Many people drive and unless you are one of the "lucky" few who uses coal to heat up the boiler on your 1923 Stanley Steam car than you probably use petroleum distillate, better known as gasoline or diesel.
Unfortunately burning these fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, around 6 pounds of it per gallon of fuel. Try to stay with me as I go through the math, 25G fuel tank * 6lbs per gallon= Erratic weather patterns and an unhappy enviroment (and 150lbs of CO2)
We can help the Earth out if use this fuel efficiently. There is a way to drive to increase your MPGs drastically. How drastically? I have personally gotten a Ford Excursion to go from 8-9 MPG City to 19-23 MPG City. That's almost a 300% improvement! There are no modifications needed to your vehicle, BUT a vacuum guage is a helpful learning tool, plus they look cool and give the impression that you know what your doing and we can all use that.
Disclaimer: I don't take any responsibility to any harm done to yourself or your vehicle. I have done and performed the following operations daily. They are safe.
Unfortunately burning these fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, around 6 pounds of it per gallon of fuel. Try to stay with me as I go through the math, 25G fuel tank * 6lbs per gallon= Erratic weather patterns and an unhappy enviroment (and 150lbs of CO2)
We can help the Earth out if use this fuel efficiently. There is a way to drive to increase your MPGs drastically. How drastically? I have personally gotten a Ford Excursion to go from 8-9 MPG City to 19-23 MPG City. That's almost a 300% improvement! There are no modifications needed to your vehicle, BUT a vacuum guage is a helpful learning tool, plus they look cool and give the impression that you know what your doing and we can all use that.
Disclaimer: I don't take any responsibility to any harm done to yourself or your vehicle. I have done and performed the following operations daily. They are safe.
Remove these ads by
Signing UpStep 1: Essentials
For this to work you'll need a few things:
Vehicle with an operational engine
Vacuum Gauge (Highly recommended)
Willingness to learn (this is no problem with the instructables crowd)
This method works for Electronic Fuel Injected and Carburetor engines. Also with Automatic and Standard transmissions.
Vehicle with an operational engine
Vacuum Gauge (Highly recommended)
Willingness to learn (this is no problem with the instructables crowd)
This method works for Electronic Fuel Injected and Carburetor engines. Also with Automatic and Standard transmissions.
Visit Our Store »
Go Pro Today »
Do you have anything besides anecdotal evidence to share? If so, that's something that would add a lot to this discussion. If not, that's okay too.
Since owning the car for 80K miles, I have been putting it in neutral when going downhill on steep hills in order to save money on gas.
I figured that I could save some gas money and get higher MPG if I shifted my Automatic into neutral, and coasted downhill, and then shifted back into gear when I reached the bottom of the hill.
Needless to say, after doing this for 6 years or so, my transmission started to smoke and slip out of gear, and then it quickly and unexpectedly died in the middle of no where, to my shock and surprise!
Coasting downhill in neutral and then shifting back into gear destroyed my Torque converter, and so the entire transmission had to be replaced.
Take it from someone who knows better now- NEVER take your car out of gear for any reason. NEVER coast downhill to try to save money, because you won't.
In a silly attempt to save a few dollars on gas, I ended up spending a whopping $3500 dollars on a new transmission.
Spending $3500 dollars to save $10 doesn't make any sense, so take it from me- don't do it. Keep your transmission in gear at all times no matter what.
and can hit weaken the flywheel I personally haven't had a prob but just to forworn you
i would like to get the mpg up on my nissan x-trail turbo diesel.
thanks.
p.s how easy is it to fit vacuum gauges.
I found a pic of the monster. http://www.montemania.com/images/nosgenuinegmparts/Cluster%20fuel%20econ%2075-77.jpg
Reason is that as your car coasts in drive the computer turns off the fuel system and continues to run the car(climate control, alt, especially the power steering, ect.) using the forward motion of the car. if you switch into neutral then the car is still using gas to power these things. and as most people who know about mpg saving strategies know that if you idle for more then 10 seconds then its usually more efficient to turn your car off...well imagine either coasting using no gas for 10 seconds or coasting using whatever amount of gas needed for idle!
Many of you are probably too young to remember that back in the 1970s global cooling was "the biggest threat to mankind". BBC ran documentaries and Lowell Ponte in 1976 even wrote " It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,". Sound familiar?
If you were serious about fighting global warming you would go vegan (I've been vegan for 6 years, its not hard). Unless you are vegan, you are a total hypocrite. Cattle farming is the number 1 cause of deforestation. Forests eat C02 remember? Plus, the livestock industry creates more C02 than all human activity combined (as does plant decay, oceans and volcanoes). How about we all stop wasting our time and billions of dollars (where do you think those billions are going? Here is a hint, into someones pocket) on "fighting" global warming, when even the by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's own numbers, the most we could possibly do would be to cut the c02 increase by a single digit %. Forests are being destroyed so that you can eat hamburgers. How about we do something about that? I don't think you even need a UN panel to tell you that: Forests=Good, Deforestation=Bad.
Many of the models used to study global warming are based on NASA's temperature data. NASA recently (and silently) corrected its data after someone found a Y2K bug. Turns out, the warmest year on record wasn't 1998 but 1934 and 1921 takes 3rd place. And if you look at the icecore samples that gore lied about, you will see that C02 raises hundreds of years after the global temp rises. And if you study botany you will learn that plants benefit from high c02 levels. Do you think SUVs are causing the ice caps on mars and the moons of Saturn to melt?
I noticed you updated your post, SHAME YOU DIDN'T CORRECT ALL THE ERRORS, UNTRUTHS AND FALLACIES. But then that would have seriously crippled your flimsy arguments!
If you must make posts on a scientific subject, then you should at least take care to get your facts right!
I note that while making a lot of WILD AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS, you offer NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE. PrisonPlanet is a biased POLITICAL RANT that PROMULGATES HALF TRUTHS, LIES AND MISINFORMATION. It is not a credible source of evidence for anything, except that there are some outrageous liars!
You have been clearly unable to fault my original answering post, (using science and facts).
Example
Quote
Al Gore's movie is so full of holes and fallacies..,
End quote
My challenge to you is: since you have claimed Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is so full of holes and fallacies, then you should SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIM and LIST EACH ONE and describe why you think it is a hole or a fallacy.
Failure to do so will show your claims are mere SMEARS AND HOT AIR, meaning that you were being less than truthful!
Your claims are fallacious, FALSE and WORTHLESS!
Fallacy
GW=Religion
Religion is a belief in an invisible god based upon an old book.
Climate change is not a religion, but a NASTY RUMOUR put about scientists who have OBSERVED the warming and scientifically PROVEN (unequivocally) by the acquisition of evidence, that the world is warming. The world is warming faster than any time seen in the paleoclimatic record.
Too much evidence to list! A quick search of Science Daily will provide much.
Scientists have also shown that:
CO2 and other gases are known to be infra-red active. This can be seen from satellites.
The isotopic ratio of fossil carbon is different from that of biogenic carbon.
The increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2 is growing in-line with anthropogenic emissions.
The origin of the excess CO2 is fossil-fuel emissions as demonstrated by the changing isotopic ratio of atmospheric carbon.
The increase in world temperatures can be explained almost entirely from the increase in atmospheric GHGs, of which, the most important is CO2.
The solar hypothesis, is still far from proven and at best its influence is likely to be small.
The evidence suggests that the probability of Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW is 90% or better.
Climate models (based upon the physical behaviour of the various components) confirm the above observations.
All of this is published in ISI peer-reviewed journals.
Of the scientists who deny AGW, most if not all have been in receipt of fossil-fuel sourced funds. Much of that originating from ExxonMobil. These scientists are primarily publishing their so-called science in the Wall Street Journal, NewsWeek and Energy & Environment.
Strangely, these scientists offer very little science.
All of this is readily confirmed: just google for it!
The scientific consensus is overwhelming and is important because of the overwhelming evidence!
Strangely, you claim that you have evidence to support your views, but you FEEL YOU HAVE TO KEEP IT SECRET.
One can only conclude the reason YOU CHOOSE TO WITHHOLD YOUR SO-CALLED EVIDENCE is because EITHER IT DOESN'T EXIST, or IT WOULDN'T STAND-UP TO SCRUTINY!
If you must believe the GW Bush book of science, dont foist it on everybody as if it's fact!
Wake up america!
Arrivederci!
Al Gore's â€An Inconvenient Truth†was pretty accurate. Yes there were some minor errors, but no exaggeration. This is another lie spread by those with a political agenda.
For a climatologist's view see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299
-
Your claim quote
The negative effects of the fight against global warming don't get any attention because the people who know its a lie wont tell you and you (people who believe in man made global warming) don't ever consider that something bad might come from restricting C02.
End quote
This is untrue on a number of levels.
Global Warming GW is not a religion, it is nasty rumour being put about by thousands of scientists who have observed that the climate is changing. It is an observed fact!
There is NOBODY who KNOWS GW is a lie! There maybe some people who CLAIM that it's a lie, but most, if not all of these are being funded by ExxonMobil and others to spread disinformation about the science of climate change.
-
Scientific institutions that state climate change is happening and is man-made.
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
-
There can be no doubt that stopping the availability of cheap energy are likely to have adverse effects upon our civilization. But in-part this due to the fact that ExxonMobil and the Bush Administration have encouraged lower fuel efficiencies in recent years. Whereas fuel efficiencies could be much higher.
Cheap energy has discouraged the development of low-energy technologies and renewable resources.
-
This was a scare caused by journalistic hype.
The 1970s global cooling was never part of a scientific consensus, in-fact the scientific understanding of climate was in its infancy. Comparing current scientific consensus and scientific understanding of climate with the state of the science and the hype about ice-ages of those times is much like likening chalk and cheese. To do so is incorrect and wholly misleading.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
-
Misleading claim
quote
the livestock industry creates more C02 than all human activity combined (as does plant decay, oceans and volcanoes).
End quote
These claims are completely wrong like the majority of your post, but I can't be bothered to debunk every bit of this rbubsih!
The IPCC state:
Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions increased from an average of 6.4 [6.0 to 6.8]5 GtC (23.5 [22.0 to 25.0] GtCO2) per year in the 1990s to 7.2 [6.9 to 7.5] GtC (26.4 [25.3 to 27.5] GtCO2) per year in 2000–2005 (2004 and 2005 data are interim estimates).
Carbon dioxide emissions associated with land-use change are estimated to be 1.6 [0.5 to 2.7] GtC (5.9 [1.8 to 9.9] GtCO2) per year over the 1990s, although these estimates have a large uncertainty.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
From this you can see that agriculture, which includes Livestock production is a fraction of the fossil-fuel carbon! Since the IPCC report only offers figures from the 1990s for both, the ratio of fossil carbon (or CO2) to Agricultural is 2.3:1, ranging from 12:1 to 2.5:1. Which is the reverse of your claim!
-
As for your claims that
quote
NASA recently (and silently) corrected its data after someone found a Y2K bug.
End quote
This is one small fact with a number of incorrect & misleading statements. While NASA made a correction when Stephen McIntyre identified a minor but real discontinuity in continental US surface station data, (average of + 0.15 Deg C), it was announced on the appropriate web page. While the error occurred in 2000, it was not Y2K related. This minor correction ONLY affects US surface weather station temperature data since 2000. It does not affect non-US temperature or satellite data or the overall temperature trends.
Your assertions about the warmest years and reordering of warmest years ONLY relates to the US, not world temperatures!
Actually, Gore told the truth about the ice-cores. While it's true that CO2 rises after temperatures increase, it is misleading to claim this disproves CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that it does not cause warming. That liberated CO2 causes further warming, which releases further CO2. Such a cycle last around 5000 years.
The greenhouse effect makes the earth much warmer than it would otherwise be which is good. However, by us greatly increasing atmospheric CO2 and adding to it daily in ever increasing amounts, we have triggered an enhanced greenhouse effect, which could be very bad. The CO2 we have added will continue to warm the planet (even if we stopped completely today!) for ~4200 years!
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
Caillon et al., 2003
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
As for your comment about other planets, I suggest you read some science, there are a number of mechanisms other than solar effects to explain observations seen on SOME of the other planets.
You appear to have been obtaining your information from highly unreliable sources, like PrisonPlanet!
Other highly unreliable & misleading sources are Michael Crichton's State of Fear – which has scientific pretences, but is entirely fictional – even the footnotes, which feature real individuals, but the science is flawed despite Crichton's misleading claims.
Carbon Dioxide, Global Warming, and Michael Crichton’s â€State of Fearâ€
http://math.nist.gov/~BRust/pubs/Interface2005/PrePrint.pdf
Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion II: Return of the Science
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76
Michael Crichton and Global Warming
The Brookings Institution, David B. Sandalow, Environment Scholar, Foreign Policy Studies
http://www.brookings.edu/printme.wbs?page=/crichtoncritique
Michael Crichton’s â€Scientific Method†- James Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf
Checking Crichton's footnotes
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes
Channel Four's TV so-called documentary - The Great Global Warming Swindle viewers were swindled, they were lied to about the science, by the scientists and the programme makers. One of the scientists involved – Carl Wunsch was misled about the nature of the programme and his statements selectively edited to mislead the viewer.
There are numerous TGGWS debunkings, but try these:
For an interesting interview with Martin Durkin revealing his deceit.
http://www.desmogblog.com/video-abc-australias-tony-jones-dissects-debunks-martin-durkin
alternatively
http://www.desmogblog.com/jones-dissects-durkin
For an extensive debunking of TGGWS, try:
http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/globalwarmingswindle/
http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warming_Swindle.pdf
http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/
You might find it worth consulting the work of independent climatologists about the climate!
Examples are the IPCC, www.realclimate.org, www.skepticalscience.com
You would be well advised to seek climate information from people who are not paid by the fossil-fuel industry to lie, dissemble and deceive the public about the effects of burning fossil-fuels on the climate and environment!
As a start, I suggest that statements concerning climate change, CO2 emissions and similar subjects by any person featured in the following documents should be regarded as unreliable and treated with a great deal of scepticism. See Table 2 & 3 & Endnote 95.
Select ExxonMobil-Funded Organizations Providing Disinformation on Global Warming. See Table 1. Note: This is not a complete list!
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Big coal using industry pays climate scientist to deny man-made climate change
http://www.realclimate.org/irea_letterJul06.pdf
See www.Exxonsectrets.org (GreenPeace) on ExxonMobil's disinformation campaign.