New Vehicle Technology on the Rise

When I was a college student the best MPG I got was when I hitch hiked!!

The best way to reduce fuel consumption is to blow big holes into our highway system, and make it much more inconvenient to live far from work.

I agree. Not exactly with the suggested fix but the root cause. We simply live too far flung a life style using personal transportation. It's only been the last 100 years we've had this luxury and we probably will not have it 100 years from now. Blowing up the X-Ways may help but the collateral damage would be a problem. It's a lifestyle we have to change and placating ourselves thinking more efficient vehicles are the answer ignores what the rest of the world already knows and what we even knew 100 years ago.

In the current 'Information Age` the answer may be to 'Phone it In`.
This former perjorative term may indicate a viable alternative to commuting
and a lot of unneccessary travel.

How many of us, (especially in the engineering trades), really need to actually
be in the office when we can access all the files, teleconference with associates,
fax documents, EMail files, etc. by wire, (or even wireless).

It would also allow one to work comfortably in ones 'grubbies` and snack or
scratch whenever one darn well felt like it.
(I would miss the bull sessions at the watercooler though.)

I started "telecommuting" in 1996, and in many ways, it's wonderful. But there are also very serious downsides. It's amazing how important office politics is to career advancement, and it's even more amazing how important face-to-face communication becomes; maybe even especially when working with overseas companies.

Still, we've re-architected cities around cars, not people. Since our government began subsidizing roads, oil and automotive-related industries, we've replaced parks and fountains with vast seas of parking lots, overpasses and spaghetti-bowl interchanges.

Just imagine trying to get to a train/bus across a three-football-field-sized parking lot with your arms filled with groceries...

Sheesh.

I agree that the information age makes it different and I also agree that face-to-face or 'The Office' is important too. Neither of these luxuries however, requires personnel transportation. As Andy stated, we've designed our society around the automobile. Anything we do to make it more efficient reduces the problem to a degree that is easily offset by growth (i.e. more people) and really doesn't 'fix' anything.

Friends,

Yes, our infrastructure has been built around the conveinience of the Internal Combustion powered automobile. I know a few cities in which I can still find a few 100+ y/o hitching posts and a curb high enough to allow easy climbing onto and off a horse. Perhaps in another 100+ years someone will know a few cities in which he/she can still find the marked parking spaces and curb blocks for today's cars.

The problem has multiple pressures which have driven us to this point, including: 1) convenience, 2) the feeling of independence, 3) appearances and "keeping up", 4) individualism, 5) speed, 6) macho power, 7) our shortness of our view of time, 8) confidence that technology can fix any problems we have now, 9) new is therefore better, 10) expendability and the view that resources will always be available, and 11) the youthful view that because we have not crashed yet, we will not.

Look carefully for the things which would be social values to counter these. They are downplayed and generally absent. We can place the blame in many directions, but fail to see the we are the enemy (as so eloquently stated in the cartoon, Pogo, so many years ago). Because of the lifespan of our social structures and the physical components underlaying cities, true change will take 50-100 years to see. Until we have visions that look that far ahead to evaluate the cost and benefit, until we have the willingness to see that strangers and those of other cultures and races have an equal claim to the resources of this world, we will not change.

One night, over 30 years ago, I became aware of the following thought: "Man has not suffered because a lack of resources created by God and put at his disposal. Rather, he has been the victim of his own failure to see the sacredness of God's creation and use it for purposes that go beyond himself." This was true then, and is true now. I post this thought for you to consider.

John Mueller.

There is no quick or easy answer to the transportation fuel problem. The challange is to create a more efficient engine that meets current usage. This new technology must meet the requirements for the trucking, railroad, and transportation industry as well as the general public. Developing quick fixes such as reducing vehicle size and weight is not the answer. New technology must meet current usage. Innovative research and development must be encouraged.

There is no quick fix?

There is...just make laws like the emmission standards for vehicles...the manufacturers soon complied with those.

All non commercial vehicles in the city must be no bigger than say a small European compact, they must do more than 60mpg..

If a government had the balls to make such a law (especially if they gave their own industry notice of this) the manufactures would do it. How many times do we see huge 4wd gass guzzlers with 1 occupant?

Note I said ...in the city...If vehicle width was less we'd have more room on the road...and in the car park.

My little Nissan Micra fits in car park spaces...but I see huge pedestrian hostile vehicles driven by people who can't park taking up 2 spaces all the time.

As usual governments are lagging not leading, there are smaller cars about and slight incentives to use them, but it's too little too late.

Don't get me wrong...you can have your supercars and hummers...but not in a city!

Dear Mr Cat,

I like to drive my brood of spoit brats 200 yards to school in my 4x4.

The other poorer children just bounce off the bull bars without leaving a scratch...although it is difficult to get the blood off the chrome.

I just park where on earth I like...those dissabled spaces are particularly useful as they are nice and wide.

Unfortunately I have to drive 5 miles to get back home as I am unable to reverse the vehicle.

I expect you are just one of those dirty engineer people who have no respect for money.

Yours distastefully

Samantha Widely-Critcised

(ok...yes it's me really...Del the Cat)

Just a refresher, as we often forget how governments actually work, versus the way we wish they'd work:

1. Lawmakers are, with few exceptions, corrupt. That's fact. Deal with it.

2. Government itself needs to be governed more than we need to be governed. (see slavery, genocide, war, etc.) A burglar may take your stuff, but government takes your house, too. A murderer may kill you, but government can make it as though you never existed.

3. We invoke the Genie of Government to do things that make no sense in a voluntary system. The free market freely, and without coercion, provides whatever we really want and need; from innovative medicines to exotic coffee. Government reduces options, not expands options; and government does mostly what makes no sense to most people in most circumstances (see slavery, genocide, war, etc.).

4. It is ungoverned government that killed public transportation, promoted automobile travel, all-but-killed the single-earner family, and makes it darned-near-impossible to sue its beloved corporations for environmental/resource abuse.

I can't say I've never myself said "there ought to be a law against...", but I always stop and remember just who's making the laws, and who's policing the police.

Liberty is historically rare. The human default is to seek oppression by bowing to the Golden Calf of State. Beware of what you ask for!

Leave engineering to engineers, and give nothing you don't have to over to politicians. (remember who our President is)

Andy,

I couldn't agree more. that is as neatly put as I've ever read. You must be a reincarnation of a US founding father!

Chris

Thanks! Yes. I'm channeling George Mason.

I do believe that there is lots of carbon fuels left in the earth. With the rapidly rising issue with atmospheric CO2, I think maybe someone should invent 2 products.

1. An input filter device for internal combustion engines that removes atmospheric CO2 from the air stream.

2. An output filter device that recovers CO2 (and other pollutants if possible) from the exhaust pipes of internal combustion engines. (similar to product 1) This device will seriously decrease the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere.

If it is possible to have the device remove 99% of the CO2, then the vehicle equipped with both devices will have a net negative CO2 and vehicle emission pollution output. These devices attached to 1 billion vehicles will significantly help purify the air already containing too much CO2, while unitizing and distributing the cost to each vehicle owner.

Chris

It is by no means certain that CO2 is the cause of global warming/ climate change- many,many scientists disagree with the IPCC findings- the ice core drillings are at variance with 100,s of years measurement at 2m above ground level- the feeling is that the ruling masters are again vesting their interests!.

Okay, so there is disagreement. But visual, inarguable evidence of change is presenting itself all around, such as the de-icing of Greenland and the change in ocean temperatures. Things are heating up, and for my money, I think CO2 reduction offers the best method for us to alter the rate of change, as the greenhouse effect is a simple and well understood physical concept. Therefore, let us proceed to act, instead of argue over the minutiae of a politically charged scientific debate.

Basically, let's do something. If it doesn't work, let's do something else. If we do nothing, then we deserve what happens, and I don't want to tell my grandchildren we had the time and the means, but lacked the will to act.

Chris

Co2 is ESSENTIAL for life on earth. CO2 is NOT (!) a pollutant. Co2 levels have been HIGHER in 1820, 1940 and many other times than they are now (375 ppm). The ice core data is false. CO2 cannot absorb any more heat than it does. Look that the spectral field and you know that co2 can tripple and no more heat will be retained.

The co2 theory of warming is false. Moreover, the earth is NOT a greenhouse, it is an OPEN system and co2 has little to do with the control of temperature due to its spectral saturation.

Ask yourself why earth was 2.5 degrees hotter than in 1875 from 8000 years ago to around 4 thousand years ago, where it dropped 2.5 degrees in 500 ad, then went up 1.5 in 1000 ad and down again for an 8000 year low in 1875. We are now .7 degrees from the 8000 year low in 1875 and we remain 1.8 degrees colder than a 4000 year period where no SUV existed.

Last but not least humans produce so little compared to nature as to make this laughable. Any engineer knows we cannot even sense the co2 we produce over the noise of nature. "Filtering" co2 out is doing HARM, not good. We need MORE co2, not less. CO2 is a valuable resource and is the "throttle" of plant and animal life on this planet.

The only reasons to cut fuel is to pull the plug on the money going to Middle East countries and to eliminate fuel as a drag/tax on the economy, allowing poor countries to modernize.

Ask yourself this: if the weather turns cold (global cooling) should we burn MORE carbon fuels to increase the temperature? The correct answer is co2 makes no effect at concentrations over 250 ppm. The co2 GW theory says we should. Realize you are being duped...

Double-right Guest!

The whole cycle of plant and bacteria metabolism is based on sugar-chain synthesis revolving around the presence CO2:

Photosynthesis cycle, and ATP production by Mitochondria, And ADP production by Chloroplasts

Good on yer mate- agree!

Maybe my information is one sided, so thank you, I will look into it more.

Chris

Hi Andy,

I'm not sure if you are pro or anti intervention! No3 Implies you are but the others that you are not.

My basic point is intervention worked for:-

a) Emissions laws (was it in California first?) and despite all the whingeing from the auto makers it was no big deal.

b) Auto safety..was that Ralph Nader? Same thing....Everyone squeals like a stuck pig...but once they get on with it, it's no big deal and safety is much improved.

Maybe we should make those auto makers try a bit harder?

Maybe I over egged my argument with English humour.... and points a) and b) are better put?

The French economist Bastiat wrote a great piece about "What is Seen and Unseen." You ought to read it, if for no other reason than to see that not all Frenchmen are obnoxiously useless...

More seriously, the point was that we tend to think that without government there'd be no roads or bridges. We think that without government there'd be anarchy and madness. But this just isn't true.

If we needed roads, we'd get them, because we'd weigh the cost and hassle of joining our neighbors, hiring a contractor and doing the job versus driving on dirt. It'd be a rational decision with all true factors visible and considered. Government hides costs and factors, as you must know.

But more than that, Bastiat articulated the concept of "opportunity cost." While it may seem like a good idea to break windows in order to employ window glazers, or while it may seem a good idea to build superhighways so that people feel free to sprawl out from cities, we should consider what we could have done with all that money instead.

Think of the businesses we could've started, the people we could've hired, the houses we could've built, or the kids we could have sent to college...and didn't because our government funds abortions in China, big game hunting in Zimbabwe and giant stadia for professional athletes...

You mention emission laws (which, by the way, increased the cost of cars while decreasing their gas mileage; and ultimately required fuel injection and electronic ignitions, which increased the cost of repairs) as an example of something that "worked."

But consider the fact that the USA was over a decade ahead of Europe in this regard for two reasons:

1. European governments hadn't killed public transportation by subsidizing the alternatives.

2. By not heavily subsidizing the alternatives to public transportation; and in fact by penalizing the cost of driving or buying larger cars (Italy's 2-litre tax, etc.) it was able to keep per capita emissions lower than USA's per capita emissions.

Also consider that the EPA (which was created unconstitutionally by Executive Order) began while smaller, more efficient Japanese imports were already starting to carve away market from the big, inefficient USA models. The market was already responding to reality faster than politicians were.

Also consider that electric vehicles, and even hybrids, have been around for over a hundred years. They've never actually gone away. They're just awaiting technological innovations necessary to make them marketable. That's happenning now without political fiat.

Look at what's happening to the lightbulb...

Just as politicians swoop in to take credit for compact flourescents, LEDs are poised to make the next jump in technology. If politicians just leave us alone, we'll have better, more efficient technology because people want it.

Please don't make me talk about Ralph Nader. That phariseical philistine caused more damage to American auto innovation and effiency than I care to think about. USA manufacturers were experimenting with euro-style gadgetry, and it was producing interesting, fun and useful fruit when that lying, pig-headed lawsuit zealot plunged us into an Engineering Dark Ages.

He helped no one.

Remember that at that very time, Volvo and Mercedes Benz were making their names in safety innovation like reinforced structures, crumple zones, etc. It wasn't lawmakers who invented airbags; it was lawmakers who mandated cheap, nonfunctional and even dangerous airbags...

Sorry for the rambling reply. I'm supposed to be working now... Gotta go.

Oh!

I was under the impression that Nader prevented loads of teenaged Americans getting impaled on rigid steering columns....

I obviously need to read more about it...

Yep. Read more about Nader, and the safety technologies that had been improving all the time when Nader sued the initiative right out of them.

And about safety? The rapidly improving Corvair was killed, and was replaced with the likes of the Pinto, while Americans flocked in droves to foreign car companies (some of whom made lots of rear-engined cars) beyond the reach of Nader's letigious tenticles. My rear-engined Fiat flyweight was a lot more dangerous than a Corvair!

Just as another thing to ponder, look at the actual effects of our politicians' War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Crime, War to End All Wars...
How'd all that warring turn out?

Ah, right, I'm just getting onto your wavelenght...

I certainly agree with you on the..war on drugs, crime ,etc theme...

Please understand that my perspective is rather, um...tortured. I've run for public office several times myself, and I've become quite well acquainted with the politicians we ask for help.

I understand your perfectly reasonable-sounding feelings that government should help us. But that's just not human history or human nature.

If men were angels, we'd need no government at all. That much we all know.

But what I'm here to tell you is that angels do not go into politics. No, the people who go into politics are more like devils!

So if you ask for safety legislation, consider the money and power that will be changing hands as the laws are oh-so-carefully crafted.

While being a student in the Netherlands, I did not have a car, and exclusively relied on public transportation for all, not most, all of my transportation needs.

People do have cars there, of course, but, man! Their public transportation then, was perfect. 24 hors a-day accurate and timely service, to within a block's distance, of any address in the country. Many times during night hours the bus would circle it's route empty, just because of the mandate given to them, to provide the service.

I was so impressed by it, I took it as a positive example, ever-since I was involved in a discussion concerning air pollution, clogged highways, fuel availability and prices, alternative transportation concepts, and urban design.

Did it really escape your attention?

Even as an example to follow, or god forbid, implement?

Absolutely right.

Bicycles, canal boats, trains, trams and trolleys work well wherever left alone. Indianapolis, Indiana used to have perhaps the best PT system in the world until the 1920's, when politicians actively killed it on behalf of the shiny new car.

What they didn't see, is that in their greed (inventory tax, mostly), they also drove away the auto manufacturing that once made that city/State famous (Duesenburg, Cord, Auburn, Studebaker...).

Buncha idiots. Politicians do not know best.

Every time I ask someone "What are we going to do when all the oil, coal and uranium is used up?" they respond with "Well, it won't happen in my lifetime.". They simply don't know but the sad truth if the situation is that they don't care either. We are literally saying "to hell with the future" as we exploit our non-renewable energy resources for convenience, entertainment and profit. It's sad because it'll be our grand children and great grand children who will have to face major global energy cricis when most of the coal in north america has been dug up, the oil wells in the middle east are sucking bubbles and nuclear reactors around the world are going offline. Nations in desparate need may first ask for help politely and then demand help under the threat of war. There simply won't be enough energy to go around and world population will have to take a major nose dive one way or another in order to "balance the equation". After that people will have no choice but to learn to live on the scant energy from renewable resources. All this seems inevitable because nobody today has the power to force governments or economies to forgo all the luxuries they just can't live without.

I think you are every bit right in your observation Harbinger. So true, and so sad for our future, our children, our common dignity, our common wisdom. So sad.

Del the cat: "There is no quick fix?There is..."

I think that what was meant by that is that there's no meaningful, long-term solution which is a quick fix. There are plenty of band-aid fixes but you know, the adhesive wears off, they're unsightly, etc... Emissions standards helped with pollution, but now we have more cars and more people and more emissions overall so we need stricter standards. What we really need is an altogether different alternative, i.e. NOT a quick-fix solution.

"non commercial vehicles in the city... must do more than 60mpg... you can have your supercars and hummers...but not in a city!"

I hate to say it, as I think 60mpg is a totally attainable goal, but no way would that ever pass muster in any legislature let alone the US. Don't forget the politicos drive their H1s and monstrous limos, or hell, take their personal helis, to the Capitol bldg on voting day. Also, while that suggestion is pragmatic, most people in the cities wouldn't swallow it and I don't think it's fair that because you live in the countryside where you have the advantage of more open space anyway, you should be allowed to have another advantage of lesser restrictions. And then there's the issue of who lives where, what constitutes a city, etc etc ad infinitum... need policies that would not only help but apply to most/all in a uniform way to avoid huge uproar & impossible application.

Andyhorning: "2. Government itself needs to be governed more than we need to be governed. (see slavery, genocide, war, etc.) A burglar may take your stuff, but government takes your house, too. A murderer may kill you, but government can make it as though you never existed."
I completely agree. In fact, the US was founded on the assumption that politicians are liars, crooks, and very deceitful- how do you think they got into office??? The Constitutional framers were some damn smart fellas, but the last few admins have been picking away at their beautiful design bit by bit, with GBjr. by far the worst.

"If politicians just leave us alone, we'll have better, more efficient technology because people want it." Well, we'll have better technology, anyway; maybe not more efficient- most people want to go fast and look cool, and if they can reduce emissions along the way, then sure bring on the regulations guv'nah.

You mentioned emissions standards necessitating electronic ignition & fuel injection- pains in the ass at the time, but besides repair cost (and sacrifice of self-reliance), injection has ultimately been a good thing: cars are more efficient as a result of it, even though it caused problems at first and even now- double edged sword my friend.

chrisg288: If we have these miracle devices to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, where are you going to put it all? (and by the way you'd really only need a filter on the output, since conc. is so low in ambient air; also we need it, aaaand the input air goes TO the output, so it would be filtered by the end stage anyway) There's only so much need for industrial CO2. The devices would cost a lot, and probably require a bunch of CO2 emission to produce them. We can pump it underground, and supposedly there's enough capacity for 10,000 years, but we have no idea if that's true. We don't know the long term effects. What if it turns the oceans into seltzer water and all marine life goes belly up?

Guest (#25): "Co2 is ESSENTIAL" YES.
"CO2 is NOT (!) a pollutant" NO. It is released naturally but is ALSO a pollutant.
"CO2 levels...at many other times [were higher] than they are now (375 ppm)"
The BBC and many top scientists seem to disagree: [current CO2 lvls, 380ppm, are] "substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years." Over the long term the handful of years with higher levels mean little to nothing.

"The co2 theory of warming is false. Moreover, the earth is NOT a greenhouse, it is an OPEN system and co2 has little to do with the control of temperature due to its spectral saturation."
Yes and no. The Earth isn't a greenhouse per se; the "greenhouse effect" is just that- an EFFECT. A term created so that laymen could understand it more easily. Also, the Earth is not really an open system. As far as energy transfer goes, yes, it is open, but for atmospheric constituents, it is pretty much sealed (gravity keeps the atmosphere all but stuck near the surface; input from extra-terrestrial sources is minimal). You are right by saying (though without much clarification) that CO2 (likely) doesn't cause much heating, because its spectral absorption band is narrow and that anything above a relatively low concentration (say, ~1/10 of current concentration or so) will not result in rising temperature. HOWEVER, that is NOT to say that CO2 isn't a harbinger of other warming influences. Methane, for example, doesn't have the same low saturation point, and WILL contribute to "greenhouse effect" at concentrations significantly above what they are today. Many activities that produce CO2 also emit methane. There are other compounds with similar effect, which, per-molecule, can be tens or a hundred times more potent than CO2 at effecting temperature rise. So, CO2 levels seem like more of a "thermostat" than an actual "furnace." Look at the graphs. The trends are pretty darn obvious. You have to realize that a graph only tells you WHAT, and says nothing about WHY; it's all up to interpretation, and the wrong one could be disastrous.

"Ask yourself why earth was 2.5 degrees hotter than in 1875 from 8000 years ago to around 4 thousand years ago, where it dropped 2.5 degrees in 500 ad, then went up 1.5 in 1000 ad and down again for an 8000 year low in 1875. We are now .7 degrees from the 8000 year low in 1875 and we remain 1.8 degrees colder than a 4000 year period where no SUV existed."

Not to be insulting, but ARE YOU KIDDING?? Okay, I'll humor that section. Hmm, self, why was the Earth 2.5 deg cooler in 1875? Why cooler in 1820? 1940? Hmm... let's think... oh yeah!!! Lightbulb- an LED or compact fluorescent, of course (sorry, had to do it). In 500 AD there were some major volcanic eruptions (notably, the last major eruption of Volcán Barú in the Andes, as well as some others). Maybe this has something to do with it? Let's keep looking. 1820: Most notably, the Pacific volcano Ambrym had an eruption described as "disastrous," and was one of the largest eruptions of its time. Mt. Vesuvius had been erupting since 1819, from 6 vents, in increasing amounts.
http://www.volcanolive.com/ambrym1997.html
http://vulcan.fis.uniroma3.it/vesuvio/1800-1899_table.html
1875: Miyake-jima had a very large eruption in 1874. Also, "The 1875 eruption of Askja volcano in Iceland was one of very few large historical eruptions to include both Plinian and phreatoplinian phases."- from http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:cu1CcoOfghUJ:www.citiesonvolcanoes4.com/abstracts/numerados/381.doc+1875+eruption+askja&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
(That means there was both a highly explosive, mushroom-cloud type explosion which put stuff way up in the atmosphere, and a gentler, though nonetheless enormous, eruption of thinner lava which sprayed out at a lower level.
1940? Yup, more volcanism: Miyake-jima was at it again: "the largest eruption during the historic period [since 1085 AD] occurred in 1940 AD"
The few, or even several anomalous years which are outliers and should be discarded if you're analyzing temp trends, prove nothing other than that you're being just as sensationalistic as the media reports saying we'll all be underwater in 20yrs and snowfall shall be relegated to the history books (exaggerated to demonstrate my point).

Think those gigundo volcanoes spewing obscene amounts of SO2, CO2, ash, etc. into the atmosphere and the massive drops in average temperature might be related somehow? Seems like a possibility to me. Do a quick Google search if you don't believe me- finding all that stuff took all of 10 minutes. As for the avg temps being warmer in the past, well yes, there is significant natural oscillation with ice-age cycling, but nothing on the scale of what's going on today. WE HAVE NO ANALOGOUS HISTORICAL EVENT TO COMPARE THE DRASTIC RATE OF CO2 INCREASE, WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO STRONGLY CORRELATE WITH INCREASING TEMPS, IN THE PAST 20 -MILLION- YEARS.

"Any engineer knows we cannot even sense the co2 we produce over the noise of nature." Well, I may only be an engineer-in-training, but I certainly don't know that. Guess I'm just ignorant. Sorry, my bad.

"humans produce so little compared to nature as to make this laughable." Well, we do produce kind of a small amount compared to nature, but it's certainly not laughable. Each year, natural sources account for an average of 80B tons of CO2. Man-made sources account for 20B tons. 25% is not insignificant at all. From an environmental research firm: "in the past century we have increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere from 260 parts per million (ppm) to 325 ppm--a 25% increase across the entire planet" Currently levels are even higher than that quoted amount.
CO2 is, unfortunately, not our greatest concern. We release more than twice as much sulfur into the air as nature (~120M tons vs. ~50M tons). Annually, nature mobilizes 63M tons of nitrogen; man-made sources of fuel combustion and fertilizer account for 215M tons!!! I don't even want to mention the way-more-absurd ratios of how much heavy metals we put into the air vs. nature: suffice it to say, it's really bad, and even though it's probably not heating us up, you still definitely don't wanna be breathing in that crap.

"CO2 is a valuable resource and is the "throttle" of plant and animal life on this planet."
It is valuable, yes, but it is not so much a throttle as it is one small component in a large and hideously (beautifully?) complicated system which controls our planet's temperature.

I guess my point is that CO2 is NOT the only factor in this game, not by a longshot, and to think of it that way will probably cause problems 5x as bad as we have today. Temperature as an averaged trend follows CO2 levels pretty darn closely, and so do several other things. CO2 is a good INDICATOR, not a sole cause with which to decide that GW does or does not exist. It's as though you're sticking a piece of litmus into a beaker. It turns reddish. You think that, because one time you put it into vinegar and it turned a similar color, it must be okay to drink & use for salad dressing. But no, it's sulfuric acid; you're dead. This is analogous to CO2 rates of change. If you have an elementary understanding of calculus, or even if not, it's fairly easy to see that point-values are not what really matters: it's [d(rho)/dt] and its cousins, in other words the RATE of change of these things, which is absolutely unprecedented. THAT is what we need to be worried about. Well not really so much worried as thinking of practical ways to slow or reverse these rates of change.

Harbinger, I'm both glad and dismayed that you're not entirely correct. When oil runs out, cost will skyrocket, and it will become economical to mine the tar sands- we'll have supply for a while to come. Also, there is enough coal to last at least 100 years. But you're right, they will run out, eventually. Nuclear power, however, is far less doomed than you might think: even though it's said that current ore resources are nearing depletion, that ignores a very very important fact. That is, they only consider rich-grade ore which costs little enough to mine that it can be sold for market price or less. When supply dwindles, yup that's right, prices go way way up. And the funny thing about nuclear is that operating and maintaining the reactors, as well as disposing of waste, costs a lot more than the fuel itself, so the nuclear industry can take a significant price hike in stride and not be hurt very much by it. Know what else? It's been predicted that once all the low-mid to high grade ores in the Earth have been depleted, it will be economically feasible to mine uranium from.... that's right, the ocean! There is enough Wacky Radiacky in them thar seas to fuel reactors powering the ENTIRE PLANET for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. So though our situation seems dire now, when change happens, we will adapt. We will have to. We always have. That's the bad part- when people start realizing that fact, they'll stop giving a shit about the environment and go back to the 1800s -> ~1950s mindset that We'll Never Run Out, We Can't Wreck Something So Enormous, and so on. THEN we will be screwed, until the next wave of environment-consciousness is realized. This pattern of apathy and OH-SHIT will probably continue to oscillate just as CO2 levels and temperature do, until we annihilate ourselves somehow, and the radio-roaches left will be thinking, "Heh, heh. suckers. They left all their food behind for us."

You MUST think of the bigger picture. It is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to accurately predict the outcome of ANY action man takes in nature with certainty. If you pee on a tree it might indirectly cause the dinosaurs to re-emerge 15 million years down the road- you have no friggin' idea, at all; it's the butterfly effect, baby, and there's no way for you or me or anyone else to know the full consequences. Anyone who tells you different is either lying to you, to his/herself, or both.

Sorry if I sound like a dick, but I think that this is really what'll happen. I also apologize for lack of editing- it's finals and I've been awake for several days, but felt compelled to write out this whole thing because I feel strongly about it, and also feel that I have a fairly good perspective on things especially given my age. So take this as you will. Ultimately, don't believe them, or even me- take it all in and DECIDE FOR YOURSELF. Thanks, have a good day all.

thank you.. saves me having to write it all out.

Btw, I just read of a CO2 technology being planned for northern alberta where the CO2 from oil and gas processing will be recycled by pumping it into ponds containing algae(not sure what kind) and they algae would be used to produce fuels and other products (apparently a similar process is used to make lipstick and other personal care products)... interesting. If anyone is interested I can provide more info and source.

Chris

Interesting! - I had been annoyed by the 'CO2 as fertilizer - a natural

counter to CO2 increase` red herring , as CO2 is almost never the factor limiting

plant growth, and here you present an artificial situation where this can be true.

The article is in New Technology Magazine - April/May 2007 -Page 8.

The article is called "Change It Up"

ISSN 148-2147

www.ntm.nickles.com

this link will only show the article contents if you are a paid member. sorry.

I can't imagine CO2 limiting plant growth, as it is a primary input. I remember reading about another experiment where plants were grown in a pressurized automated greenhouse, where the atmosphere for the plants was pressurized with CO2, and the results were amazing apparently. natural and artificial sunshine 24/7, and automated watering, and automated germination tables (production line) timed to the development of the particular plant.

Chris

FYI I'm the same person who posted #31 (the really long one)

Pragmatist, funny thing- neither of you is actually wrong. Here's the thing: CO2 level is not a limiting factor. However, that doesn't mean increasing its concentration won't increase plant growth rates. See, there are myriad factors affecting this. CO2 is a major one, but with plants, most of the time there's not a definitive limiting factor. Rather, you can increase or decrease growth rate & health by doing any number of things. To [mostly] show this, consider this page:
http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm
It describes studies with CO2 varying from 200-550ppm, I think. But regardless, more importantly it talks about how during winter, there are two main options which are feasible in terms of cost & simplicity: 1) supplemental heat can increase growth rates. 2) Adding CO2 can do the same. I would pick the latter: it's cheaper and reduces CO2 overall rather than producing it in the case of an electrical heater (@ powerplant). A third option is: both! Some CO2 enrichment devices burn hydrocarbons, creating CO2 and heat- not as much heat as would otherwise be needed, but it helps, and this solution is doubly beneficial as well as not very expensive. Secondhand CO2 is probably cheaper still, though.

In this case, taking CO2 in the form of industrial byproduct (waste) and recycling it as something useful whilst ensuring that it won't end up back in the atmosphere- at least for a while- is a really cool idea! Industry would probably have to PAY to get rid of it otherwise- now they're making money with it. It's like pooing in a jar and selling it on Ebay- someone will probably want it, for whatever reason :P Maybe hawking CO2 isn't so smelly, though.

In the natural world, mapping the relationship that plant growth has on CO2 and vice versa is a lot more difficult than in a relatively sealed greenhouse where you can get definitive ppm readings as well as control most things precisely. As worldwide CO2 levels increase, the corresponding growth rate increase of most plant species (not all- some don't like it) won't really counter this increase as you had considered. Rather, it will act as a buffer- more biomass growing faster => slower to no rate of CO2 increase. A decrease is unlikely, unless man stops discharging CO2 altogether. See, that's the tough part- man's emission of the stuff is constantly increasing, and the geographic distribution of said emission is also in flux, so different regions get affected differently. That's before we even begin to think about weather affecting where it goes... and even then, we have natural sources, which can change much more dramatically still (i.e. volcanoes & forest fires). WE HAVEN'T STARTED TO THINK ABOUT CLIMATOLOGICAL EFFECTS ON PLANT GROWTH!! Great, now I've gone and given myself a headache :P

see how much more complicated all of this is than a simple graph or effect? That's why Al Gore and his enviro-cronies have the potential to do a lot of harm to the cause of Green Anything: even though they may be right, the lack of thoroughness could cause backlash when the data' validity are brought into question. Even though your average person will either swallow it whole or reject it because He's Boring, I have to think (hope?) that some people will have the good sense to ask questions. Sorry to get so off topic, but it just came to mind and right now my fingers are working faster than my brain.

The really cool thing about the whole situation is this: even though your head may be spinning from all these different competing, additive, and unconsidered factors which are all at play in one system, there is a sublime order to be found in all the chaos. Example: even though we spout ever more chemicals into the air, as long as there is something to take care of it (i.e. plants), something else will change in order to diminish the impact of the first alteration.
Analogies:
EEs: inductors resist any changes in magnetic field, even when one's removed, feeding the energy it absorbed back into the system which gave it to begin with
ChEs: A pH buffer in water- acid & base coexist in solution; they resist and drastically slow changes either up or down
Parents: Your toddlers- tell them to do something and their intrinsic resistivity will cause them to whine, cry, yell, generally throw a tantrum, in order to resist the change you are trying to impose

Joking aside, all these things incl. Ma Nature will be changed by extrinsic influences, just not as much as otherwise would happen, and this change is necessary in order to properly deal with said influence. It might be damned inconvenient for us, but too bad. We're a part of this system too and we have no right to complain about things that are our fault. An inductor's B field will eventually change. A buffered solution runs out of reagent. The kids... well, I won't go into that one since you're supposed to obey laws and such... but you get the point- there's only so much It can take.

Guest,

Thanks for a great post. Why not join us as a member?

Your contribution highly appreciated.

I don't see why this has to be so complicated. We don't have to understand all of nature to understand that we are putting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, along with a host of other products. All we have to do is attempt to be a net zero change. Otherwise, nature will do what it has done for billions of years.

If nature is going to kill us, we will have to try to migrate off planet. but if we can't balance our consumption of resources and pollution of this planet to something the planet can afford, then no matter where we go, we won't be a welcome galactic citizen.

Chris

True, true. But before trying to balance the gas composition of the atmosphere, we need to asses "Healthy" levels of CO2, in tandem with the needs of the bio system, and this is evidently complicated, taken so many factors into account, with many "dark-horses", unknowns, in the equation.

Besides, we can hardly contemplate an alternative planet for migration, with no such candidates, no transportation means viable for mass migration, and no logistics to support such endeavor.

I would bet, we are confined to find local solution. Mine always been green technology coupled with tight population-growth reduction, a bit like China's mass birth control, only on a global scale.

This planet is finite in size and resource-base. It simply cannot support infinite number of people. The rest of it, is mere subsequentials.

Why it has to be so complicated is likely because without sooo many factors involved, there would be many fewer compensatory features present as well. So while the art of making predictions becomes much confounded, it allows us to do things like vent 1,000,000,000,000,000 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere and have the oceans not turn vitriolic.
If the Earth were covered with an edible plant which grew like bamboo and ate CO2 as though it were a pizza with meatball & garlic, just the right amount of spices, mmm... pizza, tasty... huh? wha? Oh, right, saving the world. You got it: once Jesus starts messing with the thermostat while daddy's not looking, it + we're dead as a doornail. Apocalypse, doom, and general malaise, blah blah blah, we's all done for and plenty not breathing.

You can see something like that happening, I take it. What I was saying by, "there is a sublime order to be found in all the chaos," I was inferring that WITHOUT much actual data, without fully understanding the impossibly-tangled web of organism<->habitat interaction or even trying beyond a certain point, that given some careful consideration, we can make fairly accurate resultant-based predictions. 'The hell, you say? This means I think we can anticipate net effects fairly well. Such as that adding lots of stinkin' nitrous oxides or, say, a reactive hydro-chlorofluorocarbon to a population of simpler folk, like N2 & O2, will beat them up and steal their wallets.

We can be pretty sure it will have a BAD effect, just not exactly WHAT effect. But instead of this, we just do things anyway and cause so much damage that, oh shit, we notice it now because it is literally changing our entire planet. Since this often takes years and damage is already inflicted and spewage systems are constantly making the problem worse and those systems are needed for something or other, this reactive rather than proactive approach to environmentalism costs many many times more both in terms of $$$ and trees and fishies and cute little baby seals.
I was not thinking of any external force or higher influence. Might be the case, might not- important part is, that's not the issue at hand.

"All we have to do is attempt to be a net zero change."
Those bastards said they'd never, ever, notinamillionyears charge for ISP, then what did they do?...

Sorry, I had to. Anyway, your intention is golden, impeccable. But that's just not very realistic. How I see it, we must realize that given our abilities and population, we have a large net effect. What we need to do is learn how to manage it so that the changes we effect are less likely to cause drastic and severe damage, so that we can keep nature mostly in balance with our still-ballooning population. I hear them things can keep stretching forever. Let's try it!

"If nature is going to kill us,"
Nature is not going to kill us. WE are probably going to kill us. We're relatively intelligent, but for the most part, still pretty dumb. And if we do die of a lack of natural resources, well I still think of it as us killing ourselves since nature was here first and currently we are just using her to get a fun quickie then not call the next morning. Well folks, she may have been plenty friendly the night before but when you neglect her, she gets to be kind of a TOTAL BITCH.

Yet another analogy: take a balancing-scale (like the kind that lady in front of that columned building with the blindfold for some reason, has). Put a rather hefty slug of metal onto one side- I'll hold the other one in place for now. Now, do that again and repeat it several more times after that. Wait as long as you can. Now wait a little longer. Okay, now you can... keep waiti SHIT oops my bad. All the little people on the empty side got quite a jolt there- wouldja lookit that, the ones without a kung-fu grip on their surroundings got flung off into the Great Linoleum Yonder. And unless you really, really, -reeaaaally- screw things up, the scale will not care which side's heavier. The only thing it cares about, anthropomorphically speaking of course, is that it balances itself. We don't matter to something that IS only matter- sorry, politicos, blame shifting won't sweep this one under the rug.

Phrase of the Day: Common Sense. You've got it for a reason. Use it!
(not addressing anyone in particular)

Also, thanks Yuval. I may decide to, though not at the moment- too much work to do. Know how I said I hadn't slept for a while in that post I made... how many days ago?...

Make it real simple 'guest`.

We, (animals), evolved as a mechanism to reduce the atmospheric level of the
poisonous toxic waste of plants, (oxygen).

If we do it too well, we will be culled back.

To your earlier quote "There is an order..." simply add -
'But we're not neccessarily a part of it.`

Haha you do bring up a good point- that I need to be clearer and not write so damn much :)

While we do serve that purpose, reducing plants' waste, I am still going to be a stickler for semantics and say this: we didn't evolve as a mechanism to reduce..., we evolved as a mechanism which reduces...
Significance being that it just happened rather than was intended to happen that way, which would imply some sort of intelligent design (not that you did or didn't mean that)

We are most certainly part of that order! That's what we have to do a better job of coping with- to try to cause less harm before we do things, instead of go ahead and do them, then try to band-aid the results later on.

If we didn't exist, plants still would- there are natural CO2 sources- there would just be fewer of them. Again it gets back to the balance thing, which nature usually does a pretty damn good job of maintaining, not in a static way but in a chaotic, dynamic fashion which still keeps things mostly in check.

"...we didn't evolve as a mechanism to reduce..., we evolved as a mechanism which reduces..." - This is significant I think, because nothing is pre-designed in nature, it simply happens: organisms evolve through countless generations of mutations able to survive through habitat, or "culling" pressures, if you like.

I concur here with your observation. As to "...We are most certainly part of that order!.." This might be part of our trying to rationalise some "hidden intentions" in nature, such as, "nature tries to cleanse itself back to balance", by this or that, Which I'm pretty sure, this is a non-entity. Nature is a collection of objects trying to survive and multiply.

On that note, I'd like to add, that if this indeed is so, and while being an alpha top of the food-chain, top-predator who can rationalise, the biblical notion role of man being the "great equaliser", turns to be a must, since we now can see (don't know that we do, but we can) that we are all at a critical junction, on our road to survival. I believe we all have a faint notion that "something's got to give", it's like the pre-snap cracks becoming visible.

This, at least, I cannot afford to ignore.

I'm not any one's advocat here, but I tend to think, the Guest's key-phrase was:

"..."If nature is going to kill us,"
Nature is not going to kill us. WE are probably going to kill us..."

That's clear enough for me.

As to the rest of the post, I'm pretty much assured it was to the same effect.

Thanks for clarifying and muddying simultaneously.

As intricate and complicated as these natural and non-natural systems are, why can't participants in the discussion about climate change see where CO2 comes from historically? It really shouldn't be that complicated a discussion.

CO2 was in the atmosphere in amazingly high concentrations before life (plant life) took off on this planet. Thanks to that plant life, oxygen increased in our atmosphere to the point where organisms that could "oxidize" energy-rich carbon molecules now relied on atmospheric oxygen and reduced carbon. Yes, they exhaled CO2 but there were always more and more plant systems to absorb the CO2 again.

No matter how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere from natural sources (and incidentally, increasing wildfires may quicken ICPCC predictions), the burning of fossil fuels in the past 2 centuries is releasing CO2 that hasn't been in the atmosphere for 100s of millions of years.

Burning fossil fuels is essentially turning back the global clock on our atmosphere to be more like it was during early humans, and indeed, like it was when the fossils were actual living organisms. If you think things were different 800,000 years ago, think about what it will be like when we reach the mid 400s ppm, when more drought, wildfires, and humus CO2 previously frozen or otherwise sequestered in the soil will turn our atmosphere into a facsimile of what it was like tens of millions of years ago. If this sounds alarming, it seems to be possible if we don't curb fossil fuel de-sequestering activities.

What say you to this?

Although I'm not registered here, and I'm responding to an unregistered contributor from a week or two ago, I'll check back to this spot by Tuesday May 22nd. thanks.

What de pluperfect hell are you on about?. previous posts have put the situation clearly- you are relying on disputed readings & conclusions- answer this- does CO2 cause GW/climate change- yes/no?.

I'm not the Guest above; I wrote #35 et al...

Neil, I'm going to give an answer which likely will confuse you, at least at first: No. Not really.

Before you start disagreeing, think for a little while, or maybe a long while if that's what it takes. It's been shown through spectroscopy and many facets of climatology that CO2's DIRECT impact on temperature reaches a plateau above a certain, relatively small, concentration, 'relatively' meaning much lower than today's concentration. However, CO2 is an INDICATOR of GW/climate change. Temperature trends follow CO2 levels so closely that we can almost think of it as a thermometer.

That is the simple view. CO2 concentration as a thermometer. The whole of existence on our planet is really quite simple overall: there's that lightbulb in the sky; it flings radiation our way. Depending on what lives here on Earth, CO2 might go up and CO2 might go down. The trend observed over the past several hundred million years is that, when CO2 goes up, so does temperature; there are many many MANY other changes occurring in complicity with that, as outlined earlier. It is a combination of these myriad factors, the interaction of which we do not and probably cannot ever completely understand, which causes the shift in global climate we observe as global warming, be it in this century or 50,000,000 years ago. My point is and has consistently been that we can understand the general properties of the system (Earth), and the likely consequences of our present and future actions, without the need to know the intricate details. The limitation with said idea is that we will only be able to know the consequences insofar as to the level of detail of Earth systems which we are able to mostly or fully understand. So, it's more of a set of ideas which serve as guidelines for what-to-do and what-not-to-do here on Earth, if we'd all like to be able to go on living. As for the acute effects of our actions, well, that is what more specific understanding via climatological supercomputers, and the discourse of geologists, geophysicists, climatologists, et al. serves a purpose for.

Other guest, in answer to your question, yes, I think it is possible for us to experience 'atmospheric reversion,' though it wouldn't be just a simple going back in time- there would be pronounced differences in levels of other atmospheric constituents besides CO2 and O2. Also, I don't think I understood the part about 'organisms oxidizing energy-rich carbon...' so well; if it's an important part of what you were saying, perhaps you'd like to clarify a bit?

There are differing opinions amongst the experts- so how are laypeople to know the truth- it seems to me internal combustion engined vehicles are a major cause of "THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT" (if it really exists)- only 15% of the energy in the fuel reaches the drive wheels- the rest is wasted as heat- the exhaust emits CO2,CO,NOx,& 1 gallon of H2O for 1 gallon of fuel burnt- water vapour- a far more potent GHG than CO2, plus heat. It is easy to run the exhaust gas thru a condensor, & so save the wasted H2O- thus overcoming the worldwide increasing water shortage, & removing a major GHG. Even if burning H2, there would still be H2O vapour emitted. Any burning process using hydrocarbon fuel emits the same ratio of H2O to fuel burnt, incl power stations using coal(& other pollutants incl SO2). 7,000,000,000 HB,s emit methane, a real bad GHG, as do billions of animals kept for HB food. Volcanoes emit 100th of HB CO2 emission(New Scientist-19-5-07). So I think CO2 is not the problem, so why are powerfull vested interests promoting it as such!?!. The real reason for GW/GC is likely to be the Earth,s wobble & precession(Milankovich cycles),& the Sun,s output waxing & waning, & also the cosmic radiation entering Earth,s atmosphere as Earth orbits thru the Solar System.

Neil--

I am surprised by your statement about water vapor being a greenhouse gas. I am aware of its utility in creating cloud cover, which holds heat in as well as reflects solar energy out. However, does its Infra-Red spectrum really qualify it as a greenhouse gas, compared to that of (say) methane, which you correctly label as such. (Many people ignore the ability of methane to trap much more energy in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, on a mol to mol basis.)

I think you indirectly labeled coal as a hydrocarbon, with its combustion creating water vapor. This is incorrect, as it is (except for pollutants such as sulfur or mercury) virtually pure carbon.

I'll be interested in your further thoughts.

John M.

John M, I don,t know what is true- I am just saying what I have seen posted or printed on the subject- I am just an iggerant Australian who was booted out of school the day I turned 14- I am self-educated, & my accomplishments include tv etc repair- I love this forum as we get dinkum views of bright people who have been thru it. I thought coal was a hydrocarbon( isn,t it created by plant growth)?- so does it lose H2 in it,s storage underground?- I guess it must- but timber above ground is still hydrocarbon surely( though I have heard that fallen timber emits CO2)- My question remains on behalf of all us laypeople "DOES CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING"?. And why are so many scientists against the theory?.

It's a bit more complicated than it seems.

Cloud cover at night retains heat.

Cloud cover, (especially high clouds during the day), reflect heat.

Neil & Guest

Thanks for your responses. I believe that the Infra-red spectrum of Carbon Dioxide supports the statement that it is a "greenhouse" gas. In other words, at the fairly long wavelength of the earth's surface or atmospheric layers' temperatures, it emits radiation poorly; while at the fairly short IR wavelengths of sunlight, it is very good at absorbing (or emitting) radiation.

In the solar energy field, a selective surface coating is one which does just this, and is desirable because it can increase the efficiency of the energy collection. In the window manufacturing market, there are coatings put on the inside surface(s) of the glass of multiply-glazed windows (where the coating doesn't get damaged), to do this. Properly designed and installed, a window which faces away from the prevailing direction of sunlight (north to us in the Northern Hemisphere and south to you Aussies) changes the window from a net loser of heat from the building into an opening which is either energy neutral, or often giving net energy gains.

Yes, I believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However its net effect on global temperature is still being debated. The extent to which it contributes to increased temperatures vs. the extent to which it indicates that temperatures have increased is something I don't know. However, I believe that regardless of this, good stewardship and the reality of limits to fossil fuel supples mandate that we significantly reduce our energy consumption per capita. Therefore, I favor restrictions in CO2 production and perhaps a carbon tax. Any moves to enhance our transportation fuel efficiency is desirable. In the United States, the promotion of the current fleet of cars, SUV's, and similar vehicles with their emphasis on power, is very close to environmental blasphemy.