Car Tech: WTH(eck)! Disturbing Prius vs Hummer news...
WTH(eck)! Disturbing Prius vs Hummer news...
by shawnlin - 6/27/07 5:38 PMI just saw this after a friend told be about it. I didn't believe at first, but apparently over the lifetime of the vehicle, a Prius can cause more environmental damage than a Hummer! Mainly is because of the batteries...
http://www.ncsu.edu/iei/io/2007/03/is_a_prius_worse_for_the_envir.html
CNW's 'Dust to Dust' Automotive Energy Report: http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/
I was wondering what my next vehicle would be (hybrid-plug-in-biodeisel would was my top choice), but with other more big-picture studies coming out against *present day* costs and efficiencies in creating hybrids, etc., now I dunno... The efficiencies will increase over the next several years - so that's a good thing. In the meantime - I say let's have "Arbor Week" and offset the carbon emissions with the planting of bazillions of trees...bazillions, that's the key. ...then invest in the hammock industry 
Another solution - just buy 1 decent mpg car and maintain it for a looong time...
Best,
Shalin
ok...
by simplexveritas - 6/28/07 12:29 AM In reply to: WTH(eck)! Disturbing Prius vs Hummer news... by shawnlinyou've just got to chuckle at that
HA
by menapples - 6/28/07 12:41 AM In reply to: ok... by simplexveritasnot even considering the materials and processes that each vehicles goes through in production. People don't drive a prius because it will save the enviroment, they want more gas mileage. the prius is a green machine in a sense it will save you money. If you want to save the earth then you need to ride a bike or walk, hybrids still pollute.
debunked
by streamline35 - 6/28/07 12:42 PM In reply to: WTH(eck)! Disturbing Prius vs Hummer news... by shawnlinThat report is nothing near "scientific" or accurate. The SF Chronicle had a great editorial debunking that whole report. Here's the important section of it:
--------------------
Enter the Pacific Institute, an Oakland-based environmental think-tank, with a counter-report alleging that the CNW report is based on "faulty methods of analysis, untenable assumptions, selective use and presentation of data, and a complete lack of peer review." Among its most flawed assumption: the average H1 Hummer is assumed to last 35 years, and travel 379,000 miles, while the average Prius is assumed to last only 109,000 miles over 12 years.
Change these "assumptions" and you end up with an opposite result -- that the Prius and others like it consume far less "lifetime energy" than monster vehicles such as the Hummer.
The lesson here is to beware of junk science. If you want to do your part to fight global warming, it probably doesn't make sense to trade in your Prius for a Hummer.
------------------
In other words, when you assume a hummer is going to last 3x longer than a Prius, of course it will come out like that. And using assumptions like that in a supposedly scientific report is just wrong, and turns it into junk science. Not to mention the prius has FAR higher reliability ratings than a hummer, and is bound to last far longer. With that in mind, it's pretty obvious they had result they were trying to come out with before they even started.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/06/04/EDGI7Q63U01.DTL
copy that...
by shawnlin - 6/29/07 10:14 AM In reply to: debunked by streamline35yeah, i can see that. In trying to be impartial - I wonder how they came up with the mileage numbers - based on 1) how long someone would *want* to use the thing before it got sent to the scrap heap or 2) how long the engine would last before it gave out?...
--Shalin
Of course so is "global warming" debunked
by Andy77e - 6/30/07 10:01 PM In reply to: debunked by streamline35You are not going to "fight global warming". That is junk science itself. Amusing that people talk about debunking something while at the same time using junk science to do it.
funny is funny
by batman823 - 7/2/07 8:14 AM In reply to: Of course so is "global warming" debunked by Andy77eYour statement is true. But I see it as ironic.
Actual scientists with actual engineering and environmental masters degrees go through the trouble of making long-termed and specific observations. But a person who pretends to know something about science "debunks" the observations, analysis, and predicted trends with catch-phrases like "junk science".
Not to point the finger at andy77e personally, but to others who criticize scientific tests and reports without the knowledge or ability to accurately do so. Specifically pointing the finger at politicians and certain news media organizations.
I don't think we can "fight global warming". I know it exists and that it is the natural cycle of the earth. But I think that we can slow down the inevitable Armageddon/ice age that is soon to be upon us by being geared towards nuclear(not nucuulleeeeerr) and renewable energy sources, as well as more efficient transportation and home electricity usage.
...
by streamline35 - 7/2/07 1:46 PM In reply to: funny is funny by batman823Exactly. While the earth does have its own cycle of warming, all of our carbon emissions into the atmosphere are causing a great acceleration of this warming.
And we can "fight" it (slow it down) by using less polluting energy (any energy from fossil fuels). That includes driving priuses and other fuel efficient vehicles rather than hummers and such.
Back to that report. Glad you're not denying it's junk science. I am however denying that "fighting global warming" is junk science. It's a pretty simple concept of using less energy to reduce harmful emissions.
lol
by Andy77e - 7/2/07 2:05 PM In reply to: ... by streamline35See what I mean? There's no evidence that doing any of that will slow or help anything, yet people are convinced. Amazing.
Nah, I don't.
by Andy77e - 7/2/07 2:03 PM In reply to: funny is funny by batman823First, I have a huge issue with canonizing scientists. Basically elevating them to saint hood. What is science? Science is simply learning something, the state of knowing. That grease monkey at the auto repair shop, is a scientist. He is in the science of auto repair.
Beyond that, what is a scientist? He or she, is simply a human that learns stuff. Somehow we get this idea that so-and-so came out with a report that says X, so it must be true because so-and-so is a "scientist".
However, that person is a human. All humans have flaws, have issue, and make mistakes. Humans can be bought, can lie, can be deceptive and are influenced in many ways.
Somehow we ignore all that, and take a report from a scientist as word from the gods come down from the holy mountain, and pretend that they would never make a mistake or say anything wrong or deceptive.
Global warming is a great example. We have flip flopped between global warming and cooling, twice each. 1900s Ice age coming! 1930s, we're going to fry! 1970s Ice age! Grab a space heater! Now it's warming again, we're all going to be underwater!
Then there is the MBH98 report called "the smoking gun of global warming", but when you take a look at the report, there's tons issues with it.
First they used temperature evidence gathered from tree rings, but then abruptly switch to thermometers in the last 40 some years. If tree rings works for accurate temperature readings for the past 150 years, why not the last 40? Because they don't show a huge rise in temp.
Then, during a review, they found tree ring evidence suggests the late 1700s was hotter than the current rise in temp.
Finely they found that temperature readings were from data stations within developed areas. Of course towns and cities are going to be warmer than normal ambient temp. Further, they removed data that didn't fit the curve declaring it an "anomaly".
The report that the entire CO2, global warming, sky is falling, movement is based on, is a fraud.
Here is my position. Global warming/cooling is based on water in various forms, and the sun. Water causes between 90 to 95% of the "green house effect". We have absolutely no control over how much water is in the atmosphere. Sometimes it's more, sometimes it's less and there's nothing we can do either way. The sun goes through natural cycles of higher and lower energy output. If you know how we can effect that, let me know.
So my view is, we can no more effect atmospheric changes, than we can force politicians to never lie.
Now I have no problem with using good energy sources or reducing waste, as long as we remain true to freedom. Anyone can advocate it, great. But when they start forcing it down peoples throats, then they're just a bunch of bully do-good-ers running around lecturing others and being totalitarian.
Then I also have a problem with the pompous air bags that arrogantly try and claim they are "saving the planet" while judgmentally pointing at others and saying they are destroying it just because they are not using an automobile they approve of. Obnoxious jerks should shove a sock down their throat and shut up.
we agree to a point, but you're using that "junk science"
by batman823 - 7/9/07 6:36 AM In reply to: Nah, I don't. by Andy77eA person would have to be stupid to think that having a job as a 'scientists' makes you infallable. But Having the experience and degree in that field makes you an expert. There's a big difference between the grease-monkey(maintenance) and the person using CO2 vs temperatures(scientist) for hundreds of thousands of years to examine the natural life-cycle of the earth. My point was that a person such as a reporter or a 'grease-monkey' would not be qualified to examine and criticize the scientist's reports and findings. Just the same as a medical doctor, while being educated in the "science of medicine" is in no way able to operate the nuclear reactor that I can comfortably operate. And I sure as hell would never try to perform surgery because I can consider myself a 'scientist'. point being that area of expertise can vary greatly. Even if your the best expert in your field, you are not qualified to perform or criticize the actions of somebody in another field.
This one's just a guess:
You say that 'tree rings' show temperatures were hotter in the 1700s than now. Using your reasoning, they are just people. A little known and I'm sure short-budgeted group. That would make them even more limited in resources and more likely to make mistakes. Or if they got their funding from one particular group, they might be biased to lie or make a false report.
A 'scientist' can skew certain data to show certain pre-determined results, just the same as can be done with surveys that have pre-loaded questions. But I am sticking with the Atlantic bouy CO2/temp and Antarctic ice core measurements. I think that raw data is least biased, plus there's no variance in methodology. Just a consistant method that reveals results.
But for tree rings, the dead rings can erode or be eaten by bacteria. The live ones can continually be repaired. Baybe they're accurate, maybe not. Or maybe it's because the rings closer to the surface of a tree would be less accurate then the recorded data from thermometers. I think that the tree-ring thing might just be an observation of the health of the trees at that time. Observing a tree ring can give you a rough estimate of the temperature vs percipitation but it cannot give you an accurate anything. It can really just tell you what nutrients it absorbed and a generalization of the climate it existed in. But maybe they switched to thermometers because they were more relevant, or available, or reliable. But if we haven't read the report then, we won't know why. I'm sure there's a note that would say why they switched. I just put in a few guesses.
There's no carbon in H20 so I hope you're not referring to carbon. There's a lot of animal sea life out there but there's a lot of sea-plants out there too. So I think their balance of CO2 vs H2O is fairly irrelevant. But if you're referring to the greenhouse effect caused by humidity, then you are a victim of flawed-logic.
The greenhouse effect caused by water is an effect, not a cause. I know that's a little confusing, but its correct. The water didn't get there on its own. It has a cycle from evaporation and percipitation. The emission of CO2 from manmade and natural sources CAUSE more heat to be held in from the cosmic rays. This causes a temperature rise. The EFFECT of that being more evaporation. Without some form of cooling, the percipitation will not equally increase. So the skewed view that global warming is waters fault is just crazy.
But I agree with you that we can't stop it. I think we can affect it, maybe slow it down. But we are not going to change the natural cycle of the earth that God has given us.
I think you make a very good point. I think we should be free. Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins. We are free to do anything we want as long as we don't infringe on others and laws should be in place to ensure that. But here's where even that logic is flawed. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but compare our wasteful use of fossil fuels to abortion. If we waste a lot of stuff we don't have to, we're going to cause the "climate change", among other bad stuff to occur quicker. That will mean the planet will go through its cycle a little faster. That, in turn, will cause the unborn inhabitants of our planet to have a shorter life, or not get to live it at all. I think that it is our responsibility to make sure our children and grandchildren(and so on) aren't screwed because of our actions. So by acting however we want in the present, we are infringing on the rights of our descendants.
But that's just one of many theories. I don't think we should establish a totalitarian gov't for the above reasons, but it's more of a personal, moral dillema.
We obviously disagree on the global warming subject and the causes thereof, and the studies. But we are both saying the same thing. We can't change it. I think we can delay it. I think by acting now, we can give our grandchildren or great-grandchildren a few more decades. Maybe we can give another generation of people a chance at survival. But the earth will go through another flood and a subsequent ice age and there's nothing we can do about it.
But rather than pretend I'm an environmental expert. I'm just going to do what I can with what resources I have. I'm going to continue to do my job and I'm going to continue reading my bible. I'm also going to continue these debates because I like them too.
Thanks for the interesting conversation. Maybe we'll continue it.
Buggar
by Andy77e - 7/9/07 7:24 PM In reply to: we agree to a point, but you're using that "junk science" by batman823Alright, more detail, cause clearly I didn't convey what I wanted.
1= One of the problems science has, is determining "normal" temperature. In order to claim that "the earth is warming" we have to know what the earths surface temp should be. This, however is difficult. The website for NASA GISS has some Q&A on this at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html (.gov ya know)
The expected mean Surface Absolute Temp (SAT) is currently 14 °C. But this number has changed hundreds of times. In the 70s it was 18 °C. (remember next ice age crap) And has run the gambit between the two extremes many times.
Knowing the SAT is vital since, how can anyone claim it's getting too cold or too warm, if we don't know what the normal temp is? (I still submit the temp is in constant flux, thus there is no "normal" temp)
2= The next point is, what is the greenhouse effect? Most do not know that the name is a misnomer. A greenhouse allows sun light in, while trapping heat from escaping. "Greenhouse gases" do not do this.
The sun emits short-wave radiation, which is, for the most part, transparent to the atmosphere. After this sun light hits the Earth, the Earth emits back long-wave radiation. The long-wave radiation is not transparent and thus can hit atmospheric gases. However anything gaining heat energy will eventually release it.
Thus, all energy will be released into space. The "greenhouse gases" only delay that from happening. It is not trapped, just slowed on it's journey.
3= Carbon and Water. The ability to absorb long-wave radiation by a gas, determines how much that gas is able to delay heat. Water, in it's three forms is able to absorb more radiation than any other gas, plus it can hold more heat than any other because of it's three forms. Ice in the stratosphere, can absorb heat changing to liquid, which can absorb heat and change to vapor.
Thus water is the most abundant gas in the atmosphere, plus it can absorb more types of radiation than any other gas, plus it can hold more latent heat than any other gas. Currently it is estimated that 90% to 95% of the "greenhouse" effect is caused by water, and some even suggest 99%.
4= So what of that remaining 5% or so? The rest of the effect is divided up between the other gases. Carbon Dioxide is the largest contributer of the remain 5% of the greenhouse effect. So we are responsible for 4% of the greenhouse effect. Right?
One problem. Out of the total CO2 produced yearly, we create only 3.4% of the total CO2 created. That is, of all the CO2 created by every living thing on the entire planet, plus natural CO2 sources like volcanos, forest fires, and whatever, humans produce with all their cars, factories, buildings, power plants, and so on, only 3.4% of the yearly CO2 created.
5= So we are responsible for 3.4% of the carbon the causes 4% of the greenhouse effect. Check my math, but that means we're responsible for 0.136% of the total greenhouse effect.
6= Best estimates say that the greenhouse effect increases global temp by 33°C. So our 0.136% of the effect, means we've increased global temps by at most 0.045°C rounding up. I am now TERRIFIED to drive my Buick. We little humans in our little cars, somehow completely decimating our planet.
To respond to your other points. The tree ring stuff, validates my point. Tree ring temperature data was used to validate that recent hotter temps were "abnormal". If that data is as shaky as you claim, then the whole argument that we've caused higher temps is invalid.
You further make my point by the assumptions made that scientist group A, is "A little known and I'm sure short-budgeted group.", while also assuming that Scientist group B, would not be "little known" or "short-budgeted". This is exactly the whole problem.
You have assumed credibility to one group over another for no reason. You likely know little to nothing about the group favoring "global warming" while knowing just as little about the group not supporting "global warming".
I would direct your attention to:
http://oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
This is an open petition signed by more than 19,700 people. The list includes physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists, plus many scientists who have fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences. Many are people known world wide, and have very well funded research from all over the world.
The petition is independently verified. The organization takes no money from industry, oil, natural gas, or any energy companies, nor does it except money from non-profit organizations.
The founder of the petition against Kyoto is Frederick Seitz, who was president of National Academy of Sciences, and was president of Rockefeller University, now retired. Not exactly a "little known, un-funded" organization. This is one of hundreds of such organizations.
By comparison, the MBH98 report, that spawned this whole scam, was made by three largely unknown scientists who were out of grants for research when they created the report, that was not independently verified prior to use in Kyoto by the U.N.
For your consideration. Talk to you later.
Very interesting and educational
by batman823 - 7/10/07 5:48 AM In reply to: Buggar by Andy77eI read the environmental effects report from that link you provided. What they fail to recognize is the natural cycle and balance of carbon. I did not realize that there was such a big difference in carbon emissions between natural and human sources. The main argument is that we are upsetting the balance. Like I have said before, the earth goes through this cycle on its own. We are just speeding it up.
Not much of that information was new to me, but it skewed the information into a different perspective. I apparently have some research to do. I also know that I am ignorant as to the credibility and history of most of the ecological organizations out there. But I have seen the same graphs and reports before. The study that I read included north and mid-Atlantic temperature and CO2 measurements for current data. They compared that data to Antarctic ice core samples which show the CO2 levels and associated temperature changes for almost 700,000yrs. That report showed that over the last 7 or so ice ages, the level of CO2 barely reached 300ppm. With the current level of CO2 being nearly 400ppm, that suggests something different has happened to upset the natural cycle.
I definitely understand the photon wavelength difference and the variance thereof given from the sun. But the CO2 in the lower levels of the atmosphere recieves the reflected photons and emits heat. That prevents the outer layers from seeing as much as they usually do. I've stated that I know this is the natural cycle but I think we are speeding it up. Maybe we can, as a race or society, slow it back down. But I also realize that the cycle will happen no matter what we do.
I'm not sure about the 4% issue you suggest, but I'll look into it. I don't intend to go out and buy an SUV even if I am convinced that global warming is a scam. I like to get the mileage I get. It saves me money. But I have a pretty strong belief in the global warming. The earth just shows it, regardless of reports. The ice caps are melting and falling off into the ocean. Many mountain ranges have receding snowlines and many places have turned into deserts because of the shift in our climate. Not to mention the increase in intensity of the storms we're experiencing over the last few decades. There is obviously a great change coming. But maybe we're just being subjected to the wrong end of the earth's natural cycle.
Thanks for the info.
Recomend
by Andy77e - 7/10/07 5:51 PM In reply to: Very interesting and educational by batman823Please watch this video
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3
It's 5 parts, and it explains some of the things I've been trying to say in a more... understandable fashion
The Quicktime version seems less grainy.
hard to digest with the vague statements
by batman823 - 7/12/07 5:33 AM In reply to: Recomend by Andy77eI watched the 5-part video. I am astounded at the way some of that information is portrayed. Honestly, I don't know which way to think. Most of the portions of that video presented ideas as facts, contradicting what I've read and seen from other studies. The ice core sample study was adressed, but the timetable was exactly the opposite of what I've read/seen from other sources.
I've never read or seen a study that considered the sun as a factor though. Really, I'm not sure what to make of it.
I just have trouble accepting the entire video you presented as fact though. I couldn't be so sure about the CO2 argument now, but what about the obvious changes on the planet? The north and south poles, as well as greenland, have huge ice shelfs that have fallen off and are melting. They all have more areas that are about to disconnect. As the FOS video said, there is definitely a change coming. There are more frequent and more violent storms all over the world. Other studies show that many places that were full of plant and animal life are now desert.
There's plenty of evidence to show both cases. I guess one would have to decide which to believe and which timetable to assume as correct.
I do thank you for providing the link to that video. But as for cars and home power usage, why not cut back? I'm happy with getting 35mpg. We're very dependant on oil and coal. There's nothing wrong with saving yourself some money. While saving your money, there's less impact on the environment. Coal plants need to be overcome by nuclear plants anyway. They produce alot of smog that just doesn't need to be there. The only reason we haven't built more nuclear plants is because people are uneducated and believe nuclear plants to be dangerous. Chernoble and 3MI were just a couple of poorly designed plants that were accidents waiting to happen. The ones operating today are very safe and clean.
Regardless of climate impact, there's a lot of different ways we can harness energy. I like the idea of nuclear reactors using uranium. They produce more energy at a lower cost than coal plants, which provide most of our electricity.
Once again, thanks for providing that link. It really makes me think about what I've been shown before. I'll probably do some more research on the subject because of the studies that were portrayed in the video.
till next time,
Chris
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
!%20Disturbing%20Prius%20vs%20Hummer%20news...%20-%20CNET%20Car%20Tech%20Forums&srcUrl=http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7811_102-0.html?messageID%3D2526091){kind=small}