It's happening! Um... sort of.

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:22:49 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2014 11:47 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Monday, May 26, 2014 6:19:16 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

It sounds easy to understand. But I think most people don't understand
it. Most cyclists won't leave a bike lane to avoid door zones. Many
think the stripe somehow protects them from right hooks. Many motorists
think bikes don't matter at all, so bike lane equals parking lane. Many
traffic design staffers don't understand that bikes are often much safer
away from the road edge.

Sounds like education gets an 'F'.

Oh please. Education has seldom been tried.

So you tell me - what grade do you get for not even showing up?

Most bicycle advocates
don't know much about riding in traffic, because they think it's too
dangerous to try unless they have bike lanes or cycle tracks. In other
words, they don't realize how little they know. So they advocate for
bike lanes and cycle tracks; they almost never advocate for education.

Where's their education?

As a test, Dan, what education have _you_ gotten on riding your bike?

What are we testing?

I'm betting it's been ONLY your self-vaunted "I learn by experience."

How much? Put up.

This is, in part, why education is needed, even if there is a magic
stripe on the road.

Well, it *would* be, if the stripe weren't magic ;-)

No, education *is* needed (for some riders - maybe most - should
be accessible to all). Which begs the question, if education is
feasible, why not have some bike lanes? Is it really just for
the street sweeper action of sharing space with car traffic?

Regarding education and bike lanes (and cycle tracks): I'm a member of
several forums regarding bike education. Those are connected with my
having taken and taught cycling classes. Many cycling educators agree
that things like bike lanes and cycle tracks increase the difficulty of
education. Why? Partly because they add unexpected complexity to road
interactions, e.g. popping cyclists into intersections in unexpected
road positions. Partly because they sometimes actively guide cyclists
into hazards, like right-hook zones or door zones.

So it's too hard for you guys, then? 'Cause there's a need.
Where's the education?

In this way, many facilities work in direct opposition to the "8 to 80"
principle espoused by their advocates, who expect anyone should be able
to mindlessly bumble down the road, unthinkingly following stripes and
green paint.

You know very well that I do not recommend mindless, unthinking
bumbling as a general approach (nor, I think, do they).

Interesting you should mention that in the context of the need
for education *with* bike lanes. I've already mentioned how
the evolved bike lane design teaches riders to move away from
right-hook situations; and how in Portland the downhill bike
lanes leading to bike boxes were modified to include a warning
about right turning traffic in the bike lane. Both are examples
of education that is universally accessible and applicable.

Both are really examples of Portland designers finally realizing they've
been screwing up for years, and patching in kludges to try to correct
their mistakes, rather than re-examining the concepts that generated the
screw-ups.

You whine about people being unaware of the right-hook hazard,
but you don't appreciate pavement markings that advise them
of this hazard? This is education in action, concepts they can
take with them everywhere - to straight-thru bike lanes and
ordinary roads with no paint and not an Effective Cycling
Instructor in sight (since it seems they're off commiserating
each other on some forum).

And you seem unable to understand this, but _right now_ there are brand
new, fresh bike facilities being put in place in many cities that
contain the same old mistakes.

I think some of what you call "mistakes" are really tradeoffs;
but I not only understand stupid facilities are being built, I
expect that to continue - just hopefully they will be getting
better on the whole, and ideally getting better throughout.

They will never be without tradeoffs that some people with
all-or-nothing, black-and-white thinking can call "mistakes".

There are many more that have been in
place for a long time and are not being corrected.

And the solution is... (?)

Part of the problem, I think, is that we have know-nothing advocates
lobbying hard for certain facilities, and know-nothing traffic staff who
have never ridden a bicycle responding to the ignorant pleas.

Where are the know-somethings?

(As I've mentioned before, I have a friend in a major American city who
is trying hard to argue against the local bike advocacy organization,
which is calling for bike lanes on EVERY street, in the door zone if
necessary.)

Do you really think they're going to get bike lanes on every
street? Maybe the local advocacy organization is bidding for
the sun, moon and stars knowing this is what they have to do
to get a sliver of the moon (?)

Is it really that hard to argue against DZBL's? Is it the end
of the world if some DZBL's are implemented? (Commence hand
wringing.) Where is education? If bicyclists know to leave
the DZBL, there will be complaints about them being out in the
lane - maybe even a few in court with obvious good reason for
leaving the DZBL. Does this not "educate" the authority that
installed the DZBL that DZBL's are a mistake?

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:27:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2014 3:12 AM, Dan O wrote:

I often see people riding in the bike lane on a road that
really sucks, when I know of a *much* more pleasant (and
sometimes faster) route a block or two over. But they
either don't know about it, or maybe they *are* just
transportation bicyclists and haven't made the leap to
the joy of it ;-)

So what are you doing about it?

Using it to illustrate my point about bike lanes.

In our bike club, some of us transportational cyclists realized the same
thing, that we were aware of streets others didn't know about - pleasant
streets that formed a useful network for transportation.

My awareness of this is no secret knowledge. An interesting
way of putting it is that I *know* that there's much I don't
know (yet). So I know routes that _I_ think are better, and
I will share this with others, but there's not much point in
that unless they have the curious nature to keep exploring
for _even better_ routes, which they'll find anyway without
my help if they do (have that nature).

I'm even willing to "teach them to fish" when the opportunity
presents, but I'm not going to...

We worked with first the city government, then the metro planning
organization, and helped them produce maps showing recommended streets
for riding across our metro area. The same thing has happened in many
other metro areas.

Masturbation.

Take some time away from your drunken wheelies and get something done.

You are a bitter man.

On 5/27/2014 3:41 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:22:49 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2014 11:47 PM, Dan O wrote:

Sounds like education gets an 'F'.

Oh please. Education has seldom been tried.

So you tell me - what grade do you get for not even showing up?

I have shown up.

Most bicycle advocates
don't know much about riding in traffic, because they think it's too
dangerous to try unless they have bike lanes or cycle tracks. In other
words, they don't realize how little they know. So they advocate for
bike lanes and cycle tracks; they almost never advocate for education.

Where's their education?

They haven't gotten any, and that's the point. Like certain posters
here, they assume that they know all they ever need to know about
riding, about facility design, about education, etc. They assume they
don't need to learn anything before they begin lobbying for the first
thing that comes into their mind.

Actually, some "cycling advocates" are worse. When they encounter
someone who has taken the trouble to attend courses, read books, study
design manuals, learn riding techniques etc. they demean those people,
or claim that what they've learned cannot possibly apply to others. I
think there are not many other fields of study where that's the case -
where, in effect, ignorance is prized, and study and learning are condemned.


As a test, Dan, what education have _you_ gotten on riding your bike?
I'm betting it's been ONLY your self-vaunted "I learn by experience."

How much? Put up.

Sorry, on second thought, I'd better not bet without an impartial
referee, plus some solid documentation to provide proof. But feel free
to tell us about the cycling classes you've completed. And explain
again about how much of _Effective Cycling_ you've read. Or
_Cyclecraft_. Or whatever you've used to learn competent riding. Tell
us about the times you actually _did_ show up for education. And tell
us, please, how it's affected your road behavior.


Regarding education and bike lanes (and cycle tracks): I'm a member of
several forums regarding bike education. Those are connected with my
having taken and taught cycling classes. Many cycling educators agree
that things like bike lanes and cycle tracks increase the difficulty of
education. Why? Partly because they add unexpected complexity to road
interactions, e.g. popping cyclists into intersections in unexpected
road positions. Partly because they sometimes actively guide cyclists
into hazards, like right-hook zones or door zones.

So it's too hard for you guys, then? 'Cause there's a need.
Where's the education?

It's happening. I'm due to be interviewed again tomorrow, which will be
the third time this year. Our club is distributing 2000 pamphlets
(given away with all bikes sold in LBSs). I know others who are doing
similar things. Yes, we need more; but our problem is people who are
absolutely convinced they know all that anyone needs to know.


(As I've mentioned before, I have a friend in a major American city who
is trying hard to argue against the local bike advocacy organization,
which is calling for bike lanes on EVERY street, in the door zone if
necessary.)

Do you really think they're going to get bike lanes on every
street?

I think it's highly likely that they'll browbeat some city officials
into putting in some door zone bike lanes, perhaps many.

Is it really that hard to argue against DZBL's? Is it the end
of the world if some DZBL's are implemented?

It's hard to argue against DZBLs when people who should know better say
"Is it the end of the world if DZBLs are implemented?"

There was an incident perhaps 18 months ago (I forget the exact date)
when someone at LAB sent a white paper to the League Certified Cycling
Instructor discussion group, essentially saying that DZBLs weren't very
bad. Most of those instructors were incredulous and outraged. LAB
seemed to retract that view. But LAB still gives positive points in its
"Bike Friendly" evaluations to a city if it installs DZBLs. A more
appropriate response would be to blackball that city until they are
removed.

So yes, it is hard to argue against them. But of course, you wouldn't
know that.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/27/2014 4:00 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:27:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2014 3:12 AM, Dan O wrote:

I often see people riding in the bike lane on a road that
really sucks, when I know of a *much* more pleasant (and
sometimes faster) route a block or two over. But they
either don't know about it, or maybe they *are* just
transportation bicyclists and haven't made the leap to
the joy of it ;-)

So what are you doing about it?

Using it to illustrate my point about bike lanes.

In our bike club, some of us transportational cyclists realized the same
thing, that we were aware of streets others didn't know about - pleasant
streets that formed a useful network for transportation.

My awareness of this is no secret knowledge. An interesting
way of putting it is that I *know* that there's much I don't
know (yet). So I know routes that _I_ think are better, and
I will share this with others...

When? How?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 3:57:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2014 4:00 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:27:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2014 3:12 AM, Dan O wrote:

I often see people riding in the bike lane on a road that
really sucks, when I know of a *much* more pleasant (and
sometimes faster) route a block or two over. But they
either don't know about it, or maybe they *are* just
transportation bicyclists and haven't made the leap to
the joy of it ;-)

So what are you doing about it?

Using it to illustrate my point about bike lanes.

In our bike club, some of us transportational cyclists realized the same
thing, that we were aware of streets others didn't know about - pleasant
streets that formed a useful network for transportation.

My awareness of this is no secret knowledge. An interesting
way of putting it is that I *know* that there's much I don't
know (yet). So I know routes that _I_ think are better, and
I will share this with others...

When? How?

Mostly just when the opportunity arises (e.g. at a stoplight,
at the water cooler, etc.), but for a published example, see
the comments section of:

http://btaoregon.org/2009/03/alice-a...-janet-taylor/

(Notice how I don't just give directions, but "teach them to
fish".)

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 3:56:32 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2014 3:41 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:22:49 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/26/2014 11:47 PM, Dan O wrote:

Sounds like education gets an 'F'.

Oh please. Education has seldom been tried.

So you tell me - what grade do you get for not even showing up?

I have shown up.

.... FWIW.

Round and round and round we go...

"But I think most people don't understand
it. Most cyclists won't leave a bike lane to avoid door zones. Many
think the stripe somehow protects them from right hooks. Many motorists
think bikes don't matter at all, so bike lane equals parking lane. Many
traffic design staffers don't understand that bikes are often much safer
away from the road edge."

Most bicycle advocates
don't know much about riding in traffic, because they think it's too
dangerous to try unless they have bike lanes or cycle tracks. In other
words, they don't realize how little they know. So they advocate for
bike lanes and cycle tracks; they almost never advocate for education.

Where's their education?

They haven't gotten any, and that's the point. Like certain posters
here, they assume that they know all they ever need to know about
riding, about facility design, about education, etc. They assume they
don't need to learn anything before they begin lobbying for the first
thing that comes into their mind.

This is "most bicycle advocates", but education isn't a failure (?)

Actually, some "cycling advocates" are worse. When they encounter
someone who has taken the trouble to attend courses, read books, study
design manuals, learn riding techniques etc. they demean those people,
or claim that what they've learned cannot possibly apply to others.

(Perhaps "they" say, instead, that it does not *necessarily*
apply to others (?)

I
think there are not many other fields of study where that's the case -
where, in effect, ignorance is prized, and study and learning are condemned.

Hmmm... what is special about bicycling, then? Is it that it's
not elitist enough?

As a test, Dan, what education have _you_ gotten on riding your bike?
I'm betting it's been ONLY your self-vaunted "I learn by experience."

How much? Put up.

Sorry, on second thought, I'd better not bet without an impartial
referee, plus some solid documentation to provide proof. But feel free
to tell us about the cycling classes you've completed. And explain
again about how much of _Effective Cycling_ you've read. Or
_Cyclecraft_. Or whatever you've used to learn competent riding. Tell
us about the times you actually _did_ show up for education. And tell
us, please, how it's affected your road behavior.

You said you're betting. Put up or shut up. (You'll lose that
bet, BTW - big time.)

Regarding education and bike lanes (and cycle tracks): I'm a member of
several forums regarding bike education. Those are connected with my
having taken and taught cycling classes. Many cycling educators agree
that things like bike lanes and cycle tracks increase the difficulty of
education. Why? Partly because they add unexpected complexity to road
interactions, e.g. popping cyclists into intersections in unexpected
road positions. Partly because they sometimes actively guide cyclists
into hazards, like right-hook zones or door zones.

So it's too hard for you guys, then? 'Cause there's a need.
Where's the education?

It's happening. I'm due to be interviewed again tomorrow, which will be
the third time this year. Our club is distributing 2000 pamphlets
(given away with all bikes sold in LBSs). I know others who are doing
similar things. Yes, we need more; but our problem is people who are
absolutely convinced they know all that anyone needs to know.

You're a highly experienced educator; what's the approach to
that particular problem?

Try not to lose sight of the fact that I am *endorsing* the
value of education as _practically essential_ in this.

Now, with education in mind, look at the subject of this
thread. How's that going, BTW?

(As I've mentioned before, I have a friend in a major American city who
is trying hard to argue against the local bike advocacy organization,
which is calling for bike lanes on EVERY street, in the door zone if
necessary.)

Do you really think they're going to get bike lanes on every
street?

I think it's highly likely that they'll browbeat some city officials
into putting in some door zone bike lanes, perhaps many.

That would be pretty stupid; but then, you seem to think "most
people" are very stupid.

Is it really that hard to argue against DZBL's? Is it the end
of the world if some DZBL's are implemented?

It's hard to argue against DZBLs when people who should know better say
"Is it the end of the world if DZBLs are implemented?"

Really? Is that a hard question? (You've paraphrased it, BTW).
Seems like pitching a meatball (granted, with some profound spin
in "the end of the world" part).

There was an incident perhaps 18 months ago (I forget the exact date)
when someone at LAB sent a white paper to the League Certified Cycling
Instructor discussion group, essentially saying that DZBLs weren't very
bad. Most of those instructors were incredulous and outraged. LAB
seemed to retract that view. But LAB still gives positive points in its
"Bike Friendly" evaluations to a city if it installs DZBLs. A more
appropriate response would be to blackball that city until they are
removed.

**** the LAB. (There. Are we compadres now? ;-)

So yes, it is hard to argue against them. But of course, you wouldn't
know that.

Well, it's true that I haven't any experience arguing against
them... except here, where it's just an academic exercise,
_because *everybody* is already against them_. It seems,
though, like you'd just say, "Bad idea", then show some video
of doorings.

Phil W Lee writes:

John B. considered Mon, 26 May 2014
08:31:46 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 May 2014 15:09:53 -0400, Radey wrote:

John B. writes:

On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip

We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
theirs.

Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?

Your all-or-nothing response misses (sidesteps?) the point.

snip

What is the point then. I doubt that I use any more fossil fuel than
my grandfather did.

I'll be the food you eat, even in Thailand, was grown and transported
with a lot more fossil fuel than your grandfather's was.

True enough. It used to be buffalo carts but that died out when an
easier method came along. And it damnedly hard to grow stuff in
Bangkok although my wife does raise some spices in pots.

But of course the buffalo are ruminates and this emit methane so cut
20 buffalo out of the equation and add one 40 ton truck :-)

That only works if you are still only transporting the goods the same
distance, instead of tens or hundreds of times as far, as is actually
the case.

John points out the fossil fuels invested in tilling, sowing,
harvesting, and general work (moving something from where it is
to where you need it) about the farm. Phil notices the fuel used to
transport farm products from here to there, work that got a bit of a
boost from coal powered trains, and really took off in our oil age.

There is another way fossil fuel fills our bowls -- a hundred years or
so there was a world market in nitrates mined from fossil guano
deposits. These were used as fertilizer and industrial feedstocks,
mostly for munitions. Thanks to Fritz Haber, we now use vastly more
"fixed" nitrogen converted from the atmosphere, which is as close to a
limitless supply as anyone could imagine. All that need be added is
hydrogen and energy, both supplied today by natural gas.

(Would that there were such a reservoir of phosphorus.)

A clever person who wanted to reduce fossil fuel use could do worse than
to demonstrate a solar powered ammonia plant, because we'll have quite a
hard time learning to do without ammonia. I imagine it would have to
work on a "make hay as the sun shines" basis, meaning that much larger
equipment would have to be used for the same yearly yield as a fossil
fueled plant. Which is why living without fossil fuel is so much harder
than it appears; you need more investment in equipment than might first
be imagined.

Making that equipment without fossil fuels would be quite a neat trick:
The day I see a wind farm or solar field being built, installed, and
maintained only with energy derived from sun or wind is the day I'll
believe in fossil-free industrial production.
--

On Tue, 27 May 2014 01:39:34 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 25 May 2014
22:51:30 -0400 the perfect time to write:

On 5/25/2014 4:20 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've wondered a bit about the commercial airplane effect. It seems to
me that the incremental effect of one passenger is negligible. IOW, if
one person chooses not to buy a ticket, the plane will fly anyway with
one more empty seat (assuming all else is equal). The fuel saving would
seem to be negligible.

Actually, air travel is one area where empty seats do save a
considerable amount of fuel - far more than is the case with
ground-based transport.

Explain, please. It looks like 750,000 pounds is a reasonable value for
a large airliner's total weight. One potential passenger who stayed
home reduces that by far less than 0.1%. How much fuel is actually saved?

On a long-haul flight (taking a transatlantic flight as typical
"long-haul), about twice the weight of the passenger and their luggage
will be saved in fuel. It used to be more (about 25% more in a 747),
but modern aircraft are slightly more fuel efficient.
It varies rather, depending on aircraft type, load factor (the first
few passengers don't cost as much in fuel as the last few, for
example, as fuel consumption graphs curve upwards more steeply with
increased weight*, rather than being a straight line), cruising
altitude, and even where on the aircraft the passengers are (or would
have been) loaded, but it's a fair approximation of the average
saving.

So if we take as an average a passenger + baggage weight of 100Kg
probably a touch conservative, these days), the average fuel cost on a
transatlantic light is going to be in the region of 248.75 litres,
based on Jet A1 having a density of 0.804kg/L.

You may think that's insignificant - but it would keep my car in fuel
for a couple of years.

*This steepening upward curve kicks up heavily at high load factors,
so much so that it nearly caught out the first "Black Buck" raid by a
lone Vulcan during the Falklands war - since in-flight refueling had
only just been restored to the aircraft, the fuel burn/load graphs
hadn't been updated to take account of any gross aircraft weight
greater than maximum take-off weight minus climb-out fuel burn, which
is much less that the maximum flyable weight of an aircraft with a
full payload and full fuel tanks (operational flexibility is taken
into account at the design stage, meaning you can trade payload
against fuel load as necessary). They were literally off the end of
the graph after each tanking, and although they tried to estimate it,
they fell short by about the capacity of a whole Victor tanker - and
that was just the difference between an educated guess (by experienced
Vulcan pilots, in-flight refueling specialists, and flight engineers)
and the reality.
As a result, the records for both the heaviest and lightest airborne
weights of a Vulcan ever recorded were on that same flight, the
heaviest just after tanking each time on the way out, and the lightest
just as they were preparing to ditch when the recovery Victor tanker
rolled out of it's joining turn just ahead of them - it really was
that close ("nothing on the gauge but the makers name" springs to
mind), and even the "long shot" Victor that gave them their final
tanking before run-in to the target gave them fuel they needed
themselves, and had to be recovered by another tanker which was
scrambled to meet them (thanks to some quick thinking, tank dipping,
and back-of-an-envelope calculations on the returning fleet of Victor
tankers back at Ascension Island).
All complicated by the need to maintain radio silence, of course.

While I don't doubt your story it seems almost unbelievable.
Apparently the U.S. was taking all that into consideration long before
the British discovered it as the B-52's used a system of reduced fuel
loads for take off, to allow for heavy bomb loads, coupled with
refueling almost as soon as they reached altitude in 1972, to my
knowledge, and probably as far back as the B-47 days.

--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Tue, 27 May 2014 01:46:15 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Mon, 26 May 2014
07:23:09 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 May 2014 14:49:51 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

John B. wrote:
:On Sun, 25 May 2014 01:18:06 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

:John B. wrote:
::On Fri, 23 May 2014 19:35:06 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
::wrote:
:
::On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:16:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
:: On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
:: wrote:
:: On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
:: On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
::
:: We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
:: ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
:: And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
:: about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
:: carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
:: theirs.
::
:: Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?
::
:: Your all-or-nothing response misses (sidesteps?) the point.
::
:: What is the point then. I doubt that I use any more fossil fuel than
:: my grandfather did.
::
::The point is: "We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use" (i.e.
::using progressively *less* our grandparents did).
:
::I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't
::the amount of fossil fuel an individual uses it is the number of
::individuals that are using the fossil fuel.
:
::As I said, I'm not using any more fossil fuel than my grandfather.
:
:You said that, I don't believe you.

:Why ever not?

How many times you flown in a jet airplane? How much of your stuff
crosses an ocean to get to you? how much plastic do you have? Per
capita fossil fuel use is rising.

Yes, it probably is. But I might mention that flying on a scheduled
flight does not add to the amount of fossil fuel burned as the flight
is going with or without me.

Yes it does, by rather a lot.
Less if you are a "no show", because the fuel to carry you will have
already been uplifted (and that is even more than your own weight and
that of your baggage), but still significant, even if you just don't
show up.

I'm not so sure. To the best of my knowledge the airlines use a
"standard human" for weight and balance calculations, which is (I
believe 170 lbs) so passenger weights are not exact. I'm not sure
about passenger baggage but I would guess that it is done the same
way.

Although what you are saying is certainly how it is done, I'm not so
surer that results are as exact as you say it is.

Back in the Korean war days Operations used to hand out a fuel load
depending on winds aloft, bomb load, distance and (perhaps) the phase
of the moon. The crews did their pre-flight and then returned to Ops
for a final briefing and it was not unusual for the Aircraft Commander
to say something like, "My wife just had a baby - stick another 200
gallons in the center wing tank". Something like 1,400 lbs more fuel
didn't seem to bother them :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Tue, 27 May 2014 02:06:05 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Mon, 26 May 2014
08:23:45 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 May 2014 21:39:15 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sun, 25 May 2014
13:23:57 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 24 May 2014 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Saturday, May 24, 2014 3:43:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2014 19:35:06 -0700 (PDT), Dan O wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:16:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:

sniped

The point was to enforce my thesis that anything concrete done about
global warming that effects the electorate is going to be political
suicide. At least for a U.S. politician.

I guess that's the problem of having so much reliance on political
campaigns funded by hydrocarbon related industries.

It isn't just energy related contributions. It is corn farmers, the
cotton growers, the sugar producers, the defense companies, everyone
gets in the act.

But after all, we are just emulating our once colonial masters with
their "rotten boroughs" :-)

more snipped


Dancing around and waving hands in the air isn't going to accomplish
anything.

China emits about 26.4% of the world's CO2 production. If the U.S.
refused to buy Chinese goods it would probably decrease that figure by
30 - 40% (we are their 2nd largest trading partner).
Think it will ever happen?

Could easily tariff the trade to cover the cost of mitigating the
carbon use.

Do you mean that a tariff will reduce the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere? Or just to make it more palatable?
"Yes, yes, we know that those dirty Chinese are mucking up the
atmosphere but we are punishing them by putting a tariff on their
goods sold here"

If it raises the price to be higher than that of goods made using low
or zero carbon methods, then people will buy those instead.
Or the Chinese will adopt the low/zero carbon manufacturing methods to
avoid the tariffs (although there's still the carbon cost of getting
the goods from manufacturer to end user, which would of course have to
be subject to the same tariffs).

I wonder whether a tariff on Chinese goods would have any effect on
the amount of U.S. debt the Chinese are prepared to accept. At the
present the Chinese are the third largest holder of U.S. public debt
and the largest foreign entity.

My guess is that rather then a tariff the government might be more
inclined to provide free shipping :-)


The U.S. is the second largest emitter of CO2. Can we reduce that?

Technically we can, but it would probably be political suicide for any
political party that attempted it.

It will soon reach the point where it will be political suicide NOT
to.

It will? And there is no controversy about global warming? Everyone is
a true believer and will gladly give up his gas guzzling behemoth for
a bicycle?

Face it, apart from a few oil company shills (and those gullible
enough to believe them), anthropomorphic global warming is accepted as
proven fact by the entire scientific community.

Is it only the oil companies? I have never paid much attention as the
great, unwashed, public is so intent on ignoring the whole thing that
I have very pessimistic views of the whole question.

Example:
Coca-Cola apparently has testified that they use 1.9 million metric
tons of CO2 annually.... has there been a decrease in the amount of
carbonated drinks sold recently? That volume is approximately equal to
the CO2 produced from 213,265,306 gallons (U.S.) of gasoline.

Even a casual investigation of automobile use indicates that auto use
is very much a factor of finances. Looking at any developing country
shows a very distinct association of worker's wages and internal
combustion power usage. First the sandals, then the bicycle, next the
scooter and finally the NEW CAR! In fact one doesn't have to scrabble
around in the jungle to discover that. In about 1960 I had an English
bloke, from Newcastle, working for me. He was a time served machinist
and had immigrated and said that when he went back home to see his mum
that none of the lads, down tha pub, would believe that he actually
owned a car in America.

Some 86% of U.S. homes have air conditioning (in 1973 47%), 60% cook
with electricity, 66% have a dishwasher, 81% have a clothes drier,
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?...0/HUDNo.10-138

The largest producer of CO2 is not the transportation industry it is
buildings:

In 2004, total emissions from residential
and commercial buildings were 2236
million metric tons of CO2, or 39% of
total U.S. CO2 emissions, more than
either the transportation or industry

(Transportation is 33% and Industry is 29%)

Over the next 25 years, CO2 emissions
from buildings are projected to grow
faster than any other sector, with
emissions from commercial buildings
projected to grow the fastest, 1.8% a
year through 2030
www.usgbc.org/

I see no evidence at all of a positive effort to actually reduce CO2
emissions.

(Yes, yes, I know. they sell hybrid cars, but is that really an effort
to reduce carbon emersions? Or just a method of selling more cars?)
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)