New threat to Earth-based astronomy

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 16 Nov 2006 11:54:28
From:
Subject: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to
draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution
deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the
planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists,
among them a Nobel laureate.

This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field,
Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global
haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off
climate change.

Complete article here:

<http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/16/international/i112951S42.DTL >

Date: 17 Nov 2006 06:06:30
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

On 16 Nov 2006 11:54:28 -0800, thad@thadlabs.com wrote:

>If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to
>draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution
>deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the
>planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists,
>among them a Nobel laureate.
>
>This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field,
>Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global
>haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off
>climate change.

Unfortunately, we've allowed things to get so out of hand that drastic
measures are probably going to be required. There might still be time to
reverse things without such measures, but I just don't think the
political will is there to really try. So that leaves "geoengineering"
in another 20 or 30 years.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 18 Nov 2006 09:38:27
From: starburst
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

> Unfortunately, we've allowed things to get so out of hand that drastic
> measures are probably going to be required. There might still be time to
> reverse things without such measures, but I just don't think the
> political will is there to really try. So that leaves "geoengineering"
> in another 20 or 30 years.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com

Do *you* have the will? Are you off the grid yet? Is your electricity
green? Have you given up driving a car with an internal combustion
engine? Are you prepared to give up *your* lifestyle living in the
sticks to accomplish the goal of reducing CO2?

Political will comes from individual leadership. In this country, you
*are* a leader. Aside from castigating others for their indolence, how
are you leading?

Date: 18 Nov 2006 15:21:11
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 09:38:27 -0500, starburst <nope@nospam.net > wrote:

>Do *you* have the will? Are you off the grid yet? Is your electricity
>green? Have you given up driving a car with an internal combustion
>engine? Are you prepared to give up *your* lifestyle living in the
>sticks to accomplish the goal of reducing CO2?
>
>Political will comes from individual leadership. In this country, you
>*are* a leader. Aside from castigating others for their indolence, how
>are you leading?

I do what I can. I minimize driving (and travel in general). If it were
possible to drive an electric car, I would. I heat with wood, from my
own land (which is carbon neutral). I'm designing, and in the next few
years will build, a very efficient, off-grid home. I'm careful what I
buy, and what I throw away. I'm sure my energy and environmental
footprint could be smaller, but I'm also sure it's quite a bit less than
the national average. Politically, I consider this a high priority
issue. That means that I vote for people who I think are most likely to
have a positive effect.

I absolutely think I am on solid moral ground pointing out the failures
of society (and its leaders) in dealing with what I see as a critical
problem. Discussion and education are part of leadership, too. We don't
all have to run for office if we want to see a problem addressed.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 18 Nov 2006 19:59:21
From: starburst
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

>>Political will comes from individual leadership. In this country, you
>>*are* a leader. Aside from castigating others for their indolence, how
>>are you leading?
>
>
> I do what I can. I minimize driving (and travel in general). If it were
> possible to drive an electric car, I would. I heat with wood, from my
> own land (which is carbon neutral). I'm designing, and in the next few
> years will build, a very efficient, off-grid home. I'm careful what I
> buy, and what I throw away. I'm sure my energy and environmental
> footprint could be smaller, but I'm also sure it's quite a bit less than
> the national average.

I'm glad that you're putting your money where your mouth is. I think
that the only real soution to the CO2 problem will come when people
realize that it is both efficient and economical to live with less
mass-produced energy. There just aren't enough role models out there
yet. Good that you're angling to be one of them. Up here in rural NY
just a healthy fraction of the folks in the countryside putting up
windmills would ease strain on the grid and on their wallets, too. Green
energy, privately produced. It doesn't have to do the whole job or
anything near it - just enough to nudge the country in the right direction.

Politically, I consider this a high priority
> issue. That means that I vote for people who I think are most likely to
> have a positive effect.

Neither party is addressing the question adequately, though the dems
certainly have the initiative. Somebody needs to start seriously talking
about nuclear power, which allows France to thumb its nose at us over
Kyoto. If the president were smart (I know, I know...) he'd use his new
congress to push for tax incentives to live more energy-efficiently. As
Friedman (RIP) noted, if you pay people to be poor, you'll end up with a
lot of poor people. Likewise, if you charge people for living foolishly,
you can push a lot of them to give up their hummers and add a solar
panel or two.

Date: 16 Nov 2006 20:19:57
From: Don't Be Evil
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

thad@thadlabs.com wrote:
> If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to
> draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution
> deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the
> planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists,
> among them a Nobel laureate.
>
> This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field,
> Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global
> haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off
> climate change.
>
> Complete article here:
>
> <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/16/international/i112951S42.DTL>

It would be terrible if saving New York, Miami, Rio De Janeiro, Los
Angeles, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sidney, Cape Town, Hamburg, and London
interferred with amateur astronomy.

Date: 17 Nov 2006 07:36:38
From: Fred Scharmann
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Leave it to scientist to screw up in a new way. No way do I want them to do
anything that major. If they are wrong, there is probably no way to correct
it.

Sort of reminds me how their brainstorms usually do not work. Around here,
they released a bunch of Asian beetles (look like lady bugs) to kill the
aphids. Twice a year they drive us crazy as they leave the house and when
they come back. We collect hundreds of them each day during that time.
They not only stink, they also bite. I would rather have the aphids.

Keep the scientists from doing anything drastic.

<thad@thadlabs.com > wrote in message
news:1163706868.806973.7750@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to
> draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution
> deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the
> planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists,
> among them a Nobel laureate.
>
> This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field,
> Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global
> haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off
> climate change.
>
> Complete article here:
>
> <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/16/international/i112951S42.DTL>
>

Date: 17 Nov 2006 15:27:14
From: Michael McCulloch
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 07:36:38 -0500, "Fred Scharmann"
<fjs3_get_rid_of_this@adelphia.net > wrote:

>Keep the scientists from doing anything drastic.

I agree. The money should be spent on developing alternative energy
sources. The Earth's weather is too complex to respond to such
simple-minded actions.

We can't predict the weather in 48 hours but somehow you want me to
believe they have the silver bullet for global climate change? Sorry,
no dice.

It is also ironic that cleaner burning hydrocarbons apparently
contribute more to the global warming problem since the sulphur
dioxide output is reduced. Think about that and all the
government-mandated pollution controls over the last years (especially
for coal-fired plants) along with the "environmental concerns" over
nuclear plants in the 80's.

---
Michael McCulloch

Date: 17 Nov 2006 20:49:02
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:27:14 -0500, Michael McCulloch
<michaelm@nospam.invalid.net > wrote:

>The Earth's weather is too complex to respond to such
>simple-minded actions.

Nonsense. It will certainly respond. The question is do we know enough
about climate to know with any real certainty that it will respond the
way we want. There is a real chance here that the law of unintended
consequences will kick in (just as we are seeing now with global warming
side effects and unanticipated amplifiers).

It is because the climate system is so complex that it responds
(apparently) so sensitively to man-made effects.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 17 Nov 2006 17:39:16
From: Michael McCulloch
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:49:02 GMT, Chris L Peterson
<clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:27:14 -0500, Michael McCulloch
><michaelm@nospam.invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>The Earth's weather is too complex to respond to such
>>simple-minded actions.
>
>Nonsense. It will certainly respond. The question is do we know enough
>about climate to know with any real certainty that it will respond the
>way we want. There is a real chance here that the law of unintended
>consequences will kick in ...

Whatever... Filling the air with more and different pollutants is no
real solution that will help anyone's quality of life. It is just a
stupid news story.

---
Michael McCulloch

Date: 17 Nov 2006 16:06:20
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

For what it's worth, I've never been impressed with "Whatever" as a
logical rejoinder. I guess I'm just funny that way.

Michael McCulloch wrote:
> Whatever... Filling the air with more and different pollutants is no
> real solution that will help anyone's quality of life. It is just a
> stupid news story.

Filling the body with more and different microorganisms is no real
solution that will help anyone's quality of--oh wait, it did. And does.
Every day.

Pollutant in this context just means something that wouldn't have been
there if we didn't take such and such an action. It doesn't mean it's
worse or better, except as we measure it. I certainly think that the
global climate is worth affecting for the better, and if adding a bit of
this and that happens to make it "better," then it's worth looking into.
It sounds counter-intuitive, to be sure, but vitamins and antibiotics
were counter-intuitive, even cockamamie-sounding, in their day.

I agree that the news story is, if not quite stupid, at least premature.
But the activity, if there's some actual reason--not intuition--to
believe it might work, is neither.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 17 Nov 2006 16:09:27
From: Richard F.L.R.Snashall
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Chris L Peterson wrote:

> Nonsense. It will certainly respond. The question is do we know enough
> about climate to know with any real certainty that it will respond the
> way we want.

Or just think we do?

Date: 16 Nov 2006 23:03:04
From:
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Don't Be Evil wrote:
> thad@thadlabs.com wrote:
> > If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to
> > draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution
> > deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the
> > planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists,
> > among them a Nobel laureate.
> >
> > This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field,
> > Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global
> > haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off
> > climate change.
> >
> > Complete article here:
> >
> > <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/16/international/i112951S42.DTL>
>
> It would be terrible if saving New York, Miami, Rio De Janeiro, Los
> Angeles, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sidney, Cape Town, Hamburg, and London
> interferred with amateur astronomy.

Maybe it's payback time; those cities you cited are among the worst
light-polluters interfering with amateur astronomy.

:-)

The proposal cited in the article (above) however would also affect
professional
observatories. If the atmosphere itself is dimmed with pollutants, ALL
are affected.

Seriously, though, it would seem that, perhaps, mylar (or carbon nano
flats or
something else) sheeting could be placed in orbit (near SOHO?) to act
as a
shield when/if necessary to eliminate the need to muck with Earth's
atmosphere.

Date: 17 Nov 2006 21:12:30
From: Jim Klein
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Don't worry about it.

We will overpopulate the place, run out of food and water way before
any of that.

We are pumping out 1,000,000 new humans every 4 days. Do the math.

I'm just glad I'm 61 and won't (hopefully) be here when we go on the
menu.

Jim Klein

thad@thadlabs.com wrote:

>If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to
>draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution
>deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the
>planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists,
>among them a Nobel laureate.
>
>This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field,
>Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global
>haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off
>climate change.
>
>Complete article here:
>
><http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/16/international/i112951S42.DTL>

James E. Klein
jameseklein@earthlink.net

Engineering Calculations
http://www.ecalculations.com
ecalculations@ecalculations.com
Engineering Calculations is the home of
the KDP-2 Optical Design Program
for Windows.
1-818-507-5706 (Voice and Fax)
1-818-823-4121

Date: 17 Nov 2006 17:44:03
From: Michael McCulloch
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:12:30 GMT, Jim Klein
<jameseklein@earthlink.net > wrote:

>We are pumping out 1,000,000 new humans every 4 days. Do the math.

We are? I can't find one woman in 10 that wants to have a child in the
US. ;-)

Overpopulation in educated western societies is a myth. Go preach to
the Asians please:

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/pop/pop_6.htm

---
Michael McCulloch

Date: 17 Nov 2006 16:35:41
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Michael McCulloch wrote:
> Overpopulation in educated western societies is a myth. Go preach to
> the Asians please:
>
> http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/pop/pop_6.htm

Sampling every 50 to 100 years can be pretty misleading, huh?

China is the right country to look at, because it is very populous, and
a small percentage increase there is worth a sizable percentage increase
elsewhere. According to the 2006 CIA World Fact Book, China ranks 200th
(out of 235) in 2006 population percentage growth, at 0.02 percent.
That works out to about 200,000 to 250,000 extra Chinese in 2006. By
comparison, the United States is 132nd, at 0.91 percent, which was worth
an extra 2.5 million Americans, give or take.

So I'm not sure preaching to the Asians is such a great idea, since they
at least seem to have taken the overpopulation problem seriously. Over
here in the advanced and socially enlightened U.S., a common response is
"We'll never run out of room." It's depressing, I tell you.

China's population growth *rate* was in large part a temporary problem.
stimulated by Mao's mistaken notion that China's strength relative to
other countries could be increased simply by out-breeding other peoples.
(That's a mistake, incidentally, that Pat Robertson supports for us U.S.
folks.) By the 1970s, the experiment was a disaster. Widespread famine
had resulted. China had not increased its strength as a result; it had
manifestly weakened--though not solely for that reason, of course.

When Deng took over in the late 1970s, one of his measures was to take
the population problem seriously. He instituted the so-called "one
child per family" policy, which even in its most draconian days was not
quite as severe as its name, but which has nonetheless worked to lower
China's population growth rate considerably. That rate will likely be
negative within a decade, basically invalidating the graph you cite.

The problem is that China's actual population size is not a temporary
problem, it is a permanent problem. As I said, China's huge population
means that even a small growth rate means quite a few extra people each
year. On the other hand, it also means that a small negative growth
rate means a considerable decrease in the actual number of people. So
China stands to help the world population problem quite a bit in the
coming years.

That doesn't help China itself a whole lot, because it is still rather
overpopulated. Increasing technological advance will help to smooth
matters out somewhat, but the largely rural inland areas can't support
even the population it's expected to now. Still, that means that China
is doing a heck of a lot better than it would have with the 300 million
or so estimated *extra* people it would have had without Deng's policy.

By the way, the countries at both the top and bottom of the growth rate
list are small ones, which stands to reason, since the same actual
increase in population translates to a much larger growth rate (or
decrease rate) than it does for large countries. Unfortunately, topping
the list is Liberia, which is not a particularly small country: It
sports about 3.3 million people and at its current annual rate of a bit
less than 5 percent, it is set to double its population in less than
two decades. (But any increase in population, no matter how small, is a
problem.)

I await your devastating "Whatever" riposte with trepidation.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 18 Nov 2006 10:05:07
From: starburst
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Brian Tung wrote:
> Michael McCulloch wrote:
>
>>Overpopulation in educated western societies is a myth. Go preach to
>>the Asians please:
>>
>>http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/pop/pop_6.htm
>
>
> Sampling every 50 to 100 years can be pretty misleading, huh?
>
> China is the right country to look at, because it is very populous, and
> a small percentage increase there is worth a sizable percentage increase
> elsewhere. According to the 2006 CIA World Fact Book, China ranks 200th
> (out of 235) in 2006 population percentage growth, at 0.02 percent.
> That works out to about 200,000 to 250,000 extra Chinese in 2006. By
> comparison, the United States is 132nd, at 0.91 percent, which was worth
> an extra 2.5 million Americans, give or take.
>
>
>
> I await your devastating "Whatever" riposte with trepidation.
>

I'll give you one, Brian. The US population is increasing only because
of, and I repeat this, *only* because of immigration, and part of that
is from East Asia, including China. Native born US citizens have not
been reproducing at the replacement rate in two or three decades. So
sampling only at the moment and not looking at underlying factors is
pretty misleading, too, huh?

China has a special problem with population because its culture
encourages large families. (So does Catholicism, for that matter, but
Catholics in developed countries tend to ignore the religious
restrictions placed on contraception.) The Chinese population explosion
of the 1960s and 70s was not simply Maoism at work.

Population growth seems inversely proportional to host of factors,
including education (especially among women), economic growth, and
political liberalization. If we want to discourage population growth
overseas, we should be fostering regulated but market-driven economies,
education, and women's suffrage. Which means that China is probably on
the right path, but it's not there yet.

If we want to ease population growth in this country we should adopt
sane immigration targets, roughly 10% of the million or so legal
immigrants into the US each year, and develop a reasonable guest-worker
program.

-Chris

Date: 18 Nov 2006 08:20:37
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Date: 18 Nov 2006 07:44:13
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

starburst wrote:
> I'll give you one, Brian. The US population is increasing only because
> of, and I repeat this, *only* because of immigration, and part of that
> is from East Asia, including China. Native born US citizens have not
> been reproducing at the replacement rate in two or three decades. So
> sampling only at the moment and not looking at underlying factors is
> pretty misleading, too, huh?

No, I looked at that, too. Admittedly, all I have to go on is what the
country reports, and there are obvious reasons to skew results, but at
any rate, China *reports* about 1.7 children per family; the U.S. about
2.1 children per family (just about at replacement rate). I still don't
think China's population growth *rate* is the problem anymore. And from
the precision of the data, it's not clear that the U.S.'s problem is
only immigration. But I can tell you that attitudes about population
control are troubling (not just in the U.S., but nearly anywhere).
People just don't apprehend the magnitude of the problem.

> China has a special problem with population because its culture
> encourages large families. (So does Catholicism, for that matter, but
> Catholics in developed countries tend to ignore the religious
> restrictions placed on contraception.) The Chinese population explosion
> of the 1960s and 70s was not simply Maoism at work.

No, but it obviously exacerbated an already tenuous situation.

> Population growth seems inversely proportional to host of factors,
> including education (especially among women), economic growth, and
> political liberalization. If we want to discourage population growth
> overseas, we should be fostering regulated but market-driven economies,
> education, and women's suffrage. Which means that China is probably on
> the right path, but it's not there yet.

Oh, obviously. I don't mean to suggest that its problems have been
solved. There's still a lot about China's social and political workings
that upsets me.

One problem they have to overcome over the next couple of decades is a
steadily aging population, since the "peak" of the distribution is about
50 years old now. Their situation might improve considerably after
perhaps 30 or so years.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 17 Nov 2006 12:25:33
From: Don't Be Evil
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

> Unfortunately, we've allowed things to get so out of hand that drastic
> measures are probably going to be required. There might still be time to
> reverse things without such measures, but I just don't think the
> political will is there to really try. So that leaves "geoengineering"
> in another 20 or 30 years.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com

I agree. We barely have to political will to stop increasing CO2
output, nevermind starting to reduce it. And, natural forces may
already be starting to amplify the effect. For instance, the snowcover
is melting in the arctic, resulting in less sunlight being reflected
back into space.

However, they may be way lower-tech solutions. How about painting
roads, roofs, parking lots, etc white? How about growing more trees,
maybe diverting water from the Great Lakes to do it? Burying trash
instead of burning it?

Greg

Date: 18 Nov 2006 09:42:28
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

In article <1163706868.806973.7750@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
<thad@thadlabs.com > wrote:

> If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to
> draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution
> deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the
> planet.

That's already happening - ever heard about global dimming?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

> This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists,
> among them a Nobel laureate.
>
> This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field,
> Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global
> haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off
> climate change.
>
> Complete article here:
>
> <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/16/international/i112951S42.DTL>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 19 Nov 2006 09:10:37
From:
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 09:38:27 -0500, starburst <nope@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >Do *you* have the will? Are you off the grid yet? Is your electricity
> >green? Have you given up driving a car with an internal combustion
> >engine? Are you prepared to give up *your* lifestyle living in the
> >sticks to accomplish the goal of reducing CO2?
> >
> >Political will comes from individual leadership. In this country, you
> >*are* a leader. Aside from castigating others for their indolence, how
> >are you leading?
>
> I do what I can. I minimize driving (and travel in general). If it were
> possible to drive an electric car, I would. I heat with wood, from my
> own land (which is carbon neutral). I'm designing, and in the next few
> years will build, a very efficient, off-grid home. I'm careful what I
> buy, and what I throw away. I'm sure my energy and environmental
> footprint could be smaller, but I'm also sure it's quite a bit less than
> the national average. Politically, I consider this a high priority
> issue. That means that I vote for people who I think are most likely to
> have a positive effect.
>
> I absolutely think I am on solid moral ground pointing out the failures
> of society (and its leaders) in dealing with what I see as a critical
> problem. Discussion and education are part of leadership, too. We don't
> all have to run for office if we want to see a problem addressed.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com

The Earth has somewhat less than 60 million square miles of dry land,
or 38.4 billion acres. If that area were to be divided equally among 6
billion people, each man, woman and child would get approx 6.4 acres.
The same math for the U.S. yields slightly fewer than 8 acres per
person.

How many acres do you have? Can you survive using resources -only-
from that parcel of land?

Date: 19 Nov 2006 10:16:58
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Willebrord Snell wrote:
> The Earth has somewhat less than 60 million square miles of dry land,
> or 38.4 billion acres. If that area were to be divided equally among 6
> billion people, each man, woman and child would get approx 6.4 acres.
> The same math for the U.S. yields slightly fewer than 8 acres per
> person.
>
> How many acres do you have? Can you survive using resources -only-
> from that parcel of land?

The solution to the overpopulation problem (and consequent resource
consumption problem) is not to put everyone on their own parcel, and
ne'er the twain (or quatrain, or howe'er many) shall meet. That only
leads to very inefficient use of land, since none of us has time to do
all the things that we need the land for.

I suspect that efficiently utilized, the Earth could actually support
six billion people in reasonable comfort, but the fact of the matter is
that it *isn't* efficiently utilized (even the part that's usable). In
my opinion, the solution is to reduce the number of people through
birth control, and more efficient use of land, not some kind of
excessively libertarian person-by-person partitioning scheme. (I'm sure
you're not actually suggesting that, of course, but the question was a
kind of false dilemma.)

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 19 Nov 2006 21:43:11
From:
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Brian Tung wrote:
> Willebrord Snell
> > No, not ambiguous at all. It needs no elaboration:
> >
> > Chris, how many acres do you have?
> >
> > Chris, can you survive using resources -only- from that parcel of
> > land?
>
> Sheesh, have it your way. My confusion was totally unwarranted; you are
> the master of clarity.
>
> --

Next time you are confused, ask for clarification.

Date: 19 Nov 2006 21:47:36
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Willebrord Snell wrote:
> Next time you are confused, ask for clarification.

If your clarification is, as you did in your previous post, to repeat
your original post word for word (I still find my interpretation, which
is different from yours, to be allowed by it)--ehh, no thanks.

It's immaterial now--I understand your original intent, so no need to
pursue this issue any further.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 19 Nov 2006 21:20:12
From: Rich
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

thad@thadlabs.com wrote:
> If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to
> draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution
> deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the
> planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists,
> among them a Nobel laureate.
>
> This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field,
> Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global
> haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off
> climate change.
>
> Complete article here:
>
> <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/16/international/i112951S42.DTL>

Great. Create a new 1950 "London fog" to "fight" the myth of global
warming. F----- kooks.

Date: 19 Nov 2006 20:35:27
From:
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Brian Tung wrote:
> Willebrord Snell wrote:
> > You need to go back, re-read and comprehend what I wrote. Speculating
> > that Chris (or anyone else) would have to stay with the land is YOUR
> > idea.
>
> You originally wrote, without any other elaboration:
> > How many acres do you have? Can you survive using resources -only-
> > from that parcel of land?
>
> I think I take your meaning now, but you'll have to admit that what you
> wrote is kind of ambiguous. I took it to mean that you could not use
> resources from any other parcel of land--i.e., including those obtained
> from trade or resource sharing.
>
> --
No, not ambiguous at all. It needs no elaboration:

Chris, how many acres do you have?

Chris, can you survive using resources -only- from that parcel of
land?

Date: 19 Nov 2006 20:41:13
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Willebrord Snell
> No, not ambiguous at all. It needs no elaboration:
>
> Chris, how many acres do you have?
>
> Chris, can you survive using resources -only- from that parcel of
> land?

Sheesh, have it your way. My confusion was totally unwarranted; you are
the master of clarity.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 19 Nov 2006 19:53:50
From:
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Brian Tung wrote:
> Willebrord Snell wrote:
> > A so-called 'false dilemma' is an either-or supposition that doesn't
> > take into account plausible alternatives. In contrast, my question to
> > Chris Peterson requires a yes/no answer, either he can survive on his
> > acreage or he can't, whether has has 6 acres or 6000.
>
> Here's the plausible alternative you're not accounting for: Person A
> can't survive on 6 acres, person B can't survive on 6 acres, but both
> together can survive on 12 acres. You're unreasonably placing him in
> isolation. I don't think Chris means to cut himself off from the rest
> of civilization, even limiting the question to matters of sustenance.
>
> I suspect the benefits don't quite kick in at a factor of two, but you
> get the idea. There's no good reason to assume that N people with 6N
> acres, shared well, can't yield more than they would individually, for
> large enough values of N.
>
> --
> Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

You need to go back, re-read and comprehend what I wrote. Speculating
that Chris (or anyone else) would have to stay with the land is YOUR
idea. My question had to do with self-sufficiency, not just in
firewood, but for all other needs. If it makes you feel better,
imagine that one person grows the food, another chops/hauls the wood, a
third person takes care of livestock, a fourth makes clothes and shoes,
a fifth makes tools, etc. and that all of them get together to raise a
barn from time to time. Just don't expect to have a high standard of
living for everyone, absent some significant CO2 production. And don't
expect to be transporting large amounts of food, fuel, etc., long
distances if you aren't using fossil fuels. IOW "N" will tend to remain
rather small.

The figure of 6 acres per person certainly puts the size of the
population into perspective. At 100 acres per person there is only
enough land for a population of 400 million or so, i.e. a
pre-industrial level. The population only started to increase in a big
way after we started burning fossil fuels.

Date: 19 Nov 2006 20:00:00
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Willebrord Snell wrote:
> You need to go back, re-read and comprehend what I wrote. Speculating
> that Chris (or anyone else) would have to stay with the land is YOUR
> idea.

You originally wrote, without any other elaboration:
> How many acres do you have? Can you survive using resources -only-
> from that parcel of land?

I think I take your meaning now, but you'll have to admit that what you
wrote is kind of ambiguous. I took it to mean that you could not use
resources from any other parcel of land--i.e., including those obtained
from trade or resource sharing.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 19 Nov 2006 13:51:16
From:
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Brian Tung wrote:
> Willebrord Snell wrote:
> > The Earth has somewhat less than 60 million square miles of dry land,
> > or 38.4 billion acres. If that area were to be divided equally among 6
> > billion people, each man, woman and child would get approx 6.4 acres.
> > The same math for the U.S. yields slightly fewer than 8 acres per
> > person.
> >
> > How many acres do you have? Can you survive using resources -only-
> > from that parcel of land?
>
> The solution to the overpopulation problem (and consequent resource
> consumption problem) is not to put everyone on their own parcel, and
> ne'er the twain (or quatrain, or howe'er many) shall meet. That only
> leads to very inefficient use of land, since none of us has time to do
> all the things that we need the land for.
>
> I suspect that efficiently utilized, the Earth could actually support
> six billion people in reasonable comfort, but the fact of the matter is
> that it *isn't* efficiently utilized (even the part that's usable). In
> my opinion, the solution is to reduce the number of people through
> birth control, and more efficient use of land, not some kind of
> excessively libertarian person-by-person partitioning scheme. (I'm sure
> you're not actually suggesting that, of course, but the question was a
> kind of false dilemma.)
>
> --
> Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

A so-called 'false dilemma' is an either-or supposition that doesn't
take into account plausible alternatives. In contrast, my question to
Chris Peterson requires a yes/no answer, either he can survive on his
acreage or he can't, whether has has 6 acres or 6000.

Chris made a plausible claim that for heating he was carbon-neutral
(i.e. sustainable) if he burned wood from trees on his land. However,
there isn't enough wood available for very many of us to follow his
example. This is one reason why we use other sources of heat,
including fossil fuels.

Since the use of wood for fuel wasn't much help, let's look for some
other carbon-neutral activities. Chris needs to eat. But unless he has
a large enough garden, or a large land area for a hunter-gatherer
lifestyle, much of his food has to be brought in from elsewhere (energy
expenditure.) Then of course his telescopes, cameras, computers,
automobile, etc., had to come from elsewhere (more energy expenditure.)
Nope, no carbon-neutral activities there. Maybe he can give a
detailed audit of the energy used to build, transport and maintain
solar energy systems, so that we can determine if these will save
fossil fuels and be carbon-neutral over time. While he might have
solved his heating problems, for now, Chris' "ecological footprint"
seems about as big as that of most others in the US.

Date: 19 Nov 2006 16:58:23
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Willebrord Snell wrote:
> A so-called 'false dilemma' is an either-or supposition that doesn't
> take into account plausible alternatives. In contrast, my question to
> Chris Peterson requires a yes/no answer, either he can survive on his
> acreage or he can't, whether has has 6 acres or 6000.

Here's the plausible alternative you're not accounting for: Person A
can't survive on 6 acres, person B can't survive on 6 acres, but both
together can survive on 12 acres. You're unreasonably placing him in
isolation. I don't think Chris means to cut himself off from the rest
of civilization, even limiting the question to matters of sustenance.

I suspect the benefits don't quite kick in at a factor of two, but you
get the idea. There's no good reason to assume that N people with 6N
acres, shared well, can't yield more than they would individually, for
large enough values of N.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 19 Nov 2006 22:31:27
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

On 19 Nov 2006 13:51:16 -0800, wsnell01@hotmail.com wrote:

>A so-called 'false dilemma' is an either-or supposition that doesn't
>take into account plausible alternatives. In contrast, my question to
>Chris Peterson requires a yes/no answer, either he can survive on his
>acreage or he can't, whether has has 6 acres or 6000.

We have about 200 acres (two people). With a greenhouse (which will be
part of the new house) I could probably be pretty much self sufficient
with the available resources, although I hope I never have to be.

>Chris made a plausible claim that for heating he was carbon-neutral
>(i.e. sustainable) if he burned wood from trees on his land. However,
>there isn't enough wood available for very many of us to follow his
>example. This is one reason why we use other sources of heat,
>including fossil fuels.

I wasn't suggesting that everybody burn wood. In areas of high density
habitation, it is a poor choice. But in a rural setting, it is an
excellent heat source to supplement passive solar (which we have in
abundance).

>Since the use of wood for fuel wasn't much help, let's look for some
>other carbon-neutral activities. Chris needs to eat. But unless he has
>a large enough garden, or a large land area for a hunter-gatherer
>lifestyle, much of his food has to be brought in from elsewhere (energy
>expenditure.) Then of course his telescopes, cameras, computers,
>automobile, etc., had to come from elsewhere (more energy expenditure.)
> Nope, no carbon-neutral activities there. Maybe he can give a
>detailed audit of the energy used to build, transport and maintain
>solar energy systems, so that we can determine if these will save
>fossil fuels and be carbon-neutral over time. While he might have
>solved his heating problems, for now, Chris' "ecological footprint"
>seems about as big as that of most others in the US.

I don't think so. As I noted, I take some care. We buy locally produced
food as much as possible (and it does account for a high percentage of
what we eat). We don't buy much "stuff". We keep cars for 15 year or so
before replacing them. I never suggested that my lifestyle was carbon
neutral. That would be quite impossible in today's world without living
far more primitively than I'm willing. But I do think I'm well below the
U.S. average in terms of fossil fuel consumption (including indirect
consumption).

It is very difficult to assess alternative energy systems in terms of
carbon cost. But I have looked at this issue with respect to my house
design. Much of the design depends on active and passive solar heating,
using components that are quite simple. These systems aren't heavily
loaded up front with high energy manufacturing burdens. The photovoltaic
system isn't as good, but between panels and batteries is probably about
three times lower cost in carbon than coal power (which is our primary
grid source). Of course, it could be much lower since the manufacturing
process could in principle be carbon neutral (nuclear, wind, solar,
etc). Wind power might be somewhat cleaner than the photovoltaic, but
doesn't work well at our altitude. From a practical standpoint, any of
the off-grid options I could use are probably better than the on-grid
alternative, since that would require running over a mile of power line.
What's the burdened energy cost of that?

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 19 Nov 2006 23:13:25
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

In article <dpl1m29qstmkk5vckbtd0q594a2o7i2hla@4ax.com >,
Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:

>We have about 200 acres (two people). With a greenhouse (which will be
>part of the new house) I could probably be pretty much self sufficient
>with the available resources, although I hope I never have to be.

You're lucky! The Earth has some 5 acres of land area per person, on
the average -- including all deserts, glaciers, high mountain and other
less hospitable areas. If we were to give each person on Earth
100 acres, we'd need 20 Earths!

>>Chris made a plausible claim that for heating he was carbon-neutral
>>(i.e. sustainable) if he burned wood from trees on his land. However,
>>there isn't enough wood available for very many of us to follow his
>>example. This is one reason why we use other sources of heat,
>>including fossil fuels.
>
>I wasn't suggesting that everybody burn wood. In areas of high density
>habitation, it is a poor choice.

Indeed! People in London did just that - burn wood, or coal, as their
main house heating, with the famous London smog as a result. London
has no such smog anymore, but the situation is becoming similar in the
larger cities of China.

>But in a rural setting, it is an excellent heat source to supplement
>passive solar (which we have in abundance).

Do you clean the exhaust gases from your wood burning? Burning
wood is carbon neutral, true, but the exhausts from wod burning
contains a lot of other stuff besides CO2.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 19 Nov 2006 23:45:44
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:13:25 GMT, pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

>Do you clean the exhaust gases from your wood burning? Burning
>wood is carbon neutral, true, but the exhausts from wod burning
>contains a lot of other stuff besides CO2.

Not actively, but our stove (of Scandinavian manufacture) is remarkably
efficient. It releases only a few grams per hour of solids up the
chimney (you often can't see any smoke when it burns). The important
thing is that in our locale, with several thousand square miles and a
population density around three people per square mile, the environment
can easily deal with this amount of pollution.

For a number of reasons, we opted against a stove with a catalytic
converter, which would burn a little cleaner.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 19 Nov 2006 13:01:52
From:
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Brian Tung wrote:
> [...]
> I suspect that efficiently utilized, the Earth could actually support
> six billion people in reasonable comfort, but the fact of the matter is
> that it *isn't* efficiently utilized (even the part that's usable). In
> my opinion, the solution is to reduce the number of people through
> birth control, and more efficient use of land, not some kind of
> excessively libertarian person-by-person partitioning scheme. (I'm sure
> you're not actually suggesting that, of course, but the question was a
> kind of false dilemma.)

Hmmm, if you recall, earlier this year the Texas Academy of Science
awarded its "2006 Distinguished Scientist" award to Pianka who proposed
ebola to achieve the same result (eliminating 90% of the world's
population). Here are some of the relevant URLs:

<http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html >

A quick look at student evaluations of one of his courses per this web
page:

<http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio357/357evaluations.html >

finds separate and individual comments such as (from 2004):

" I don't root for ebola, but maybe a ban on having more than one
" child. I agree . . . too many people ruining this planet.

and

" Though I agree that convervation biology is of utmost
" importance to the world, I do not think that preaching
" that 90% of the human population should die of ebola is
" the most effective means of encouraging conservation
" awareness. I found Pianka to be knowledgable, but spent
" too much time focusing on his specific research and
" personal views.

So it's clear he does hold the opinions reported by Mims and
he preaches those opinions in his classes, so it's likely he did
state those same opinions at the TAS meeting as reported.

Date: 19 Nov 2006 13:17:34
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Thad wrote:
> Hmmm, if you recall, earlier this year the Texas Academy of Science
> awarded its "2006 Distinguished Scientist" award to Pianka who proposed
> ebola to achieve the same result (eliminating 90% of the world's
> population).

I don't recall that, but I'm entirely against that stragedy*. I'm in
favor of controlling population by decreasing the birth rate, NOT
increasing the death rate. And decreasing the birth rate should be
entirely voluntary, if at all possible. We should *want* to reduce the
birth rate to no higher than replacement rate.

* I've been watching a bit of Bugs Bunny lately.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 20 Nov 2006 14:15:27
From: Michael McCulloch
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 13:17:34 -0800 (PST), brian@isi.edu (Brian Tung)
wrote:

>And decreasing the birth rate should be
>entirely voluntary, if at all possible. We should *want* to reduce the
>birth rate to no higher than replacement rate.

Well then the thing you need to concentrate on as another poster
stated is womens' education, economic, and reproductive choice around
the world. Women don't have access to any of those freedoms in large
parts of the globe. Western political correctness and correct
attitude, as *you* call it, isn't going to solve it without real
change in the status of women.

---
Michael McCulloch

Date: 20 Nov 2006 13:21:08
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Michael McCulloch wrote:
> Well then the thing you need to concentrate on as another poster
> stated is womens' education, economic, and reproductive choice around
> the world. Women don't have access to any of those freedoms in large
> parts of the globe. Western political correctness and correct
> attitude, as *you* call it, isn't going to solve it without real
> change in the status of women.

I didn't call it political correctness, but yes, I do agree that
education and social change is a large and necessary part of the
solution.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 20 Nov 2006 17:54:12
From: Allan Mayer
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Brian Tung wrote:
> Michael McCulloch wrote:
>> Well then the thing you need to concentrate on as another poster
>> stated is womens' education, economic, and reproductive choice around
>> the world. Women don't have access to any of those freedoms in large
>> parts of the globe. Western political correctness and correct
>> attitude, as *you* call it, isn't going to solve it without real
>> change in the status of women.
>
> I didn't call it political correctness, but yes, I do agree that
> education and social change is a large and necessary part of the
> solution.
>

All you can do is bring education to them.
There are people who have cultures older than ours,
that are not just going to do it the way we think
best.
And just who exactly is to decide whats best.....

--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

OS X 10.4.8

Date: 19 Nov 2006 22:34:29
From:
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Brian Tung wrote:
> Willebrord Snell wrote:
> > Next time you are confused, ask for clarification.
>
> If your clarification is, as you did in your previous post, to repeat
> your original post word for word (I still find my interpretation, which
> is different from yours, to be allowed by it)--ehh, no thanks.
>
> It's immaterial now--I understand your original intent, so no need to
> pursue this issue any further.
>
> --

Your interpretation was inaccurate. My post stated a fact about the
number of acres per person and asked two simple questions of Chris
Peterson, or any one else who owns land. You, for some strange reason,
seemed to assume that it was offered as some sort of fix for
overpopulation. Next time, if you disagree with a statement, state
why, and if you don't understand a question, ask for clarification.

Date: 20 Nov 2006 00:30:14
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Willebrord Snell wrote:
> Your interpretation was inaccurate. My post stated a fact about the
> number of acres per person and asked two simple questions of Chris
> Peterson, or any one else who owns land. You, for some strange reason,
> seemed to assume that it was offered as some sort of fix for
> overpopulation.

No, although I can see why you thought so. Your question seemed to
restrict Chris to resources found only on his land, and not allow him
to share/trade with others--based on your emphasis on "only." To me,
that means exactly that he had to stay with the land. If you think my
reading of your question is inaccurate, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Without further context, it sure seems to me that it precludes pooling
of resources. Only your later comment made it clear that you did not
mean that.

At any rate, I felt your rhetorical point--that the available land
cannot support a large population--depended on restricting people to
their allotment of land. I felt that was invalid and explained why,
although I did so in the context of overpopulation--my fault, that was
a leak over from another subthread. Since that's not what you meant,
my particular point is moot.

> Next time, if you disagree with a statement, state why,
> and if you don't understand a question, ask for clarification.

I believed I did understand the question. I don't suppose you've ever
been mistaken about your state of understanding regarding anything?

I reiterate my desire to drop this matter.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 23 Nov 2006 01:43:58
From:
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Hey American Moron! wrote:
> Hilarious! Got any more?
>
>
>
> thad@thadlabs.com wrote:
>
> > If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to
> > draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution
> > deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the
> > planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists,
> > among them a Nobel laureate.
> >
> > This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field,
> > Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global
> > haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off
> > climate change.
> >
> > Complete article here:
> >
> > <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/16/international/i112951S42.DTL>

I might after I view Paramount's new comedy/pyscho movie "An
Inconvenient Truth"
featuring the numbnut who claimed to have invented the Internet. :-)

Date: 23 Nov 2006 02:55:53
From: Hey American Moron!
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Hilarious! Got any more?

thad@thadlabs.com wrote:

> If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to
> draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution
> deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the
> planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists,
> among them a Nobel laureate.
>
> This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field,
> Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global
> haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off
> climate change.
>
> Complete article here:
>
> <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/16/international/i112951S42.DTL>

Date: 24 Nov 2006 20:50:37
From: Don't Be Evil
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

> I might after I view Paramount's new comedy/pyscho movie "An
> Inconvenient Truth"
> featuring the numbnut who claimed to have invented the Internet. :-)

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

http://listserv.uh.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9207b&L=pacs-l&T=0&P=62

Greg

Date: 24 Nov 2006 23:36:55
From:
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Don't Be Evil wrote:
> > I might after I view Paramount's new comedy/pyscho movie "An
> > Inconvenient Truth"
> > featuring the numbnut who claimed to have invented the Internet. :-)
>
> http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Heh, you made my point -- you knew exactly to whom I was referring. :-)

Seriously, like most everything publicly available on the 'Net, web
sites must
be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism, even Snopes. There are a
number
of errors and inaccuracies in that referenced article (hint:
Eisenhower; another
hist: ignoring ARPANET; etc etc).

> [...]
> http://listserv.uh.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9207b&L=pacs-l&T=0&P=62

The above article cites a proposed bill that was 20 years (two decades)
late in 1992;
by 1972 the ARPANET was viable, I was using computers in the UK from my
home in Silicon Valley over the 'Net, and even by 1985 the 'Net was
open to
the public via portals such as The Well, GEnie, BIX, Compuserve,
Portal, Delphi,
and many others (including mine :-). Pick up the O'Reilly book
"Managing UUCP
and Usenet" (1986), you'll see my name in the credits on page xxii, and
on pages
93-94 you'll see a set of StarLAN config files documenting one of my
home networks
connected to the 'Net featuring my multiple 3B1, Amiga, and other
systems.

And just so Mr.Numbnut (Gore) doesn't claim/infer he invented it too,
the Web began
1Q 1993, featured the Mosaic browser, and Gore had nothing to do with
it.

Date: 25 Nov 2006 18:19:30
From: Trane Francks
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

On 2006-11-25 16:36 +0900, thad@thadlabs.com wrote:

> Heh, you made my point -- you knew exactly to whom I was referring. :-)

You don't seem to have any point aside from Gore-bashing.

> Seriously, like most everything publicly available on the 'Net, web
> sites must be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism, even Snopes.

True, but I completely agree that any insistence that Gore claimed to
have invented the internet is just posturing.

> of errors and inaccuracies in that referenced article (hint:
> Eisenhower; another

You might want to actually read the article. There's nothing inaccurate
about the Eisenhower component whatsoever.

> hist: ignoring ARPANET; etc etc).

Yes, we all know that the ARPANET was the forerunner of the Internet,
just as we should all know that roads were the forerunners of the
Interstate Highway System. Your point is what exactly?

> by 1972 the ARPANET was viable, I was using computers in the UK from my
> home in Silicon Valley over the 'Net, and even by 1985 the 'Net was
> open to
> the public via portals such as The Well, GEnie, BIX, Compuserve,
> Portal, Delphi,
> and many others (including mine :-). Pick up the O'Reilly book

Yes, we know about ARPANET; the IPSS did, indeed, expand network
coverage and, finally, yes, we know that limited commercial access to
the 'net was available in '85. Germaine to nothing, Japan didn't see its
first government-approved commercial provider till 1993.

> "Managing UUCP
> and Usenet" (1986), you'll see my name in the credits on page xxii, and
> on pages
> 93-94 you'll see a set of StarLAN config files documenting one of my
> home networks

Pick up a copy of OS/2 Power Guidebook and you'll see an entire chapter
I wrote. The fact still doesn't mean that Gore thinks he invented the
'net. ;-)

You've made it abundantly clear that you don't like Gore. I don't care
either way. I'm Canadian. ;-)

trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 19:11:08
From:
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Don't Be Evil wrote:
> It would be terrible if saving New York, Miami, Rio De Janeiro, Los
> Angeles, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sidney, Cape Town, Hamburg, and London
> interferred with amateur astronomy.

You're quite right - that, in itself, wouldn't be terrible.

However, what *is* terrible is that we can't save these cities without
both interfering with amateur astronomy AND without filling people's
lungs with gunk by doing it the *right* way.

By putting less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

This doesn't mean shutting down all the use of oil, gas, and coal and
going to wind power and solar power instead - that would so drastically
constrict the world economy as to leave people starving everywhere, and
that, too, would interfere with amateur astronomy, among other things.

No. Instead, shut down the use of oil, gas, and coal, but *more* than
replace the energy they produce with as many nuclear power plants as
are needed! Clean, *abundant* energy(thanks to reprocessing, of course,
otherwise there wouldn't be enough uranium), fully sufficient to power
a new economic boom like that of the 1960s.

John Savard

Date: 28 Nov 2006 20:42:54
From: Jax
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote in message
news:1164597068.418871.216010@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Don't Be Evil wrote:
>> It would be terrible if saving New York, Miami, Rio De Janeiro, Los
>> Angeles, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sidney, Cape Town, Hamburg, and London
>> interferred with amateur astronomy.
>
> You're quite right - that, in itself, wouldn't be terrible.
>
> However, what *is* terrible is that we can't save these cities without
> both interfering with amateur astronomy AND without filling people's
> lungs with gunk by doing it the *right* way.
>
> By putting less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
>
> This doesn't mean shutting down all the use of oil, gas, and coal and
> going to wind power and solar power instead - that would so drastically
> constrict the world economy as to leave people starving everywhere, and
> that, too, would interfere with amateur astronomy, among other things.
>
> No. Instead, shut down the use of oil, gas, and coal, but *more* than
> replace the energy they produce with as many nuclear power plants as
> are needed! Clean, *abundant* energy(thanks to reprocessing, of course,
> otherwise there wouldn't be enough uranium), fully sufficient to power
> a new economic boom like that of the 1960s.
>
> John Savard
>
Yep, that'll save 31% co2 emissons. With an additional 40% reduction
you'll begin to make a difference.

peace,
jon

Date: 28 Nov 2006 13:49:02
From:
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

Jax wrote:
> Yep, that'll save 31% co2 emissons. With an additional 40% reduction
> you'll begin to make a difference.

Well, in that case just build a bit more nuclear power generating
capacity, and use it to make hydrogen fuel for the cars.

That, of course, is more problematic, since running out and buying a
new car is expensive - and since people who have cars are richer than
those who don't, it's hard to see the government paying for it.

John Savard

Date: 28 Nov 2006 22:20:27
From: Jax
Subject: Re: New threat to Earth-based astronomy

<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote in message
news:1164750542.231945.76570@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Jax wrote:
>> Yep, that'll save 31% co2 emissons. With an additional 40% reduction
>> you'll begin to make a difference.
>
> Well, in that case just build a bit more nuclear power generating
> capacity, and use it to make hydrogen fuel for the cars.
>
> That, of course, is more problematic, since running out and buying a
> new car is expensive - and since people who have cars are richer than
> those who don't, it's hard to see the government paying for it.
>
> John Savard
>

Switch all cars to hydrogen and gain another 15% savings. Only 25% more to
go!

peace,
jon