Lutz: No more RWD
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,011
From: Exton, Pennsylvania
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,011
From: Exton, Pennsylvania
Dan, I couldn't agree more with you. Everyone is looking at this very simplistic, and in some cases on purpose to make themselves feel better about what could be happening. To Christianjax, I am very open. I don't believe I have stated once that global warming is definetly happening. I don't feel the need to argue with you anymore about this though, because you obviously have no desire to see anything from anyone else's point of view, or expand your own point of you at all. Glad you have this all figured out. There are a lot of guys that went to school on this kind of subject matter for quite a length of time to have the kind of answers your do.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 53
From: Chicagoland
While everyone is on the subject. Here is some food for thought.
I am preparing to take the professional engineer exam next Friday. I am a civil engineer, you know, the profession that deals with nature as it relates to basic societal function i.e. water, wastewaster, hazardous waste, roads, bridges, dams, railroads, bridges, emmissions, etc. And most importantly evaluating practicalities as well as benefits and costs of implementing solutions to basic societal problems.
While politicians and scientists can have many influences and priorities, the engineer ethically is abided to deal with others in the following order from highest priority to lowest priority.
1) Society and the public
2) The law
3) The profession
4) The client
5) The firm
6) other engineers
7) the engineer
Having said that, here is what THE reference manual, to get a professional engineer's license, says about global warming. I believe it, because, as a textbook written by engineers for engineers; it takes logic and reasoning into account, without politics, without any scientific self-promotion for whatever self-serving end, and without the emotional propoganda that seems to reek from any media outlet. Most importantly it says that whatever is done has to serve the public in an economically feasible way otherwise you will end up with more deprivation and human suffering than you would with the effects of higher temperatures.
Note that it starts off by saying Global Warming is a hypothesis.
Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam
Tenth Edition
Michael R. Lindeburg, PE
Chapter 32 Pollutants in the Environment
Section 24 Global Warming
The global warming hypothesisis that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, CO2, from the combustion of carbon-rich fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases (e.g. water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons) trap an increasing amount of solar radiation in a greenhouse effect, gradually increasing the Earth's temperature. It is claimed that the most recent cycle of increases in carbon dioxide began with the industrial revolution.
Recent studies have shown that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing at the rate of about 1% per year. (For example, in one year carbon dioxide might increase from 350 ppmv to 354 ppmv. By comparison, oxygen is approximately 209,500 ppmv.) There has also been a 100% increase in atmospheric methance since the beginning of the industrial revolution. According to some researchers, there has been a corresponding global temperature increase of approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degree Celsius) since the year 1890. Other researchers can detect no discernible upward trend, and some offer a counter-argument. Based on the retreat of the northern-most lines capable of growing oranges since 1850, some believe that the weather is generally becoming colder, not hotter.
In addition to a temperature increase, other evidence cited by supporters of the global warming hypotheses are several record-breaking hot summers, widespread aberrations inthe traditional seasonal weather patterns (e.g., hurricane-like storms in England), and a 4 to 12 in (10 to 30 cm) rise in sea level over the last century. The rise in the level of the oceans is disputed.
The global warming hypothesis is disputed by many scientists and has not been proved to be an absolute truth. Arguments against the hypothesis center around the fact that manufactured carbon dioxide is a small fraction of what is naturally released (e.g., by wetlands, in rain forest fires, and during volcanic eruptions). It is argued that, in the face of such massive contributors, and since the Earth’s temperature has remained essentially constant for millennia, the Earth already possesses some built-in mechanism, currently not perfectly understood, that reduces the Earth’s temperature swings.
The environmentalists’ claim that there will be a temperature increase of 3 to 9 degrees F (1.7 to 5 degree C) by the year 2100 and that this increase will be catastrophic is also disputed by many scientists. On the contrary, most scientists agree that the deprivation or human suffering that would result from a reduction or cessation in the burning of fossil fuels will be significantly higher than the effects of a slightly increased temperature.
Regardless of the validity of the global warming hypothesis, some major power generation industries have adopted goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. However, efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by converting fossil fuel from one form to another are questioned by many engineers. Natural gas produces the least amount of carbon dioxide of any fossil fuel. Therefore, conversion of coal to a gas or liquid fuel in order to lower the carbon to hydrogen ratio would appear to lesson carbon dioxide emissions at the point of finals use. However, the conversion processes consume energy derived from carbon containing fuel. This additional consumption, taken over all sites, results in a net increase in carbon dioxide emission of 10 to 200%, depending on the process.
The use of ethanol as an alternative for gasoline is also problematic. Manufacturing processes that produce ethanol give off (at least) twice as much carbon dioxide as the gasoline being replaced produces during consumption.
Most synthetic fuels are intrinsically less efficient (based on their actual heating values compared with those theoretically obtainable from the fuels’ components in elemental form). This results in an increase in the amount of fuel consumed. Thus, fossil fuels should be used primarily in their raw forms until cleaner sources of energy are available.
---END---
If engineers, much smarter than me, are writing the textbook, implementing solutions, helping guide legislation, and evaluating the costs and benefits, and they say the jury is out on the proof, the science, and the means of extrapolation, then I am inclined to believe them.
I am preparing to take the professional engineer exam next Friday. I am a civil engineer, you know, the profession that deals with nature as it relates to basic societal function i.e. water, wastewaster, hazardous waste, roads, bridges, dams, railroads, bridges, emmissions, etc. And most importantly evaluating practicalities as well as benefits and costs of implementing solutions to basic societal problems.
While politicians and scientists can have many influences and priorities, the engineer ethically is abided to deal with others in the following order from highest priority to lowest priority.
1) Society and the public
2) The law
3) The profession
4) The client
5) The firm
6) other engineers
7) the engineer
Having said that, here is what THE reference manual, to get a professional engineer's license, says about global warming. I believe it, because, as a textbook written by engineers for engineers; it takes logic and reasoning into account, without politics, without any scientific self-promotion for whatever self-serving end, and without the emotional propoganda that seems to reek from any media outlet. Most importantly it says that whatever is done has to serve the public in an economically feasible way otherwise you will end up with more deprivation and human suffering than you would with the effects of higher temperatures.
Note that it starts off by saying Global Warming is a hypothesis.
Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam
Tenth Edition
Michael R. Lindeburg, PE
Chapter 32 Pollutants in the Environment
Section 24 Global Warming
The global warming hypothesisis that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, CO2, from the combustion of carbon-rich fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases (e.g. water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons) trap an increasing amount of solar radiation in a greenhouse effect, gradually increasing the Earth's temperature. It is claimed that the most recent cycle of increases in carbon dioxide began with the industrial revolution.
Recent studies have shown that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing at the rate of about 1% per year. (For example, in one year carbon dioxide might increase from 350 ppmv to 354 ppmv. By comparison, oxygen is approximately 209,500 ppmv.) There has also been a 100% increase in atmospheric methance since the beginning of the industrial revolution. According to some researchers, there has been a corresponding global temperature increase of approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degree Celsius) since the year 1890. Other researchers can detect no discernible upward trend, and some offer a counter-argument. Based on the retreat of the northern-most lines capable of growing oranges since 1850, some believe that the weather is generally becoming colder, not hotter.
In addition to a temperature increase, other evidence cited by supporters of the global warming hypotheses are several record-breaking hot summers, widespread aberrations inthe traditional seasonal weather patterns (e.g., hurricane-like storms in England), and a 4 to 12 in (10 to 30 cm) rise in sea level over the last century. The rise in the level of the oceans is disputed.
The global warming hypothesis is disputed by many scientists and has not been proved to be an absolute truth. Arguments against the hypothesis center around the fact that manufactured carbon dioxide is a small fraction of what is naturally released (e.g., by wetlands, in rain forest fires, and during volcanic eruptions). It is argued that, in the face of such massive contributors, and since the Earth’s temperature has remained essentially constant for millennia, the Earth already possesses some built-in mechanism, currently not perfectly understood, that reduces the Earth’s temperature swings.
The environmentalists’ claim that there will be a temperature increase of 3 to 9 degrees F (1.7 to 5 degree C) by the year 2100 and that this increase will be catastrophic is also disputed by many scientists. On the contrary, most scientists agree that the deprivation or human suffering that would result from a reduction or cessation in the burning of fossil fuels will be significantly higher than the effects of a slightly increased temperature.
Regardless of the validity of the global warming hypothesis, some major power generation industries have adopted goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. However, efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by converting fossil fuel from one form to another are questioned by many engineers. Natural gas produces the least amount of carbon dioxide of any fossil fuel. Therefore, conversion of coal to a gas or liquid fuel in order to lower the carbon to hydrogen ratio would appear to lesson carbon dioxide emissions at the point of finals use. However, the conversion processes consume energy derived from carbon containing fuel. This additional consumption, taken over all sites, results in a net increase in carbon dioxide emission of 10 to 200%, depending on the process.
The use of ethanol as an alternative for gasoline is also problematic. Manufacturing processes that produce ethanol give off (at least) twice as much carbon dioxide as the gasoline being replaced produces during consumption.
Most synthetic fuels are intrinsically less efficient (based on their actual heating values compared with those theoretically obtainable from the fuels’ components in elemental form). This results in an increase in the amount of fuel consumed. Thus, fossil fuels should be used primarily in their raw forms until cleaner sources of energy are available.
---END---
If engineers, much smarter than me, are writing the textbook, implementing solutions, helping guide legislation, and evaluating the costs and benefits, and they say the jury is out on the proof, the science, and the means of extrapolation, then I am inclined to believe them.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 881
From: Jacksonville Florida
[quote=RussStang;4539980]Yeah, they should definetly charge for this stuff. This guys has no idea what he is talking about.
quote]
Do you mind telling me exactly what I said that was wrong? To say I don't know what I'm talking about is VERY narrow minded. You try to come off objective. But you actually come off as someone who is drinking the koolaide. I'm not trying to insult here, but I've offered a very good argument in my and other's opinions. SCIENTISTS that disagree with global warming are often swept under the rug. Kind of like that 4 out of 5 dentists recommend a certain chewing gum thing. (from the commercials) Who the hell is that 5th dentists, and why does he disagree? He is still a dentists, no?
TRUE scientists don't fixate on an outcome that they WANT, but look at ALL the facts and determine a theory. Clearly you have seen some or heard other views that offer that shadow of doubt that the scientists that get quoted favorably on GW might be part of the machine?
You are willing to follow a total hypocrite in Gore that had 20 TIMES the power usage in ONE of his houses than the state average?? That's unbelievable! He wants us to walk while he rides in his private plane, limos, and heard of cars? Just because he bought some carbon friendly offsets?? Isn't gluttony (sp) one of the7 deadly sins?
I've followed this closely over the years. I really do care about the enviroment. And of course we could and should reduce CO2. Good luck getting China to comply with that though. We actually agree on some points. It just seems to me that you are disregarding conflicting evidence. The very fact that the Earth has gone through several Ice Ages and thaws shows a history of cycles that are NATURAL. Why should this be any different? I think there is more evidence that this is the case instead of it being Man's fault.
quote]
Do you mind telling me exactly what I said that was wrong? To say I don't know what I'm talking about is VERY narrow minded. You try to come off objective. But you actually come off as someone who is drinking the koolaide. I'm not trying to insult here, but I've offered a very good argument in my and other's opinions. SCIENTISTS that disagree with global warming are often swept under the rug. Kind of like that 4 out of 5 dentists recommend a certain chewing gum thing. (from the commercials) Who the hell is that 5th dentists, and why does he disagree? He is still a dentists, no?
TRUE scientists don't fixate on an outcome that they WANT, but look at ALL the facts and determine a theory. Clearly you have seen some or heard other views that offer that shadow of doubt that the scientists that get quoted favorably on GW might be part of the machine?
You are willing to follow a total hypocrite in Gore that had 20 TIMES the power usage in ONE of his houses than the state average?? That's unbelievable! He wants us to walk while he rides in his private plane, limos, and heard of cars? Just because he bought some carbon friendly offsets?? Isn't gluttony (sp) one of the7 deadly sins?
I've followed this closely over the years. I really do care about the enviroment. And of course we could and should reduce CO2. Good luck getting China to comply with that though. We actually agree on some points. It just seems to me that you are disregarding conflicting evidence. The very fact that the Earth has gone through several Ice Ages and thaws shows a history of cycles that are NATURAL. Why should this be any different? I think there is more evidence that this is the case instead of it being Man's fault.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Damn this thread is getting long! 
Also, I've never seen a thread stray so much off course in memory.
But just to hit on a few points:
1. This Global Warming regulation kick. It's curious that oil executives, and energy executives are squarely on board. Right down to Bush (former oil executive) and Cheney (former head of Halliburton, and energy company).
2. This fuel economy standard change started in a Republican Congress about 2 years ago, and took on a new urgency the past year as a "national security issue".
3. The thread title quotes Bob Lutz saying "No More RWD". This is obviously a blantant lie. He said no such thing, and when you look at what he actually said, it was more musing aloud than anything else.
4. I stated, and over the past few days I've gotten pretty solid.... OK, pretty damn solid that Camaro and Impala are safe (though the RWD sedan might not be called Impala). Also, if the Chevy sedan is safe, Cadillac and Buick's RWD sedan are safe.
5. We can debate the reality of Global Warming for another 15 pages... or even another 15 dozen pages after that, but there isn't going to be a single thing changed and it's all just wear on your computer or laptop until you write your congressman or representative and tell him or her what you think. There was a proposal not long ago to restrict the sales of SUVs here in California. Enter write in campaign. Proposal died.... In California.... The most enviromental state in the union.
Don't underestimate your influence.
Also, I've never seen a thread stray so much off course in memory.
But just to hit on a few points:
1. This Global Warming regulation kick. It's curious that oil executives, and energy executives are squarely on board. Right down to Bush (former oil executive) and Cheney (former head of Halliburton, and energy company).
2. This fuel economy standard change started in a Republican Congress about 2 years ago, and took on a new urgency the past year as a "national security issue".
3. The thread title quotes Bob Lutz saying "No More RWD". This is obviously a blantant lie. He said no such thing, and when you look at what he actually said, it was more musing aloud than anything else.
4. I stated, and over the past few days I've gotten pretty solid.... OK, pretty damn solid that Camaro and Impala are safe (though the RWD sedan might not be called Impala). Also, if the Chevy sedan is safe, Cadillac and Buick's RWD sedan are safe.
5. We can debate the reality of Global Warming for another 15 pages... or even another 15 dozen pages after that, but there isn't going to be a single thing changed and it's all just wear on your computer or laptop until you write your congressman or representative and tell him or her what you think. There was a proposal not long ago to restrict the sales of SUVs here in California. Enter write in campaign. Proposal died.... In California.... The most enviromental state in the union.
Don't underestimate your influence.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 356
From: Providence, RI, USA
[QUOTE=christianjax;4540431]
EXACTLY. And something like 95% of TRUE scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is HAPPENING.
It seems to me that you yourself have fixated on an outcome that you want. You did a search on "mars global warming" and then, without actually READING the links, you ASSUMED they must totally support your preconceived notion! At least one of them actually DISproved your point, another accepted that unnatural increase in CO2 will cause climate change as a matter of course, and NONE of your links made the suggestion that you assumed (i.e., that "global warming" on Mars conclusively proves that global warming on Earth cannot be caused by humans).
Who's talking about following Gore?! I'm certainly not.
Don't blind yourself to reality just because you hate Al Gore.
I never would have guessed you thought that! I totally agree. Like it or not, increasing CAFE is going to be the one of the cheapest and easiest things to do to reduce our CO2 output. It's beyond cheap, it's FREE, and Americans will SAVE money as a result.
It's another topic, but IMO we shouldn't even be doing business with China based on their human rights record and their environmental record.
But you haven't PRODUCED any conflicting evidence. The "evidence" you have provided acted more to reinforce anthropogenic climate change than to refute it.
Of COURSE there are natural cycles. NObody is denying that. That there are natural cyclic changes in the climate does not in any way imply that humans can do anything they want and it won't affect the climate!
This is different from the long-term climate cycles because for the first time in history, our influence is large enough to have an effect, in addition to all the natural causes.
ERGO AND THEREFORE, GM should build a lighter-weight and more-efficient Camaro. With pedals
TRUE scientists don't fixate on an outcome that they WANT, but look at ALL the facts and determine a theory.
It seems to me that you yourself have fixated on an outcome that you want. You did a search on "mars global warming" and then, without actually READING the links, you ASSUMED they must totally support your preconceived notion! At least one of them actually DISproved your point, another accepted that unnatural increase in CO2 will cause climate change as a matter of course, and NONE of your links made the suggestion that you assumed (i.e., that "global warming" on Mars conclusively proves that global warming on Earth cannot be caused by humans).
You are willing to follow a total hypocrite in Gore that had 20 TIMES the power usage in ONE of his houses than the state average??
Don't blind yourself to reality just because you hate Al Gore.
I really do care about the enviroment. And of course we could and should reduce CO2.
Good luck getting China to comply with that though.
We actually agree on some points. It just seems to me that you are disregarding conflicting evidence.
The very fact that the Earth has gone through several Ice Ages and thaws shows a history of cycles that are NATURAL.
Why should this be any different? I think there is more evidence that this is the case instead of it being Man's fault.
ERGO AND THEREFORE, GM should build a lighter-weight and more-efficient Camaro. With pedals
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,028
From: Chicago, IL
this should end this debate right here imo:
While everyone is on the subject. Here is some food for thought.
I am preparing to take the professional engineer exam next Friday. I am a civil engineer, you know, the profession that deals with nature as it relates to basic societal function i.e. water, wastewaster, hazardous waste, roads, bridges, dams, railroads, bridges, emmissions, etc. And most importantly evaluating practicalities as well as benefits and costs of implementing solutions to basic societal problems.
While politicians and scientists can have many influences and priorities, the engineer ethically is abided to deal with others in the following order from highest priority to lowest priority.
1) Society and the public
2) The law
3) The profession
4) The client
5) The firm
6) other engineers
7) the engineer
Having said that, here is what THE reference manual, to get a professional engineer's license, says about global warming. I believe it, because, as a textbook written by engineers for engineers; it takes logic and reasoning into account, without politics, without any scientific self-promotion for whatever self-serving end, and without the emotional propoganda that seems to reek from any media outlet. Most importantly it says that whatever is done has to serve the public in an economically feasible way otherwise you will end up with more deprivation and human suffering than you would with the effects of higher temperatures.
Note that it starts off by saying Global Warming is a hypothesis.
Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam
Tenth Edition
Michael R. Lindeburg, PE
Chapter 32 Pollutants in the Environment
Section 24 Global Warming
The global warming hypothesisis that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, CO2, from the combustion of carbon-rich fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases (e.g. water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons) trap an increasing amount of solar radiation in a greenhouse effect, gradually increasing the Earth's temperature. It is claimed that the most recent cycle of increases in carbon dioxide began with the industrial revolution.
Recent studies have shown that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing at the rate of about 1% per year. (For example, in one year carbon dioxide might increase from 350 ppmv to 354 ppmv. By comparison, oxygen is approximately 209,500 ppmv.) There has also been a 100% increase in atmospheric methance since the beginning of the industrial revolution. According to some researchers, there has been a corresponding global temperature increase of approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degree Celsius) since the year 1890. Other researchers can detect no discernible upward trend, and some offer a counter-argument. Based on the retreat of the northern-most lines capable of growing oranges since 1850, some believe that the weather is generally becoming colder, not hotter.
In addition to a temperature increase, other evidence cited by supporters of the global warming hypotheses are several record-breaking hot summers, widespread aberrations inthe traditional seasonal weather patterns (e.g., hurricane-like storms in England), and a 4 to 12 in (10 to 30 cm) rise in sea level over the last century. The rise in the level of the oceans is disputed.
The global warming hypothesis is disputed by many scientists and has not been proved to be an absolute truth. Arguments against the hypothesis center around the fact that manufactured carbon dioxide is a small fraction of what is naturally released (e.g., by wetlands, in rain forest fires, and during volcanic eruptions). It is argued that, in the face of such massive contributors, and since the Earth’s temperature has remained essentially constant for millennia, the Earth already possesses some built-in mechanism, currently not perfectly understood, that reduces the Earth’s temperature swings.
The environmentalists’ claim that there will be a temperature increase of 3 to 9 degrees F (1.7 to 5 degree C) by the year 2100 and that this increase will be catastrophic is also disputed by many scientists. On the contrary, most scientists agree that the deprivation or human suffering that would result from a reduction or cessation in the burning of fossil fuels will be significantly higher than the effects of a slightly increased temperature.
Regardless of the validity of the global warming hypothesis, some major power generation industries have adopted goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. However, efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by converting fossil fuel from one form to another are questioned by many engineers. Natural gas produces the least amount of carbon dioxide of any fossil fuel. Therefore, conversion of coal to a gas or liquid fuel in order to lower the carbon to hydrogen ratio would appear to lesson carbon dioxide emissions at the point of finals use. However, the conversion processes consume energy derived from carbon containing fuel. This additional consumption, taken over all sites, results in a net increase in carbon dioxide emission of 10 to 200%, depending on the process.
The use of ethanol as an alternative for gasoline is also problematic. Manufacturing processes that produce ethanol give off (at least) twice as much carbon dioxide as the gasoline being replaced produces during consumption.
Most synthetic fuels are intrinsically less efficient (based on their actual heating values compared with those theoretically obtainable from the fuels’ components in elemental form). This results in an increase in the amount of fuel consumed. Thus, fossil fuels should be used primarily in their raw forms until cleaner sources of energy are available.
---END---
If engineers, much smarter than me, are writing the textbook, implementing solutions, helping guide legislation, and evaluating the costs and benefits, and they say the jury is out on the proof, the science, and the means of extrapolation, then I am inclined to believe them.
I am preparing to take the professional engineer exam next Friday. I am a civil engineer, you know, the profession that deals with nature as it relates to basic societal function i.e. water, wastewaster, hazardous waste, roads, bridges, dams, railroads, bridges, emmissions, etc. And most importantly evaluating practicalities as well as benefits and costs of implementing solutions to basic societal problems.
While politicians and scientists can have many influences and priorities, the engineer ethically is abided to deal with others in the following order from highest priority to lowest priority.
1) Society and the public
2) The law
3) The profession
4) The client
5) The firm
6) other engineers
7) the engineer
Having said that, here is what THE reference manual, to get a professional engineer's license, says about global warming. I believe it, because, as a textbook written by engineers for engineers; it takes logic and reasoning into account, without politics, without any scientific self-promotion for whatever self-serving end, and without the emotional propoganda that seems to reek from any media outlet. Most importantly it says that whatever is done has to serve the public in an economically feasible way otherwise you will end up with more deprivation and human suffering than you would with the effects of higher temperatures.
Note that it starts off by saying Global Warming is a hypothesis.
Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam
Tenth Edition
Michael R. Lindeburg, PE
Chapter 32 Pollutants in the Environment
Section 24 Global Warming
The global warming hypothesisis that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, CO2, from the combustion of carbon-rich fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases (e.g. water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons) trap an increasing amount of solar radiation in a greenhouse effect, gradually increasing the Earth's temperature. It is claimed that the most recent cycle of increases in carbon dioxide began with the industrial revolution.
Recent studies have shown that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing at the rate of about 1% per year. (For example, in one year carbon dioxide might increase from 350 ppmv to 354 ppmv. By comparison, oxygen is approximately 209,500 ppmv.) There has also been a 100% increase in atmospheric methance since the beginning of the industrial revolution. According to some researchers, there has been a corresponding global temperature increase of approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degree Celsius) since the year 1890. Other researchers can detect no discernible upward trend, and some offer a counter-argument. Based on the retreat of the northern-most lines capable of growing oranges since 1850, some believe that the weather is generally becoming colder, not hotter.
In addition to a temperature increase, other evidence cited by supporters of the global warming hypotheses are several record-breaking hot summers, widespread aberrations inthe traditional seasonal weather patterns (e.g., hurricane-like storms in England), and a 4 to 12 in (10 to 30 cm) rise in sea level over the last century. The rise in the level of the oceans is disputed.
The global warming hypothesis is disputed by many scientists and has not been proved to be an absolute truth. Arguments against the hypothesis center around the fact that manufactured carbon dioxide is a small fraction of what is naturally released (e.g., by wetlands, in rain forest fires, and during volcanic eruptions). It is argued that, in the face of such massive contributors, and since the Earth’s temperature has remained essentially constant for millennia, the Earth already possesses some built-in mechanism, currently not perfectly understood, that reduces the Earth’s temperature swings.
The environmentalists’ claim that there will be a temperature increase of 3 to 9 degrees F (1.7 to 5 degree C) by the year 2100 and that this increase will be catastrophic is also disputed by many scientists. On the contrary, most scientists agree that the deprivation or human suffering that would result from a reduction or cessation in the burning of fossil fuels will be significantly higher than the effects of a slightly increased temperature.
Regardless of the validity of the global warming hypothesis, some major power generation industries have adopted goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. However, efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by converting fossil fuel from one form to another are questioned by many engineers. Natural gas produces the least amount of carbon dioxide of any fossil fuel. Therefore, conversion of coal to a gas or liquid fuel in order to lower the carbon to hydrogen ratio would appear to lesson carbon dioxide emissions at the point of finals use. However, the conversion processes consume energy derived from carbon containing fuel. This additional consumption, taken over all sites, results in a net increase in carbon dioxide emission of 10 to 200%, depending on the process.
The use of ethanol as an alternative for gasoline is also problematic. Manufacturing processes that produce ethanol give off (at least) twice as much carbon dioxide as the gasoline being replaced produces during consumption.
Most synthetic fuels are intrinsically less efficient (based on their actual heating values compared with those theoretically obtainable from the fuels’ components in elemental form). This results in an increase in the amount of fuel consumed. Thus, fossil fuels should be used primarily in their raw forms until cleaner sources of energy are available.
---END---
If engineers, much smarter than me, are writing the textbook, implementing solutions, helping guide legislation, and evaluating the costs and benefits, and they say the jury is out on the proof, the science, and the means of extrapolation, then I am inclined to believe them.
West South Central Moderator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,371
From: Kilgore TX 75662
I found this quite interesting...
EPA Fuel Economy
Car A: 18city / 25hwy
Car B: 17city / 26hwy
Fuel Type
Car A: Premium
Car B: Regular
Engine
Car A: 212hp / 159tq, 1.3L Rotary 2 cylinder 10.0:1
Car B: 260hp / 330tq, 5.7L V8 10.1:1
Transmission
Car A: 6 speed automatic
Car B: 4 speed automatic
Passenger Volume
Car A: 89 ft3 (4D)
Car B: 115 ft3 (4D)
Luggage Volume
Car A: 8 ft3 (4D)
Car B: 20 ft3 (4D)
Vehicle Weight
Car A: 3075#
Car B: 4061#
Car A = 2007 Mazda RX-8
Car B = 1996 Chevrolet Caprice
EPA Fuel Economy
Car A: 18city / 25hwy
Car B: 17city / 26hwy
Fuel Type
Car A: Premium
Car B: Regular
Engine
Car A: 212hp / 159tq, 1.3L Rotary 2 cylinder 10.0:1
Car B: 260hp / 330tq, 5.7L V8 10.1:1
Transmission
Car A: 6 speed automatic
Car B: 4 speed automatic
Passenger Volume
Car A: 89 ft3 (4D)
Car B: 115 ft3 (4D)
Luggage Volume
Car A: 8 ft3 (4D)
Car B: 20 ft3 (4D)
Vehicle Weight
Car A: 3075#
Car B: 4061#
Car A = 2007 Mazda RX-8
Car B = 1996 Chevrolet Caprice
Last edited by AdioSS; Apr 14, 2007 at 09:20 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
While everyone is on the subject. Here is some food for thought.
I am preparing to take the professional engineer exam next Friday. I am a civil engineer, you know, the profession that deals with nature as it relates to basic societal function i.e. water, wastewaster, hazardous waste, roads, bridges, dams, railroads, bridges, emmissions, etc. And most importantly evaluating practicalities as well as benefits and costs of implementing solutions to basic societal problems.
While politicians and scientists can have many influences and priorities, the engineer ethically is abided to deal with others in the following order from highest priority to lowest priority.
1) Society and the public
2) The law
3) The profession
4) The client
5) The firm
6) other engineers
7) the engineer
Having said that, here is what THE reference manual, to get a professional engineer's license, says about global warming. I believe it, because, as a textbook written by engineers for engineers; it takes logic and reasoning into account, without politics, without any scientific self-promotion for whatever self-serving end, and without the emotional propoganda that seems to reek from any media outlet. Most importantly it says that whatever is done has to serve the public in an economically feasible way otherwise you will end up with more deprivation and human suffering than you would with the effects of higher temperatures.
Note that it starts off by saying Global Warming is a hypothesis.
Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam
Tenth Edition
Michael R. Lindeburg, PE
Chapter 32 Pollutants in the Environment
Section 24 Global Warming
The global warming hypothesisis that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, CO2, from the combustion of carbon-rich fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases (e.g. water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons) trap an increasing amount of solar radiation in a greenhouse effect, gradually increasing the Earth's temperature. It is claimed that the most recent cycle of increases in carbon dioxide began with the industrial revolution.
Recent studies have shown that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing at the rate of about 1% per year. (For example, in one year carbon dioxide might increase from 350 ppmv to 354 ppmv. By comparison, oxygen is approximately 209,500 ppmv.) There has also been a 100% increase in atmospheric methance since the beginning of the industrial revolution. According to some researchers, there has been a corresponding global temperature increase of approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degree Celsius) since the year 1890. Other researchers can detect no discernible upward trend, and some offer a counter-argument. Based on the retreat of the northern-most lines capable of growing oranges since 1850, some believe that the weather is generally becoming colder, not hotter.
In addition to a temperature increase, other evidence cited by supporters of the global warming hypotheses are several record-breaking hot summers, widespread aberrations inthe traditional seasonal weather patterns (e.g., hurricane-like storms in England), and a 4 to 12 in (10 to 30 cm) rise in sea level over the last century. The rise in the level of the oceans is disputed.
The global warming hypothesis is disputed by many scientists and has not been proved to be an absolute truth. Arguments against the hypothesis center around the fact that manufactured carbon dioxide is a small fraction of what is naturally released (e.g., by wetlands, in rain forest fires, and during volcanic eruptions). It is argued that, in the face of such massive contributors, and since the Earth’s temperature has remained essentially constant for millennia, the Earth already possesses some built-in mechanism, currently not perfectly understood, that reduces the Earth’s temperature swings.
The environmentalists’ claim that there will be a temperature increase of 3 to 9 degrees F (1.7 to 5 degree C) by the year 2100 and that this increase will be catastrophic is also disputed by many scientists. On the contrary, most scientists agree that the deprivation or human suffering that would result from a reduction or cessation in the burning of fossil fuels will be significantly higher than the effects of a slightly increased temperature.
Regardless of the validity of the global warming hypothesis, some major power generation industries have adopted goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. However, efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by converting fossil fuel from one form to another are questioned by many engineers. Natural gas produces the least amount of carbon dioxide of any fossil fuel. Therefore, conversion of coal to a gas or liquid fuel in order to lower the carbon to hydrogen ratio would appear to lesson carbon dioxide emissions at the point of finals use. However, the conversion processes consume energy derived from carbon containing fuel. This additional consumption, taken over all sites, results in a net increase in carbon dioxide emission of 10 to 200%, depending on the process.
The use of ethanol as an alternative for gasoline is also problematic. Manufacturing processes that produce ethanol give off (at least) twice as much carbon dioxide as the gasoline being replaced produces during consumption.
Most synthetic fuels are intrinsically less efficient (based on their actual heating values compared with those theoretically obtainable from the fuels’ components in elemental form). This results in an increase in the amount of fuel consumed. Thus, fossil fuels should be used primarily in their raw forms until cleaner sources of energy are available.
---END---
If engineers, much smarter than me, are writing the textbook, implementing solutions, helping guide legislation, and evaluating the costs and benefits, and they say the jury is out on the proof, the science, and the means of extrapolation, then I am inclined to believe them.
I am preparing to take the professional engineer exam next Friday. I am a civil engineer, you know, the profession that deals with nature as it relates to basic societal function i.e. water, wastewaster, hazardous waste, roads, bridges, dams, railroads, bridges, emmissions, etc. And most importantly evaluating practicalities as well as benefits and costs of implementing solutions to basic societal problems.
While politicians and scientists can have many influences and priorities, the engineer ethically is abided to deal with others in the following order from highest priority to lowest priority.
1) Society and the public
2) The law
3) The profession
4) The client
5) The firm
6) other engineers
7) the engineer
Having said that, here is what THE reference manual, to get a professional engineer's license, says about global warming. I believe it, because, as a textbook written by engineers for engineers; it takes logic and reasoning into account, without politics, without any scientific self-promotion for whatever self-serving end, and without the emotional propoganda that seems to reek from any media outlet. Most importantly it says that whatever is done has to serve the public in an economically feasible way otherwise you will end up with more deprivation and human suffering than you would with the effects of higher temperatures.
Note that it starts off by saying Global Warming is a hypothesis.
Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam
Tenth Edition
Michael R. Lindeburg, PE
Chapter 32 Pollutants in the Environment
Section 24 Global Warming
The global warming hypothesisis that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, CO2, from the combustion of carbon-rich fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases (e.g. water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons) trap an increasing amount of solar radiation in a greenhouse effect, gradually increasing the Earth's temperature. It is claimed that the most recent cycle of increases in carbon dioxide began with the industrial revolution.
Recent studies have shown that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing at the rate of about 1% per year. (For example, in one year carbon dioxide might increase from 350 ppmv to 354 ppmv. By comparison, oxygen is approximately 209,500 ppmv.) There has also been a 100% increase in atmospheric methance since the beginning of the industrial revolution. According to some researchers, there has been a corresponding global temperature increase of approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degree Celsius) since the year 1890. Other researchers can detect no discernible upward trend, and some offer a counter-argument. Based on the retreat of the northern-most lines capable of growing oranges since 1850, some believe that the weather is generally becoming colder, not hotter.
In addition to a temperature increase, other evidence cited by supporters of the global warming hypotheses are several record-breaking hot summers, widespread aberrations inthe traditional seasonal weather patterns (e.g., hurricane-like storms in England), and a 4 to 12 in (10 to 30 cm) rise in sea level over the last century. The rise in the level of the oceans is disputed.
The global warming hypothesis is disputed by many scientists and has not been proved to be an absolute truth. Arguments against the hypothesis center around the fact that manufactured carbon dioxide is a small fraction of what is naturally released (e.g., by wetlands, in rain forest fires, and during volcanic eruptions). It is argued that, in the face of such massive contributors, and since the Earth’s temperature has remained essentially constant for millennia, the Earth already possesses some built-in mechanism, currently not perfectly understood, that reduces the Earth’s temperature swings.
The environmentalists’ claim that there will be a temperature increase of 3 to 9 degrees F (1.7 to 5 degree C) by the year 2100 and that this increase will be catastrophic is also disputed by many scientists. On the contrary, most scientists agree that the deprivation or human suffering that would result from a reduction or cessation in the burning of fossil fuels will be significantly higher than the effects of a slightly increased temperature.
Regardless of the validity of the global warming hypothesis, some major power generation industries have adopted goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. However, efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by converting fossil fuel from one form to another are questioned by many engineers. Natural gas produces the least amount of carbon dioxide of any fossil fuel. Therefore, conversion of coal to a gas or liquid fuel in order to lower the carbon to hydrogen ratio would appear to lesson carbon dioxide emissions at the point of finals use. However, the conversion processes consume energy derived from carbon containing fuel. This additional consumption, taken over all sites, results in a net increase in carbon dioxide emission of 10 to 200%, depending on the process.
The use of ethanol as an alternative for gasoline is also problematic. Manufacturing processes that produce ethanol give off (at least) twice as much carbon dioxide as the gasoline being replaced produces during consumption.
Most synthetic fuels are intrinsically less efficient (based on their actual heating values compared with those theoretically obtainable from the fuels’ components in elemental form). This results in an increase in the amount of fuel consumed. Thus, fossil fuels should be used primarily in their raw forms until cleaner sources of energy are available.
---END---
If engineers, much smarter than me, are writing the textbook, implementing solutions, helping guide legislation, and evaluating the costs and benefits, and they say the jury is out on the proof, the science, and the means of extrapolation, then I am inclined to believe them.
OT Btw, without theories, we'd still be wondering why electricity exists and how it's generated.
Last edited by SSbaby; Apr 14, 2007 at 10:01 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,011
From: Exton, Pennsylvania
Admin Emeritus
Joined: Dec 1997
Posts: 11,157
From: Nashville, TN area
Asking nicely, twice.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 53
From: Chicagoland
I fully understand the concept of theories, but were the fundamental laws of electricity like V=iR fully accepted until it could be predictable? tested by many and found to be true? and then widely accepted?
It would be arrogant for scientists at this point to think that they have climate change fully figured out to where they can predict with some degree of accuracy what is going to happen, because they don't. It is like they are bringing us voltage and current but don't really understand resistance yet. I know this is way to simple of an example, but you brought up electricity so I went with it.
I do not disupte that the variables that they are measuring aren't related, but that doesn't mean they fully comprehend, or are including, all the right variables in the equation. That doesn't mean that they won't be able to eventually figure it out either.
So does anybody have a link to a good explanation for CAFE?
They are planning on doing the Volt, does that offset the requirements?
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,011
From: Exton, Pennsylvania
Yes engineers have opinions, but you're missing the point that global warming isn't a theory, or a law, it is a hypothesis. You have already given it more credit than it is worth, by saying every one has theories.
I fully understand the concept of theories, but were the fundamental laws of electricity like V=iR fully accepted until it could be predictable? tested by many and found to be true? and then widely accepted?
It would be arrogant for scientists at this point to think that they have climate change fully figured out to where they can predict with some degree of accuracy what is going to happen, because they don't. It is like they are bringing us voltage and current but don't really understand resistance yet. I know this is way to simple of an example, but you brought up electricity so I went with it.
I do not disupte that the variables that they are measuring aren't related, but that doesn't mean they fully comprehend, or are including, all the right variables in the equation. That doesn't mean that they won't be able to eventually figure it out either.
So does anybody have a link to a good explanation for CAFE?
They are planning on doing the Volt, does that offset the requirements?
I fully understand the concept of theories, but were the fundamental laws of electricity like V=iR fully accepted until it could be predictable? tested by many and found to be true? and then widely accepted?
It would be arrogant for scientists at this point to think that they have climate change fully figured out to where they can predict with some degree of accuracy what is going to happen, because they don't. It is like they are bringing us voltage and current but don't really understand resistance yet. I know this is way to simple of an example, but you brought up electricity so I went with it.
I do not disupte that the variables that they are measuring aren't related, but that doesn't mean they fully comprehend, or are including, all the right variables in the equation. That doesn't mean that they won't be able to eventually figure it out either.
So does anybody have a link to a good explanation for CAFE?
They are planning on doing the Volt, does that offset the requirements?
I think Jason has made it pretty clear that we have been walking the global warming line too closely pretty much this entire thread. Let the issue die.