I
Neal Unger

Many of the world's great deserts were not there 2000+ years ago.
Climate change has been happening long before man arrived on this
rock. Indeed as we know there are some scientists now advocating
that more emphasis should be put on exploring the natural reasons
for climate change. Andrew Campbell.


Climate cycle is a better description. It gets warm it gets cold it
rains it does not rain. Live with it :-)

Paul Lamar

I am 61 years of age, and as a young child in grade school I
remember reading stories about kids ice skating  on the Dutch canals.
Stories of wooden skates, and kids dreaming of shiny metal ones. Our
teacher told us "that the canals no longer froze over enough to
skate anymore"! This was the early sixties.

As a young man in 70's I entered the Navy, I got to travel, and see
the world. In Europe, I found out that yes, during the 50's and 60's
the canals did dot freeze enough to skate. However, that was not the
case during the 70's, and those same canals were now freezing, and
people were skating on them.

I'm not that old. However, I believe "weather, just like sh*t
happens". My 2 cents.......

'Norm Parmley


Norm, Yes, that was when they were predicting that we were heading
into another ice age. All those scientists are making papers as a job
and the highest payer is funding them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

 Ray Hellstrom

What a great read in the Daily Mail.
Thanks for sharing!

Tom Sash

It's an El Nino Year here in California

El Ni·ño  ....   el ˈnēnyō

noun: El Niño; plural noun: El Niños


"An irregularly occurring and complex series of climatic changes affecting the equatorial Pacific region and beyond every few years, characterized by the appearance of unusually warm, nutrient-poor water off northern Peru and Ecuador, typically in late December."

It rains a lot in SoCal when that happens.  It is about time. We were running out of water for growing food and this
is the fruit and vegetable basket of the U.S.. Our water supply is restored to the point of having the highest damn in the U.S. near bursting.

"The Oroville Dam in northern California is the tallest dam in the United States, rising 770 feet high. It holds back a reservoir containing 1.1 trillion gallons of water, supplying farms and cities across the state. It’s a vital piece of infrastructure.

But over the past week, the aging dam has also became a serious threat.

On Sunday, authorities ordered some 188,000 people around Oroville to evacuate their homes over concerns that the dam’s emergency spillway could fail and an onrush of water out of the reservoir could flood nearby towns and roads. While there was no sign that the dam itself would collapse, the situation was serious enough"

Of course the Wacko environmentalist are blaming it on global warming.

BTW don't confuse air pollution with CO2. Air pollution is primarily caused by un burned hydro carbons.

Not CO2.    CO2 is good for plant growth.

To quote The War Against the Automobile

"Emissions

When Los Angeles began to notice air-pollution problems, it began to do something about them. An air-quality board was established and began to prohibit various types of polluting activities. The oil refineries were found to be a major source of pollution and were required to clean up their processes. Outside incineration of trash was also prohibited. Then L.A. began to go after the automobiles. And the L.A. and California programs have generally been followed by the rest of the country.


The first step was easy-preventing the escape of hydrocarbons from the oil in the engine's crankcase.. The fitting of positive crankcase ventilation valves (FCV) in the early 1960s accomplished this cheaply and very simply. It was also found that hydrocarbons entered the air by evaporation from gas tanks and carburetors, and evaporative controls were required in the late 1960s. These two steps alone reduced hydrocarbon emissions from automobiles by 45 percent.


Exhaust emissions have been a little tougher to control. Beginning in 1968, federal standards were mandated for automobiles, which were annoying to drivers because they cut into performance, reliability, "driveability," and economy. But by 1970 the redesigned cars were producing only 30 percent of an uncontrolled car's emissions. It wasn't velY difficult to cut emissions once the problem was recognized. Remember that for seventy years automobile engines have been designed to maximize easy starting, perfOlmance, fuel economy, reliability, and smoothness, and to minimize weight and cost.


Recognizing emissions as a new parameter merely complicated the design a little bit more.
It took a while for the engineers to learn how to deal with emissions, but they have done so pretty well.
In 1970 the Congress (which I believe does not include any engineers) responded to environmental agitation by passing the Clean Air Act, which required that by 1976, auto emissions be reduced to 10 percent of existing levels. That doesn't sound very difficult, does it? The trouble was that Congress didn't require the reduction of the level of emissions to 10 percent of uncontrolled cars, but to 10 percent of 1970 cars-which were already  producing only 30 percent of the emissions of uncontrolled cars.o Ten percent of 30 percent is 3 percent. That is tough. To squeeze down to the last little bit of anything is incredibly difficult.


Maybe you can get 90 percent of the juice out of your orange, but the remaining 10 percent is tough, and the last 1 percent is impossible. In the real world the cost of achieving totality approaches infinity and increases exponentially. Typically, if it costs a thousand dollars to achieve 90 percent of something, it will cost ten thousand to get 99 percent, a hundred thousand to get 99.9 percent, one million to get 99.99 percent, and so forth. That last bit is always a back breaker.



But even that would not have been so bad if the Congress had stuck to unburnt hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, which both result from incomplete combustion processes. So improving combustion by detailed modifications of major design changes reduces both, but the rub is the oxides of nitrogen. Decreasing the hydrocarbons increases the NOx' Look at the chart (Figure 2). An auto engine runs on a mixture of gasoline and air-the normal operating range is from 13.5 to 16.5 parts air to one part gasoline. Within normal operating ranges, hydrocarbons and CO can be reduced by increasing the ratio of air to fuel but NOx goes up. This is simple to understand.
Reducing HC and CO requires better combustion to obtain more combination with oxygen, producing halmless H2O and CO2.


But better combustion also results in more combination of nitrogen with oxygen, producing NOx' The nature of operation of the Otto-type internal-combustion engine, used in almost all cars in the world, precludes eliminating both hydrocarbons and NOx.
Now the reader may reasonably ask this question: If the smog is caused by the combination of NOx and hydrocarbons, why is it necessary to get rid of both of them? "

" The father of smog, Professor Haagen-Smit, said "the Muskie bilI passed last December [1970] without Congress understanding that emissions in 1970 vehicles had already been controlled 70 to 80 percent." He described the EPA air quality standards for hydrocarbons as "absurd."

In 1970 no less!!!

Paul Lamar


The Rotary Engine free News Letter. Powered by Linux. If you want off
the list PLEASE let me know and I will remove  you.  ACRE NL web
site. http://www.rotaryeng.net You Tube http://tinyurl.com/beqqxas
Copyright 1998-2017 All world wide rights reserved.