267 replies to this topic

[luvin_the_rings]

 

And the oldest semi-reliable measurement of temperature we have are ... what ... about 150 years old?  Taken by guys wearing tophats in London, using mercury thermometers?

 

Actually, 

 

Many archaeologists have been analyzing fossilized tree rings and shellfish fossils to determine the average temperature of the seas and air along with carbon content.  They have confirmed that the earth goes through hot and cold spells going back billions of years.  

 

However, this particular rise in carbon and heat is much more severe.  

 

I like to watch Nova when I'm bored. 

[Danica Davison]

So if I run toe out all around to counter-act camber thrust and free up the rolling resistance, does that mean I'm environmentally friendly?

 

You are doing your part, but if you want to be the most environmentally friendly, you need to crash on the first lap of the race. Saves carbon emissions.

[Bench Racer]

Who? What? Where?

  ^  Millennial!!!

[Danica Davison]

^  Millennial!!!

 

 

Get off my lawn forum you old hag!!!!  This is MY safe space!

[Tom Sager]

https://3kpnuxym9k04...print-chart.jpg

 

https://upload.wikim...-2013-top40.svg

 

Consider these two charts simultaneously.  The fastest growing factor in energy consumption and carbon emissions is the 3rd world developing towards the per capita energy usage of the U.S., Canada, EU, Russia, wealthy Middle Eastern countries, etc.

 

The base energy needs (and "wants") of every first world human exceeds the potential savings of more negligible virtue-signalling activities included at the bottom of the first chart.

 

Having spent 8 years trying to model complex systems, I'm curious that anyone can have high confidence opinions about the causes of "climate change".  

 

As a model, it looks to me like this:

A massive spinning ball (Earth) filled with molten iron (lava?), with massive internal friction (Tectonic plates?), magnetically orbiting the world's hottest "space heater" (the Sun), and it has been doing so for 2000 years, or billions of years, depending on which person who has been alive less than 100 years I am listening to?  How am I to model the internal heat source of the Earth?  How do I model the external heat source of the Sun?  How do I model the conductive, convective, and radiant coefficients between the hot spinning ball and hot burning star it is orbiting?

 

And the oldest semi-reliable measurement of temperature we have are ... what ... about 150 years old?  Taken by guys wearing tophats in London, using mercury thermometers?

 

In summary, the population growth in the 3rd world, combined with their increased energy "wants", would appear to be at least 2 orders of magnitude greater than anything the 300M people of the U.S. can affect.  Even a full 100% reduction in per capita emissions in the U.S. will be akin to bailing out the Titanic with Solo cups.

 

Unless, of course, there isn't really a "problem", to begin with.  But if there is a real problem, such a believer should transfer calories and dollars spent on virtue-signaling "conservation", and allocate them to proposals that have a chance of actually solving the problem.  Maybe that is directly replenishing the Ozone layer, or developing CO2-hungry ground cover.  Maybe it is invading Canada, or nuking Asia, or some other means of "population control".  With current technology, electric cars are not much of a solution, to my eye.  

 

But, like the Horseshit Crisis of 1894, I am optimistic we will solve "climate change".  It would be nice to see more reliable (and less politicized) work done to understand it.  

 

P.S.  The copy of that first chart that I keep on my office wall has an edit adding the 1+ Million tons of excess emissions caused by Dieselgate.  "Environmentalists" that drive VW/Audi/Porsche or other VAG products is like a Safety Professional riding an ACME Rocket Unicycle, or driving a Spec Miata race with a leather helmet and no belts

 

A fine post but it was disappointing to have to wait for the P.S. for the German bashing. 

[Bench Racer]

Get off my lawn forum you old hag!!!!  This is MY safe space!

And my lawn is my safe place. Please watch until the 1 minute mark. By the way I had a 69 Torino. The one in movie is a 73 IIRC.

 

 

[SaulSpeedwell]

A fine post but it was disappointing to have to wait for the P.S. for the German bashing. 

 

It isn't a "phobia" unless the fear is irrational, and it isn't "bashing" if the criticism is true

[SaulSpeedwell]

Actually, 

 

Many archaeologists have been analyzing fossilized tree rings and shellfish fossils to determine the average temperature of the seas and air along with carbon content.  They have confirmed that the earth goes through hot and cold spells going back billions of years.  

 

However, this particular rise in carbon and heat is much more severe.  

 

I like to watch Nova when I'm bored. 

 

I don't consider "Nova" an infallible and unbiased source, but I watch it as well.  I have 7 years and $150K of "science" (Science!) degrees, and I certainly outrank noted actor and comedian Bill "Science!" Nye in terms of credentials (lol), the recency of those credentials (lol) .... and yet I have much less confidence than either side of the politicized climate change debate. 

 

The list of Science!-tific conclusions that have been proven incorrect (or vastly corrected) in my adult life is the primary driver of my "skepticism".  On balance, I believe C02 emissions is *probably* a real problem.  This assumes I'm being told the truth, and if there is anything I am skeptical about, it is THAT.  But - my main point was that "science" (data and math, really) indicate that China is already the primary C02 emitter, and China and India's continued population growth and increasing energy needs and wants are what will ultimately fill and sink the Titanic.  Thus, mathematically and "scientifically" speaking, American/Firstworld Feelgood "environmentalism" is not a solution to anything other than political tribalism and the associated social popularity contests.  I'd love for "Nova" (and Fox and Vox and NYT and anyone else) to cover THAT, but it is politically popular to blame ->insert partisan reason for or against climate change here<-. 

 

Never mind that >$32K USD per year gets one to the GLOBAL 1%-er wealth level, which is something else I'd be happy for PBS or Fox or Vox (rhymes with Fox) to cover.  The fact that we are talking about getting "poor" Americans (i.e. global 1%-ers)  better broadband access, and arguing about letting girls in the Boy Scouts, and whether Woody Allen should be allowed in the same Starbucks bathroom with Dargo's daughter, is the surest sign of "progress" here in the world's most progressive and prosperous nation of 300M people.  Screw Norway as a benchmark, they are the population of Houston.  Screw Canada as a benchmark, they are the population of California.  Take Canada's immigration test sometime, by the way.  You'll get in if you speak the language(s), have desired skills, have current associates in the country, you are young, healthy, you have made prior visits, and you have a job offer.  Immigrant friendly, my ass.  Not compared to the country Woody Guthrie sang about

http://www.canada-da...calculator.html

 

Like I said, I'm all for focusing dollars and calories and online manifestos on real solutions. As one who put his money where his vas deferens were, I'm looking forward to all the carbon offsets I'm going to get from the Parent's Union, the Dog Owner's Union, vwvortex.com users,  Porsche Club of America members, and any other American, Canadian, EU, Russian, and Middle Eastern "climate change deniers"

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I don't consider "Nova" an infallible and unbiased source, but I watch it as well. I have 7 years and $150K of "science" (Science!) degrees, and I certainly outrank noted actor and comedian Bill "Science!" Nye in terms of credentials (lol), the recency of those credentials (lol) .... and yet I have much less confidence than either side of the politicized climate change debate.

The list of Science!-tific conclusions that have been proven incorrect (or vastly corrected) in my adult life is the primary driver of my "skepticism". On balance, I believe C02 emissions is *probably* a real problem. This assumes I'm being told the truth, and if there is anything I am skeptical about, it is THAT. But - my main point was that "science" (data and math, really) indicate that China is already the primary C02 emitter, and China and India's continued population growth and increasing energy needs and wants are what will ultimately fill and sink the Titanic. Thus, mathematically and "scientifically" speaking, American/Firstworld Feelgood "environmentalism" is not a solution to anything other than political tribalism and the associated social popularity contests. I'd love for "Nova" (and Fox and Vox and NYT and anyone else) to cover THAT, but it is politically popular to blame ->insert partisan reason for or against climate change here<-.

Never mind that >$32K USD per year gets one to the GLOBAL 1%-er wealth level, which is something else I'd be happy for PBS or Fox or Vox (rhymes with Fox) to cover. The fact that we are talking about getting "poor" Americans (i.e. global 1%-ers) better broadband access, and arguing about letting girls in the Boy Scouts, and whether Woody Allen should be allowed in the same Starbucks bathroom with Dargo's daughter, is the surest sign of "progress" here in the world's most progressive and prosperous nation of 300M people. Screw Norway as a benchmark, they are the population of Houston. Screw Canada as a benchmark, they are the population of California. Take Canada's immigration test sometime, by the way. You'll get in if you speak the language(s), have desired skills, have current associates in the country, you are young, healthy, you have made prior visits, and you have a job offer. Immigrant friendly, my ass. Not compared to the country Woody Guthrie sang about

http://www.canada-da...calculator.html

Like I said, I'm all for focusing dollars and calories and online manifestos on real solutions. As one who put his money where his vas deferens were, I'm looking forward to all the carbon offsets I'm going to get from the Parent's Union, the Dog Owner's Union, vwvortex.com users, Porsche Club of America members, and any other American, Canadian, EU, Russian, and Middle Eastern "climate change deniers"

I wonder if I can get some of your posts on audible??? Make for some good listening while driving to a race lol

[Tom Sager]

I wonder if I can get some of your posts on audible??? Make for some good listening while driving to a race lol

Maybe Minnesota? 

[luvin_the_rings]

Speaking of climate change, we have 22 SM's starting at Auto Club this weekend.  I'm stoked. 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Maybe Minnesota?

To far for my attention span lol

[Steve Scheifler]

It seems there is rarely anything really new in the climate debate these days so I read less and less, but I found this more interesting than most.

https://www.wsj.com/...ange-1526423254

[Danica Davison]

Speaking of climate change, we have 22 SM's starting at Auto Club this weekend.  I'm stoked.

 

Is that it? Are these warming temperatures keeping the drivers away?

[Jason J Ball]

 Thus, mathematically and "scientifically" speaking, American/Firstworld Feelgood "environmentalism" is not a solution to anything other than political tribalism and the associated social popularity contests. 

 

This is the only thing I have a problem with Mathematically yes, China and India will far outpace us in energy needs. The problem with the good ole U.S.A. is that our per person percentage contribution to carbon footprint equates to multiples in China and India, more than 2 times more per person. We produce half as much CO2 emissions as China with less than 1/4 of the people. Per person we produce 16.5t of CO2 per year compared to 7.2t for China and 1.8t for India. Your argument will have merit if we were 1:1. The biggest gains are available to us, we are the low hanging fruit.   

 

Source data

http://www.globalcar...n/CO2-emissions

[SaulSpeedwell]

If the math is what you have a problem with, I'm skeptical that you are interested in discussing or participating in actual solutions.  If the data is to be believed, you can add "good ole" UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Australia, Canada, EU, Russia, and Mexico, to your list of bad guy energy hogs.  If "per capita" is what is important, the U.S. is "only"  7th worst.  Vox cleverly listed only G20 countries in a recent article, which skews the per capita data so that the U.S. looks the worst. 

 

I don't think the per capita metrics are very useful in this case.  As I said, even a 100% reduction in energy consumption and/or C02 emissions from the 4% of the global population that are Americans, would appear to not move the global needle.  Turn the thermostat down, ride your skateboard to work, cheerlead for 54.5 MPG cars, put solar cells on the wrong side of your house so that passers-by can see it and applaud, but none of it adds up to an actual solution. 

 

I couldn't load your source data, but your excerpt of it seems to agree with the same data I posted.  China emits 30% of the global total.  Small efforts there will add up to more than large efforts hdere.

 

On balance, it would appear that your position is that Americans, Canadians, Europeans, Russians, and wealthy Middle Eastern countries should greatly reduce their energy consumption and emissions.  Do you have any proposals on how to do that? 

 

We could, for example, eliminate immigration except for people that come from equally energy-hogging locales.  We could implement a "child-rearing" tax (or a limit on how many children we can have), a dog-owning tax, a beef-eating tax, maybe an almond tax for our vegan friends.  We could increase the cost of airfare, since air travel is awful for the environment, and only global 1%-ers can afford to fly.

 

As I've said 2 or 3 times, my focus is on real solutions.  I'm a little too polite to tell you that your argument had no merit, but it would have more merit if it was focused on something other than the politically convenient and popular trope of making the 4% of Americans the most often or only mentioned "bad guy" in the energy spectrum.

 

Imagine there are 100 people in your "neighborhood".  One family of 4 (i.e. 4% of the neighborhood) uses 5 times more water than the average.  If we can get them to use only twice the average, or we poison them with VW TDI fumes until they pass out and consume no water at all, the mere fact that they are ONLY 4% and they are using ONLY 5 times more than the average, results in those 4 people not being able to affect the fate of the Titanic.  It is parametric sensitivity, and it doesn't care about anyone's feelings or who is in the White House.

 

Do we want to "feel" right, or do we want a solution?  The bottom 40%-ile energy consumers in Mexico are still consuming more energy PER CAPITA than the the next 120+ countries after them.  So what?

 

"Conservation", even in energy hog nations, would appear to not be a feasible solution ...  just like asking people to not use horses would have likely failed to solve America's largest environmental problem in 1894. 

 

I'm optimistic that a family of technological solutions will solve climate change - but it would help if the cool kids and the political operatives once known as "The Press" would help us get there. 

[Ron Alan]

Solutions kill the cash cows! The ability to keep the masses hysterical about minutia...and rhetoric that makes them feel informed is the only goal. 

 

The current crop of political adds in California is sadly entertaining. Every high level candidate is running against Trump! They fight within their own party as to which is most progressive and who can name drop the most with the likes of Bill Clinton, Hilary, Obama and Biden! They are all going to solve immigration, women's rights(#metoo) and a list of other current "buzz words". Those who actually vote will never pay attention to what these mouth pieces do after they are sworn in. And for the record...mouth pieces are on both sides of the isle! Again...#wherearethesolutions?  (Shhhhhhh...they are going to take away our bean bag chairs and chi latte's!)

[Bench Racer]

Ron, sounds like the peoples republic (aka lefty party) of Madison, WI capitol city of WI. 16 of Nancy's friends running to unseat 2 term Gov. Walker. And the Mayor of Milwaukee may run against Walker for a 3rd time, he's lost the previous 2 times.

[Samuel J]

[Steve Scheifler]

What Saul said.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assume that the favored per capita statistics attempt to include total “footprint” (or whatever the current buzzword is), meaning that every dollar I spend as a consumer ups my contribution to self-annihilation. Unless you are proposing that we all stop accumulating stuff and therefore tank the economy overnight, then it hardly seems fair to compare our per capita average with countries where the vast majority of people are poorer than all but the truly homeless here. I doubt the homeless guy on the corner has much to feel guilty about. That’s it, more homeless families to improve our numbers!! Brilliant.

Factor in economic status and I’ll wager that the US moves way up the clean ladder. Not to say we can’t continue to do better, waste less and recycle more, but our cars are almost unimaginablly clean compared to 40 years ago (at enormous cost), power generation is far cleaner than many other countries (not chesp), we are recycling at record levels and offering many incentives to do more, which ultimately costs someone and therefore everyone.

Our biggest impediment to doing even better is that we are rich and spoiled, which invariably means we consume more than poor countries. And in our infinite wisdom one of our often stated goals seems to be a new global economy accelerating development in the poorest countries so they can raise their per capita contribution to ecological armageddon. Or as the old saying goes, raise all boats, which is a serendipitous side effect of the rising oceans. I love a win-win!