No, they are not. Not in many real-life comparisons. The engines themselves might be slightly more fuel efficient, but it's almost completely nulled out by increased vehicle weight amongst other things. The otto cyclic engines have some serious limitations. I was rooting for some alternative engine designs that proved more efficient, but the industry is so painfully slow in some areas and unable to adapt. Baby steps in circles. Maybe the rotations are getting to their heads...
There's a overview of energy consumed per capita in a handy chart a bit down the page here:
World energy consumption - Wikipedia
That's a fascinating chart....
We need to get out there and use some energy - we're lagging way behind 😀
We need to get out there and use some energy - we're lagging way behind 😀
I know, but its the long run that counts.
You haven't even come up with any links that support your claims.
Water vapour was your last one, I want to be proven wrong.
Its not a secret that models don't EXACTLY match observed data. Climate scientists make no effort to disclose this from the public, but don't tell anyone.
Just a few thoughts to add to the more recent discussion.
Some have focused on political or commercial agendas or the futility of attempting large scale change in consumption.
These are somewhat irrelevant to the issue raised. Yes, there is validity in these issues (don't get me started on pipelines in Canada), but they are not the point. The issue is specifically the validity of climate change, and the breakdown we are seeing in critical thinking of the broader population because of social media. I don't even think climate change denial is the most serious symptom, the anti-vaxxer movement is right here right now taking lives.
Also, regarding the issue of the viability of renewable energy, storage is actually one of the most pressing issues that gets overlooked. That's the Achilles heel right now.
Some have focused on political or commercial agendas or the futility of attempting large scale change in consumption.
These are somewhat irrelevant to the issue raised. Yes, there is validity in these issues (don't get me started on pipelines in Canada), but they are not the point. The issue is specifically the validity of climate change, and the breakdown we are seeing in critical thinking of the broader population because of social media. I don't even think climate change denial is the most serious symptom, the anti-vaxxer movement is right here right now taking lives.
Also, regarding the issue of the viability of renewable energy, storage is actually one of the most pressing issues that gets overlooked. That's the Achilles heel right now.
The news if fake, right, so when the climate change hoax is reported on the fake news, it is a fake doubled down. Plus Donald Trump says it is a hoax, what more evidence does one need? The perfect trifecta. Vaccines cause autism and other ills. And the Earth is 6,000 years old and man rode dinosaurs around that time. There is a museum in Tennessee that proves it. Some U.S. politicians support that. All the animals on the Earth were made to fit in a large boat. One can believe what they want to believe. I choose to believe we live in an era where political leaders **** on the media and science ever day, and sow their dung over social media as if it were the gospel.
Im not sure big oil cares. The worlds addiction to oil will likely outlast its availability. I'm all for the idea of renewables, for different reasons to you, but the reality our economy cant handle the cost. We need cheap energy, which is why we should all buy shares in nuclear energy providers.
Ok, show me a comparison of comparable vehicles with similar performance 20, maybe also 30 years ago, and 2018 models, with measured mixed driving (not manufacturer stated) fuel consumption.
FYI I have a copy of the 1923 Smithsonian year book and there is an article stating that all oil will be depleted in less than 50yr.
Over the years there have been many predictions based on models that show dire outcomes. Food, energy, y2k....
In all cases, the prediction did not come to pass. One could be idiotic and state that it was never a problem, the prediction was incorrect.
Or, one could be smart, and realize that the mere fact of the prediction affected the outcome. In the case of food, I recall global famine as a consequence of population size and foodgrowing limitations. What happened? Well, we learned how to increase yield.
With Y2K, it was attacked years before it could really hit us.
With global warming, I also suspect that the outcome will be altered by the efforts caused by the predictions.
Jn
Has any economy made a real attempt to get off oil? No. Obviously a huge number of sacrifices would need to be made and a lot of things we take for granted would require a fresh look. The latter isn't necessarily a bad thing as new eyes may come to new solutions that are not even imagined in the present milieu.
But it's hard not to read the quoted material and what res-something or another wrote previously that you're set in your ways and will go about substantial effort to justify your behavior, and will shift your argument as it becomes refuted.
It's a tough call. Are the models exaggerating? Unchecked, they may not be exaggerating.
However, I am a firm believer that all the voices need to be heard. My only concern is that many with no actual scientific background or experience are trying to discount the science as inaccurate.
Without any scientific background, how would they know?
One simple tell is if the criticism is founded on conspiracy theories.. they can be safely ignored. Ah, yes DPH, if they shift their arguments, ignore the question, or try to turn the onus on the questioner, they too can be ignored. Troll behavior is a tell on it's own.
jn
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.