Have you guys seen these?
#23
12-01-2007 | 04:59 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,290
From: Montana
RE: Have you guys seen these?
I think that civic is an interesting idea, the thought of puncturing a high pressure Natural Gas tank during an accident does kinda scare me and the whole 220-250 miles per tank with 6 hours required to re-fill the tank at home could be a big deterrant for some. Since I don't drive on a ton of road trips if I had the cash I'd buy one for daily driving and keep a gas fuel vehicle on hand for road trips...
The car is a bit underpowered though, only 113 HP and a curb weight of over 2900 lbs!
http://www.buyersguide.com/cars/07_honda_civicgxngv.jsp
Compare that to the 94-97 4dr accord, it has less power than a base model for those years and weighs more than they did. You thought your 94 DX was slow try it with 17 HP less and a few extra pounds....
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...a-accord-4.htm
Now consider this, the 95 Geo Metro had 75 HP and a curb weight of about 1,808 lbs which gives it a weight to HP rating of about 24.1 to 1, the 07 Civic NGX is 113HP at 2900 lbs so we're at 25.7 to 1, this means that a 95 geo metro outperforms the brand new civic NGX and it gets around 50 mpg, meaning that compared to the civic only costing about $1.60/gallon of Natural Gas. The Geo, because of it's increased fuel economy, was about the same price to run as the brand new civic AND the Geo outperforms the civic... Are we really moving forward?
The car is a bit underpowered though, only 113 HP and a curb weight of over 2900 lbs!
http://www.buyersguide.com/cars/07_honda_civicgxngv.jsp
Compare that to the 94-97 4dr accord, it has less power than a base model for those years and weighs more than they did. You thought your 94 DX was slow try it with 17 HP less and a few extra pounds....
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...a-accord-4.htm
Now consider this, the 95 Geo Metro had 75 HP and a curb weight of about 1,808 lbs which gives it a weight to HP rating of about 24.1 to 1, the 07 Civic NGX is 113HP at 2900 lbs so we're at 25.7 to 1, this means that a 95 geo metro outperforms the brand new civic NGX and it gets around 50 mpg, meaning that compared to the civic only costing about $1.60/gallon of Natural Gas. The Geo, because of it's increased fuel economy, was about the same price to run as the brand new civic AND the Geo outperforms the civic... Are we really moving forward?
#24
12-01-2007 | 05:33 PM
RE: Have you guys seen these?
ORIGINAL: 00AccordLX5spd
We could argue about this to no end. How about we "agree to disagree"? haha! I know I am one of the few that do not believe in global warming.
I will point out one thast thing though. The ice down on the south pole (around Antarctica) is at it's HIGHEST LEVEL EVER. If the entireplanet was really getting warmer, then why is the iceonthe south pole not melting as well? Global Warmingsupporters hate it when people point out this fact.
Also I thought all of the environmentalistssaid there was a hole in the ozone above Antarctica. Why don't all of the penguins have sunburn and why doesn't the ice melt? Inscience class in school the books always called the ozone layer an "imaginary layer." How can you have a hole in something that is imaginary? Why do the space shuttles not poke holes in it when NASA launches them into outer space? On a more "personal experience" note, this summer in Mississippi it felt like the hottest summer ever, however the records never showed a record high temperature. All of the record high temperatures were back in the early 1900's!It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see my point....
ORIGINAL: bssmagik83
I have to disagree, Global Warming is happening. Look at our Icecaps, or what is left of them....If theice melts and releases huge amounts of nearly freezing water into the oceans. It will have catastrophic effects on every continent....its kinda like a teeter-totter. When the water temp gets below a certain degree it starts a chain reaction of events that cant be undone by nature for several thousand years....the oceans effect our climate and this should not be taken lightly...
I have to disagree, Global Warming is happening. Look at our Icecaps, or what is left of them....If theice melts and releases huge amounts of nearly freezing water into the oceans. It will have catastrophic effects on every continent....its kinda like a teeter-totter. When the water temp gets below a certain degree it starts a chain reaction of events that cant be undone by nature for several thousand years....the oceans effect our climate and this should not be taken lightly...
I will point out one thast thing though. The ice down on the south pole (around Antarctica) is at it's HIGHEST LEVEL EVER. If the entireplanet was really getting warmer, then why is the iceonthe south pole not melting as well? Global Warmingsupporters hate it when people point out this fact.
Also I thought all of the environmentalistssaid there was a hole in the ozone above Antarctica. Why don't all of the penguins have sunburn and why doesn't the ice melt? Inscience class in school the books always called the ozone layer an "imaginary layer." How can you have a hole in something that is imaginary? Why do the space shuttles not poke holes in it when NASA launches them into outer space? On a more "personal experience" note, this summer in Mississippi it felt like the hottest summer ever, however the records never showed a record high temperature. All of the record high temperatures were back in the early 1900's!It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see my point....
#25
12-01-2007 | 05:42 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,290
From: Montana
RE: Have you guys seen these?
Does anyone know of a link or place where they have actually proven via scientific calculation that all of this is happening? How do they know that the pollution is hurting the ozone? I'm not trying to argue one way or the other I'm simply looking for something beyond the old age "see look it's getting warmer" or "it's happening I can tell"
#26
12-01-2007 | 05:49 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,290
From: Montana
RE: Have you guys seen these?
A quick search yeilded this interesting chart
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online...c_evidence.htm
and although it does show an increase in CO2 contamination it doesn't show our temperatures being much (if any) higher than they were roughly 400,000 years ago, in fact this chart show that about 125,000 years ago CO2 contamination was lower but the earths temperature was actually hotter than it is now.
Once again, not saying it's not happening, and I'm all for energy conservation (since it saves me money), but there have been far to many "end of the world" ideas through out our nations history for me to fully accept all of this without questioning anything. I haven't read all the reports and I haven't seen all the reviews but the earths temperature seems to be what the belief in this issue is based on and according the findings of someone trying to prove that it is happening they have shown that it's been worse in the past than it is now....
What do we have besides CO2 concentration and temperature changes? anything?
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online...c_evidence.htm
and although it does show an increase in CO2 contamination it doesn't show our temperatures being much (if any) higher than they were roughly 400,000 years ago, in fact this chart show that about 125,000 years ago CO2 contamination was lower but the earths temperature was actually hotter than it is now.
Once again, not saying it's not happening, and I'm all for energy conservation (since it saves me money), but there have been far to many "end of the world" ideas through out our nations history for me to fully accept all of this without questioning anything. I haven't read all the reports and I haven't seen all the reviews but the earths temperature seems to be what the belief in this issue is based on and according the findings of someone trying to prove that it is happening they have shown that it's been worse in the past than it is now....
What do we have besides CO2 concentration and temperature changes? anything?
#28
12-02-2007 | 12:52 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 774
From: Canada
RE: Have you guys seen these?
Humans know some things with certainty:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. From here: http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html
“Infrared (IR) active gases, principally water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and ozone (O3), naturally present in the Earth’s atmosphere, absorb thermal IR radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. The atmosphere is warmed by this mechanism and, in turn, emits IR radiation, with a significant portion of this energy acting to warm the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a consequence the average surface air temperature of the Earth is about 30° C higher than it would be without atmospheric absorption and reradiation of IR energy [Henderson-Sellers and Robinson, 1986; Kellogg, 1996; Peixoto and Oort, 1992].
This phenomenon is popularly known as the “greenhouse effect,” and the IR active gases responsible for the effect are likewise referred to as “greenhouse gases.””
2. CO2 atmospheric concentration is rising rapidly in a historically unprecedented fashion:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/scie...005/11/27/1937
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/iadv/
3. The earth is warming:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4532344.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4532344.stm#graph
4. There is a direct correlation (not a cause and effect) between concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature:
http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/esu501/esu501page04.cfm
5. Because of the very nature of thephenomenon of global warming, there will never be, and can never be, scientific"proof" that human activity is causing global warming. (Unfortunately,human response toglobal warming willhave to be, likeits devoutbelief in God, morefaith-based than strict-logic-based.)
_________________________________
We live in a political system in which politicians who set public policy are elected by folks like us. We, the little people, are going to have to be the experts who choose the politicians who will set that policy.
Considering the nature of our business-dominated political system, are we(humanity) intelligent enough to realize the effect ofour own behavior onour environment early enough to changeour behavior and preventour ownextinction?
Wemust determine for ourselves the answers to these vitally important questions:
-What evidence would it take for me personally to conclude that human activity is causing a rapid rise in the Earth's temperature? (If the answer is - “none possible” – then let the chips fall where they may for humanity.)
-What do I know about this subject - that is,am I at present educated enough to vote for a representative to reflect my view?
- Is the atmospheric temperature of the world rising?
- Is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rising?
- Is CO2 a greenhouse gas, and what exactly does the term "greenhouse gas" mean, anyway?
-Does the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration coincide with the period of industrialization?
- If there has been an increase in the atmospheric concentration ofCO2,has that risebeen caused byindustrialization?
- If theincrease in atmosphericCO2 has caused the increase inatmoshpheric temperature, will a further increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration cause a further increase in global temperature?
-If the rise in CO2 concentration is indeed causing the rise in global temperature, wouldthat be a good thing or a bad thing? (The answer "good thing"will almost undoubtedly bethe very last bastionofthe "carry on business as usual" proponents.)
- I know that if I close theoverhead door in our two-car garage, then get inour car, start the engine, and settle in the driver's seat for a good night's sleep, I will die.But if someone offered me ten million dollars to do it,would/shouldI do the same thingin an huge airplane hangar?
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. From here: http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html
“Infrared (IR) active gases, principally water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and ozone (O3), naturally present in the Earth’s atmosphere, absorb thermal IR radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. The atmosphere is warmed by this mechanism and, in turn, emits IR radiation, with a significant portion of this energy acting to warm the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a consequence the average surface air temperature of the Earth is about 30° C higher than it would be without atmospheric absorption and reradiation of IR energy [Henderson-Sellers and Robinson, 1986; Kellogg, 1996; Peixoto and Oort, 1992].
This phenomenon is popularly known as the “greenhouse effect,” and the IR active gases responsible for the effect are likewise referred to as “greenhouse gases.””
2. CO2 atmospheric concentration is rising rapidly in a historically unprecedented fashion:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/scie...005/11/27/1937
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/iadv/
3. The earth is warming:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4532344.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4532344.stm#graph
4. There is a direct correlation (not a cause and effect) between concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature:
http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/esu501/esu501page04.cfm
5. Because of the very nature of thephenomenon of global warming, there will never be, and can never be, scientific"proof" that human activity is causing global warming. (Unfortunately,human response toglobal warming willhave to be, likeits devoutbelief in God, morefaith-based than strict-logic-based.)
_________________________________
We live in a political system in which politicians who set public policy are elected by folks like us. We, the little people, are going to have to be the experts who choose the politicians who will set that policy.
Considering the nature of our business-dominated political system, are we(humanity) intelligent enough to realize the effect ofour own behavior onour environment early enough to changeour behavior and preventour ownextinction?
Wemust determine for ourselves the answers to these vitally important questions:
-What evidence would it take for me personally to conclude that human activity is causing a rapid rise in the Earth's temperature? (If the answer is - “none possible” – then let the chips fall where they may for humanity.)
-What do I know about this subject - that is,am I at present educated enough to vote for a representative to reflect my view?
- Is the atmospheric temperature of the world rising?
- Is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rising?
- Is CO2 a greenhouse gas, and what exactly does the term "greenhouse gas" mean, anyway?
-Does the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration coincide with the period of industrialization?
- If there has been an increase in the atmospheric concentration ofCO2,has that risebeen caused byindustrialization?
- If theincrease in atmosphericCO2 has caused the increase inatmoshpheric temperature, will a further increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration cause a further increase in global temperature?
-If the rise in CO2 concentration is indeed causing the rise in global temperature, wouldthat be a good thing or a bad thing? (The answer "good thing"will almost undoubtedly bethe very last bastionofthe "carry on business as usual" proponents.)
- I know that if I close theoverhead door in our two-car garage, then get inour car, start the engine, and settle in the driver's seat for a good night's sleep, I will die.But if someone offered me ten million dollars to do it,would/shouldI do the same thingin an huge airplane hangar?
#30
12-03-2007 | 04:55 PM
Been Around A Long Time Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,110
From:
RE: Have you guys seen these?
The atmosphere is already Carbon Dioxide. the problem is that there is too much carbon dioxide, and once sun rays "bounce off" the ocean they cant leave again. Same goes for harmful rays.
what i dont get, is if too much CO2 is the problem, why not stick a bunch of pine trees in a bunch of satallites and sent them up to orbit the earth for awile?
and of course, angry squirrels IS the problem.
what i dont get, is if too much CO2 is the problem, why not stick a bunch of pine trees in a bunch of satallites and sent them up to orbit the earth for awile?
and of course, angry squirrels IS the problem.