Trains.com

Clouds From Chinese Coal Cast a Long Shadow

7012 views
111 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Clouds From Chinese Coal Cast a Long Shadow
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, June 10, 2006 1:42 PM
From the New York Times:

"HANJING, China — One of China's lesser-known exports is a dangerous brew of soot, toxic chemicals and climate-changing gases from the smokestacks of coal-burning power plants.

"In early April, a dense cloud of pollutants over Northern China sailed to nearby Seoul, sweeping along dust and desert sand before wafting across the Pacific. An American satellite spotted the cloud as it crossed the West Coast.

"Researchers in California, Oregon and Washington noticed specks of sulfur compounds, carbon and other byproducts of coal combustion coating the silvery surfaces of their mountaintop detectors. These microscopic particles can work their way deep into the lungs, contributing to respiratory damage, heart disease and cancer.

"Filters near Lake Tahoe in the mountains of eastern California "are the darkest that we've seen" outside smoggy urban areas, said Steven S. Cliff, an atmospheric scientist at the University of California at Davis.

"Unless China finds a way to clean up its coal plants and the thousands of factories that burn coal, pollution will soar both at home and abroad. The increase in global-warming gases from China's coal use will probably exceed that for all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol seeks.

"The sulfur dioxide produced in coal combustion poses an immediate threat to the health of China's citizens, contributing to about 400,000 premature deaths a year. It also causes acid rain that poisons lakes, rivers, forests and crops.

"The sulfur pollution is so pervasive as to have an extraordinary side effect that is helping the rest of the world, but only temporarily: It actually slows global warming. The tiny, airborne particles deflect the sun's hot rays back into space.

"But the cooling effect from sulfur is short-lived. By contrast, the carbon dioxide emanating from Chinese coal plants will last for decades, with a cumulative warming effect that will eventually overwhelm the cooling from sulfur and deliver another large kick to global warming, climate scientists say."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?pagewanted=print

Dave
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 4,115 posts
Posted by tatans on Saturday, June 10, 2006 2:46 PM
I guess you sort of missed the toxic gas cloud the enveloped Toronto, last week, you could not see 2 blocks and a health warning was issued, I have a feeling this crap did not come from China, just wait till summer gets here folks.
  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Sunday, June 11, 2006 2:26 PM
The article that the link points to is much longer than what dsktc posted. It makes for an interesting read.

I shall eagerly await futuremodal's response. Progress at any price, eh?
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 11, 2006 8:21 PM
An interesting side note - the measured atmospheric levels of CO2 in the latitude running from China to North America is higher than the CO2 levels in the same latitude coming off the North American Atlantic coast. North America is a net CO2 sink.

Aside from that, this is the typical NYTimes nonsense piece when it comes to extrapolating the credible regional effects of too much pollution into a whole 'nother Global Warming crusade.

Apparently, the NYTimes has concluded that anthropogenic global warming is an established fact.

Apparently, the NYTimes writers and editors have never read these peer reviewed studies that refute the whole notion:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/description.jsp
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/?cat=3
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/index.html
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

Now, is the pollution coming from China a problem? Of course. Unlike the US, who's environmental laws can best be described as overkill, China's environmental laws are on the other end of the spectrum, e.g. either just lip service to show the world that they might start doing something about it, or simply not following a common sense/stewardship approach.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 11, 2006 8:48 PM
So, our enviromental laws are extreme?

Perhaps you would prefer dirty water and
befouled air. Or perhaps you don't understand
the public health implications of a polluted
environment. Or perhaps you don't care,
as long as it affects someone else.

You really should be working for the Bush
Administration.

Dave

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Now, is the pollution coming from China a problem? Of course. Unlike the US, who's environmental laws can best be described as overkill, China's environmental laws are on the other end of the spectrum, e.g. either just lip service to show the world that they might start doing something about it, or simply not following a common sense/stewardship approach.
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:21 PM
dsktc-Idaho is exempt from pollution and global warming.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics

  • Member since
    March 2001
  • From: New York City
  • 805 posts
Posted by eastside on Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:38 PM
The article is about the pollution caused by the burning of coal in China, and its effects domestically and internationally. China is addicted to cheap coal for power. Although it mentions the production of CO2, the subject of the article is certainly not global warming.
  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: SE Wisconsin
  • 1,181 posts
Posted by solzrules on Sunday, June 11, 2006 11:09 PM
But wait a minute guys -

I thought the Kyoto treaty was supposed to solve all of this?

The same treaty Bush pulled out of because he was concerned about the ramifications it would have on the U.S. economy.

Could it be that the big bad U.S. is not the SOLE harbinger of evil and corporate greed on the planet? The NYTimes probably figures that our 'comrades' in China will solve the problem with some good' ole communist ingenuity. After all, they fixed that Chernobyl problem right up like it never happened.

I get real bored with people that claim we use a majority of the world's resources while we only have something like 10 percent of the population.

The fact is, as countries like China and India become more developed and industrialized, they will be bringing the 'growing pains' of pollution and waste along with it.

Oh well. Progress, right?
You think this is bad? Just wait until inflation kicks in.....
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 12, 2006 12:54 AM
Dear Sirs,

The question of humanity’s impact on our atmosphere and climate are hotly debated issues. There are a plethora of organizations and websites that appear to be authentic in their "take" on this topic. I visited all of the sites from FUTUREMODAL's list, and was quite impressed, in particular, with the fresh insight of the www.clearlight... website.

If I may offer a suggestion, there is a book titled State of Fear by Michael Crichton, copy write 2005? Although it is a work of fiction, Dr. Chrichton has included a well documented and factual bibliograpaghy supporting his thesis regarding global warming and other environmental issues. It's a great read-very exciting- and mind opening as well. Please, as you read it, notice the arguments provided by the professor and his sidekick. They are not the typical platforms of various global warming specialists.

Please give the book a try before you write it off because it doesn't agree with your own stance.

Enjoy,

David
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 12, 2006 8:17 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by dsktc

So, our enviromental laws are extreme?

Perhaps you would prefer dirty water and
befouled air. Or perhaps you don't understand
the public health implications of a polluted
environment. Or perhaps you don't care,
as long as it affects someone else.

You really should be working for the Bush
Administration.

Dave

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Now, is the pollution coming from China a problem? Of course. Unlike the US, who's environmental laws can best be described as overkill, China's environmental laws are on the other end of the spectrum, e.g. either just lip service to show the world that they might start doing something about it, or simply not following a common sense/stewardship approach.



You see what I mean? Dare to question and parse current environmental dogma, and you are accused of hating clean air/water/et al, by clones like dsktc. I made it perfectly clear that the US environmental laws are overkill, while so-called environmental laws in China are nothing more than window dressing, and that what we all need is a common sense approach to environmental stewardship.

dsktc, you are part of the problem. You cannot see past your own extremism. Or can you even concieve that there is such a thing as environmental extremism?
  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Monday, June 12, 2006 8:32 AM
global warming
global cooling
ice age coming
arctic ice is melting
asteroids
earthquakes
tsunamis
volcanic eruptions
floods
hurricanes
tornadoes
terrorism
the anti-christ
illegal aliens
space aliens
bird flu
aids
over-eating
over-smoking
drugs
alcohol
crime in the streets
Iraq
Iran
North Korea
unaccounted-for nuclear waste
nuclear war
open-access railroads


Please pick your prefered paranoia, and then proceed to rant and rave about it.

Then hide under your sheets behind closed doors, trembling in fear of whatever the media is trying to scare you with today.

We're all going to die; some of us by more exciting methods than others.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 12, 2006 3:24 PM
You may prefer a common sense approach
to enviromental regulation, whatever that means.
I'll have mine based upon the best available
science.

Dave




QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


You see what I mean? Dare to question and parse current environmental dogma, and you are accused of hating clean air/water/et al, by clones like dsktc. I made it perfectly clear that the US environmental laws are overkill, while so-called environmental laws in China are nothing more than window dressing, and that what we all need is a common sense approach to environmental stewardship.

dsktc, you are part of the problem. You cannot see past your own extremism. Or can you even concieve that there is such a thing as environmental extremism?
  • Member since
    April 2004
  • From: North Idaho
  • 1,311 posts
Posted by jimrice4449 on Monday, June 12, 2006 4:10 PM
I posted this on another topic that strayed onto environmental issues but it's worth repeating. If you really want some data, unfiltered through a point of view, try "The Skecptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. He's a Danish professor of statistics
and wanted to cut thropugh all of the conflicting "scientific" claims put out by those simply seeking substantiation of their personal viewpoints. He has sifted through data, mostly derived from governmental and UN sources, and presents the picture as it stands now in reality. The book is published by Cambridge University Press. I got my copy in paperback from Amazon.com for about $15.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 12, 2006 11:39 PM
Here's a good website which explores the see-saw positions of the MSM regarding climate:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

First, it was global cooling, then global warming, then back to global cooling, and finally back to global warming. My prediction for 2030: Back to new ice age scares.
  • Member since
    July 2005
  • From: Bath, England, UK
  • 712 posts
Posted by Tulyar15 on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:52 AM
So the fact that the polar ice caps have been shown to be melting (which will cause a 6; rise in sea levels!) doesn't alarm you!
  • Member since
    July 2002
  • From: A State of Humidity
  • 2,441 posts
Posted by wallyworld on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:25 AM
The postings on this topic are more enlightening in terms of human psychology than really settling any long standing squabble over whether or not global warming is worthy of paranoia. Look at when the cost of oil skyrocketed, how many posts were about the cost of gasoline? Count how many there are now. I dont think that the concept of pollution being detrimental to our enviroment is controversial. It's a no brainer. How bad is bad? It's only when these issues strike us with the immediacy of personally effecting what we do every day, that Chicken Little spreads the news that the skys falling. Otherwise, its business as usual. How many decades have passed since it was discovered that either we are running out of oil or that we are covering ourselves in a blanket of smog? You dont have to be psychic to know what will happen tomorrow if circumstances dont change today. Alot of this reaction is self comforting-we all like buffers between ourselves and the larger world around us. I dont worry about global warming or oil because the cross purposes of economics and democracy insure that nothing is going to change. If the powers that be ever decide that fuel and pollution are inter-related issues and that emissions as they are, is not a good thing-by that time, we will need goggles and a hazmat suit to trim our lawns. And so it goes.

Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:17 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

global warming
global cooling
ice age coming
arctic ice is melting
asteroids
earthquakes
tsunamis
volcanic eruptions
floods
hurricanes
tornadoes
terrorism
the anti-christ
illegal aliens
space aliens
bird flu
aids
over-eating
over-smoking
drugs
alcohol
crime in the streets
Iraq
Iran
North Korea
unaccounted-for nuclear waste
nuclear war
open-access railroads


Please pick your prefered paranoia, and then proceed to rant and rave about it.

Then hide under your sheets behind closed doors, trembling in fear of whatever the media is trying to scare you with today.

We're all going to die; some of us by more exciting methods than others.

You forgot Bears!!!!( people who watch Steven Colbert's show on Comedy Central will get that one)

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southern Region now, UK
  • 820 posts
Posted by Hugh Jampton on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:37 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

We're all going to die; some of us by more exciting methods than others.


I was hoping to die young,, you leave a better looking corpse that way.
Generally a lurker by nature

Be Alert
The world needs more lerts.

It's the 3rd rail that makes the difference.
  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: SE Wisconsin
  • 1,181 posts
Posted by solzrules on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:29 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

So the fact that the polar ice caps have been shown to be melting (which will cause a 6; rise in sea levels!) doesn't alarm you!



Nope.

In fact, the more the merrier.

You think this is bad? Just wait until inflation kicks in.....
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 6:46 PM
I guess we'll only be sure global warming is real when Florida is under 10 feet of water, even then, I'm positive there will be some who will blame it on illegal immigrants or Saddam Hussien or someother straw man.

PS did anyone see the PBS Nova science show on how pollutants in the atmosphere have been reflecting some sunlight back into space, dampening the overall increase in global climate warming? Scary stuff....it could be a harbinger of the beginnig of a true greenhouse effect globally. Of course we dont even know if anything today can alter changes that began decades ago, we may just have to be ready for the coming heatwave that no amount of political spin can offset

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:30 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

So the fact that the polar ice caps have been shown to be melting (which will cause a 6; rise in sea levels!) doesn't alarm you!


Do the ice in the bowl of water experiment first, then tell us if you think an alleged melt-off of polar ice will raise sea levels.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:41 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

I guess we'll only be sure global warming is real when Florida is under 10 feet of water....


See above

QUOTE: ...., even then, I'm positive there will be some who will blame it on illegal immigrants or Saddam Hussien or someother straw man.


You mean like your boy Clinton the other day blaming "Republican policies" for Hurricane Katrina? And here we thought Algore was the comic foil to Clinton's straight man! Turns out they're both wearing the tin foil hats.[:o)]

QUOTE:
PS did anyone see the PBS Nova science show on how pollutants in the atmosphere have been reflecting some sunlight back into space, dampening the overall increase in global climate warming? Scary stuff....it could be a harbinger of the beginnig of a true greenhouse effect globally. Of course we dont even know if anything today can alter changes that began decades ago, we may just have to be ready for the coming heatwave that no amount of political spin can offset


Well, that's interesting. Atmospheric matter deflecting radiation! Could it be that the greenhouse effect simply moderates global temperature, thus an increase in greenhouse gases would only increase the moderating effect, whereas a decrease in greenhouse gases would dilute the moderating effect?

Now that's a theory that makes some sense! I think you may have stumbled onto the next great scientific theory, V!
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: K.C.,MO.
  • 1,063 posts
Posted by rrandb on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:08 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

So the fact that the polar ice caps have been shown to be melting (which will cause a 6; rise in sea levels!) doesn't alarm you!
While I can niether confirm or deny the 6" thoery. They have taken core samples of the glaciers in Greenland. They found a distict pattern of Thaw, Melt and Freeze going back a long ways. Over and over and over, thaw, melt freeze, thaw,melt, freeze. Its what glaicers do. This was true even during the Ice Age. I know this is true because it was on the TLC and I learned something. Do not panic. The sky is not, I repeat NOT falling. [banghead] [B)] [V]
  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: SE Wisconsin
  • 1,181 posts
Posted by solzrules on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:18 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

I guess we'll only be sure global warming is real when Florida is under 10 feet of water, even then, I'm positive there will be some who will blame it on illegal immigrants or Saddam Hussien or someother straw man.

PS did anyone see the PBS Nova science show on how pollutants in the atmosphere have been reflecting some sunlight back into space, dampening the overall increase in global climate warming? Scary stuff....it could be a harbinger of the beginnig of a true greenhouse effect globally. Of course we dont even know if anything today can alter changes that began decades ago, we may just have to be ready for the coming heatwave that no amount of political spin can offset


Well, I personally think that all the problems in the world are the fault of illegal immigrants and high taxes. I am so glad you've found me out! [:D]

Now, I'm a little confused. With all the pollution in the atmoshpere dampening the overall increase in global climate warming, how would this increase the greenhouse effect? I though pollution cause the greenhouse effect. Now it actually negates the effect of it?

Seems like circular reasoning to me. We assume that there is global warming, yet the pollutants are having a cooling effect on the atmosphere. What is the result of this equation? Status quo?

Seems like Al Gore needs to crank out another movie to explain all this. I am completely confused now.
You think this is bad? Just wait until inflation kicks in.....
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:17 PM
Political scientists know that socialism can only expand by hiding its intent. It either has to pretend that it is something that it is not or it must come on so slowly that nobody notices; a mode referred to as creeping socialism. Saving the planet from global warming is the latest mask being used to hide the advancement of world socialism, which is intended to transfer wealth from the richest nations to all other nations. In the deepest terms, it is accurate to say that global warming has nothing to do with climate. Saving the planet is just the sales pitch for the bitter medicine that hides behind the mask.

The doctrine that is intended to promulgate this principle is the Kyoto Treaty on climate change. Basically, it divides up the right to emit carbon dioxide and other pollutants equally among all nations, thus permitting the United States no more of this right than a country the size of Cuba for example. The treaty allows these basic assigned pollution credits to be sold to, or purchased by all countries as if the credits were a trading currency. The United States, being a large manufacturing country, produces the greatest amount of pollutants, so it will need to purchase pollution credits from smaller countries that will naturally have an excess of such credits.

In this way, the wealth of the United States will be transferred to all of the third world countries. What it boils down to is a world carbon tax administered by the United Nations. The result will be a leveling of the playing field in terms of world wealth. The mechanics of the Kyoto Treaty require the United States to cut its energy consumption by 30% within ten years. Aside from the wealth transfer, the economic result of this energy cutback alone is too staggering to imagine. If the American people were somehow made aware of it, they would reject the Kyoto Treaty on that basis alone, even if they did not see the sinister agenda that lurks behind it.

Many Americans think they are clever to see through the motives of Big Oil, which opposes Kyoto for its own economic self-interest. But too many of them are not clever enough to see the main motive behind this smoke screen. All it will take is enough people believing in global warming as it is being sold, and Kyoto or some version of it will happen. The mainstream media is selling global warming every day now as if it were an infomercial. They don't see the agenda behind it. They are just giddy over the p.c., green, save the planet message, which is as deep as they go.

The way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush and the Republicans in congress suddenly came out and said they were ready to sign Kyoto. Certainly the Democrats will if they get in power.

So when it comes to $3.50 per gallon gas, I say enjoy it while it lasts.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: K.C.,MO.
  • 1,063 posts
Posted by rrandb on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:27 PM
Can we do something like in the US except only for Americans cause I know there are a whole lots of folks with more money than me.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:03 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by EUCLID TRAVIS

Political scientists know that socialism can only expand by hiding its intent. It either has to pretend that it is something that it is not or it must come on so slowly that nobody notices; a mode referred to as creeping socialism. Saving the planet from global warming is the latest mask being used to hide the advancement of world socialism, which is intended to transfer wealth from the richest nations to all other nations. In the deepest terms, it is accurate to say that global warming has nothing to do with climate. Saving the planet is just the sales pitch for the bitter medicine that hides behind the mask.

The doctrine that is intended to promulgate this principle is the Kyoto Treaty on climate change. Basically, it divides up the right to emit carbon dioxide and other pollutants equally among all nations, thus permitting the United States no more of this right than a country the size of Cuba for example. The treaty allows these basic assigned pollution credits to be sold to, or purchased by all countries as if the credits were a trading currency. The United States, being a large manufacturing country, produces the greatest amount of pollutants, so it will need to purchase pollution credits from smaller countries that will naturally have an excess of such credits.

In this way, the wealth of the United States will be transferred to all of the third world countries. What it boils down to is a world carbon tax administered by the United Nations. The result will be a leveling of the playing field in terms of world wealth. The mechanics of the Kyoto Treaty require the United States to cut its energy consumption by 30% within ten years. Aside from the wealth transfer, the economic result of this energy cutback alone is too staggering to imagine. If the American people were somehow made aware of it, they would reject the Kyoto Treaty on that basis alone, even if they did not see the sinister agenda that lurks behind it.

Many Americans think they are clever to see through the motives of Big Oil, which opposes Kyoto for its own economic self-interest. But too many of them are not clever enough to see the main motive behind this smoke screen. All it will take is enough people believing in global warming as it is being sold, and Kyoto or some version of it will happen. The mainstream media is selling global warming every day now as if it were an infomercial. They don't see the agenda behind it. They are just giddy over the p.c., green, save the planet message, which is as deep as they go.

The way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush and the Republicans in congress suddenly came out and said they were ready to sign Kyoto. Certainly the Democrats will if they get in power.

So when it comes to $3.50 per gallon gas, I say enjoy it while it lasts.



Words fail me. Hide! Bring the ammo ma. The Greens are on the March!

And.....

"the beardies flag is deepest green
we'll keep our sandels nice and green"......
  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:07 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

So the fact that the polar ice caps have been shown to be melting (which will cause a 6; rise in sea levels!) doesn't alarm you!


Do the ice in the bowl of water experiment first, then tell us if you think an alleged melt-off of polar ice will raise sea levels.

The melting of the NORTH polar ice cap will do nothing to the sea level as the ice is already floating on the water. What the melting WILL do is dilute the salinity of the water causing a disruption of the thermohaline circulation, which is the process where the cold salty water sinks, which in turn helps advect the warm waters from the Gulf of Mexico up to the North Sea, which in turns warms most of northern Europe.

For a good, detailed description of the Gulf Stream process (actually called the Atlantic North Equatorial Current) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream


It is the melting of the Greenland as well as the Antarctic ice that is the concern of those that believe it is really happening. The Greenland ice is all on land, as is most of the Antarctic ice. When the ice on land melts, it WILL raise ocean water levels to some degree.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: K.C.,MO.
  • 1,063 posts
Posted by rrandb on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:47 AM
Hey!!! You've been watching TLC too!!! And the records in the ice prove this has happened over and over and over again too. In fact all the other times was before industrialization. This is a natural cycle. What's your point. [#dots]
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:30 PM
What he's trying to say is that the residue in the air from industrialization has accelerated and intensified the process.
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy