Let's Take A Vote...
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 1 Aug 2010 22:07 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 08:20:25 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.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. > >You are making no sense. > >Combustion particulates are definite health hazards and do cause ice >melts, probably more than conjectured AGW. They would be relatively >easy to reduce... just filter diesels, coal plants, ships, smelters, >namely the main industrial sources. One can debate the validity of >climate models, but black crud in the air is real. Why are you >confusing climate simulation with diesel fumes? I am not conflating them, the article _you_ cited above does. Your shame is that you do not understand that. BTW i notice you are backpedaling. And finally how about you look at just how much they have been cleaned up over the last 50 years? Just the same you have not yet answered original the questions posed. > >Luckily, I live a few miles from the Pacific beaches, and the >prevailing wind is from the west, so we get relatively little >particulates compared to most places further inland. But we do get >some from Chinese power plants and ships. Micron-sized particulates >are a significant cause of disease. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates#Health_effects > >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
From: John Larkin on 1 Aug 2010 22:17 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:07:13 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 08:20:25 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.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. >> >>You are making no sense. >> >>Combustion particulates are definite health hazards and do cause ice >>melts, probably more than conjectured AGW. They would be relatively >>easy to reduce... just filter diesels, coal plants, ships, smelters, >>namely the main industrial sources. One can debate the validity of >>climate models, but black crud in the air is real. Why are you >>confusing climate simulation with diesel fumes? > >I am not conflating them, the article _you_ cited above does. Your >shame is that you do not understand that. BTW i notice you are >backpedaling. And finally how about you look at just how much they >have been cleaned up over the last 50 years? The article is short and plainly written. It's not hard to understand. The good news there is that climate geeks are finally onto something real, and thet we can do something about without decimating civilization. That's a welcome burst of sanity. I still see lots of trucks and ships belching black diesel fumes. And China and India are building unfiltered coal power plants. John
From: dagmargoodboat on 1 Aug 2010 23:35 On Aug 1, 1:02 pm, 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. As long as it doesn't burn dung or wood. Hey, the world's particulate "solution" might be to get more people burning fossil fuels. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: John Larkin on 1 Aug 2010 23:43 On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 20:35:35 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Aug 1, 1:02�pm, 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. > >As long as it doesn't burn dung or wood. > >Hey, the world's particulate "solution" might be to get more people >burning fossil fuels. There are lots of people who would prefer natural gas to dung. John
From: John Larkin on 2 Aug 2010 19:59
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:27:17 -0700 (PDT), Nunya <jack_shephard(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. Wussmobile. John |