[GeoStL] Re: NGR: Is it really getting warmer?
- From: "Jim Bensman" <junkmailno@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:42:57 -0500
-
To me, the bottom line is who do you believe: the National Academy of
Science or Mobil/Exxon? Believing Exxon makes as much sense as believing =
the
tobacco companies that smoking is not bad for you.
HereFishyFishy,
There is technology to make the cars more efficient. I read some place =
out
in Colorado modified a Suburban to get 60 miles to the gallon.
The problem is the politicians will not require the car manufactures to =
make
cars more efficient (CAF=C9 Standards) (MO Senators always oppose =
requiring
cars to be more efficient and IL Senators always support it) and the
consumers are not demanding it. Perhaps the price of gas will change
things.
It is not just the hybrid technology that is not being used. Here are =
some
more examples of EXISTING technology. We also have a lot of brilliant
engineers who could be inventing much more.=20
Advanced Ignitions: By replacing a conventional starter motor
and alternator with an Integrated Starter Generator
(ISG), a gas engine can switch off when the vehicle is stopped
and idling. Vehicles burn as much as 15 percent of their gas
while sitting in traffic. The ISG restarts the motor when
you put your foot on the gas, just like tapping a computer
mouse to awaken a sleeping computer, and saves added
fuel by doing it more efficiently than a standard starter. Fuel
Economy Improvement: 15-25%
High Strength, Lightweight Materials: Strong, lightweight
steel, aluminum, and plastics can all play a role in helping
vehicles shed weight while enhancing safety. Fuel Economy
Improvement: 25-30%
Sleeker Design: Improving the aerodynamics cuts down on
wind resistance and installing low rolling resistance tires
reduces road friction. Fuel Economy Improvement: 5%
Smarter Transmissions: A Continuously Variable Automatic
Transmission (CVT) allows for an infinite number of gear ratios for
the most efficient combination of engine speed and wheel
speed. With a CVT, gears are replaced by continuous belts to maximize
efficiency. A 2001 study by the trade publication
Automotive News estimated a 20% fuel economy gain from a CVT.
High-Tech Engines: By allowing engine intake valves to close
early during low demand, variable valve timing prevents inefficient
pumping. Adding lean-burn technology, which introduces
more air to the combustion chamber, can provide
further efficiency. Fuel economy gains also occur when
engines have four valves per cylinder instead of two, individual
cylinder control, and cylinder deactivation, which
improves fuel economy by automatically shutting down
unneeded cylinders when less power is required. Automotive
News found that Cylinder Deactivation alone would result in
as much as a 20% improvement in fuel economy.
There is no excuse for cars/SUVs/trucks not to be averaging at least 40 =
MPG.
If cars were twice as efficient, it would need half the gas. If people =
used
half the gas, there would be much less demand for it so the price would =
be
lower.
Less gas also equals less pollution and less people getting sick or =
dying
from pollution. =20
The Union of Concerned Scientists' recent study showed that
higher fuel economy in cars and light trucks will create jobs
throughout the economy. UCS estimates that the auto industry
alone will gain 40,000 new jobs. In addition, the money consumers
save at the gas pump will be reinvested in the economy, creating
an estimated additional 161,000 net new jobs nationwide.
Requiring auto companies to build cleaner cars will make
automakers more competitive. The Big Three put auto industry
jobs at risk by failing to use innovative technology. While
Japanese and European car makers are putting lean-burn
engines, continuously variable transmissions, and other fuel efficient
technologies into their cars, American automakers
continue to produce inefficient designs with primitive technology.
Already dozens of unionized factories in the United States
produce clean car technology. We could do even more by
putting American ingenuity to work to make clean, efficient,
American made cars and SUVs. =20
My previous car was a Ford Escort. I really liked it. It was my first
choice to replace it, but Honda's Civic got much better gas mileage so I
bought the civic. So that is an example of how Ford's failure to make =
more
efficient cars lost them a sale.
Long-time safety advocates, such as the Center
for Auto Safety, support increasing CAFE standards
to 40 miles per gallon =97 and point out that
we can do so safely. A joint study by the Union of
Concerned Scientists and the Center for Auto
Safety found that raising the fuel economy of
new cars and light trucks to 40 mpg would benefit
=93consumers, the economy and the environment
without sacrificing passenger safety=94
In fact, the rate of traffic fatalities fell 50% during
the same period fuel economy doubled due to
CAFE standards. Auto manufacturers claim they
can only achieve higher CAFE standards by changing
their entire fleets to smaller cars. But they said
the same thing in 1974 when a Ford spokesperson testified
before Congress that a 27.5 mpg standard would result in a =93Ford
product line consisting of either all Pinto-sized vehicles or some
mix of vehicles ranging from a sub-sub-compact to perhaps a
Maverick.=94 Obviously, they were wrong then =97 and they are
wrong again today.
Jim Bensman
"Nature Bats Last"=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:geocaching-
> bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg & Bobbi Crouch
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:31 AM
> To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [GeoStL] Re: NGR: Is it really getting warmer?
>=20
> -
> Seems like I heard somewhere that the Earth goes through a 60 year =
climate
> cycle. We may just be in the warming phase of the cycle. If someone =
builds
> a
> hybrid 3/4 ton x-cab long bed truck that gets 40 mpg you can bet I'll =
be
> looking into buying one. I have a lawn care biz and spend about $500 =
per
> month on gas alone just for my truck.
>=20
> HereFishyFishy
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <know_future@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 8:55 AM
> Subject: [GeoStL] Re: NGR: Is it really getting warmer?
>=20
>=20
> > -
> > Morning all,
> > I think the evidence is pretty conclusive that we are witnessing a
> global
> warming trend. The big question in my mind is whether we can, or =
should,
> try
> to make an effort to reverse it. Geologic evidence indicates that on
> several
> occasions in the distant past St. Louis was covered by oceans and had =
a
> tropical climate. We also find skeletons of mastadons and other ice =
age
> plants and animals. This happened when the oceans receded (the water =
being
> stored in massive continental ice sheets) and earth entered one of =
many
> global ice ages.
> > Indeed there have been numerous global warming and cooling cycles =
during
> earth's history. Each cycle lasts for tens of thousands of years, so =
we
> have
> not yet witnessed a complete cycle. The thing to keep in mind is that =
our
> climate is cyclical, therefore it is always changing, never static. =
The
> earth's climate has been quite cool, by geologic standards, since the
> beginning of recorded history. That it's becoming warmer should not be
> surprising.
> > Can we do anything about it? I think the answer is: we don't know. =
To
> blame ourselves for global warming may be an overreaction. We didn't =
cause
> any of the previous warming cycles - they all happened before humans
> arrived
> on the scene. Yet something caused them. Geologic history suggests =
that
> the
> earth is inevitably going to enter a global warming cycle. We don't =
know
> when or why and most likely, if it is happening now, it's not because =
of
> anything we are doing.
> > Should we try to do anything about it? In my opinion, no. Why? We =
don't
> understand the mechanics of the global climate cycles. Since we don't
> understand the problem, how can we hope to solve it? When I was in =
college
> in the 70s, some scientists believed that we were entering a new ice =
age.
> There were proposals to pump massive quantities of CO2 into the =
atmosphere
> in an attempt to retain warmth in the atmosphere. How things have =
changed
> in
> just 30 years! Personally I think that our ability to alter a global
> phenomenon that has been occurring for billions of years is about nil.
> > On the other hand, saving fossils fuels, reducing emissions of =
poisonous
> chemicals, gases, etc. is a worthwhile effort for many obvious health
> reasons. To say that this will also have an effect on global climate
> trends
> just doesn't jive with the historical record, in my mind.
> > Thanks for considering my opinion (if you did, that is ).
> > Know Future (BS Geology, 1976)
> > -- "Mike Griffin" <griff@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > -
> > http://www.junkscience.com/
> > Mike
> >
> > Tired of Spam??
> > Here's your solution..
> > See: http://www.spamarrest.com/affl?4001050
> >
> > ****************************************
> > Our WebPage! Http://WWW.GeoStL.com
> > Mail List Info. //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
> > Mail List FAQ's: //www.freelists.org/help/questions.html
> > ****************************************
> > To unsubscribe from this list:
> > send an email to geocaching-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with =
'unsubscribe' in
> the Subject field
> >
> >
> > ****************************************
> > Our WebPage! Http://WWW.GeoStL.com
> > Mail List Info. //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
> > Mail List FAQ's: //www.freelists.org/help/questions.html
> > ****************************************
> > To unsubscribe from this list:
> > send an email to geocaching-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with =
'unsubscribe' in
> the Subject field
> >
> >
> >
> >
>=20
>=20
> ****************************************
> Our WebPage! Http://WWW.GeoStL.com
> Mail List Info. //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
> Mail List FAQ's: //www.freelists.org/help/questions.html
> ****************************************
> To unsubscribe from this list:
> send an email to geocaching-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' =
in
> the Subject field
>=20
>=20
****************************************
Our WebPage! Http://WWW.GeoStL.com
Mail List Info. //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
Mail List FAQ's: //www.freelists.org/help/questions.html
****************************************
To unsubscribe from this list:
send an email to geocaching-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the
Subject field
Other related posts:
