this needs to be confirmed by observation, and my >understanding is that this is confirmed in most cases. In practice fragmentation is the result of massive habitat destruction. Is it obvious in such cases that the immediate diversity decline is greater in the fragmented case? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Scientists want Congress to act on global warming From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990710.201637.190@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 00:16:37 GMT References: <3780f98c.8725970@news.sfo.com> <3781b9c5.141978712@news.uvic.ca> <7ltbs9$pd0$1@news.dgsys.com> <7m3277$p6g@spool.cs.wisc.edu> In article <7m3277$p6g@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, on 8 Jul 1999 20:37:59 GMT, tobis@scrap.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes: >"What can I, as an individual do" is a red herring and a diversion. You >can do a little, but not much, as an individual. Our dangerous long-term >trajectories are as they are because of declining ability of democratic >societies to implement capital-intensive ideas, even if they would produce >a large net benefit. I doubt there is any such "declining ability". Michael Tobis continued: >For instance, imagine a revival of pneumatic tubes as a delivery mechanism. >No need to haul the whole UPS truck around. Sound ridiculous? Yes it does. > >Is it ridiculous? Only because collective action is increasingly ignored. >The bottom line would be faster delivery at lower unit cost. The capital >expenditure could probably be recovered in short order. In another era, this >would be the job of the postal authority (as telephones were in some countries). > >Yes, I know this won't soon happen. Nor will a network of externally powered >vehicles. Maybe these are lousy ideas on their merits. My problem is that >they will never be considered on their technical or economic merits because >the capacity for effective collective decision making is crumbling. UPS is >better positioned to defend against a public capital-intensive solution than >the future speculative contractors are to promote it, so much so that such >ideas sound unbelievable. Pneumatic tubes as a delivery mechanism do not make economic sense. If they did, they could be financed, as wiring houses for cable TV has been. Michael Tobis continued: >This is why the US looks so much like it did in 1950, despite the enormous >changes inside the buildings. The will and the ability to modify the >infrastructure is lacking. A certain libertarian attitude is taken so >much for granted that alternatives to it are imagined as communistic. The >existing infrastructure is imagined to be an unalterable natural feature >rather than an artifact of a time with a more vibrant democracy. The interstate highway system, a rather large piece of infra- structure, was built since 1950. Massive capital expenditures are currently being made to expand the internet. In what way was democracy more "vibrant" prior to 1950. Michael Tobis continued: >And anyone who is dissatisfied feels compelled to wonder what they can >do as individuals. What they can do as individuals is look for ways to >revive democracy within their country and create it on the globe. Why not try coming up with some ideas that make economic sense instead of crackpot proposals which could only be implemented by dictatorships? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Worldwide American-level standard of living From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.econ,alt.save.the.earth Message-ID: <19990711.142042.930@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:20:42 GMT References: In article , on 10 Jul 1999 16:40:48 -0700, John McCarthy writes: >The sustainability pages > >http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ > >show that there are no insuperable obstacles for a 15 billion >population (more than the UN's current estimate of the level at which >the population will stablize according to present trends) attaining >the present American standard of living. Many people disagree. > >What I have just realized is that any plan based on a lower average >standard of living is unrealistic. The standard of living in the >backward countries, e.g. China and India, will continue to rise. The >population of these countries, who might settle for a modest >improvement in their present frame of mind, will not stop at the >levels "the public policy community" will postulate for them. > >The only realistic plan is to expect production worldwide to increase >to permit American standards of living. You will not get there by >what are called "no regrets" policies. So why will they be willing to stop at the present American standard of living? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Liburdy kicked out at LBLabs From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990725.085426.601@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:54:26 GMT References: <7ncqq8$i03$1@news1.rmi.net> In article , on 24 Jul 1999 10:41:22 -0700, John McCarthy writes: >Kurt Foster writes: > >> I heard a news story on the radio a day or so ago, that Robert P. >> Liburdy had been forced to resign his position at Lawrence Berkeley >> Laboratories for scientific fraud - to wit, falsifying the results of >> experiments on the effects of electromagnetic fields, like those from >> power lines, on living tissue. The Labs decided that he had falsified the >> results by throwing out most of the data that failed to support his >> hypothesis; Libudy said it was "merely a dispute over how to interpret the >> data". > >What Liburdy was found to have done was to have presented fake data >aimed at showing that electromagnetic fields were harmful. > >Why might he have taken that risk? > >Possibility 1: He was some kind of environmental fanatic or enemy of >power companies or other companies. > >Possibility 2: It got him $3 million in grants and presumably status >at LBL. > >As I recall the news story, the fakery was in 1992, the investigation >started in 1995, and he was only just forced to resign. Possibility 3: He was completely convinced that his theory was correct, unable to objectively examine the evidence and unaware that he was doing anything wrong. In many such cases a conscious sinner would cover his tracks much better. Also note if his theory had been correct he probably wouldn't have gotten in trouble. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Three Mile Island From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990728.105116.718@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:51:16 GMT References: In article , on 27 Jul 1999 15:47:15 -0700, John McCarthy writes: > NB99.30-7 US: Three Mile Island-1 has set a new record for > continuous operation of an LWR, breaking its own previous > record of 617 days. The unit is not scheduled for an outage > until it is refuelled in September. (Nucleonics Week, 22 > July, p2) > >Nuclear power plants are getting more reliable. You have some non-anecdotal evidence of this? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: underpopulation From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990801.161306.711@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 20:13:06 GMT References: <7nrj63$eu0$4@mohawk.hwcn.org> <37A3349A.5CF6@mail.execpc.com> <7o0k6k$62s$4@mohawk.hwcn.org> In article , on 31 Jul 1999 23:09:19 -0700, John McCarthy writes: >af329@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes: > >> John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.Stanford.EDU) wrote: >> : Who are these Africans to butt in when when WE are telling them about >> : their population problem? >> >> Seems much more reasonable to increase their farm output rather than >> tell them to have more children who will only provide greater long term >> burden. > >Scott Nudds isn't going to increase African farm output and neither am >I. Who are we to tell the Africans what to do? Citizens of advanced nations. It is natural for backward nations to look to advanced nations for advice. Of course not all such advice is good. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Self-Righteous Socialists (was: "Causes of twentieth-century temperature c From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: austin.general,sci.environment,talk.environment Message-ID: <19990810.094024.766@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:40:24 GMT References: <7ngm5a$brt$13@mohawk.hwcn.org> <7oci76$k55@james.hwcn.org> <7onfa9$ml1@james.hwcn.org> In article , on 09 Aug 1999 15:11:04 -0700, John McCarthy writes: >But let's return to Duke, who actualy ran for office. I don't know >whether he ever praised Hitler, but I'd bet against it. Does Nudds >have a source for Duke praising Hitler? Probably a bad bet. I have seen many reports that Duke, at least at one time, admired Hitler. One story went that Duke took a German course in college. When asked by the professor, he said it was so he could read one of the world's great thinkers in the original. The professor was aghast to find on further inquiry that he had Hitler in mind. Actually I think many people who admire Hitler do so because he was a nobody who became very powerful, not because they necessarily agree with his views. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Self-Righteous Socialists (was: "Causes of twentieth-century From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment Message-ID: <19990814.002906.009@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 04:29:06 GMT References: <7ovrod$pvr$1@news.dgsys.com> In article <7ovrod$pvr$1@news.dgsys.com>, on 13 Aug 1999 01:18:05 GMT, jhalpern@ms1.dgsys.com (Joshua Halpern) writes: >jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com wrote: >: In article , >SNIP.... >: Actually I think many people who admire Hitler do so because >: he was a nobody who became very powerful, not because they necessarily >: agree with his views. >: >I assume you think the same about those who admire Stalin. As a matter of fact no. I think Hitler is more appealing to American wannabees because he came to power in a democracy. Also the Soviet analog to Hitler is Lenin not Stalin. I believe there were Lenin wannabees at one time ("The trouble with Leninists is that they all think they are Lenin"). Another reason for praising Hitler is the gross out value (like piercing your tongue). Perhaps this applies to Stalin as well. Of course some people praise Hitler because they agree with his anti-Semitism. This is so nonsensical to me that I may not take it seriously enough. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: The Sky also Rises (was Re: Rachel #664: The Carbon Pushers (fwd)) From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.save.the.earth Message-ID: <19990825.134521.160@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:45:21 GMT References: <37C2FF0E.F4A90F4F@postoffice.bellatlantic.net> <37dbb559.13383311@netnews.worldnet.att.net> <37C23F53.EDF1E88E@eka.ericsson.se> <37c496f9.4455790@news.datasync.com> In article <37c496f9.4455790@news.datasync.com>, on Wed, 25 Aug 1999 07:13:48 GMT, farrar@datasync.com (Paul D. Farrar) writes: >In article <37C23F53.EDF1E88E@eka.ericsson.se>, Tue, 24 Aug 1999 >08:44:35 +0200, Thomas Palm writes: > >... >>But the sky _is_ falling! This is not a joke but a scientific fact. >>The upper layers of the atmosphere are contracting due to cooling >>in accordance with the greenhouse theory. In itself this is rather >>insignificant, except if you design satellites, as a symptom of >>climate change it one of the clearest pieces of evidence. >... > >The lower part of the atmosphere is rising, though. Remember the paper >recently discussed here from _Geophysical Research Letters_ on the >rise in pressure at mountain stations due to thermal expansion of the >atmosphere at lower levels. I asked about this before but didn't see an answer. Does this thermal expansion cause a positive or negative feedback for warming? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Ocean thermodynamics (was: Re: From the inside out?) From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990828.222454.232@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 02:24:54 GMT References: <37C4E71B.875CEA3E@wcnet.org> <7q3jts$sj2@post.gsfc.nasa.gov> <37C5FF86.15F036B@wcnet.org> <7q7ej2$i78$1@news.dgsys.com> In article <7q7ej2$i78$1@news.dgsys.com>, on 28 Aug 1999 01:38:42 GMT, jhalpern@ms1.dgsys.com (Joshua Halpern) writes: >You have the wrong end of the stick. The stratosphere is >cooling because > >1) IR is being trapped closer to the surface by increasing >concentrations of greenhouse gases, therefore the flux >available to be absorbed in the stratosphere is lower, >and the stratosphere is not heated as much. You sure about this? The earth eventually radiates the same amount of energy so the IR isn't trapped forever. Shouldn't the flux through the stratosphere be the same (more or less)? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Junk Science Home Page is Internet Bunk From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990830.110120.576@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:01:20 GMT References: <19990826212914.12740.00000219@ng-co1.aol.com> <7q7eoj$i78$2@news.dgsys.com> <7q9glb$oa7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7q9pn7$pb0$2@news.dgsys.com> <7qbj2d$1up$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7qcq42$4eb$1@news.dgsys.com> In article <7qcq42$4eb$1@news.dgsys.com>, on 30 Aug 1999 02:26:10 GMT, jhalpern@ms1.dgsys.com (Joshua Halpern) writes: >Langrrr@aol.com wrote: >: In article <7q9pn7$pb0$2@news.dgsys.com>, >: jhalpern@ms1.dgsys.com (Joshua Halpern) wrote: >: > Langrrr@aol.com wrote: >SNIP.... >: > Andrew, please don't take this as a negative comment, because >: > it is not meant that way, but you and John both have a root >: > belief that virtue is rewarded. From sad experience and >: > observation, I would have to say, not in this world, and >: > I don't believe in heaven (maybe hell, but surely not >: > heaven) >: Not virtue, Josh, but hard work and perserverence (in our society, >: anyway). Yes, I firmly believe that, and this underscores what I >: believe to be the fundamental difference between today's liberals and >: conservatives. Conservative philosophy is largely more optimistic, >: and believes in the inherent goodness of man and the world. I don't agree that conservatives as opposed to liberals believe in the inherent goodness of man. If anything I think it is the other way around. >And, be that as it may, we all have seen too many cases in >our societies, where hard work was not rewarded. One of the >problems with believing that hard work/virtue is rewarded >is that this leads you to believe that anyone who fails >had it coming. Whereas liberals may tend to believe that nobody who fails had it coming. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: The Sky also Rises (was Re: Rachel #664: The Carbon Pushers (fwd)) From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.save.the.earth Message-ID: <19990906.180348.697@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 22:03:48 GMT References: <37C2FF0E.F4A90F4F@postoffice.bellatlantic.net> <37dbb559.13383311@netnews.worldnet.att.net> <37C23F53.EDF1E88E@eka.ericsson.se> <37c496f9.4455790@news.datasync.com> <19990825.134521.160@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <37c8763d.5363920@news.datasync.com> In article <37c8763d.5363920@news.datasync.com>, on Sat, 28 Aug 1999 05:59:24 GMT, farrar@datasync.com (Paul D. Farrar) writes: >In article <19990825.134521.160@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com>, Wed, 25 Aug >1999 17:45:21 GMT, jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com writes: > >>In article <37c496f9.4455790@news.datasync.com>, >> on Wed, 25 Aug 1999 07:13:48 GMT, >> farrar@datasync.com (Paul D. Farrar) writes: >>>In article <37C23F53.EDF1E88E@eka.ericsson.se>, Tue, 24 Aug 1999 >>>08:44:35 +0200, Thomas Palm writes: >>> >>>... >>>>But the sky _is_ falling! This is not a joke but a scientific fact. >>>>The upper layers of the atmosphere are contracting due to cooling >>>>in accordance with the greenhouse theory. In itself this is rather >>>>insignificant, except if you design satellites, as a symptom of >>>>climate change it one of the clearest pieces of evidence. >>>... >>> >>>The lower part of the atmosphere is rising, though. Remember the paper >>>recently discussed here from _Geophysical Research Letters_ on the >>>rise in pressure at mountain stations due to thermal expansion of the >>>atmosphere at lower levels. >> >> I asked about this before but didn't see an answer. Does >>this thermal expansion cause a positive or negative feedback for >>warming? >> James B. Shearer > >I've thought about this some, but this is still a bit speculative. I >can't see how it would have any significant feedback. The amount of >radiatively active material between two pressure levels would stay the >same. The atmosphere would do the same thing, but just at slightly >different distances from the earth's surface. > >Locally, there could be a small difference. High altitude stations >would see more atmosphere above them (that's why they have higher >pressures), and get a slightly greater greenhouse. Low altitude >stations would have less atmosphere above them, since atmospheric mass >is conserved, but the change would be much smaller there because of >the greater area (3/4 of the world is at sea level after all). The >thinning of the lower atmosphere would effectively reduce the >barometric altitude variations of the earth's surface. > >Meteorologists generally work using pressure, or a scaled pressure, as >their vertical coordinate; so they wouldn't even see this effect in >their measurements and calculations, except at the surface. The >equations they use (in circulation models and other calculations) have >the reported effect from the GRL paper built in, so this paper doesn't >change anything; it just is a report of evidence that indicates the >lower atmosphere may have been warming. >-- >Paul D. Farrar >http://www.datasync.com/~farrar This is more complicated than what I had in mind. The longwave absorption cross-sections of CO2 (and H2O) are temperature and pressure dependent. So shouldn't there be a feedback effect even in a simple 1-D model? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Which environmentalists support predators? From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990910.135917.288@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 17:59:17 GMT References: <7r9ahd$1cvm$1@news.hal-pc.org> <7rbbgn$gih@post.gsfc.nasa.gov> In article <7rbbgn$gih@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, on 10 Sep 1999 16:27:03 GMT, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes: >That's another key for top predators, low reproduction rates. If they >reproduced faster they would put too much pressure on the prey >population, but this low reproductive rate "strategy" hurts them when >prey and range decline. This is not how evolution works. If higher reproduction rates were individually beneficial they would be selected for even if this was bad for the species as a whole. Also I don't see how a higher reproductive rate would help when prey and range decline. It would help speed recovery from a crash caused by pressure from humans (overfishing, bounties etc) if the pressure was removed. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Which environmentalists support predators? From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990910.190143.585@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 23:01:43 GMT References: <19990910.135917.288@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <7rbtgj$ns3@post.gsfc.nasa.gov> In article <7rbtgj$ns3@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, on 10 Sep 1999 21:34:11 GMT, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes: >jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com wrote: >: In article <7rbbgn$gih@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, >: on 10 Sep 1999 16:27:03 GMT, >: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes: >: >That's another key for top predators, low reproduction rates. If they >: >reproduced faster they would put too much pressure on the prey >: >population, but this low reproductive rate "strategy" hurts them when >: >prey and range decline. >: >: This is not how evolution works. If higher reproduction >: rates were individually beneficial they would be selected for even >: if this was bad for the species as a whole. >: Also I don't see how a higher reproductive rate would help >: when prey and range decline. It would help speed recovery from a >: crash caused by pressure from humans (overfishing, bounties etc) >: if the pressure was removed. >: James B. Shearer > > > Let's see if I can briefly clarify: > > If a predator's reproduction rate is too high, the prey species >will be used up, leading to a direct consequence on the predator >population. Thus, predators in nature have over long periods of >time come up with a reproduction rate that "works", i.e., maintains >their population while not depleting the prey population. If there's >a boom in the prey population, more predators may survive for awhile >and will breed. I don't agree. If a predator's reproduction rate is low there must be some reason that this is optimum for individuals. This reason, which cannot be that a higher rate would be bad for the predator species as whole (since evolution doesn't care about that), is a sufficient explanation for low predator reproduction rates. There is no need for debatable claims that a high reproduction rate would eventually wipe out the predator species for some reason. Don't larger animals in general have lower reproduction rates? James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Which environmentalists support predators? From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990913.115125.420@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:51:25 GMT References: <7r9ahd$1cvm$1@news.hal-pc.org> <7rbbgn$gih@post.gsfc.nasa.gov> <19990910.135917.288@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <37DB04FF.FC5E3984@ohec.com> In article <37DB04FF.FC5E3984@ohec.com>, on Sat, 11 Sep 1999 18:42:23 -0700, Neil O'Hara writes: >James B. Shearer wrote: >> >snip >> If higher reproduction >> rates were individually beneficial they would be selected for even >> if this was bad for the species as a whole. > > >The operative word here is IF. > >For species which expend energy caring for their young (e.g. most >carnivores, primates, most people) there is a definite cost to >reproduction. If a predator and prey population are more-or-less in >balance, and the predator population is at or near its carrying >capacity, there is no advantage to a higher reproduction rate. If on >average, two cubs will survive, there is no advantage in investing in a >hundred, if ten is enough to insure survival of two. The selective >advantage will be to the individual who has just enough offspring, not >the one who expends energy producing numerous offspring with little >chance of survival. The advantage of having 100 cubs would be that 20 would be expected to survive. Even if the overall average per mother remained two, more of the survivers would be yours. Only if having more cubs reduces the expected survival chance per cub so much that the total expected number of survivers decreases will it be disadvantageous for a mother to have more cubs. So 5 cubs per mother might sufficient from the point of view of the species as a whole but competition with other mothers might drive the average to 10 cubs per mother even though this confers no benefit to the species as a whole. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Science Struggle From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19990922.192903.973@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 23:29:03 GMT References: <7s3ukv$202k$1@news.hal-pc.org> <15022-37E6274A-11@newsd-623.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <7s70pu$1402$1@news.hal-pc.org> <37E7C273.C39795FA@cup.hp.com> <7s9knd$307l$1@news.hal-pc.org> <37E93362.358FB3C7@cup.hp.com> In article <37E93362.358FB3C7@cup.hp.com>, on Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:52:03 -0700, Alan McGowen writes: > >--------------BA325577238DB01E5ACB8084 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >charliew wrote: > >> Alan, if you want to look REALLY clever, turn off the HTML on your >> newsreader. > >I will if several people have a problem. I suspect you are in a pretty >small minority >though, since both Netscape and Internet Explorer grok HTML. > >-- >Alan McGowen > >--------------BA325577238DB01E5ACB8084 >Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > >charliew wrote: >
 Alan, if >you want to look REALLY clever, turn off the HTML on your newsreader.
>I will if several people have a problem. I suspect you are in a pretty >small minority >
though, since both Netscape and Internet Explorer grok HTML. >

-- 
>Alan McGowen
>
>
> > > >--------------BA325577238DB01E5ACB8084-- > I also would prefer you got rid of the html. FWIW I generally agree with your position in this thread. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Science Struggle From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.bio.botany,bionet.biology.grasses,sci.environment,uk.environment Message-ID: <19990923.203053.016@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:30:53 GMT References: <7rrk1v$tr6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7rsg3h$2rss$1@news.hal-pc.org> <4246475F4AE6D211808D006097A1716402F68B2A@aricrmntnews.dpi.qld.gov.au> <37E2C3E4.D161074E@cup.hp.com> <7s8gdp$2ti$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <37E7DBBE.93DA9F42@cup.hp.com> <7s8u1j$t8g$7@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <37E81F79.72A00D1D@cup.hp.com> <7sb3cq$hgq$13@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <37E924A4.E0895FBC@cup.hp.com> <7sbhb0$56d$3@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <37E97654.DE6DC1FD@cup.hp.com> In article <37E97654.DE6DC1FD@cup.hp.com>, on Wed, 22 Sep 1999 17:37:41 -0700, Alan McGowen writes: >This is increasingly unlikely to be the standard mode of life, given the >demographic >changes afoot on Earth. I live and work in Silicon Valley. I am the only >native speaker >of English in the building I live in. At many times in my carreer I have been >the only >"American" in my work group. The world I live in is completely "multicultural" > >(except that we are mostly engineers.) Xenophobia would be catastrophic under >such conditions, and could not be tolerated in any form by any employer. In >short, >it's a feeling from a dead world. This is exaggerated. There are no perfect employees. Employers will tolerate all sorts of undesirable behavior from employees as long as it is counterbalanced by sufficient desirable behavior. Mild forms of xenophobia can and will be tolerated by employers without catastrophe. Most workplaces contain pairs of people who don't particularly like each other (for whatever reason) and work gets done anyway. Also some forms of xenophobia are not undesirable from an employer's point of view. For example if xenophobia makes it harder for employees to form unions or to look for other employment employers (even Silicon Valley employers) will not consider this a catastrophe. More generally while humans are undoubtedly not designed for modern society, you can design (or attempt to design) modern society to function satisfactorily with humans as they are (with their stone age heritage). I think this makes more sense then declaring some human traits obsolete and pretending this will cause them to vanish. Humans as they are, are not necessarily so ill-suited to the modern world as you might think. Humans have the capacity to cooperate as this was adaptive in stone age society as it is today. Also stone age society was not so simple with different behaviors being appropriate for different circumstances. So humans have evolved a capacity to select from a variety of behaviors. Society can be set up to encourage the selection of desirable behaviors and discourage the selection of undesirable behaviors. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Science Struggle From: jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups:sci.bio.botany,bionet.biology.grasses,sci.environment,uk.environment Message-ID: <19990925.121803.433@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:18:03 GMT References: <37E2C3E4.D161074E@cup.hp.com> <7s8gdp$2ti$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <37E7DBBE.93DA9F42@cup.hp.com> <7s8u1j$t8g$7@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <37E81F79.72A00D1D@cup.hp.com> <7sb3cq$hgq$13@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <37E924A4.E0895FBC@cup.hp.com> <7sbhb0$56d$3@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <37E97654.DE6DC1FD@cup.hp.com> <19990923.203053.016@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> <37EBAB41.958B6FE3@cup.hp.com> In article <37EBAB41.958B6FE3@cup.hp.com>, on Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:48:01 -0700, Alan McGowen writes: >jbs@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com wrote: > >> In article <37E97654.DE6DC1FD@cup.hp.com>, >> on Wed, 22 Sep 1999 17:37:41 -0700, >> Alan McGowen writes: >> >> >This is increasingly unlikely to be the standard mode of life, given the >> >demographic >> >changes afoot on Earth. I live and work in Silicon Valley. I am the only >> >native speaker >> >of English in the building I live in. At many times in my carreer I have been >> >the only >> >"American" in my work group. The world I live in is completely "multicultural" >> > >> >(except that we are mostly engineers.) Xenophobia would be catastrophic under >> >such conditions, and could not be tolerated in any form by any employer. In >> >short, >> >it's a feeling from a dead world. >> >> This is exaggerated. There are no perfect employees. >> Employers will tolerate all sorts of undesirable behavior from >> employees as long as it is counterbalanced by sufficient desirable >> behavior. Mild forms of xenophobia can and will be tolerated by >> employers without catastrophe. Most workplaces contain pairs of >> people who don't particularly like each other (for whatever reason) >> and work gets done anyway. > >Simple dislike of one person by another isn't necessarily xenophobia. >Xenophobia is fear/hatred of people who are different (often "racially") >from oneself, and refusal to cooperate with them. An employee who >refused to work with another person because of their race, creed etc. >could not be tolerated. Obviously you don't say that is the reason, you may not even be consciously aware that is the reason. You are correct that simple dislike isn't necessarily xenophobic. This is why it is difficult to do anything about xenophobia masked as simple dislike. This may be detectable statistically but that does not help much in dealing with individual cases. Also the zero tolerance policy for overt prejudice has more to do with American law and mores than strict economic necessity. Alan McGowen continued: >A xenophobia which is "mild" enough, or controlled enough, >not to result in unacceptable behavior would be tolerated, this >is true. It would bother only the person who felt it. There is plenty of behavior (rebuffs of invitations to off work social activities for example) which employers will tolerate and which will still bother others. Also it is only mild controllable xenophobia which is plausibly innate. A virulent unconditional xenophobia would not have been adaptive even in stone age society. Alan McGowen continued: >> Also some forms of xenophobia are not undesirable from an >> employer's point of view. For example if xenophobia makes it harder >> for employees to form unions or to look for other employment employers >> (even Silicon Valley employers) will not consider this a catastrophe. > >Most people change jobs out here every 2 or 3 years. Shearer apparently >works at IBM and I work at HP. Employees at these companies tend to >stay in the same company for their whole careers. There are many reasons >for this, but think I xenophobia against competitors is not really high on the >list. Well in my case I am somewhat uncomfortable in unfamiliar environments. This makes me a bit reluctant to change jobs or travel abroad. You may want to call this something other than xenophobia but it certainly seems related to me. Alan McGowen continued: >People often do go to competitors. There is of course sometimes a sense of >rivalry, and this is encouraged for obvious reasons. But I've also worked with >IBM people in cases where HP and IBM had some common goal. I've found >that (surprise, surprise) IBMers are just like HP engineers. It wouldn' t be >unthinkable for me to work there, by any means. That one is *definitely* >"not my employer's opinion" ;-) This is not surprising. Some aversion to new environments was probably adaptive in stone age society (as new environments might contain unfamiliar hazards). However even in stone age society new environments could not be avoided entirely so people had to be able to handle them when necessary. Alan McGowen >> More generally while humans are undoubtedly not designed >> for modern society, you can design (or attempt to design) modern >> society to function satisfactorily with humans as they are (with >> their stone age heritage). I think this makes more sense then >> declaring some human traits obsolete and pretending this will >> cause them to vanish. >> > >I agree. I 'm not suggesting that xenophobia is vanishing; I'm suggesting >that it is no longer optimal for our situation. I am not convinced that the amount of xenophobia which is plausibly innate is grossly suboptimal today. Alan McGowen continued: >> Humans as they are, are not necessarily so ill-suited to >> the modern world as you might think. Humans have the capacity to >> cooperate as this was adaptive in stone age society as it is today. >> Also stone age society was not so simple with different behaviors >> being appropriate for different circumstances. So humans have >> evolved a capacity to select from a variety of behaviors. Society >> can be set up to encourage the selection of desirable behaviors >> and discourage the selection of undesirable behaviors. >> James B. Shearer > >Obviously we are not so ill-suited to the modern world as to prevent it >from being here. That wasn't my point. My point was that human nature >was not *optimized* for modern conditions. This is understandable in terms >of natural selection. It is a mystery in terms of benevolent Design. I don't think this is quite right. I don't think the real problem with human nature today is that it was not optimized for modern conditions. I think the real problem is that human nature was optimized from the point of view of individuals not the point of view of society as a whole. I am not convinced that traits such as selfishness and greed are any less optimal for individuals now than they were in stone age times. I suppose you can make a case that such traits are now more dangerous for society as a whole. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: Ocean level rise From: jbs@watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: sci.environment Message-ID: <19991024.113747.376@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 15:37:47 GMT References: <381207C8.9450443B@sprynet.com> <19991023161257.14674.00000245@ng-fc1.aol.com> In article , on 23 Oct 1999 14:10:45 -0700, John McCarthy writes: >Irv Chidsey asks > > What are the chances that the United States will allow the > Andaman islanders to carve out a new country of their own in > our territory because we decided to let them go under for > our convenience? It would be fair, but fat chance. > >It occured to me to calculate what it might cost to build the >Andaman Islands higher faster than the sea would rise. According >to the on-line Encyclopedia Britannica (www.eb.com) and now free >to everyone, the Andaman Islands have an area of 6408 square >kilometers. If the surface were to be raised 1 cm per year, that >would be (* 6408.0 1000000.0 0.01) => 64080000, i.e. 64 million >cubic meters of rock per year. Expensive but doable. Most >likely, there are better solutions if the problem arises. I expect you would have to add some rock to the surrounding ocean as well which would increase the requirement. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: VICTORY!! MONSANTO DUMPS "TERMINATOR" TECHNOLOGY! (fwd) From: jbs@watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.save.the.earth Message-ID: <19991031.182634.191@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:26:34 GMT References: <7u3p80$v3m$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7u4tb8$ltm$1@fire.medianet.ie> <9zLR3.331$pK5.193@news.indigo.ie> <%PES3.615$pK5.342@news.indigo.ie> In article , on 30 Oct 1999 10:24:10 -0800, John McCarthy writes: >1. I suppose I should encourage you to imagine the larger accident >than Chernobyl. I haven't read any such imaginings. Just put the same accident in the middle of Manhattan. James B. Shearer ========================================================================= Path: yktvmv!jbs Subject: Re: VICTORY!! MONSANTO DUMPS "TERMINATOR" TECHNOLOGY! (fwd) From: jbs@watson.ibm.com Organization: IBM Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.save.the.earth Message-ID: <19991102.152856.830@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:28:56 GMT References: <7u4tb8$ltm$1@fire.medianet.ie> <9zLR3.331$pK5.193@news.indigo.ie> <%PES3.615$pK5.342@news.indigo.ie> <19991031.182634.191@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com> In article , on 31 Oct 1999 15:57:23 -0800, John McCarthy writes: >jbs@watson.ibm.com writes: > >> In article , >> on 30 Oct 1999 10:24:10 -0800, >> John McCarthy writes: >> >1. I suppose I should encourage you to imagine the larger accident >> >than Chernobyl. I haven't read any such imaginings. >> >> Just put the same accident in the middle of Manhattan. >> James B. Shearer > >Very good, but there are no nuclear power plants in the middle of >Manhattan or in the middle of any large city anywhere in the world. >The reason is that the industry and the regulators thought of that. As I recall there were some proposals to put reactors in cities by some nuclear advocates who thought siting reactors in unpopulated areas would raise suspicions that reactors were not safe. In any case I believe there are existing reactor sites where the same accident would have been more damaging. >I suppose one can imagine anything. Putting Chernobyl in the middle >of Manhattan would directly kill the same number of people who were >killed at the same distance at Chernobyl. That wouldn't be so many, >but making a substantial part of Manhattan uninhabitable for a >substantial period would be quite disruptive of the advertising >industry, etc. > >There are only 16 RBMK reactors anywhere in the world. It's hard to >imagine a similar accident occurring with a domed reactor. Three Mile >Island is more like it. > >Remember that the largest nuclear accident since Chernobyl 23 years >ago was the Tokaimura accident that seriously injured only three >people. Hundred year floods are rare too. That doesn't mean you shouldn't worry about them. James B. Shearer