Another cyclist killed in the lane

[Joerg]

In our paper yesterday:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article34459329.html

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[Duane]

On 11/09/2015 10:30 AM, Joerg wrote:
> In our paper yesterday:
>
> http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article34459329.html
>

Not to jump on the Danger! Danger! bandwagon but most of the close calls
that I've had in the last couple of years have been exactly something
like this. Car/Truck/SUV passing when it's not safe. Upcoming turn,
topping a hill or whatever.

I think it has very little to do with lane positioning and a lot to do
with impatient drivers.

[Joerg]

Not just impatient ones, also distracted and inexperienced drivers. All
it takes is misjudging the speed or width of an oncoming vehicle. This
is the first kind of accident I witnessed as a kid while bicycling to
school but the cyclist in front of me was lucky and was "only" pushed
into the ditch. Driver fled the scene, was caught because I noted all
details, I witnessed in court, and then they let the guy go with a warning!

[avag...@gmail.com]

prob rain soon .....

[Duane]

I guess distracted drivers may still want to pass in a blind turn but
mostly I've seen it with impatient ones, or drivers that have an issue
with bikes on the road. You can tell by the way they punch it or the
way they're sitting on their horn at the time.

We had to ride into the brush once but usually it's just a matter of
braking to let the idiot past when he moves over and you see a blind turn.

[Joerg]

Over the last couple of years I've only had to bail once. Luckily I was
on an MTB where barreling through a ditch with coarse rocks did not
result in a nasty crash but I was able to come out on the other side
unscathed. On my road bike that would have been another story. I vowed
never to ride that road again other than in my car. Well, except last
Tuesday :-)

[Joerg]

On 2015-09-11 9:51 AM, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
> prob rain soon .....
>

Rain? Where? Yesterday the view out of my office window looked more like
this:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/fires/article34757922.html

[avag...@gmail.com]

Mecca...


http://www.agweb.com/weather/cumulative-rainfall/

[Frank Krygowski]

On 9/11/2015 10:30 AM, Joerg wrote:
> In our paper yesterday:
>
> http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article34459329.html

And the lesson is what? We should ride only in the gutter?

BTW, in the U.S. about 4500 pedestrians are killed every year. IIRC,
most are in crosswalks. Let the fear mongering begin!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[somebody]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 07:30:31 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>In our paper yesterday:
>
>http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article34459329.html

Driver Rajesh Wadhava...

OK, another crappy driver who grew up in a country where cars aren't
the norm.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Drivers often use their license to kill to actually hurt or kill somebody. The issue is all kinds of idiots, the elderly, the church ladies, the bullies, hold a license.

[Joerg]

On 2015-09-11 3:19 PM, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
> Mecca...
>
>
> http://www.agweb.com/weather/cumulative-rainfall/
>

Something wrong in there. Red indicates MTB 12" but it was zero.

[Tim McNamara]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 04:47:18 -0400, somebody <som...@somewhere.com>
wrote:

Maybe. Or maybe he was born and raised in Sacramento, you racist idjit.
Of course, Americans are frequently crappy drivers. I see it dozens of
times on my way to and from work every day (and sometimes the loose nut
behind the steering wheel is me).

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

There's no serious effort to correct that. One powerful tool to bring some resemblance of order is the speed camera. The now prevalent red-light camera is just a money-making scheme. Cops do hand out a few speeding tickets here and there but there's little deterrence in that.

I witnessed last night a big pickup burning tire and skidding ON WET PAVEMENT, just showing off. Where's Jesus? ;)

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 2:23:43 PM UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:

> On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 9:37:29 PM UTC-4, Tim McNamara wrote peevishly to Joerg:
>
> > Maybe. Or maybe he was born and raised in Sacramento, you racist idjit.

Actually, that word is eejit, pronounced as it it is spelt, no d in it.

> I witnessed last night a big pickup burning tire and skidding ON WET PAVEMENT, just showing off. Where's Jesus? ;)

Driving the pickup. The Pope is keeping up with the times, making the pagan religion of Global Warmish part of the catechism, so Jesus no longer walks on water, he drives a truck on water.

Andre Jute

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

It may be said that as the sea water rises the elevated pickups and SUVs would be more necessary. They can manage a couple of feet of water, I'm sure.

[cycl...@yahoo.com]

In San Francisco NOBODY stops all the way at stop signs and only the cyclists are given tickets for it. Now for what it's worth the cycle delivery guys are horrors on wheels cutting through traffic and cutting off people all over the place but they are only a tiny percentage of the cyclists over there now. And with rental cycles there can be thousands of cyclists on the roads on weekends especially in the summer.

It is also standard operating procedure for cars to pass you when you're almost to a corner and turn right in front of you. I have hit one car for doing that but he didn't stop. I just came to a stop and had to put a foot down.

In days past the Taxi's were the worst drivers but these days the Taxi's are generally more polite than average and it's the SUV's driven especially by women that are super dangerous and they can do the most outrageous things in front of cops with NO REACTION!

On the opposite side of the bay if there are too many tickets issued on a section of road they raise the speed limit even if the present limit is dangerously fast.

California - the land of the fruits and nuts.

[cycl...@yahoo.com]

Yep. Pedestrians are generally five times more likely to be injured or killed by motor vehicles.

In the local paper they reported of some 12 year old who rode his bicycle to school on the sidewalk, got off and was walking across an intersection. He was struck in the middle of an intersection by an SUV driven at 25-30 mph by a person without a license.

The kid had both legs broken, one in four places and broke and arm. Plus many cuts a scrapes.

What was the moral of the story? The police said, "His life was saved by his helmet."

HE WAS WALKING!!! Are they suggesting that all pedestrians wear helmets?

[cycl...@yahoo.com]

Thanks Andre. No matter how many scientific facts are placed against man-made climate change using NOAA's own data we continue to hear from the True Believers even though since 1977 or so they haven't gotten ONE SINGLE PREDICTION CORRECT or even in the same ballpark. Remember when Al Gore told us about the coming Ice Age and then after none of those predictions came true he changed around after five years and none of his predictions powered supposedly by 97% of the world's scientists predictions?

"Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who helped found Greenpeace in the Seventies but subsequently left in protest at its increasingly extreme, anti-scientific, anti-capitalist stance, argues that the green position on climate change fails the most basic principles of the scientific method."

A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them believed that climate change was real let along man-made. Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it opposite.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, cycl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them believed that climate change was real let along man-made. Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it opposite.

Got a link to that?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

To observe due respect for a cyclist dead on the roads, i've answered your post in a new thread at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.bicycles.tech/Gm2H6r3Bhyg

Andre Jute

[John B.]

Start with a look at the Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

Which says in the opening paragraph:
"The longest-running temperature record is the Central England
temperature data series, that starts in 1659. The longest-running
quasi-global record starts in 1850."

And has a chart in the side bar showing annual mean and 5 year running
mean temperatures since 1880. But perhaps of more interest is the 49
references that they include for the various statements made.

The question of global warming is, I believe, not in question by any
competent party. And the only question seems to be "why".

As for "why" I suggest that if one charted the use of carbon producing
fuels compared with mean annual temperature it might well show a
correlation :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

It's not secret or breaking news:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

http://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/nasa-scientist-global-warming-is-nonsense/

https://ricochet.com/archives/50-nasa-scientists-against-global-warming/

Or see the many papers by Bjorn Lomborg in the past ten years

http://www.lomborg.com/

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Frank Krygowski]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'll try again:

Got a link to the poll results showing only 1% to 3% of scientists
believe climate change is real?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[cycl...@yahoo.com]

Frank, for someone that's skeptical even of things even to the point of believing the mechanical strength of rims has no bearing on the reaction of a rim to a bump, how is it that you haven't bothered to even investigate the phony science of climate change?

http://justbunk.net/2014/02/27/97-of-scientists-agree-with-global-warming-bunk/

You do not appear to have any engineering training and yet make statements and comments as if you did. Jobst is no longer here to correct you so perhaps you should actually investigate things yourself.

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated." - Ottmar Edenhofer author of the Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change published by the IPCC in 2007. Can you say "socialist"?

[cycl...@yahoo.com]

At least two Novel laureates have made similar statements. Climate Change is nothing more than a multimillion dollar money making machine.

[cycl...@yahoo.com]

Frank - I'm getting rather tired of your "I don't like you so you're wrong" crap. If you cannot investigate OPEN information on the Internet please do not bother to post.

[jbeattie]

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 7:50:31 AM UTC-7, cycl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 6:04:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, cycl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them believed that climate change was real let along man-made. Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it opposite.
> >
> > Got a link to that?
>
> Frank, for someone that's skeptical even of things even to the point of believing the mechanical strength of rims has no bearing on the reaction of a rim to a bump, how is it that you haven't bothered to even investigate the phony science of climate change?
>
> http://justbunk.net/2014/02/27/97-of-scientists-agree-with-global-warming-bunk/

I've always found lunatic blog sites with Pinocchio graphics highly persuasive. "Theory crushed." Ka-cha! Got you . . . you global warming idiots! Case closed.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

Links supplied earlier. Again this is hardly breaking news
or any surprise to those who have paid any attention at all
in the past 20 years.


"Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and IPCC Co-chair of
Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, told the
Neue Zürcher Zeitung (translated) that “climate policy is
redistributing the world's wealth” and that “it's a big
mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major
themes of globalization.”

Edenhofer went on to explain that in Cancun, the
redistribution of not only wealth but also natural resources
will be negotiated, adding that:

The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is
not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic
conferences since the Second World War."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/11/ipcc_expert_admits_un_goal_is.html

A quick web search will show thousands of similar links.

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 5:18:41 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Links supplied earlier. Again this is hardly breaking news
> or any surprise to those who have paid any attention at all
> in the past 20 years.
>
>
> "Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and IPCC Co-chair of
> Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, told the
> Neue Zürcher Zeitung (translated) that "climate policy is
> redistributing the world's wealth" and that "it's a big
> mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major
> themes of globalization."
>
> Edenhofer went on to explain that in Cancun, the
> redistribution of not only wealth but also natural resources
> will be negotiated, adding that:
>
> The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is
> not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic
> conferences since the Second World War."
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/11/ipcc_expert_admits_un_goal_is.html
>
> A quick web search will show thousands of similar links.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Further back you can discover that global warming was invented as a scare story by the Club of Rome in order to justify drastic (read "genocidal") action on population control:
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill." -- Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution (a book you can borrow from you library or buy on the net)

It wasn't a conspiracy conducted by some Baader-Meinhof or Rote Kapelle or Black Hand; it was done out in the open by men in suits and ties, almost all of them millionaires. The key man at the Club of Rome was Maurice Strong, a Canadian oil billionaire who conveniently was a very influential man at UNEP, one of the agencies which set up the IPCC to "study", read "create", global warming. Strong is infamous not only as the first Executive Director of UNEP but as Secretary General of both the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and the 1992 Earth Summit, which both served the Club of Rome agenda of "a new enemy". I've opened another thread to show how the IPCC cooked up "global warming threat imminent" reports from totally opposite "no global warming" papers from scientists.

The IPCC a scam from the beginning, and set up as such, to serve a political purpose, not a scientific one.

Andre Jute
We have seen the enemy, and he is us -- Club of Rome motto

[John B.]

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:40:22 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Sat, 03 Oct 2015 19:45:33

>That's been done, and yes, it does correlate.
>Which is exactly what you would expect, once you actually understand
>how the various gasses that make up our atmosphere behave.
>The only "scientists" who disagree with this are the fossil fuel
>funded shills.
>
>The only remaining uncertainty is how much of the carbon dioxide is
>staying in the atmosphere and raising global temperatures, and how
>much dissolves in the oceans and acidifies them.
>Both are destructive, so there is now no doubt that we need to be
>moving away from all carbon release into the atmosphere, and quickly.

Which I suspect is politically impossible.

Imagine the debate, wild claims, and furor that would result from a
proposal to legally limit the number of automobiles in one U.S. family
to "one". Or even more so to the banning of all internal combustion
engines :-)

Another point is that if use of hydro-carbon fuel was limited then use
of wood as fuel would likely increase and cutting of forests would
increase with a decrease in "oxygen production" and carbon absorption.

This was, by the way, not a myth. Indonesia actually subsidized the
cost of kerosene to wean people away from using wood for cooking as it
was a major problem both in cutting forests but also in
transportation. Can you imagine the amount of timber that has to be
hauled from somewhere to Jakarta, a city of 10 million, just to cook
three meals a day?

Ultimately the subsidy on fuel oil became so great that the government
was forced to stop the subsidy and of course that caused further
unrest. The next step was to encourage the use of LPG with the result
that although Indonesia was one of the largest producers of
hydro-carbon gas in that period they were forced to import LPG for
local consumption.

--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Tom, if you read my question very carefully, you'll see I said nothing pro or
con about climate change. I simply asked "Got a link to that?" IOW, I wanted
to see where you got your information, since you were making a claim I'd
never heard elsewhere.

As soon as I read your post above, I noted rather intense defensiveness. I saw
you imagining things I did not say. Still, I was hoping you had some sort of
scientific paper from a refereed journal for your source.

Now, having checked out your link, I see it's not a science site at all. It's
devoted entirely to "debunking progressive propaganda." And it covers terrible
progressive mistakes on the 2nd Amendment, Benghazi, Congress, Culture,
Immigration, Obamacare, Poverty, Taxes and more.

One of my personal rules of thumb is this: If I encounter a person who buys
ANY group's agenda lock, stock and barrel, I figure that person is not
thinking for himself. He's acting as an echo chamber, a ditto-head. He may
be correct on certain items, but it's probably going to be by accident.

If you want to talk science, you should use scientific sources. Try again.

P.S. The licensure boards of two states decided I certainly did have plenty of
engineering training. How about you?

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Wow. So defensive!

- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman]

That's already happening. Wood grown in the US is being burned in
Britain:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22630815

This is, of course, absolutely fucking nuts, but it meets the letter
of some renewable energy law.

[Andre Jute]

Actually, I think that for once Frankie-boy might join the right side. Whether we'd want a fellow so accident-prone, and so likely to offend much more worthwhile associates, is another matter entirely. Franki-boy, by himself, by posing as a "spokesman for bicycles" has caused the bicycles to run away, and reduced the number of cyclists in Ohio to half their previous number.

Andre Jute
Best laugh I had all week: Franki-boy doing something right! You don't see that more than once in a lifetime...

[John B.]

I'm not arguing but the changing from an alternate fuel to wood seems
foolish at best. One pound of wood produces about 8,000 BTU while one
pound of coal produces about 14,000 BTU and 1 pound of #6 fuel oil
produces about 18,585 BTU.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

No wonder you don't see people in Miami. They are sitting in the cage, afraid to come out. The access to a local Target got a blinking light (as opposed to a solid red light) and it's a gamble to see the cars to stop.

[cycl...@yahoo.com]

Pardon me for over-reacting but you just did the same thing as when you denied that the rigidity of a rim makes a difference in the loading of the spokes. Even with an entire generation of wheels designed differently because of this increase in rigidity you continue to deny it's effects.

In this case you have stated that this wasn't a "science" site. The fact is that there was NO SCIENCE in the generation of the number of 75 pro, 3 con and 4000 neutral into "97% of all scientists agree".

Your methodology is clear - if it doesn't agree with your world view you simply deny it.

[cycl...@yahoo.com]

You have to be careful - Frank will claim that isn't a science site but nothing more than a media outlet.

[Frank Krygowski]

Tom, stick to one topic at a time. On this one, I just asked for your source.

On the other one, I'm willing to go into considerable engineering detail. But
understand, sometimes people will disagree with you. IIRC, when I did so,
I did it politely.

I don't do much discussion about climate change, because it seems impossible
to get anyone to even consider the evidence in any unbiased way.

But I think it's possible for more people to discuss whether a rim is perfectly
rigid, how stress is distributed in a tension spoked wheel, etc. If you
want to return to that thread, you should do it under that thread title.

- Frank Krygowski

[Radey Shouman]

Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> writes:

> John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Sun, 04 Oct 2015 18:43:40

> But the wood is sustainable, as long as you grow it as fast as you
> harvest it - carbon is being captured and turned into plant matter all
> the time. Unless you can point to somewhere that new fossil fuels are
> being created, the same is not true of any of them.

Of course the wood is shipped to Britain using diesel fuel, same way as
it's harvested and trucked to the seaport.

--

[John B.]

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 01:11:03 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Sun, 04 Oct 2015 18:43:40

>But the wood is sustainable, as long as you grow it as fast as you
>harvest it - carbon is being captured and turned into plant matter all
>the time. Unless you can point to somewhere that new fossil fuels are
>being created, the same is not true of any of them.

As a prelude, please note that am not arguing pro or con, but see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

And before you argue that it is nonsense note the paragraph entitled
"State of Current Research":

"The weight of evidence currently shows that petroleum is derived from
ancient biomass. However, it still has to be established conclusively,
which means that abiogenic alternative theories of petroleum formation
cannot be dismissed."

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 21:48:37 -0400, Radey Shouman

And if it is shipped by a modern super ship it more than likely is
burning high sulphur content fuel, far more sulphur than allowed in
motor vehicle fuel. But of course much cheaper too.

Cheap fuel being an important cost factor these days as, for example,
the Emma Mearsk, at economical cruising speed, burns 1,660 (U.S.)
gallons an hour (Carrying some 206,780 tons of cargo :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

Most cargo ships run bunker fuel into a diesel engine.
That's the stuff which is left over after all other useful
oil products have been extracted.

[John B.]

Yes, as it is the cheapest hydrocarbon fuel available and fuel
consumption is, perhaps, the major cost item in shipping costs.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Radey Shouman]

That's an odd way to look at it. Low sulfur fuel is just high sulfur
fuel that has had the H2S removed, a small matter of buying equipment
and putting a little energy into it.

I worked in a Ma & Pa oil refinery around the time of the IBM PC XT, and
we had a hydro-desulfurization unit. Not the most relaxing spot to
idle, as breathing equipment was sometimes required. I didn't think to
wonder what we did with the removed H2S, but I'm sure it was sold as a
feedstock.

The naphtha fraction, roughly the boiling point of gasoline but very low
octane, was less valuable than even sour diesel. At one point the idea
of turning it into leaded gasoline was floated, but I think it foundered
on the dangers and difficulties of handling pure tetraethyl lead.

The most obnoxious fraction in my experience was the stuff that came off
the top of the vacuum tower, which handled the bottom product of the
main crude tower. Walk through something condensed from that and you
would just have to store your shoes outside for a few months, no
cleaning could take the stink off. Any of it that didn't attach itself
to shoes was burned in the main fired heater, a furnace the size of
a small house.

--

[AMuzi]

No disagreement:

"Bunker fuel, also known as navy special fuel, is the
bottom-of-the-barrel (literally), high-viscosity fuel used
by large cruise ships, container ships, and tankers that is
just slightly less viscous than the bitumen (asphalt) used
to pave roads. ... it is used because ships use large enough
engines that are designed to handle bunker fuel and it is
far cheaper due to limited demand (nearly nonexistent
outside of the maritime industry).

For example, the retail price of a metric ton of 380
centistokes bunker fuel in Houston is $611. Converting
per-gallon U.S. retail gasoline prices ($3.96/gallon U.S.
average) to metric tons would give you a gasoline metric-ton
price of $1,480.24 (42 gallons per barrel, 8.9 barrels per
metric ton). "

(comparing retail per-gallon price with average sale under
twenty gallons to price paid by global shipping
conglomerates on contract with hundreds of tons per purchase
may be fraught but you get the idea.)

[John B.]

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:05:42 -0400, Radey Shouman

That is over simplistic, isn't it? After all typically crude oil may
or may not contain sulphur and "bunker Fuel" is not just "just fuel"
it is the extremely heavy "ends" of crude left after the lighter, more
valuable, fractions are separated.

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

The Emma Maersk (the 2nd largest container carrier), at her rated
horsepower, with the auxiliary generators, will burn some 20.6 tons of
fuel an hour. Annual use is approximately 143,400 tons or about a 64.5
million dollars in annual fuel cost.

Try that in gasoline pump prices :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

An excellent example of why the US Navy budget was wrecked
by the biofuel disaster.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/09/navy-s-green-fleet-a-biofuel-blunder

p.s. That's a lot of fuel, but note that thing moves 1500
full containers around the world at 25 knots!

http://www.emma-maersk.com/specification/

[John B.]

Actually that is 15,000 containers :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com]

1 April, 1971

AJ IS controlling air space...

but going along with dead cyclists

https://www.google.com/#q=survey+:+americans+are+ignorant+of

[AMuzi]

whoops Thank you

[John B.]

Hopefully you don't calculate your income, at tax time, the same way

[Radey Shouman]

All crudes contain sulfur, the remains of protein cross-links in the
original organic material. Some is sweeter than others, but I doubt any
is sweet enough to make US spec road diesel without de-sulfurization.

Most of the heavy ends in a modern refinery are fed to a hydrocracking
or catalytic cracking unit, where they are turned into lighter stuff.
All gasoline and most road diesel and light fuel oil is made this way.

Of course processing is costly, both in money for building refinery
units and in energy to run them, so minimally processed fuel is cheaper.
It's also not simple to change the feedstock to or the mix of products
from a refinery, because it is most efficient to run any given unit near
100% capacity.

--

[John B.]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:45:46 -0400, Radey Shouman

But we were talking about marine use by V.L. container carriers and,
as far as I can see, sulphur used in open ocean cruising fuel is
limited to 3.5% and in port about 0.1%. All of the "bench mark" crude
have a sulphur content of less then 3.5% and Minus crude has a sulphur
content of less than 0.1% so any of the bench mark crude can
theoretically be used, in ocean going shipping, right out of the
ground and Minus Crude could be used in ports.

>Most of the heavy ends in a modern refinery are fed to a hydrocracking
>or catalytic cracking unit, where they are turned into lighter stuff.
>All gasoline and most road diesel and light fuel oil is made this way.
>
>Of course processing is costly, both in money for building refinery
>units and in energy to run them, so minimally processed fuel is cheaper.
>It's also not simple to change the feedstock to or the mix of products
>from a refinery, because it is most efficient to run any given unit near
>100% capacity.
--

cheers,

John B.

[Radey Shouman]

I'll grant that some straight run heavy fuel oil is burnt in ships that
have all the necessary equipment to heat and pump it. I just doubt that
a big fraction of that stream is used for marine fuel.

>>Most of the heavy ends in a modern refinery are fed to a hydrocracking
>>or catalytic cracking unit, where they are turned into lighter stuff.
>>All gasoline and most road diesel and light fuel oil is made this way.
>>
>>Of course processing is costly, both in money for building refinery
>>units and in energy to run them, so minimally processed fuel is cheaper.
>>It's also not simple to change the feedstock to or the mix of products
>>from a refinery, because it is most efficient to run any given unit near
>>100% capacity.
> --
> cheers,
>
> John B.
>

--

[John B.]

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 19:37:02 -0400, Radey Shouman

I think that you will find that heated oil is the usual fuel for the
newer Very Large ships, and likely many of the older ships. The Emma
Maersk, for example, burns "Residual Fuel Oil" and standards list
"pour point" for "Marine Residual Fuels" as being from 28 - 30 degrees
Celsius.
--
cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com]

http://www.all4humor.com/picture/funny-pictures/mountain-bike-wipeout.html

[cycl...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 6:04:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, cycl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them believed that climate change was real let along man-made. Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it opposite.
>
> Got a link to that?
>
>

> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Frank - are you incapable of finding anything ever? http://www.petitionproject.org

While you're at it do a finite element analysis of it since the variables are impossible to find and you can make them up so that the analysis comes out the way you want it 100% of the time.

[cycl...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 5:45:38 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:04:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski

> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, cycl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them believed that climate change was real let along man-made. Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it opposite.
> >
> >Got a link to that?
>

> Start with a look at the Wiki
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
>
> Which says in the opening paragraph:
> "The longest-running temperature record is the Central England
> temperature data series, that starts in 1659. The longest-running
> quasi-global record starts in 1850."
>
> And has a chart in the side bar showing annual mean and 5 year running
> mean temperatures since 1880. But perhaps of more interest is the 49
> references that they include for the various statements made.
>
> The question of global warming is, I believe, not in question by any
> competent party. And the only question seems to be "why".
>
> As for "why" I suggest that if one charted the use of carbon producing
> fuels compared with mean annual temperature it might well show a
> correlation :-)
>

> --
> cheers,
>
> John B.

That is an interesting statement "not in question by any competent party." By competent I assume you mean Al Gore.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/06/20/finnish-finish-global-warming/

The Vostok Ice Core research that spans some half million years and tells us that we are directly on target for the NORMAL weather patterns for this planet earth.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/graphics/tempplot5.gif

The Vostok papers also show that CO2 HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING.

Both the tree ring research has been proven in other studies and other ice core research has demonstrated EXACTLY the same patterns. They show an 800 year lapse between the temperature changes and the change in CO2 levels. This demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 are probably biologically caused.

As an engineer and scientist I have repeated data from NOAA itself proving them to be liars. They have repeatedly misrepresented data and what it indicated.

Anyone knowledgeable in gas chromatography could have told you that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. Anyone could point out that the energy retention in the Earth's atmosphere is from WATER only in it's three phases and the manner in which they appear. Man has NO CONTROL over that on a planet covered over 70% by water.

The emission of energy from the Sun in the absorption bands of CO2 is so slight that at levels of CO2 above about 160 ppm none of it EVER reaches the ground to be reflected and hence be reabsorbed by excess CO2. It would be more proper to argue that increasing CO2 would cause a LOWERING of temperature since there would be more CO2 molecules for the same amount of energy.

If you want to believe in Al Gore you have my permission but remember that after every one of his $150,000 per speech appearances he takes a limo back to the airport and flies his private jet airliner home. As does Obama. And Hillary. And the President of Greenpeace and his wife have obtained about 3 million dollars of federal money to push global warming. The 97% of "all scientists" were 94 "I Believe Brother" and 4 "I don't believe".

If that's what you think you know about this subject perhaps you ought to go back to finite element analysis with a lack of hard data some more.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 10:38:11 PM UTC-4, cycl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 6:04:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, cycl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them believed that climate change was real let along man-made. Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it opposite.
> >
> > Got a link to that?
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Frank - are you incapable of finding anything ever? http://www.petitionproject.org

Oh, good grief. Is _that_ what you're referring to?

Several folks in my academic department were handed copies of that to sign. The
guy who passed them out was the one who had Rush Limbaugh on the radio as he
worked, and had anti-evolution books on his bookshelf. AFAIK, everyone threw
their copies of the form away.

Don't get me wrong. The guy passing them out was a very nice guy, an excellent
worker, a very competent engineer, and in general an admirable person. We were
good friends until his untimely death. But he was rabidly right wing on
every issue. And I still believe that if a person toes _either_ party line
on every issue, they've disengaged an important part of their brain.

> While you're at it do a finite element analysis of it since the variables are impossible to find and you can make them up so that the analysis comes out the way you want it 100% of the time.

Sorry, Tom, you're making no sense.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

You must be joking.

>http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/06/20/finnish-finish-global-warming/
>
>The Vostok Ice Core research that spans some half million years and tells us that we are directly on target for the NORMAL weather patterns for this planet earth.
>
>http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/graphics/tempplot5.gif
>
>The Vostok papers also show that CO2 HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING.

I see. I wonder whether you could do a bit more research on the
subject and discover something about the atmosphere?

I am given to understand that there is an atmospheric layer made up of
"greenhouse gases", i.e., gasses that absorbs and emits radiation
within the thermal infrared range which is the fundamental cause of
the greenhouse effect.

On Earth, naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases have a mean
warming effect of about 33 蚓 (59 蚌). Without the Earth's atmosphere,
the Earth's average temperature would be well below the freezing
temperature of water.

The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70%
of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9 - 26%,
methane (CH4), which causes 4 - 9% and ozone (O3), which causes 3 -
7%.

Non greenhouse gases such as nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), and argon
(Ar), are not greenhouse gases. This is because molecules containing
two atoms of the same element such as N2 and O2 and monatomic
molecules such as argon (Ar) have no net change in their dipole moment
when they vibrate and hence are almost totally unaffected by infrared
radiation.

Now than, (1) the, recorded average temperature of the earth's surface
has increased 1.4 degrees F. since 1880. (2) The CO2 percentage of the
greenhouse gas layer has increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to 400 ppm in
2015.

Are they related? Well, CO2 seems to be the most active gas in terms
of heat transfer so it seems logical to suggest that it may well be
the most important factor, that is within man's control, in any effort
to control global warning.

But, of course you are free to present any conflicting evidence that
you may have. (Please note: Evidence is not hearsay)


--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

You neglected to say that "Careful reading of selected Blogs will
prove almost anything that you wish".

--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

Really? Heck, Newton believed in some crazy stuff too
(worlds inside worlds, witchcraft etc) but his equations
work out nicely in the real world. Next you'll tell us that
Tesla had bad breath. Whatever.

[cycl...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 6:40:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 10:50:31 AM UTC-4, cycl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 6:04:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, cycl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them believed that climate change was real let along man-made. Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it opposite.
> > >
> > > Got a link to that?
> >

> > Frank, for someone that's skeptical even of things even to the point of believing the mechanical strength of rims has no bearing on the reaction of a rim to a bump, how is it that you haven't bothered to even investigate the phony science of climate change?
> >
> > http://justbunk.net/2014/02/27/97-of-scientists-agree-with-global-warming-bunk/
> >
> > You do not appear to have any engineering training and yet make statements and comments as if you did. Jobst is no longer here to correct you so perhaps you should actually investigate things yourself.
> >
> > "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated." - Ottmar Edenhofer author of the Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change published by the IPCC in 2007. Can you say "socialist"?
>
> Tom, if you read my question very carefully, you'll see I said nothing pro or
> con about climate change. I simply asked "Got a link to that?" IOW, I wanted
> to see where you got your information, since you were making a claim I'd
> never heard elsewhere.
>
> As soon as I read your post above, I noted rather intense defensiveness. I saw
> you imagining things I did not say. Still, I was hoping you had some sort of
> scientific paper from a refereed journal for your source.
>
> Now, having checked out your link, I see it's not a science site at all. It's
> devoted entirely to "debunking progressive propaganda." And it covers terrible
> progressive mistakes on the 2nd Amendment, Benghazi, Congress, Culture,
> Immigration, Obamacare, Poverty, Taxes and more.
>
> One of my personal rules of thumb is this: If I encounter a person who buys
> ANY group's agenda lock, stock and barrel, I figure that person is not
> thinking for himself. He's acting as an echo chamber, a ditto-head. He may
> be correct on certain items, but it's probably going to be by accident.
>
> If you want to talk science, you should use scientific sources. Try again.
>
> P.S. The licensure boards of two states decided I certainly did have plenty of
> engineering training. How about you?
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Yes, Frank we know - "got a link for that" is only a harmless question just like your "do a finite element analysis". What you do not understand you think you can use as a sword. Sorry but you made not the SLIGHTEST attempt to address the actual information on that site but instead attempt to disqualify them because they are a known "denier" site.

Well, I do know the so-called science behind AGW and it was so faulty they have had to change the name to "climate change" so that they could get you to wet yourself yet again.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm

Shows what is happening but you can prove it incorrect with the claim that no one can believe a Frenchman. That is your style.

As for the latest warming trend it is far less and far shorter than the Roman Warm Period of the Medieval Warm Period. Even the change in temperatures is NOTHING compared to the Little Ice Age.

http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Esperetal2012b.jpg

Oh, wait, you can complain that is tilted even though it's a compilation of the data from NOAA.

The Finnish Tree Ring Research shows plainly that not only is this 20th Century warming not of much importance but that over the last two thousand years we have COOLED about one degree C which puts us on the NORMAL course for entering another Ice Age which will take about 100,000 years.

But WAIT you scream - we have had RECORD YEARS OF HEAT. But of course that's almost entirely bunk as well since the temperature record has been counterfeited by NOAA as they "corrected" earlier temperatures downward and temperatures since about 2000 upwards.

This has been supported by Berkeley Earth which is funded by Federal Grants and Kock Foundation to the tune of one and a half million dollars. Gee, I wonder why they might fight for these temperature corrections despite them not being able to make a living otherwise?

WAIT you scream - there is a hold on the temperature drop for the latest Vostok data. No there isn't because you don't understand how these ice sheets are formed and where the inaccuracies are generated.

But we're just being defensive because we know what's going on and you don't.

[cycl...@yahoo.com]

I understand how you think that considering you don't know the variables that are necessary for a finite element analysis and how Jobst at one time actually measure them for a specific rim type.

And ALL that delivered was a general rule that you do not understand and were willing to take Jobst's word for. He was quite right for as far as he went but your somehow translating that into all wheels being the same was what began this discussion.

The mechanical structure of a rim makes a huge difference in the way that forces are transmitted to the spokes and the number of spokes makes a huge difference in the required tension and the reaction of the spokes under shock loadings.

You don't even appear to understand why spokes were double or even triple butted.

[Duane]

You guys mind changing the subject line of this thread?

[AMuzi]

Can we just go back a few years to "New Ice Age, We're All
Gonna Die!"? Now, that was scary. For manipulated data and a
created crisis, try something we actually fear.

Couple degrees warmer, more CO2 for faster crop growth.
meh. YMMV

[cycl...@yahoo.com]

John, the problem is that what you believe about CO2 is incorrect. When the Earth's atmosphere was composed of 50% CO2 there were STILL ice ages. This is because the emission from the Sun in the absorption spectrum of CO2 is so small that if the atmosphere contains more than about 160 ppm NONE of that energy ever reaches the ground to be reflected and absorbed by excess CO2.

In fact the reverse is actually true - if you add more CO2 there is the same amount of energy spread over a larger number of molecules reducing the latent heat per molecule.

And as a backup on that the Vostok Ice Cores (as well as other ice core research) demonstrates that CO2 TRAILS temperature shifts by as much as 800 years. This suggests that CO2 changes are due to biological activity probably in plankton.

The energy reflected from earth is in the BLUE range and that is underscored by every photo of earth from space. The only thing that stops this energy from escaping is water vapor.

I should also add that JUST below the CO2 spectrum is a hole in the entire atmosphere at around 10 nm. This means that if the Earth heats too much that heat is controlled by this escape mechanism.

Now we in the past HAVE had "Green Earth Periods" such as the Carboniferous Period which was before fauna and there was entirely uncontrolled growth of flora causing the atmospheric levels of CO2 to fall from 50% before an ice age occurred and dropped into a snow ball earth phase. Since that time the Earth has used flora and fauna to balance the atmosphere pretty closely and our "ice ages" have never achieved "snowball earth" levels again. Nor have we ever heated into a Green Earth period again.

Ice ages are now heavy winters down to 20 to 40 degrees of latitude and interglacial periods can get warm up to 50-60 degrees.

[cycl...@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 8:42:32 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
>
> You guys mind changing the subject line of this thread?

Sorry Duane and you are quite correct. Case closed.

[Joerg]

As a kid I actually believed that and became scared. In consequence, I
am now very skeptical when "scientists" claim to be 110% right on
something. Because often they aren't scientists but people with an agenda.

> Now, that was scary. For manipulated data and a created crisis, try
> something we actually fear.
>
> Couple degrees warmer, more CO2 for faster crop growth.

Maybe this results in cheaper CO2 bottles to fix flats 8-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[Frank Krygowski]

I think Newton may have been the most intelligent person who ever lived.
But I don't think much of his work in alchemy, even though that was
his main interest in later years.

One might be able to come up with a collection of PhDs who believe in
alchemy. A survey of those PhDs would not prove that alchemy is fact.

The colleague I described passed out that global warming survey only
because of his political beliefs. He had no professional competence in
the subject matter. AFAIK, every other colleague threw out the survey,
recognizing it as an incredibly biased appeal. Thus, the results are
fatally flawed by self-selection.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

If you want to discuss spoked wheel behavior again, do it under a new
thread.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 10/14/2015 11:21 AM, cycl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> Yes, Frank we know - "got a link for that" is only a harmless question...

It was a question. Sorry it made you so defensive!

> Oh, wait, you can complain that is tilted...

But I didn't say that.

> But WAIT you scream - we have had RECORD YEARS OF HEAT.

I didn't say that, either.

> WAIT you scream - there is a hold on the temperature drop for the latest Vostok data.

And I didn't say that, either.

This is getting decidedly weird. Are you arguing against some imaginary
friend of yours??

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

That's a fair enough summary. But most of it is superfluous. If the CO2 formation trails temperature, which even the global warmie kooks don't dispute (1), that's all she wrote, CO2 can no longer be a suspect, even if there is global warming. And since Michael Mann's Hockey Stick has been so conclusively exposed, and condemned by the NAS, as a fraud, and since we have always known that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age happened around the world -- holy shit, are those global warmies illiterate? it's in every history! -- whatever mickey mouse little jiggles there are in the temperature record is just the earth and the sun's natural adjustments, not "global warming".

Andre Jute
Nothing to see here folks. Move right along.

(1) We had a global warmie true believer here, a clown called Asher, probably an undergraduate in some "ecological studies course" at a community college, who pretended he could explain the impossibility of a correlation which trails its catalyst. He made such a hash of it that he ran away in shame. He was such a dumbo, he believed what he was told in the papers and on television about global warming and didn't bother to read the IPCC reports, so that when I explained the facts to him, it came as a shock to his religion of Warmyism.

[Andre Jute]

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 4:46:05 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Can we just go back a few years to "New Ice Age, We're All
> Gonna Die!"?

I *liked* the Ice Age Around The Corner. I had a lot of fun sending it up in my newspaper column when I got tired of enquiring whether we could yet see the hole in the ozone layer.

> Couple degrees warmer, more CO2 for faster crop growth.
> meh. YMMV

Careful, Mr Muzi. You are now in danger of agreeing with the IPCC:

STATEMENT BY THE SCIENTISTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCIENCE:
"in many developed countries, net economic gains are projected for global mean temperature increases to roughly 2 degrees Celsius."

Hang on a moment! Aren't these the scientist the media have been telling us have been saying Global Warming Is A Bad, Bad, Bad Thing? And now these self-same scientists, deep in the bowels of a thick report, are telling us it is actually a good thing. How could that Good News be lost in the translation?

Easy. The IPCC boyos liked having their snouts bolted into the trough. They weren't going to let a bunch of mere scientists upset their applecart. They simply rewrote the Good News into Very Bad News:

CHANGED BY THE BUREAUCRATS IN THE SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS TO:
"an increase in global mean temperature of up to a few degrees C would produce a mixture of economic gains and losses in developed countries".

Ah, right, a specified gain has now become an unspecified gain with losses, and the threat that it would take the bread out of the mouths of the hungry, clearly a bad thing for policymaking politicians who want to be re-elected.

The Big Lie has Landed.

MORE IPCC LIES AVAILABLE IN THE SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS AND THE MEDIA FOR GULLIBLE GLOBAL WARMIES

Andre Jute
Sceptical

[jbeattie]

Some of these people are crazy without the genius -- like an idiot savant without the savant. And since when does a survey of beliefs matter. Did we get to the moon based on a survey of beliefs about getting to the moon? Survey says . . . no going to the moon! I can understand arguments over the meaning of actual scientific data -- but surveys?

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 1:47:01 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
>
> Some of these people are crazy without the genius -- like an idiot savant without the savant. And since when does a survey of beliefs matter. Did we get to the moon based on a survey of beliefs about getting to the moon? Survey says . . . no going to the moon! I can understand arguments over the meaning of actual scientific data -- but surveys?
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

The global warmies' case rests entirely on a spurious "consensus of scientists" now that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age have been reinstituted to their proud place in the Earth's history. It is no longer politically correct to ask, "Since when did a consensus of scientists become necessary for the advancement of science?" You can be hunted through the streets by ravening ecofascists merely for asking the question.

Andre Jute
Carfree since 1992. Greener than thou.

[John B.]

One of the problems with discussing alchemy is that alchemy was a far
broader subject that simply finding the philosopher's stone. Georg
Agricola (1494 - 1555), published "De re metallica" in 1556. His work
describes the highly developed and complex processes of mining metal
ores, metal extraction and metallurgy of the time.

The first published work that describes a difference between alchemy
and chemistry seems to be 1661, when Robert Boyle publishes "The
Sceptical Chymist", a treatise on the distinction between chemistry
and alchemy.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

>> warming effect of about 33 ? (59 ?). Without the Earth's atmosphere,

Did you actually read the study of the "Vostok study"? Or just some
far fetched blog that mentioned it. For your edification the following
are excerpts from the results of studies of the study:


---------------------------------------------------
Atmospheric Trace Gases » CO2 » Vostok Ice Core
Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

Data Investigators

J.-M. Barnola, D. Raynaud, C. Lorius
Laboratoire de Glaciologie et de Géophysique de l'Environnement,
CNRS, BP96,
38402 Saint Martin d'Heres Cedex, France

N.I. Barkov
Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute,
Beringa Street 38, 199397,
St. Petersburg, Russia
Period of Record

417,160 - 2,342 years BP
Methods


The data presented include the updates discussed in Pepin et al.
(2001)

Trends

There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and
atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension
of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar
for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the
highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions.
During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises
from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the
Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are
unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels
(~280 ppmv) are found during all interglacials, with the highest
values (~300 ppmv) found approximately 323 kyr BP. When the Vostok ice
core data were compared with other ice core data (Delmas et al. 1980;
Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 - 40,000 years, good agreement
was found between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per
million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and
increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the
glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and
Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning
of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged
by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature,
whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the
glaciations
-----------------------------------------------------

Or to interpret: High CO2 levels have always been associated with
warming periods and that: "levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the
past 420 years"
--
cheers,

John B.

[sms]

On 10/14/2015 7:29 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

<snip>

Stop confusing him with the facts. He has decided what he wants to
believe based on what right-wing wackos have told him to believe. You
will not be successful at using facts and logic to convince him.

[John B.]

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:34:38 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Yes. the most important aspects of the modern World Wide Web is that
one can always find a Blog to prove one's beliefs are true, no matter
what they are.
--
cheers,

John B.

[cycl...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 6:40:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 10:50:31 AM UTC-4, cycl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 6:04:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, cycl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A poll among hard scientist found that only 1-3% of them believed that climate change was real let along man-made. Maybe that's where that 97% came from. They just got it opposite.
> > >
> > > Got a link to that?
> >

> > Frank, for someone that's skeptical even of things even to the point of believing the mechanical strength of rims has no bearing on the reaction of a rim to a bump, how is it that you haven't bothered to even investigate the phony science of climate change?
> >
> > http://justbunk.net/2014/02/27/97-of-scientists-agree-with-global-warming-bunk/
> >
> > You do not appear to have any engineering training and yet make statements and comments as if you did. Jobst is no longer here to correct you so perhaps you should actually investigate things yourself.
> >
> > "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated." - Ottmar Edenhofer author of the Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change published by the IPCC in 2007. Can you say "socialist"?
>
> Tom, if you read my question very carefully, you'll see I said nothing pro or
> con about climate change. I simply asked "Got a link to that?" IOW, I wanted
> to see where you got your information, since you were making a claim I'd
> never heard elsewhere.
>
> As soon as I read your post above, I noted rather intense defensiveness. I saw
> you imagining things I did not say. Still, I was hoping you had some sort of
> scientific paper from a refereed journal for your source.
>
> Now, having checked out your link, I see it's not a science site at all. It's
> devoted entirely to "debunking progressive propaganda." And it covers terrible
> progressive mistakes on the 2nd Amendment, Benghazi, Congress, Culture,
> Immigration, Obamacare, Poverty, Taxes and more.
>
> One of my personal rules of thumb is this: If I encounter a person who buys
> ANY group's agenda lock, stock and barrel, I figure that person is not
> thinking for himself. He's acting as an echo chamber, a ditto-head. He may
> be correct on certain items, but it's probably going to be by accident.
>
> If you want to talk science, you should use scientific sources. Try again.
>
> P.S. The licensure boards of two states decided I certainly did have plenty of
> engineering training. How about you?
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Frank, I have been balancing several balls in the air at the time and the medication I have to take these days keeps me dizzy all the time. So I'm rather short tempered.

What you are sensing isn't defensiveness but irritation because YOU have to question things that came out of nowhere and for which no one EVER supplied any real proof.

Did you EVER ask for proof on the 97% number? My sense is that you did not. And yet you question someone that would question that number.

Where did that number come from? http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/ explains it best. This article was written by Dr. Larry Bell, professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston.

My own research was into the many claims that are false on their very face. Having worked on gas chromatography I am aware of the physical realities of the universe. The claim that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" is laughable on the very surface. The emission from the Sun in the absorption bands of CO2 is so slight that none of that energy ever gets to ground level and hence could not be reflected and reabsorbed as Dr. Mann was claiming could happen.

One would think that ANYONE with a knowledge of atmospheric history would know that the original atmosphere of Earth was roughly 50-50 Nitrogen and CO2. Since the Earth didn't dissolve into a ball of melted wax with a atmospheric content of 50% how could ANYONE believe that such a thing would happen with atmospheric contents of 0.04% CO2?

Why has this not been questioned especially in the light that the Finnish Treering research showing that over the last 2000 years there have been two warmer periods than recently and in spite of that the average MGT has fallen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit?

Not to mention that the Vostok Ice Core research clearly shows that we have peaked in our Interglacial Period and are on our way back down into another Ice Age? In just another 100,000 years it will be pretty cold out in Alaska.

The centerpiece of ALL true scientific study is skepticism about all previous findings and instead people are being led by Greenpeace - the President of which has made three million dollars in the last two years in Federal money off of "man-made climate change". Or the chairman of the IPCC who has been quoted as saying that this wasn't about climate change but redistribution of the world's wealth.

If you are questioning ANYTHING why did you not question that?

[Frank Krygowski]

On 10/17/2015 4:32 PM, cycl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> Frank, I have been balancing several balls in the air at the time and the medication I have to take these days keeps me dizzy all the time. So I'm rather short tempered.

Noted.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[avag...@gmail.com]

1 April, 1971

Tesla missed . Bad breath or not.

What Newton 'perceived' then expressed in language....worlds within...witchcraft...is not hat we would perceive then express in language as our worlds/perceptions are vastly different.

Currently we have gunlovers enmeshed in the 19th century....my opinion...declaring their lands are safe caws they tote guns.....arriving on the scene for statements following a mass shooting at their local Oxford.

Not my planet

why yawl speak with Global Warming deniers ? I dunno. waste of...

[John B.]

Amazing! An individual who describes himself as:
"I am a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston
where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space
Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture"
and,
who is vigorously promoting the sales of his recent book entitled,
"Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming
Hoax" is contributing an article in Forbes.

And Forbes is divorcing themselves from the author's statements by
stating that "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions
expressed are those of the writer."

And this architect is suddenly an authority on atmospheric?

Your statement that "the medication I have to take these days keeps me
dizzy all the time" is obviously true.

Oh, By the way, your statement that "One would think that ANYONE with

a knowledge of atmospheric history would know that the original

atmosphere of Earth was roughly 50-50 Nitrogen and CO2" is likely
incorrect, or at least the several sources I looked at tell a
different story:

The BBC: "the early atmosphere was probably mostly carbon dioxide with
little or no oxygen. There were smaller proportions of water vapor,
ammonia and methane. As the Earth cooled down, most of the water vapor
condensed and formed the oceans."

http://science.opposingviews.com: "The early Earth had a large amount
of hydrogen and helium in the atmosphere and this would have slowly
escaped into space due to the low mass of these gases. Today, hydrogen
and helium make up less than 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere.

But actually even the best science really has no facts to base an
opinion on what was the atmosphere of the original earths's atmosphere
was composed of. The large CO2 content must have come somewhat later
in the earths life as it is thought that a large CO2 content was the
result of volcanic action that must have occurred somewhat later than
the initial solidifying of the earth and formation of the first
atmosphere.

--
cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 6:28:12 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
>
> Amazing! An individual who describes himself as:
> "I am a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston
> where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space
> Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture"
> and,
> who is vigorously promoting the sales of his recent book entitled,
> "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming
> Hoax" is contributing an article in Forbes.
>
> And Forbes is divorcing themselves from the author's statements by
> stating that "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions
> expressed are those of the writer."
>
> And this architect is suddenly an authority on atmospheric?

Oops! Tell us, Slow Johnny, has anyone explained to you yet that the people who drive the hysterical panics about manmade global warming via CO2, Mann and Briffa etc, are dendrochronologists, basically tree ring statisticians (and according to evidence before the United States Senate by Edward Wegman's committee of professional statisticians, pretty incompetent statisticians at that, in the few cases where they are not actively crooked*), not climatologists? Those are the guys who to "hide the decline" in global temperature (that is, the opposite of global warming) tried to lie the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, both of which suggest very strongly that CO2 is not the operating mechanism, out of existence -- and were caught out, again and again and again, together with the IPCC and its sex-maniac leader, Pachauri.

Andre Jute
Just asking

*A few quotes from the Senate Committee for you:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.bicycles.tech/EeSWWCMU-fE

[AMuzi]

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2015/02/19/columbus-guilford-avenue-shooting.html

[Frank Krygowski]

On 10/18/2015 10:03 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/17/2015 7:53 PM, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 1 April, 1971
>>
>> Tesla missed . Bad breath or not.
>>
>> What Newton 'perceived' then expressed in language....worlds
>> within...witchcraft...is not hat we would perceive then express in
>> language as our worlds/perceptions are vastly different.
>>
>> Currently we have gunlovers enmeshed in the 19th century....my
>> opinion...declaring their lands are safe caws they tote
>> guns.....arriving on the scene for statements following a mass
>> shooting at their local Oxford.
>>
>> Not my planet
>>
>> why yawl speak with Global Warming deniers ? I dunno. waste of...
>>
>
> http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2015/02/19/columbus-guilford-avenue-shooting.html
>

http://www.wesh.com/news/deputies-man-mistakenly-shoots-kills-brother/33435848


--
- Frank Krygowski