Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: Nunya on 1 Aug 2010 15:40 On Aug 1, 12:15 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 10:02 am, Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 8:20 am, John Larkin > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:10:49 -0700, > > > What's interesting is how little attention the climate alarmists give > > > to particulates. The reason is obvious: they want to use CO2 limits to > > > strangle the world's capitalist economies, and just adding some > > > filters can't accomplish that, so they don't care about particulates. > > > > John > > > A diesel engine pollutes the air LESS than a gasoline engine does, > > idiot. > > > The particulates enitted are heavy, and they do NOT remain suspended > > in our atmosphere, idiot! > > > A diesel engine is the least pollutive combustion engine in current > > mass use. > > I did not know that. Do you have a source for that knowledge? http://www.epa.gov/oms/technology/420f04023.pdf
From: John Larkin on 1 Aug 2010 15:57 On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 11:51:44 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_shephard(a)cox.net> wrote: >On Aug 1, 11:01�am, Les Cargill <lcargil...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> John Larkin wrote: >> > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Nunya<jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> >> > wrote: >> >> >> On Aug 1, 8:20 am, John Larkin >> >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> �wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:10:49 -0700, >> >> >>> What's interesting is how little attention the climate alarmists give >> >>> to particulates. The reason is obvious: they want to use CO2 limits to >> >>> strangle the world's capitalist economies, and just adding some >> >>> filters can't accomplish that, so they don't care about particulates. >> >> >>> John >> >> >> � A diesel engine pollutes the air LESS than a gasoline engine does, >> >> idiot. >> >> >> � The particulates enitted are heavy, and they do NOT remain suspended >> >> in our atmosphere, idiot! >> >> > Settling times are probably in weeks, with the smaller (and more >> > dangerous) particles staying suspended longer. So, unlike CO2, we >> > could dramatically reduce the effects of particulates fairly soon, and >> > at small relative expense. >> >> It's entirely possible that particulates increase the albedo >> of the atmosphere. A measurable increase in solar load >> was... measured when all air travel was suspended after >> 9/11 . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> � A diesel engine is the least pollutive combustion engine in current >> >> mass use. >> >> > Hey, you never let facts, or even real-life experience, or your own >> > eyeballs, interfere with your opinions. >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates#Health_effects >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_matter >> >> >http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel_health_effects_summary_7... >> >> > I bet you drive a diesel of some sort. I bet it's ugly. >> >> > John >> >> -- >> Les Cargill > >Since when do airplanes operate on diesel engines? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_diesel_engine John
From: Nunya on 1 Aug 2010 16:02 On Aug 1, 12:40 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 12:27 pm, Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 12:15 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 10:02 am, Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 8:20 am, John Larkin > > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:10:49 -0700, > > > > > What's interesting is how little attention the climate alarmists give > > > > > to particulates. The reason is obvious: they want to use CO2 limits to > > > > > strangle the world's capitalist economies, and just adding some > > > > > filters can't accomplish that, so they don't care about particulates. > > > > > > John > > > > > A diesel engine pollutes the air LESS than a gasoline engine does, > > > > idiot. > > > > > The particulates enitted are heavy, and they do NOT remain suspended > > > > in our atmosphere, idiot! > > > > > A diesel engine is the least pollutive combustion engine in current > > > > mass use. > > > > I did not know that. Do you have a source for that knowledge? > > > Diesel VW Jetta: 42mpg, low rpm vehicle. > > > Gasoline vehicle: nowhere close to that mileage, lower > > efficiency drivetrain as well. More pollution per mile. > > > Case closed. > > Ah. Proof by assertion. proof by pound-for-pound assertion as well then, I guess. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_equivilant_in_power_which_pollutes_more_-_Diesel_Engines_or_Gasoline_Engines
From: Nunya on 1 Aug 2010 16:07 On Aug 1, 12:57 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 11:51:44 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_sheph...(a)cox.net> > wrote: > >Since when do airplanes operate on diesel engines? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_diesel_engine > > John very first line on the page: "The aircraft diesel engine or aero diesel has not been widely used as an aircraft engine. " In other words, sure... it has been done, and even still may have an iteration or two, but it is NOT the generally accepted use. Perhaps it would make a nice engine for a derigible.
From: JosephKK on 1 Aug 2010 21:58
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 08:01:41 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:10:49 -0700, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:09:12 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 05:52:24 -0700, >>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:08:00 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:00:52 -0700, >>>>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:01:24 -0500, John Fields >>>>>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:06:50 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:13:05 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >>>>>>>><gherold(a)teachspin.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>(I'm just tired of the snipping back and forth... I should have just >>>>>>>>>kept my mouth shut and moved on.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>George H. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> John- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Just try injecting technical riffs - braininstorming in public - into >>>>>>>>the hen-clucking OT personal rants. Not only does that steer us back >>>>>>>>on topic, it annoys the hell out of some people who really deserve >>>>>>>>being annoyed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>Like this one?: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I am so sick of grey, white, black, silver, and repulsive >>>>>>>pearl-colored cars. You can drive for blocks around here and see >>>>>>>nothing but asphalt-colored cars. When I saw that true-red Audi for >>>>>>>sale, I had to have it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That Mercedes is a decent shade of red, sort of arterial blood color. >>>>>>>I've started to see a few new cars on the street that are actual >>>>>>>colors, not just midnight blue or mud red, but *colors*. Maybe things >>>>>>>are turning around. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Those Germans sure know how to make cars. 0-60 in 3.7 seconds isn't >>>>>>>bad at all. That's 0.75 Gs, if I did the math right. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>or this one?: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Nobody is going to do anything serious about CO2. And maybe we >>>>>>>shouldn't anyhow. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This is serious >>>>>>> >>>>>>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/28/MN5H1EK6BV.DTL >>>>>>> >>>>>>>and we *can* do something about it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>John >>>>>> >>>>>>Given the well known issues with getting realistic data from SPICE >>>>>>which has well calibrated and tested models, do you really want to >>>>>>trust anybody making climate predictions with models whose very theory >>>>>>is suspect as well? Particularly when there is no track record of >>>>>>model testability or calibratability? >> >>Don't have an answer for the questions, do you? >>>>> >>>>>Particulates aren't "climate predictions." They are soot that is real, >>>>>can be measured, causes health problems, and melts ice. And could be >>>>>reduced a lot, soon, if diesels, coal fired power plants, and things >>>>>like aluminum smelters were cleaned up. >>>>> >>>>>John >>>>> >>>>Do you ever answer a question straight? The climate predictions were >>>>in the link, a little above, that you provided. And they are the >>>>supposed motivators for the recommended action. Maybe you are just a >>>>knee-jerk liberal. >>> >>>Hey, inhale all the diesel fumes you like. Enjoy. >>> >>>John >> >>Yet another evasion. What a slimy escapist twit. > >What have I been saying right along ?:-) > > ...Jim Thompson Do remember he lives in the leftwing litigeous armpit of the world. |