If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
On Jun 24, 4:38 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article , Jose wrote: I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on. Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no hystericals? Jose The case against CO2 has not been proven Basic physics, molecular spectroscopy and the conservation of energy prove the greenhouse effect. Do you consider either of those to be unproven? If so, which. It follows therefor that ncreasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect. What proof do you consider to be missing? -- nor has the case for manmade global warming. The case for anthropogenic CO2 being responsible for the observed rise in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 is well established both by closure and by the Suess effect. What is it that you doubt about either or both of those? The hystericals have latched onto it to further their own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles. Hystericals are fond of raising this issue in newsgroups where it is off-topic. I have crossposted to sci.environment, where it is on-topic, set follow-ups accordingly, and will be happy to answer any reasonable questions you would like to pose there. Hystericals are also fond of making all sorts of irrational excuses for not discussing such issues in newsgroups frequented by people familiar with the subject matter. I trust you will not. -- FF |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
On Jun 24, 4:38 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
... The hystericals have latched onto it to further their own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles. ... Now, if you can provide any evidence whatsoever to support that assertion, please let me know. Note followups. -- FF |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
On Jun 24, 10:47 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:
... Most information is less than 5 years old. Most over that is outdated or outright misleading. Most valid references are no more than a couple of years old. Oh no! That is a very common misconception. The most important observations date to the 1970s. It was ignored by the popular Press which found a new ice age to be a more interesting story. But if you look at the proceedings of the climate conferences of that time you will find a different story. The essential Physics was established well before that. The effects of aerosols also have been understood since then. Quantifying the combined effects on global temperatures is the more recent work, and there remains a lot of uncertainty there. But the uncertainty is about how much of a rise and how fast, not the direction of future trends. ... Mainstream science around the world has pretty well concluded that the rise in CO2 is creating accelerated warming and nearly all of that increase is due to mankind. The oceans are absorbing a phenomenal amount, rather than releasing it, but we are still seeing a large net gain. Unfortunately the oceans are rapidly approaching saturation. Should the oceans stop absorbing CO2, the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 will jump to about 15 times the current rate. .... As to China, they only took over the tile of most polluting "from us" within the past few months. It's difficult for any complaint we make about China to carry much, if any weight unless we clean house and try to set a good example. And they are going to take over in a very big way. Note followups. -- FF |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
On Jun 24, 12:38 pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote: In article , Jose wrote: I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on. Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no hystericals? Jose The case against CO2 has not been proven -- nor has the case for manmade global warming. The hystericals have latched onto it to further their own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles. I can GUARANTEE that the world will continue to heat up, or else it will not. If it does get hotter, it will prove that the hystericals were right, and we should have done something. If it does not, it will prove that the hystericals were right and we did something good. There is no point in fighting it. John Halpenny |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals? What has panic and mindless blather ever solved? Tell me one thing that hysterics have ever cured? I was not referring to hysterics, but rather, to "hysterics", and should have quoted the word originally. People opposed to environmental safeguards call them hysterics in the same way that people opposed to airport closures refer to "noise nazis". In that sense, "hysterics" (legitimage drawing of attention to the damage we are causing to our and our neighbor's environment) have cured many things. I am most grateful to the "hysterics" of the 1960s for the relatively clean air we breathe today. One only has to go to parts of Europe to breathe the difference (at least when I was last there). As for whether CO2 needed to be "cured", that's not my point. The statement was made that it =was= cured (along with other things including doubling the gas milage), proving that the "hysterics" were unnecessary. I do not see any such proof demonstrated by the facts presented (which I will stipulate), especially as the "cure" was likely to be costly, and business doesn't like costly things. Jose -- You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
I think you missed my point. I hope you missed my point. I hope
you don't think hysterical arguement actually help convince people and are the PROPER way to have discussions on issues. Alas, I was misread. Hysterical arguments don't convince anybody, but rational arguments are derided as "hysterical" by those who oppose them. I should have quoted the word. Jose -- You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
If it does get hotter, it will prove that the hystericals
were right, and we should have done something. If it does not, it will prove that the hystericals were right and we did something good. No, that only works if we =did= do something good. Or at least something expensive (that is, something that business would not do on their own, like install scrubbers in their smokestacks, or pre-treat waste before dumping it in the river, or improve gas milage). And no, before some quick-ass jumps at the chance, I am not suggesting that "something expensive" is a good substitute for "something good". Jose -- You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
"Bob Noel" wrote in message ... In article , Jose wrote: Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no hystericals? The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment. Then why were the CO2 emissions cured? It certainly costs money, and companies don't spend money for nothing. I think you missed my point. I hope you missed my point. I hope you don't think hysterical arguement actually help convince people and are the PROPER way to have discussions on issues. Bob! He's a teacher, not a scholar. |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
"Morgans" writes:
The pipeline people send many various grades of gas, all through the same pipeline. They may send 95 octane straight gas for 4 hours, then switch to 82 octane for 2 hours, and so on, with the right storage facilities along the way intercepting it, and putting it into separate tanks. I believe how they know how to switch over, is to first know how long the switch in types to get to them, then the senders put a dye package into the fuel to alert the storage and distribution people that it is time to switch some valves, and send the next fuel into a different tank. Pretty close. We never used dye. The operator has a stainless sink that drains into the slop tank. In it is a large graduated cylinder. The faucet samples the incoming line and pours into the cylinder; it oveflows into the sink. He has an approprite hydrometer bobbing in it. He "makes the cut" by observing the color change and the specific gravity. He punches the [explosion-proof, of course!] pushbutton on the valve panel when it's time. He may cut early. middle or late; it depends on the two products. The schedulers try to make adjacent 'tenders' friendly. Say $2 Fuel Oil followed by Jet-A. That would be an late cut; he waits until he's sure it's all Jet-A then he swings the valve. A few barrels of Jet-A aka Kerosene will not hurt 100,000 bbls of #2FO. If an unfriendly cut, say gas to Jet-A; he'll cut early to the slop tank, and then ~~5-10 min later to Jet-A. The slop tank is eventually emptied by being slowly injected into a Kero/FO incoming stream; the tank is later tested to be sure its flashpoint remains above 110F. Specialty fuels may not travel the pipeline, but be shipped some distances by tanker truck, or barge. Fuels such as.... AvGas. -- A host is a host from coast to & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
"David Lesher" wrote in message ... We never used dye. The operator has a stainless sink that drains into the slop tank. In it is a large graduated cylinder. The faucet samples the incoming line and pours into the cylinder; it oveflows into the sink. He has an approprite hydrometer bobbing in it. He "makes the cut" by observing the color change and the specific gravity. He punches the [explosion-proof, of course!] pushbutton on the valve panel when it's time. He may cut early. middle or late; it depends on the two products. The schedulers try to make adjacent 'tenders' friendly. Say $2 Fuel Oil followed by Jet-A. That would be an late cut; he waits until he's sure it's all Jet-A then he swings the valve. A few barrels of Jet-A aka Kerosene will not hurt 100,000 bbls of #2FO. If an unfriendly cut, say gas to Jet-A; he'll cut early to the slop tank, and then ~~5-10 min later to Jet-A. The slop tank is eventually emptied by being slowly injected into a Kero/FO incoming stream; the tank is later tested to be sure its flashpoint remains above 110F. Specialty fuels may not travel the pipeline, but be shipped some distances by tanker truck, or barge. Fuels such as.... AvGas. -- Thanks Dave! Can 87 octane be mixed with ~93 octane to arrive at 90 octane? Seems like a lot of black magic (no pun intended) in the oil business... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gasohol | Blueskies | Piloting | 240 | July 6th 07 12:42 AM |
How scary is gasohol? | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 27 | March 1st 04 11:39 AM |