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,
"drive-ability," and economy. But by 1970 the redesigned cars were
producing only 30 percent of an uncontrolled car's emissions. It
wasn't very difficult to cut emissions once the problem was
recognized. Remember that for seventy years automobile engines have
been designed to maximize easy starting, performance, 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 harmless 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

We’d all be traveling around in Iacocca 4-cylinder K-cars today were it not for one small thing. It’s called the microchip and it gave us the ability to control smog, improve fuel economy and increase PERFORMANCE.  Anyone who has bridged the eons from the days of PCV to the 600 bhp engines we can routinely drive today, understands the expression:  Wadda you do when the chips are down!

What the emission geniuses in the CARB didn’t understand was that an increase of NOx was not a bad thing if we all drove in the dark. NOx [and Hydrocarbons] needs sunlight to create smog, so what improvements that occurred initially in LA air were replaced by breath-taking, O2-depleted brown stuff that got richer in smog as it headed east with the prevailing winds . . . until it backed up when it reached the mountains, which disappeared.  The air in places like Ontario and Riverside was so thick you could taste it

John Dinkel

It requires Hydrocarbons and NOx  along with the sun to form smog.
Remove one and you have no smog. NOX by itself,  just like CO2,  is invisible.

If one tunes an engine to run lean the mpg  increases but so does the harmless
NOX.  Potentially this could reduce the world wide fuel consumption by 10 to 15%.
Of coarse this would save everybody money as well.

Diesel engines run very very lean at all time unless accelerating or max power is used.
To put a NOX limit on diesel engines is pure insanity yet that was what was done here in
California  in the land of the wacko environmentalist. In effect California people still think
of LA like it was in the 50's and 60's.

Another one of the sneaky and dishonest things the wacko environmentalist do is show
CO2 as brown on the world wide CO2 charts they are so fond of.

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.