Now the other side of the Chinese story. In an addresss to this
year's Conress. Zua Rhongi said that China's two main problems were
water and petroleum.
Denis Frith
Melbourne
Australia

  --- hgerhauser <gerhaush@...> wrote: > Ron Patterson wrote a
lot about grain some time ago and gave the
> following link:
>
> > (http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update1.htm)
> Bloomberg story with a little section that's relevant:
>
> http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?
>
ptitle=Economies&s1=blk&tp=ad_topright_econ&T=markets_bfgcgi_content99
>
.ht&s2=ad_right1_economies&bt=ad_position1_economies&middle=ad_frame2_
> economies&s=APC.v6xYHQ2hpbmEg
>
> "The statistics bureau's Zhu also said grain production was
> expected
> to surpass 450 million tons this year and that cotton and sugar
> yields will increase more than 10 percent.
>
> The acreage of wheat fields increased by 1.3 million hectares, Zhu
> said. Rice crops accounted for more than 50 percent of the total
> grain acreage, he said.
>
> Average disposable incomes in urban areas increased by 8.2 percent
> while income for rural residents rose 4.0 percent, 1.9 percentage
> points higher than in 2000."
>
> Heiko, England
>
>
>
>
>
> Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
> Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

http://my.yahoo.com.au - My Yahoo!
- It's My Yahoo! Get your own!

Where on earth did you get the idea that all laws are suppoed to be
reversible. The main point about entropy is that processes are
irreversible, including life.

Denis Frith
Melbourne

--- Matt Adams <mastro@...> wrote: > >       I just wanted
to mention that we will also be running out
> of
> >       phosphate
> > fertilizer this Century (running off the land into streams and
> rivers
> > and everntually in the Ocean where it is unrecoverable).  We also
> must
> > face the fact that in the long term (800-1,000 years) the metals
> of
> > the Earth will be completely depleted.  The Law of Entropy
> dictates
> > the eventual depletion of all our resources including iron.  Zinc
> > (Zinc plating), Lead (batteries) and tin are already in
> critically
> > short supply in regard to our resource base.  This makes a strong
> case
> > for Duncan's Olduvian Gorge.       Ken Holder
>
> >
> I have always had the personal belief that the cosmological reverse
>
> of "The Law of Entropy" is LIFE (seeing as all laws are supposed to
>
> be reversible).  With enough intent (and energy expenditure) we
> can re-concentrate any metal we need to.
>
> Matt Adams
>

--- In energyresources@y..., KHo33333@a... wrote:
> I just wanted to mention that we will also be running out of
> phosphate fertilizer this Century (running off the land into
streams and rivers and ...

Can you provide a reference.

Michael Dewolf

try the NPG site in boulder, CO; I think I recall that I got a copy from that
site; scroll through the offerings and if it's not
there, a pointer may be

Perry in Utah

----- Original Message -----
From: "b&j" <bj@...>
To: <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 11:32
Subject: [energyresources] Electronic Copy of "Limits to Growth"


> Hi all:
>
> I have been searching around for an electronic copy of the Club of Rome's
paean of negativity "The Limits to
> Growth". Searched for a while and can't seem to find one. Anyone know of any
URL's for it? The Club's site
> only has a hard copy available. I'm heading off on a vacation (high
energy/inefficient jet travel) and would like
> acopy for my ebook.
>
> Thanks for any help
>
> b

At 08:03 AM Monday 12/31/2001, Mike Morin wrote:

>While dams are the enginocentric lifeblood of much of the western US, a good
>source about the ecological problems they cause (if I remember correctly
>from reading it so long ago) is "Damming the West" by Ralph Nader. I think
>you can also get a good fundamental synopsis from Eugene Odum's
>"Fundamentals of Ecology".

Also, don't miss Marc Reisner's seminal "Cadillac Desert."

Earlier in the thread, Heiko had written:

> >I rather like the lakes produced by damming streams I know (Eiffel,
> >Germany). To me, they represent both space for human recreation (and
> >a source for drinking water and power), and also a space for nature
> >to thrive. Whether a stream or a lake is "better" for nature, well,
> >that's our judgement. You may call that anthropocentric, but there is
> >no Mother Nature to ask as to what she would like better :-)

Well, some of nature thrives in such places and some doesn't.  It's not
that hard to ask, though.

You might want to ask a few anadromous fish, or their human friends (along
with their neighbors in various ecological niches), what they think about
the tradeoff.  Perhaps there could be value in investigating the
relationship of riparian ecosystems to the biosphere as a whole. Or, to get
contrasting views on impoundment and diversion from some two-legged
critters, it might be useful to interview some Mexican farmers along the
Colorado River.

Anthropocentrism is normal, and may well be unavoidably and
quintessentially human.  Unlimited hubris is quite another matter.

          -Doug (San Francisco-ish)

Consider the irony of how China's economic growth is accentuating the
water problem in the north. There are so many more people able to
enjoy the benefits of the blooming economy that they can put in
showers and toilets, so markedly reducing the water available for
irrigation, so food production. What a battle!

Denis Frith
Melbourne

--- Ron Patterson <readyourdarwin@...> wrote: > Heiko, after
cutting and pasting your yard long URL, I
> finally found the page you referred to. Several things
> are apparent, though they are things Lester Brown has
> been trying to tell us about for some time.
>
> China is increasing her yield by putting more acreage
> into cultivation. This means cutting down more of her
> forest and putting marginal land into cultivation.
>
> Also, this is changing the weather patterns in China.
> Draughts are becoming more and more frequent, just as
> they are about everywhere else in the world.
>
> China is putting more irrigated land into production.
> This will mean that water tables, in the northern part
> of the country, already dropping at a rate of over one
> meter per year, will drop even faster. And, water
> tables in the south will start dropping as those in
> the north are already doing. This can continue at most
> a few more years before the energy required to raise
> the water from great depths makes it uneconomical or
> the aquifer dries up completely.
>
> As China's agricultural production and industrial
> production grows by leaps and bounds, her consumption
> of energy grows by a like amount. In fact, fossil
> energy consumption is increasing in China faster than
> anywhere else on earth. As the Chinese public becomes
> more affluent, they want more things like cars,
> motorcycles and other things that consume energy. SEE:
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/china/part2.html#PRODFUEL
>
> Yet, you look upon this as a very good thing. China is
> the epitome of a success story in the cornucopia’s
> eyes.
>
> China has, as of today, 1.28 billion people. They are
> all hungry for the good life. They want all the things
> we enjoy. And the more thy succeed, the faster the
> draw down on the world's swiftly declining fossil
> energy supply.
>
> * Note: While the EIA says China's energy production
> and consumption is growing swiftly, I found another
> web page, which says China’s energy consumption, is
> declining and her coal production has just passed its
> peak. Who the hell do you believe? URL below:
> http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/partnership/China/pubs/up.preprint2.PDF
>
> Ron Patterson
>
> Heiko wrote (concerning China):
> >>>"The statistics bureau's Zhu also said grain
> production was expected to surpass 450 million tons
> this year and that cotton and sugar yields will
> increase more than 10 percent.
> >
> >>>The acreage of wheat fields increased by 1.3
> million hectares, Zhu said. Rice crops accounted for
> more than 50 percent of the total grain acreage, he
> said.>>>
> >
> >>>Average disposable incomes in urban areas increased
> by 8.2 percent while income for rural residents rose
> 4.0 percent, 1.9 percentage points higher than in
> 2000.">>>
>
>
> =====
> - After the Arab oil embargo had exposed our rapidly growing
> dependence on imported oil, we clung to the myth of the
> technological solution. It was called Project
> Independence—remember? Our scientists, we still fondly imagined,
> would develop the means to make America self-sufficient in energy
> (by 1980!).
> Stewart L. Udall, Forward to Catton's "Overshoot".
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
>
>
> Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
> Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

http://my.yahoo.com.au - My Yahoo!
- It's My Yahoo! Get your own!

I do not see how these technological advances make a difference to
the fundamental point that a large proportion of this extremely
valuable resource has been used up and there is not widespread
recognition that there is a limit to what can be extracted. There was
a post some time ago that detailed a study carried out at a US
university that showed the impact of technological improvements on
oil recovery. As you would expect, they significantly reduced costs.
No doubt, either, they have and will continue to increase the amount
of oil extracted marginally. This is a two-edged sword: encouraging
more waste but delaying recognition that future generations will not
have enough for needs.

Denis Frith
Melbourne

  --- szoraster <szoraster@...> wrote: > --- In
energyresources@y..., "skorpela" <skorpela@c...> wrote:
> > --- In energyresources@y..., matteoli@i... wrote:
> > > [cut] As s soon as I go back to Australia I will be able to
> quote
> > > exactly Deffeyes's chapter on technologies to enhance recovery
> of
> > > oil from exploited fields. [cut]
> >
> > Deffeyes's list:
> >
> > 1. Steam floods;  2. Detergent floods; 3. Fire floods;
> > 4. Miscible floods; 5. CO2 floods.
> >
>
> I posted this same message to this list in Novemmber.  Point being
> that petroleum engineers and companies are looking at all kinds of
> radical technology to enhance recovery, some that Mr. Deffeyes may
> not be aware of. (Or, may think are so radical that they aren't
> worth
> mentioning.)
>
> From:  szoraster@s...
> Date:  Mon Nov 26, 2001  10:11 am
> Subject:  New Technology for Oil Recovery Using Directional
> Drilling
>
>
> Omega Oil of Houston, Texas, is testing a new methodology for
> densly
> spaced directionally drilled well paths off a single vertical well
> shaft, and the use of down-hole production facilities to drain more
>
> petroleum from oil fields. This technolgy will have a significantly
>
> smaller surface footprint than older conventional technology.
> (Although possibly not that much better than state-of-the-art
> directional wells.) The more important information is the
> expectation
> that Omega technology will allow a single well to recover up to
> twice
> as much oil from existing fields as alternative state-of-the-art
> methods. (Again, exactly which methods are being used for
> comparison
> is unclear.) The company is filing patent applications, and the
> following information seems to be all that is publically available:
>
>
> http://select.economist.com/partners/avantgo/current/26.html
>
> Lateral Thinking
>
> Is it possible for oil drilling to leave a lighter footprint on the
>
> earth? Maybe. Within weeks, a Houston-based start-up called Omega
> Oil
> plans to start testing a method that has been contemplated for many
>
> years but never put into practice. With technical assistance and
> funding from a research-and-development arm of the federal
> Department
> of Energy, Omega plans to dig a single shaft roughly 3,500 feet
> (1,070 metres) deep, and send dozens of lateral oil-collecting
> pipes
> out from it. Crucially, these lateral channels will be dug upwards
> at
> a slight incline from the central shaft, so that any oil in
> subterranean reservoirs flows out under the force of gravity. Once
> the shaft is in place, only a small surface facility will be needed
>
> to collect the oil and carry it away.
>
> How small a facility? Omega's president, Wayne Kelley, says that
> his
> technology can collect oil from an 8,500-acre (3,400-hectare) site
> with only a modest pumphouse and storage area on the surface. By
> contrast, old-fashioned drilling methods would require 220 separate
>
> well-heads, and roads to connect them all. Although Omega's
> founders
> are seasoned oilmen, not environmentalists, if the technology works
>
> it might appeal to greens, because it could dramatically reduce the
>
> impact of industrial infrastructure on sensitive surface
> ecosystems.
>
> Many oil experts are not yet sold on the idea. Regular maintenance
> will have to take place in cramped quarters beneath the earth-a
> much
> harder task than for conventional oil wells, which can be repaired
> on
> the surface. And the initial capital costs are high: the
> demonstration project at a federal petroleum reserve near Casper,
> Wyoming, is expected to cost $30m, a lot more than conventional
> drilling would cost (though precise comparisons are difficult). But
>
> Omega claims that, over the long term, its approach could save
> money
> on staff, maintenance and infrastructure-and _recover up to twice
> as
> much oil as traditional methods_.
>
> Not everybody is sceptical, at least. American officials are eager
> to
> see the demonstration project go forward. An influential former
> senator, Slade Gorton, sits on Omega's board. And the project is
> partly funded by a dozen oil companies that hope to apply the
> technology. If drilling is allowed to proceed in Alaska's Arctic
> National Wildlife Refuge, they could argue that Omega's approach is
>
> greener than conventional methods.
>
> ---------------
>
> http://www.pttc.org/news/v7n1nn4.htm:
>
> The Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center in Casper, Wyo.,
> provides
> industry an opportunity to try new things, or refine existing
> technologies, in an operating oil field. Some recent projects there
>
> illustrate the diversity of what is happening at NPR-3.
>
> Below-the-Reservoir Production Facility. Omega Oil Company, Inc.
> (Omega) recently completed a feasibility study and economic
> screening
> for construction of a below-the-reservoir production facility at
> RMOTC in the Shannon formation. The Shannon reservoir is
> characterized as a low pressure, shallow, tight sandstone with a
> high
> degree of compartmentalization. Closely spaced horizontal wells
> provide superior access to the individual compartments within the
> reservoir compared to traditional vertical wells. The feasibility/
> screening study evaluated the economics of applying Omega's
> proprietary technology for producing crude oil from beneath the
> reservoir by multiple horizontal wells. Higher recovery rates are
> due
> to the high density of well bore placement and reduction of well
> bore
> back pressure, maximizing the differential pressure and enhancing
> oil
> flow.
>
> Based on the results of the feasibility study, Omega is proceeding
> further with a full engineering study. The project calls for
> drilling
> about 40 well bores (about 1,000 lineal feet of well bore, 4-3/4
> inches in diameter) within the Shannon production zone. The well
> bores will produce to a wellhead set 1,000 feet below the surface
> in
> a drill room excavated in the shale formation and lined with cement
>
> to prevent entry of unwanted formation fluids and gasses. The drill
>
> room will be served by a 10-foot diameter shaft, bifurcated into
> large and small compartments; one for primary hoisting and the
> other
> for utility conduits.
>
> If successful, this development approach can reduce capital
> investment and operating costs, increase recovery rates, and reduce
>
> the environmental impact of producing shallow crude oil and natural
>
> gas. The reduced footprint makes it particularly attractive from an
>
> environmental perspective.
>
>
>
>
>
> Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
> Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

http://my.yahoo.com.au - My Yahoo!
- It's My Yahoo! Get your own!

I've reread it within the last few years.

If you've read Beyond Oil, it really isn't worth going back to.

There are a lot of books that I would recommend based on two generations of
reading.

If you care to ask, I will be happy to reply.


Mike Morin

-----Original Message-----
From: b&j <bj@...>
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Monday, December 31, 2001 5:05 PM
Subject: [energyresources] Electronic Copy of "Limits to Growth"


>Hi all:
>
>I have been searching around for an electronic copy of the Club of Rome's
paean of negativity "The Limits to
>Growth". Searched for a while and can't seem to find one. Anyone know of
any URL's for it? The Club's site
>only has a hard copy available. I'm heading off on a vacation (high
energy/inefficient jet travel) and would like
>acopy for my ebook.
>
>Thanks for any help
>
>b
>
>
>
>
>Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
>Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Ron
      You said

> And he that occupies it is king of the hill, for the
> moment anyway. The stronger may dethrone the king at
> any moment. In nature, that is the way it has always
> been and that is the way it always will be.
>

That is not how nature works. Evolution has established a hierarchy
with the predators achieving a balance with those they prey on.
Unfortunately, humanity has not attained such a balance.

Denis Frith
Melbourne

http://my.yahoo.com.au - My Yahoo!
- It's My Yahoo! Get your own!

--- In energyresources@y..., b&j <bj@l...> wrote:
> Just thought I'd kick this over to the list. It's a map from the US
Forest Service showing forest density
> across the lower 48 in PDF formet. If you open it up, you will see
that there ain't a whole lot left. The
> place has been largely de-forested.
>
> I thought the bio-fuel-from-wood folks might want to file it for
future reference.
>
> b

For what its worth, parts of Australia are deforested too.  But if you
drive north of Brisbane you'll find that they have plantations of
trees.  I imagine that trees can be planted in the US also as soon as
the US wakes up and realises that Canadian softwood lumber is not
really a threat to the US economy.

Tom
      You said
But here
> again,
> what about liquid fuel production? Well, H2 can be produced from
> electrolysis, and please don't waste my time telling me that it is
> too inefficient! After-all, mother nature is only about 5%
> efficient
> at converting solar energy into carbohydrates, and so a 50%
> conversion efficience of electricity into H2 is fine with me,
> especially if the excess heat is also used for another use such a a
>
> green house, building heating, etc.

The efficiency by which mother nature produces carbohydrates from
solar energy cannot be compared to the production of hydrogen using
electricity for hydrolysis. What is the source of the energy required
for this process? If a fossil fuel is being burnt to generate the
electricity, then the overall efficieny is very important. It
indicates the amount of draw down of natural capital required so the
hydrogen can do 'useful' work. On the other hand, it is extremely
unlikely that energy income (solar) can yield anything like the
amount of hydrogen required to replace gasoline in the transportation
field.

Denis Frith
Melbourne

http://my.yahoo.com.au - My Yahoo!
- It's My Yahoo! Get your own!

Ken
     You said

>       Some futurists think that we may be able to obtain some
> metals from
> interplanetary sources in future centuries.  This remains highly
> speculative.

Will we be able to afford the vast amount of energy required for the
space travel?

Denis Frith
Melbourne

http://my.yahoo.com.au - My Yahoo!
- It's My Yahoo! Get your own!

> --- Matt Adams  wrote:
> >>>I have always had the personal belief that the
> cosmological reverse of "The Law of Entropy" is LIFE
> (seeing as all laws are supposed to be reversible).
> With enough intent (and energy expenditure) we can
> re-concentrate any metal we need to.<<<
>
> No, sorry Matt but we cannot create iron, or any of
> the other heavy metals that we use in everyday life.
> But I fully understand your attitude. That attitude
> is: “We have the technology, we can do anything,
> absolutely anything.” After all, the great god
> “Science” is absolutely omnipotent. Isn’t she????
>
> Ron Patterson
>
I mathematics any equation is supposed to be reversible
1+1=2
2=1+1

and all chemical equations are supposed to be reversible as well
2(H2O) + heat => 2(H2) + O2
2(H2) + O2 => heat + 2(H2O)

As science is attempting to explain the entire universe through
equations, there is a premise that everything is reversible.

In practice though they are still working on how to unscramble an
egg and whether equations involving time can be done in reverse
("anti-time" anyone?)

by re-concentrating metal I mean that if say a chunk of iron over
time and exposure turns into a pile of rust, we can gather that rust
togetner, heat it up to remove the oxygen and remake into an
orderly lump of iron.  Thus we undo entropy.
Matt Adams (Oregon)


~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

This is a test...

~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

> I have read statistics which state that  there is more gold disolved
> in seawater than has been refined by man over the entire history of
> civilization. If gold can't attract the technological development
> necessary for such "re-concentrating" what will?
>
Taking gold out of sea water has allready been done.  The process
costs about as much as one can sell the gold for.

If gold became more valuable then that would become profitable

Kind of analogous to hard to reach oil wells. ehh?

Matt Adams (Oregon)

~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

...and the test continues...

~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

1-1-02
THE DEATH OF DEBT

    As "they" say, it takes all kinds to make a world. Some believe this, some
believe that, and some believe something entirely different.  There may be a
hundred different beliefs about the same thing. Some believe they know what
they are doing but all too often they don't. And, unfortunately, this
includes many people in high positions in our society.
In early 1929 it was said that "business is on a permanently high plateau,
the poor house is disappearing from among us, and that those who were not
getting rich were not trying."
    Then, in Oct. 1929 the stock market took a nose-dive into the third
basement level.  People jumped out of 20 story buildings and crashed into the
sidewalk, or shot themselves in the head, and the nation embarked on a course
of financial collapse that lasted a full decade, until World War No. 2 bailed
us out with the increased spending of borrowed money to buy war materials to
fight a war with drafted men.
The greatest war in history ended the greatest depression in history with the
greatest increase in debt ever before recorded.  And, with 27 million people
withdrawn from their regular duties to fight the war and build the equipment
for it, the United States, with only a few exceptions, produced the highest
living standard ever known for its citizens.
    What did we learn from this experience?  We learned that a financial
depression could be held at bay if the debt was increased fast enough.
SO --- Since WW2 the U.S. has had only 5 years with a balanced budget.
    What should we have learned?  That the financial system could no longer
pay its way in a highly industrialized society.  That technology has
antiquated this system of price based on scarcity values, that it could no
longer be maintained without massive injections of debt.  That privately
created debt wasn't sufficient and that federal debt must be added to make up
the difference.
    What has happened within the financial system since WW2?  The total debt
of the U.S. including the federal, state, local, plus all private and
corporate debts have increased to more than $30 trillion (and is increasing
at about a trillion per year) an amount equal to $108,000 for each individual
American citizen, regardless of age.  For a family of four this debt would be
$438,000.  Can you pay your share plus your regular living expenses?  These
amounts may be verified at:
                http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm
    During this same time the federal debt has increased to:
                         $5,881,561,697,442.71

as of Dec. 20, 2001.  The U.S. population is 285,842,000 and the per capita
federal debt is $20,576.26.  Further, there has been no balanced budget for
more than 30 years.  This can be verified by logging on to the U.S. Treasury
Department's own web site.  We shall be extra polite and say that those in
high government positions who are saying that we have a balanced budget and
even a small surplus are "mistaken."  There is no surplus and there is no
balanced budget, period.
    For the sake of understanding how much this debt is, let us consider a
small unit of time, the second.  60 seconds equals one minute, one hour
equals 3,600 seconds, and 1 billion seconds equals 31.7 years.  If the
$5.881 trillion federal debt were converted into an equal number of seconds
they would add up to 186,428 years.  At this point remember that all of
recorded history extends back only 6 to 7 thousand years.
    If we could discontinue any increase in the debt and pay it off at 1
dollar per second, it would require 186 CENTURIES to do so.  NOW, after
considering the above plus the fact that we now pay over $360 billion per
annum in interest charges on the federal debt alone, can one be so naive as
to believe that this total debt of $30 trillion can ever be paid?  Need one
ask why the 1940 dollar is now worth less than 10 cents?  Need one ask why we
now work almost  half of our working hours just to pay taxes?  Need one ask
why it is so expensive to live in a "free" country?
    Can one actually believe that on top of all the interest we must pay on a
total of some $30 trillion that we can also pay another trillion or so for an
environmental cleanup, the increasing price of fossil fuels as they pass a
peak in production and decline at about 3 percent per annum?   Or to pay the
increase in prices of everything that depends on fossil fuels for their
production?
    The depression of the 1930's is only a sample, a small sample, of things
to come.  We have never before experienced a world shortage of major natural
resources, especially energy resources.  Our history hasn't prepared us for
such an event.  The U.S. financial system is already bankrupt, it can't pay
its way even now, so what can we expect for the future?  That future is
already here, we are in the midst of it at this very moment.  We are in
process of the greatest social change that humans have ever experienced in
all the recorded history of our species.  The financial system which has
existed since the "barter System" was devised is now in process of
disintegration. The process which developed into today's problem began its
rapid growth when James Watt improved the steam engine which allowed a
significant substitution of extraneous energy for human muscles. This trend
has now progressed far beyond the capabilities of human muscle power. Without
the technology powered chiefly by fossil fuels, about 5 of the 6 billion
people now present on this little planet couldn't exist. The present
financial system has been the control technique of our society for thousands
of years, that control technique is in a rapid process of deterioration to a
point of complete failure.
    An entirely new method of control must be found and installed, human
survival depends on it.  The petty thieves, either legal or illegal, who have
prospered and installed themselves in positions of power in an incompetent
system of finance do not posses the knowledge to design the methods required.
WW2 ended the depression of the 1930's, however, we can no longer spare the
resources for a war big enough to save the system in the future.
    This little war in Afghanistan is only a drop in the bucket. Again we
draft men to fight a war while we pay enormous prices for their equipment.
(have we the unmitigated audacity  to call this fair?) This little war will
add only a few jobs, increase the profits of the "defense" industry and waste
more of our nonreplaceable natural resources, which are already reaching
scarcity proportions.  The only semi-permenate
effect will be an oil pipeline across Afghanistan for the oil companies to
transport oil and gas to the seaports of Pakistan. And any other plans for
little wars for any purpose will accomplish nothing of lasting benefit for
humanity but will shorten the time that 6 billion people can survive on this
earth.  In the face of these events, at this time in history, such behavior
can only be classified as idiotic.
    Where is it written that the citizens of this country must continue to be
a nation of idiots?  Have our problems become insurmountable? Are we destined
to be a temporary species?  Where is the great American ingenuity?  Who
provided the intelligence to build the greatest technological mechanism on
earth? Why shouldn't that same intelligence be put to work solving the
greatest financial problem in human history?  The Manhattan Project required
the coordinated efforts of many people with specialized scientific
backgrounds, and this project was small potatoes in comparison to the human
survival project we now so desperately need.  Further, this project must be
accomplished on a volunteer basis since we don't have the financial
resources, or the willingness of those who control them to pay the cost of
the project.  Where are the qualified scientists who are willing to overcome
the political and economic resistance now existing, or the ridicule of those
who don't know enough to know they don't know, in order to initiate such a
program?  Who are the people who are willing to assist when, and if, such a
project is started?
      ---  L.W. Nicholson      llwnick22@...

--- In energyresources@y..., "tuckert15" <tomntucker@a...> wrote:

> Naturally, solar and wind will only provide more electricity during
> peak generation times thus creating the problem of storage for
> consumption when energy generation rates are low.

No, they won't.  They will provide electricity whenever they are
producing it.

Michael Dewolf

Dear Andrew,

I am not aware of such a history but the archives of the US DOE's Energy
Related Inventions Program, which I believe has been running since 1973,
would be a useful starting point.

I am one of the few non-US nationals offered support under that program, see
<http://www.dryers-airless.mcmail.com>, and some ceramic manufactures
internationally in the US and elsewhere are already saving energy by using
the drying process described.

Regards,

Thomas J Stubbing

Andrew Rudin wrote:

> Has anyone seen a history of energy efficient technologies -- when and
> by whom such technologies were invented, the rate that they gained
> market acceptance, etc.?   Does anyone know of someone who is working on
> such a history?  If so, who?
>
> Andrew Rudin
> Energy Management
> 7217 Oak Avenue
> Melrose Park,  PA 19027
> 215-635-1122
>
> Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
> Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

During my career as an aeronautical scientist, I watched and took
part in the development of the gas turbine engine from the small,
radial compressor machine of the 50's to today's high-bypass ratio,
fan engine. One of the major intentions in these developments was
improvement of the sfc (specific fuel consumtion). This was so
successful that it made the wide-body, long-range airliner possible.
It is ironical that the objective of reducing fuel consumption led to
a very large increase in aviation fuel usage, with a corresponding
increase in the draw down of vital global capital, oil. This capital
is so depleted that many in the future will not be able partake of
airline travel.

Denis Frith
Melbourne

http://my.yahoo.com.au - My Yahoo!
- It's My Yahoo! Get your own!

--- In energyresources@y..., "pcjohns_98" <johnston@i...> wrote:
> Steven,
>     Thanks for a thoughtful reply.  I agree with you that GTL oil
> has in its favor the fact that it doesn't require new
> infrastructure, as would be the case with hydrogen, for example.
>
>    But I am not convinced you have shot me down.
>

Darn!!!  :-)

>
>     The large quantities of gas in the Alaskan Arctic, in the
> Mackenzie delta region, as well as the large quantities of gas in
> the Middle East, won't be stranded for long.  I have little doubt
> that your 5,000 trillion cubic feet of stranded gas will be cut
> down. Besides, how viable is an industrial process dependent upon
> its major input being available at low cost, or gratis?
>
>   I still believe that if oil becomes expensive, then GTL oil
> will go up in price.
>

The largest amounts of stranded natural gas appear to be around the
Caspian Sea and in Western Siberia.  One on-line source for
information about those supplies is available at:
http://www.lngexpress.com/lngrev/intro_sglocs.asp .

I fully agree that if oil becomes more expensive, then GTL fuels will
also go up in price.  I am _not_ predicting a transparent shift from
one source of transportation fuels to another. GTL is good at turning
out clean diesel fuel, not gasoline, so its adoption for use as a
source of transportation fuel may well be first by the trucking and
railroad industries, and then by a new class of diesel powered cars.
(There is a lot of research on clean, fuel efficient, and high
performance diesel engines taking place.  I don't have citations
available off-hand.)

Some of that 5,000 trillion cf. of stranded gas will find its way to
market via gas pipelines.  Other parts may be in regions so
inhospitable that it will be impossible to build either oil or gas
pipelines.  Which means that the cost of the GTL input will not be
completely trivial.

On the other hand, I keep reminding people that the amounts of
stranded gas may be underestimated, because publicly recording
their existence doesn't do anything to increase the apparent value of
either national or privately owned petroleum companies.  Today.

Let us jump wildly - and apparently way off track - to deepest
Siberia, and current research on the famous 1908 Tunguska bolide
impact event.  The University of Bologna in Italy has recently
been sponsoring research on this impact site. For a "simple" two-week
visit, they have had to mount an "expedition" that sounds like
something from the 19th century, instead of the 21st century.
( http://www-th.bo.infn.it/tunguska/ )

My "Tunguska" point is not related to anything I have posted
previously about the correlation between bolide impacts and petroleum
discoveries. Instead, my point is that apparently lots of Siberia
remains hard to get to, and possibly poorly explored for
hydrocarbons. As maybe other parts of the world. Which could be the
reason I keep seeing advertisements for satellite image processing
software and consulting services, and airborne gravity and magnetic
surveying services in _The Leading Edge_, the low end monthly
publication of the _Society of Exploration Geophysicists.  ("Low
end" meaning the publication in which I can understand some of
the articles.)

[cut]

>
> When the world passed from wood to coal, and then from coal to oil,
> in each case it moved from an inferior to a superior fuel.  This
> allowed the process to be piecemeal, de-centralized, spontaneous.
>

[cut]

>
>  All of this makes me think that another addition is needed to
> Michael Vickerman's list of traits that a replacement fuel must
> have if a non-disruptive transition away from oil is to happen: the
> new fuel must be more efficient than oil.
>

Three last points.  First, GTL research and development is
certainly "piecemeal, de-centralized, and spontaneous". There are at
least 4 small publically traded companies involved directly in R&D,
many medium sized and very large petroleum corporations involved
either through licensing from the small companies or internal R&D,
and the US government is involved through DOE funded research. Even
the French have some sort of proprietary process developed by
Elf/Fina/Total, or whatever the name of their merged petroleum
company is.

Second, GTL products may be more efficient than oil because the GTL
third step of the GTL process is a small refinery that directly turns
out diesel and naphtha and other high value petroleum products. What
comes out of the pipeline can go directly to the diesel station,
bypassing the big petroleum refinery. (Note the "may" in that first
sentence.)

Third, I repeat that I am not necessarily counting on a completely
smooth transition.  I am simply betting that GTL will play an
increasing part in supplying transportation fuels over the next 20
years or so. And a "not so smooth" transition may be good for me,
because when I say "betting", I mean just that. Full disclosure here:
I have investments in some of the small GTL companies. Unfortunately,
my pushing GTL on this list has not lead to any rapid upward movement
in the prices of the stock of those ompanies. :-( Instead, they seem
to follow the general price trend of all petroleum companies.

Another "darn!".  :-)

Steven Zoraster

I wrote:
{{And he that occupies it is king of the hill, for the
moment anyway. The stronger may dethrone the king at
any moment. In nature, that is the way it has always
been and that is the way it always will be.}}

Dennis Firth replied:
>>>That is not how nature works. Evolution has
established a hierarchy with the predators achieving a
balance with those they prey on. Unfortunately,
humanity has not attained such a balance.<<<

Dennis, you obviously missed the context of the entire
thread. Within most species, including Homo sapiens,
that is exactly how it works. I was obviously not
speaking of any relationship between predator and
prey, but about dominance within a species.

The lion pride always has an alpha male and he is king
of the hill until some younger upstart dethrones him.
The same can be said about wolves, gorillas, chimps,
and even chickens have a pecking order.

Homo sapiens not only have their pecking order within
their tribe or government but nations themselves have
a pecking order. Many do not like it and call it by a
number of unfavorable names. But if there were no such
nation as the United States of America, it would still
be so. It is in our genes.

That is the way nature works Dennis.

Ron Patterson


=====
The faster the present generation draws down the fossil energy legacy upon which
persistently exuberant lifestyles now depend, the less opportunity posterity
will have to live in anything like the same way or the same numbers. Yet most
contemporary political proposals for solving problems of economic stagnation or
inequity amount to plans for speeding up the rate of drawdown of non-renewable
resources. Catton, "Overshoot"

~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

And it is also possible something more is at work in the evolutionary processes
around our universe.

Among animals, there is for sure the propensity for power to succeed. And where
power is guided by intelligence, the propensity for success is even more
enhanced.

So where do we put HIV, the virus that short circuits the human immune system
and brings on AIDS.

Is there a story here; in how evolution is the consequence of both power and of
the intelligence that uses power in the most successful ways?

~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

--- In energyresources@y..., "Matt Adams" <mastro@h...> wrote:
> As science is attempting to explain the entire universe through
> equations, there is a premise that everything is reversible.

No, it's not.  Try piss in a stream, then try remove the urine.

Entropy is science's way of describing how nature moves from higher
states of organization to lower states of organization.  Heat travels
from hot to cold, and *not the other way around*.


> by re-concentrating metal I mean that if say a chunk of iron over
> time and exposure turns into a pile of rust, we can gather that
rust
> togetner, heat it up to remove the oxygen and remake into an
> orderly lump of iron.  Thus we undo entropy.

We don't undo entropy, we just reverse the chemical equation of
turning iron to rust; *using far more energy than was used to turn
the iron to rust*.

I understand what you are saying, that every chemical equation is
reversible.  But, it's not reversible from an energy point of view.
If we start with highly concentrated deposits of iron, and then end
up with iron-oxide (rust) dissolved in water and diffusely leached
into the ground, it's very energy intensive to get even a pound of
iron together.

Michael Dewolf



> Matt Adams (Oregon)
>
>
> ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~
>
> This is a test...
>
> ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

12/31/01 11:20:15 AM, b&j <bj@...> wrote:

Regarding the words below - As we pump greater and greater amounts of people
onto this planet, the laws
devised to facilitate the orderly sharing of our "god-given" resources will
become ever more draconian in
response. Asimov's "bathroom" scenario is the perfect example of this: When two
people share a
bathroom, the bathroom is essentially free - chances are that by-and-large it
will be available when you
need it. Increase the number of users to twenty, and all of the sudden the
bathroom isn't free. Rules have to
be devised as to who gets it when, in what order, and for how long. The more
people - the stricter the rules
must become, and the less time each individual will have for his own use. It's
inevitable, and its silly to go
railing against the laws (property distribution in this case) which are a
symptom rather than the problem.

The first priority of those of you who believe the words posted below (I am one)
should be population
control.

b

PS: I will not argue that western type property laws are higly inequitable and
ought ot be strenuously
adjusted. But they are not going away any time soon, and will get more
restrictive as the population rises.

12/31/01 3:11:19 AM, "Arthur C. Noll" <arthurnoll@...> wrote:
>At 06:37 PM 12/30/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>>I would argue that you and every human has as much right (both
>>rationally and morally) to 99% of the wealth of planet Earth as those
>>who present claim to own it. The land and natural resources are
>>wealth provided to us by God and Nature. The sunshine, air, water,
>>land, minerals, and the earth itself all come to us freely. The
>>Earth's land and natural resources are not products of the human mind
>>or body. They existed long before life and humankind even emerged on
>>our planet. There exists no moral or rational basis for any
>>individual to claim them as Property.
>>
>>I am challenging the idea that these gifts are "property". If a claim
>>of ownership can be made at all, it must be a claim on behalf of all
>>humanity both the living and those yet unborn. I think our concept of
>>property is obsolete. I am inviting you to think outside the box. Let
>>us invent "something better".
>>
>>If the wealth of Earth really belongs to all of humanity, what might
>>we do to make the world work better for everyone.
>>
>>Timothy Wilken

K Davies wrote:

> I'd be very curious to know how your paper was received at that
> conference.  After reading it, I find it hard to imagine how there could
> be any more debate about the subject.  Magnificent job!

At the OPEC seminar, I was the only speaker with no conncetion to any
business or organism.
My paper was well received as many participants came to discuss it., but it
was too technical for most of them as they are mainly political people.
At the final session OPEC president did a digest of the papers and from mine
he said that I find 25 $/b (OPEC goal) a reasonable price for both consumers
and producers. It is what I believes strongly as 20 $/b is to low for
finding alternatives ( price of a product should match the alternative) and
for the producers (all paper on the marginal cost in Middle East are
biaised, the cost of developing new projects in the Middle East in $/b/d is
as high than in deepwater) and 30 $/b too high for the consumer.
OPEC is mainly concerned by the competition from Russi, but reserves data in
Russia are strongly exaggerated. I am working in trying to improve the
production forecast in FSU.
My speech on how to improve the data in not cheating any more and giving the
real data to a neutral agency did not bring any critic, but they prefer to
continue as before, as the first one who starts will lose its  part of the
quotas. They all increased reserves from 1985 to 1989 just for the quotas.
They have to change the rules on quotas or to wait until there is anymore no
spare capacity. Up to this date, they will continue to cheat and to disclose
wrong data.
In the last OGJ Dec.24 release on remaining proved reserves as of January
1st 2002, all Middle East swing producers keep the same amount of reserves
(as if their annual production has matched exactly thier annual discovery,
which is implausible), except Saudi Arabia which increase their reserves
from 259.2 Gb to 259.25 Gb. The change is a joke as it is much less than the
accuracy on the measures. Venezuela is reported as increasing from 76.862 to
77.685 Gb.
  Best regards
Jean

I have no idea what will really happen to the price of oil, but on
this thread I have suggested that in the long run its price be
"too" low rather than "too" high -- even if
Hubbert's peak is
imminent.

In suggesting the possibility of a price that is "too" low, I
haven't taken myself very seriously.  The idea seems crazy. Yet
the
more I think about the matter, the more I am inclined to crawl out on
a limb, and risk making a fool of myself by stating flat out: the
price of oil is going to be "too" low as we enter the peak
years.

The reason I crawl out on a limb has to do with three relationships.

The first:
  1) The elasticity of the price of oil with respect to the supply of
oil.  We assume that this relationship is negative, i.e., as the
supply of oil goes down, the price of oil goes up.

Next:
2) The elasticity of the price of oil's substitutes with respect
to the price of oil.  That is, what happens to the price of coal
(let's say) as the price of oil goes up?  We assume this to be
positive.  (People find ways to substitute coal for oil, which
increases the demand for coal, which drives up the price.)

Third (and crucial) relationship:
3) The "elasticity" of the whole economy with respect to the
price of oil.  This one we assume to be negative: as the price of oil
goes up, the general level of economic activity goes down.

When Hubbert's peak arrives (or when there is tightness in oil
supplies for any reason), relationship number one kicks in.  Oil
supplies go down, and oil prices go up.  Then relationship number two
kicks in:  oil prices go up, and prices of oil's substitutes also
go up.  Then relationship number three kicks in:  energy prices go
up, and economic activity goes down.  Result: prices in the energy
sector drift down.

   The basic assumption at work in my "model" is that high oil
prices discourage more economic activity than they encourage.

   Although plausible to suppose that the discouraging effect of high
priced oil might be a dominant tendency, people nevertheless seem to
be ignoring the possibility.  Why?

   As far as I can tell, everybody assumes more or less unconsciously
that oil is like sugar.  With sugar, as with oil, if supply goes
down, prices go up; and if prices go up, prices of substitutes also
go up.  But when it comes to the way that the price of a commodity
affects an entire economy (my relationship number three), sugar and
oil are not similar.  Let the price of sugar go through the roof, and
not much changes, except farmers plant more sugarcane.  Not so with
oil.  When the price of oil goes through the roof, the economy itself
responds by going through the floor.

  Relationship number three keeps the price of oil low over the course
of an oil patch cycle.  Such prices will be "too" low -- in
spite of moments of volatility when they spike upwards -- if they
cause a series of counter-productive reactions:
   * under-investment in the oil industry;
   * under-investment in the development of substitutes;
   *under-investment in energy saving measures;
   *over-investment in status quo infrastructure (roads and cars
rather than trains and bike paths, for example.)

My guess is that they will cause such counter-productive reactions,
because the price of oil will not appear to be a problem, and
people's general uneasiness about the economy will express itself
as a strong desire to get back to "normal."

Condensed to its essence, the limb I sit on is this:
  tightness of oil supply (for any reason, including Hubbert's
Peak) manifests itself not in high priced oil, but economic
instability.

  If we do in fact hit a peak of oil production in the next few years,
the difficulties we face will not only be physical (a lack of oil),
but also mental: lack of a politically viable way to frame the
issues, and build a consensus for responses that actually do more
good than harm.

Paul, sawing away

--- In energyresources@y..., "Frith, Denis" <denisaf2000@y...> wrote:
> Consider the irony of how China's economic growth is accentuating
> the water problem in the north. There are so many more people able
> to enjoy the benefits of the blooming economy that they can put in
> showers and toilets, so markedly reducing the water available for
> irrigation, so food production. What a battle!
>

World wide, the use of water for personal hygiene is minuscule
compared to its use for agriculture.  In American cities, water use
for personal hygiene is less than its use for watering lawns, etc.
Chinese showers and toilets aren't an important problem.  Agriculture
and probably industry, are.

(My reference is talking to one civil engineer involved in designing
water supply and waste water disposal systems. I haven't searched
around the web.)

Steven Zoraster

Dennis Frith wrote:

That is not how nature works. Evolution has established a hierarchy
with the predators achieving a balance with those they prey on.
Unfortunately, humanity has not attained such a balance.


Mike Morin responds:

It is rare, probably non-existent that a balance ever occurs between
predator and prey. But you are correct that in some ecosystems nature has
worked out a tendency towards a balance. We'd have to go back to some time
before the Garden of Eden to find a true balance, and as you know we can't
do that.

Suffice to say that the human population has overshot the balance terribly
and, not so well, you know what Preacher Hanson says...

Genesis includes the phrase, "...and replenish the earth...", a
responsibility that has been catastrophically abnegated during the billionth
of a nano-second in earth's ourstory (if not the ourstory of the hu(wo)man
race) that could be called the "oil-age".

Anyway, it's adapt or die, and ideally I work for the former but
realistically recognize that it will be the latter.

happy new year, anyway

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Frith, Denis <denisaf2000@...>
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Who has the Right? Taking the moral
highground!


> Ron
>     You said
>
>> And he that occupies it is king of the hill, for the
>> moment anyway. The stronger may dethrone the king at
>> any moment. In nature, that is the way it has always
>> been and that is the way it always will be.
>>
>
>That is not how nature works. Evolution has established a hierarchy
>with the predators achieving a balance with those they prey on.
>Unfortunately, humanity has not attained such a balance.
>
>Denis Frith
>Melbourne
>
>http://my.yahoo.com.au - My Yahoo!
>- It's My Yahoo! Get your own!
>
>
>Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
>Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

At 09:41 PM 12/31/01 -0800, Matt Adams wrote:

>As science is attempting to explain the entire universe through
>equations, there is a premise that everything is reversible.
Perhaps so, but any such proposition proposes an
extremely speculative nullification of the second
law of thermodynamics, sometimes called "time's
arrow", since it is the only principle that denies
reversibility.  The second law says that *no*
physical process is reversible in such a way that
the universe is the same as if the sequence 1
<process> 2) <any process whatsoever that purports
to be a reversal of 1>" had not happened. There
are some processes which may in principle approach
arbitrarily closely to reversibility, but none may
actually achieve it in real physical experiments.
Most processes are grossly irreversible.

There are many equivalent statements of the second
law. One statement says that all physical
processes increase entropy. Correct observations
that some processes decrease the entropy of *some*
matter are no contradiction of the second law.
(Life processes are often cited, but many non-life
processes have similar results.)  Each such case
*always* involves a sufficient increase of the
entropy of *other* matter or energy that the
overall effect of the process is an increase of
total entropy.

One useful way to think of entropy increase is as
decrease in the capacity of energy to do work.
Energy is conserved by all processes (the first
law), but its capacity to do work is not (the
second law).  For example, any production of heat
from other energy forms requires a loss by the
energy converted to heat of its capacity to do
work. Any production of work (or electricity) by
conversion from an amount of heat energy to an
equivalent amount of work requires a loss
of the capacity to do work of an additional amount
of heat energy also involved in the conversion
process, but not converted to work.

Using energy does not make the used energy disappear,
but reduces its capacity to support further use.
When we "consume" energy, we really consume its
capacity to do work. the energy itself remains in
existence, but dispersed and degraded.

The second law of thermodynamics is one of the
best supported scientific principles. There are
has never been an observation that contradicted
it, even in the smallest way, that was not
subsequently understood to be a result of
observational error or incorrect interpretation.

David Delaney, Ottawa

b,

If you have never read "Limits to Growth", it may be of interest from a
historical perspective. I'm sure that you could find it in many librarys.
The thing is, is that it ties to make a quantitative case. While the quality
of their argument is good, the quantitative arguments are a waste of time
(much as on this discussion group).

For a reading list go to http://yahoogroups.com/group/Reg_Coop_Comm_Dev  ,
message number 46.


Best wishes,

Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: b&j <bj@...>
To: mikemorin@... <mikemorin@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [energyresources] Electronic Copy of "Limits to Growth"


>Mike: Any suggestions are welcome. I was interested in "Limits..." to
ascertain whether all the acrimony
>over their "incorrect predictions" is valid or a smoke screen. Simmons
states that "Limits..." doesn't
>actually make any predictions which can be tested 30 years out. All their
predictions are to 100 years, and
>the critics are attacking the message rather than the facts, which
apparently still hold a lot of water. Sorting
>out the real facts is an almost insurmountable task for someone, like me,
who must devote most of his
>effort to the household and income and such.
>
>Thanks - b (for brian)
>
>12/31/01 10:01:12 PM, "Mike Morin" <mikemorin@...> wrote:
>
>>I've reread it within the last few years.
>>
>>If you've read Beyond Oil, it really isn't worth going back to.
>>
>>There are a lot of books that I would recommend based on two generations
of
>>reading.
>>
>>If you care to ask, I will be happy to reply.
>>
>>
>>Mike Morin
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: b&j <bj@...>
>>To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
>>Date: Monday, December 31, 2001 5:05 PM
>>Subject: [energyresources] Electronic Copy of "Limits to Growth"
>>
>>
>>>Hi all:
>>>
>>>I have been searching around for an electronic copy of the Club of Rome's
>>paean of negativity "The Limits to
>>>Growth". Searched for a while and can't seem to find one. Anyone know of
>>any URL's for it? The Club's site
>>>only has a hard copy available. I'm heading off on a vacation (high
>>energy/inefficient jet travel) and would like
>>>acopy for my ebook.
>>>
>>>Thanks for any help
>>>
>>>b

At 09:41 PM 12/31/01 -0800, Matt Adams wrote:

>by re-concentrating metal I mean that if say a chunk of iron over
>time and exposure turns into a pile of rust, we can gather that rust
>togetner, heat it up to remove the oxygen and remake into an
>orderly lump of iron.  Thus we undo entropy.
>Matt Adams (Oregon)

You may indeed reduce the entropy of the iron, but
only by degrading the energy required to do so.
(Degrading = consuming its capacity to do work.) The
overall result is a large increase in total
entropy relative to the small decrease of the
entropy of the iron.

David Delaney, Ottawa

Karl Davies wrote:
> It's not just me that disagrees with the "denialists." It's
> virtually every climate scientist in the world, with the notable
> exceptions of a few that receive big bucks from fossil fuel
> industry sponsors, who are the "denialists" themselves.

<<Steve Zoraster responded:
Some of those most outspoken scientists in the "denial" camp are
funded by sources which _might_ bias their conclusions. However, the
correlation between funding and denial does not appear to be
universal. I invite you to attack the credentials of the following
three prominent climate scientists who argue against the "consensus"
on global warming:

1) Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and
a member of the NAS whose basic contrarian position is online at
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html . In that paper
Lindzen states "…I assert that there is no substantive basis for
predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in
minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and
chlorofluorocarbons…"

2) Dr. William Gray
3) Dr. John Christy, >>

Roy Hagen responds: I am not familiar with the second two people that
Steve refers two, but Lindzen's name is very prominent within the
small circle of climate change contrarians. Ross Gelbspan, author
of "The Heat is On – The Climate Crisis, The Cover-up, The
Prescription, 1997" writes, "Of all the skeptics, the most
infuriating to his adversaries – and the most unassailable because of
his prestigious credentials – is MIT's Richard Lindzen."

I share Karl Davies opinion of Gelbspan. I find his book to be an
excellent piece of investigative journalism. The book is primarily
about how the oil and coal industry uses the tens of millions of
dollars they spend on PR and on PR firms, to sow doubt in the
public's mind on global warming – I suspect that everyone on this
list has been influenced by them.

If Lindzen is the most highly qualified climate skeptic, then it
should be most interesting to check into and his affiliations and his
funding sources. I looked him up in the index of the Heat is On and
found the following [comments in brackets are added by me]:

Gelbspan writes, "Lindzen invited me to his home… I found him to be
one of the most ideologically extreme individuals I have ever
interviewed…Lindzen's ideological extremism emerges during his forays
into social analysis." "He asserted in an interview that the
environmental movement conforms to the same sociological criteria…as
the Nazi movement in Weimar Germany, absent the anti-Semitism."

"His [Lindzen's] background includes service on the advisory board of
the George C. Marshall Institute… the institute conducts no original
research. ..it has issued several reports dismissing climate change.
Most researchers view these reports as ideological rather than
scientific contributions… the Marshall Institute receives support
from five extremely conservative political foundations."

"Lindzen shares with the Marshall Institute an ongoing crusade
against the consensus finding of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Like many ideologues, he has resorted to unwarranted
ad hominem attacks on his scientific adversaries." Gelbspan presents
specifics of attacks Lindzen made during testimony in St. Paul, MN,
against the co-chair of IPCC's scientific group, Sir John Houghton
and against Swedish physicist Bert Bolin, the head of the IPCC [at
the time]. In both cases, Lindzen cited publications as the source of
his information. In both cases, the publications provided no
substantiation for Lindzen's accusations.

Gelbspan writes, "Lindzen  told me he charges $2500 a day to consult
for fossil fuel interests….  His 1991 trip to Washington to testify
before Gore's committee was paid for by Western Fuels [they represent
the American coal industry in the West]… He addressed…and industry
lobby group in New Zealand in 1995.

  "Lindzen arrived at his belief that global warming is basically a
nonevent based partially on his own studies of atmospheric water
vapor, which traps heat….Lindzen theorized that atmospheric
convection currents would transport vapor..into the upper atmosphere.
There it would be dried out – in effect imposing an upper limit on
the vapor buildup that would otherwise have fueled atmospheric
warming…But Lindzen's theory has been contradicted by satellite and
ballon observations that show that lower-level warming results in
increases – not as Lindzen predicted, decreases – in water vapor
concentrations at higher altitutdes.'

"Lindzen has an excruciatingly argumentative style..Testifying before
a Senate committee in 1991, he jousted at length with then Senator Al
Gore over his theory that the drying of the upper-level water vapor
would produce a cooling effect." But the hearing ended with the
following exchange: Gore, "Well, hold on just a second. Are you
withdrawing the original Lindzen hypothesis?" Lindzen, "Oh, yes."

"Why do the dismissals of Lindzen…and the other skeptics carry such
weight with reporters? One answer lies in the ethical standard of
journalism. . journalistic fairness requires reporters who write
about a controversy to present competing points of view… But this
canon causes problems when it is applied to issues of science. It
seems to demand that journalists present competing points of view on
a scientific question as though they had equal scientific weight,
when actually they do not."

"in the case of the greenhouse skeptics, the near unanimous
professional judgment of their IPCC peers has rejected their views…
That would be the end of the skeptic's relevance to the climate
debate – except that big oil and big coal use them to the hilt."

"…one of the most distinguished American climate researchers, Jerry
Mahlman, told an assembled congressional audience: `Because I speak
with credentials as a physical scientist, I do not offer personal
opinions about what society should do about these predicted climate
changes.'..  But that same restraint…puts genuine scientists at a
serious disadvantage in the arena of public debate… In this debate,
the skeptics are atypical of the general scientific community…they
look very curious within the scientific community. But to the general
public, they come across as the most knowledgeable and authoritarian
of all.."

"The tiny group of dissenting scientists have been given prominent
public visibility and congressional influence out of all proportion
to their standing in the scientific community on the issue of global
warming. They have used this platform to pound widely amplified
drumbeats of doubt about climate change.. These doubts are repeated
in virtually every climate related story in every newspaper and every
TV and radio news outlet in the country."

"By keeping the discussion focused on whether there really is a
problem, these dozen or so dissidents – contradicting the consensus
view held by 2,500 of the world's top climate scientists – have until
now prevented discussion about how to address the problem."

Roy Hagen
Cloquet, Minnesota