Another cyclist killed in the lane

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 4:00:16 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 7:27:02 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/3/2015 9:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/2/2015 8:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, 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?



It's not secret or breaking news:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-crisis/


http://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/nas...g-is-nonsense/

https://ricochet.com/archives/50-nas...lobal-warming/

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

http://www.lomborg.com/

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

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.

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...

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:29:43 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:40:22 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sat, 03 Oct 2015 19:45:33
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:04:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, 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/Instru...erature_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 :-)

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.

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 ****ing nuts, but it meets the letter
of some renewable energy law.

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.

Phil W Lee writes:

John B. considered Sun, 04 Oct 2015 18:43:40
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:29:43 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:40:22 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sat, 03 Oct 2015 19:45:33
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:04:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, 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/Instru...erature_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 :-)

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.

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 ****ing nuts, but it meets the letter
of some renewable energy law.

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.

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.

--

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 01:11:03 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sun, 04 Oct 2015 18:43:40
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:29:43 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:40:22 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sat, 03 Oct 2015 19:45:33
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:04:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, 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/Instru...erature_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 :-)

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.

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 ****ing nuts, but it meets the letter
of some renewable energy law.

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.

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/Abioge...troleum_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.

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

Phil W Lee writes:

John B. considered Sun, 04 Oct 2015 18:43:40
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:29:43 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:40:22 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sat, 03 Oct 2015 19:45:33
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:04:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, 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/Instru...erature_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 :-)

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.

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 ****ing nuts, but it meets the letter
of some renewable energy law.

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.

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.

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.

On 10/4/2015 8:48 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Phil W Lee writes:

John B. considered Sun, 04 Oct 2015 18:43:40
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:29:43 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:40:22 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sat, 03 Oct 2015 19:45:33
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:04:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, 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/Instru...erature_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 :-)

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.

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 ****ing nuts, but it meets the letter
of some renewable energy law.

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.

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.


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.

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

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 07:41:58 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/4/2015 8:48 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Phil W Lee writes:

John B. considered Sun, 04 Oct 2015 18:43:40
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:29:43 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:40:22 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sat, 03 Oct 2015 19:45:33
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:04:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, 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/Instru...erature_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 :-)

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.

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 ****ing nuts, but it meets the letter
of some renewable energy law.

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.

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.


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.

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

John B.

AMuzi writes:

On 10/4/2015 8:48 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Phil W Lee writes:

John B. considered Sun, 04 Oct 2015 18:43:40
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:29:43 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:40:22 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sat, 03 Oct 2015 19:45:33
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:04:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, 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/Instru...erature_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 :-)

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.

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 ****ing nuts, but it meets the letter
of some renewable energy law.

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.

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.


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.

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.

--

On 10/6/2015 1:05 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 10/4/2015 8:48 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Phil W Lee writes:

John B. considered Sun, 04 Oct 2015 18:43:40
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:29:43 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:40:22 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sat, 03 Oct 2015 19:45:33
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:04:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, 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/Instru...erature_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 :-)

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.

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 ****ing nuts, but it meets the letter
of some renewable energy law.

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.

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.


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.

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.


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.)

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

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

AMuzi writes:

On 10/4/2015 8:48 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Phil W Lee writes:

John B. considered Sun, 04 Oct 2015 18:43:40
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:29:43 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:40:22 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sat, 03 Oct 2015 19:45:33
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:04:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 7:33 PM, 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/Instru...erature_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 :-)

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.

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 ****ing nuts, but it meets the letter
of some renewable energy law.

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.

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.


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.

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.


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.