|
Tab8715 posted:Politically speaking, things are looking better in the United States but 2020 will be a defining year. Looks like 2020 is going to end up being yet another showdown between two garbage rich people who are only in it for themselves, so don't get your hopes up. The beat case scenario is shaping up to be liberal capitalist business as usual, which means we all still die.
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Looks like 2020 is going to end up being yet another showdown between two garbage rich people who are only in it for themselves, so don't get your hopes up. Welp. I guess we’re doomed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/rgatess/status/1172898980415434758?s=19
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
Good news, it's probably not the clathrate gun but the expected year-to-year methane concentration increase we've seen for the last two decades. Bad news, we're still hosed to the degree that we expected.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
I think my problem with people looking at methane ppb, surface temp anomalies, etc... is that it doesn't convey the real impact of a mass extinction. It's intangible so to make it emotional people just shout that number is bigger and scarier. You don't need to exaggerate number, our ecosystems are already sensitive to small number. Just ask someone running a 2C fever how they feel. Like if you want to scare people about climate change just point to the ongoing mass extinction we're already in the middle of. Go talk about insect biomass loss, global thiamine deficiency across fish and bird ecosystems, carbonate undersaturation and plankton biomass loss, fish kills and toxic algae blooms, paleoclimate euxinia killing almost every mammal, etc... We can literally watch our ecosystems die on a planetary scale right now, and that's the real impact of these intangible numbers like co2 ppm going up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
I’ve started telling people scientists estimate we won’t be able to grow enough food due to droughts and flooding. The world will only be able support a billion people at end of the 21st Century. That’s the impact of climate change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Curious, does anyone have or know of data on carbon emissions from exotic sports cars or luxury sports cars from BMW, Audi, Lexus, etc? And I don’t mean perfect easy lowest possible emissions numbers because you don’t drive those cars like a grandma.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Curious, does anyone have or know of data on carbon emissions from exotic sports cars or luxury sports cars from BMW, Audi, Lexus, etc? Automotive emissions testing and the resultant technologies are largely just theater now. Cars aren't designed to the spirit of the regulations but rather just to pass the tests, which are very easy to game because they only test the car in a narrow set of circumstances. Considering that even in the 90's it was possible to make an engine ECU that could recognize it was being run through an EPA test and change fuel maps accordingly, there's no way it isn't happening right now. All car emissions systems are like dieselgate to some extent, VW just got too lazy/capitalist. CO2 is a normal byproduct of efficient petrol combustion anyway, the only way of reducing CO2 is to improve fuel consumption in general and, again, standardised fuel economy tests are really easy to game so rated fuel economy basically never lines up with what you get driving the car IRL.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Automotive emissions testing and the resultant technologies are largely just theater now. Cars aren't designed to the spirit of the regulations but rather just to pass the tests, which are very easy to game because they only test the car in a narrow set of circumstances. Considering that even in the 90's it was possible to make an engine ECU that could recognize it was being run through an EPA test and change fuel maps accordingly, there's no way it isn't happening right now. Okay, sure that is interesting but how much carbon does the typical Ferrari emit per year? That’s what I’m curious about...
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Okay, sure that is interesting but how much carbon does the typical Ferrari emit per year? Why does that matter? Theres like hundreds of Ferraris out there, that are probably used infrequently, compared to the millions of F150s driving around constantly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Why does that matter? Theres like hundreds of Ferraris out there, that are probably used infrequently, compared to the millions of F150s driving around constantly. There are quite a few people that use their Ferrari as a daily driver. I know of one that owns several and drives a different one every day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:There are quite a few people that use their Ferrari as a daily driver. I know of one that owns several and drives a different one every day. Hmm yes the problem here is his multiple Ferraris might not have squeaky clean tailpipe emissions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Hmm yes the problem here is his multiple Ferraris might not have squeaky clean tailpipe emissions. Sorry, I mean in the terms of total carbon emissions. Not “clean” emissions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:There are quite a few people that use their Ferrari as a daily driver. I know of one that owns several and drives a different one every day. Why do you want to know how much CO2 a luxury car emits? Do you not have a search engine on your computer?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:37
|
|
|
Funky See Funky Do posted:Why do you want to know how much CO2 a luxury car emits? Do you not have a search engine on your computer? I keep finding average fleet emissions but I want them on a individual driver level.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
Why?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
the only thing standing between civilization and extinction is a couple hundred ferraris belching out the bad molecule
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
I have a suspicion it may be as bad as flying. I’m curious if that is accurate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I keep finding average fleet emissions but I want them on a individual driver level. You're asking a really weird question, which is why people are responding to it this way. If you want a rough idea of individual emissions levels, then just look at fuel economy along with the average CO2 emitted for burning one gallon of gasoline. That won't be exact, but there isn't going to be this wild difference that you're imagining between economy cars and luxury cars. A truck is worse than a Corolla because it gets poo poo fuel economy and burns a lot of gas, not because it's a truck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I have a suspicion it may be as bad as flying. I’m curious if that is accurate. https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/cars/Car-CO2-and-fuel-economy-mpg-figures?manufacturer=ferrari https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html TL;DR: Driving supercars is worse than flying. Strange they used a 737-400, a legacy version of the 737 flown in the mid-80s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Curious, does anyone have or know of data on carbon emissions from exotic sports cars or luxury sports cars from BMW, Audi, Lexus, etc? It's a pretty worthless question. I see very few daily commuters in luxury cars, and by far the most luxury car poo poo I see is a loving Tesla. generally only luxury cars as seen as a weekend warrior deal. so it's not like there's many on the road at all. that said, high power-to-weight vehicles and those with low consumption are less effected by driving style, it's pretty much poo poo all the way. typical shortfalls is 0.75 to 0.85 vs certified ratings. driving a prius like aggressive poo poo will hurt it's fuel efficiency far far more than a ferrari driving badly . luxury cars are probably about 15 city/18-20 hwy, and regardless of driving style is probably still in that order because of their power to weight. but again, largely these are not driving as daily commuting vehicles. all the people driving their Ford F950 HDR 4k extendedcab 9/11 freedom rancher edition to work 2 hrs each way, as a single commuter, does far worse damage Xaris fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Sep 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I have a suspicion it may be as bad as flying. I’m curious if that is accurate. Per passenger or per mile? Here's the actual data you want on a Ferrari: https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-reviews/ferrari/f8-tributo/ quote:21.9mpg, 292g/km CO2 It's basically like driving a newer F150 around in terms of CO2 output. It's drastically better than basically any older truck or SUV. As for airplanes, a car that guzzles gas like that Ferrari is going to be worse per passenger mile. Per actual mile it's just loving hilariously not even close. Per actual mile we're talking about measurements in kilograms, and the math is way worse if you start looking at small flights thanks to the amount of fuel wasted by planes on the ground. Edit- To be clear, this isn't a supercar thing. If you want to look at per passenger CO2 emissions, then a plane is better than all but a very efficient car, assuming there's only one passenger in the car. In terms of actual usage, an average single flight is generating as much CO2 as a daily driven Ferrari would over about three years. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Sep 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:You're asking a really weird question, which is why people are responding to it this way. If you want a rough idea of individual emissions levels, then just look at fuel economy along with the average CO2 emitted for burning one gallon of gasoline. That won't be exact, but there isn't going to be this wild difference that you're imagining between economy cars and luxury cars. A truck is worse than a Corolla because it gets poo poo fuel economy and burns a lot of gas, not because it's a truck. I don’t get why it’s a weird question - there’s a ton of data and research on individual carbon emissions. Looking through some numbers let’s say John commutes to work for a total of 40 miles. In our theoretical world his fancy car gets has 20mpg. A gallon of gas emits about 19 pounds of co2. That’s 40/20*19 = 38lbs of co2. Then multiply that by say 40 weeks or 200 because sometimes John works from home. That’s a total of 7,600 pounds of carbon a year under ideal conditions. An exotic car is more than double that. Maybe triple if you’re really pushing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I don’t get why it’s a weird question - there’s a ton of data and research on individual carbon emissions. Air travel, for all the CO2 it does emit, does so more efficiently than a passenger car, because of the amount of people it carries and the distance it does it so in. No, its not comparable. Exotic cars still have to obey emissions in most states.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I don’t get why it’s a weird question - there’s a ton of data and research on individual carbon emissions. This entire post is why I'm saying that this is a weird way of approaching this. The vast majority of high-end cars are going to get roughly the same fuel economy numbers as any other car. The Ferrari that I posted in my last post actually does 22mpg, which is better than your "fancy" car in this example. A BMW i8 is a high-end hybrid sports car that gets like 70ish MPGe in hybrid mode. This is a totally weird and backwards way to approach the problem, which is that cars aren't efficient enough and also we shouldn't be driving anyway. The guy in the supercar is roughly as bad as the guy in the truck. Also keep in mind that you're not making an apples to apples comparison. Passenger miles for planes assume full flights, so the only way to do a fair comparison is to divide the car's output by its maximum occupancy. This is nonsense, but so is judging airplanes as if they're always full and always going long distances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
Posted this in the wrong CC thread: For as damaging as air travel is to the atmosphere/environment, the search for ever-more-efficient engines for airliners (to save money, not the environment) has had a side-benefit that works in the planet's favor. It's not like the old days when lovely first/second-gen turbofans belched out visibly black/dark smoke, like the E-3 and B-52 still do because they're still using old-rear end turbofans:  
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
You shouldn't really need a specific reason to hate the rich tbh
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
What’s this other climate change thread again?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
bitprophet posted:What’s this other climate change thread again? https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3884239
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Posted this in the wrong CC thread: Oh man, those old smokey TF-33s
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This entire post is why I'm saying that this is a weird way of approaching this. Ah hah. Also, check your PMs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The vast majority of high-end cars are going to get roughly the same fuel economy numbers as any other car. The Ferrari that I posted in my last post actually does 22mpg, which is better than your "fancy" car in this example. Wait, how does that work? Where does the extra power that the Ferrari’s engine produces come from? Where does the power that my Mazda could produce go? I thought a big part of a car’s power came from just more effectively burning gasoline over a given time. As well as including all the extra bits that let the power go into the road effectively. So a car that gets 20mpg would be roughly half as powerful as a car that gets 10. But here I see that a Ferrari 812 gets 17mpg and outputs 800hp. My Mazda 3 gets like 23mpg and outputs 165hp. What gives? But yes, you’re correct that it’s besides the point. Ban all cars, eat the Ferraris, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Wait, how does that work? Where does the extra power that the Ferrari’s engine produces come from? Where does the power that my Mazda could produce go? But these numbers are under ideal Grandma driving circumstances. I’m not well versed in automobiles that much but I doubt anyone who drives one gets even close.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:What do you think about adding random from history? Those are GREAT references, As to Toby, I've reached out to HBO and their Archive Co. and no-joy. I have this in the game:  Oh, and it all starts with this women scientist in 1856: https://time.com/5626806/eunice-foote-women-climate-science/ VideoGameVet fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Sep 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
It works because the engine can't actually operate at peak power for more than a few seconds. Even perfect modern highways can't support you going faster than like 200mph, and most roads aren't anywhere near perfect condition. Also, if you don't want to get fines and your driving license constantly taken away, you need to drive just as slow as everyone else. You probably save a tiny bit of fuel because a supercar is probably a bit more aerodynamic and lighter than your mazda. OTOH, a ferrari engine is junk garbage so you still get 6mpg more
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 02:28
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:But these numbers are under ideal Grandma driving circumstances. I’m not well versed in automobiles that much but I doubt anyone who drives one gets even close. http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/IreneBerry_Thesis_February2010.pdf high power-to-weight cars don't really get worse with aggressive vs grandma driving. a perfect ideal ferraria driver might get like 18 mpg, an aggressive one might get 16--it's not a real big difference. low powered hybrids and stuff like ford focus/camry/prius/etc do get worse though where you can go from 38 to 25 if you suck at driving--a much more noticeble decrease.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
What if we burned grandma for fuel
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What if we burned grandma for fuel How many miles per grandma?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Xaris posted:http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/IreneBerry_Thesis_February2010.pdf What about a 5-Series or bigger land yacht?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
Gearing makes even some of the largest vehicles more efficient. Its about what rpm you operate the motor at, where the motors peak efficiency is. Most automakers are switching to 7 and 8 speed transmissions for larger vehicles to increases efficiency and meet emissions. Cars are a climate issue, but you are focusing on the wrong reason why they are bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 04:33
|
|