Are hurricanes more damaging, or is there just more to damage?

[HFWR]

Someone mentioned the tobacco companies. Take it from me, anyone who has smoked habitually for any length of time has to know that cigarettes are unhealthy. Don't need no stinkin' experts. Same for pollution. It ain't rocket science...

Well, maybe it is, if you want to quantify the effects, and/or create predictive models... But a quick web search will located hundreds of peer-reviewed papers and articles on the subject. Why settle for propaganda?

BTW, I know quite a few PhDs who couldn't stick their fingers up their a$$es with both hands. That's why peer-review is so important. And that is also why we should be eternally skeptical of so-called experts on either "side".

Unless, of course, you have a hidden agenda...  

 

[Martha]

Lindzen has disagreed with all the panels and committees he has served on regarding climate change and has been in a small minority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

Why are people willing to believe him (he seems to enjoy a lot of support in certain press) versus all the other scientists on these panels?

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

I claim no expertise in climatology or global warming. I have none whatsoever. What I do have is a lot of experience in sorting out trainloads of scientific evidence, often self-contradictory. FWIW, here are a few observations:

1. Scientific plausibility is worth something. If a hypothesis just can't be supported by any reasonable rationale, it is weakened (though not dead, since maybe we just don't understand the phenomenon enought to hypothesize about it). Global warming possesses plausibility from what I have read as an experienced layman.

2. Probability of truth: unknowable in this matter given the early stage of our science, the large overlay of cyclical changes overlapping the short term changes, etc. Conservatively, I'd hazard a 10% likelihood that the hypothesis of man-made global warming is correct.

3. Impact of the hypothesis, if true: huge in this case.

The urgency of a "call-to-action" is related to the product of 2 and 3. My opinion is that #2 is probably relatively low (maybe 10%) and that #3 is very high, say 95 on a 100 point scale.

For me, this is enough to support responsible industrial or legislative reform stopping short of economic upheaval, personal choices to own a Prius and watch my p's and q's energy wise, and to worry for my grandchildren if not to the point of losing sleep.

It's not about Hillary's or Condie's sexual preference, or Al Gore's sincerity (which, BTW, believe is strong - right or wrong); anyone who introduces these into the argument seems to be distracted, misinformed or insincere. It's about responding responsibly to an imperfect but alarming scientific observation, the validity of which seems to be increasing.

Not much I can do as an individual, but the facts and hypotheses warrant a responsible choice in the voting booth, as well as responsible lifestyle choices.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

i'm a bit late to this thread (story of my life), but my reference in another thread seems apt here as well; see "Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming."http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
true, the author is not a politician, but a mere Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, but perhaps worth reading anyway.

Consensus <> 100% agreement.

There is consensus on global warming in the scientific community. Overwhelming consensus.

And rich? Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

[mb]

I think that Rich makes some good points.

Even if there is not over whelming proof (and I don't think that there is) that recent climate changes are caused by man-made CO2 emmissions the possible consequences warrant a more proactive policy.

In risk analysis you look at the probability of occurence times the consequence of occurence.

It's kind of like russian roulette.  The probably that there is a bullet in the chamber are not high, only one in six, but the consequences are devastating.

The US and Canada are the largest energy users and CO2 producers per capita in the developed world.  The reason for that is simply economics.  Energy here is cheap.

The best way to change it is to make energy expensive.  Such as a european-type gasoline tax and/or a gas-guzzler tax.  That would be painfull in the near term but it would be beneficial in the long term.

MB

 

[d]

with several mentions of Wikipedia (not my source of choice) having been made, the following should be of interest to this "discussion": "It should be noted that the absorption bands of CO2 are near to saturation, so that increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can have little effect on the greenhouse warming from this source. This provides a stark counterpoint to the currently popular notion that CO2 emissions are responsible in part for the very slight warming that has occurred over the past century. When viewed in the light of geological data which shows clearly that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration always lag behind temperature changes, it becomes apparent that the current obsession with carbon emissions is a red herring in the investigation of climate change." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

[lets-retire]

Maybe not.  Ford execs have said that they intend to continue to build large trucks and SUV's because thats what their customers want.

Basically the only time the CAFE went up is when the government mandated it, and it went up to the mandated level and then stopped.

So one could infer from this that unless gas gets a lot more expensive, people will still keep buying larger, less efficient vehicles and the car companies will keep making them, and the car companies will not bother to boost fuel economy unless forced to do so by the government.  Which I dont like, but it looks like thems the facts.

If Ford continues to make the F-150, but offers a hybrid version with comparable performance and 5-10 mpg more, I think many people will buy the hybrid even if it costs a couple thousand more. I also think many people who are lookin gfor new cars now are also considering fuel economy, becuase the quicik run up in fuel prices. If the prices had gone up slowly I don't believe the consumers would consider the fuel economy.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Not the way its worked in the past. We've had a number of sharp upward price hikes, some of which stuck. People just adapt.

I'm sure theres a price point somewhere where people start taking it seriously and change their buying habits accordingly. When surveyed, people used to say it was three bucks. I didnt believe them then, and I dont believe them now. I'm thinking short term its five bucks.

Hybrids are still costing more than a few grand extra; even with subsidies and tax breaks you're still looking at a 5-10 year break even for most current hybrid products with average driving. And then the hybrid drivers discover they have to change their driving habits to "keep the green light on" to get the stated hybrids gas mileage. I'm gonna slap down five bucks that says if they put a 'green light' in the car they own now and drive it to suit that most cars close up that gap between their existing mileage and the hybrids savings with the higher costs factored in.

My new Honda has the green "eco" light that tells me when the engine is operating at peak efficiency. Its almost never on when I look at it, but easing up on the gas and driving more conservatively brings it on. I'm practicing.

By the way, by survey earlier this year more hybrid buyers were not buying to get higher mileage but to reduce pollution and their impact on the environment. Not sure if thats changed with somewhat higher gas prices as I havent seen a recent survey.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Hybrids are still costing more than a few grand extra; even with subsidies and tax breaks you're still looking at a 5-10 year break even for most current hybrid products with average driving.  And then the hybrid drivers discover they have to change their driving habits to "keep the green light on" to get the stated hybrids gas mileage.  I'm gonna slap down five bucks that says if they put a 'green light' in the car they own now and drive it to suit that most cars close up that gap between their existing mileage and the hybrids savings with the higher costs factored in.

Varies alot. I have a 2006 Prius. There is definitely a learning curve in terms of driving technique, but 80% of the benefit comes just from minimizing brake use - big following distance, coasting rather than on-and-off braking, mild acceleration, staying near the speed limit, etc.

I have a mixed commute of 75% interstate with heavy traffic and city streets. I reliably get 52-62 mpg, and pay attention to technique. Warm climate down here helps alot. Bought it as gadget (I'm a gadget freak) but have learned to really respect the machine. As far as driving goes, it is competent but uninspiring - just a decent commuter.

With those numbers, I will break even at about 3 years with gas near the $3 mark. And I get a $3400 fed tax credit (not just a deduction) this year only - break even sooner if I threw that in, too). So for me it turns out to be a good deal, at least so far.

 

[brewer12345]

With those numbers, I will break even at about 3 years with gas near the $3 mark. And I get a $3400 fed tax credit (not just a deduction) this year only - break even sooner if I threw that in, too). So for me it turns out to be a good deal, at least so far.

I'm listening to hear what reliability and long term maintenance headaches turn out to be for hybrids. Assuming experience is favorable, I will definately be in the market for a hybrid for my next vehicle.

 

[Nords]

I have a mixed commute of 75% interstate with heavy traffic and city streets.

Rich, do you find that your battery does most of the work or does your engine run more often on these commutes?

Has Toyota told you whether they'll support plug-in batteries, or does the aftermarket offer a battery booster pack? I've read about a few doing it on their own* but I wonder about the payback.

Of course if I got a used Prius with an aftermarket battery pack I'd probably have a good excuse legitimate reason to put in another 5-6 KW of photovoltaic panels...


*On a different subject, how many of you gearheads can quote your hot car links from "The Economist"?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Rich - sounds like your driving style fits a hybrid, which is good news for you.

Read these
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,63413,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-02-03-hybridmileage_x.htm
http://autos.msn.com/advice/CRArt.aspx?contentid=4023460

You'll get a good idea why I chuckle when someone mentions EPA ratings, in particular the highway numbers, for comparing vehicles.

Like Brewer, I'm waiting to see if there are any other shoes to drop. Not to mention it'll be 6-8 years before I'm in the car buying market again...

 

[Nords]

Not to mention it'll be 6-8 years before I'm in the car buying market again...

Yeah, sure, what was the last interval-- 6-8 weeks?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Yeah, sure, what was the last interval-- 6-8 weeks?

Well lets see:
Expedition: 1999
Rav4: 2000

LS400: 2006
Pilot: 2006

Do the math!

And I am not kidding when I tell my wife that Gabe may very well be learning how to drive in that lexus. At the current mileage (~1400 in six months), it'll still be under 50k miles.

 

[Nords]

Well lets see:
Expedition: 1999
Rav4: 2000
LS400: 2006
Pilot: 2006
Do the math!

As other motorheads would say, it's not the speed-- it's the acceleration...

Our Taurus just rolled over 100K miles last week. We're driving about as much as your rate, so it'll be just 30 short years to 200K...

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Rich, do you find that your battery does most of the work or does your engine run more often on these commutes?

It's an instantaneous thing, varies almost second by second. There is a very cool display that shows where the energy is flowing at any point in real-time (internal combustion engine to electric motor to battery, etc.). Typically in bumper-to-bumper it's the motor, with the engine kicking in if the battery gets low. Engine cuts out completely at red lights (can be disconcerting - you think you stalled). On the highway, it's the combustion engine routinely, nothing when coasting or downhill, and you can "pulse drive" while cruising to maximize mileage (you coast and then feather the engine for brief periods) if you are really serious. If you just drive it like you would a traditional car you should easily average in the mid-40s for mixed driving, higher or lower in temperature extremes.

Has Toyota told you whether they'll support plug-in batteries, or does the aftermarket offer a battery booster pack? I've read about a few doing it on their own* but I wonder about the payback.

Only know that it's a third party add-on for now.

Battery warranty is for 8 years and the vehicle got high reliability rating so far over 3 years or so per Consumer Reports.

 

[Nords]

Engine cuts out completely at red lights (can be disconcerting - you think you stalled).

We have a local surfer who delights in sneaking his Prius up on people in the beach parking lot... until you hear his air conditioner kick in.

 

[Telly]

Somebody in our neighborhood bought a Prius recently.  For them, it is a "status" piece, for sure.

I've already noticed a Smug Cloud starting to gather overhead. One day there was another Prius parked in front of their house.  Made me think of the Park Ranger accosting the kid, and saying "It's all because of you and your gay little song!"   

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I believe those are slightly different models, the Toyota Pious.


And of course...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smug_Alert!

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

florida kicks in $250mm in home improvement grants...

The “Florida Comprehensive Hurricane Damage Mitigation Program” will offer free home inspections and matching grants up to $5,000 for specific home improvements to qualified homeowners

www.mysafefloridahome.com

 

[Andre1969]

I'm listening to hear what reliability and long term maintenance headaches turn out to be for hybrids. Assuming experience is favorable, I will definately be in the market for a hybrid for my next vehicle.

From what I've heard, hybrid technology is actually pretty reliable. I'm actually surprised, considering that just about every advance in automotive history has always come with teething problems in its earlier years of development. Things like automatic transmissions, air conditioning, overhead valve engines, higher-compression engines, the 4-speed overdrive automatics that started making the scene in the early 80's, front wheel drive, unit-body construction, fuel injection, emissions controls, electronic controls, etc. In their earlier years, these advances often added considerable complexity to the cars, ripe with opportunity to break down and add expense. So far the hybrids seem to have been pretty reliable.

Now down the road, as old used cars I'd imagine they won't be too feasible. I could imagine some $3000 part going bad on a Hybrid that doesn't even exist on a regular car. But then, that's the way it's always been. The catalytic converter on my uncle's '03 Corolla is going bad, and he's looking at at least $1000 to replace it. That's a part that might be $200 or less on an older, simpler car, or something that doesn't even exist on your typical pre-1975 car.

It's really not that hard or expensive to keep a 20+ year old car running, provided it's not something like a Jaguar, the bigger BMW's, a Rolls, etc. But I'd imagine that a 20 year old Prius, Insight, etc would be a money pit in waiting.