Anthropogenic Global Warming

Topic: Anthropogenic Global Warming (Read 200231 times)

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #550 – 2015-10-20, 16:24:38

Quote from: ensbb3 on 2015-10-20, 15:51:27

Quote from: ersi on 2015-10-20, 04:35:11
For example, car users have been questioning gas consumption figures for decades.

That may relate more to the fuel. They put up to 10% ethanol in gasoline nowadays. I've gotten around a hundred extra miles out of a tank using non-ethanol gas on trips.

Diesel engines tend to get way higher MPG.

Up to a point, anyway. Believe it or not, that's one of the issues with the VW diesel problems. The engines in question are small. 2.0 liter engines. They get great mileage, and since they're turbocharged they have decent power for such a small engine. Problem: There's not much left-over power for the particulate filters and the DEF system. So-- VW didn't install DEF on the 2.0 engines, hoping they were small enough not to have to worry about it. DEF as it just so happens does wonders to control N0x emissions, but at the cost of power. Also--- the DEF systems have been something of a maintenance nightmare, breaking and requiring expensive fixes to keep it going. I know guys right now who won't touch Sprinters just because of the DEF nightmares.

Oh, yeah---- while I'm thinking of it: Diesel isn't as straight as one might hope either: Here in Illinois and I hear also in Indiana, the fuel is up to 15% "biodiesel" mix. That's soybean oil, for you out-of-towners. Works OK sort of, but there IS a hit on the mileage, and biodiesel gels at higher temperatures than straight #2 diesel does--- so you have to add more (expensive) anti-gelling fluid to the fuel in winter.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #551 – 2015-10-20, 17:42:12

So the take away is that Diesel might not be a good choice for the environmentally conscious, despite higher EPA numbers. For Biodiesel, I found a Consumer Reports article. In their tests, Biodiesel performed well vs petroleum diesel. They used a VW Jetta TDI for the test. The acceleration all types of Diesel models was abyssal, 14 and 15 seconds 0-60. By comparison, my gasoline Beetle can do that in about 8 seconds and sometimes you need the extra power to avoid getting clobbered on the freeway :p

It's easy to see why EPA numbers my vary from actual experience. I have to take two freeways to work, the 15 and the 95. Sometimes the sign indicates 14 minutes down the 15 to the 95 and other days it's four minutes. Both days are weekdays at the same times and there wasn't necessarily an accident. The result is I get better mileage on the quicker days, obviously. I'm not sure there is way to make the EPA completely accurate, since some cities have more consistent driving conditions and others, like Las Vegas, it almost seems random.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #552 – 2015-10-20, 18:12:44

Quote from: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-20, 17:42:12

I'm not sure there is way to make the EPA completely accurate, since some cities have more consistent driving conditions and others, like Las Vegas, it almost seems random.

Plus gas mileage will necessarily be quite a bit better around here than a little to the south in Wallonia (mostly flat vs mountainous terrain).

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #553 – 2015-10-20, 20:36:56

Might as well just pour gas out on the highway trying to use cruise control on hilly roads.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #554 – 2015-10-20, 22:19:09

VW "scandal" is nothing but an American attack against the German industry that is robbing their clients with much better products. Since when the USA has any credibility for acusing others? American car manufacturers accusing Europeans of polluting??

"My V6, 5.000cc brute engine pollutes much less than your 1.300cc highly sofisticated low emission one..." so they say.

Ban cars if you really want to do something that helps the world. Start with your ones.
Oops, you don't want to do so, isn't it?

To me, this is a reason for immedietely create a tax on pollution on all American products for exportation. Let's say 100%, that way they will learn.
Course that German capitalists and Jew finance wants to keep on profiting from American customers and everybody else, so, basically, nothing will change.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #555 – 2015-10-21, 04:22:34

Bel, you don't have to perpetuate all the stereotypes of Europeans yourself! Let someone else carry part of the load…

(BTW: It'll likely be the EU authorities that will really tear into VW…)

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-10-20, 14:19:09

Ban cars if you really want to do something that helps the world.

"The world"? You seem unable to see beyond your own nose…

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #556 – 2015-10-21, 07:03:02

In this case, I have to agree with Oakdale. In trying to perpetuate American stereotypes, you wind up perpetuating the worst European ones. All the major American car manufacturers are global operations and most of the same basic machines are sold in North America as in Europe. Even "Yank Tanks" such as the Dodge Charger get fitted with eight speed transmissions, resulting theoretical 30+ highway gas mileage. Take the Opel Insignia and Chevy Impala. Both are built off the GM Epsilon II platform. You can get a 1.4 liter engine in the Insignia, but you'd have to be nuts to take a large car with that of an small of an engine out on the freeway around here.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #557 – 2015-10-21, 07:31:01

Quote from: ensbb3 on 2015-10-20, 20:36:56

Might as well just pour gas out on the highway trying to use cruise control on hilly roads.

I'd be more concerned about going by all of those precipices at breakneck CC speed than about gas mileage.

But really, you go uphill in the same gear as you go downhill — everybody knows that.

(Except, perhaps, cruise control? I've never driven an automatic in the mountains, so I haven't been able to try out such odd ideas.)

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #558 – 2015-10-21, 11:09:06

Quote from: Frenzie on 2015-10-21, 07:31:01

Quote from: ensbb3 on 2015-10-20, 20:36:56
Might as well just pour gas out on the highway trying to use cruise control on hilly roads.

I'd be more concerned about going by all of those precipices at breakneck CC speed than about gas mileage. But really, you go uphill in the same gear as you go downhill — everybody knows that. (Except, perhaps, cruise control? I've never driven an automatic in the mountains, so I haven't been able to try out such odd ideas.)

I have driven an automatic in the mountains. It's one time when manually shifting an automatic is a really good idea. The machinery doesn't do well doing it itself---- the engine labors in too high a gear while climbing, and the car is out of control because the transmission doesn't automatically downshift when on a down-grade. So--- manually shift it, and that takes care of the problem of an automatic in mountain country.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #559 – 2015-10-21, 12:37:01

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-10-21, 11:09:06

the car is out of control because the transmission doesn't automatically downshift when on a down-grade.

I imagine this will have been improved on newer automatics? They're reasonably clever about upshifting depending on how you're accelerating, in any case. But yeah, I know most automatics have a first and second gear of some sort for going down mountains. In at least modern Peugeot cars it's much more fun though: you can switch between automatic and manual gear changes at will. The car takes care of the clutch, but you control when it shifts up and down. Not that there's any need to in normal use.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #560 – 2015-10-21, 13:09:25

I drive a Chevy full-size van. 4-speed automatic. No, it doesn't automatically downshift in hill country. But, it does have a selector so you can manually shift the transmission. Gotta do it or you'll end up with cherry-red brakes that are fading fast by the time you get down to the bottom of a long grade.

I've seen some newer cars in the ads, and I wonder if the flat-lander who designed the things ever drove a car in mountains. They look to be poorly designed for hilly driving.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #561 – 2015-10-21, 22:20:28

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-21, 04:22:34

"The world"? You seem unable to see beyond your own nose…

Under my nose, is the entire world.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-21, 04:22:34

Bel, you don't have to perpetuate all the stereotypes of Europeans yourself! Let someone else carry part of the load…

Rjhowie is a prolific helper and you Oakdale, you do the rest.
The most "I'm at European level" of Americans.

......................................

As for the "American's" automatic shifting I will not even discuss it. Abominable. Something proper of pygmies that don't reach the clutch pedal.
....................................

I want to discuss light pollution, that prevents people to see the stars. Of course it's not Anthropogenic to Oakdale. There's no proof of that...

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #562 – 2015-10-22, 05:11:33

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-10-21, 14:20:28

I want to discuss light pollution, that prevents people to see the stars. Of course it's not Anthropogenic to Oakdale. There's no proof of that...

As always, you and a few others prefer your own perverted understanding to reality…

Indeed, modern industrial societies don't often offer the clear view of the night sky that a Neolithic lifestyle would. What would you give up, to "give" it to everyone else?
You always seem to ignore the benefits of modern industrial societies… One such being the most problematic for your views -of climate, and culture: That is, procreation!
Without modern industrial societies the Earth would soon become inundated with "excess" humans — who'd die off rather quickly.
Does that bother you near as much as most people not being able to see a Neolithic skyscape?!

Can we get back to the subject (that you hate, and refuse to address…), climatology? The Paris meeting is fast approaching…

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #563 – 2015-10-22, 07:42:03

You can give up on things like lighting the entire expressway, '70s style, and switch to only lighting around exits and such without giving up on anything. We're already implementing that whenever old stuff needs to be replaced, of course.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #564 – 2015-10-22, 18:48:03

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-22, 05:11:33

Without modern industrial societies the Earth would soon become inundated with "excess" humans — who'd die off rather quickly.

I see... light pollution and industrial gases controls population growth and also substitutes health care systems...
Oakdale's logicus tratatus... you should publish it, the world lacks good comedians.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #565 – 2015-10-23, 06:28:28

Bel, modern medicine is the result of modern industry… It may not be good enough to keep your local shamans from killing their (very) patients; but modern medicine kills quite a lot, too.

What you don't seem able to grasp, is that without modern agronomy most areas of our little planet would be unpopulated… That is, the people who live there couldn't.
Is that something you'd like? Or even something you'd accept?

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #566 – 2015-10-23, 08:26:09

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-23, 06:28:28

What you don't seem able to grasp, is that without modern agronomy most areas of our little planet would be unpopulated… That is, the people who live there couldn't.

Can you translate this into normal logic?

To me, the statement parses as follows:

1. No modern agronomy = no people on most areas of the planet
2. Given no modern agronomy, the people who live on most areas of the planet couldn't live where they are living.

These are two distinct points with no connection. Either you are saying that modern agronomy caused the population explosion of recent times (which is a good thing in and of itself how exactly?) or you are saying, well, something else that I don't know how to formulate in human language.

The first point assumes that the population explosion of the last few centuries is a good thing in and of itself. This presupposition is silly enough not to argue with. As to the second point - is there a point?

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #567 – 2015-10-23, 09:30:40

Quote from: ersi on 2015-10-23, 00:26:09

To me, the statement parses as follows:
1. No modern agronomy = no people on most areas of the planet
2. Given no modern agronomy, the people who live on most areas of the planet couldn't live where they are living.

Close enough!

Let's take 2. first, shall we?
More to the point, without modern agronomy, the people who now live in most areas of the planet would have long ago starved to death… Not to put too fine a point on it, their survival is made possible by the prevalence of capitalism and industrialism.
(Are there other places for them…?)

Now to 1. I don't know what to say… Yes, that's probably true. But — so what? It's the same point as 2. You apparently think there should be fewer people on this planet.
Why?
To please or accommodate you? (That's not a good enough reason, for me… ersi, as much as I like arguing with you, I'd not continence a near-extinction event for our species to make you happy!) Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of yourself, for even suggesting it…?

Quote from: ersi on 2015-10-23, 00:26:09

The first point assumes that the population explosion of the last few centuries is a good thing in and of itself. This presupposition is silly enough not to argue with.

Hm.
Would you be the one to decide which "excess" humans need to be eliminated? I mean, so that the elect can prosper…

(My inclination is to assume that the "elect" won't prosper -and shouldn't- unless they can. And if the only way they can is to decimate (or worse…) the world's population, then the guillotine should be brought back: It's needed!)

Go back to your cave, and let the world get along as best it can. You won't help, or can't. Are you so immature that you'd begrudge anyone else doing so?

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #568 – 2015-10-23, 10:37:02

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-23, 09:30:40

More to the point, without modern agronomy, the people who now live in most areas of the planet would have long ago starved to death… Not to put too fine a point on it, their survival is made possible by the prevalence of capitalism and industrialism.
(Are there other places for them…?)

You ignore the important aspect of population explosion. Without modern agronomy (and appetite-fomenting capitalism in general) the population growth would have been much more moderate and contained. The people whose starvation worries you would not have been born into the conditions that would have made them starve.

Anyway, given our modern agronomy, why is a quarter of the population of the globe starving as we speak?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-23, 09:30:40

Now to 1. I don't know what to say… Yes, that's probably true. But — so what? It's the same point as 2.

No. Your two points are not the same. They are the same maybe given your false presuppositions, but I don't share them.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-23, 09:30:40

You apparently think there should be fewer people on this planet. Why?

The same as overeating (beyond the capacity of the body to digest it), overpolluting (beyond the capacity of the nature to recover), etc., there's also overpopulation.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-23, 09:30:40

To please or accommodate you? (That's not a good enough reason, for me… ersi, as much as I like arguing with you, I'd not continence a near-extinction event for our species to make you happy!) Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of yourself, for even suggesting it…?

Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of yourself for suggesting that I am suggesting it? There's a difference between suggesting (1) a sustainable relationship between economy and ecology so that people could live while letting nature live, because nature is what we live on, which is what I recommend, and (2) extinction or extermination of humanity, which I don't recommend. In fact, recommending unsustainable economic practices - as you are - is a pretty straightforward endorsement of building up the conditions that will eventually lead to an abrupt cut of the humanity from its base of nourishment, and this would be disastrous given the current overpopulation. So, you should be doubly ashamed.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #569 – 2015-10-23, 17:25:52

Quote from: ersi on 2015-10-23, 10:37:02

Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of yourself for suggesting that I am suggesting it?

Don't you get it? The American Right are simple minded. It's all or nothing. Humanity or nature. Recommendations such as yours (or mine with advancing beyond the need for fossil fuels, thus achieving economic growth and a healthier environment) are beyond their comprehension. In their world, there is only black and white and not the many hues and shades that exist in reality.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #570 – 2015-10-23, 23:24:25

Quote from: ersi on 2015-10-23, 10:37:02

So, you should be doubly ashamed.

Maybe not.
In fact we are discussing at a meta level, where Oakdale, when confronted with pure common sense options, feels to be betraying his inner system of beliefs and so he reacts at an increasingly suicidal way in terms of discussion.

I don't even care about his positions about the topic but I do care about why he's adopting such self destructive defense.
I do believe in a "common cause" about this problem and "common" only exists if we can transpose these barriers.

Better to oppose than to simply ignore. Ignoring is the adversary, the real one.
One can beat opposition, one can't beat alienation.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #571 – 2015-10-24, 07:33:24

It seems to me that Sang, Belfrager and ersi all suffer from a common ailment: They believe that what is is deficient and needs to be "corrected" by their prejudices…

But they all have a deficiency in common, too: They think reality will accommodate them… If only they can gain enough political power.

And they think me delusional!

—————————————————————————————————
I'll say it again: If the CAGW hypothesis is not supported by the evidence, why do so many still insist that measures be taken -indeed, draconian measures!- to avert a fantasy predicted by a failed theory?!

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #572 – 2015-10-24, 11:57:37

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-24, 07:33:24

I'll say it again:

Please don't, you can't turn false into truth just by repetition over and over again...
Or can you? Applying for an Alchemist of Logic?

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #573 – 2015-10-24, 15:05:05

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-10-24, 07:33:24

why do so many still insist that measures be taken -indeed, draconian measures!-

And yet my suggestions are free market capitalism. Invent the better technology, make money, hire thousands of people and thereby improve the economy. Not a draconian measure in sight

Again with the myopic black/white thinking and with not reading what I actually said.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #574 – 2015-10-25, 05:32:18

Quote from: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-10-24, 07:05:05

And yet my suggestions are free market capitalism. Invent the better technology, make money, hire thousands of people and thereby improve the economy. Not a draconian measure in sight

If that were true, no impediments exist (…other than lack of ability). So: Why are government subsidies and punitive regulations required? Why is an international treaty needed to stifle or cripple a dying technology?
Shouldn't the good ideas and their implementation simply win?

I still think you're in permanent "fantasy" mode, Sang… Just because something's possible doesn't mean it is practicable.
But I'd bet you'd fall back to the Wimpy technique: "I'd gladly pay on Thursday for a hamburger today!"