And much, much heavier in the process (mass scales as the cube of linear size, roughly speaking, so it climbs very rapidly with increasing vehicle size.)
The EPA says a 1989 Honda CRX got 49 mpg on the highway: Fuel Economy of the 1989 Honda Civic CRX HF
By 2012, a Honda Civic Hybrid - complete with battery, electric motors, sophisticated software - got 44 mpg on the highway. You got to pay for two propulsions systems and all this sophisticated engineering - and you got five fewer miles per gallon in highway driving.
But let's think about this a little more. An engine's horsepower is a rough measure of how much fuel it needs. More horsepower requires more fuel to be burned, minor differences in engine efficiency aside, ergo, more horsepower means more CO2 emissions.
A small car has maybe 100 horsepower (roughly 75 kW).
A big-rig (big semi truck) has maybe 500 horsepower ( Semi Truck Engines | Mack Trucks ).
A jetliner uses about 100000 horsepower just to cruise along in level flight (How many horsepower is a Boeing 747 Jet? - Quora).
A big cargo ship is in the same ballpark as the jetliner (115000 horsepower.) But the ship keeps its engines running almost every minute of every day, all year long - the ship is losing money when it's not moving, so they don't sit idle any longer than they have to. And, it turns out, it's not just about CO2, the crude fuel oil used in big ships contains lots of sulphur and creates a lot of nasty chemicals when burned. In fact, one big container ship pollutes about as much as fifty million cars: Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated' | Environment | The Guardian
Now that virtually the entire world is dependent on products - food, clothing, toiletries, etc - made in China and delivered via container ship, what do you suppose are the chances that humanity will choose to shut down all container ships? That's right, zero. If we actually did that, people by the billions would be starving, naked, and struggling to survive within weeks.
We will not get out of this by switching to class D amps. We will not get out of this by living in caves (as pointed out earlier, all the world's lightning systems don't produce enough nitrogen compounds in the soil to grow enough food to feed even 2 billion people, never mind the current 7.7 billion.)
I don't think there's any way we can all get out of this - the human population is going to have to reduce, drastically, and eventually, nature will win the battle to save human lives, knock down our house of cards, and decimate the human population.
There is one tiny ray of hope. Men have been becoming increasingly infertile for many decades now, with data going back at least three generations. ( Study: Men's Sperm Counts Continue to Decline - The Atlantic ).
If we are lucky, our species will die off relatively slowly and with minimal suffering as a result of our growing infertility. If we are unlucky, we will die off rapidly as a result of starvation, dehydration, and disease epidemics, and the amount of human suffering will be too much to even begin to think about.
I first became aware of the extent of the climate change problem circa 1993, when I became good friends with a graduate student in planetary science, and began to learn from him what the scientific community in his field already knew (but the public did not.)
Ten years later, in 2003, Europe experienced a record-breaking heatwave, tens of thousands of people died, and it became obvious that the climate scientists were too conservative - the real-world situation was already much worse than the carefully-phrased scientific predictions.
Here we are, another sixteen years later, and we have made the situation worse in the worst possible way: half of humanity's total CO2 emissions have occurred in the last 25 years. It took us about 250 years before that to get to the deadly-dangerous place we were in in 1994 - and instead of slowing down our CO2 emissions, we doubled down, and managed to emit as much pollution in the next 25 years as we had done in the previous 200 - 250 years.
I have no crystal ball, but it is very difficult to come to any conclusion other than the obvious one: we're not going to get away with this much longer.
I leave you with Tom Lehrer's song, "We Will All Go Together When We Go". Lehrer thought it would be the atom bomb, but climate change will do just as well, and quite a few of the song's lyrics fit climate change beautifully: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs
Postscript: Lehrer mentions "3 billion hunks of well-done steak". That would have been circa 1960. We've multiplied to more than 2.5 times that already colossal number in the sixty-odd years since then.
-Gnobuddy
Evenharmonics, do you have any answers to the questions you asked Gnobuddy?
This is partly true, because in this terrible and catastrophic opportunity, there is a high percentage of intentional fires. Bolsonaro reduced the budget to fight fires by 95% ....
The worst of humanity are the "crazy with a card", they were elected in fraudulent ( manipulated ) elections , in America we have a few, from the North to the South ....
La Amazonia arde mientras Bolsonaro le da la espald... | Pagina12
Do you want to help stop this?
Translate it into your language and start spreading it now !
Last edited:
That may be part of it, but slash and burn farming and clearing for habitation have been major contributors.
Logging alone does not cause deforestation. Forests generally re-grow by themselves, unless actively discouraged from doing so. I've seen massive forests that were completely destroyed by fire (no tree left standing) that 30 years later you would not know such an event had occurred.
I've also seen rainforrests that have been logged, that people claim as being virgin rain forest, until you point out the old rotting stumps from 100 years earlier.
Forest industries tend to get a bad wrap, but it is one of the things that can actually help, rather than cause a problem. Provided it is done in a sustainable manner.
As for not belonging in this category, how can it not? The forests are one of the major consumers of CO2 on the planet. The more of them we lose, the higher the CO2 levels will rize. You need to look at both sides of the equation, not just what outputs CO2 but also what consumes it.
Tony.
Bonsai listed the predicted outcome of global warming. Amazon forest destruction would belong to the cause category.
As for the fire, the internet searches I've done resulted in "deliberately set by farmers illegally deforesting land for cattle ranching".
Only young forests consume CO2.
That's why CO2 compensation forrests must be planted.
BTW CO2 compensation is an excuse to keep using fosil fuels.
Which fire? Half the planet is ablaze right now - see attached map of current world wildfires. The URL is visible at the top, so you can run searches yourself.
And here's just one of dozens of easily-found articles about massive fires currently burning, spanning multiple countries, fires that are NOT set by any farmers:
'Unprecedented': more than 100 Arctic wildfires burn in worst ever season; Huge blazes in Greenland, Siberia and Alaska are producing plumes of smoke that can be seen from space : 'Unprecedented': more than 100 Arctic wildfires burn in worst ever season | World news | The Guardian
-Gnobuddy
Attachments
I think that's in reference to the tens of thousands of fires in the Amazon basin of Brazil that are deliberately set as part of deforestation by local farmers, and at the very least not being controlled by the current administration led by Bolsonaro.
FFs sake, they can be seen from space - you do believe in space, right?
Amazon Wildfires Can Be Seen From Space | The Weather Channel
FFs sake, they can be seen from space - you do believe in space, right?
Amazon Wildfires Can Be Seen From Space | The Weather Channel
Gnobuddy, the top level (world view) on that map is a classic example of misleading information. If you look at that map you would think half the world was currently on fire and the entire east coast of Australia!
I was unaware of any major fires currently in Australia so the graphic looked extremely dubious, I went to the site and sure enough my top level map looked like yours, however when I started to zoom in things got a bit different.
looking at the first zoom you would think a large part of the mid north coast of Australia was currently consumed with fire. but the second and third zooms pretty quickly indicate that whilst there are some fires they are pretty insignificant.
Tony.
I was unaware of any major fires currently in Australia so the graphic looked extremely dubious, I went to the site and sure enough my top level map looked like yours, however when I started to zoom in things got a bit different.
looking at the first zoom you would think a large part of the mid north coast of Australia was currently consumed with fire. but the second and third zooms pretty quickly indicate that whilst there are some fires they are pretty insignificant.
Tony.
Attachments
A poster mentioned Monsanto modifying food plants taking advantage of the current situation. I would like to comment about this, although I am not an expert in genetic engineering.
Till now, the greatest achievement in genetic engineering seems to be, exchanging the DNA with another from a different cell with the cell 'rebooting' the new alien DNA. Living cells are extremely complicated self replicating 'machines'. The inside of cells is filled with important smaller machines known as, organelles. Genetic engineering has not yet made all of these from scratch, let alone, build a cell from only raw materials. This means, making plants resistant to very harsh climatic conditions, will enventually require using a knowledge which is not yet available.
Water and a suitable not very low and not very high temperature are essential for plants to grow properly. If temperatures continue to rise, certain chemical reactions, which take place inside plant cells to trigger growth phases, may be negatively impacted. I am already seeing this happening now for several years. This year alone, I had peach trees flowering out of season, grape vines doing the same thing and fig trees growing new leaves when they should have been asleep. Needless to state, the trees did not manage to make fruits notwithstanding of this flowering.
It seems to me, from a grower's perspective who has some education, that certain temperature profiles are used as triggers for plant growth, and for these triggers to function, such temperature profiles must be maintained for a reasonable time.
Since synthesized proteins have to function in an environment of many other molecules, each with their own chemical properties, creating an artificial plant with the required qualities, is not a task that can be achieved soon. Moreover, the fact that evolution did not manage to create such plants in the many hostile environments, is enough to doubt this is even theoretically possible.
What we know for sure is, responsibility often comes at a high cost, and that the planet that hosts us, is subject to what people do.
Till now, the greatest achievement in genetic engineering seems to be, exchanging the DNA with another from a different cell with the cell 'rebooting' the new alien DNA. Living cells are extremely complicated self replicating 'machines'. The inside of cells is filled with important smaller machines known as, organelles. Genetic engineering has not yet made all of these from scratch, let alone, build a cell from only raw materials. This means, making plants resistant to very harsh climatic conditions, will enventually require using a knowledge which is not yet available.
Water and a suitable not very low and not very high temperature are essential for plants to grow properly. If temperatures continue to rise, certain chemical reactions, which take place inside plant cells to trigger growth phases, may be negatively impacted. I am already seeing this happening now for several years. This year alone, I had peach trees flowering out of season, grape vines doing the same thing and fig trees growing new leaves when they should have been asleep. Needless to state, the trees did not manage to make fruits notwithstanding of this flowering.
It seems to me, from a grower's perspective who has some education, that certain temperature profiles are used as triggers for plant growth, and for these triggers to function, such temperature profiles must be maintained for a reasonable time.
Since synthesized proteins have to function in an environment of many other molecules, each with their own chemical properties, creating an artificial plant with the required qualities, is not a task that can be achieved soon. Moreover, the fact that evolution did not manage to create such plants in the many hostile environments, is enough to doubt this is even theoretically possible.
What we know for sure is, responsibility often comes at a high cost, and that the planet that hosts us, is subject to what people do.
Last edited:
Well, I included the whole map so that the entire world was shown; I made sure to include the URL, to make the image big enough so people could read it, and I specifically mentioned that the URL was in the image so that people could do their own assessment of the maps.
In other words, I took considerable care to make sure nobody was mislead - I provided all the information needed to draw your own conclusions, based on the most accurate representation of data that particular website can provide.
It's a complex thing we're talking about, and I agree that complex topics can't be understood from a single graphic image. It takes digging and head-scratching and deep thought and researching multiple trustworthy sources of information.
Those who might be hoping to get the final answer in a one-second sound-bite are not going to get one from the scientists - it isn't possible, due to the compexity of the problem. But those people will get the sound-bite they want from the deluded lunatic-fringe instead.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why some of the general public still hasn't understood the fundamental issues surrounding climate change, or why they are going to affect our lives drastically, like it or not.
It frustrates me quite a bit that we keep being offered "solutions" that are anything but. As an example, at the moment, single-use grocery bags are in the spotlight; eliminate those, and the world will be saved, hallelujah!
But take a closer look at the items on the checkout conveyer belt at the supermarket: that loaf of bread is packaged in plastic film, a single-use plastic bag by a different name. That healthy salad comes in a thin-walled plastic box - just as bad as a plastic bag as far as the ecosystem is concerned. The cardboard container of organic soy-milk is actually lined with a thin film of plastic to make it waterproof; it may look like a cardboard box, but it's a single-use plastic bag in disguise, and will do just as much damage to the environment. That box of Ziploc bags (TM)? That other box of plastic trash-bags? Aren't those single-use plastic bags, too?
So we're going to spend money and time and energy eliminating single-use grocery bags, but we're not going to notice the dozens of other functionally identical bits of plastic in our shopping-carts; worse, we'll soon be slapping each other on the back and celebrating the victory against single-use plastic shopping bags, when it has had barely any impact at all on the estimated eight million metric tonnes of plastic waste that ends up in the ocean each year.
It's as though we're the dysfunctional family with a monthly income of $1000, and a monthly expenditure of $1000000. And we keep thinking "If I stop buying Tic-Tacs, that will save $3 each month, and that will fix the problem, right?"
-Gnobuddy
A couple of years are usually a too short time span to discuss climate change effects.
Afair broad discussion and acknowledgement started broadly with the club of rome and the book about limits of growth.
Meadows allways stated frankly that their models weren't accurate and would need refinements (which is universely true on every model) but nevertheless he gave a lot of predictions/projections including variants considering technology process, detection of additional natural resources.
Climate change wasn't the major concern back then, but reading it today shows that a lot of the predictions/projections became reality or weren't far of.
Despite the fact that after the publication some things were already changed for the better.
@ Evenharmonic,
looking for 'pseudoscience' is always good, but it should be ensured that it itself does not represent pseudoscience.
For example, repetition of the apparently false narrativ that there was a change from the term 'global warming' to 'climate change' is not inspiring confidence........
Afair broad discussion and acknowledgement started broadly with the club of rome and the book about limits of growth.
Meadows allways stated frankly that their models weren't accurate and would need refinements (which is universely true on every model) but nevertheless he gave a lot of predictions/projections including variants considering technology process, detection of additional natural resources.
Climate change wasn't the major concern back then, but reading it today shows that a lot of the predictions/projections became reality or weren't far of.
Despite the fact that after the publication some things were already changed for the better.
@ Evenharmonic,
looking for 'pseudoscience' is always good, but it should be ensured that it itself does not represent pseudoscience.
For example, repetition of the apparently false narrativ that there was a change from the term 'global warming' to 'climate change' is not inspiring confidence........
Much of the plastic packaging is for health and safety reasons, I can't see that changing in a hurry? There was a news report the other day about the reduction in the usage of single use plastic bags, apparently they have been replaced with heavier duty bags and the overall amount of plastic used has not reduced significantly.
Hi Gnobuddy, Yes you did provide everything I needed to dig deeper, which I did and I found it interesting. I was not having a go at you. Merely pointing out that the graphic makes things look much worse than the reality.
I guess it's like a lot of click bait, they put something up that makes you want to look further, but then you find that it wasn't what was initially portrayed. That IMO is dangerous, as it erodes trust, and people will start to dismiss things, rather than actually take notice of them and looking deeper.
In this case I looked deeper because I didn't believe what I was seeing. That's the wrong approach. I should be looking deeper because I see something that I should be concerned about and want to find out more.
edit: if I drill down to just one single of those fires in the fouth picture this is what I see:
A single point less that 0.5M across. Could be a shiny rock or something else reflective that the satelite has picked up. yet at the further zoomed out settings it looks like it is covering a significant area.
The end result is I now don't trust much at all I see on that map, and I'm sure that some of the fires are probably huge! If the data is not presented in an accurate way is it of any value?
Tony.
I guess it's like a lot of click bait, they put something up that makes you want to look further, but then you find that it wasn't what was initially portrayed. That IMO is dangerous, as it erodes trust, and people will start to dismiss things, rather than actually take notice of them and looking deeper.
In this case I looked deeper because I didn't believe what I was seeing. That's the wrong approach. I should be looking deeper because I see something that I should be concerned about and want to find out more.
edit: if I drill down to just one single of those fires in the fouth picture this is what I see:
A single point less that 0.5M across. Could be a shiny rock or something else reflective that the satelite has picked up. yet at the further zoomed out settings it looks like it is covering a significant area.
The end result is I now don't trust much at all I see on that map, and I'm sure that some of the fires are probably huge! If the data is not presented in an accurate way is it of any value?
Tony.
Attachments
Last edited:
Yes, this it true. What is also true is illegal logging punctures massive holes in the rainforest canopy, which in turn interferes with the retention of moisture. The rainforest dries out, making it more prone to fire, either by malice afore thought, or by lightning strikes.
tapestryofsound
The thing I found most ironic about the removal of the "single use" plastic bags at the checkout, was that we used them to line our garbage bin. Getting a second use, but once they were gone the only option for bin liners, were you guessed it, plastic bags. You are right there is far more plastic packaging for all the items in our trolleys than the bags that we used to take it home.
The supermarkets here have started packing fruit and vegetables in styrofoam trays covered with plastic. Before you grabbed a bag and put in what you wanted. When I was a kid, they were brown paper bags.
Tony.
The supermarkets here have started packing fruit and vegetables in styrofoam trays covered with plastic. Before you grabbed a bag and put in what you wanted. When I was a kid, they were brown paper bags.
Tony.
We buy our organic fruit and vegetables online from a specialist supplier, and they arrive in brown paper bags inside a cardboard box. The local supermarket sells so called organic tasteless mush wrapped in plastic, and it is actually cheaper to buy online. We also do everything we can to recycle everything we use. Nothing virtuous in this, just a newly acquired habit to replace the old ingrained habit of throwing everything away.
tapestryofsound
- Status
- Not open for further replies.