Re Global Warming

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 2:33:17 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
John B Slocomb considered Tue, 29 Nov 2016
12:02:03 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:57:02 +0000, Phil Lee
wrote:

John B Slocomb considered Mon, 28 Nov 2016
18:39:12 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 03:37:41 +0000, Phil Lee
wrote:

John B Slocomb considered Sun, 27 Nov 2016
13:38:02 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 04:05:25 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 6:33:12 AM UTC-5, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 20:55:43 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per John B Slocomb:
A simple reduction of cars to one per
family would significantly reduce both Usian family debt and carbon
emission.

How do you figure?

Two Cars: Johnny drives to school, parks, drives home

One Car: Mommy drives Johnny to schools, drives home, drives back to
school to pick Johnny up, drives home.... Double the trips,
double the gasoline.

One can only ask. If Johnny walked or bicycled to school would little
Johnny so obese?

(The prevalence of obesity affects about 12.7 million children and
adolescents).

In many areas today Little Jane and Little Johhny are prohibited from riding
their bicycles to school and it's NOT the parents who are doing the
prohibiting.

Cheers

I do not doubt it.

When I went to school students were prohibited to drive a car and the
School Bus only stopped for kids further than a specified distance
from town and everyone else walked.

But it wasn't such an odd experience as many, perhaps most, of the
parents what worked in the village walked to work.

My guess is that a School's prohibition might be based on the dangers
of cycling.... after all about 700 people died of cycling during the
last year I saw statistics for.

I think you'll find that the involvement of a motor vehicle was the
most significant danger in most of those casualties.

More people die from traffic fumes in the UK than are killed from
collisions on the roads (or anywhere else) with motor vehicles.
I very much doubt if that pattern is even unusual, let alone unique to
the UK.

Do you mean an autopsy determined that the cause of death was "traffic
fumes", like in the old days with the "London Fog"? Or, "traffic fumes
may have been a factor"?

It's rarely completely clear-cut, but the figures are based on the
increase in deaths from those diseases which are caused or antagonised
by traffic fumes.

It's running at about 40,000 per year for the UK, as against 3,000 per
year from traumatic death by motor vehicle.
Even if you allow for some exaggeration (I don't!) it is reasonable to
assume that the ratio is over 10:1.

Are traffic fumes the only fumes that relate to these deaths? Or is it
a more a matter of "unclean air" with fumes coming from anywhere - the
local soft coal fired electrical plant, for example?

Not much power is produced from coal in the UK anymore, and the
remainder is being phased out. None of the plants are in towns or
cities, and none use "soft" coal.
But in any case, it is the proportion attributable to traffic fumes
based on the proportion that traffic fumes contribute to the unclean
air where those deaths occur which is used for those figures. No
remotely reputable source has even attempted to discredit them,
despite the data being widely available to anyone who wants it - and
the automotive and petro-chemical industries having both motive and
resources to attempt to discredit the figures if there is any doubt as
to the methodology used being in some way questionable.
They've even produced maps of adjusted life expectancy based on levels
of traffic fumes down to individual street level, and although I'm no
statistician, they do appear to take account of other variables like
population density. Again, nobody seems to be challenging them,
despite having every reason for wanting to, and almost unlimited
means.

When I was stationed at Edwards AFB, in the Mohave Desert I remember
driving to Los Angeles and as you came over the crests of the
mountains and looked out over the L.A. Basin it was covered with a
dense cloud. As you descended into the cloud you found your eyes
watering and the air smelled "bad".

Yes, I've heard of that effect, worsened by a combination of
geographical, climatic and environmental factors trapping the
pollution in a relatively small area.
The only solution is to limit the pollution which is allowed in that
area and those whose pollution flows into it.

Tell you what Phil - let's see what you're writing in another six to ten years when GB is running out of power. They're already talking about windmill farms covering the coastline. Since these things don't even pay their own way it ought to be interesting to see what you have to say then

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 2:55:37 PM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
Are traffic fumes the only fumes that relate to these deaths? Or is it
a more a matter of "unclean air" with fumes coming from anywhere - the
local soft coal fired electrical plant, for example?
Before that, from teepees.

When I was stationed at Edwards AFB, in the Mohave Desert I remember
driving to Los Angeles and as you came over the crests of the
mountains and looked out over the L.A. Basin it was covered with a
dense cloud. As you descended into the cloud you found your eyes
watering and the air smelled "bad".

This was the case for thousands of years before you were at Edwards. The first Spaniards to see it called LA "the Bay of Smokes", referring to the same pollution problem that always existed in the LA basin.

Shush Doug. As Frank and Pete say - the truth doesn't matter.

Most especially to those with the liberal turn of mind. There is a recent study outlined in the October 24 issue of Nature Neuroscience that show diminished brain reaction in regards to lying. Starting with little white lies the brain becomes increasingly immune to the normal moral reactions until it has no more control and the lies grow to the point where even the liar can't tell he's lying. This is what has happened to the liberals who have taken over the Democrat Party. They simple make up almost the entire world around themselves and don't even KNOW it's nothing more than fictional.

On 12/1/2016 6:24 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 12:31:17 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/30/2016 1:55 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 8:57:52 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

sigh They found caches of poorly decommissioned chemical weapon
shells, ones that were probably sold to Saddam by Americans for his war
against Iran.

They found NO active WMDs, nor any active WMD programs. If they had,
the Bush administration would have had news conferences going 24/7,
trying to somehow show that invading Iraq was not the most brainless,
disastrous mistake America made in the past 50 years.

Not that truth matters any more.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank - why you must be a chemist. Americans indeed. Can you explain why Bill Clinton was bombing Iraq in 1998? http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/...ns-fast-facts/

From that page: "October 6, 2004 - The final Iraq Survey Group report
is released. The report concludes that Saddam Hussein did not possess
weapons of mass destruction."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...l-weapons.html

From that page: "Then, during the long occupation, American troops
began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside
bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter
rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into
production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty
or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as
chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still
contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have
been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical
agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the
majority of them."

Is NBC on your "fakenews" list? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/n.../#.WECvxvkrI2w

As is made clear in that article, the yellowcake (which is about as
harmful as lead) was being snuck out so Iranian-linked groups wouldn't
have a chance to steal it. Iran did have a program that could refine the
stuff; Saddam did not.

Maybe the New York Times is on your fakenews lists?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...n-secrets.html

From that site: "During the Iraq war, at least 17 American service
members and seven Iraqi police officers were exposed to aging chemical
weapons abandoned years earlier. These weapons were NOT part of an
active arsenal." [Emphasis mine.]

(I think it's time to stop reading links you give. There have been too
many times they prove the opposite of what you claim!)

The initial rationale for invading Iraq was that Saddam could launch a
WMD very, very soon, at either Israel or perhaps at the U.S. The
articles you linked made it very clear that such was NOT the case.

Personally, I suspect that Saddam was reluctant to give absolute proof
of a lack of WMDs because he feared a hostile Iran. But the invasion
found nothing he could have actually used, and after the fact, Bush and
Cheney started trying to justify the invasion based on things like human
rights - as if we haven't supported far worse dictatorships for
generations. (Care to discuss human rights in Saudi Arabia?)

Soldiers found obsolete, corroding stuff, and yes, some guys got hurt by
it; but they did NOT find the mythical WMD program that rationalized the
stupidest move the U.S. made in over 50 years.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/1/2016 6:36 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 2:55:37 PM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
Are traffic fumes the only fumes that relate to these deaths? Or is it
a more a matter of "unclean air" with fumes coming from anywhere - the
local soft coal fired electrical plant, for example?
Before that, from teepees.

When I was stationed at Edwards AFB, in the Mohave Desert I remember
driving to Los Angeles and as you came over the crests of the
mountains and looked out over the L.A. Basin it was covered with a
dense cloud. As you descended into the cloud you found your eyes
watering and the air smelled "bad".

This was the case for thousands of years before you were at Edwards. The first Spaniards to see it called LA "the Bay of Smokes", referring to the same pollution problem that always existed in the LA basin.

Shush Doug. As Frank and Pete say - the truth doesn't matter.

Are you saying it never got worse than back in the 1600s?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:55:20 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/1/2016 6:36 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 2:55:37 PM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
Are traffic fumes the only fumes that relate to these deaths? Or is it
a more a matter of "unclean air" with fumes coming from anywhere - the
local soft coal fired electrical plant, for example?
Before that, from teepees.

When I was stationed at Edwards AFB, in the Mohave Desert I remember
driving to Los Angeles and as you came over the crests of the
mountains and looked out over the L.A. Basin it was covered with a
dense cloud. As you descended into the cloud you found your eyes
watering and the air smelled "bad".

This was the case for thousands of years before you were at Edwards. The first Spaniards to see it called LA "the Bay of Smokes", referring to the same pollution problem that always existed in the LA basin.

Shush Doug. As Frank and Pete say - the truth doesn't matter.

Are you saying it never got worse than back in the 1600s?

Frank, you can clearly see that I did not say that. However, I wouldn't be a bit surprised, because:
1. Around here (silicon valley) they say (or did until 5-10 yrs ago) that wood fires are responsible for 20% of the air pollution on winter days. But who has wood fires? Nobody around here heats their home that way; wood fires are for fun only. Except for a few homes in the surrounding hills as even most of them use propane. So a teeny little bit of woodburning is as bad as 1/5 of the population, industry, and vehicles of silicon valley.
2. The nature of the LA Basin is that smog accumulates. So why would it not reach the same levels, if there is a reasonable period between cleansing winds? If such winds cleanse the basin every 60 days, and it takes modern LA 3 to get to the point where the basin is full of smog and spills out south thru orange county, and in 1600 it took 30 days to get to that point, then the volume of smog was not as bad for 27 days, but the nature of it was worse, it being wood smoke not auto exhaust.

http://burningissues.org/car-www/med...cer/PAHcon.htm

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 6:24:33 PM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:55:20 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/1/2016 6:36 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 2:55:37 PM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
Are traffic fumes the only fumes that relate to these deaths? Or is it
a more a matter of "unclean air" with fumes coming from anywhere - the
local soft coal fired electrical plant, for example?
Before that, from teepees.

When I was stationed at Edwards AFB, in the Mohave Desert I remember
driving to Los Angeles and as you came over the crests of the
mountains and looked out over the L.A. Basin it was covered with a
dense cloud. As you descended into the cloud you found your eyes
watering and the air smelled "bad".

This was the case for thousands of years before you were at Edwards. The first Spaniards to see it called LA "the Bay of Smokes", referring to the same pollution problem that always existed in the LA basin.

Shush Doug. As Frank and Pete say - the truth doesn't matter.

Are you saying it never got worse than back in the 1600s?

Frank, you can clearly see that I did not say that. However, I wouldn't be a bit surprised, because:
1. Around here (silicon valley) they say (or did until 5-10 yrs ago) that wood fires are responsible for 20% of the air pollution on winter days. But who has wood fires? Nobody around here heats their home that way; wood fires are for fun only. Except for a few homes in the surrounding hills as even most of them use propane. So a teeny little bit of woodburning is as bad as 1/5 of the population, industry, and vehicles of silicon valley.
2. The nature of the LA Basin is that smog accumulates. So why would it not reach the same levels, if there is a reasonable period between cleansing winds? If such winds cleanse the basin every 60 days, and it takes modern LA 3 to get to the point where the basin is full of smog and spills out south thru orange county, and in 1600 it took 30 days to get to that point, then the volume of smog was not as bad for 27 days, but the nature of it was worse, it being wood smoke not auto exhaust.

http://burningissues.org/car-www/med...cer/PAHcon.htm

BTW, Costco puts the native population of California in 1600 at 10X the traditional estimates.

https://www.amazon.com/Missions-Cali.../dp/0317645390

On 12/1/2016 9:24 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:55:20 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/1/2016 6:36 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 2:55:37 PM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
Are traffic fumes the only fumes that relate to these deaths? Or is it
a more a matter of "unclean air" with fumes coming from anywhere - the
local soft coal fired electrical plant, for example?
Before that, from teepees.

When I was stationed at Edwards AFB, in the Mohave Desert I remember
driving to Los Angeles and as you came over the crests of the
mountains and looked out over the L.A. Basin it was covered with a
dense cloud. As you descended into the cloud you found your eyes
watering and the air smelled "bad".

This was the case for thousands of years before you were at Edwards. The first Spaniards to see it called LA "the Bay of Smokes", referring to the same pollution problem that always existed in the LA basin.

Shush Doug. As Frank and Pete say - the truth doesn't matter.

Are you saying it never got worse than back in the 1600s?

Frank, you can clearly see that I did not say that. However, I wouldn't be a bit surprised, because:
1. Around here (silicon valley) they say (or did until 5-10 yrs ago) that wood fires are responsible for 20% of the air pollution on winter days. But who has wood fires? Nobody around here heats their home that way; wood fires are for fun only. Except for a few homes in the surrounding hills as even most of them use propane. So a teeny little bit of woodburning is as bad as 1/5 of the population, industry, and vehicles of silicon valley.
2. The nature of the LA Basin is that smog accumulates. So why would it not reach the same levels, if there is a reasonable period between cleansing winds? If such winds cleanse the basin every 60 days, and it takes modern LA 3 to get to the point where the basin is full of smog and spills out south thru orange county, and in 1600 it took 30 days to get to that point, then the volume of smog was not as bad for 27 days, but the nature of it was worse, it being wood smoke not auto exhaust.

http://burningissues.org/car-www/med...cer/PAHcon.htm

FWIW, I'm not questioning what you said about the geography trapping
fumes. But Phil Lee gave data (from Britain) about deaths caused by car
exhaust. You can say that the L.A. Basin always trapped pollutants, but
that doesn't exonerate car exhaust.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 8:55:46 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/1/2016 9:24 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:55:20 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/1/2016 6:36 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 2:55:37 PM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
Are traffic fumes the only fumes that relate to these deaths? Or is it
a more a matter of "unclean air" with fumes coming from anywhere - the
local soft coal fired electrical plant, for example?
Before that, from teepees.

When I was stationed at Edwards AFB, in the Mohave Desert I remember
driving to Los Angeles and as you came over the crests of the
mountains and looked out over the L.A. Basin it was covered with a
dense cloud. As you descended into the cloud you found your eyes
watering and the air smelled "bad".

This was the case for thousands of years before you were at Edwards. The first Spaniards to see it called LA "the Bay of Smokes", referring to the same pollution problem that always existed in the LA basin.

Shush Doug. As Frank and Pete say - the truth doesn't matter.

Are you saying it never got worse than back in the 1600s?

Frank, you can clearly see that I did not say that. However, I wouldn't be a bit surprised, because:
1. Around here (silicon valley) they say (or did until 5-10 yrs ago) that wood fires are responsible for 20% of the air pollution on winter days. But who has wood fires? Nobody around here heats their home that way; wood fires are for fun only. Except for a few homes in the surrounding hills as even most of them use propane. So a teeny little bit of woodburning is as bad as 1/5 of the population, industry, and vehicles of silicon valley.
2. The nature of the LA Basin is that smog accumulates. So why would it not reach the same levels, if there is a reasonable period between cleansing winds? If such winds cleanse the basin every 60 days, and it takes modern LA 3 to get to the point where the basin is full of smog and spills out south thru orange county, and in 1600 it took 30 days to get to that point, then the volume of smog was not as bad for 27 days, but the nature of it was worse, it being wood smoke not auto exhaust.

http://burningissues.org/car-www/med...cer/PAHcon.htm

FWIW, I'm not questioning what you said about the geography trapping
fumes. But Phil Lee gave data (from Britain) about deaths caused by car
exhaust. You can say that the L.A. Basin always trapped pollutants, but
that doesn't exonerate car exhaust.

Phil's data, after being normalized, applied to dung smoke before it applied to automobile exhaust, whether he thought to sufficiently generalize his statement or not.

On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 18:24:31 -0800 (PST), Doug Landau
wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:55:20 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/1/2016 6:36 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 2:55:37 PM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
Are traffic fumes the only fumes that relate to these deaths? Or is it
a more a matter of "unclean air" with fumes coming from anywhere - the
local soft coal fired electrical plant, for example?
Before that, from teepees.

When I was stationed at Edwards AFB, in the Mohave Desert I remember
driving to Los Angeles and as you came over the crests of the
mountains and looked out over the L.A. Basin it was covered with a
dense cloud. As you descended into the cloud you found your eyes
watering and the air smelled "bad".

This was the case for thousands of years before you were at Edwards. The first Spaniards to see it called LA "the Bay of Smokes", referring to the same pollution problem that always existed in the LA basin.

Shush Doug. As Frank and Pete say - the truth doesn't matter.

Are you saying it never got worse than back in the 1600s?

Frank, you can clearly see that I did not say that. However, I wouldn't be a bit surprised, because:
1. Around here (silicon valley) they say (or did until 5-10 yrs ago) that wood fires are responsible for 20% of the air pollution on winter days. But who has wood fires? Nobody around here heats their home that way; wood fires are for fun only. Except for a few homes in the surrounding hills as even most of them use propane. So a teeny little bit of woodburning is as bad as 1/5 of the population, industry, and vehicles of silicon valley.
2. The nature of the LA Basin is that smog accumulates. So why would it not reach the same levels, if there is a reasonable period between cleansing winds? If such winds cleanse the basin every 60 days, and it takes modern LA 3 to get to the point where the basin is full of smog and spills out south thru orange county, and in 1600 it took 30 days to get to that point, then the volume of smog was not as bad for 27 days, but the nature of it was worse, it being wood smoke not auto exhaust.

http://burningissues.org/car-www/med...cer/PAHcon.htm

Actually a quick search showed the following from a book by Paula A.
Scott titled "Santa Monica, A History on the Edge":

"The next day Cabrillo's ships continued to explore the coastline
stopping in a shelter bay that they named the "Bay of Smokes," perhaps
because of smoke rising from Indian fires on the mainland. some have
conjectured that this was Santa Monica Bay, while others think that
this was Santa Monica Bay."

This would have been during Cabrillo's voyage of 1542.
--
cheers,

John B.

Per Frank Krygowski:
Personally, I suspect that Saddam was reluctant to give absolute proof
of a lack of WMDs because he feared a hostile Iran.

I've heard several pundits who seemed to know their stuff say
essentially the same thing - only upping it somewhat to suggest that he
actually tried to give the impression of having WMDs....for the reason
stated.
--
Pete Cresswell