 | |
Octane ratings.....what's the truth?
Saab Saab Automobiles Discussions (alt.autos.saab)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#41
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Octane ratings.....what's the truth? -
04-18-2007
, 09:27 PM
|
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:26:24 -0400, Fred W <malt_hound (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: You aren't going to find "proof" from Googling, just hyperbole on both sides of the issue. Why? Because it is impossible to prove or disprove a theory such as this. That is, unless you know of a parallel universe in which we can maintain a control group planet earth... I mentioned that in another post Fred. The system is too large. The naysayers are clamoring around, and will continue to do so, claiming there's no absolute proof. There will never be absolute proof. There will be reasonable conclusions. So far the great majority of the world's scientists and every other industrialized nation (the USA notably excepted) have made reasonable conclusions about global warming. However, they will continue to let their mindless ideological purity align them with campaigns which they support simply for ideology, not realizing they are mere puppets of those who profit handsomely from their support. |
purchase enough carbon offsets to pay for next week's computer usage and car
usage that I use to go to work to pay my taxes which pays the salaries for
people to collect the taxes and run the carbon offset programs and do the
research that shows we need more carbon taxes and higher carbon offset
fees..........
#42
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
On 18 Apr 2007 11:46:15 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: On the other hand, you could go read some research without the expectation of a pre-defined outcome, and see what it seems to be saying. Got pointers? Start with Google and "global warming". That should get you rolling. |
part of my request.
Quote:
|
The point you're trying to make, and the point he's trying to make, are the same. He seems to have said it better. It's not about "rising above the top of the glass" (you can do that with floatation), it's about the ice that's sitting on something solid rather than floating. I also question your volumetrics but that's another problem. No, they're not. His (and your agreement) were some kind of childish suggestion that we're only dealing with "floating ice cubes". |
clearly.
Quote:
|
Oh, no, wait, call scientists around the world! John on the usenet just figured out that melting ice caps can't raise ocean levels based on a simple experiment in a glass! They'll all be mighty embarrassed they didn't figure this out for themselves. |
Quote:
|
So...I'm not him, he's not me, but I'm still interested in unbiased research on this topic that I can read. And I'm still not getting any pointers. So I'm still treating the same as the "coming ice age" hype of the 1970s. What happened in the 70's is irrelevant. |
any data to support one or the other?
Quote:
|
Either go do some reading or just continue to act like an ideologue - your choice. |
#43
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:33:20 -0000, Gary Fritz <fritz... (AT) xxxfrii (DOT) com wrote: * The Zeno map was "found" by a descendent of the Zeno brothers, and is widely regarded as a fraud. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_brothers First, wikipedia is not an authoritative or accurate source for anything. It's an interesting starting point to stimulate real research. If you trace the arguments "disproving" the Zenos, you find that, as with most matters of historical discussion, the arguments of the later researchers are all based on the work of earlier researchers. With the Zenos, the key definable issue ends up back at a dating question concerning the original document's production date. An examination of that argument shows that the original researchers work is flawed and the earlier date is correct. I confess to not recalling the specifics of the dating issue. I can dig out my notes some time. I do agree that there is no conclusive evidence that the voyage they speak of can be shown to be to the "new world" and it may in fact be voyages to Greenland or Iceland . However, it does demonstrate Venetian knowledge (Southern Europe) of Norse journeys. Most historians agree the vikings at least reached New Foundland. Southern European knowledge of that makes it highly unlikely that Columbus would not have known of these voyages. * The "Norsetower" atNewportRI has been archaeologically investigated. The mortar was C14 dated to roughly 1680, and only 17th-century artifacts were found in the soil when they excavated around it. I don't know what Verrazano's and Mercator's maps were talking about, but according to the evidence it couldn't have been thetower. http://www.hurstwic.org/history/arti...ther_artifacts... ewport Well, the argument is that the mortar that was tested was mortar used in repairs in the late 1600's - the building is acknowledged of having been used during those times. Regardless, if that is not the Norsetower, we still have the verified issue of the maps to deal with. Most historians have chosen to ignore that issue since it does not fit with their accepted theories of who was in the new world and when. |
certainty what is indicated, or whether it's at Newport or some other
place along the east coast. It definitely isn't shown as a little
tower on arches , exactly on the site of the Newport Tower.
#44
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:51:51 GMT, still me <wheeledBob (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: On 18 Apr 2007 11:46:15 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: On the other hand, you could go read some research without the expectation of a pre-defined outcome, and see what it seems to be saying. Got pointers? Start with Google and "global warming". That should get you rolling. Perhaps you missed the "factual and not biased, alarmist handwaving" part of my request. The point you're trying to make, and the point he's trying to make, are the same. He seems to have said it better. It's not about "rising above the top of the glass" (you can do that with floatation), it's about the ice that's sitting on something solid rather than floating. I also question your volumetrics but that's another problem. No, they're not. His (and your agreement) were some kind of childish suggestion that we're only dealing with "floating ice cubes". Don't presume to speak for me. You can't even make your own points clearly. Oh, no, wait, call scientists around the world! John on the usenet just figured out that melting ice caps can't raise ocean levels based on a simple experiment in a glass! They'll all be mighty embarrassed they didn't figure this out for themselves. Your reading comprehension is as poor as your social skills. So...I'm not him, he's not me, but I'm still interested in unbiased research on this topic that I can read. And I'm still not getting any pointers. So I'm still treating the same as the "coming ice age" hype of the 1970s. What happened in the 70's is irrelevant. And yet, people remember it. Which time were the alarmists wrong? Got any data to support one or the other? My memory is rather that of ice age predictions being thousand years or |
"ice age prediction" there comes a lot of references (like
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ )to the 70-ies where you
basically see that the scientists where not speaking about imminent ice
age occurence but it was rather the popular press that shortened the
forecast. It seems more like a myth that in the 70-ies imminent ice age
predictions were frequently occuring.
--
th
#45
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
On 19 Apr 2007 01:31:31 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Start with Google and "global warming". That should get you rolling. Perhaps you missed the "factual and not biased, alarmist handwaving" part of my request. Dig around, you can find something factual. Oh wait, that might require work on your part and you always want other people to do your work for you. |
providing same.
Quote:
|
Don't presume to speak for me. You can't even make your own points clearly. Don't presume I'd want to speak for you. It would be embarrassing. |
before and you've nym-shifted yet again, right?
Quote:
|
And yet, people remember it. Which time were the alarmists wrong? Got any data to support one or the other? Let me repeat: what happened in the 70's is irrelevant. What is today, is. |
batch of idiots more than the batch of idiots 20 years ago? They both
seem to have the same basic ideas, but with opposite results. What's
the real deal, and why? Hint: if you respond with abuse, that weakens
your credibility. Just so you know.
Quote:
|
See what I mean about getting attacked for asking for information? You're not being attacked, you're being highlighted. |
#46
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 20 Apr 2007 02:44:14 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: I was hoping for unbiased sources. Obviously you are incapable of providing same. Wrong conclusion. Once again, I invite you to do your own research. |
rantings. Apparentely you do not. If I wanted algore's crap, that, I
could find easy enough. Was looking for actual science, you see, and
since you seem to pretend you have same, asked you for it.
Quote:
|
At least you're nearing self-awareness. Let me guess - I've plonked you before and you've nym-shifted yet again, right? Aside from the fact that "plonking" is a habit of the truly lame, you're even lamer - because you claim to plonk people and never do. |
somoene and then responding to posts from the same address. Hint: you
can't.
Quote:
|
Riiiiight. So. One last try there sparky. Why should I believe this batch of idiots more than the batch of idiots 20 years ago? They both seem to have the same basic ideas, but with opposite results. What's the real deal, and why? Hint: if you respond with abuse, that weakens your credibility. Just so you know. Let me try one more time: what people said 20 years ago has no bearing on the scientific realities today. Continually claiming that it does really makes you look very foolish. |
believe this batch of idiots rather than the previous batch.
It's obvious you have nothing to add to this conversation.
#47
| |||
| |||
|
|
I never "claimed" anything, I'm asking for evidence to show me I should believe this batch of idiots rather than the previous batch. |
reason to believe the next batch who said it was round.
Then there was the batch who claimed the sun orbited the earth, so
obviously it made no sense to pay attention to the batch who said it
didn't...
That's a pretty intellectually bankrupt position, Dave. Just because one
theory is proved wrong doesn't mean all future theories are wrong. New
data and new understanding give better insights into the workings of very
complex systems.
Do we have the ultimate understanding now? Of course not, and we're very
unlikely to anytime soon. But we think we have a good handle on what's
happening, and a significant number of experts believe there is cause to
get very worried. (No, I'm not talking about Gore, who is just a motivated
publicist. I'm talking about the scientists doing the work. And no, I'm
not offering to do your research for you, since you'd probably reject it
anyway.)
Many of the things that would make sense to do if global warming IS real,
also make sense if you're starting to run short on energy supplies and
starting to overpopulate your planet. Which, surprise, we are. So even if
it turns out global warming was a false alarm, reducing our energy usage
and pollution footprint is a smart thing to do anyway.
#48
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
|
Dave Hinz <DaveHinz (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: I never "claimed" anything, I'm asking for evidence to show me I should believe this batch of idiots rather than the previous batch. One batch of idiots a while back claimed the earth was flat, so I saw no reason to believe the next batch who said it was round. |
at the time, authority figures told me to do so. I was 10. This time
I'm older and want to get solid data before just blindly accepting what
the claims are. Yet, every time I ask for it, people like Bob get all
pissed off that I dare to ask for solid data.
Quote:
|
That's a pretty intellectually bankrupt position, Dave. Just because one theory is proved wrong doesn't mean all future theories are wrong. New data and new understanding give better insights into the workings of very complex systems. |
with good, solid data, rather than abuse and alarmist handwaving.
Quote:
|
Do we have the ultimate understanding now? Of course not, and we're very unlikely to anytime soon. But we think we have a good handle on what's happening, and a significant number of experts believe there is cause to get very worried. |
Quote:
|
(No, I'm not talking about Gore, who is just a motivated publicist. I'm talking about the scientists doing the work. And no, I'm not offering to do your research for you, since you'd probably reject it anyway.) |
you?
Quote:
|
Many of the things that would make sense to do if global warming IS real, |
Quote:
|
also make sense if you're starting to run short on energy supplies and starting to overpopulate your planet. Which, surprise, we are. So even if it turns out global warming was a false alarm, reducing our energy usage and pollution footprint is a smart thing to do anyway. |
#49
| |||
| |||
|
|
Great. So tell you what. How about YOU send me to a reputable site with good, solid data, rather than abuse and alarmist handwaving. |
Vostok ice cores show CO2 levels have jumped 20% within the last 100
years, to levels not seen in the last half-million years.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ser_Look/index
..html
I don't think anyone has any rational explanation for the sudden and
unprecedented (within the last 500k years) spike in CO2, unless it is
caused by human activity. Given the amount of fossil fuels that humans
burn, it would be hard to argue humans AREN'T causing the spike in CO2.
Coal releases about 200lbs of CO2 per million BTUs when completely burned
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/qu...icle/co2.html). If
we assume the carbon in oil and natural gas burns in a similar way, and
also produces about 200lbs per million BTUs, we can then use the current
annual world fossil-fuel consumption of 200 * 10^15 BTUs
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/ieoreftab_2.pdf) to estimate a
yearly dump of 4*10^13 pounds (20 BILLION TONS) of CO2 from oil, coal,
and gas. If I'm figuring right, that works out to about 6667 pounds of
CO2 per year -- weighing as much as a Hummer H2!! -- for every man,
woman, and child on the planet. Of course, since North American accounts
for about HALF of that consumption, that is about SIX Hummer's worth of
CO2 per person in North America.
This is far more than, for example, volcanic sources; man-made sources
create 150x more CO2 than volcanic sources
(http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html). And it only
started happening about 100-120 years ago. So I think we have to assume
humans have caused the spike in CO2 levels.
So why worry about CO2 levels? In the ice-core record, temperatures are
highly correlated to CO2 levels. No one knows for sure what's cause and
what's effect, but in the past the two track pretty closely.
In the last 100 years, temps have increased consistently with CO2
increases, and we established above that the CO2 increases are almost
certainly man-made. This is not a proof, but does strongly indicate man-
made CO2 increases are driving the temperature increases.
One of the projected impacts of climate change is an increase in sea
level. This chart shows the observed increase in sea level over the last
15 years. Not only are sea levels rising, but the rate of change is
accelerating.
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-
basics/facts_and_figures/impacts/slr.cfm
Another projected impact of global warming is increased number and
severity of tropical storms.
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-
basics/facts_and_figures/impacts/storms.cfm
I could keep going, but that's what I found in about 20 minutes of
searching. This is all good, solid data. No abuse or alarmist
handwaving. Satisfied?
If you want to look at computer modeling -- which is of course based on
theory rather than hard observational data -- here's a comparison of two
models simulating global climate. One includes only *natural* drivers
(sun, volcanic emissions, etc), while the other includes man-made drivers
(human-produced greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols). Guess which one
matches the observed temperatures.
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-
basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/motemp.cfm
Now I've done your homework for you, or at least enough to demonstrate
that there IS a lot of cold, hard data supporting the global-warming
argument. I leave it to you to either bury your head in the sand and
ignore all this data, or admit that there seems to be something going on
here. Even if your 5th grade teacher was wrong.
#50
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
Dave Hinz <DaveHinz (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Great. So tell you what. How about YOU send me to a reputable site with good, solid data, rather than abuse and alarmist handwaving. |
Quote:
|
Another projected impact of global warming is increased number and severity of tropical storms. http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming- basics/facts_and_figures/impacts/storms.cfm I could keep going, but that's what I found in about 20 minutes of searching. This is all good, solid data. No abuse or alarmist handwaving. Satisfied? |
was hoping to get.
Quote:
|
Now I've done your homework for you, or at least enough to demonstrate that there IS a lot of cold, hard data supporting the global-warming argument. |
Quote:
|
I leave it to you to either bury your head in the sand and ignore all this data, or admit that there seems to be something going on here. Even if your 5th grade teacher was wrong. |
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.