BS: Global Warming

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Grab
Date: 29 Nov 00 - 10:21 AM

KimC, not having accidents in a Jeep and having accidents in other cars is not a valid argument. It's like saying "When I wore last wore red shoes I got short-changed by the shop assistant, so I'll wear black shoes so he doesn't short-change me".

Whether an SUV is actually safer - hmm. If you hit something head-on at low speeds, your bull-bars will demolish whatever's in front of you, and leave your car unscathed. Unfortunately, if this is a kid who's run out into the street, they're dead. Bullbars were designed in Australia to kill kangaroos which run out in front of cars, in preference to the car's crumple-zone taking the impact and trashing the car but allowing the kangaroo to survive. If you hit a person with a car with bull-bars on it at any sort of speed then they're dead, no questions - it's like having knives stuck to the front of your car.

Bull-bars are also dangerous to the driver if you hit something at speed. Crumple-zones take the impact on normal cars and minimise the shock to the passengers. If you've not got a crumple-zone (and bull-bars are designed NOT to crumple) then the passengers take a lot more shock, so there's much more chance of injury from impact with the car and other passengers, and of neck and internal organ damage. Not nice.

And for rear and side impacts, often SUVs are much less protective than smaller cars. Most quality saloon cars (and we're talking makes like BMW and Mercedes here who know how to build cars, not over-sized under-engineered monsters like Cadillacs) give you a much better chance of surviving an accident than an SUV.

Next up - SUV efficiency. They all have enormous tyres which are designed for off-road use. That gives a much higher rolling resistance, which increases fuel consumption. The frontal area is much bigger, which increases air resistance. And they're usually heavier than normal cars so there's more energy required to accelerate them.

Your mum having a V8 Cadillac as personal transport is equally bad - there's no need for that much engine. SUVs are just the most obvious example of lack of consideration for fuel consumption, so they get most of the flak, but high-consumption cars are just as bad. And 20mpg is VERY bad - maybe you don't think so when a V8 is a typical car to use for around town, but in the UK we'd reckon that anything under 30mpg is seriously expensive. But petrol's so cheap in the US, there's no incentive for anyone to cut down.

Tall/short drivers - some cars fit them, some don't. A friend of mine is 6'4" and has no problems getting in a Rover. My wife is 4'10" and we've had to pick cars carefully so that she can reach the pedals! Not good as the only reason to buy an SUV.

A good reason for an SUV or a minivan is that you've got a lot of stuff (or ppl) to transport or you're going somewhere where the off-road facilities are useful. I fly hang-gliders, and I've appreciated a lift from ppl who've used 4x4s to get to the top of rough tracks. But those ppl generally don't use the 4x4 as the main car - they'll have an Escort or something that size. Tools for the job...

Ppl do dislike the danger posed by large trucks, and in an ideal world the various governments would try to shift that transportation to railways, so that road traffic is minimised. But that means investing in and subsidising rail networks, and for some reason subsidising railways is seen as wrong whilst subsidising road transport (by building and maintaining roads) isn't.

McGrath, all we know so far about global warming is that it's happening, and sea levels are rising. Most computer models reckon that CO2 is the culprit, and I'll go along with that if the scientists reckon so. But temperature fluctuations have happened naturally to the planet throughout its history, so that's also something to consider as a cause, and a new computer model (see the BBC site) which does more detailed modelling than any so far seems to think that the sun is having a major effect. It's still "news", not anything definite, so I'm waiting with interest to see what they reckon. But cutting down on pollution is something that should be done in any case - stopping global warming is merely a good excuse. Acid rain, smog and childhood asthma are more good excuses too.

Grab.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 28 Nov 00 - 02:06 PM

Kim C

As I said higher up the thread: "All kinds of geographical features, notably glaciers, carry evidence that has helped plot climate change backwards over many thousands, even millions of years" - ie knowledge of the trends is not limited to when we started measuring! And as for not having enough information.... for a start there is lots in this thread, with references to lots more. If you think this gives an unbalanced picture, do some internet searches. Whether you like it or not, you are going to find that the governmental, academic and scientific communities all lean strongly towards a link betwen human behavious and global warming.

The reason cars like your mom's don't draw so much flak these days could be that they became a lesser collective problem as America moved towards European and Japanese auto-design values in the seventies and eighties. SUVs have become a target because they are a major trend back towards excessive energy consumption right when everyone knows the world needs to be going the other way. As long as Americans think it's OK to go ten miles to work and back in SUVs, kids in Africa who at present run that far to school, will want that lifestyle too. So will hundreds of millions of people in India, and China, etc. That's what they're working towards - and in some small degree they are beginning to get. But if they all attain your lifestyle, Kim, we're all down the tubes. Yet who's to say you deserve that lifestyle more than the kid who runs 10 miles to school, or the seven-year-old who works 15-hour shifts in a carpet factory?

The point is, we all need to think new ways. For instance, do you have to be ten miles from work? Is it absolutely necessary that you "go to work" at all? Advancing technology means more of us could be staying at home to work, it's just that most of us, and most employers, are slow to latch on to that potential. Similarly aero-engineers have never really needed to make fuel efficiency a high priority, because aviation fuel is cheap (no tax). But aircraft emissions are a massive factor in global warming.

From what you say about bikes, I guess you've not ridden one much. Having pedalled around various cities - London, San Francisco, Seattle, Vancouver, etc - and many open roads, including end to end of Britain, and pedalled up 36 miles a day going to work and back, I can tell you that when you've had an hour or two of trucks hurtling past with inches to spare on open roads, you come to see the congested traffic of suburbia as salvation. The most dangerous ride I ever did was the Dalton highway, north of Fairbanks, Alaska, which is a long way from Suburbia.

OK, you're not going to go to that extreme. But it's time for everyone to look to moderate lifestyles just a little bit. The US Government is expecting people in other countries to change their trends, so what's wrong with Americans making a contribution? Whatever you do, Kim, I don't think you can justify doing nothing on the basis that mom is fouling up the planet worse than you.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Nov 00 - 05:36 PM

If you are interested, as Penny says, the Oceanographic Lab in Bidston, U.K. is the home of the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level. The international site that is the most stable, and is currently used as the referent is Honolulu. Sea level has been rising approx. 1-2mm a year over the last 100 years. The models suggest roughly 5mm or more with doubling of emissions (if you believe the models).
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Kim C
Date: 27 Nov 00 - 05:31 PM

My question has always been, how do we know this didn't happen before humans started recording and saving weather data? Weather has been around a lot longer than any of us have, and a variety of conditions have existed in the past. I'm not poo-pooing people's concerns - just saying that I don't have enough information at this point to be convinced either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Penny S.
Date: 27 Nov 00 - 05:21 PM

In Britain, data has been collected from tide gauges around the coast for a good deal longer than 50 years. The components from local tectonic movements have to be accounted for, but an element is due to sealevel rise. I believe there is data from elsewhere for similar periods, but it's not my work, and I don't have the results to hand If the US Navy has had to produce tide tables for its ports, there'll be something over there.

Penny S

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Nov 00 - 04:42 PM

That's a great way to stifle discussion and investigation, McGrath. Make anybody who disagrees with you into a loony or a partisan. I'll have to remember that. Meanwhile requests for actual facts to back up the "exponential increase" in global warming go unanswered. Which emperor is unclothed?

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Kim C
Date: 27 Nov 00 - 04:34 PM

Lookit, I have driven a Jeep Cherokee for 7 years and never been in an accident with it. When I drove a car I was in two accidents. It gets about 20 mpg. Not great, but not bad. It's probably better than my mom's v-8 Cadillac passenger car.

We go camping. We haul a lot of stuff, including 2 50+ lb. dogs. I'm not putting my dogs in the back of a pickup truck. The Cherokee is the perfect solution for my needs.

My stepsister hauls 5 kids around in a minivan. Her husband is a very large man. Those seven people are not going to fit into a passenger car. (minivans get pretty good mileage, by the way)

Let us also consider tall people for a moment. When I married Mister I had a little Mazda. He is 6'3" and the seat simply did not go back far enough for him.

What I find fascinating is that the anti-SUV camp doesn't seem to say anything about gas-guzzling passenger cars, like Mom's Cadillac, or the danger and pollution perpetuated by 18-wheelers, wide loads, and other super-large transport vehicles. Ever seen 2 18-wheelers in an accident? I have. I didn't see the accident happen but I saw a whole lot of debris & shit in the median. Scared me to death.

A high school friend of mine was killed many years ago when he drove his Beetle under an 18-wheeler. Not an SUV - an 18-wheeler. And I have seen that accident more than once. I have yet to see someone drive their Miata under a Navigator.

A bicycle would be really, really nice, I agree. But that only works if you live in an area where it's actually SAFE to ride one. I don't. A lot of us in Suburbia don't, now that we're over-retailed and traffic congestion has increased. Not to mention the fact that so many of us nowadays don't live near where we work. I live 10 miles away and there ain't any bike route between home and office.

Personally I would rather have a horse and buggy. But that ain't safe in my neck of the woods, either. So why don't we all do what we can with what we've got and quit pointing fingers at each other? Thank you, and Merry Christmas.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 00 - 04:12 PM

It's been a good few thousand years since the last Ice Agfe. That rate of change we can live with.

It's when it starts accelerating exponentiallly it gets to be a problem. "A problem" means millions of people with the places they've been living in permanently under water.

It'd be nice to think the nation primarily responsible will be ready and able to take in all the people of Bangla Desh and various island nations, but I can't see it myself. Maybe there'll be room for the people washed out of Louisiana and Florida, but I can't see it going that much further.

And maybe the whole global warming thing will turn out not to have anything to do with anything we have been doing. Maybe the spread of Aids is nothing to do with sex. Maybe Mad Cow disease has nothing to do with turning cows into cannibals. And of course maybe lung cancer has nothing to do with smoking. You'll find scientists who'll agree with all those maybe's. At one time you'd probably hav found that most scientists would have.

There've been cases of people falling out of aeroplanes from thousands of feet up in the air without a parachute and surviving almost unhurt. But I wouldn't bet on it personally.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Nov 00 - 02:35 PM

Sea level has been rising by thermal expansion since the end of the last ice age (countered by some isostatic rising in the Northern Hemisphere from the retreat of the glaciers). I believe the figures are about a 10 centimetre rise above that for the last 100 years. It is a very complicated thing to study, and while it shows up in the news media a lot, the only thing that scientists seem to be prepared to say is that due to the basic physics of thermal expansion, some sea level rise is in the cards. I could dig up the data for anyone who was seriously interested. There are a number of island states that are currently reporting extraordinary water levels, but these are subject to all kinds of caveats.

yours, Peter T.
P.S. Boo.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Nov 00 - 02:18 PM

Actually parts of Louisiana are below sea level. IIRC, Baton Rouge is surrounded by dikes holding back the sea. Or maybe it was New Orleans. One of them Louisiana Cities, anyway.

What data do we have on rising sea level? Surely if the planet is warming rapidly, the sea level will already have changed some. Do we have a comparison between mean tide level now and (say) 50 years ago at some point on the planet? Do any of our scare-tactic experts have this data?

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Grab
Date: 27 Nov 00 - 12:24 PM

Interesting read, Peter. I don't know that much about geological history, so interesting info. One sidenote - there was a piece on the BBC website today about global warming possibly being mainly caused by the Sun and not by CO2 (although CO2 has still had some effect).

Looks like Bush is in now, barring acts of (a merciful) God, so how do Americans reckon this is going to affect things? The American delegation at the Hague appear to have stiffed everyone, so is Bush going to be any better or could be even be worse? I've not heard much good about the guy, but I'm on the wrong continent to get up-to-date info. :-)

Re the Pratchett book, it's written by Pratchett and a couple of scientist friends of his. It's a primer in pretty much every interesting field of scientific research today - it's not a "physics of Star Trek" type thing. Somehow he manages to take in probability, relativity, quantum theory, solar system formation, evolution, space elevators and space exploration in one small paperback book, and make it interesting and comprehensible at the same time. Plus a bit of wizards between serious bits to give some humorous context (and point out why "common sense" doesn't necessarily apply in science). Seriously recommended.

The interesting point re this thread is his sections on evolution (which occupy about a third of the book), and on the survival of the planet and life in general at the expense of specific species.

Grab.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Nov 00 - 05:56 PM

Must be those 8 million holes.

Sad news indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 00 - 04:47 PM

"(I realise there do have to be time limits, or nothing ever gets agreed.)"

The Papal Conclave system strictly speaking hasn't got a time limit. They just lock up all the cardinals together, and noone comes out till they've finished the job. I believe there is a fall back procedure for cutting off the food if they take too long, but it hasn't happened recently.

Of course for that you've got to have people with authority to make agreements, so you'd have to lock the heads of governments in. Though really the only one you'd really need would be the President of the USA, assuming you've got one.

It occurred to me how ironic it is in the light of the present shenanigans there - the first State in the Union due to be submerged is Florida isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 25 Nov 00 - 02:48 PM

Yes, I stayed up through the night following what at one time looked like it was going to be real progress. Our (the UK) deputy PM, John Preescott, stormed out in the end, blaming unspecified Scandinavian countries for refusing to compromise. I think compromise in this case would have meant world approval for a zero contribution from the states. Not on, in my view.
Prescott's environment minister Michael Meacher (who is about as decent and competent a bloke as we get in our politics these days) has been giving a more measured view during the day. A big problem seems to have been the way the time was managed. (I realise there do have to be time limits, or nothing ever gets agreed.) He's bitterly disappointed needless to say, but seems confident something positive will be resolved by May, if not sooner.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Peter T.
Date: 25 Nov 00 - 11:16 AM

And just a few minutes ago, the Hague talks collapsed (that is why I have been in my office today). It is a bitter disappointment. My own country's behaviour was utterly, utterly shameful.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Nov 00 - 11:01 AM

Thank you Peter. Like Fionn, I agree, it wasn't much of a rant. It was an informative and factual post from an expert in the field and I thank you.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 25 Nov 00 - 10:47 AM

Pete, I've seen you post far worse rants than that. *BG* Compelling stuff I thought. Thanks for all the info - and for setting it out so clearly.

I saw somewhere that Max hopes for this forum to survive and be a record of the times for his kids and their kids to look back on. Wonder what sort of world we'll have left them to read it in, and what they'll think of the generation that had a chance to do something?

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Peter T.
Date: 25 Nov 00 - 10:16 AM

A couple of notes:

Concerning point of no return. Carbon dioxide has a cycling time in the stratosphere of a hundred years, more or less. So if we stopped generating the stuff today we are locked into the current increase (rising 350ppm) for awhile. Most of the IPCC scientists (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) with whom I talk (I am an occasional participant) believe that we are at least going to a 600ppm level before things turn around (if they turn around). That is why they use a "2 times co2" assumption in the models. The original model by Arrhenius in the 19th century on the back of an envelope suggested that for a doubling of C02 the planet would warm by 5 degrees centigrade just by basic physics. So far he is doing pretty good (the latest models suggest 1.5-6 degrees by 2100). The real question now is how well and how much the feedback cycles of the earth will dampen or exacerbate the expected warming. No one really knows.

The IPCC is on record as saying that in order to get the climate to the 1990 "norm" (if there is such a thing), we would have to cut back emissions to about 50-60% below 1990 levels. The Kyoto Protocol proposes 5% below 1990 levels. So we are committed to some warming -- if you believe the models (I do mostly).

The real "point of no return" is the prospect of something of a runaway global warming. It wouldn't run away to Venus levels, but things could get very bad. The scientific community is deeply divided on this, but also very concerned because the consequences would be unmanagable. We have evidence from ice cores that suggest that the world's climate is capable of going through "phase shifts" in very short time frames (less than 50 years). There is growing concern that this may be due to characteristics of a "non-equilibrium system" when it is under stress (like pumping greenhouse gases into it) -- it can flip into a different climate regime very fast. Since it has happened before, it can happen again. Possible candidates are changes in the North Atlantic ocean currents, feedback loops from permafrost melting (lots of greenhouse gases are locked up in those in Russia and Canada), and so on. If it happened, all bets are off. Again, no one knows.

Sunspots: there have been a number of calibration experiments on sunspots which have not shown any correlation in rhythms with long term trends in global temperature. There is a larger rhythm due to the 20,000+ year Milankovich cycle of Earth's progression around the sun. Most scientists think that there is some connection, but it has been taken into account in most of the models. There are some scientists who believe that some of the climate warming is due to the continuing isostatic rebound from the Ice Age (that is, the aftereffects of the last Ice Age), but I have never been able personally to figure out the connection.


What is clear is that we are in the middle of a vast experiment with a planet about which we know very little, and I think it is a stupid and unnecessary gamble. A 6-9 degree warming within the next 100 years (there is no reason right now the way things are going why we shouldn't head over the doubled C02 mark) would be a global catastrophe. With some enlightened politics, smart engineers, decent handling of economic incentives, some national and personal committments, and a belief in the extraordinary beauty of the Earth (yes), this would be a trivial problem. Instead of which we are driving the planet into the ground. End of rant.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 00 - 09:10 AM

Methane is a good clean organic fuel, and I gather you can brew up cow shit and so forth to produce useful energy, if you've the know how. for example

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Penny S.
Date: 25 Nov 00 - 04:18 AM

On the methane subject- I accept the cattle production rate. But surely methane in our atmosphere is not stable, and rapidly oxidises to CO2 and water? I don't notice much atmospheric burning when there's a chance of ignition, like lightning, or the methane burners at the local landfill.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: kimmers
Date: 25 Nov 00 - 12:00 AM

Troll sez:

"I can't imagine any reason to own an SUV in Florida but the roads are full of them."

Exactly. People buy these things 'cause they're trendy and because the ad campaigns convince people (especially parents of small kids) that they're safer riding in one. They're expensive, polluting, hard to repair, have a high rate of mechanical failure, and some have a tendency to tip over, but you just try and convince a 40-something that he or she doesn't need one and should get a more appropriate vehicle instead. The teeth and claws are bared! There are cars out there that are safer that cause fewer emissions; Volvos and Subarus come to mind.

Bottom line: if you need a passenger car, buy one. If you're going to be hauling a lot of crap, buy a pickup (as a contractor, my husband has a Real Truck). If you truly need an all-purpose 4WD SUV, buy one, but keep a small car or bicycle for errands. Two of my partners do just that; these guys are in their fifties but can out-run and out-bike me. In all things, strive to use only what you truly need. That's the key.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Troll
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 11:01 PM

Read "Voodoo Science". Sorry I can't recall the author. It seems that even the scientists can't agree over the interpretation of the same data.
I can't imagine any reason to own an SUV in Florida but the roads are full of them. I guess that towing a horse-trailer or a big boat could be a reason but the ones I see are driven to and from school by the college kids or to work by the young professionals. Most of the farmers/hunters have pickups;much more useful.
I drive an '83 van, a big one. It hauls part of the band and an impressive array of sound gear. It's a WORKING truck, not a carpeted conversion with a tv&vcr. But I'd like to get something smaller and more eco-friendly.But what?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 10:03 PM

It really does seem to work out that, as and when a country gets rich and so forth, the number of children people have goes down and down.

It seems to be generally agreed now that there's going to have to be quite substantial immigration into Europe over the next couple of generations to avoid some of the problems of a declining and ageing population.

If you're desperate poor, children are your only hope for the future, especially in a world where you can expect that few of them will reach adulthood. That was how it was in Europe and America only a few generations ago.

There are all kinds of problems that arise when people are trying to raise more children than there are resources to feed them. But that isn't what's bringing us Global Warming. It's people in rich countries burning up fossil fuel who are doing that.

But Global Warming makes it sound all nice and nosy. Especially on a chilly day like today. As I understand it there is a good chance that Global Warming could mean the UK having a climate more like Labrador, if one effect is to divert the Gulf Stream.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 08:38 PM

"Bill D, "over-population" doesn't come into it. The UK has one of the highest population densities in the world - maybe only Japan is higher - and we manage, after a fashion. And world food capacity is more than enough for everyone - we're just wasteful about how we use it. "

(barely able to sit at the PC for an hour tonight, as I am in craft show all weekend.)...but I DO disagree ....world population is THE issue that is driving many of the other problems...it is not the most urgent issue on the agenda right now, but it IS the keystone issue that IF it is not solved, will make solving the others moot...(the explanation is long and convoluted...I can't outline it all right not...but it is sort of like saying that your problem is that you are "up to your ass in alligators and being bitten on the butt", when the real problem is that someone has drained the swamp.

The world will not support 23 trillion people, no matter HOW good out food distribution system is, and population density in "X" area is only a side issue, though one we DO need to look at....and if you REALLY believe that world food production is enough, you must first decide what you are willing to eat if it were all evened out. They said years ago that the oceans could feed us....try telling that to the fishermen in the Grand Banks! Or to the Japanese, who do like their seafood.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 08:05 PM

McGrath

Don't worry, if the world gets warmer (for whatever reason) the States is going to get wet. This again is from a US Government paper:

Climate change and the resulting rise in sea levels are likely to worsen threats to buildings, roads, powerlines and other infrastructures along the coast. Sea level rise is likely to cause the loss of some barrier beaches, islands, and wetlands, and worsen storm surges and flooding during storms. (There will of course be plenty of other effects too.)

Another thought on your flatulence theory. I believe one or two of the old-style entertainers turned an honest penny igniting their farts, but then along came television and killed off the anal tradition. Or is it that we just can't turn out the methane-rich farts these days?

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 07:39 PM

Obviously I misunderstood you, McGrath- sorry. And now, I fully agree with you. If the US government understood it as a pragmatic issue, I would hope it would spring into action. That's why I say we need education.

The problem is that there is such polarization, as it stands, that a consensus is not even close.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 04:50 PM

I didn't say it'd be better if the United States was beneath the sea, but that if it was beneath sea-level, like Holland. Or what I should have said really was, ity's a pity it's not just barely above sea-level, like a few other countries.

I think that if the USA faced the the prospect of being submerged within a few years it would pretty rapidly stop the pollution. And of course if it didn't the rising sea-level would have the same effect.

And the USA really is the only single country that can individually seriously reduce the CO2 pollution, since it's driectly responsible for 24%, and rising. If the UK vanished off the face of the Earth, that'd be 2% gone.

Maybe of course, as MarkS says, it's all a mistake of course and global warming's nothing to do with anything we've done. The ciggy pushers used to say that about lung cancer didn't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 04:16 PM

that's a really good answer Grab, at least to me. I guess because I feel pretty much the same way. George Carlin has a long rambling bit in his inimitable and cynical style that covers it pretty much the same way.

We're worried and concerned about us, or at the very most, the species of us. The planet doesn't give a damn.....its seen worse. That's basically the gist of the routine and I remember when I heard it thinking it was what comedy is about.....the ablility to make you laugh, cry, and squirm, all at the same time. Mudcat's own professional ecologist, Peter T., also made a comment a few months ago regarding the irony of flying all over the world to ecology conferences.

Let's see, I have a definition of angst somewhere around here.................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 04:09 PM

This time last year I still had a Vincent. Now I'm stuck with the Trek. I know which I'd prefer, if I wasn't so damn politically correct.... Wouldn't mind a few more details about that book, Grab.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Grab
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 03:19 PM

I don't think there's ever going to be a point of no return, ie. a point from which the planet cannot ever recover. There's been times in the geological past where the entire polar icecaps have been melted, and other times where ice has damn near reached the equator in each direction, so it looks like we can take some pretty serious extremes in the long term. But it depends how long-term you want to think...

The problem is more that it might affect species in the short term - particularly those of the human species who live in low-lying areas, and any species dependent on those areas for survival. And a rise in temperatures will change the composition of species in the sea too. Long-term, it'll work out OK - other species will evolve to cope with the conditions and fill in the gaps. And even medium-term, humans will survive - we'll just move inland a few miles.

Trouble is, humans invented ethics, and we invented caring about things like that happening, and the human race effectively acting as a natural disaster on the scale of an asteroid strike or a volcanic holocaust isn't something we like to consider. Incidentally, read Pratchett's book about the Science of Discworld for a decent idea on that - cracking book for anyone with a passing interest in cosmology, evolution and science.

More worrying is the ozone layer problem. Whilst heat and water levels are things we can easily deal with (by moving house, draining or air-conditioning), UV light isn't. It damages anything based on hydrocarbons, ie. our bodies, which is why UV is used to sterilise stuff and kill bacteria. Most countries are sorting that out (or have done already), and the CFCs which are the main culprits have mostly been stopped from entering the atmosphere any more. But it's going to take as much as 20 years for existing CFCs to disappear IIRC, and in the meantime the ozone layer will continue to deplete. If we had continued, it's perfectly possible that we could have sterilised all animal and vegetable life except for that living underground or underwater. Whilst the planet would still have recovered longterm - we'd have died, stopped producing CFCs, the CFCs would break down over time, the ozone layer would build back up again, and another whole new set of creatures would evolve - it wouldn't be particularly good news for us, or for our grandkids.

Hate to say it guys, but we're all f*cked up. Part of me wants a drive with Spaw and feel that acceleration kick in. And the other part wants to go green and save the Earth. Granted, I cycle pretty much everywhere cos it's cheaper around town, but I still lust after a nice powerful car (in my case a 30s-style kit-car, the Marlin Cabrio). Argh! Save me from myself!

Grab.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: MarkS
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 11:27 AM

Hey Spaw - If we ever have a Mudcat gathering bring your 66 Bird and I will bring my 68 GTO and we will see who gets quarter mile bragging rights on this forum.
MarkS
Oh Man, is this thread ever creeping

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 11:05 AM

You're right on the low level stuff on fill-up Grab and those nozzles do make a significant difference. Unfortunately, they aren't being used but in a few other places outside of California yet. Sadly too, although not affecting global warming, those type of emissions are still a big factor in air quality.

The methanol blends are like a two-edged sword with benefits in cost and savings in fossil fuel, but tough on engine performance and I really believe, judging from the cetane levels in these fuels that they are probably somewhat of a risk in higher numbers on other pollutants.

Really a mess isn't it? Which brings me back to Barry's question above........Is there a point of no return? Have we reached it?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Grab
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 10:11 AM

Spaw, no offence taken at all, just wanted to clarify it. You're dead right on the short trip thing. And I agree with Fionn - it's one thing to have the theory, but I'd not like to be the sucker who tested it out first! Even old cars will still put out some O2 as well, so it sounds a bit risky! Wouldn't filling it with nitrogen gas be safer (although a bit more expensive)?

Emissions when filling up are mostly volatile hydrocarbons. IIRC, California mandates special pumps which seal better than normal around the filler pipe so you don't get the same sort of losses - this is hearsay from guys at work, so I may be wrong. But I think these are mainly ground-level pollutants (ie. breathing problems and smog), and I don't think they cause high-atmosphere problems like CO2 does. I may be wrong, though - I'm not sure about that.

Don't know that much about different types of petrol (sorry, gasoline for Americans). There's some guys here at work who are engine design experts so they might know - I could ask them if you want.

Grab.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 09:20 AM

LOL......I don't know who the first "rocket scientist" was who figured it would work, but the first time WE tried it, I guarantee you that we were scared shitless!

BTW, whenever you fill your tank, you are putting FAR more emissions into the air than when you burn up the entire tank driving. There's some figure that I don't recall, but its in the BIG numbers like a ten thousand times more pollutants, mainly hydrocarbons. Which brings up a question...............

Grab or anyone......Do you happen to know how methanol content gas affects things such as methane emissions as opposed to non-methanol gas? Engines basically don't care much for it, but I was wondering if there is any significant methane effects?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 09:08 AM

Spaw, just seen your last post. Who tried that first? *BG*

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 08:59 AM

Kind of you to quote me from another thread, McGrath, or were you quoting whoever I filched it from? Anyway, I don't think you've quite understood where methane comes from. Here's something else I filched:

During animal digestion, methane is produced through the process of enteric fermentation, in which microbes residing in animal digestive systems break down the feed consumed by the animal. Ruminants, which include cattle, buffalo, sheep, and goats, have the highest methane emissions among all animal types because they have a rumen, or large fore-stomach, in which methane-producing fermentation occurs.

That's from the US environmental protection agency, which says that 30 per cent of methane emissions in the states in 1997 came from cattle (not only their trouser coughs, but also their breath and from un-covered manure dumps. Methane is bad news because it is 21 per cent more efficient as a heat trap than CO2.

Useful stuff Spaw and Grab - instructive debate. MarkS, my wife is into cosmology and says the same as you about sun spots - they definitely come into the equation. But even if they didn't, the long-term effect of what we're putting in the atmosphere must be pretty obvious. Ebbie - I agree 110 per cent.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 08:58 AM

Hey Grab.......I didn't mean to imply the charts were yours. Sorry if I offended you 'cause I sure didn't mean to. Also, as I reread my post I realize that I should have elaborated more on the size/emissions point, but then again I could have elaboarted more on a lot of other crap, but the point's still the same. One thing you brought up which relates to all cars, is the short trip factor.

Short trips are tough on any car for a lot of reasons I won't go into, but from an emissions standpoint, they're a disaster. Without going into details, an engine needs entirely different "settings" to run cold and these are all higher in tailpipe pollution, FAR higher, than hot engine specs. And if you're driving a Super Belchfire SUV you are tossing out a LOT more under these conditions than a 1.5 liter Econobox. You see a difference at warm ops, but the difference in cold start is much higher. The manufacturers would pull them out of cold settings way too fast (for the engine) to get them through the EPA driving loop because of that. Again the computers have eased the load on the engine a good bit and allowed a little cleaner cold operation with better driveability, but the emissions are still FAR higher cold than hot. Bikes are nice.

On the CO thing.......We used to solder fuel tanks on the car with gas in them by "inerting" the tank with CO. We'd hook up a tailpipe hose to the fuel tank filler using an older car which produced more CO and run it for a half hour and then crank up the torch. This was a great way to get rid of "hangers 'round" in the shop. They'd asked what we were doing and when they found out we were about to stick a torch around a gas tank with gas in it, they'd suddenly remember they had to be elsewhere.(:<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: kendall
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 08:44 AM

As you know, I live in Maine. The last time I could have used a suv was in April of 1982. We got two feet of snow, and my Chevvy Nova would not move. After clearing the driveway, I found the roads to be quite passable. My point is, I live in a snow prone area, and I dont need an Urban Assault Vehicle. I think its mostly a macho thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Grab
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 08:08 AM

Spaw and Ebbie, the emissions from modern engines are remarkably good percentage-wise (I'm currently working at a place that designs engine control units), so you can suck exhaust without problems on modern cars. As an illustration, on a recent automotive eng course our lecturer told us that the suicide rate went down for a while when catalytic converters came in, since ppl tried gassing themselves and found they couldn't! Incidentally, that list of low-emission cars isn't mine - it comes from the California Air Resources Board who check these things.

But percentage-wise is a relative thing. The problem for emissions (and for global warming) is the absolute volume of CO2 produced. This is a function of the amount of fuel burned, and therefore of your engine size. So whilst a 4.7l Dodge may be as clean percentage-wise as a 1.6l Saturn, the Dodge is still producing roughly 3 times the carbon of the Saturn. Granted, there's reasons for owning SUVs or similar large cars - living in snowy places, living in areas with bad/non-existent roads, towing large loads, etc. But using them to drive your kids 500 yards to school - nope.

The US isn't unique here, since SUVs are taking off in the UK as well. But the UK has a natural limit in the shape of expensive petrol and insurance, so that stops too many ppl from owning these things. Whilst the artificially high price of petrol is an irritation over here, the end effect of deterring ppl from making unnecessary car journeys or owning unnecessarily large cars is highly desirable from an environmental PoV.

Kendall, this isn't an ozone layer thing, it's the greenhouse effect, caused mainly by CO, CO2 and methane. CO is very damaging but is largely removed by catalytic converters; unfortunately it's only removed by turning it into CO2 which is still a problem. Methane is mostly produced by biological processes (eg. cow-farts and vegetation rotting) and by volcanic activity.

Grab.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: mkebenn
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 05:34 AM

Guys and Gals, I fish, I have a 16' boat that I tow. That is the reason for the Jeep. I don't think I'll be suckin' on the tailpipe anytime soon despite 'Spaws wealth of info. When the weather gets bad, my wife takes the Jeep and I drive her 4cly Dodge. Most front wheel drive cars do just fine unless there's a couple of feet of snow, then you need the clearence. And yea, like any other machine, you gotta know how to drive. Mike Bennett

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: kimmers
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 01:25 AM

Mkebenn, I have no problem with people driving SUV's who truly need them because of inclement conditions... although during our once-every-three-years snowstorms, I see an awful lot of 4WD vehicles slidin' around. You still gotta know how to drive in it; that's most important. I don't, so I live close enough to my office and to the hospital that if worse comes to worse, I can walk. I'd walk every day except that sometimes I have to be able to get from the office to the hospital in a big hurry.

However, it's my understanding that collisions involving SUV's and standard passenger cars result in more destruction and loss of life than those that involve two passenger cars. SUV's are taller, so they simply plow over the smaller cars. I don't like the idea of having to buy something big just so that I won't feel dwarfed on the road.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Nov 00 - 12:54 AM

At the current rate when do we hit the point of no return & that point does exist in the future if this keeps up? Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Nov 00 - 11:58 PM

Ebbie....YEP.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Nov 00 - 11:31 PM

Spaw, are you saying that it is harder or impossible to kill oneself in one's garage using a new car? Is the emitted air that clean??

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: kendall
Date: 23 Nov 00 - 11:20 PM

We are also seeing bluebirds and buzzards all in the last 5 years or so. Question..why or how could sun spots poke a huge hole in the ozone layer?

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Nov 00 - 11:11 PM

There is a lot of things coming out the tailpipe of your car. The top five are Carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), Hydrocarbons (HC), Oxygen (O2), and Nitrous Oxide (NOx). From the beginnings of emission control in the early 60's, the first emphasis was put on HC. At that time there were significant HC emissions coming from the crankcase of the engine itself, often far more than what came from the tailpipe. Engines need to vent the pressure built up from internal rotative motion and this problem was initially addressed with the PCV valve which vented back into the air cleaner housing and a variant of this is still in use today.

Engineers began to lean mixtures in order to provide less fuel and hence less emissions. They began a system (A.I.R.) that would continue burning of the mixture charge after it left the combustion chamber. Lean mixtures can actually produce more emissions because they will not provide an adequate flame front and a large portion of the fuel/air mix will be expelled.

The key to controlling CO, HC, and CO2 has always been in accurate control of timing through all conditions and mixture, again through all conditions. Try to do this the factories produced cars that ran so badly, customers were constantly complaining. Advances in Fuel Injection and Electronic Ignition came over the following years and began to solve the problem.

NOx, basically what we know as "laughing gas," was more difficult to control and can only be monitored with equipment that is prohibitvely expensive for field checking, but can be monitored by the government and the factory. The automakers were forced into addresing this problem as they were others, but the solution was there in 1973, the EGR valve. This valve allowed burned exhaust gases to be fed back into the intake manifold and directly into the combustion chambers. What this did was reduce the amount of "Squelch area" in the chamber and lower the combustion temperature from 3000 to 2500 degrees (F) and cut the NOx emissions by almost 70%. Controlling this valve was a major problem. You can't allow this process all the time, only under "warm cruise" conditions. Like many other things, initially the EGR was opened with vacuum and a system of thermal actuators and throttle sensors controlled the vacuum supply.

Next came the catalytic converter which prvided a chemical reaction to further clean the exhaust gas of HC and CO (in the dual bed designs) and it was quite sucessful except for a nasty habit of producing sulphur dioxide when flooded with raw fuel from a misfiring engine.

What brought all the elements together was the computer. The advent of the On-Board Computer made everything easier to control and better yet, it could be controlled to a precise degree, especially true on fuel injected systems now in complete use by everyone. After a few years, everything coming in and affecting perfomance was measured with things like Manifold Absolute Pressure (MAP, Mass Air Flow (MAF), Barometric Pressure (BAR), Throttle Position, (TPS) sensors and the like. The gas mixture was measured by the computer through a chemical reaction sensor that produced tiny incremental voltages caused by varying concentrations of Oxygen in the exhaust gas. The computer then makes adjustments. Most computers are also equipped with a BLM (Block Learn Multiplier) to remember optimum setups and also to adjust for best running when things are wrong/broken.

All this to get to my point. Grab's chart is a bit misleading, but its also pretty accurate in the respect of clean engine technology. Engine size is more a factor in fuel consumption than emissions. What is being built today is VERY clean and I would happily take Fionn up on his tailpipe breathalyzer. The problem is one that is quite old.

First, engines wear out and as they do emissions increase. Drive less.

Second, people still do not prpoerly maintain their cars and the computers happily keep adjusting things to keep them running pretty well so you don't notice. Maintain your car.

Third, I didn't mention lead-free gas, but it was part of the scenario. One benefit outside of emissions was that doing away with lead reduced an awful lot of fouling in the combustion chamber and on the spark plugs. This meant that the advertizing began to run along the lines of "NO Tune-ups Needed for 100,000 Miles." That is complete hogwash. Maintain your car by having the damn thing checked by a qualified wrench with proper equipment at 25,000 mile intervals max. If he IS qualified, he will probably regap the plugs and sell you new ones at 50,000. Maybe less. Although they are not fouled, when you are driving down the road at 60 mph, each plug has seen a spark of at least 50,000 Volts arc across its gap 1500 TIMES EACH MINUTE!! This wears the electrodes and widens the gap.

We're going to see Internal Combustion Engines and Hybrids around for quite a time yet, so it would behoove us all to do the obvious things such as driving less. It would also be environmentally a good idea to drive newer models and to properly maintain them if we care at all about the pollution situation.

'Course I got a '66 T-Bird with a 428 that gets 8 mpg.

Spaw (and it sits in the garage)

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Nov 00 - 10:50 PM

Instead of the British Isles, McGrath? Educate us all you like- we need it- but make use of the power that the US has- don't denigrate it or give up on it. The US has the potential of being a good part of the solution for the world's ills- we have water, arable land, space, and most important of all: a mix of the world's best minds. We need inspiration and direction. And time. God grant that we have time.

Fionn, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Alaska lusts after the untouched lands. Take a look at Senator Frank Murkowski, Representative Don Young and Representative Ted Stevens. Three of a kind.

My own view is that the US needs Alaska the same way as the world needs the Serengheti plains. It's a unique place that can be kept pristine and a special destination for generations to come. It's just that we need to understand that, to see it clearly, to make it possible.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: MarkS
Date: 23 Nov 00 - 10:41 PM

Still a bit of a sceptic, because in addition to folk music one of my other enthusiasims is amateur (ham) radio. With long interest in shortwave radio wave propogation, I have come to learn of the influence of sunspot activity on the upper atmosphere, and how the sunspot activity varies over years long periods - the so called Maunder cycle. We are now on the high point of the cycle, judging by how easy it is now to make radio contact with Europe on the higher frequencies compared to a few years ago. Guess that causes me to wonder if many of the phenomona now being attributed to CO2 emission should not more properly be attributed to solar emissions which are cyclical and naturally occurring.
Fully willing to keep an open mind and will keep on reading the posts to this interesting subject.
MarkS

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Nov 00 - 09:48 PM

"Don't forget, those of you who eat beef, that methane is believed to be a major factor in the greenhouse effect - and cattle fart about 70 million tons of it a year."

No - unless they are feeding the cows on coal or oil. (Which unfortunately isn't as ridiculous as you'd think - they'll feed them on anything these days...) If the cows are eating organis stuff - grass or mashed up turnips or even - God Forbid - mashed up cows, they can fart all they like - it's the same old carbon being recycled around.

It's fossil fuel that matters. The same way that if you run your car on straw etc you can be as smoky as you

like, and drive as much as you like - you're just recycling the carbon dioxide the straw etc took up when it grew.

Contrariwise, if you plant forests and it takes up the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels like coal and the oil, in the long term it is useless - all you are doing is slow down the process by which thta carbon dioxide gets into the stmosphere, when the wood burns or rots. Unless of course you can arrange to have it laid down to turn into coal over the next few thousand /million years.

There is no answer that's an answer, unless it cuts down on the use of fossil fuel.

It's a great pity that most of the United States isn't below sea-level, because if it was this problem would be solved very quickly, one way or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Nov 00 - 06:08 PM

Bill D, "over-population" doesn't come into it. The UK has one of the highest population densities in the world - maybe only Japan is higher - and we manage, after a fashion. And world food capacity is more than enough for everyone - we're just wasteful about how we use it. (For instance turning grain into beef takes seven times more grain than if we just eat the grain.) "Overpopulation" is sometimes just a way for us to come to terms with horrors like Bangladesh or Mozambique floods, or the fact that Zambian males live to age 36 on average (yes,thirty-six).

mkebenn, if you're sure your motor passed an emissions test,you can go and inhale its exhaust fumes in perfect safety! Who are you kidding? And how much payload do you have to cart around, that you really need those six cylinders? If you paid a bit more for fuel, like people in most other countries, you'd find some way of cutting back your personal contribution to global warming.

Thanks for the clickey Kat. If the Arctic Coastal Plain is the same thing as the north slope, I was up there once on my bike (following the pipeline!). If it's going to be Bush, he's going to make a real mess up there. Incredibly (or incredible to me) most Alaskans are right behind him. But not you, Ebbie!