I think that the greatest debate is whether global warming is man-made or not. It is occurring, period. We just don’t know why. It happens to coincide with an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, but it is not certain that the increase in average global temperature is due to more CO2.
You need to estabish your level of understanding of emission technology for both gas and diesel engines,how they work,what is their effect,what is the history of diesel engine emission controls and what is the future.
I find many people who lable emission controls “Government Mandated Garbage” don’t have any understanding about the systems they are speaking about.
There is no question that low emissions,good gas/diesel mpg and excellent power output can all exist in the same powerplant.
Your science is in error. Higher mileage is achieved by converting the maximum amount of the potential energy in the gasoline into rotating power in the crankshaft and then gearing the driivetrain such that the best use can be made of it to overcome the resistances.
Doing this means, for the engine, beginning by obtaining as complete a combustion of the gas as possible, preferably in a controlled manner at the beginning of the power stroke when it can be best converted. This complete combustion also reduces carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons…two of the most problematic pollutants.
Looked at from the other perspective, the things that are done to reduce pollution by getting as complete a combustion as possile of the gas also improve mileage.
We’ve had countless threads on this. The “emission” systems such as the computer controlled multiport injection systems that we have now provide maximum surface area per volume of gas in the cylinder, promoting faster and more complete combustion and thus improving both mileage and emissions. And now we even have computer controlled spark timing and even variiable valve timing which both help even more.
The cat converter is another issue, because it’s first function is to reduce oxides of nitrogen. It does this by passing the exhaust gasses through a heated ceramic honeycomb coated with platinum-palladium, which wekens the bond between the oxygen and the nitrogen and breaks them back up. The carbon monoxide can then grab some now-free oxygen and become carbon dioxide…the impact of which is the lesser of the two evils.
In short, improved mileage and reduced emissions are obtained using the same systems.
It’s confusing. My '61 Beetle got great mileage. It also had about 35 horsepower. That wouldn’t work very well on today’s superhighways.
"no serious person without a political agenda still believes in global warming."
Oh you’re so right - no one who wants to deny global warming has a political agenda at all - ?? I really can’t figure out the whole “global warming is some left wing environmentalist conspiracy thing” - what huge corporations are making their profits on the basis of promoting global warming? Gee…none. What huge corporations continue to protect profits my keeping up the denial? Well…plenty. Inspect the “political motivations” - you’ll find the only plausible ones on the right. Bizarre.
I have to agree with you about global warming. Back in 1985, I analyzed the data for the midwestern city where I live. I had the average daily temperature for every day for a 150 year period. I fit both a Box-Jenkins time series and a specral time series analyses to the data looking for a warming trend. I didn’t find any upward trend. I did find cycles where the temperature would seem to rise over a period of several years, but then it would fall back over another several year period. In my opinion, one would really have to do a similar analysis at different locations in the world before a firm conclusion can be drawn. The climatologist for whom I analyzed the data has long since retired and I am not sure whether or not he published the findings. I would like to see how the data has been analyzed by those who conclude that we do have global warming.
As to older cars getting better mileage than comparable cars today, I am old enough to have ridden in a 1949 Nash Airflyte 600 when it was a new car. This car was called the “600” because it could travel 600 miles on one fillup of its 20 gallon gasoline tank. This car had a flathead 6 cylinder engine, which is not the most efficient design for economy. The car would also carry 6 passengers comfortably–something not many cars can do today. The car was designed in a wind tunnel and had a much lower coefficient of drag than other cars produced at the time. I wonder how fuel efficient the car would be today if engineers had continued to refine its design.
Nothing in that entire diatribe makes any sense with regards to the general point that you started this whole mess with. The fact that we rely on mass production doesn’t mean that we have no choice but to let production (from raw material extraction through production and distribution) run amok at all costs.
Jtsanders is correct about the greatest debate being whether GW is contributed to in any way by mankind. At this point, it’s a theory.
As I stated my son actually is a climatologist and while the technical details are far over my head I would wager that I know more about the issue than many people simply because I’ve read publications that many have not seen and have had many clarification discussions with my on on this issue.
To avoid cluttering up one post too much I will ask a few questions and separate them.
I’ll direct this one to MikeinNH but anyone else subscribing to the GW theory, feel free to weigh in.
Here are some comments from something that was published in the year 2000.
1st set of comments.
“three people killed in Chicago due to record heat”
“at least 5 children in NY died after falling from fire escapes where they had gone to gain relief from the heat”
“the summer will be long remembered as one of the most remarkable for sustained high temperatures for almost a generation”
2nd set of comments.
“the northernmost latitudes are experiencing unusual levels of warmth”
“for the first time in recorded history the Bering Glacier (Alaska) began to shrink, sprout rivers, calve icebergs, and shed a full 600 feet of its depth”
“the prolonged heat had warmed the waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the temperature of a bathhouse”
So Mike, I would like to hear your comment on those statements.
Yeah! I hate new things too! Lousy scientists, always using their critical thinking skills and ever-advancing knowledge of the world around us to make me aware of problems that I’m not comfortable with!
You have to admit though, even though I’m sure your son is a smart guy, there are lots of people with BS and MS and PhD degrees out there on each side of the global warming fence. Some are receiving money some aren’t, but there is plenty of compelling evidence for each point of view.
How about this. Add a $10.00 per gallon tax on gasoline. The amount of driving will drop the amount of pollution will drop. Fewer soccer moms will drop and kid will work to school and activities and end up healthier. People will choose to live near work or work near their home. Public transit demand will increase.
We will have more money to spend on public transit, less cost due to pollution (things like higher crop yields, better health, even paint on our homes will last longer.
Yea, not going to happen any time soon, and it would not be easy to do given the political realities of the US, but at least it is built on good science.A comment like that comes from someone who’s a city dweller with a city job, not someone who lives in a rural area where the economy centers around mining, logging, and agriculture.
Take coal for instance, you can like it, hate it, whatever, it’s necessary for the survival of mankind in this country. One of my friends owns a contract mining service and has jobs scattered over 3 states. Some of these jobs have been off and on for 40 years. A particular job may start or stop for several reasons. It may have to stop to await modifications or filing of new permits to mine. The market for coal may temporarily make it uneconomical to mine that particular coal. The coal may become more difficult to get and technology developments may one day make that coal seam viable again. In either case, building a house in walking distance of the mine isn’t practical. He’s got a house in town, but his shop is in the industrial park.
What about the farmers? I know several who farm a mix of owned and leased tracts of land. While they may live on one farm, they may be working 8 or 10 different farms sometimes in more than one county. Why not have the entire farm in one tract you ask? Well, it doesn’t work that way. They get land where they can get it and be able to profitably farm it.
Loggers move around from job to job as they buy boundaries of timber to harvest. I’d think it pretty obvious that a job like this would move around a lot.
What about construction workers? Pretty hard to build 5 days a week within walking distance of your house isn’t it? You have to follow the jobs around as they come up.
Me, I run a service business that requires I visit with many of the above mentioned people. I have to go to their job sites for various reasons. $10 per gallon fuel would put me out of business.
Like I said before, you city dwelling liberals have no idea how to produce the natural resources this country requires to survive.
Skipper
Without attempting to guess either the political affiliation or the geographic location of anyone on this board (since neither issue has any real correlation to this discussion), please allow me to introduce some reality into the discussion of the price of oil:
The current price of a barrel of crude is less than $42.00, and that price is actually a few dollars higher than it was a couple of months ago. Many–perhaps most–people will perceive that to be a good thing. However, the reality is that exploration for new oil deposits and construction of oil sand processing facilities have both come to a halt, simply because the current price of crude does not make it feasible to explore for new sources of crude or to move ahead with alternatives to replace crude oil.
Yes, world-wide demand has decreased greatly, and that is the main reason for the drastic drop in the price of crude oil. However, until the price of crude oil again rises above $100.00 per barrel, we will not have any exploration for crude oil or alternative fuel development activities going on, simply because prices under $100.00 per barrel do not support exploration and do not make it worthwhile to develop alternate fuel sources.
So, the current price level of crude is actually going to result in greater shortages of oil once the economy begins to improve. It will take time to ramp up exploration for crude and development of alternative fuel sources, we will experience some serious fuel shortages once the world economy improves, and those shortages will likely last for several years.
Low oil prices are not necessarily the boon to mankind that most people believe them to be.
And adding a $10 tax per gallon with the money going to the Federal Gooberment to waste on who knows what helps this situation how?
Skipper
Skipper is obviously right. I had never realized that he and few people he knows around where he lives are responsible for the well-being of everyone on the planet. So I have to say that these folks really should just be able to do whatever they want regardless of the consequences.
Skipper, all you’re doing is the “small minded bumpkin” routine. Why is that better than a “city dwelling liberal” routine?
Oh, and what the hell does all this blathering about resource extraction have to do with cleaner burning cars? You just sound like somebody who doesn’t really understand the world very well, so every time you get cranky you figure it must be the “gooberment’s” fault. I thought this was a democracy and the “gooberment” is the american people.
You are aware that your buddies legendary 1990 Dodge indeed had catalytic converters. It also put out a whopping 160 HP and about 360 ft.lbs of torque. The new powerstroke puts out more than double the horsepower and 300 more torques. Naturally it?s going to get worse fuel mileage. I do find the 28 MPG claim a bit optimistic. I?ve heard that the Cummins of that vintage could get about 21 MPG on a good day unloaded.
The engines that Detroit was putting out in the 70’s were thirsty and quite underpowered. It got to a point where a big block 454 was putting out all of 200 HP. A modern 3.5L V6 puts out well over 250 HP in comparison, and will not be gasping and wheezing for air should you try to exceed 4000 RPM. For the record a V6 STS is rated at 26 MPG on the highway. I was unable to find fuel economy estimates for the big boats of the 1970’s however the mid-80’s Crown Vic with the police package 4bbl 351 is a close example, it’s rated at 17 MPG on the highway.
The main reason that cars don’t the kind of mileage that people what them to these days have more to do with the all the bells and whistles that people demand in their cars. Air bags, heated leather seats, power adjustments for everything, radios with a dozen or more speakers,etc. All of that stuff adds weight.
As for the Global Warming thing. I?m not sold on it yet. Get back to me in 200-300 years when we have some perspective on it. If I?m not mistaken. Back in the 1970?s Global Cooling was all the rage. Clearly when dealing with something billions of years old (the Earth) temperature fluctuations over the course of 30 years are not meaningful. Then there is the issue of volcanoes. Apparently when a volcano erupts somewhere in the world there are more greenhouse gasses released in a single eruption than all of humanity has been able to produce in the past 25 million years. I?m of the opinion that if global warming is happening, it?s a natural occurrence that would?ve happened if humans were here or not. And that there is nothing we can do to cause it or prevent it.
I did not claim that a $10.00 per gallon tax on gasoline would change the reality of the impending fuel shortages that will take place once the economy improves.
You might want to re-read my post, and then you will see that I made no reference to taxes on gasoline. I was merely trying to provide some information that is factual, rather than merely unverifiable, opinion-based statements.
Just thought I would drag my previous comment to the end of the discussion. Still no takers? Feel free to tell me if you agree or disagree with the following comments.
I’ll direct this one to MikeinNH but anyone else subscribing to the GW theory, feel free to weigh in.
Here are some comments from something that was published in the year 2000.
1st set of comments.
“three people killed in Chicago due to record heat”
“at least 5 children in NY died after falling from fire escapes where they had gone to gain relief from the heat”
“the summer will be long remembered as one of the most remarkable for sustained high temperatures for almost a generation”
2nd set of comments.
“the northernmost latitudes are experiencing unusual levels of warmth”
“for the first time in recorded history the Bering Glacier (Alaska) began to shrink, sprout rivers, calve icebergs, and shed a full 600 feet of its depth”
“the prolonged heat had warmed the waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the temperature of a bathhouse”
So Mike, I would like to hear your comment on those statements.
Clever ok, but no one denies that global temperatures rise and fall over time. There is no simple, single line of temperature over time - it wiggles - a lot. The question of average global temperature change isn’t about this week, this year, or even this decade (and isn’t found by comparing this year to 1900). People who talk about it that way aren’t really talking about it from a serious analytical point of view.
How about this tricky one - lets say, just for the sake of argument, that average temps are increasing (skip the reasons for now), and ice sheets are melting - then there is good reason to believe that “global warming” may produce the next ice age. Its crazy complicated.
The question can’t be dealt with by quips about specific events at specific times and places (whether from 1900 or otherwise).
You are aware that your buddies legendary 1990 Dodge indeed had catalytic converters. It also put out a whopping 160 HP and about 360 ft.lbs of torque.
No, it didn’t have a converter on it and yes, I’m aware of what the horsepower ratings were back then for diesels. The 6.0 L Fords for example have on paper about twice the horsepower and 30% more torque than the first generation powerstoke 7.3’s made in the mid 90’s. That said, the old 7.3’s will yank a 6.0 backwards. Somehow that horsepower and torque gets lost in the complexity of the engine and doesn’t make it to the wheels.
It’s the same with my 1999 tractor v’s the 1970’s model. The 1999 has about 30% more rated horsepower, but it doesn’t translate to the wheels. The extra horsepower is either A. On paper only or B. Eat up by the extra gizmos on the tractor.
Skipper