http://www.physorg.com/news99834285.html
Pretty hard to refute without an ad-hominem attack, I"d guess.
QUOTE
research finds that human-made greenhouse gases have brought the Earth’s climate close to critical tipping points
Really?
Which TIPPING POINTS are they talking about???
When do they TIP?
Why do they TIP?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| research finds that human-made greenhouse gases have brought the Earth’s climate close to critical tipping points |
Really?
Which TIPPING POINTS are they talking about???
When do they TIP?
Why do they TIP?
only moderate additional climate forcing is likely to set in motion disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet and Arctic sea ice.
Based on WHAT analysis?
What is 'moderate additional climae forcing"
Over WHAT time frame?
Sheesh.
Arthur
Agreed. All good questions.
"'Climate change" the new buzz word. Could cover everything, including the browning of leaves in the fall!
These are the same people who were screeching about global cooling 30 years ago.
They are also the same people who marched around in the early 80's demanding NO nuclear power - virtually a guarantee we would be still be burning fossil fuels today. What happened to the great Ozone layer scare of the late 80's? Wasn't that going to kill us a few years back? That seems to have gone away.
These are the same people who were screeching about global cooling 30 years ago.
They are also the same people who marched around in the early 80's demanding NO nuclear power - virtually a guarantee we would be still be burning fossil fuels today. What happened to the great Ozone layer scare of the late 80's? Wasn't that going to kill us a few years back? That seems to have gone away.
Gee, I wonder why the government-sponsored scientists are telling the people to give more power to the government.
Another computer modeler pretending to be scientific. These guys spend way too much time in Al Gore's outhouse.
Why are you printing all this rehashed tripe?
Global climate change began a long time ago - it's what ended the last ice-age; it's the reason the Sahara Desert [once very hospitable] has been desert for longer than human memory. Someday it will probably reverse itself and head toward another ice age.
Sheesh! Anyone with a little knowledge of geologic history and a sense of perspective would realize that this is nothing new.
No one yet knows all the contributing factors to climate change - least of all those who, a couple of decades ago, were fear mongering global cooling and a new imminent ice age!
For a better view of the role of CO2 [very little] in global warming visit the website for junkscience.com and research the information for yourself. Further, I suggest you visit there more than once as more and more information becomes available from time to time.
Global climate change began a long time ago - it's what ended the last ice-age; it's the reason the Sahara Desert [once very hospitable] has been desert for longer than human memory. Someday it will probably reverse itself and head toward another ice age.
Sheesh! Anyone with a little knowledge of geologic history and a sense of perspective would realize that this is nothing new.
No one yet knows all the contributing factors to climate change - least of all those who, a couple of decades ago, were fear mongering global cooling and a new imminent ice age!
For a better view of the role of CO2 [very little] in global warming visit the website for junkscience.com and research the information for yourself. Further, I suggest you visit there more than once as more and more information becomes available from time to time.
QUOTE
These are the same people who were screeching about global cooling 30 years ago.
I must say, that's just the cleverest arguement against global warming that I've ever read. You must be a real genius, huh? Plus you're all saying it. You guys live together?
Have you ever considered that maybe scientists have a little more data, and a little more knowledge, than they did back then? It's called advancement. You might notice that they no longer screech about cooling these days.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| These are the same people who were screeching about global cooling 30 years ago. |
I must say, that's just the cleverest arguement against global warming that I've ever read. You must be a real genius, huh? Plus you're all saying it. You guys live together?
Have you ever considered that maybe scientists have a little more data, and a little more knowledge, than they did back then? It's called advancement. You might notice that they no longer screech about cooling these days.
Really?
Which TIPPING POINTS are they talking about???
When do they TIP?
Why do they TIP?
I imagine that if you actually had a brain, you might use it to do some research, and find out for yourself. I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to help you.
QUOTE
Global climate change began a long time ago - it's what ended the last ice-age; it's the reason the Sahara Desert [once very hospitable] has been desert for longer than human memory. Someday it will probably reverse itself and head toward another ice age.
No one yet knows all the contributing factors to climate change - least of all those who, a couple of decades ago, were fear mongering global cooling and a new imminent ice age!
No one yet knows all the contributing factors to climate change - least of all those who, a couple of decades ago, were fear mongering global cooling and a new imminent ice age!
Well, you're definitely the most intelligent person here. You actually know a little about the subject. Also, while I agree that nobody knows the whole story, the massive amount of evidence we already has is almost unanimously positive for human caused global warming (as in, it's real). If you were about to hit a car, would you wait until you could see every fleck of paint to hit the brakes?
I think it should be demonstrative that the USA CO2 emissions dropped by ~4% recently. WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO MAKE A BIG EFFORT. This should impress the ease of fixing this problem. If it turns out to be a false alarm, then we will have lost close to nothing. If it's real, and we do nothing, we could lose everything.
There is no sensible viewpoint that could possibly counter the logic of taking immediate action to stop the warming, given what I have just said. If you want to counter my statement, please come equipped with some actual knowledge, not BS.
-Axemaster
QUOTE (axemaster+Jun 1 2007, 01:39 AM)
I think it should be demonstrative that the USA CO2 emissions dropped by ~4% recently. WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO MAKE A BIG EFFORT. This should impress the ease of fixing this problem. If it turns out to be a false alarm, then we will have lost close to nothing. If it's real, and we do nothing, we could lose everything.
The US did NOT have a 4% reduction in CO2 emissions.
What is REALLY funny though is that the modest reductions we DID have (1.3% in CO2 from energy releated sources) were due primarily to THE WEATHER.
We had a COOL SUMMER and a WARM WINTER.
In 2006 there was a mild winter that reduced heating degree days by 7.4 percent, and a cooler than normal summer that cut cooling-degree days by 1 percent, both compared to 2005 (source DOE)
As far as the "Ease of Fixing this problem"
The reduction of CO2 (from energy related sources) last year was 78 million metric tons.
To just meet the Kyoto protocols would require the reduction of an additional ~1,200 million metric tons over the next 5 years.
Except the Kyoto protocols are universally accepted as not sufficient to "fix the problem"
Arthur
Give the government more power? Are you nuts? Business as usual benefits oil, transportation and other major industries. Follow the money.
QUOTE (1bigschwantz+Jun 1 2007, 08:39 AM)
What happened to the great Ozone layer scare of the late 80's? Wasn't that going to kill us a few years back? That seems to have gone away.
Mmm, no, not really.
It's still there, it's just that the steps we took to mitigate CFC production actually worked.
Inspite of this, last years Ozone hole was a record breaker. I remember the warnings that were published because a 'front' of low Ozone concentration passed over our country.
How do I know all of this? I live in the country that has the worlds highest rate of skin cancer, which the Ozone hole is (partly) responsible for.
Mmm, no, not really.
It's still there, it's just that the steps we took to mitigate CFC production actually worked.
Inspite of this, last years Ozone hole was a record breaker. I remember the warnings that were published because a 'front' of low Ozone concentration passed over our country.
How do I know all of this? I live in the country that has the worlds highest rate of skin cancer, which the Ozone hole is (partly) responsible for.
QUOTE (1bigschwantz+May 31 2007, 08:39 PM)
What happened to the great Ozone layer scare of the late 80's? Wasn't that going to kill us a few years back? That seems to have gone away.
The CFC and ozone layer issue is one happy example where a worldwide consensus, scientific and political, was achieved.
Action was taken swiftly, CFC stopped and now nature slowly heals itself.
There is no consensus on global warming.
The multi-layered debates on this forum are a very clear illustration of the lack of consensus.
Without consensus, USA and China will stay out and the actions of Europe and Japan will be futile and Don Quijotesque.
The CFC and ozone layer issue is one happy example where a worldwide consensus, scientific and political, was achieved.
Action was taken swiftly, CFC stopped and now nature slowly heals itself.
There is no consensus on global warming.
The multi-layered debates on this forum are a very clear illustration of the lack of consensus.
Without consensus, USA and China will stay out and the actions of Europe and Japan will be futile and Don Quijotesque.
CFCs had a fairly obvious relation to the problem and were an industrial chemical for which was totally man-made and for which alternatives existed.
Thus arriving at a political consensus (CFC phase out) was fairly easy.
Arriving at a political concensus on CO2 production is not so easy as CO2 is a by product of energy consumption and energy consumption is a by product of both economic production and population.
Its fairly easy for countries like the UK and the EU with stagnant economies and stagnant populations to call on cutbacks to 6% below 1990 levels when their NATURAL use of energy would meet that target with little to no change. Applying that same metric to countries with growing populations is silly.
Ignoring countries like China and India is sillier still.
Arthur
Thus arriving at a political consensus (CFC phase out) was fairly easy.
Arriving at a political concensus on CO2 production is not so easy as CO2 is a by product of energy consumption and energy consumption is a by product of both economic production and population.
Its fairly easy for countries like the UK and the EU with stagnant economies and stagnant populations to call on cutbacks to 6% below 1990 levels when their NATURAL use of energy would meet that target with little to no change. Applying that same metric to countries with growing populations is silly.
Ignoring countries like China and India is sillier still.
Arthur
As near as I can figure, the climate is goverend by a series of dynamic equilibria.
These have an effect not dissimilar from pH buffer solutions, they're able to maintain things at a constant level over a wide range of variations of input.
However, as with all dynamic equilibria, there is a point where the system is no longer able to maintain an equilibrium, and so you reach a tipping point, which ushers in a rapid change.
In so far as this article goes, what the specific tipping points are, why the tip, and over what time scale, i'm not going to pretend to know the answer, because even though our views might not always align Arthur, I'm finding the article as annoyingly vague as you are.
These have an effect not dissimilar from pH buffer solutions, they're able to maintain things at a constant level over a wide range of variations of input.
However, as with all dynamic equilibria, there is a point where the system is no longer able to maintain an equilibrium, and so you reach a tipping point, which ushers in a rapid change.
In so far as this article goes, what the specific tipping points are, why the tip, and over what time scale, i'm not going to pretend to know the answer, because even though our views might not always align Arthur, I'm finding the article as annoyingly vague as you are.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 3 2007, 12:24 PM)
Arriving at a political concensus on CO2 production is not so easy as CO2 is a by product of energy consumption and energy consumption is a by product of both economic production and population.
A. Prior to arriving to a POLITICAL consensus on CO2 PRODUCTION, we have to arrive to a widely accepted scientific and ethical consensus on the THREAT posed by CO2 production.
B. If everybody recognizes the threat and the URGENCY to take measures (as was done with CFCs), a political negotiation of actions can follow.
C. Then comes implementation of the actions which were decided.
Countries that obey Kyoto are working on C.
USA and China are the big players still making ziz-zag between A. and B.
While everybody can continue doing C. actions at national level, we MUST at least settle A. once and for all at a global level.
As meteorology is not an EXACT science, I guess that playing computer games called "climate modeling" will never yield SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY.
Therefore, the key word in A. is ETHICAL. We know that CO2 has risen to unprecedented levels (compared to geological records). According to recent geological history, CO2 levels should now level-off and start to fall.
Instead, they're SOARING.
We know it can have disastrous consequences. We know what caused it. We shouldn't wait and see what happens. This is not a movie.
A. Prior to arriving to a POLITICAL consensus on CO2 PRODUCTION, we have to arrive to a widely accepted scientific and ethical consensus on the THREAT posed by CO2 production.
B. If everybody recognizes the threat and the URGENCY to take measures (as was done with CFCs), a political negotiation of actions can follow.
C. Then comes implementation of the actions which were decided.
Countries that obey Kyoto are working on C.
USA and China are the big players still making ziz-zag between A. and B.
While everybody can continue doing C. actions at national level, we MUST at least settle A. once and for all at a global level.
As meteorology is not an EXACT science, I guess that playing computer games called "climate modeling" will never yield SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY.
Therefore, the key word in A. is ETHICAL. We know that CO2 has risen to unprecedented levels (compared to geological records). According to recent geological history, CO2 levels should now level-off and start to fall.
Instead, they're SOARING.
We know it can have disastrous consequences. We know what caused it. We shouldn't wait and see what happens. This is not a movie.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 3 2007, 12:24 PM)
Its fairly easy for countries like the UK and the EU with STAGNANT economies and stagnant populations to call on cutbacks to 6% below 1990 levels when their NATURAL use of energy would meet that target with little to no change. Applying that same metric to countries with growing populations is silly.
This is not fair.
Europe is not just waiting for its old folks to die, in order to achieve the CO2 cutback.
There are market pressures here also to increase the per capita energy consumption. Here also cars are getting bigger and heavier with each new model generation.
But governments are taking measures to inhibit this natural pressure.
For instance, in France, there is the "Taxe sur les véhicules de societé (TVS)".
If a company buys a passenger car, each year it has to pay this tax, which depends on the CO2 output.
You can buy a Toyota Prius with 104 g CO2/km and pay 461 EURO.
Or you can buy a Toyota Corolla automatic with 190 g CO2/km and pay 2850 EURO.
Which one will you choose?
P.S. Actually, the French will probably choose Toyota Corolla 1.4D 90 HP with 128 g CO2/year and pay 640 EURO/year.
This is not fair.
Europe is not just waiting for its old folks to die, in order to achieve the CO2 cutback.
There are market pressures here also to increase the per capita energy consumption. Here also cars are getting bigger and heavier with each new model generation.
But governments are taking measures to inhibit this natural pressure.
For instance, in France, there is the "Taxe sur les véhicules de societé (TVS)".
If a company buys a passenger car, each year it has to pay this tax, which depends on the CO2 output.
You can buy a Toyota Prius with 104 g CO2/km and pay 461 EURO.
Or you can buy a Toyota Corolla automatic with 190 g CO2/km and pay 2850 EURO.
Which one will you choose?
P.S. Actually, the French will probably choose Toyota Corolla 1.4D 90 HP with 128 g CO2/year and pay 640 EURO/year.
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+Jun 4 2007, 09:18 PM)
As meteorology is not an EXACT science, I guess that playing computer games called "climate modeling" will never yield SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY.
Meteorology and climatology are very different subjects.
Meteorology deals with short term, local things, and includes weather forcasting.
Climatology is more sort of regional, and global, and deals with longer timescales.
The equations that meterology deals with are as well known as those that govern the tides. The difference, however, is that because those equations are driven in a chaotic state, the only way to know exactly what the weather is going to do is to know exactly what the temperature, pressure, and humidity are doing at every point at exactly the same time.
This is why weather forecasters generally have problems forecasting more then about 3-4 days ahead, because, as with all chaotic systems, the further from t=0 you get, the more exagurated the errors become.
This is the origin of the phrase "The Butterfly Effect".
I forget the name of the researcher involved, but it was in the early days of Chaos theory, basically, he was running a simple climate model, rotating planet, not topography, no cloud cover, no oceans. He kept running the model, and he kept getting the same numbers over, and over again, repetition after repetition.
However, one day he got a phone call, and he stopped the simulation tot ake the phone call (or it was something along those lines anyway, the important point is that he interrupted the run). He comes back, feeds in the last set of numbers, and then restarts the simulation, but, rather then getting the same results he had every other simulation, an 'error' started creeping in that meant that the new results became increasingly divergent, to the point where after a few (dozen) repetitions, the new data bore no resemblance what so ever to the old data. This puzzled him, for a while, until he realized that the scientific calculator he had been using printed out... I think it was 7 digits, and stored 8 in the memory. He likened the fact that such a small change of input had had such a large change in the output to being 'As if a Butterfly in Afirca had flapped it's wings and caused a hurricane in New York'.
The point of this is that the equations are well known, but, they run at a level where a small deviation in input produces a large deviation of output (I've seen the graphs, they're kinda spectacular) and it's this that causes the inaccuracies in weather forcasting, rather then any lack of understanding of the actual systems involved (at least when it comes to meterology, climatology is a whole other ball game).
Meteorology and climatology are very different subjects.
Meteorology deals with short term, local things, and includes weather forcasting.
Climatology is more sort of regional, and global, and deals with longer timescales.
The equations that meterology deals with are as well known as those that govern the tides. The difference, however, is that because those equations are driven in a chaotic state, the only way to know exactly what the weather is going to do is to know exactly what the temperature, pressure, and humidity are doing at every point at exactly the same time.
This is why weather forecasters generally have problems forecasting more then about 3-4 days ahead, because, as with all chaotic systems, the further from t=0 you get, the more exagurated the errors become.
This is the origin of the phrase "The Butterfly Effect".
I forget the name of the researcher involved, but it was in the early days of Chaos theory, basically, he was running a simple climate model, rotating planet, not topography, no cloud cover, no oceans. He kept running the model, and he kept getting the same numbers over, and over again, repetition after repetition.
However, one day he got a phone call, and he stopped the simulation tot ake the phone call (or it was something along those lines anyway, the important point is that he interrupted the run). He comes back, feeds in the last set of numbers, and then restarts the simulation, but, rather then getting the same results he had every other simulation, an 'error' started creeping in that meant that the new results became increasingly divergent, to the point where after a few (dozen) repetitions, the new data bore no resemblance what so ever to the old data. This puzzled him, for a while, until he realized that the scientific calculator he had been using printed out... I think it was 7 digits, and stored 8 in the memory. He likened the fact that such a small change of input had had such a large change in the output to being 'As if a Butterfly in Afirca had flapped it's wings and caused a hurricane in New York'.
The point of this is that the equations are well known, but, they run at a level where a small deviation in input produces a large deviation of output (I've seen the graphs, they're kinda spectacular) and it's this that causes the inaccuracies in weather forcasting, rather then any lack of understanding of the actual systems involved (at least when it comes to meterology, climatology is a whole other ball game).
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+Jun 4 2007, 04:52 AM)
This is not fair.
Europe is not just waiting for its old folks to die, in order to achieve the CO2 cutback.
Not fair?
But you think that the same 6% cutback below 1990 energy levels means the same to the EU with its stagnant population as it does to the US or Canada with its expanding population?
http://ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=27910
Oh, and that "corporate tax" is pretty funny. While sure, there is SOME wiggle room in the type of car a company needs for its business, I'd bet that most companies NEED the size car they are buying and so are just getting hit with a new tax. Which, corporations just pass on as part of the cost of business, so the NET effect is probably minimal as far as CO2 goes but results in an increase in ~ 128 million Euros in taxes on the French.
Arthur
Europe is not just waiting for its old folks to die, in order to achieve the CO2 cutback.
Not fair?
But you think that the same 6% cutback below 1990 energy levels means the same to the EU with its stagnant population as it does to the US or Canada with its expanding population?
QUOTE
In 2003 the EU fertility rate fell to 1.48 children per woman, well below the 2.1 children per woman level needed to maintain the population.
The paper predicts that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future. It says that the EU population will fall from 469.5 million in 2025 to 468.7 million in 2030.
By contrast, the U.S. population is set to increase by 25.6 percent between 2000 and 2025.
The paper predicts that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future. It says that the EU population will fall from 469.5 million in 2025 to 468.7 million in 2030.
By contrast, the U.S. population is set to increase by 25.6 percent between 2000 and 2025.
http://ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=27910
Oh, and that "corporate tax" is pretty funny. While sure, there is SOME wiggle room in the type of car a company needs for its business, I'd bet that most companies NEED the size car they are buying and so are just getting hit with a new tax. Which, corporations just pass on as part of the cost of business, so the NET effect is probably minimal as far as CO2 goes but results in an increase in ~ 128 million Euros in taxes on the French.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 4 2007, 12:55 PM)
Not fair?
But you think that the same 6% cutback below 1990 energy levels means the same to the EU with its stagnant population as it does to the US or Canada with its expanding population?
If the US Bush administration really cared about Kyoto, they could have negotiated an amendment, so that the target to be 1990 PER CAPITA levels.
But they just rejected it.
God forbid you were overtaken by the Chinese!
P.S. It will happen (China) anyway. Your quantity supremacy days will soon be over. You will have to start taking pride in quality.
But you think that the same 6% cutback below 1990 energy levels means the same to the EU with its stagnant population as it does to the US or Canada with its expanding population?
If the US Bush administration really cared about Kyoto, they could have negotiated an amendment, so that the target to be 1990 PER CAPITA levels.
But they just rejected it.
God forbid you were overtaken by the Chinese!
P.S. It will happen (China) anyway. Your quantity supremacy days will soon be over. You will have to start taking pride in quality.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 4 2007, 12:55 PM)
Oh, and that "corporate tax" is pretty funny. While sure, there is SOME wiggle room in the type of car a company needs for its business, I'd bet that most companies NEED the SIZE car they are buying and so are just getting hit with a new tax. Which, corporations just pass on as part of the cost of business, so the NET effect is probably minimal as far as CO2 goes but results in an increase in ~ 128 million Euros in taxes on the French.
What does SIZE got to do with the example I gave?
I carefully chose the two Corollas and the Prius because I believe they are of the SAME size and driving comfort. I was not comparing BMW X5 with Fiat Panda!
This was a clear example of how governments can intervene in favor of the greener technology.
You have your EPA killing any prospects of diesel cars in the US for the next 5 years, because the current EURO 4 engines are "dirty". Why do you consider that this action of the French government, aimed at reducing CO2 output, is FUNNY?
Funny to me is giving "indulgences" on the regulations concerning mph average, just because the manufacturer has put a flex fuel device on a dinosaur like Lincoln Town or, worse, like Nissan Armada. Why don't you have flex fuel Chevrolet Aveo?
And the policy to tax CO2 actually WORKS: in 2006, the average CO2 output/km of new cars sold in France decreased by another 3 g, to 149 g/km.
That was achieved in spite of the tougher EURO 4 SOx, NOx ... regulation, which actually increases CO2 output.
Your ~ 27 mpg achievement is way off (worse) than the French.
As far as CORPORATIONS are concerned, this tax applies to all companies, no matter if they are L'Oreal or a village bakery.
And, finally, where did you get the figure ~128 million EURO? You've put it to look like you are INFORMED on the subject?
And
What does SIZE got to do with the example I gave?
I carefully chose the two Corollas and the Prius because I believe they are of the SAME size and driving comfort. I was not comparing BMW X5 with Fiat Panda!
This was a clear example of how governments can intervene in favor of the greener technology.
You have your EPA killing any prospects of diesel cars in the US for the next 5 years, because the current EURO 4 engines are "dirty". Why do you consider that this action of the French government, aimed at reducing CO2 output, is FUNNY?
Funny to me is giving "indulgences" on the regulations concerning mph average, just because the manufacturer has put a flex fuel device on a dinosaur like Lincoln Town or, worse, like Nissan Armada. Why don't you have flex fuel Chevrolet Aveo?
And the policy to tax CO2 actually WORKS: in 2006, the average CO2 output/km of new cars sold in France decreased by another 3 g, to 149 g/km.
That was achieved in spite of the tougher EURO 4 SOx, NOx ... regulation, which actually increases CO2 output.
Your ~ 27 mpg achievement is way off (worse) than the French.
As far as CORPORATIONS are concerned, this tax applies to all companies, no matter if they are L'Oreal or a village bakery.
And, finally, where did you get the figure ~128 million EURO? You've put it to look like you are INFORMED on the subject?
And
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+Jun 5 2007, 02:37 AM)
If the US Bush administration really cared about Kyoto, they could have negotiated an amendment, so that the target to be 1990 PER CAPITA levels.
But they just rejected it.
Actually it was the Clinton/Gore admin that was in power when the Kyoto treaty was drafted and during the time any amendments were possible.
The treaty was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999.
The Clinton admin NEVER sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification.
Arthur
But they just rejected it.
Actually it was the Clinton/Gore admin that was in power when the Kyoto treaty was drafted and during the time any amendments were possible.
The treaty was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999.
The Clinton admin NEVER sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification.
Arthur
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+Jun 5 2007, 03:23 AM)
What does SIZE got to do with the example I gave?
I carefully chose the two Corollas and the Prius because I believe they are of the SAME size and driving comfort. I was not comparing BMW X5 with Fiat Panda!
This was a clear example of how governments can intervene in favor of the greener technology.
You have your EPA killing any prospects of diesel cars in the US for the next 5 years, because the current EURO 4 engines are "dirty". Why do you consider that this action of the French government, aimed at reducing CO2 output, is FUNNY?
Funny to me is giving "indulgences" on the regulations concerning mph average, just because the manufacturer has put a flex fuel device on a dinosaur like Lincoln Town or, worse, like Nissan Armada. Why don't you have flex fuel Chevrolet Aveo?
And the policy to tax CO2 actually WORKS: in 2006, the average CO2 output/km of new cars sold in France decreased by another 3 g, to 149 g/km.
That was achieved in spite of the tougher EURO 4 SOx, NOx ... regulation, which actually increases CO2 output.
Your ~ 27 mpg achievement is way off (worse) than the French.
As far as CORPORATIONS are concerned, this tax applies to all companies, no matter if they are L'Oreal or a village bakery.
And, finally, where did you get the figure ~128 million EURO? You've put it to look like you are INFORMED on the subject?
And
Size matters because the tax goes up DRASTICALLY as the CO2 per km goes up and as the number of cylinders goes up. So a company that NEEDS a large vehicle simply pays this large tax and then passes it on to the consumers. The fact is it taxes ALL vehicles (except those powered by LNG ???), so even if you buy the lowest CO2 producing vehicle you are STILL taxed.
So YES, it encourages COMPANIES to CONSIDER CO2 as a buying issue (good) but since there are many other issues involved with what kind of car a company buys, its MAINLY just a 128 million per year tax on corporate use of automobiles/trucks. Which, since its a corporate tax is then simply passed onto the population as an increase in the cost of virtually EVERYTHING (its a pretty regressive tax actually).
(the figure on the total Tax came from a French site that I used to check your math on (it was correct), sorry, didn't save the link)
As far as comparing the US to France, again, its apples to oranges as far as issues which drive gas milage. Come to the US some time and you'd start to see, our problems are differnt than the typical Parisian. Besides as you point out, its not that people in the EU are all that different, weren't you the one that pointed out that AS SOON AS Romanians could afford a car they got one and then clogged up the traffic making it bad for everyone?
As far as your indulgences, that's BS, its just the nature of regulations. You pass a law giving a credit for selling a flex fuel vehicle (good thing) and manufacturers take advantage by putting it on a non-fuel efficient car (bad thing) but NET, it encourages creating producton facilities of Ethanol so OVERALL its still a GOOD THING. Over time though, if regulations get taken advantage of then they eventually get changed. Its not perfect but that's the way it works.
Just like the regulations on EURO 4 engines. The EPA, who is in charge of our air quality has been concerned only about AIR POLLUTION and so their regulations do NOT factor in CO2 as a POLLUTANT since at 380 ppm it has NO NEGATIVE IMPACT on health.
Just a different way of looking at things.
Arthur
I carefully chose the two Corollas and the Prius because I believe they are of the SAME size and driving comfort. I was not comparing BMW X5 with Fiat Panda!
This was a clear example of how governments can intervene in favor of the greener technology.
You have your EPA killing any prospects of diesel cars in the US for the next 5 years, because the current EURO 4 engines are "dirty". Why do you consider that this action of the French government, aimed at reducing CO2 output, is FUNNY?
Funny to me is giving "indulgences" on the regulations concerning mph average, just because the manufacturer has put a flex fuel device on a dinosaur like Lincoln Town or, worse, like Nissan Armada. Why don't you have flex fuel Chevrolet Aveo?
And the policy to tax CO2 actually WORKS: in 2006, the average CO2 output/km of new cars sold in France decreased by another 3 g, to 149 g/km.
That was achieved in spite of the tougher EURO 4 SOx, NOx ... regulation, which actually increases CO2 output.
Your ~ 27 mpg achievement is way off (worse) than the French.
As far as CORPORATIONS are concerned, this tax applies to all companies, no matter if they are L'Oreal or a village bakery.
And, finally, where did you get the figure ~128 million EURO? You've put it to look like you are INFORMED on the subject?
And
Size matters because the tax goes up DRASTICALLY as the CO2 per km goes up and as the number of cylinders goes up. So a company that NEEDS a large vehicle simply pays this large tax and then passes it on to the consumers. The fact is it taxes ALL vehicles (except those powered by LNG ???), so even if you buy the lowest CO2 producing vehicle you are STILL taxed.
So YES, it encourages COMPANIES to CONSIDER CO2 as a buying issue (good) but since there are many other issues involved with what kind of car a company buys, its MAINLY just a 128 million per year tax on corporate use of automobiles/trucks. Which, since its a corporate tax is then simply passed onto the population as an increase in the cost of virtually EVERYTHING (its a pretty regressive tax actually).
(the figure on the total Tax came from a French site that I used to check your math on (it was correct), sorry, didn't save the link)
As far as comparing the US to France, again, its apples to oranges as far as issues which drive gas milage. Come to the US some time and you'd start to see, our problems are differnt than the typical Parisian. Besides as you point out, its not that people in the EU are all that different, weren't you the one that pointed out that AS SOON AS Romanians could afford a car they got one and then clogged up the traffic making it bad for everyone?
As far as your indulgences, that's BS, its just the nature of regulations. You pass a law giving a credit for selling a flex fuel vehicle (good thing) and manufacturers take advantage by putting it on a non-fuel efficient car (bad thing) but NET, it encourages creating producton facilities of Ethanol so OVERALL its still a GOOD THING. Over time though, if regulations get taken advantage of then they eventually get changed. Its not perfect but that's the way it works.
Just like the regulations on EURO 4 engines. The EPA, who is in charge of our air quality has been concerned only about AIR POLLUTION and so their regulations do NOT factor in CO2 as a POLLUTANT since at 380 ppm it has NO NEGATIVE IMPACT on health.
Just a different way of looking at things.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 5 2007, 02:36 PM)
Come to the US some time and you'd start to see, our problems are differnt than the typical Parisian.
Yeah, right, as if getting an US visa is piece of cake for a Romanian!
An US citizen will instantly get a visa in Romania as he arrives at the border, but we have very low chances to get it, and only from the US embassy in Bucharest.
This is despite the fact that:
- we're not Muslims;
- we're partners with US in NATO;
- we have troops in Iraq;
- we have troops in Afghanistan.
Fortunately, since 2002, we can travel free AT LEAST in Europe.
Yeah, right, as if getting an US visa is piece of cake for a Romanian!
An US citizen will instantly get a visa in Romania as he arrives at the border, but we have very low chances to get it, and only from the US embassy in Bucharest.
This is despite the fact that:
- we're not Muslims;
- we're partners with US in NATO;
- we have troops in Iraq;
- we have troops in Afghanistan.
Fortunately, since 2002, we can travel free AT LEAST in Europe.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 5 2007, 02:36 PM)
Size matters because the tax goes up DRASTICALLY as the CO2 per km goes up and as the number of cylinders goes up. So a company that NEEDS a large vehicle simply pays this large tax and then passes it on to the consumers. The fact is it taxes ALL vehicles (except those powered by LNG ???), so even if you buy the lowest CO2 producing vehicle you are STILL taxed.
Size doesn't mater in the example I gave you. For a company who needs a car for a low level manger, it doesn't matter if this car is Prius, or Corolla Diesel, or Corolla gasoline automatic. They are all the same, with two differences: price and CO2 output. To convince them to buy the ones with the lowest CO2 output, the government put a tax that increases EXPONENTIALLY with this output.
Now if you are a village bakery and you NEED a Range Rover, this is it, pay 7000 EURO per year and pass them on to your consumers! Except no one is going to buy your bread, because your humble neighbor thinks that he can do with a Citroen C3 with 120 g/km, pay only 400 EURO per year and sell the same bread cheaper.
Please note that this tax is only for passenger cars (<10 passengers), so for vans, lorries, buses and minibuses, where you may actually/really NEED a bigger car, the government allows you to buy what you need.
Size doesn't mater in the example I gave you. For a company who needs a car for a low level manger, it doesn't matter if this car is Prius, or Corolla Diesel, or Corolla gasoline automatic. They are all the same, with two differences: price and CO2 output. To convince them to buy the ones with the lowest CO2 output, the government put a tax that increases EXPONENTIALLY with this output.
Now if you are a village bakery and you NEED a Range Rover, this is it, pay 7000 EURO per year and pass them on to your consumers! Except no one is going to buy your bread, because your humble neighbor thinks that he can do with a Citroen C3 with 120 g/km, pay only 400 EURO per year and sell the same bread cheaper.
Please note that this tax is only for passenger cars (<10 passengers), so for vans, lorries, buses and minibuses, where you may actually/really NEED a bigger car, the government allows you to buy what you need.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 5 2007, 02:36 PM)
As far as your indulgences, that's BS, its just the nature of regulations. You pass a law giving a credit for selling a flex fuel vehicle (good thing) and manufacturers take advantage by putting it on a non-fuel efficient car (bad thing) but NET, it encourages creating producton facilities of Ethanol so OVERALL its still a GOOD THING. Over time though, if regulations get taken advantage of then they eventually get changed. Its not perfect but that's the way it works.
Over what time? I checked Yahoo/autos/green cars/ethanol and all I found were dinosaurs. There were maybe 4 exceptions: Mercedes C, Chrysler Sebring, ... which in Europe or Japan will never qualify for green cars.
It is obvious, as Len pointed out in a different thread, that this regulation is being abused by car manufacturers. The target of the regulation was to reduce CO2 output (increase mpg). While the target ~ 27 mpg is pathetic from my point of view (realistic from US point of view, because you're DIFFERENT), on top of it, it gets sabotaged.
Hello, EPA, time to change it! Please submit an amendment to the parliament, ethanol indulgence should only be used for cars with mpg > 25.
Over what time? I checked Yahoo/autos/green cars/ethanol and all I found were dinosaurs. There were maybe 4 exceptions: Mercedes C, Chrysler Sebring, ... which in Europe or Japan will never qualify for green cars.
It is obvious, as Len pointed out in a different thread, that this regulation is being abused by car manufacturers. The target of the regulation was to reduce CO2 output (increase mpg). While the target ~ 27 mpg is pathetic from my point of view (realistic from US point of view, because you're DIFFERENT), on top of it, it gets sabotaged.
Hello, EPA, time to change it! Please submit an amendment to the parliament, ethanol indulgence should only be used for cars with mpg > 25.
They might LOOK like dinosaurs, but 45 of the 65 flex fuel vehicles were TRUCKS/VANS.
Makes sense.
The majority of the E85 fuel locations are in our Midwest.
Trucks are VERY popular vehicles in the midwest.
Arthur
Makes sense.
The majority of the E85 fuel locations are in our Midwest.
Trucks are VERY popular vehicles in the midwest.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 6 2007, 04:35 PM)
They might LOOK like dinosaurs, but 45 of the 65 flex fuel vehicles were TRUCKS/VANS.
Makes sense.
The majority of the E85 fuel locations are in our Midwest.
Trucks are VERY popular vehicles in the Midwest.
Arthur
Actually, it does. And, to show you I am flexible, I will give another argument that runs in favor of your point and against what I said before:
If I had to choose between putting a flex fuel device in a Chevy Aveo or in a Chevy Silverado, to maximize the CO2 impact, I would put it in the Silverado myself.
This is because the Siverado has way lower mpg and therefore more Ethanol gallons will pass through its flex fuel device, maximizing the positive impact of using ethanol instead of gasoline.
However, I still think that giving indulgences on the mpg regulation is a bad move. Other incentives for flex fuel cars should have been devised. And Yahoo's idea of listing those dinosaurs as "green cars" is 100% ridiculous.
Coming back on the Midwest-pickup love affair, it is hard for me to understand it. What I know about the US comes from movies and TV shows.
I often see in the movies a macho guy (carpenter, fireman, etc) driving to work in his pick-up. However, I never saw any of them carrying anything in the bin of the pick-up. Except for Mexican gardeners in LA, which actually fill the pick-ups with gardening tools and workers, all the pick-ups I see in the movies run empty, so they could just as well be Toyota Yaris.
In Australian TV shows, they have smaller pick-ups and they USE them - there is always a bale of straw or a sheep or something in them.
So, as an American, not a foreign TV spectator, do you think people in the Midwest NEED all the pick-ups, or they are just a fashion thing, such as the blue-jeans, cowboy boots and hats?
Makes sense.
The majority of the E85 fuel locations are in our Midwest.
Trucks are VERY popular vehicles in the Midwest.
Arthur
Actually, it does. And, to show you I am flexible, I will give another argument that runs in favor of your point and against what I said before:
If I had to choose between putting a flex fuel device in a Chevy Aveo or in a Chevy Silverado, to maximize the CO2 impact, I would put it in the Silverado myself.
This is because the Siverado has way lower mpg and therefore more Ethanol gallons will pass through its flex fuel device, maximizing the positive impact of using ethanol instead of gasoline.
However, I still think that giving indulgences on the mpg regulation is a bad move. Other incentives for flex fuel cars should have been devised. And Yahoo's idea of listing those dinosaurs as "green cars" is 100% ridiculous.
Coming back on the Midwest-pickup love affair, it is hard for me to understand it. What I know about the US comes from movies and TV shows.
I often see in the movies a macho guy (carpenter, fireman, etc) driving to work in his pick-up. However, I never saw any of them carrying anything in the bin of the pick-up. Except for Mexican gardeners in LA, which actually fill the pick-ups with gardening tools and workers, all the pick-ups I see in the movies run empty, so they could just as well be Toyota Yaris.
In Australian TV shows, they have smaller pick-ups and they USE them - there is always a bale of straw or a sheep or something in them.
So, as an American, not a foreign TV spectator, do you think people in the Midwest NEED all the pick-ups, or they are just a fashion thing, such as the blue-jeans, cowboy boots and hats?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jun 4 2007, 10:11 AM)
The point of this is that the equations are well known, but, they run at a level where a small deviation in input produces a large deviation of output (I've seen the graphs, they're kinda spectacular) and it's this that causes the inaccuracies in weather forcasting, rather then any lack of understanding of the actual systems involved (at least when it comes to meterology, climatology is a whole other ball game).
I'm no expert in either meteorology or climatology, just a smart *** issuing statements while confusing meteorology with climatology.
However, it is obvious that both fields are treating events that are influenced by a huge number of parameters: air pressure, temperature, humidity, composition of trace gases, Earth orbit, angle, cloud cover, soil condition/color/cover, airborne dust, geography (plain, hill, mountain, lake, ocean). There are also countless physical phenomena: vaporization, condensation, freezing, melting, conduction, convection, radiation, reflection .... At micro-level, each such phenomenon is governed by well-understood equations. But all these equations and parameters interact in a chaotic manner and I believe that:
- knowing all individual MICRO-level equations;
- knowing all input parameters
it is impossible to build a mathematical system of equations that will yield the figure you need: temperature tomorrow in Sidney at 2:00 pm, or average Earth temperature in 2025.
To go round this problem, I believe that meteorologists and climatologist have constructed mathematical systems that are fed certain parameters and yield certain results. However, these mathematical systems do not contain equations from fluid mechanics, physical chemistry, thermodynamics, optics or astrophysics, but, new, "synthetic" equations that model the behavior of the complex system under study. Since they have first started doing this, I believe that they have changed these synthetic equations many times, by trial and error and that they will continue to refine them in the future, adding new parameters or adjusting the weight each individual parameter is considered to have on the system.
So I do not believe that the equations are well known, I believe they are work in progress, otherwise this debate would not exist. If the equations were well known, such as in the case of Newtonian mechanics, we would have known exactly the expected global temperature for each CO2 ppm level and the time frame for it.
I'm no expert in either meteorology or climatology, just a smart *** issuing statements while confusing meteorology with climatology.
However, it is obvious that both fields are treating events that are influenced by a huge number of parameters: air pressure, temperature, humidity, composition of trace gases, Earth orbit, angle, cloud cover, soil condition/color/cover, airborne dust, geography (plain, hill, mountain, lake, ocean). There are also countless physical phenomena: vaporization, condensation, freezing, melting, conduction, convection, radiation, reflection .... At micro-level, each such phenomenon is governed by well-understood equations. But all these equations and parameters interact in a chaotic manner and I believe that:
- knowing all individual MICRO-level equations;
- knowing all input parameters
it is impossible to build a mathematical system of equations that will yield the figure you need: temperature tomorrow in Sidney at 2:00 pm, or average Earth temperature in 2025.
To go round this problem, I believe that meteorologists and climatologist have constructed mathematical systems that are fed certain parameters and yield certain results. However, these mathematical systems do not contain equations from fluid mechanics, physical chemistry, thermodynamics, optics or astrophysics, but, new, "synthetic" equations that model the behavior of the complex system under study. Since they have first started doing this, I believe that they have changed these synthetic equations many times, by trial and error and that they will continue to refine them in the future, adding new parameters or adjusting the weight each individual parameter is considered to have on the system.
So I do not believe that the equations are well known, I believe they are work in progress, otherwise this debate would not exist. If the equations were well known, such as in the case of Newtonian mechanics, we would have known exactly the expected global temperature for each CO2 ppm level and the time frame for it.
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+Jun 7 2007, 02:59 AM)
Coming back on the Midwest-pickup love affair, it is hard for me to understand it. What I know about the US comes from movies and TV shows.
I often see in the movies a macho guy (carpenter, fireman, etc) driving to work in his pick-up. However, I never saw any of them carrying anything in the bin of the pick-up. Except for Mexican gardeners in LA, which actually fill the pick-ups with gardening tools and workers, all the pick-ups I see in the movies run empty, so they could just as well be Toyota Yaris.
Movies and TV shows tend to be a bit misleading. No one would watch an UN-EDITED show of someone's normal life. Too much work, too little play.
As to the Midwest and trucks, well there is a LOT of farm land in the midwest and a LOT of long distances between towns and a LOT of people have to depend on one vehicle for ALL their needs. So while a Yaris might work most of the time it won't work ALL the time.
Now, true if you only need a truck once a month, then rent it, but more often than that and you need a truck.
I'd say the larger percent of people that own one, need one often enough to justify it.
Arthur
I often see in the movies a macho guy (carpenter, fireman, etc) driving to work in his pick-up. However, I never saw any of them carrying anything in the bin of the pick-up. Except for Mexican gardeners in LA, which actually fill the pick-ups with gardening tools and workers, all the pick-ups I see in the movies run empty, so they could just as well be Toyota Yaris.
Movies and TV shows tend to be a bit misleading. No one would watch an UN-EDITED show of someone's normal life. Too much work, too little play.
As to the Midwest and trucks, well there is a LOT of farm land in the midwest and a LOT of long distances between towns and a LOT of people have to depend on one vehicle for ALL their needs. So while a Yaris might work most of the time it won't work ALL the time.
Now, true if you only need a truck once a month, then rent it, but more often than that and you need a truck.
I'd say the larger percent of people that own one, need one often enough to justify it.
Arthur
On our team of about 20 software developers, at least about 1/4 of them drive pickups to work every day. One lives alone in a rented basement apartment and the pickup is definitely just a fashion statement. Another commutes 100 km / day (one way) with it, and uses it on weekends to haul his motorcycle around. Neither could justify owning the pickup on an environmental basis if fuel were priced at it's real value + costs.
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+Jun 6 2007, 09:26 AM)
Yeah, right, as if getting an US visa is piece of cake for a Romanian!
An US citizen will instantly get a visa in Romania as he arrives at the border, but we have very low chances to get it, and only from the US embassy in Bucharest.
This is despite the fact that:
- we're not Muslims;
- we're partners with US in NATO;
- we have troops in Iraq;
- we have troops in Afghanistan.
Fortunately, since 2002, we can travel free AT LEAST in Europe.
Too funny eh? The US iron curtain is still up? Looks like Bush is trying pretty hard to revive the cold war as well, pushing missile defense system into Czech Republic and Poland. Question. If you were planning to "defend Europe from missiles from Iran", would you base the missiles in Poland? What?
How retarded does Bushco think those voters are, really?
Arms industry was really sad to see that cold war end.
An US citizen will instantly get a visa in Romania as he arrives at the border, but we have very low chances to get it, and only from the US embassy in Bucharest.
This is despite the fact that:
- we're not Muslims;
- we're partners with US in NATO;
- we have troops in Iraq;
- we have troops in Afghanistan.
Fortunately, since 2002, we can travel free AT LEAST in Europe.
Too funny eh? The US iron curtain is still up? Looks like Bush is trying pretty hard to revive the cold war as well, pushing missile defense system into Czech Republic and Poland. Question. If you were planning to "defend Europe from missiles from Iran", would you base the missiles in Poland? What?
How retarded does Bushco think those voters are, really?Arms industry was really sad to see that cold war end.
Really, if you only need a pick-up several times a month, instead of a Yaris or a pick-up, you could buy a compact car and a trailer. It will be cheaper than having 2 cars and it will serve all purposes with minimum fuel consumption.
There are dinosaurs like Ford F150, I cannot imagine their purpose. If we need to carry what they can carry, we buy a van or a small lorry. But we never use the van to drive to work.
And I come back to the issue of diesel. I do not agree, but I can understand why you do not want diesel cars in densely populated urban areas: soot and NOx pollution.
But if pick-up trucks are mainly used in rural areas in Midwest, what difference does it make if the diesel is Euro2 or Euro6? There are so few cars on the road, that the ppm concentrations of these pollutants in the exhaust gases simply cannot have any health consequences.
And, really, not putting diesel engines on trucks and vans is something that can only happen in backward Russia or Iran, where the price of fuel is peanuts.
I checked today and GAZ automaker in Russia sells Gazeli minibuses and Soboli vans with gasoline engines. As a curiosity, they are still making the Volga sedan with the following technical specs:
- top speed 147 km/h;
- 0-100 km/h 19 s;
- consumption 13 l/100 km;
- engine 2.445 l gasoline, 81 HP, 166 NM torque.
There are dinosaurs like Ford F150, I cannot imagine their purpose. If we need to carry what they can carry, we buy a van or a small lorry. But we never use the van to drive to work.
And I come back to the issue of diesel. I do not agree, but I can understand why you do not want diesel cars in densely populated urban areas: soot and NOx pollution.
But if pick-up trucks are mainly used in rural areas in Midwest, what difference does it make if the diesel is Euro2 or Euro6? There are so few cars on the road, that the ppm concentrations of these pollutants in the exhaust gases simply cannot have any health consequences.
And, really, not putting diesel engines on trucks and vans is something that can only happen in backward Russia or Iran, where the price of fuel is peanuts.
I checked today and GAZ automaker in Russia sells Gazeli minibuses and Soboli vans with gasoline engines. As a curiosity, they are still making the Volga sedan with the following technical specs:
- top speed 147 km/h;
- 0-100 km/h 19 s;
- consumption 13 l/100 km;
- engine 2.445 l gasoline, 81 HP, 166 NM torque.
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+Jun 7 2007, 09:09 AM)
Really, if you only need a pick-up several times a month, instead of a Yaris or a pick-up, you could buy a compact car and a trailer. It will be cheaper than having 2 cars and it will serve all purposes with minimum fuel consumption.
There are dinosaurs like Ford F150, I cannot imagine their purpose. If we need to carry what they can carry, we buy a van or a small lorry. But we never use the van to drive to work.
And I come back to the issue of diesel. I do not agree, but I can understand why you do not want diesel cars in densely populated urban areas: soot and NOx pollution.
But if pick-up trucks are mainly used in rural areas in Midwest, what difference does it make if the diesel is Euro2 or Euro6? There are so few cars on the road, that the ppm concentrations of these pollutants in the exhaust gases simply cannot have any health consequences.
And, really, not putting diesel engines on trucks and vans is something that can only happen in backward Russia or Iran, where the price of fuel is peanuts.
The problem is though the midwest is mostly farmland it also has big cities like Chicago, St Louis, Indianapolis etc. so, no, you really can't slice and dice it like that.
People buy pickups for what they can carry and what they can tow. Again, I think MOST people buy pickups because they need their capabilities.
By the way a lot of those working pickup trucks ARE diesels.
As to the air, this is what I meant by one of the major problems from soot.
http://www.physorg.com/news100354399.html
Arthur
There are dinosaurs like Ford F150, I cannot imagine their purpose. If we need to carry what they can carry, we buy a van or a small lorry. But we never use the van to drive to work.
And I come back to the issue of diesel. I do not agree, but I can understand why you do not want diesel cars in densely populated urban areas: soot and NOx pollution.
But if pick-up trucks are mainly used in rural areas in Midwest, what difference does it make if the diesel is Euro2 or Euro6? There are so few cars on the road, that the ppm concentrations of these pollutants in the exhaust gases simply cannot have any health consequences.
And, really, not putting diesel engines on trucks and vans is something that can only happen in backward Russia or Iran, where the price of fuel is peanuts.
The problem is though the midwest is mostly farmland it also has big cities like Chicago, St Louis, Indianapolis etc. so, no, you really can't slice and dice it like that.
People buy pickups for what they can carry and what they can tow. Again, I think MOST people buy pickups because they need their capabilities.
By the way a lot of those working pickup trucks ARE diesels.
As to the air, this is what I meant by one of the major problems from soot.
http://www.physorg.com/news100354399.html
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 7 2007, 02:49 PM)
By the way a lot of those working pickup trucks ARE diesels.
As to the air, this is what I meant by one of the major problems from soot.
http://www.physorg.com/news100354399.html
Arthur
Arthur, really, you are exaggerating the problem of diesel soot.
If it were like this, than the snow in Europe should be dark black, and it's not. In Bucharest, when it snows at night, in the morning it is white and then, during the day, it turns grey. But if you go out of town it is still white and there is no way that the soot will get all the way to the Arctic glaciers. Forest fires are a different story, the quantity of soot is orders of magnitude greater.
You make it sound like we live in Charles Dickens London. We're not.
As far as the diesel trucks in USA, from Yahoo Autos, your new US trucks are:
- 6 diesel;
- 12 ethanol;
- 163 gasoline;
- 2 hybrid.
I rest my case.
As to the air, this is what I meant by one of the major problems from soot.
http://www.physorg.com/news100354399.html
Arthur
Arthur, really, you are exaggerating the problem of diesel soot.
If it were like this, than the snow in Europe should be dark black, and it's not. In Bucharest, when it snows at night, in the morning it is white and then, during the day, it turns grey. But if you go out of town it is still white and there is no way that the soot will get all the way to the Arctic glaciers. Forest fires are a different story, the quantity of soot is orders of magnitude greater.
You make it sound like we live in Charles Dickens London. We're not.
As far as the diesel trucks in USA, from Yahoo Autos, your new US trucks are:
- 6 diesel;
- 12 ethanol;
- 163 gasoline;
- 2 hybrid.
I rest my case.
QUOTE (lengould+Jun 7 2007, 01:32 PM)
Too funny eh? The US iron curtain is still up? Looks like Bush is trying pretty hard to revive the cold war as well, pushing missile defense system into Czech Republic and Poland. Question. If you were planning to "defend Europe from missiles from Iran", would you base the missiles in Poland? What? How retarded does Bushco think those voters are, really?
Arms industry was really sad to see that cold war end.
Actually, the US forgot to lift the iron curtain for all Eastern Europe.
Except for Somalia, since the I'st Gulf War we have sent troops to support all US military operations. That doesn't mean we're not pariah. We face the same from Canada, as a matter of fact. From the nations on this forum, I believe New Zealand is the only place I can go without a visa.
The funny thing about the missile shield against Iran is that Bulgaria and Romania, the only European NATO countries within range of the Iranian Missiles, are not covered by the system. I hope the Iranians do not take to hart the support we are giving to US, so they don't waist no nukes on us.
How retarded does Bushco think those voters are, really?Arms industry was really sad to see that cold war end.
Actually, the US forgot to lift the iron curtain for all Eastern Europe.
Except for Somalia, since the I'st Gulf War we have sent troops to support all US military operations. That doesn't mean we're not pariah. We face the same from Canada, as a matter of fact. From the nations on this forum, I believe New Zealand is the only place I can go without a visa.
The funny thing about the missile shield against Iran is that Bulgaria and Romania, the only European NATO countries within range of the Iranian Missiles, are not covered by the system. I hope the Iranians do not take to hart the support we are giving to US, so they don't waist no nukes on us.
Up to about 2 years ago, my son-in-law was national sales manager for Toyota Trucks Canada. They spent a lot of time lobbying Japan to "build bigger trucks" because they were loosing so much market to Ford and GM. Now the Toyota Tundra is (about) the biggest truck out there. My one brother, who contracts gas well management in Alberta, really does need a pickup, offroad and hauling parts about. But he's always used the smaller Toyota's, 15 - 20 years now. He's never complained about them being too small, he loves them for reliability. My second brother and his wife operate a feedlot in Alberta. His wife insists on driving a GMC Suburban, (a HUGE vehicle, 8+ passengers, all padded leather etc. inside.) She won't even let anyone in there with boots on. 
QUOTE (Guest_Mircea the Romanian+Jun 7 2007, 01:12 PM)
Arthur, really, you are exaggerating the problem of diesel soot.
If it were like this, than the snow in Europe should be dark black, and it's not. In Bucharest, when it snows at night, in the morning it is white and then, during the day, it turns grey. But if you go out of town it is still white and there is no way that the soot will get all the way to the Arctic glaciers. Forest fires are a different story, the quantity of soot is orders of magnitude greater.
You make it sound like we live in Charles Dickens London. We're not.
From the article:
Snow becomes dirty when soot from tailpipes, smoke stacks and forest fires enters the atmosphere
calculated that dirty snow caused the Earth’s temperature to rise .1 to .15 degree, or up to 19 percent of the total warming.
Humans create the majority of airborne soot through industry and fuel combustion
Now, which type of fuel combustion creates the most soot?
(I've also argued that we need to clean up coal for the SAME reasons)
Think of it, we could potentially reverse 10% or so of the Global Warming by simply controlling our production of SOOT.
Soot, which unlike CO2 has NO REDEEMING VALUE and is a KNOWN health issue.
Secondly, why is it that everyone who seems SO PASSIONATE about controlling Global Warming at the same time seems ONLY interested in doing so by reducing CO2 production?
Arthur
If it were like this, than the snow in Europe should be dark black, and it's not. In Bucharest, when it snows at night, in the morning it is white and then, during the day, it turns grey. But if you go out of town it is still white and there is no way that the soot will get all the way to the Arctic glaciers. Forest fires are a different story, the quantity of soot is orders of magnitude greater.
You make it sound like we live in Charles Dickens London. We're not.
From the article:
Snow becomes dirty when soot from tailpipes, smoke stacks and forest fires enters the atmosphere
calculated that dirty snow caused the Earth’s temperature to rise .1 to .15 degree, or up to 19 percent of the total warming.
Humans create the majority of airborne soot through industry and fuel combustion
Now, which type of fuel combustion creates the most soot?
(I've also argued that we need to clean up coal for the SAME reasons)
Think of it, we could potentially reverse 10% or so of the Global Warming by simply controlling our production of SOOT.
Soot, which unlike CO2 has NO REDEEMING VALUE and is a KNOWN health issue.
Secondly, why is it that everyone who seems SO PASSIONATE about controlling Global Warming at the same time seems ONLY interested in doing so by reducing CO2 production?
Arthur
1. Give me some hints about the health effects of soot. I view soot as inert carbon. It should not be toxic, reactive, dangerous. I consider CO to be dangerous/toxic, ozone or benzene to be carcinogenic, but I know nothing about soot. I do not see smoke from a charcoal barbecue grill or from a camping bonfire as a health hazard. Give me something to read and I may change my mind.
2. CO2 is a gas and will stay in the atmosphere until it undergoes a chemical reaction or it will be adsorbed/absorbed. They say it takes 100 years. Soot is like dust, it only stays airborne if there's a wind strong enough to carry it. It will be washed by rain, it adheres to any wet surface, it will hide in any crack and stay there. They say it vanishes in weeks. From what I see with my naked eye, 80% of the soot from my tailpipe immediately settles to the ground.
3. Under normal conditions, when I drive my diesel car, if you drive behind me, you will see no soot. Only when I ramp up my engine above 4000 rpm (once a month for 30 seconds) you will be able to see black smoke coming out of my tailpipe. And my engine is EURO 2, 240 000 km old! That is very little soot compared to other sources.
4. If during the winter, as soon as you exit a big European town, the snow around it is white, how can it be that the soot does not blacken that snow, but it turns grey the snow thousand of miles up north? If it really does happen, than there must be another source.
This are all commonsense observations. I don't know what that guy has calculated, but I do not believe that diesel soot is the cause.
Does he/do you have figures of how much soot is produced by:
- forest fires;
- dirty coal plants;
- firewood and coal home heating;
- diesel engines
and how far does the soot from each of these sources travel?
2. CO2 is a gas and will stay in the atmosphere until it undergoes a chemical reaction or it will be adsorbed/absorbed. They say it takes 100 years. Soot is like dust, it only stays airborne if there's a wind strong enough to carry it. It will be washed by rain, it adheres to any wet surface, it will hide in any crack and stay there. They say it vanishes in weeks. From what I see with my naked eye, 80% of the soot from my tailpipe immediately settles to the ground.
3. Under normal conditions, when I drive my diesel car, if you drive behind me, you will see no soot. Only when I ramp up my engine above 4000 rpm (once a month for 30 seconds) you will be able to see black smoke coming out of my tailpipe. And my engine is EURO 2, 240 000 km old! That is very little soot compared to other sources.
4. If during the winter, as soon as you exit a big European town, the snow around it is white, how can it be that the soot does not blacken that snow, but it turns grey the snow thousand of miles up north? If it really does happen, than there must be another source.
This are all commonsense observations. I don't know what that guy has calculated, but I do not believe that diesel soot is the cause.
Does he/do you have figures of how much soot is produced by:
- forest fires;
- dirty coal plants;
- firewood and coal home heating;
- diesel engines
and how far does the soot from each of these sources travel?
http://www.environmentillinois.org/uploads...Diesel_2002.pdf
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2002/2002-03-06-07.asp
http://www.masspirg.org/reports/dangers_of...s_of_Diesel.pdf
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Diesel%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
http://www.pacfuel.com/health.htm#devil
http://www.njpirg.org/NJ.asp?id2=20406
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...28/ai_n11831172
http://www.abc.net.au/health/regions/features/diesel/
http://cleanairnow.org/cleanairnow.asp?id2=21420
http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1178382006
http://www.gbcpa.net/diesel_exhaust.htm
Arthur
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2002/2002-03-06-07.asp
http://www.masspirg.org/reports/dangers_of...s_of_Diesel.pdf
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Diesel%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
http://www.pacfuel.com/health.htm#devil
http://www.njpirg.org/NJ.asp?id2=20406
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...28/ai_n11831172
http://www.abc.net.au/health/regions/features/diesel/
http://cleanairnow.org/cleanairnow.asp?id2=21420
http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1178382006
http://www.gbcpa.net/diesel_exhaust.htm
Arthur
So, once again I find the truth behind NO FREE LUNCH.
OK, than I guess my next car will be LPG flex fuel. Low power, low efficiency, but at least price per liter LPG is half the one of gasoline.
Mircea
OK, than I guess my next car will be LPG flex fuel. Low power, low efficiency, but at least price per liter LPG is half the one of gasoline.
Mircea
QUOTE (Mircea+Jun 9 2007, 01:25 PM)
So, once again I find the truth behind NO FREE LUNCH.
OK, than I guess my next car will be LPG flex fuel. Low power, low efficiency, but at least price per liter LPG is half the one of gasoline.
Mircea
Nah,
Like you said, you don't use your car to commute and if you trade up for the newer cleaner diesels and use the newer biofuel/low sulfur fuels I don't think your personal soot footprint will be an issue.
They ARE making diesels cleaner.
A lot of the info I posted dealt with the soot when the articles were written, but diesel technology (both fuel and engine) is changing pretty fast.
My argument with you was mainly about why we were not using more diesels NOW, I think you will see that as the diesels clean up their act and gas prices stay high, then the US diesel market expand quite a bit.
Arthur
OK, than I guess my next car will be LPG flex fuel. Low power, low efficiency, but at least price per liter LPG is half the one of gasoline.
Mircea
Nah,
Like you said, you don't use your car to commute and if you trade up for the newer cleaner diesels and use the newer biofuel/low sulfur fuels I don't think your personal soot footprint will be an issue.
They ARE making diesels cleaner.
A lot of the info I posted dealt with the soot when the articles were written, but diesel technology (both fuel and engine) is changing pretty fast.
My argument with you was mainly about why we were not using more diesels NOW, I think you will see that as the diesels clean up their act and gas prices stay high, then the US diesel market expand quite a bit.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 9 2007, 06:38 PM)
They ARE making diesels cleaner.
I am afraid that the new diesels will make less of the harmless soot (health-wise, the one with a large diameter, that cannot enter the blood stream) and more of the dangerous, invisible one.
I have no data to back this up, it's just an intuition:
- The soot forms like this: you inject drops of diesel fuel in hot compressed air and the drops ignite. The molecules at the outer part of the drop will find oxygen and will burn, the ones at the core of the droplet will be pyrolyzed to soot. The bigger the droplet, the larger the resulting soot particle.
- The diesel technology (if you let aside old inventions, like turbo and intercooler) has advanced by making the fuel droplets increasingly smaller: the fuel is injected at higher and higher pressure through smaller and smaller nozzles.
On top of it, I suspect that Volkswagen's FSI gasoline technology (of which I saw none on US Yahoo Auto) is going to create the same effect in gasoline engines. If I understood correctly, FSI is direct gasoline injection in the cylinder, just like in diesel. Starting with FSI, the EU has soot pollution norms for gasoline engines. The FSI means higher power and torque, less fuel consumption/CO2 output, but ... new soot. Again, NO FREE LUNCH!
In the end, we all have to die of something!
I am afraid that the new diesels will make less of the harmless soot (health-wise, the one with a large diameter, that cannot enter the blood stream) and more of the dangerous, invisible one.
I have no data to back this up, it's just an intuition:
- The soot forms like this: you inject drops of diesel fuel in hot compressed air and the drops ignite. The molecules at the outer part of the drop will find oxygen and will burn, the ones at the core of the droplet will be pyrolyzed to soot. The bigger the droplet, the larger the resulting soot particle.
- The diesel technology (if you let aside old inventions, like turbo and intercooler) has advanced by making the fuel droplets increasingly smaller: the fuel is injected at higher and higher pressure through smaller and smaller nozzles.
On top of it, I suspect that Volkswagen's FSI gasoline technology (of which I saw none on US Yahoo Auto) is going to create the same effect in gasoline engines. If I understood correctly, FSI is direct gasoline injection in the cylinder, just like in diesel. Starting with FSI, the EU has soot pollution norms for gasoline engines. The FSI means higher power and torque, less fuel consumption/CO2 output, but ... new soot. Again, NO FREE LUNCH!
In the end, we all have to die of something!
I think the difference will come from the addition of catalytic converters. These were not available for the older engines because the amount of particulate matter would clog them up. Using the proper catylsts along with air injection into the exhaust I believe one can get rid of the soot.
Arthur
Arthur
To Arthur: No free lunch.
As the wheel spins, sometimes you are on top, sometimes you're at the bottom.
Look what I came across: "Ethanol cars may not be healthier "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6563255.stm
If you trust this kind of guys, there's no way out.
As I said: we all have to dye of something.
As the wheel spins, sometimes you are on top, sometimes you're at the bottom.
Look what I came across: "Ethanol cars may not be healthier "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6563255.stm
If you trust this kind of guys, there's no way out.
As I said: we all have to dye of something.
RomanSque;? Try to fly over their fear tactics. The solution would be to turn the (t)he COz muffled excretions into something other than carbon soot suspension within smok. The humanitiy of Earth could well enough breath cleanly without fireous zore throat inzultingly/rezultingly with expleatives to shout out- stop the obvious damage.
I'm familiar enough with science to design a multitue of means - thechnological designs etc to convert the gases of ethanol alcohol c2H5Oh combustion that would have to be h2o with co2
But do I have to e-mail sudgestions to proffesors 60-70yr of age giving them tip when they might look aroungd and say we're proffesors with degrees and have tought thousaands of brilliant students whats this 70's undergraduate think he is?
The answer is he isnt unlike them a coward that pretends uninsight/comprehension of obvious solutions to enjoy a comfortable position within the proffessions hyrachy trebbling to give noting less than Excellent grade to ewww
OIL'Vey lot of money invested. Ofcourse everyone with oilstock investment is going to write articles sudgesting that ethanol alcohol will cause worse consequenses. YES worse to their inventments lol
I'm familiar enough with science to design a multitue of means - thechnological designs etc to convert the gases of ethanol alcohol c2H5Oh combustion that would have to be h2o with co2
But do I have to e-mail sudgestions to proffesors 60-70yr of age giving them tip when they might look aroungd and say we're proffesors with degrees and have tought thousaands of brilliant students whats this 70's undergraduate think he is?
The answer is he isnt unlike them a coward that pretends uninsight/comprehension of obvious solutions to enjoy a comfortable position within the proffessions hyrachy trebbling to give noting less than Excellent grade to ewww
OIL'Vey lot of money invested. Ofcourse everyone with oilstock investment is going to write articles sudgesting that ethanol alcohol will cause worse consequenses. YES worse to their inventments lol
QUOTE (Soultechs+Jun 21 2007, 10:35 AM)
RomanSque;? Try to fly over their fear tactics. The solution would be to turn the (t)he COz muffled excretions into something other than carbon soot suspension within smok. The humanitiy of Earth could well enough breath cleanly without fireous zore throat inzultingly/rezultingly with expleatives to shout out- stop the obvious damage.
You intoxicated?
Ethanol?
Or worse ... methanol?
That's dangerous ... deadly even.
Pe bune, nu inteleg ce vrei sa spui.
You intoxicated?
Ethanol?
Or worse ... methanol?
That's dangerous ... deadly even.
Pe bune, nu inteleg ce vrei sa spui.
tsesch i ciao Roman 50 = i&
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 12 2007, 02:04 AM)
Using the proper catylsts along with air injection into the exhaust I believe one can get rid of the soot.
You know what? In the end I believe Euro 2 diesels are the best!
I never really paid attention and I've been a decent guy, not arguing when I was told: this is not good, because it kills this much people a year, this is not good, because it increases the risk to blah blah cancer by this much, a.s.o.
But all those data are really bias.
Aside from the subject, but not far away, is the subject of smoking and lung cancer. I am 34 and I've never put a cigarette in my mouth my whole life.
However, it never bothers me if people smoke next to me. Now that there is an surge in the number of countries that ban smoking in public places, I don't agree with it and consider it an insensitive witch-hunt.
I didn't buy the reasoning that secondhand smoking is a danger so big, it justifies bullying the smokers. Common sense told me that the bulk of the carcinogenic load goes to the smoker, not to me.
But I came across this article in Nature, that helped me get the figures to back the common sense:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/...l/4471049a.html
Important stuff there:
- the risk of developing lung cancer is about 25 times higher in smokers than non-smokers;
- non-smokers' exposure to second-hand smoke is estimated to be about 1% that of a smoker.
True, it says that the risk of lung cancer increases BY 24% if you are a passive smoker.
BUT which is the Baseline, which is 100?
Here comes the real bias. It is extremely difficult to find out which is the level of the risk, both for smokers and for passive smokers. All you find is: increase by this, increase by that, but they never say OVER WHAT.
Finally, the figures, from W.H.O.:
http://www.who.int/gender/documents/en/lungcancerlow.pdf
- in the worst hit region of the world (Eastern Europe, where I live), the risk to get lung cancer for men (say 50% smokers) is 69.7 per 100 000.
As risk smokers:nonsmokers is 25:1, it follows that, of the 69.7 unfortunate guys:
- 67 were smokers;
- 2.7 were non-smokers.
Now, as there is no public smoking ban in Eastern Europe, we can say that my risk is 24% higher now.
2.7 divided by 1.24, the new, reduced risk will be 2.2 in 100 000.
So, you are reducing the risk by 0.5 in 100 000.
Actually, as we, the non-smokers, are only half of 100 000 test batch, the risk for us would be reduced by 1 in 100 000 if the public smoking ban is introduced in Romania.
There are probably 5 million male and 3 million women smokers in Romania. Is it worth tormenting their life, to allegedly save 11 men and 11 women a year from lung cancer? I DON'T THINK SO!
Why? Because during that same year, 260000 Romanians will die from a lot of other causes.
I believe that what matters most is the quality of life of the 8 million smokers. If they want to enjoy a cigarette at work or in a bar, why not?
Now, back to diesel. Compared to second hand smoking, I believe it's peanuts. So, if EURO 2 is cheap, powerful and low on CO2, it's best for me!
But, as we, non-smokers, are only half of the
You know what? In the end I believe Euro 2 diesels are the best!
I never really paid attention and I've been a decent guy, not arguing when I was told: this is not good, because it kills this much people a year, this is not good, because it increases the risk to blah blah cancer by this much, a.s.o.
But all those data are really bias.
Aside from the subject, but not far away, is the subject of smoking and lung cancer. I am 34 and I've never put a cigarette in my mouth my whole life.
However, it never bothers me if people smoke next to me. Now that there is an surge in the number of countries that ban smoking in public places, I don't agree with it and consider it an insensitive witch-hunt.
I didn't buy the reasoning that secondhand smoking is a danger so big, it justifies bullying the smokers. Common sense told me that the bulk of the carcinogenic load goes to the smoker, not to me.
But I came across this article in Nature, that helped me get the figures to back the common sense:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/...l/4471049a.html
Important stuff there:
- the risk of developing lung cancer is about 25 times higher in smokers than non-smokers;
- non-smokers' exposure to second-hand smoke is estimated to be about 1% that of a smoker.
True, it says that the risk of lung cancer increases BY 24% if you are a passive smoker.
BUT which is the Baseline, which is 100?
Here comes the real bias. It is extremely difficult to find out which is the level of the risk, both for smokers and for passive smokers. All you find is: increase by this, increase by that, but they never say OVER WHAT.
Finally, the figures, from W.H.O.:
http://www.who.int/gender/documents/en/lungcancerlow.pdf
- in the worst hit region of the world (Eastern Europe, where I live), the risk to get lung cancer for men (say 50% smokers) is 69.7 per 100 000.
As risk smokers:nonsmokers is 25:1, it follows that, of the 69.7 unfortunate guys:
- 67 were smokers;
- 2.7 were non-smokers.
Now, as there is no public smoking ban in Eastern Europe, we can say that my risk is 24% higher now.
2.7 divided by 1.24, the new, reduced risk will be 2.2 in 100 000.
So, you are reducing the risk by 0.5 in 100 000.
Actually, as we, the non-smokers, are only half of 100 000 test batch, the risk for us would be reduced by 1 in 100 000 if the public smoking ban is introduced in Romania.
There are probably 5 million male and 3 million women smokers in Romania. Is it worth tormenting their life, to allegedly save 11 men and 11 women a year from lung cancer? I DON'T THINK SO!
Why? Because during that same year, 260000 Romanians will die from a lot of other causes.
I believe that what matters most is the quality of life of the 8 million smokers. If they want to enjoy a cigarette at work or in a bar, why not?
Now, back to diesel. Compared to second hand smoking, I believe it's peanuts. So, if EURO 2 is cheap, powerful and low on CO2, it's best for me!
But, as we, non-smokers, are only half of the
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.