 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / June 2008The Fireless Locomotive
I came across this article by Hank Morris ? after looking at the Liliput offers on @ Rails Of Sheffield. http://www.nrhs.com/web_exclusives/fireless_cooker/ What a great way to run loco's ! No fumes or dirt ( some may say that's part of the fun of steam lcoc's ) Costs less to operate & safer Significantly quieter in operation Reliable & easier to operate No dangerous CO2 or other obnoxious products of combustion, a true eco' friendly loco No firing-up period Few working parts Just think what might have been if they had the thin but highly efficient insulation materials we have today back in the 1900's I know Boot the Chemists at Nottingham had one, in blue, as it's at Butterley Chris > I came across this article by Hank Morris ? after looking at the > Liliput offers on @ Rails Of Sheffield. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No dangerous CO2 or other obnoxious products of combustion, a true > eco' friendly loco Erm, how do you think the steam injected into these fireless engines was produced? As with all stored-energy machines, the energy has be generated and stored somewhere else until needed. In the case of fireless locos, that was a boiler house. Fireless locos were less efficient than fired ones, because a) it takes work (== energy) to pump steam into the reservoir; and b) the steam in the fireless loco was at a lower temperature and pressure than in a fired loco. For compressed air locos, a very small fraction of the energy used to compress the air was finally available for traction. These locos were used only where extraneous factors, such as need for clean exhaust, or reduced fire hazard, made them necessary. HTH [...]  Signaturewolf k. > Erm, how do you think the steam injected into these fireless engines was > produced? As with all stored-energy machines, the energy has be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > [...] He, he. The something for nothing brigade. Perhaps he ought to look up perpetual motion. Kevin Martin SignatureTo Reply, delete what is "Not Required" in abbreviated form > > I came across this article by Hank Morris ? after looking at the > > Liliput offers on @ Rails Of Sheffield. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > extraneous factors, such as need for clean exhaust, or reduced fire > hazard, made them necessary. Not forgetting that the heat from the steam itself, rather than from the firebox, has to keep things warm - not over efficient I'd venture, particulary on a cold/wet day. > HTH > > [...] Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb > > I came across this article by Hank Morris ? after looking at the > > Liliput offers on @ Rails Of Sheffield. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > HTH I thought it was 'waste' steam that was used. Your right but it's still a good system ! Chris > I came across this article by Hank Morris ? after looking at the > Liliput offers on @ Rails Of Sheffield. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Chris Bowater's narow gauge/ Sittingbourne & Kelmsley had one or two. handy for paper mills. Please don't buy into the fallacy that CO2 is somehow dangerous to the environment, it is not, CO2 is thoroughly recycled by plants with photosynthesis. A 100% CO2 environment would asphyxiate you, but you wouldn't die from global warming. David In message <e0be81eb-7ce0-4708-bf12-2210927a3d91@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, "chorleydnc@hotmail.com" <chorleydnc@gmail.com> writes >Please don't buy into the fallacy that CO2 is somehow dangerous to the >environment, it is not, CO2 is thoroughly recycled by plants with >photosynthesis. A 100% CO2 environment would asphyxiate you, but you >wouldn't die from global warming. That would be why environmentalists are banging on about illegal deforestation in South America and the Philippines. There's only so much CO2 a plant can process. Reducing the number of trees reduces the amount of CO2 that is processed. Therefore there is/will be more CO2 in the atmosphere. If CO2 were thoroughly recycled, its concentration in the atmosphere would not be increasing. And in any case, I suggest you learn a bit more about carbon dioxide before disassociating it from global warming. You could start by looking at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide <quotes> Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas because it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared. Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization </quotes> You should also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect <quotes> The greenhouse effect is the process in which the emission of infrared radiation by the atmosphere warms a planet's surface. For the Earth's temperature to be in steady state so that the Earth does not rapidly heat or cool, this absorbed solar radiation must be very closely balanced by energy radiated back to space in the infrared wavelengths. </quotes> Use this quote with the first one above, and you will see that carbon dioxide does contribute to global warming, contrary to your assertion. Have a nice day. SignatureJane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html > In message > <e0be81eb-7ce0-4708-bf12-2210927a3d91@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Have a nice day. And don't forget that a young tree uses 3 x more C02 than a mature one, so using timber, in a sustainable way, is a Good Thing. We had a run-in with a grumpy idiot last weekend when burning a load of cardboard. "Oh wailey! You are causing global warming doing that" he cried. "No were are not" we replied. Buring cardboard is carbon neutral (i.e. there is no increase in CO2). For the amount involved getting a lorry out to collect it would not have carbon neutral, since burning fossil fuels is not carbon neutral, hence we were doing the right thing environmentally. When he'd had what carbon neutral *really* means explained he could see our point, as he'd been labouring under missuse of the term as used by environmentists/government/media. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb >> In message >> <e0be81eb-7ce0-4708-bf12-2210927a3d91@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> photosynthesis. A 100% CO2 environment would asphyxiate you, but you >>> wouldn't die from global warming. >> And in any case, I suggest you learn a bit more about carbon dioxide >> before disassociating it from global warming. You could start by looking >> at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide And if you had quoted a reliable source I would believe you but you quoted Wikipedia instead, the best example of GI-GO on the planet. > And don't forget that a young tree uses 3 x more C02 than a > mature one, so using timber, in a sustainable way, is a Good Thing. Actually trees convert the carbon in CO2 to carbon in cellulose in the daytime however at night they use up some oxygen. The net result is positive in favour of CO2 conversion. > We had a run-in with a grumpy idiot last weekend when burning a load > of cardboard. "Oh wailey! You are causing global warming doing that" > he cried. "No were are not" we replied. Buring cardboard is carbon > neutral Wrong! You are taking the carbon locked up in the cellulose fiber and burning it with oxygen from the atmosphere to create CO2. You are in effect undoing what a tree did some time ago. Bill Dixon > >> In message > >> <e0be81eb-7ce0-4708-bf12-2210927a3d91@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > daytime however at night they use up some oxygen. The net result is > positive in favour of CO2 conversion. But still greater in a young, vigoursly growing tree, which was my point. > > We had a run-in with a grumpy idiot last weekend when burning a load > > of cardboard. "Oh wailey! You are causing global warming doing that" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > burning it with oxygen from the atmosphere to create CO2. You are in > effect undoing what a tree did some time ago. No, sorry. CO2 locked up in the cardboard was taken in by the tree. Releasing it adds nothing to the overall C02 level, hence it is carbon neutral. The CO2 would have been released in the short term by the tree dying and decaying anyway. Burning fossil fuels, the fuel for the lorry, releases CO2 that has been locked away for millions of years and would, generally speaking, not be returned to the atmosphere even in the very long term. There's a major difference, usually ignored by the "green" movement, which in turn makes any further statements they make dubious. > Bill Dixon Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb > No, sorry. CO2 locked up in the cardboard was taken in by the tree. > Releasing it adds nothing to the overall C02 level, hence it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > by the "green" movement, which in turn makes any further statements > they make dubious. No, no no.... The beneficial effect of growing the tree in the first place is irrelevant. That's the past. How you deal with it from here on is what's important. Your choices are : 1) recycle the card. This uses less energy (from fossil fuels) than it would to make new cardboard from another tree. Into the bargain, the tree that you would have cut down for new cardboard, gets to continue converting CO2... 2) You throw it on a bonfire. In so doing, you waste the energy locked-up inside it and release the CO2. Into the bargain, you create a requirement for another tree to be cut down and more fossil fuel to be burnt in order to process it into new cardboard. Adrian > > No, sorry. CO2 locked up in the cardboard was taken in by the tree. > > Releasing it adds nothing to the overall C02 level, hence it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > No, no no.... The beneficial effect of growing the tree in the first > place is irrelevant. No it isn't. Managed tree growth is a feasible way of doing something about CO2. We need materials to live, so using trees in a sustaunable manner is the only sensible thing to do. Plant a million acres of trees and then use that timber, replacing as you go, and there will be, on average, a million acres of trees worth of CO2 removed from the atmosphere. It only ever gets put back in the air if the trees are not replanted. > That's the past. How you deal with it from here on > is what's important. Your choices are : [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tree that you would have cut down for new cardboard, gets to continue > converting CO2... That's far too simplistic. For the amount of cardboard we are talking about, the energy expended to process it would far outweigh any benefit gained. And anyway, in the real world, that cardboard will probably end up in landfill. Relacing a tree reaching maturity with a youthful tree using 3 x the C02 is a Good Thing. > 2) You throw it on a bonfire. In so doing, you waste the energy > locked-up inside it and release the CO2. But it doesn't release any additional C02 - that CO2 would be released into the atmosphere anayway. As long as the tree that the box was created from is replaced, there is no change in overall CO2. Thats the point. > Into the bargain, you create a > requirement for another tree to be cut down and more fossil fuel to be > burnt in order to process it into new cardboard. Which is a lot better that getting another barrel of oil out of the ground to fuel the lorries taking a dozen cardboard boxes for a nice long drive. A thought occurs - are you a city dweller by chance? I ask as so often the simplistic recycling schemes often omit to mention the self-defeating 20 or more mile round trip to the recycling point (much more in many cases) that large parts of the country have to endure. > Adrian Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb > In message <g3bbub$bdq$1@energise.enta.net> [...] > A thought occurs - are you a city dweller by chance? I ask as so > often the simplistic recycling schemes often omit to mention the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Cheers > Richard We have collection of recyclable materials every two weeks. We used to have blue dumpsters too, but the recycler found it was more efficient (== less truck and employee time) to pick up the materials curbside. I suspect some people used the blue dumpsters for garbage, too. Looking up and down our street, I'd say we have about 60-70% recycling at the moment: paper, boxboard, metals, and two kinds of plastic. The municipality pays for the recycle pickup to reduce landfill use. Signaturewolf k. > > In message <g3bbub$bdq$1@energise.enta.net> > [...] [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > moment: paper, boxboard, metals, and two kinds of plastic. The > municipality pays for the recycle pickup to reduce landfill use. We've just had the excitement of weekly bin collections going fortnightly, with recycling in between. Teams of council inspectors now go round photographing bin contents to check that the rules are not being broken, and any bins that are overfilled are unemptied, presumably for the bin fairy to empty over the following weeks. The upshot is the we have three wheelie bins to contend with now, or rather we should but the council can't be bothered to deliver the brown garden refuse ones, and all the plastics etc are nicely sorted before going..... into the landfill, or shipped to India (I kid you not). Also, we very naughtily bring our plastic home from work to top up the recycling bin, since it's only half full. We are comitting a criminal offence doing that apprently. The reason? The council wasn't to charge businesses *even more* money for waste disposal - the recycling bit is far less important than raising what amount to taxes (we've aready paid for waste disposal through local taxes), hence the national cynisism about recycling - the UK government has turned it into a tax rasier. Millions of pounds have been, and still are being, expended on a pointless excersise - nobody wants most of the recycled stuff, but the government can claim success (as long as the eventual destination of the rubbish is not disclosed, particularly when its the local lay-bye) Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb >> > In message <g3bbub$bdq$1@energise.enta.net> >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Cheers > Richard You havent mentioned the countless extra jobs that have been created. Jobsworths galore. cheers, Simon > >> > In message <g3bbub$bdq$1@energise.enta.net> > >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > You havent mentioned the countless extra jobs that have been created. > Jobsworths galore. Ha! Now your talking...... A customer noticed someone scratching round his back yard. On going out to investigate he found a bloke in a sharp suit, armed with a very expensive camera. On enquiring what he was doing on his property without permission the bloke told him he was from the council and he was measuring the stack of cardboard waiting for the van lorry to take it to the recyclers. Aparently if it were too high (1m or something) it would constitute a health & safety hazard and the council would have to issue an enforcement notice (note this is on PRIVATE land). Our customer, very patiently, explianed that the collection was late that week as the driver was ill. After some more tosh from the "official" our customer, with exemplary restraint, left the issue by stating the obvious to the bloke - "You couldn't you get a proper job, could you?". Meantime, on the Haregate Estate, serious social problems get ignored due to "lack of resources". > cheers, > Simon Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb > In message <485a50b3$0$16228$9a6e1...@news.newshosting.com> > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > eventual destination of the rubbish is not disclosed, particularly > when its the local lay-bye) At first our 'Brown Bin' recycling accepted anything biodegradable, grass, cuttings, dead flowers and kitchen waste etc. They even supplied a mini brown bin to collect your kitchen waste in your kitchen. Now it's down to 'garden' waste ONLY. Now our own garden composter eats almost anything from tea bags to paper shredding but our refuse manager with about 14 letters after his name is unable to let tea bags or anything much else 'contaminate' his composting process. Let a few of the old lads down the local allotment loose with his precious equipment and we would be all knee deep in rich compost. As for plastic and paper recycling that's another joke. Don't leave the caps on your milk cartons, don't overfill you green bags with newspapers / mags as our poor collectors cant life them ( wimps ). They have these bin inspectors that occasionally check the contents for 'illegal' waste but do you see sight nor sound of them when the collection team leaves your bin half emptied and / or the contents of someone's bin strewn all over the road. Now look at what you've done ! You've got me started ..... Chris > > In message <485a50b3$0$16228$9a6e1...@news.newshosting.com> > > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Now look at what you've done ! You've got me started ..... Trouble is it's all too easy with councils since they forgot who actually employs them (i.e. us).... Anther one, on the re-cycling front, is a simple way of reducing, or even practically removing, our dependence on plastic containers in the first place - surely far better that messing around pointlessly with dealing with the consequences - and reducing our demand for oil. It would mean the supermarkets actually having to do something for the environment rather than pretending to, and would also provide a means of making sure people remember to take re-usuable bags back with them - and that's using glass containers only, with a deposit on then (a worthwhile one, say 50p). You take them back the the shop, in your re-usable bag, and get your deposit back. Ok, so the supermarket has to sort them, but the empty cages going back on the empty lorries can be used (ok a tad more fuel and the shop may have to use a member of staff or two to do the work, perhaps give them a tax break for doing so to cover it?). If every container managed three or four trips, the environmental saving would be huge and the only landfill would be broken gass - much safer than environmentally than plastic. It won't happen though, as the inflation figures would be skewed for a month or two so politics takes over, but what an opportunity to actually *do* something. And, of course, the recyling bin would be virually empty, another saving. If we went down that route, I might actually start taking the government seriously on recycling. Oh dear, no way of increasing taxes...... that's no good then! Cheers Richard > Chris Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb [snip plaintive comments on the wierdness of local government] >> Now look at what you've done ! You've got me started ..... > > Trouble is it's all too easy with councils since they forgot who > actually employs them (i.e. us).... [...] > Cheers > Richard > > >> Chris Just keep in mind that politicians always do what someone wants them to do. If they do something you don't want, be assured that someone else wants it done. And keep in mind that local governments are caught between the local citizenry that elected them and the senior governments that download all kinds of responsibilities onto them. Senior governments also do what's demanded of them. If the don't do what you want, that's because you have less clout than other people. That's politics. You could of course offer to run for a council seat yourself.... ;-) Signaturewolf k. > [snip plaintive comments on the wierdness of local government] > >> Now look at what you've done ! You've got me started ..... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > want, that's because you have less clout than other people. That's > politics. Well, that's a nice idea, and was probably true until, say, 15 or so years ago. Now however, local councils have become self-serving, very rarely, if ever, consulting their constituents or taking our needs into consideration. An example - a pub in the Black Country had three break-ins in a year, so the landlord intsalled razor wire to protect his property. The council told him to take it down. He told the council that he would be unable to get insurance cover if he did. The council insisted. 12 people are going to be on the dole in a few days time, and the landlord homeless - you cannot run a pub without insurance. If the landlord persued the matter, assuming he could afford to do so, you can bet the council would use it's latest threat, where some some measly little git (sorry, but this really infuriates me) would say something like "If Mr Bloggs won't comply, we must bring into question his suitability to <insert anything here>". The council is *never* wrong, even when they blatently are, and they *never* offer alternative, practical, cost effective solutions, or make any serious effort to address the problem rather than paper over the symptoms. Politics always takes percedence over policy. I looked at a shop in a local high street to lease. Having lived there I'm well aware of what happens there in the evening. On asking if I could have shutters to provide protection for the windows I was told no, it was against council policy. I also ran into the no insurance problem - yet there are empty shops that the very same council says it's "disappointed" can't be let, but they don't seem to be able to understand that the insurers don't give a damn about what they think so those shops will be only be filled by fly-by-night tennants who have no intention remaining long term, or large organisations who can get blanket cover. > You could of course offer to run for a council seat yourself.... ;-) I could, but I have two traits that would not be well recieved - I speak my mind, and I will not lie, or distort the truth, to defend the undefendlable (see above). Plus I'm not photogenic, I'm not a good poublic speaker and I *never* wear suits - so I'd be a media disaster! Oh, and I believe that admitting to mistakes is no bad thing (= trouble with media). I'm affraid a spade is a spade, not an earth moving agricultural implement. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb >> [snip plaintive comments on the wierdness of local government] >>>> Now look at what you've done ! You've got me started ..... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > very rarely, if ever, consulting their constituents or taking > our needs into consideration. Oh, they do, they do. They just have a different notion of what those concerns are. > An example - a pub in the Black Country had three break-ins in a year, > so the landlord installed razor wire to protect his property. The [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > no intention remaining long term, or large organisations who can get > blanket cover. Yup, sounds about right. The citizens who are concerned about the aesthetics of your high street obviously have the councillors' ears. Impractical twits. Interesting, that the insurance problem hasn't moved your council. That's seems to be about the only thing that moves ours! Our Horticultural Society decided it would be a good idea to survey the trees in the town parks after we noticed that a muckin' big branch had fallen off one near where we were planting fall bulbs. A week or so after we sent in our report, pointing out the safety issues, part of a very large multi-stemmed willow fell down in mild windstorm. A week later, the council had hired an arborist, as we recommended. usually it takes them weeks and months to act on a recommendation or request. The arborist's report essentially said the same as ours: cut down unsalvageable trees, and replace them. Which was done. >> You could of course offer to run for a council seat yourself.... ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > thing (= trouble with media). I'm afraid a spade is a spade, > not an earth moving agricultural implement. Richard, you might be surprised. Your qualifications sound just right to me. Especially never wearing a suit. If enough of your fellow citizens are as annoyed as you are, you might have enough votes to get on the council. And then you can lots of fun! Well, if sirring the pot of bovine excrement is your idea of fun. ;-) And if you don't get elected, you would still I think pull a sizable vote, which would make some of those councillors take notice. You see, that vote would increase next time round, when you or a similar candidate offer to represent the disgruntled and annoyed. Cheers, Signaturewolf k. >>>> In message >>>> <2f8bac48-cd86-44c6-8d59-346bbcb4d090@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > Cheers, County council came up with a wonderful couple of road schemes for our town - including pedestrianise main street - but town council said no thanks dont want any of it. So they ran big publicity thing, had van in town centre lots of diagrams, lots of leaflets and asked 'the People' to state which scheme they wanted. Overwhelming reply - go away and leave us alone. Having spent most of the money on consultants, commitees etc they gave up except to re-lay all the pavement stones. Totally unwanted, chaos for a few weeks for shops and shoppers. Complete waste of council resources and our money. Cheers, Simon > > In message <48623815$0$16228$9a6e1...@news.newshosting.com> > [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > that vote would increase next time round, when you or a similar > candidate offer to represent the disgruntled and annoyed. There used to be a chap in the UK called 'Screaming Lord Sutch' ( real name David Sutch ), an ex rock n roll star, who represented the Monster Raving Loony Party. It is now almost 10 years since his death. He was brilliant to watch & listen to and was a unique British institution. Some of his ideas were quite good. One I recall was tagging dogs with tattoos, this was in the days prior to microchips. He made by elections fun and made some MP's look and sound the fools. I am sure many newly elected MP's and councillors enter politics with the intention of changing things but they just get drowned by the system. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/371417.stm Chris >> [snip plaintive comments on the wierdness of local government] >>>> Now look at what you've done ! You've got me started ..... [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > people are going to be on the dole in a few days time, and the landlord > homeless - you cannot run a pub without insurance. Which pub is this? SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK > >> [snip plaintive comments on the wierdness of local government] > >>>> Now look at what you've done ! You've got me started ..... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Which pub is this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7470599.stm there's a couple of previous articles on there too for the background. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb >>>> [snip plaintive comments on the wierdness of local government] >>>>>> Now look at what you've done ! You've got me started ..... [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > there's a couple of previous articles on there too for the background. Thanks. Odd that they don't feel strongly enough about it to mention it on their website. When a pub in Sussex was forced to take a crap beer rather than the good local one there was a huge publicity campaign, lots of beer/pub websites used, etc etc. And is it /really/ true that _required_ insurance would not be available without wire on the roof? Plenty of pubs don't have it visible. Still, pubs are often worth more money if they are closed and made into houses these days... SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK > >>>> [snip plaintive comments on the wierdness of local government] > >>>>>> Now look at what you've done ! You've got me started ..... [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > pubs are often worth more money if they are closed and made into houses > these days... It depends on what you mean by required - the very basic legal stuff - employer liability etc maybe, but not being able to cover one's own personal stuff, cash, fixtures & fittings is far more important to the landlord in the real world - after all thats what he's working for! It's certainly true about selling off for houses - in these parts is now spot the pub that *hasn't* got a "To Let" sign, or has been borded up since, the smoking ban. If I were a pubco, I'd be doing the same - take the money and run, it's the only sensible thing to do. The non- restaurant pub is a thing of the past. RIP "The Local"..... Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb On Jun 14, 2:51 am, Jane Sullivan <spamt...@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In message > <e0be81eb-7ce0-4708-bf12-2210927a3...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is/will be more CO2 in the atmosphere. If CO2 were thoroughly recycled, > its concentration in the atmosphere would not be increasing. and controlled forestation will eliminate the periodic immense wildfires which historically destroyed thousands of square miles of temperate zone forests. > And in any case, I suggest you learn a bit more about carbon dioxide > before disassociating it from global warming. You could start by looking > at Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide > <quotes> Carbon dioxide is a linear molecule which possesses a temporary dipole moment: in order for it to behave as a green house gas, radiated energy has to disturb the electron cloud around the molecule, raise the energy level of the electron, which then, in order to return to their lowest energy level, emit a lower energy (= lower frequency) photon. In comparison to water vapour, CO2 is a minor player, which you can demonstrate to yourself by standing outside on a partially sunny day. As the clouds move over, your perceived temperature drops because the thermal energy has been diverted and re-radiated into space by the cloud. H2O is a "bent" molecule which possesses a permanent dipole moment, with an unshared pair of electrons and readily acts as a greenhouse gas. Your second experiment is to stand outside on a clear night, then compare it to a cloudy night at the same time of the year. Cloudy nights are much warmer due to the greenhouse effect of water > Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas because it transmits > visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > industrialization > </quotes> Human production of CO2 is insignificant compared to the activity of termites. A single volcanic explosion can put millions of tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere in a matter of a few months. > You should also look athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect > <quotes> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wavelengths. > </quotes> fails to explain how any molecule can differentiate between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation, in fact, an understanding of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would show that a molecule, or group of molecules cannot distinguish between incoming or outgoing radiation. If you consider it a problem of intersecting spheres (too detailed for this discussion) the balance of energy dissipation must be to favour energy loss from the system > Use this quote with the first one above, and you will see that carbon > dioxide does contribute to global warming, contrary to your assertion. The promoters of "Global Warming" have long since realised that their premise can be easily disproven, so the more subtle concept of "climate change" has been introduced. Climate change is a much more difficult thing to disprove because it assumes that the climate was relatively constant in the first place. If you study the archaelogical findings of London, you will find out that 10,000 years ago (that's ten thousand, not ten million, or ten billion) relatively recently in geological terms, certainly too recent for continental drift to be a factor; the area of south east prehistoric Britain had a savannah-like climate with an animal population akin to east Africa. more recently, the Viking surge from Scandinavia was prompted by a global cooling, which made life in that region less tolerable. Recent studies of Mars have shown polar ice caps receding, but such is the ideology of the day, that the simple answer, that it was due to solar radiation fluctuation was disallowed because it would sink the global warming ideology. > Have a nice day. thanks for patronising me Jane, but it didn't work. > -- > Jane > British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the gardenhttp://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html David, encouraging you not to read Wikipedia. On 14 Jun, 15:26, "chorley...@hotmail.com" <chorley...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 14, 2:51 am, Jane Sullivan <spamt...@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Global warming or Climate change ...... call it what you like but I know one 'person' who will sort it out ............. Mother Nature ! This generation of humans have only been here, in relative terms, for a blink of an eye. Perhaps it's our natural evolution to kill ourselves off .... one way or another. As energy can not be destroyed the converting of fossil fuels is a 'natural' process. I assume they used the Fireless loco @ Boots because of the danger of dust in the working environment ? Chris PS Don't get me started on Wikipedia :-0 > On Jun 14, 2:51 am, Jane Sullivan <spamt...@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > David, encouraging you not to read Wikipedia. Wonderful mix of speudoscionec and half-baked ideas. Chorely, you Signaturewolf k. On Jun 14, 3:26 pm, "chorley...@hotmail.com" <chorley...@gmail.com> wrote: > H2O is a "bent" molecule which possesses a permanent dipole moment, > with an unshared pair of electrons and readily acts as a greenhouse > gas. Your second experiment is to stand outside on a clear night, then > compare it to a cloudy night at the same time of the year. Cloudy > nights are much warmer due to the greenhouse effect of water You are correct that water vapour is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. > fails to explain how any molecule can differentiate between incoming > radiation and outgoing radiation, in fact, an understanding of > Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would show that a molecule, or > group of molecules cannot distinguish between incoming or outgoing > radiation. They can when the radiation is at a different wavelength in the spectrum. MBQ >On Jun 14, 3:26 pm, "chorley...@hotmail.com" <chorley...@gmail.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >You are correct that water vapour is a much more potent greenhouse gas >than CO2. But, of course, water vapour has a short lifetime in the atmosphere (most of us have noticed this at one time or another..). Of the order of a few days, from memory; whereas CO2 has an atmospheric lifetime which is much longer - of the order of 10s of years (again, from memory, though I could get my copy of Houghton out if anyone wants confirmation). >> fails to explain how any molecule can differentiate between incoming >> radiation and outgoing radiation, in fact, an understanding of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >They can when the radiation is at a different wavelength in the >spectrum. /Precisely/. Doing simple 1st order modelling, you can treat the Sun as a black body at 5780 K and the Earth as one at about 300-odd K. That means that most of the emission from the Sun is in the visible range, so most of the initial incoming radiation is in the visible range - and that's where the Earth's atmosphere is highly transparent (you can confirm this by looking upwards on a clear day: being able to see the Sun confirms that the atmosphere is transparent to most radiation from the Sun...). This sunlight doesn't do much to warm the atmosphere initially ('cos the atmosphere is transparent in the visible range) so it goes to heat the ground, which is opaque (again, easy to confirm: look downwards..). The warmed ground - at about 300-odd K - emits in the infra- red range, and certain atmospheric molecules (notably CO2 and water vapour, plus trace stuff like Methane) absorb strongly in the infra-red. So the atmospheric gas warms a bit - and having warmed, it loses anergy by radiation. This radiation is emitted in all directions, so some of it goes back downward. Once that's understood, you can treat it as a successive-shell problem with radiative transfer between shells - this is literally undergraduate physics (it's a neat problem to set students). Incidently, the reason that CO2 stays mixed and doesn't settle out is that the heating source for the lower atmosphere is at the bottom - the ground warmed by incoming sunlight and emitting infra-red. This means that the air is hottest close to the ground, and so tends to rise, with cool air from slightly further up sinking to take its place. This keeps everything well mixed (in fact, collision rates in the atmosphere below about 100km are high enough to keep things well mixed - it's only higher than that you find heavier and lighter gases separating). That's the very basic stuff. For a good introduction to the very complex science of the real atmosphere and recent climate change, I'd recommend John Houghton's "Global Warming: the complete briefing". A full, nearly-up-to-date treatment of the science is in "Cimate Change 2007: the physical science basis" which is volume 1 of the 2007 IPCC report. Both are published by Cambridge Univ. Press. SignatureAndy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair) >[...]For a good introduction to the very complex > science of the real atmosphere and recent climate change, I'd recommend > John Houghton's "Global Warming: the complete briefing". A full, > nearly-up-to-date treatment of the science is in "Cimate Change 2007: the > physical science basis" which is volume 1 of the 2007 IPCC report. Both > are published by Cambridge Univ. Press. <cynical mode on> You don't actually expect the deniers to read that stuff do you? And if they do read it, do you expect them to believe it? After all, it's been written by the "climate change brigade", so how can it be trusted? <cynical mode off> Signaturewolf k. > >[...]For a good introduction to the very complex > > science of the real atmosphere and recent climate change, I'd recommend [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > written by the "climate change brigade", so how can it be trusted? > <cynical mode off> That sounds rather like: <cynical mode> Support peace, or I'll kill you </cynical mode> I'm affraid I am a cynic though - so much modern "science" has been show to be, at best, dubious, in areas that interest me, and then such conclusions reached by "science" so perverted by the media and politicians, without challenge from other scientists, that it is not possible to absolutely believe anything said or published (even properly peer-reviewed science has sold out to "the cause" on many occasions). There is a web site, I forget the name but it shouldn't be too hard to find, that has many scientists giving explicit examples of the above in the US science community. If nothing else, it implies one should be very wary of *any* scientific report until a lot is known about the authors, the pubilshers, the funding and the motivation for the study being undertaken in the first place. In short, science has a credibility problem. Which is indeed a shame. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb > There is a web site, I forget the name but it shouldn't be too hard > to find, that has many scientists giving explicit examples of the above > in the US science community. If nothing else, it implies one should > be very wary of *any* scientific report until Especially anything produced by the IPCC which is a political, not scientific, body. MBQ >> There is a web site, I forget the name but it shouldn't be too hard >> to find, that has many scientists giving explicit examples of the above [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Especially anything produced by the IPCC which is a political, not >scientific, body. Tosh, unmitigated and absolute. There is political feed into IPCC reports. It has always manifested itself in demands to dilute the recommendations which emerge from the science. You really, badly, need to talk to some of the people who know something about this stuff - or at the very least read some stuff - in order y=to get aa grasp of the science which underpins this work. Yes: it's ann attempt to grapple whith what is probably the most complex topic ever tackled scientifically, but the body of evidence ammassed is literally overwhelming. The science community who know about this stuff (and those on the fringes who keep up with the peoiple who know) are aA DAM' SIGHT MORE WORRIED than any hide-it-under-the-carpet bletherings from the politicians would suggest. I'm now going to retire from this discussion for the good of my health. Please feel free to renew this discussion //AFTER// you have read and considered volume 1 of the IPCC 2007 report. I'll be happy to discuss points and issues then, once I have some confidence that you've considered some of the evidence. SignatureAndy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair) >>[...]For a good introduction to the very complex >> science of the real atmosphere and recent climate change, I'd recommend [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >written by the "climate change brigade", so how can it be trusted? ><cynical mode off> I live in hope. After all, one can merely do ones best to offer clue, even if it's sometimes refused.. SignatureAndy Breen, not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales "The internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental floss.." (Charlie Stross) > In article <48567437$0$26125$9a6e1...@news.newshosting.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > After all, one can merely do ones best to offer clue, even if it's > sometimes refused.. Climate change, yes I accept that. Anthropogenic, maybe. Anything like as serious as the politicians want us to believe, NO! I'm with these guys http://preview.tinyurl.com/46qkjp MBQ >> In article <48567437$0$26125$9a6e1...@news.newshosting.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Anthropogenic, maybe. > 90 % certainty - from the very cautious report last year. Given the results since then (ruling out 2nd order effects of solar variation, for one thing), it's probably in the 92-95% certainty range (though I've not worked out the stats, the 90% is fulloy worked including all quatifiable errors). >Anything like as serious as the politicians want us to believe, NO! Given that the politicians want us to believe it's a lot less serious than all the scientific evidence points to, I'd be interested in the reasoning here. >I'm with these guys http://preview.tinyurl.com/46qkjp Can't see that from here, so can't comment on how plausible or othwerwise they are. But suggest you read the most comprehensive (though very cautious, and probably understated) assessment instead: IPCC 2007, volume 1, Camb. Univ. Press. See above for title. Library ought to be able to source it. At 90 UKP it's a bit much unless you need to have the details to hand at all times (which is why I bought it). SignatureAndy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair) [...] >> I'm with these guys http://preview.tinyurl.com/46qkjp > > Can't see that from here, so can't comment on how plausible > or othwerwise they are. The link points to: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denyi ng-man-made-global-warming.html The "31,000 scientists" listed are not described. The context implies they are people with science degrees (B.SC, MSC, and PH.D.) [...] Signaturewolf k. On 14 Jun, 04:53, "chorley...@hotmail.com" <chorley...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I came across this article by Hank Morris ? after looking at the > > Liliput offers on @ Rails Of Sheffield. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > photosynthesis. A 100% CO2 environment would asphyxiate you, but you > wouldn't die from global warming. I've never fallen for the CO2 fallacy but it would give some of those 'environmentalist lot' one less thing to complain about. I am sure I read somewhere that cows generate more CO2 than all of humans industry ? The most dangerous emissions are those coming from the House of Commons. Chris > Please don't buy into the fallacy that CO2 is somehow dangerous to the > environment, it is not, CO2 is thoroughly recycled by plants with > photosynthesis. A 100% CO2 environment would asphyxiate you, but you > wouldn't die from global warming. The thing that I can't understand is that considering that CO2 is so much heavier than air how does so much of it stay in the upper atmosphere?? Jeff >> Please don't buy into the fallacy that CO2 is somehow dangerous to the >> environment, it is not, CO2 is thoroughly recycled by plants with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jeff It doesn't. There is more CO2 at low altitudes than at high ones. And at all altitudes pressure is lower. That's why the cabins of aircraft have to be pressurised, o'wise people would pass out from lack of oxygen. The composition of air varies quite a bit. Eg, in a forest on a spring day there will be measurably more oxygen than in the same forest in winter. And in a city there will a good deal more CO2 and NOx, SO2, etc than in the country. Not to mention variations in H2O and dust of all kinds. The wind mixes things up quite a bit, but the air is not a uniform mixture. And wind happens because there is local heating and cooling of the air, which means lower/higher pressures. Air moves from the high pressure to low pressure areas, that's the wind. Where there is no wind, there's no mixing. Thus, at the bottom of mine shafts you can get dangerously, even lethally, high concentrations of CO2 or other gases. About 18 months ago, a couple people died in British Columbia going into an old mine shaft (they were doing a survey) for this reason. Signaturewolf k. > >> Please don't buy into the fallacy that CO2 is somehow dangerous to the > >> environment, it is not, CO2 is thoroughly recycled by plants with [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Columbia going into an old mine shaft (they were doing a survey) for > this reason. Not only mine shafts. Any old pit in the ground can contain dangerous levels of poisonous and / or potentially explosive gas. Our gas detectors inlet pipe used to be lowered into a meter pit and a hand pump used to pass the atmosphere over the sensors. Then, whilst one person stayed topside, the person going into the pit used to hang the detector around his neck as local 'pockets' of gas were possible. On the smaller pits with a relatively large opening we vented by keeping the lid open for a few minutes prior to testing & entering but on larger pits with only a small opening mechanical ventilation was required. Chris Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb- 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: > On 14 Jun, 04:53, "chorley...@hotmail.com" <chorley...@gmail.com> > wrote: ... > I've never fallen for the CO2 fallacy but it would give some of those > 'environmentalist lot' one less thing to complain about. I am sure I > read somewhere that cows generate more CO2 than all of humans > industry ? methane, not CO2. However one has to remember there wouldn't be a fraction of the number of cows as there are now were it not for the fact that they are expecially bred to serve the human population. SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson email to cwilson at britwar dor co dot uk, reply address is spamtrapped. http://www.the-dormouse.org The Dormouse Line model railway > Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb- > 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of the number of cows as there are now were it not for the fact that they > are expecially bred to serve the human population. We have lots and lots of cows here in New Zealand, to the point where the effluent run-off is becoming a problem. The reason we have them is that yanks, Brits, Europeans ... keep demanding more and more milk products from us and keep offering more and more money for said products. Our poor farmers just can't resist and are cutting down forests planted for timber production, tossing sheep aside (you don't want the wool anymore as you prefer petroleum based fibers) and bulldozing the orchards to provide you all with your demands. If you'd all just stop eating we could cut the methane production by 90%. Greg.P. >> Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb- >> 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Greg.P. Wouldn't farming become more efficient if we were all to become vegetarian? SignatureJane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html > >> Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb- > >> 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Wouldn't farming become more efficient if we were all to become > vegetarian? Depends, NZ cows are grass fed, not grain fed. We're not about to start posting you cabbages and Lima beans from New Zealand. Per calory, there's less cost/energy usage in shipping you cheese and meat from NZ than cabbages etc from Spain and Italy. Your own meat production requires winter shelter, grain production and transport etc which is less efficient than half way around the world transport, so you buy fom us. We find the products to produce that make sense economically, which partially equates to efficiency. In return we buy Peco products and ITV TV programmes which can't be produced as economically here because our market is much smaller. We did used to buy Austin Allegros and Brush Electrics, but to be honest we found it much more efficient to do without those. Greg.P. NZ > > >> Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb- > > >> 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > transport etc which is less efficient than half way around the world > transport, so you buy fom us. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Some UK cattle may be corn fed, but the vast majority are fed of silage over winter (with supplements in cattle cake as required) and grass in the summer. > We find the products to produce that make sense economically, which > partially equates to efficiency. > In return we buy Peco products and ITV TV programmes which can't be > produced as economically here because our market is much smaller. > We did used to buy Austin Allegros and Brush Electrics, but to be honest > we found it much more efficient to do without those. I'm affraid NZ cheese and meat only reprsent a small market share these days, Britsh producers have made significant headway since all the health scares a few years back. I'd hazard we use more Canadian cheese than NZ these days, and significant amounts of Irish butter. Our local Morrisons only had UK lamb last time I went looking for some (I was looking for Welsh lamb, which cannot be beaten!). > Greg.P. > NZ Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb > > > >> Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb- > > > >> 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Our local Morrisons only had UK lamb last time I went looking for > some (I was looking for Welsh lamb, which cannot be beaten!). Sure, but I'm looking through the other end of the telescope to you. New Zealand is a small country (population wise) and our exports are the basis of our economy. Wool, mutton and lamb exports have over the last 50 years dropped by 50-80%, while beef and dairy products have doubled several time over the last couple of decades. Britain used to be our main export market, but now Europe is. From our point of view there's little difference in supplying a specific part of Europe, or spreading those exports over the whole of Europe. You get a choice of supply and we get a choice of customers. Of course 'Canterbury Lamb' is superior to 'Welsh Lamb'. Regards, Greg.P. >Of course 'Canterbury Lamb' is superior to 'Welsh Lamb'. Maybe the archbishop of Canterbury would disagree with that. >Regards, >Greg.P. SignatureJane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html > >Of course 'Canterbury Lamb' is superior to 'Welsh Lamb'. > > Maybe the archbishop of Canterbury would disagree with that. I must admit I never thought to ask him! ;-) > >> Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb- > >> 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Wouldn't farming become more efficient if we were all to become > vegetarian? It depends on how one feels about chemicals. Without "natural" fertilisation chemicals are needed instead. A trip to Norfolk will show what that has done to soil quality and run-off problems. Also, cows aren't just providers of meat. Gone are the days (since BSE) when *everything* used to be used, but the cow is still used for other things. Plus, of course, a lot of land suitable for animals is entirely unsuitable for growing crops, so that land would be wasted if not used by animals. Mankinds combining of farming animals and crops together did not come about by accident. And I can't abide vegetarian food - which matters a lot to me! Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb ..... > Wouldn't farming become more efficient if we were all to become > vegetarian? Wouldnt that increase human methane production ? Cheers, Simon On 16 Jun, 10:22, Jane Sullivan <spamt...@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In message <4855A609.E7155...@ihug.co.nz>, Greg Procter > <proc...@ihug.co.nz> writes [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - No because the insect population would rise thus needing more chemical to control them. The cases of hay fever and other pollen related allergies would also rise. Just think of all those rotting animal carcasses left in the fields as dead money ( no pun intended ). Like it or not us humans are part of a linked food chain Chris > > Dragon Heart <chris_br...@tesco.net> wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb- > > 1499cadc7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > orchards to provide you all with your demands. If you'd all just stop > eating we could cut the methane production by 90%. What are you saying Greg ! No more New Zealand lamb ? No more wool socks that keep my feet warm even when wet ? How did you let this happen ? Chris > > > Dragon Heart <chris_br...@tesco.net> wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb- > > > 1499cadc7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Chris We still have more lamb than there are buyers! It's just that the total amount keeps dropping. You Brits and yanks keep bombing our customers in the ME. As for wool, the Chinese can make it out of oil products and some funny blue stuff much cheaper. Greg.P. > Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb- > 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of the number of cows as there are now were it not for the fact that they > are expecially bred to serve the human population. I wonder how many cows there are in North America now compared to the millions of bison that used to roam until man slaughtered the lot. Not a huge difference, I'll bet! Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb > > Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb- > > 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Cheers > Richard That's going to depend on which group of animals in N.America you consider should have precedence, the bisons/cattle, or the humans. 1600ad: 1 million humans + 100 million bisons. 2000ad: 500 million humans + 100 million cattle. What was that about methane production and culling stock numbers? Regards, Greg.P. > > > Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb- > > > 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Regards, > Greg.P. Soemone commented that methane production must be up since there are more cows - I was merely pointing out that with the now gone millions of baffalo the numbers may well be similar, so methane levels may not have changed much from that source. Nothing to do with human population. As an aside, and having sat behind some whilst doing carriage driving, there are now more horses in the UK than there has ever been. The horse is infact the first wind powered animal, often with lumpy bits.... Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb > > > > Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb- > > > > 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > levels may not have changed much from that source. Nothing to do > with human population. True, but humans also produce methane and there are vastly more humans than ever before so total methane production will be well up. > As an aside, and having sat behind some whilst doing carriage driving, > there are now more horses in the UK than there has ever been. > The horse is infact the first wind powered animal, often with > lumpy bits.... As the say goes, the only sure way to make money from the horses is to carry a bucket and spade! > That's going to depend on which group of animals in N.America you > consider should have precedence, the bisons/cattle, or the humans. > 1600ad: 1 million humans + 100 million bisons. > 2000ad: 500 million humans + 100 million cattle. Counting everything north of the Panama Canal and the Caribbean Islands, that's about right. In round numbers, Canada is 30 million, USA 300 million and Mexico 100 million. SignatureMartin S. > > That's going to depend on which group of animals in N.America you > > consider should have precedence, the bisons/cattle, or the humans. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Martin S. N.America _is_ the bit north of the Panama canal >8^] Regards, Greg.P. >>> That's going to depend on which group of animals in N.America you >>> consider should have precedence, the bisons/cattle, or the humans. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Regards, > Greg.P. North America is definitely Canada and the US. Mexico, maybe. Depends on which Mexicans you talk to. Quite a few of them are some sore about their gummint's deals with the US and Canada. The bits between Mexico and Colombia are Central America. Those bits in the ocean east and north of Central America are the Caribbean. Don't matter squat what they teach in NZ schools. Signaturewolf k. > >>> That's going to depend on which group of animals in N.America you > >>> consider should have precedence, the bisons/cattle, or the humans. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > -- > wolf k. Yeah, they taught us that south of the equator is south (of the equator) and north of the equator is north (of trhe equator). Gee, they sure didn't know anything! Greg.P. >>>>> That's going to depend on which group of animals in N.America you >>>>> consider should have precedence, the bisons/cattle, or the humans. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> >> Don't matter squat what they teach in NZ schools. Surely it is pretty arbitrary anyway? My school's books didn't have a central America, just north and south - but they also had an APT... Are France and Denmark in North America? > Yeah, they taught us that south of the equator is south (of the equator) > and north of the equator is north (of trhe equator). > Gee, they sure didn't know anything! I've noticed a lot of (US?) Americans won't believe that most of the UK, Ireland, Portugal, bits of Africa, and everywhere this side of Greenwich are in the west. SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK [...] Gee, they sure didn't know anything! > I've noticed a lot of (US?) Americans won't believe that most of the UK, > Ireland, Portugal, bits of Africa, and everywhere this side of Greenwich > are in the west. A travel agent friend of mine told me of a conversation he had with a US citizen, who commiserated with him about the flooding near a Northern Ontario community - surely the flooding would reach my friend's home soon? My friend pointed out that as he was south of that community, and the river in question flowed north (into Hudson's Bay), he wasn't worried. The US citizen refused to believe him. All rivers flow south, 'cuz that's _down_, don't you see? BTW, there are parts of Canada that are south of the US border. And most Canadian citizens live south of the 49th parallel, the famous "undefended border" (not any more.). Signaturewolf k. > [...] Gee, they sure didn't know anything! >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > he wasn't worried. The US citizen refused to believe him. All rivers > flow south, 'cuz that's _down_, don't you see? The Arctic drainage basin extends into parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana. > BTW, there are parts of Canada that are south of the US border. And > most Canadian citizens live south of the 49th parallel, the famous > "undefended border" (not any more.). Most of the populated parts of Ontario and Quebec are south of 49°, as well as the Maritime provinces apart from northern Newfoundland. In addition to Alaska, there is also a tiny, isolated part of Minnesota that is north of 49°. SignatureMartin S. >> [...] Gee, they sure didn't know anything! >>> I've noticed a lot of (US?) Americans won't believe that most of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The Arctic drainage basin extends into parts of North Dakota, South > Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana. Quite so, and the US citizen in question wouldn't believe that either... [...] Signaturewolf k. > >>>>> That's going to depend on which group of animals in N.America you > >>>>> consider should have precedence, the bisons/cattle, or the humans. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > -- > Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK We're wandering way off topic, but ... My theory, based on observation, is that yanks use language differently to the rest of us. They seem to use words as placemarkers for things and concepts without regard to the actual meaning of the word. (examples: "cool" to mean good, "intelligence" to mean information, "gas" to mean gasoline ...) Having placed their own meaning on any given word, they expect actual English speakers to fall into line. The fact that "gas" already has a specific meaning becomes irrelevant to them and the potential contradictions are ignored. In your example, place a US centric map of the world on the deack and the UK is obviously east, Mexico is south ... <sheesh> Regards, Greg.P. > We're wandering way off topic, but ... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the UK is obviously east, Mexico is south ... > <sheesh> Of course the Brits, Aussies and Kiwis don't have any colloquialisms peculiar to their own countries or regions, do they? SignatureMartin S. > > We're wandering way off topic, but ... > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- > Martin S. You may have missed the fact that this is an international forum - I at least try to minimise colloquialisms when I imagine others won't understand them. Terms like "far North" probably invoke a different set of thoughts in the northern hemisphere as compared to in New Zealand. >>>>> That's going to depend on which group of animals in N.America you >>>>> consider should have precedence, the bisons/cattle, or the humans. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Greg.P. The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see themselves and define themselves. Canadians aren't Americans, Mexicans aren't Americans. Until recently, Mexicans didn't think of themselves as Norte Amerticanos, and most still don't. Mexico and south is Latin America, you see. Recent legislation and treaties have pushed the Mexicans to realise that business-wise they are North Americans. After all, you New Zealanders don't want to be lumped in with the Ozzies, do you? Yet from our POV, you are close to them geographically, you speak with a very similar accent, so you must be the same people. Right? HTH Signaturewolf k. > The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly > taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see > themselves and define themselves. Canadians aren't Americans, Mexicans > aren't Americans. Actually, we residents of the US aren't "Americans" either. It's just that "United Statians" is such a mouthful that we appropriated the term "American" :-). And as a matter of trivia for you folks across the pond, our Civil War was what turned "these united States" into "this United States". OK, I'll go back to lurking now :-). >> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly >> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that "United Statians" is such a mouthful that we appropriated the term > "American" :-). Don't the states think of themselves as mini countries similar to countries in the EU so you call yourselves Americans as you are on the American continent and we call ourselves Europeans on the European continent or Britons in the British Isles apart from Eire. > And as a matter of trivia for you folks across the pond, our Civil War > was what turned "these united States" into "this United States". > > OK, I'll go back to lurking now :-). >>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly >>> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> that "United Statians" is such a mouthful that we appropriated the term >> "American" :-). The Mexicans and Central Americans call then Nortemericanos. >Don't the states think of themselves as mini countries similar to >countries in the EU so you call yourselves Americans as you are on the >American continent and we call ourselves Europeans on the European >continent or Britons in the British Isles apart from Eire. "Oh, you're English, I do like your accent" "Thank you" "I went to England last year on vacation" "Where did you go?" "Scotland" > "Oh, you're English, I do like your accent" > "Thank you" > "I went to England last year on vacation" > "Where did you go?" > "Scotland" Which is not far off: (prior to Wimbledon) "Great British hope Andy Murray ..." (after he gets beat) " Scotland's Andy Murray was knocked out ..." which I have heard on the radio (or a very close variation of). Cheers, Martyn -- >>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly >>>> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >"Scotland" > >> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly > >> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > American continent and we call ourselves Europeans on the European > continent or Britons in the British Isles apart from Eire. Don't you Brits think of yourselves as Scots, Welsh, English ... in the same manner? Closer to home you divide yourselves further Londoners, Manchunians ..., then down to suburbs and then down to streets, number 27, and so on. From distant points of view each of us divides our perception of others into categories that are relevant to ourselves. For example, I have no reason to sub-divide the USa into smaller groupings, other than for shipping purposes to ports. I can only fly to LA or Vancouver in the Americas from New Zealand. I might once have needed the east-west time divisions if I wanted to telephone someone, but now we have e-mail so that has become irrelevant. Wolf can't distinguish between Australia and New Zealand - I guess he has no need, so why should he. Regards, Greg.P. NZ. >>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly >>>> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > NZ. The good ole boys in the Southern states are very different from the North East US which is more like Europe and the West Coast are something else. Chris > >>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly > >>>> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Chris Sure, and I could bore you with the differences between Southlanders/Cantabrians/Wellingtonians/Aucklanders/Northlanders. Until you need to know I wouldn't expect you to be interested. :-) Regards, Greg.P. >>>>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly >>>>>> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Regards, > Greg.P. That does sound interesting and does that grouping include the Maoris as well the list sounds like European classification's. Known some NZ'ers and it sounds like a fascinating country from then and people I know who have visited as well. So what are the differences the most obvious I can think of from this distance is the skiing on South Island with all those fabulous mountains. Chris > >>>>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly > >>>>>> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Chris Maori divide themselves/ourselves by tribal groupings which tend to be regional, plus they divide themselves into tribal vs Europeanised. (wrong term, but I know what I mean :-) That division would be somewhere between 20/80% and 50/50% depending on who is counting. Maori population density reduces expotentially from North to South. European settlement basically began at and expanded from deep water ports whereas Maori settlement expanded from advantageous geographical areas. For example our main cities are all built in areas where the Maori were more than happy for settlers to live: eg Auckland = 51 volcanoes, most of which have barely been active in the last fifty years (same description 1840 and 2008), Wellington; ancient huge volcanic cone and earthquake area, no reasonable access and nowhere to grow food. Christchurch; vast unhealthy swamp area. Dunedin; only the Scots could like it. The Maori tribes own most of the usable land (50%) while Europeans (people of European decent) own the valuable land (1%, see above description) and the other 49% (the bits too steep for sheep) is National park etc. (I made the percentages up but they are indicative) Nowadays there are ski fields almost everywhere from the centre of the North Island to the far south. The major geograhical factor is the two plates pushing together, sou-sou-west to nor-nor east, creating the Southern Alps in the South Island and southern North Island and then becomming volcanic through the centre of the north Island and out to the East. The oceans to the south and west drastically affect weather patterns, so every region in NZ is different to every other one. eg, the south-west gets around 500" of rain a year whereas Canterbury gets c24". Dunedin; only the Scots could > like it. But isnt that the type locality for Dunite ? Cheers, Simon > Dunedin; only the Scots could > > like it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Cheers, > Simon "Dun - Edin", the old name for Edinburgh. What's Dunite? >> Dunedin; only the Scots could >> > like it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Dun - Edin", the old name for Edinburgh. > What's Dunite? A rock. > >> Dunedin; only the Scots could > >> > like it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What's Dunite? > A rock. Ahh yes, they have that in Central Otago. I don't think there's any connection to the name "Dunedin". >> >> Dunedin; only the Scots could >> >> > like it. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Ahh yes, they have that in Central Otago. I don't think there's any > connection to the name "Dunedin". I'm sure have asked this before, so where is mount Dun ? > >> >> Dunedin; only the Scots could > >> >> > like it. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I'm sure have asked this before, so where is mount Dun ? That's way inland and a little to the north of Dunedin, near Dunback, which probably does relate to Dunite. >> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... >> >> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > That's way inland and a little to the north of Dunedin, near Dunback, > which probably does relate to Dunite. Isn't dunite used to blow up outhouses in Oz? SignatureMartin S. > >> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... > >> >> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > -- > Martin S. I thought that process was called "cleaning out" or "unblocking" in Oz. Do please remember that asking me about Aussie practices would be like me asking you about Morrocan practices. Greg.P. >> >> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... >> >> >> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Greg.P. Not certain thats a good simile, we appeared to have added an sizeable community from most African countries thus requiring more additions to the school cultural syllabus. Cheers, Simon > >> >> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... > >> >> >> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Cheers, > Simon Not so different - we get Australians escaping to New Zealand! Admittedly singing "Waltzing Matilda" is not in the school syllabus, but schools most touch on it as an example of the high point of Australian culture. >> >> >> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... >> >> >> >> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > schools most touch on it as an example of the high point of Australian > culture. So Martin was right to ask you ? :-) Cheer, Simon > >> >> >> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... > >> >> >> >> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Cheer, > Simon One should always ask! (until the teacher gets _really_ annoyed) >> >> >> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... >> >> >> >> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >schools most touch on it as an example of the high point of Australian >culture. I thought you guys referred to Oz as "West Island" SignatureJane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html > >> >> >> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... > >> >> >> >> "Greg Procter" <procter@ihug.co.nz> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > I thought you guys referred to Oz as "West Island" Only when we feel good about them - generally we don't refer to them at all. >>> Dunedin; only the Scots could >>>> like it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> What's Dunite? > A rock. Not as good as Cummingtonite. SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK >>>> Dunedin; only the Scots could >>>>> like it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Not as good as Cummingtonite. Quick re-re-re... check of DH&Z, nope there never was a better one. >>>>>>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly >>>>>>>> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > different to every other one. eg, the south-west gets around 500" of > rain a year whereas Canterbury gets c24". Thanks that helps to explain the enthusiasm of people who have visited New Zealand and the reason why one of my friends emigrated there. Do you have old steam trains running for tourist as well? Chris > >>>>>>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly > >>>>>>>> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > Chris The "Kingston Flyer" is a private commercial venture running an AB Class Pacific (c1915) with a train of 1890s-1910s coaches through superb scenery. There's a private line from Dunedin (Taeari Gorge) running Diseasal powered heritage trains along a route you wouldn't believe. They often substitute a steam loco. 2008 is the centenary of the North Island Main Trunk - Auckland to Wellington - and there's currently a Wab 4-6-4T running half day excursions from Fielding with the occassional Ka (4-8-4) or Ja (4-8-2) run from Auckland to meet it. There are lots of small preservation groups dotted around the country and arguably more steam locos operable than they can maintain. Special events tend to bring them out, and just sometimes the owners or owning groups like to organise a mainline run if they think they can break even. Some of the groups specialize in logging or industrial, others the locos such as the Ks and Js that lasted to the end of steam in the 1970s. Of course, our few remaining non-preservation passenger trains run because of tourism and scenery - you even forget there isn't a steam loco at the front! Greg.P. >>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly >>>> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Don't you Brits think of yourselves as Scots, Welsh, English ... in the > same manner? An English person is perhaps more likely to self-identify as British than a Scotsman is. When I was surveyed for Transport for London a while back I was given the option of being (among others) British, Welsh, Scottish or Irish, but not English.... > Closer to home you divide yourselves further Londoners, Manchunians ..., > then down to suburbs and then down to streets, number 27, and so on. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Wolf can't distinguish between Australia and New Zealand - I guess he > has no need, so why should he. Isn't the usual answer along the lines of "In Australia we'd shear that..." (or was that Wales?) SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK > >>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly > >>>> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the option of being (among others) British, Welsh, Scottish or Irish, > but not English.... So no-one really wants admit to being English(?) > > Closer to home you divide yourselves further Londoners, Manchunians ..., > > then down to suburbs and then down to streets, number 27, and so on. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK They do some strange things in Australia! The big differences between Australians and New Zealanders stem largely from the fact that 150 years ago people were banished to Australia, whereas those coming to New Zealand had to pay. Regards, Greg.P. >>>>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly >>>>>> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > So no-one really wants admit to being English(?) The option of being English was not offered. SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK > >>>>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly > >>>>>> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > -- > Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK Sure, "English" really refers to a variety of foreign invaders and occupiers of the lands of England. It's a catch-all term for people disowned by the people living where their ancestors originally came from and as such "the English" doesn't exist. My immediate ancestors came from England, but the existing family tree shows the addition of Germans and French, presumably to families consisting of Angles, Danes, Saxons and Vikings. No "English" there. ;-) Greg.P. >> >>>>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how >> >>>>>> correctly [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Greg.P. But on that basis we're all Nigerians - or wherever the rift valley is .... CHeers, Simon > But on that basis we're all Nigerians - or wherever the rift valley is .... When I was doing consulting work for a local aluminum company, we had visiting engineers from a plant in Ghana. They laughed when I told them they were the only folks I knew that could honestly claim to be natives :-). >>>>>>>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how >>>>>>>>> correctly [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> disowned by the people living where their ancestors originally came from >> and as such "the English" doesn't exist. But that applies to pretty much everywhere except a cave in Africa (or, for some Americans, a garden in Mesopotamia). Exactly the same could be said about the rest of the UK. SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK > > >>>>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly > > >>>>>> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > consisting of Angles, Danes, Saxons and Vikings. No "English" there. > ;-) Which applies equally to any other country in the world. Nowehere has an entirely indignous population. > Greg.P. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb [...] > Wolf can't distinguish between Australia and New Zealand - I guess he > has no need, so why should he. I guess I should have warned you I was using satire. Specifically "satiric impersonation", where the satiric target's POV, mindset, reasoning, etc, are impersonated in a different context or in an exaggerated fashion, to display their absurdity. (A favorite technique on Saturday Night Live, BTW.) HTH Signaturewolf k. > [...] >> Wolf can't distinguish between Australia and New Zealand - I guess he [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > exaggerated fashion, to display their absurdity. (A favorite technique > on Saturday Night Live, BTW.) No Way!!! I happened to catch a SNL special the other night featuring skits with Mike Myers (a Canadian of British parentage with a Scots grandmother). Included was my favourite Wayne's World skit involving a dream sequence with Madonna, who snogs Wayne and utters such gems as: "Way!", "Not!" and "Monkeys might fly out of my butt." SignatureMartin S. > [...] > > Wolf can't distinguish between Australia and New Zealand - I guess he [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -- > wolf k. I guess I should have warned you that I was supporting your apparent viewpoint. I've never yet been anything but alive on saturday nights since I was born. Regards, Greg.P. > [...] >> Wolf can't distinguish between Australia and New Zealand - I guess he [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > HTH Now I would guess its irony rather than satire. Suprising really cos thought the americans dont do irony ! Cheers, Simon > > [...] > >> Wolf can't distinguish between Australia and New Zealand - I guess he [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Now I would guess its irony rather than satire. Suprising really cos thought > the americans dont do irony ! They don't mean to - it just comes out that way when their brainwash dogma accidentally aligns with reality. Regards, Greg.P. >> [...] >>> Wolf can't distinguish between Australia and New Zealand - I guess he [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Cheers, > Simon Irony is one technique of satire, yes. (I did a major paper on the varieties of satirical techniques many years ago, and a thesis on Swift's satiric verse, so I Know Whereof I Speak. ;-)) Irony can also be used to generate pathos, and is much used in tragedy. See Oedipus Rex: Laios and Jocasta's attempts to thwart prophecy created the conditions that guaranteed it. There are varieties of irony too. If you're _really_ interested, I recommend Empson's 7 Types of Ambiguity, still a necessary text IMO, despite its age. But enough of lit crit. This NG is supposed to be about model trains, right? Signaturewolf k. >>> [...] >>>> Wolf can't distinguish between Australia and New Zealand - I guess he [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > But enough of lit crit. This NG is supposed to be about model trains, > right? I passed both english 'o' levels so suppose youre ahead of me there. However you dont say if it is irony or not. Cheers, Simon >>>> [...] >>>>> Wolf can't distinguish between Australia and New Zealand - I guess he [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Cheers, > Simon Satiric impersonation is not irony. It's a form of burlesque or caricature. Burlesque/caricature works by emphasising the targeted trait(s), sometimes by exaggeration, sometimes by isolation or simplification, sometimes by contrast with opposites. (NB that "burlesque" has several other meanings.) Irony depends on and is the effect of double (sometimes multiple) viewpoints. One is narrow or limited and sees only one meaning (the human POV in Oedipus Rex), the other includes the former plus one or more additional meanings (the divine POV, shared by the audience of the play.) Note that in the end Oedipus knows both POVs, and the knowledge shatters him: he has become guilty of father murder and incest despite the best efforts of his parents to prevent that guilt. For the audience, awareness of that irony results a curious mix of intellect and emotion, which Aristotle characterised as "pity and terror", not a bad description.. As with many literary terms, the word applies both to a technique or structure, and to its effect. Muddled, I know, but what can you do. It's Traditional! ;-) HTH Signaturewolf k. >>>>> [...] >>>>>> Wolf can't distinguish between Australia and New Zealand - I guess he [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > HTH I am sorry I asked, but thank you for your effort. Cheers, Simon [...] >> Satiric impersonation is not irony. It's a form of burlesque or >> caricature. Burlesque/caricature works by emphasising the targeted [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Cheers, > Simon Aw, gee. But anyhow, you're welcome. ;-) Signaturewolf k. > >>>>> [...] > >>>>>> Wolf can't distinguish between Australia and New Zealand - I guess he [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > Cheers, > Simon Be honest Simon, you enjoyed asking! (it was the answer you weren't so keen on ;-) Regards, Greg.P. >> >>>>> [...] >> >>>>>> Wolf can't distinguish between Australia and New Zealand - I guess [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > Regards, > Greg.P. Certainly not. Need to appear less knowledgable on some subjects else people may be reluctant to discuss topics with me. Cheers, Simon > >> >>>>> [...] > >> >>>>>> Wolf can't distinguish between Australia and New Zealand - I guess [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > Cheers, > Simon LOL. That's a technique I've always used - there's no-one that can't teach something, even if it's how not to do something. Regards, Greg.P. > > >> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly > > >> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > NZ. My perception is that the Americans view the difference between a State and Federal US as a much more significant divide than we do between English, Scots etc. Interestingly, some years back (early 1900's?) Texas threatened to acceed from the Union and apply for membership of the Commonwealth. Still apparently technically possible. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb >>>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly >>>>> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > and Federal US as a much more significant divide than we do between > English, Scots etc. US states have their own governments - England doesn't. Could Alaskan politicians vote to impose education fees on Texas? I've no idea. > Interestingly, some years back (early 1900's?) Texas threatened to > acceed from the Union and apply for membership of the Commonwealth. > Still apparently technically possible. Texas has never really had "a historic constitutional association with an existing Commonwealth member", has it? (Mozambique and Cameroon were special cases...). SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK > >>>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly > >>>>> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > US states have their own governments - England doesn't. Could Alaskan > politicians vote to impose education fees on Texas? I've no idea. Huhh, you've finally handed over full control to GWB and co??? >>>>>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly >>>>>>> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Huhh, you've finally handed over full control to GWB and co??? Only foreign policy. But Scottish MPs were able to vote to make English students pay, safe in the knowledge that devolution meant that their own constituents won't be affected by it - so there were brownie points from the party leadership for showing loyalty, with no risk of a backlash from the voters. (at this point someone will usually say "but the English have taken our oil", then someone from Orkney or Shetland will cough and say "/whose/ oil exactly?") SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK >>>>>>>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how >>>>>>>> correctly [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > oil", then someone from Orkney or Shetland will cough and say "/whose/ oil > exactly?") Well no not really cos the Scots get more money per head than ..... Coat ? Cheers, Simon > My perception is that the Americans view the difference between a State > and Federal US as a much more significant divide than we do between [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > acceed from the Union and apply for membership of the Commonwealth. > Still apparently technically possible. The last time some states did that we went to war to stop them. > > My perception is that the Americans view the difference between a State > > and Federal US as a much more significant divide than we do between [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The last time some states did that we went to war to stop them. So the "United" actually refers to application of force rather than general agreement! Don't they have a similar situation in the "United Kingdom"? =8^O Greg.P. >>> My perception is that the Americans view the difference between a State >>> and Federal US as a much more significant divide than we do between [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Greg.P. The Southern Irish were allowed to leave the union in the 1920's and then had their own civil war. Chris > >>> My perception is that the Americans view the difference between a State > >>> and Federal US as a much more significant divide than we do between [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Chris Hmmm, so basically you're agreeing with me! >>>>> My perception is that the Americans view the difference between a State >>>>> and Federal US as a much more significant divide than we do between [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Hmmm, so basically you're agreeing with me! For the US maybe for the UK the Northern Irish chose to stay in the union and were not forced to. Chris >>>>>> My perception is that the Americans view the difference between a State >>>>>> and Federal US as a much more significant divide than we do between [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >For the US maybe for the UK the Northern Irish chose to stay in the >union and were not forced to. A point which escapes most Americans. >Chris > In message <485805D8.12DFE...@ihug.co.nz> > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > acceed from the Union and apply for membership of the Commonwealth. > Still apparently technically possible. Don't tell Gordon ... he'll be after the oil. It would be good to pay US price for the refined stuff. We pay per litre what they pay per gallon, OK US gallons are slightly smaller than the UK gallon but still ...... Chris >> My perception is that the Americans view the difference between a >> State and Federal US as a much more significant divide than we do [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > gallon, OK US gallons are slightly smaller than the UK gallon but > still ...... Average US price/gallon $4.08 = >£2 - UK prices aren't that high surely? Average US diesel price $4.65/gallon http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp 1 US gallon = 3.78 litres; 1 Imperial gallon = 4.55 litres. SignatureMartin S. > >> My perception is that the Americans view the difference between a > >> State and Federal US as a much more significant divide than we do [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > 1 US gallon = 3.78 litres; 1 Imperial gallon = 4.55 litres. Rapidly heading towards £6 a gallon - £1.39 a litre last night. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb >> >> My perception is that the Americans view the difference between a >> >> State and Federal US as a much more significant divide than we do [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Rapidly heading towards £6 a gallon - £1.39 a litre last night. Still a long way from £2 a litre. SignatureMartin S. > >> >> My perception is that the Americans view the difference between a > >> >> State and Federal US as a much more significant divide than we do [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Still a long way from £2 a litre. Not at the current rate of progress!! ;-) Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb > >> >> My perception is that the Americans view the difference between a > >> >> State and Federal US as a much more significant divide than we do [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Still a long way from £2 a litre. Give it time !!!!!!!! Is't about 80% of the price of fuel at the pump tax ? Chris >>> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how >>> correctly taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > American continent and we call ourselves Europeans on the European > continent or Britons in the British Isles apart from Eire. No, they are a federation of states under the U.S. government, much as Canada is a federation of provinces, although Quebec likes to consider itself a "nation". The EU is (supposedly) a voluntary association of sovereign countries. SignatureMartin S. > > The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly > > taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see > > themselves and define themselves. Canadians aren't Americans, Mexicans > > aren't Americans. > > Actually, we residents of the US aren't "Americans" either. Of course you are, all Americans are Americans. > It's just > that "United Statians" is such a mouthful that we appropriated the term > "American" :-). > > And as a matter of trivia for you folks across the pond, our Civil War > was what turned "these united States" into "this United States". That would be grammatically incorrect. Perhaps you meant "this United State"? > OK, I'll go back to lurking now :-). Regards, Greg.P. NZ >> The technical, geographic facts, no matter how correct, or how correctly >> taught, don't matter very much. What matters is how people see [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that "United Statians" is such a mouthful that we appropriated the term >"American" :-). Nortemericanos. People from other American countries don't like to be told they're not Americans. >And as a matter of trivia for you folks across the pond, our Civil War >was what turned "these united States" into "this United States". > >OK, I'll go back to lurking now :-). > >>>>> That's going to depend on which group of animals in N.America you > >>>>> consider should have precedence, the bisons/cattle, or the humans. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > America, you see. Recent legislation and treaties have pushed the > Mexicans to realise that business-wise they are North Americans. "North, south, east and west, are all compass directions, Sure, from somewhere in the US Canada is north and Mexico is south, but from New Zealand they are all a little north of _East_. On the page of my Atlas there's a big continent north of the equator called "North America" and another south of the equator called "South America". Ok, there's a straggly bit in the middle, including Panama. If I want to ship (an ISO container) to the straggly bit I ship it via Houston, which according to my Atlas map is in North America. You're welcome to make localized definitions based on automotive standards definitions or Barbie doll market preferences or whatever, but if you label those definitions with terms like "North American", "West", etc you need to recognise that you're using words which have intrinsic meanings which may conflict with your intent. > After all, you New Zealanders don't want to be lumped in with the > Ozzies, do you? You'd have to be quite stupid to lump us together. > Yet from our POV, you are close to them geographically, You need to get a new map - there's a 1,000 mile gap between the two countries at their closest points plus a few hundred miles more before cities are encountered. Draw a 1200 mile distant line around the US - should we consider everything inside that line to be just like the US and not worth considering as different? or Vice versa? > you speak with a very similar accent, so you must be the same people. Right? LOL - yanks and Siberians speak with similar accents - you must be the same people, right? [snip Wolf's comments about how citizens of Canada, US and Mexico see themselves] > You're welcome to make localized definitions based on automotive > standards definitions or Barbie doll market preferences or whatever, but > if you label those definitions with terms like "North American", "West", > etc you need to recognise that you're using words which have intrinsic > meanings which may conflict with your intent. Your mistake is to assume that words have intrinsic meanings. They don't. People use words to express meanings. Significant difference. If we here want to use "gas" (short for "gasoline", BTW) for the fuel you call "petrol", well, that's our right. You don't have to do it if you don't want to. But to keep on insisting that the usages you learned are the only true and correct ones makes you come off a right twit. >> After all, you New Zealanders don't want to be lumped in with the >> Ozzies, do you? > > You'd have to be quite stupid to lump us together. No more stupid than you lumping Americans and Canadians together. >> Yet from our POV, you are close to them geographically, > > You need to get a new map - there's a 1,000 mile gap between the two > countries at their closest points plus a few hundred miles more before > cities are encountered. 1,600 km??? Is that all? Ontario is about 2,100km by road from its eastern to its western border. I'll be driving 2,300km one way to visit my relatives in Western Canada this fall. In the 60s and 70s, we used to drive another 900km to get to Saltspring Island, where my parents had a house on Ganges Bay. Like I said, you and Australia are so close to each other, to us it looks like you're just an off-shore island. [...] Signaturewolf k. > [snip Wolf's comments about how citizens of Canada, US and Mexico see > themselves] [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Your mistake is to assume that words have intrinsic meanings. In what sense is it a mistake to think that (to take our two examples) "north" and "gas" have no meanings??? > They > don't. "North" n. region or cardinal point opposite to the midday sun. (etc) The entire entry is longer, but it in fact doesn't mention Wolf or "America". "Gas" n elastic fluid such as air ... one not liquid or solid ... (etc) > People use words to express meanings. Significant difference. If > we here want to use "gas" (short for "gasoline", BTW) for the fuel you > call "petrol", well, that's our right. Of course it's your right. You can be as stupid as you want. > You don't have to do it if you > don't want to. I'm left wondering what yanks do when they want to fill their cars with gas rather than gas. > But to keep on insisting that the usages you learned are > the only true and correct ones makes you come off a right twit. I'm _not_ suggesting that the usages I learned are the only correct ones, I'm suggesting that to call something that isn't gas "gas" when that liquid becomes a gas in use and when there is a gas that is a commonly used alternative to "gas" is stupid. > >> After all, you New Zealanders don't want to be lumped in with the > >> Ozzies, do you? > > > > You'd have to be quite stupid to lump us together. > > No more stupid than you lumping Americans and Canadians together. I've never been guilty of that. That would appear to be yet another example of you confusing yourself with your own terminology. > >> Yet from our POV, you are close to them geographically, > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > drive another 900km to get to Saltspring Island, where my parents had a > house on Ganges Bay. You're at it again - the 1000 miles is ocean, all ocean, with no way to drive around. It's an extremely violent piece of ocean. Last year/this year two Australians rowed across in a canoe, it took them over 3 months. There aren't airports at the 1000 mile mark by a considerable distance in either direction. The two countries are foreign to each other. > Like I said, you and Australia are so close to each other, to us it > looks like you're just an off-shore island. Are there a lot of stupid yanks? > [...] > -- > wolf k. > I'm left wondering what yanks do when they want to fill their cars with > gas rather than gas. If they're in New York or California, they will go to a CNG station. Elsewhere, they're probably SOL. We had CNG (compressed natural gas) in Ontario, but it didn't catch on. I don't know if you can still buy it. Toronto Transit either scrapped or converted all its CNG buses to diesel. You can buy LPG (liquefied propane), but it's mostly used for BBQ tanks. Some years ago it was used by taxis and police cars but it doesn't vaporise well in low temperatures. SignatureMartin S. >> [snip Wolf's comments about how citizens of Canada, US and Mexico see >> themselves] [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > In what sense is it a mistake to think that (to take our two examples) > "north" and "gas" have no meanings??? I'm denying your phrase "intrinsic meanings." >> They >> don't. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "America". > "Gas" n elastic fluid such as air ... one not liquid or solid ... (etc) [...] Nice try, Greg. You've dropped the "intrinsic" from your attempted refutation, and you've separated my denial from the phrase I'm denying - which is your phrase, not mine. Weasel. Signaturewolf k. > >> [snip Wolf's comments about how citizens of Canada, US and Mexico see > >> themselves] [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > -- > wolf k. Hi Wolf, No, I haven't dropped it, I just missed it out to reduce the number of keystrokes. It strikes me that you've gathered a lot of information in your head, but haven't matched that input with an equivalent amount of knowledge. (as in 'US intelligence' rather than 'English (language) intelligence' Regards, Greg.P. > You'd have to be quite stupid to lump us together. Having worked in London a few years back (well, we all make mistakes...) I'd certainly not lump you together any more. The pub I used regularly was the Tuesday night-off haunt of the Antipodian bar staff from the area and formed two distinct camps - separted by measurable gulf! And whinge, my god I thought we were supposed to be the world champions ;-) Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb >> You'd have to be quite stupid to lump us together. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >And whinge, my god I thought we were supposed to be the world >champions ;-) You're joking! The world whinging champions are the Australians. They keep banging on about "whinging poms" in an attempt to deflect the opprobrium away from themselves onto us. You don't have to believe them! >Cheers >Richard SignatureJane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html > >> You'd have to be quite stupid to lump us together. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > keep banging on about "whinging poms" in an attempt to deflect the > opprobrium away from themselves onto us. You don't have to believe them! The phenomenon of "whinging Poms" is often very evident here in New Zealand, both with immigrants and tourists. I'd put it down to our different cultures and the immigrant/tourist being out of their depth in many situations. For example, in employment, a New Zealand worker expects to be asked to do tasks from time to time which it seems a Pom would consider either to be beneath them, to be above their abilities or just outside their job descriptions. Pom tourists seem to expect more controlled and regimented situations than are normal here. eg the only place one finds a queue here is in banks - elsewhere we manage quite well without them. An example that presented itself to me recently was an English couple who had driven over the Takaka hill 25km of narrow windy road reaching 795m from sealevel and back with multiple hairpins etc. They complained that there were almost no crash barriers or centre dividers and they were unsure that they were prepared to drive back. While I haven't experienced it myself I can imagine Aussies whining in the opposite circumstances. > > You'd have to be quite stupid to lump us together. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And whinge, my god I thought we were supposed to be the world > champions ;-) You sat in the Australian section! ;-) Greg.P. >> You'd have to be quite stupid to lump us together. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >And whinge, my god I thought we were supposed to be the world >champions ;-) I understood that the difference was that a Kiwi has a chip on both shoulders. G.harman > >> You'd have to be quite stupid to lump us together. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > G.harman Hmmm, yes, we do tend to be well balanced people. Greg.P. >> You'd have to be quite stupid to lump us together. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And whinge, my god I thought we were supposed to be the world > champions ;-) The whinging Antipodeans have pretty much gone from the London pubs, which are now full of assorted Slavic totty instead. SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK > >>> That's going to depend on which group of animals in N.America you > >>> consider should have precedence, the bisons/cattle, or the humans. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Don't matter squat what they teach in NZ schools. For what it's worth, "North American Market" in the automotive world, and probably other areas of endeavour, includes Mexico since Mexican legislation tends to mimic US/Candian rules. Other Central American markets tend to be lumped with South America, again due to legislation trends. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb >That's going to depend on which group of animals in N.America you >consider should have precedence, the bisons/cattle, or the humans. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Regards, >Greg.P. Q: What's the difference between a buffalo and a bathroom? A: You can't wash your hands in a bison. > >That's going to depend on which group of animals in N.America you > >consider should have precedence, the bisons/cattle, or the humans. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > A: You can't wash your hands in a bison. Q: What do you call a blind buck ? A: No idea. >>That's going to depend on which group of animals in N.America you >>consider should have precedence, the bisons/cattle, or the humans. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > A: You can't wash your hands in a bison. Presumably you can pee in a buffalo though ? Cheers, Simon >> Dragon Heart <chris_brett@tesco.net> wrote in >> news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb- [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > to the millions of bison that used to roam until man slaughtered the > lot. Not a huge difference, I'll bet! S. American Beef, NZ dairy, European Beef and Dairy, sheep in Auz etc etc etc??? There's more to the world than our former colonies in the Northern areas of America SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson email to cwilson at britwar dor co dot uk, reply address is spamtrapped. http://www.the-dormouse.org The Dormouse Line model railway > On 14 Jun, 04:53, "chorley...@hotmail.com" <chorley...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > The most dangerous emissions are those coming from the House of > Commons. Can't disagree there, andnot forgetting ASH! > Chris Here's a stunner - the "greenhouse gasses" given off buy food that we throw away in landfill (that's food that has gone out of date, not proper "waste") are equivelent to removing one in five cars from the road. Puts things in perspective, doesn't it! If nothing else it shows that attacking the easy targets is politicaly expedient rather that sensible, as is ever the case with the green bridage... Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb >> I came across this article by Hank Morris ? after looking at the >> Liliput offers on @ Rails Of Sheffield. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > David Please don't buy into the deniers who don't understand that the plant world has a limited capacity to reabsorb CO2, and who don't understand how CO2 creates the greenhouse effect. For the record: without the greenhouse effect, this would be an ice planet. CO2 (and other gases) keeps us warm. But too much CO2 increase the greenhouse effect. Climate change: goes on all the time. What's different now is that there is good evidence that it's happening faster than ever before -- much faster. Just how fast, nobody knows, Until computers made reasonably accurate climate modelling possible in the 1980s and later, it was thought that only catastrophic events such as meteorite impacts would trigger rapid climate change. It's now known that rapid climate change can be triggered by too much or too little of some factor in the weather/climate system. The climate is a chaotic system - that means that it can be stable while its components change until a trigger point is reached, when there will be sudden and more or less catastrophic change. (BTW, the math that demonstrates this is well within the grasp of a grammar school boy.) Nobody knows for sure just how fast climate change is occurring right now. Our descendants will find out which predictions are correct. If it's as fast as some models imply (ie, 50-100 years), our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will curse us. If it's a little slower (500-1,000 years) our multi-great-grandchildren will be more than a little annoyed. If it's happening fast (1rourn 5,000-10,000 years), we needn't feel guilty for wasting so much fossil fuel so quickly. Footnote; recent work in the forests of British Columbia has shown that higher temperatures increase the rate of decomposition of deadfall, etc, so much that temperate and boreal forest becomes a net emitter of CO2, not a net absorber. HTH Signaturewolf k. > >> I came across this article by Hank Morris ? after looking at the > >> Liliput offers on @ Rails Of Sheffield. [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > HTH It should be noted that very rapid climate change has been found in the past too - notably at the end if the last ice age at the time the English Cannel and North Sea were formed, so rapid change has to be taken in historical context too. Whatever "side" one may be on, the debate is nowhere near as black and white, or certain, as either side would have it. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb > > >> I came across this article by Hank Morris ? after looking at the > > >> Liliput offers on @ Rails Of Sheffield. [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > Cheers > Richard You live too far withdrawn and isolated from nature - Pacific Island atolls disappearing under rising sea levels and rapidly changing weather patterns make the situation reasonably certain. By the time we're 100% sure you'll be sea creatures developing gills. > > > >> I came across this article by Hank Morris ? after looking at the > > > >> Liliput offers on @ Rails Of Sheffield. [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > atolls disappearing under rising sea levels and rapidly changing weather > patterns make the situation reasonably certain. Gosh, really? We must be so uneducated...... > By the time we're 100% sure you'll be sea creatures developing gills. Things are changing, that's a fact and nothing new. They may or may not be changing more rapidly than before, that's up for debate, but is a concern. What is far more certain is that barking up the wrong tree looking for quick-fix solutions will help no one, and could even make things even worse by introducing imbalances. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb > Please don't buy into the deniers who don't understand that the plant > world has a limited capacity to reabsorb CO2, and who don't understand > how CO2 creates the greenhouse effect. Why have people like you started using emotive language like "deniers", reminiscent of "holocaust deniers"? > Climate change: goes on all the time. What's different now is that there > is good evidence that it's happening faster than ever before -- much > faster. If the evidence is so good, why does it need to be distorted so much, e.g. the infamous hockey stock curve. > Just how fast, nobody knows, Until computers made reasonably > accurate climate modelling possible in the 1980s and later, We were all being told we were going to freeze to death in an imminent (on geological terms) ice age. > it was > thought that only catastrophic events such as meteorite impacts would > trigger rapid climate change. It's now known that rapid climate change > can be triggered by too much or too little of some factor in the > weather/climate system. No, it's know that certain mathematical models can show this effect in certain models of the atmosphere. Only recently, NASA had to quietly admit that the warmest day on record was not quite as recent as many would have us believe. The data and models are certainly not infallible. MBQ >> Please don't buy into the deniers who don't understand that the plant >> world has a limited capacity to reabsorb CO2, and who don't understand >> how CO2 creates the greenhouse effect. > > Why have people like you started using emotive language like > "deniers", reminiscent of "holocaust deniers"? Because Chorley and those who chimed in on his side refer to hoaxes, distortions, the "climate change brigade", etc etc and so forth. One of our local deniers talks about the "bean sprouts and granola crowd." Same problem. (FWIW, I'm a carnivore.) >> Climate change: goes on all the time. What's different now is that there >> is good evidence that it's happening faster than ever before -- much >> faster. > > If the evidence is so good, why does it need to be distorted so much, > e.g. the infamous hockey stock curve. What hockey stick curve? Are you referring to exponential growth curves? What's your problem with those? If you don't want the data plotted as a hockey stick, just plot them on logarithmic co-ordinates of the appropriate power. The curve will then be a straight line. Or even a curve that slopes down to the right... Magic! But the reality won't be different just because you change the graphics. >> Just how fast, nobody knows, Until computers made reasonably >> accurate climate modelling possible in the 1980s and later, > > We were all being told we were going to freeze to death in an imminent > (on geological terms) ice age. See below. >> it was >> thought that only catastrophic events such as meteorite impacts would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, it's known that certain mathematical models can show this effect in > certain models of the atmosphere. Quite so. And those models show that there is a range of climate change rates possible, depending the rates at which atmospheric constituents change (for example - other factors may also change the rates.) That's why I said that nobody knows for sure. When tested against historical data, the models are pretty good. That pretty good match makes the models reliable enough that when current rates of CO2 increase in the atmosphere indicate a probably rapid climate change, one should take heed. It's better to act as if the worst will happen than assume you'll stay lucky. BTW, if the reference to "mathematical models" is supposed to raise doubts, keep in mind that's all we have. All science and technology relies on mathematical models. True, we all have imprecise, vague and often wrong models of reality in our heads, but even so those models are essentially mathematical. > Only recently, NASA had to quietly admit that the warmest day on > record was not quite as recent as many would have us believe. The data > and models are certainly not infallible. So what? Who said the models were infallible? And what does one warmest day mean? Nothing. The trends over time are what matter. The historical trend until ca. 1950 was for the planet to cool down - we should be seeing the signs of a shift into a "small" ice age, such as the one that lasted from ca. 1100-1600 (and destroyed the Icelanders' Greenland settlement.) But we are seeing an opposing trend. Footnote about mathematical models: when we learned about principal and interest in middle school math class many years ago, and about population growth rates in geography class, I applied the interest calculation to the then human population. I predicted 6,000,000,000 people by ca. 2000. I was almost spot on. > MBQ Signaturewolf k. > manatba...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > What hockey stick curve? You can do better that that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mann_(scientist) http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm MBQ >> manatba...@hotmail.com wrote: >>>> Please don't buy into the deniers who don't understand that the plant [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mann_(scientist) Yes, I've seen this graph, and recent updates, too. I wasn't aware that some people called it "the" hockey stick graph (I guess I don't read the more polemical screeds.) Kinda silly, if you ask me. Maybe they are thinking of that curious game played on grass with a ball and a bent broomstick. > http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm > > MBQ Daly's argument is that the "hockey stick graph" somehow denies the medieval warming and the little ice age. I think he misunderstands the graph. As I read it, the graph shows a general cooling trend that reverses ca. 1900-1950. Whether that reversal is a the beginning of a new trend, or another variation that will be subsumed by a longer-term cooling trend, we cannot tell, yet. What we can be sure of, though, is that we are conducting a test of the climate models proposed by the climatologists. Unfortunately, you and I are unlikely to see how that test turns out, since confirmation of the worst case scenario (climate "flip". ie, major change on a time-scale of 100 years or so) will occur around 2050 at the earliest, by which time I would be well over 100 years old. Daly refers to historical anecdotes as evidence for climate (which they certainly are), so here are a couple of anecdotes for you: a) When I moved here to mid-northern Ontario in 1972, there were no raccoons here, as the winters were too long and too cold for them. They are now ubiquitous. b) We used to have frost in the ground by late October - early November. We now get frost in the ground in late November - early December. And it doesn't go as deep: it used to go down to 3 to 5 ft, now it goes down a foot or so. c) Up to the late 70s, the North Channel (between the mainland and Manitoulin Island) froze over enough that one could ride a snowmobile across (it's about 30 miles). Not any more. d) Business from snowmobilers has shrunk from an 8-10 week season in the 1970s to a month (or less) now. The snowmobile clubs that patrol the trails issue warnings as late as February about using the lake crossings - not enough ice to support a snowmobile. BTW, Daly must be using some "free" HTML program to fancy up his website, because the pages do not display correctly in Firefox. The text wanders past the margins, which makes it difficult to read. Why does he want his website to look like a coil-bound notebook? Silly, if you ask me. He's also more than cheap and chintzy with the graphs, they aren't big enough to see detail clearly. Bah! Signaturewolf k. >>> manatba...@hotmail.com wrote: >>>>> Please don't buy into the deniers who don't understand that the plant [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > also more than cheap and chintzy with the graphs, they aren't big enough > to see detail clearly. Bah! Dunno, to a non climatologist it seems a reasonable article with some interesting points. Deserves a fair review before being dismissed so lightly - are there any fair ones ? Cheers, Simon > I came across this article by Hank Morris ? after looking at the > Liliput offers on @ Rails Of Sheffield. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Chris They were used in locations where sparks were a bad idea. There was a large collection at Priddys Hard munition depot in Gosport for just that reason. Probably more expensive to run as frequent trips back to the steam room to top up with steam due to limited range. As you say they could be environmentally friendly, depending on the energy source used to raise the steam the same arguments apply to electrification, but even with better insulation still not very efficient. Chris >I came across this article by Hank Morris ? after looking at the > Liliput offers on @ Rails Of Sheffield. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > No firing-up period > Few working parts Chris, Other have passed comments on those remarks, but one aspect which has been missed is the safety element of a steam locomotive which doesn't have a fire - particularly in high risk areas where there is the risk of sparks from the loco(s) igniting inlammable fumes. BP at Saltend near Hull used a fireless loco (not quite sure when, but I'm guessing 1950s or 1960s) for just that reason, and this image from one of my websites illustrates their example:- http://www.53a-pix.co.uk/picture/WB2370-1928-HU-Unknown.jpg John. >> I came across this article by Hank Morris ? after looking at the >> Liliput offers on @ Rails Of Sheffield. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > http://www.53a-pix.co.uk/picture/WB2370-1928-HU-Unknown.jpg The other economic case for fireless locos was where the industrial plant had an excess of steam generation, so it would otherwise be going mostly to waste in a cooling chimney. Many chemical plants have spare steam production, so there is a triple-win for the fireless; cleaner, reduced spark risk, cheaper (almost free) fuel. Downside as others have said is the limited capacity of the storage reservoir and the time taken to re-charge. SignatureNigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/ >> I came across this article by Hank Morris ? after looking at the >> Liliput offers on @ Rails Of Sheffield. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > http://www.53a-pix.co.uk/picture/WB2370-1928-HU-Unknown.jpg There are supposed to be some still running near Vienna and the Balkans, maybe elsewhere. As well as safety factors, fireless locos have an advantage in factories where there is plenty of steam being produced anyway, for other reasons. Efficiency doesn't matter than much, as there is plenty of steam already, and you may as well put it into a loco as just vent it off to the sky or whatever. SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK >> BP at Saltend near Hull used a fireless loco (not quite sure when, but >> I'm guessing 1950s or 1960s) for just that reason, and this image from [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > is plenty of steam already, and you may as well put it into a loco as just > vent it off to the sky or whatever. there is rather a witty web site which shows oddball railway motive power, it has a section on fireless locomotives http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/locoloco.htm ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/locoloco.htm Good, that. I especially liked this mad idea: http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/fictional/fictional.htm Guy SignatureMay contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.