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

Dragon Heart wrote:
> 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

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

[...]

-- 
wolf k.

On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Dragon Heart  wrote:
> 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

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

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> [...]
> 

He, he. The something for nothing brigade. Perhaps he ought to look up 
perpetual motion.

Kevin Martin

-- 
To Reply, delete what is "Not Required" in abbreviated form

In message 
, 
"chorleydnc@hotmail.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.
-- 
Jane
British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden
http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html

In message <485330c1$0$25602$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
          Wolf Kirchmeir  wrote:

> Dragon Heart wrote:
> > 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
> 
> 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.
> 

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

-- 
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk       sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
              I have become... comfortably numb

In message <g$uUI9iHi3UIFA8p@yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk>
          Jane Sullivan  wrote:

> In message 
> , 
> "chorleydnc@hotmail.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.

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

-- 
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk       sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
              I have become... comfortably numb

Dragon Heart wrote:
> 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
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

"Dragon Heart"  wrote

>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

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.

On Jun 14, 2:51 am, Jane Sullivan 
wrote:
> In message
> ,
> "chorley...@hotmail.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 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.
>
> 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>

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>
> 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>

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.

John Turner wrote:
> "Dragon Heart"  wrote
>
>> 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
>
> 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


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.
















-- 
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

John Turner wrote:
> "Dragon Heart"  wrote
> 
>> 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
> 
> 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

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.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

On 14 Jun, 04:12, Wolf Kirchmeir  wrote:
> Dragon Heart wrote:
> > 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
>
> 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
>

I thought it was 'waste' steam that was used.  Your right but it's
still a good system !

Chris

On 14 Jun, 04:53, "chorley...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:
> On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Dragon Heart  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> 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.
>

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

On 14 Jun, 15:26, "chorley...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2:51 am, Jane Sullivan 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In message
> > ,
> > "chorley...@hotmail.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 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.
>
> > 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>
>
> 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>
> > 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>
>
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - 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

> 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

chorleydnc@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Dragon Heart  wrote:
>> 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
> 
> 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

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

-- 
wolf k.

chorleydnc@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2:51 am, Jane Sullivan 
> wrote:
>> In message
>> ,
>> "chorley...@hotmail.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 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.
>>
>> 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>
> 
> 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>
>> 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>
> 
> 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.


Wonderful mix of speudoscionec and half-baked ideas. Chorely, you

-- 
wolf k.

Jeff wrote:
>> 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 
> 
> 


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.

-- 
wolf k.

>> 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
>
> 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.
>
> -- 
> Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

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 **

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:39:38 +0100, "free.teranews.com" 
said in <b8f21$485545c0$3203@news.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
-- 
May 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

Dragon Heart  wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb-
1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> On 14 Jun, 04:53, "chorley...@hotmail.com" 
> wrote:
>> On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Dragon Heart  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.

-- 
All 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

Chris Wilson wrote:
> 
> Dragon Heart  wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb-
> 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> 
> > On 14 Jun, 04:53, "chorley...@hotmail.com" 
> > wrote:
> >> On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Dragon Heart  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.
> 

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.

In message 
          Dragon Heart  wrote:

> On 14 Jun, 04:53, "chorley...@hotmail.com" 
> wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Dragon Heart  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 
> 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.
> 

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


-- 
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk       sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
              I have become... comfortably numb

In message , Greg Procter 
 writes
>Chris Wilson wrote:
>>
>> Dragon Heart  wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb-
>> 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On 14 Jun, 04:53, "chorley...@hotmail.com" 
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Dragon Heart  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.
>>
>
>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.

Wouldn't farming become more efficient if we were all to become 
vegetarian?
-- 
Jane
British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden
http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html

In message 
          Chris Wilson  wrote:

> Dragon Heart  wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb-
> 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> 
> > On 14 Jun, 04:53, "chorley...@hotmail.com" 
> > wrote:
> >> On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Dragon Heart  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.
> 

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

-- 
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk       sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
              I have become... comfortably numb

Jane Sullivan wrote:
> 
> In message , Greg Procter
>  writes
> >Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >> Dragon Heart  wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb-
> >> 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > On 14 Jun, 04:53, "chorley...@hotmail.com" 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Dragon Heart  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.
> >>
> >
> >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.
> 
> 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

beamendsltd wrote:
> 
> In message 
>           Chris Wilson  wrote:
> 
> > Dragon Heart  wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb-
> > 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > On 14 Jun, 04:53, "chorley...@hotmail.com" 
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Dragon Heart  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.
> >
> 
> 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


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.

In message <4855056a$0$31925$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
          Wolf Kirchmeir  wrote:

> chorleydnc@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Dragon Heart  wrote:
> >> 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
> > 
> > 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
> 
> 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
> 

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

-- 
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk       sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
              I have become... comfortably numb

In message 
          Jane Sullivan  wrote:

> In message , Greg Procter 
>  writes
> >Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >> Dragon Heart  wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb-
> >> 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > On 14 Jun, 04:53, "chorley...@hotmail.com" 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Dragon Heart  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.
> >>
> >
> >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.
> 
> 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


-- 
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk       sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
              I have become... comfortably numb

beamendsltd wrote:
> 
> In message <4855056a$0$31925$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
>           Wolf Kirchmeir  wrote:
> 
> > chorleydnc@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Dragon Heart  wrote:
> > >> 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
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > 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
> >
> 
> 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


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.

In message 
          Greg Procter  wrote:

> Jane Sullivan wrote:
> > 
> > In message , Greg Procter
> >  writes
> > >Chris Wilson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Dragon Heart  wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb-
> > >> 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> > >>
> > >> > On 14 Jun, 04:53, "chorley...@hotmail.com" 
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Dragon Heart  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.
> > >>
> > >
> > >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.
> > 
> > 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.

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

-- 
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk       sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
              I have become... comfortably numb

In message 
          Greg Procter  wrote:

> beamendsltd wrote:
> > 
> > In message 
> >           Chris Wilson  wrote:
> > 
> > > Dragon Heart  wrote in news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb-
> > > 1499cadc76fb@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> > >
> > > > On 14 Jun, 04:53, "chorley...@hotmail.com" 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Dragon Heart  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.
> > >
> > 
> > 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
> 
> 
> 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.

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

-- 
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk       sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
              I have become... comfortably numb

In message 
          Greg Procter  wrote:

> beamendsltd wrote:
> > 
> > In message <4855056a$0$31925$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
> >           Wolf Kirchmeir  wrote:
> > 
> > > chorleydnc@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Dragon Heart  wrote:
> > > >> 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
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > 
> > 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
> 
> 
> 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.

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

-- 
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk       sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
              I have become... comfortably numb

On Jun 14, 3:26 pm, "chorley...@hotmail.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 15, 1:32 pm, Wolf Kirchmeir  wrote:

> 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

In article ,
manatbandq@hotmail.com  wrote:
>On Jun 14, 3:26 pm, "chorley...@hotmail.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.

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
>> 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.

/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.

-- 
Andy 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)

manatbandq@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 15, 1:32 pm, Wolf Kirchmeir  wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> 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 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


-- 
wolf k.

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>[...]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>


-- 
wolf k.

Greg Procter  wrote:

> 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.

-- 
Martin S.