Lexus IS Forum banner

21 - 40 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,515 Posts
Well, are you aware that we have drastically cut the total effect of car pollution since the Clean Air Act of 1970? Do you realize that ULEV is now the benchmark for CARB? With this certification the reduction of pollutants only continues to reduce the pollution even when considering the mass gains in added traffic. You give barkeaters a bad name.
Passenger car emissions reductions HC CO NOx

Transitional Low-Emission Vehicle(TLEV) 50% = =
Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) 70% = 50%
Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle (ULEV) 85% 50% 50%
Super-Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle (SULEV) 96% 70% 95%
Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEV) 100% 100% 100%

Hydrocarbons and Nitric Oxide ABSOLUTELY constitute greenhouse gases.
Do yourself and rightwingers a favor and do some research before you start with your politcally correct rhetoric.

Originally posted by ckolsen:
MD, that's not likely that Volvo's can convert CO2 to O2, that's a complex and expensive reaction to produce, basically impossible in a car.
Of course the IS300 is better than a lot of these stupid SUVs, but not much better.

[This message has been edited by brad (edited September 06, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by brad (edited September 06, 2000).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
While the original post had good intentions, it is quite misinformed. Brad summed it up best in explaining the difference between the TLEV, LEV, ULEV, etc ratings. There is nothing wrong with wanting cars to be environmentally friendly. I rip the eco-terrorists I work with on a daily basis. They want to get rid of cars completely. Yeah, I know that will never happen, but it doesn't stop me from pointing out the error of their ways. A balance can be struck between the environment and the existence of the automobile. A little perspective here, is indeed, in order.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
Brad, those reductions are in CO, Hydrocarbons (methane) and NOx, not CO2, which is the biggest contributor to global warming.

Greenhouse gas composition (1996):
CO2 = 85.6% (84% from fossil fuel combustion)
Methane = 10.1%
HFCs, CFCs, SF6 = 2.4%
NOx = 1.9%

Note: CO is not a greenhouse gas because it is too volatile.

ULEV etc. have drastically reduced the production of dangerous gases like CO and NOx, but CO2 is a byproduct of combustion and cannot be significantly reduced. Unlike CO, CO2 cannot be scrubbed out of exhausts from cars or industrial machinery. I don't blame you for not knowing this, the car and oil companies don't want us to know.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
Even if you guys hate environmentalists (or anyone who raises a legitimate concern about something that affects all of us), you should at least know enough basic chemistry to be able to debate the subject, before calling me misinformed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,515 Posts
You know damn well that water vapor and clouds are the biggest absorbers of Infra-red radiation, not CO2. And I bet you don't like to talk about how ground temperatures don't match satellite temperatures or the fact that much of the observed temperature increase during the past century occurred before the rise in greenhouse gases. These are the things that people like you don't tell the general public. There are two extremes on this theory, and it IS a theory, but it pisses me off when either side dupes the public by presenting selected studies as facts.

Originally posted by ckolsen:
Brad, those reductions are in CO, Hydrocarbons (methane) and NOx, not CO2, which is the biggest contributor to global warming.

Greenhouse gas composition (1996):
CO2 = 85.6% (84% from fossil fuel combustion)
Methane = 10.1%
HFCs, CFCs, SF6 = 2.4%
NOx = 1.9%

Note: CO is not a greenhouse gas because it is too volatile.

ULEV etc. have drastically reduced the production of dangerous gases like CO and NOx, but CO2 is a byproduct of combustion and cannot be significantly reduced. Unlike CO, CO2 cannot be scrubbed out of exhausts from cars or industrial machinery. I don't blame you for not knowing this, the car and oil companies don't want us to know.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
Discussion Starter #28
Global warming is of course a theory just like relativity and evolution. Hopefully the theory is wrong, and the oil companies and car companies are right, but if I'm right, we're screwed, so it's a lot more risky to do nothing. If we make a major effort to reduce greenhouse gases, and it turns out it wasn't necessary, that would be a waste of a lot of money and effort. But if we do nothing, and it turns out the ice caps melt or something, the human race would be in big trouble. I'm not worried about some sea squid or something, I'm worried about us. I like seafood.

Originally posted by brad:
You know damn well that water vapor and clouds are the biggest absorbers of Infra-red radiation, not CO2. And I bet you don't like to talk about how ground temperatures don't match satellite temperatures or the fact that much of the observed temperature increase during the past century occurred before the rise in greenhouse gases. These are the things that people like you don't tell the general public. There are two extremes on this theory, and it IS a theory, but it pisses me off when either side dupes the public by presenting selected studies as facts.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,250 Posts
how the hell brad, do you knwo all this :p i guess taht's waht happens from acquiring a lifetime of knowledge/research, i shoul ddo taht sometime =)
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
Discussion Starter #30
I don't get your point brad, are you saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? I don't know what you're talking about with the ground vs satellite measurements either, please explain. I refuted your emissions data, are you afraid to post any more data?
The temperature rises of concern to independent (non-oil funded) scientists are the (debatable) 1-2 degree average rise since 1959. In geological terms, the Earth's average temperature rises at most 1-2 degrees per thousand years, now it's changing at 10 times that rate. We HAVE had such rapid temperature change in the Earth's history, but it was at times such as when the massive meteor or comet strike hit and (another theory) wiped out the dinosaurs. People like you are a lot more dangerous than me, because YOU can't afford to be wrong.

Originally posted by brad:
You know damn well that water vapor and clouds are the biggest absorbers of Infra-red radiation, not CO2. And I bet you don't like to talk about how ground temperatures don't match satellite temperatures or the fact that much of the observed temperature increase during the past century occurred before the rise in greenhouse gases. These are the things that people like you don't tell the general public. There are two extremes on this theory, and it IS a theory, but it pisses me off when either side dupes the public by presenting selected studies as facts.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
Oh, that's clever, I never expected that response. At least someone else said "get a bicycle", that's at least funny.
Hopefully Lexus will figure out what's wrong with the car and improve the gas mileage (20/28 would be seem reasonable for a 3.0L). Then people like me who want high performance without spitting in the face of environmental concerns can buy the car.

Originally posted by HapaHaole:
GO and get a Toyota Prius or a Honda Insight. Then you should feel better @ 50MPG on average
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,515 Posts
ckol, you're doing it again...you're making the assumption that CO2 is the biggest contributor to global warming. We have no proof so don't present it as fact. I NEVER advised against researching this theory, ding dong. I have a problem with people from either side presenting selected, refutable studies as facts.
You refuted nothing in my emissions comment. LEV cuts down greenhouse gas emissions. Next, the scientists majically have no explanation for why the satellite temperatures have remained constant while the ground temperatures have been higher over the last one hundred years. As a layman I even know that cities such as Atlanta have recently faced significant changes in temperature due to poor planning (too much concrete and not enough strategic placement of foliage). But your side doesn't like to talk about concrete.
And finally, people like you are more dangerous than I because I have made no assumptions and embrace further, unbiased studies. You, my friend, have made your decision about global warming before all the facts have surfaced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Originally posted by ckolsen:
The temperature rises of concern to independent (non-oil funded) scientists are the (debatable) 1-2 degree average rise since 1959. In geological terms, the Earth's average temperature rises at most 1-2 degrees per thousand years, now it's changing at 10 times that rate. We HAVE had such rapid temperature change in the Earth's history, but it was at times such as when the massive meteor or comet strike hit and (another theory) wiped out the dinosaurs. People like you are a lot more dangerous than me, because YOU can't afford to be wrong.
75% of the 1.1 degree temperature rise came BEFORE the industrial revolution. This is a big reason why a lot of people don't buy into the global warming theory. The rapid temperature rises and decreases of the past are NOT only because of traumatic events such as a meteor... they are believed by many scientists to be NATURALLY occurring. We may be in another temp rising cycle right now... or it could be global warming. I don't see the point in believing something such as global warming to be fact "just to be safe".

Answer some questions for me:
1) If cars and greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming, then why did so much of the temp increase come before their existance?
2) If the amount of CO2 being spewed into the air is increasing, due to an increasing number of cars, then why did Los Angeles just have a recent summer without one single level 1 smog alert?? This is the first time that has happened in 50 YEARS! I think we can all agree that there are NOT fewer cars in LA now, than 50 years ago.

This is why I believe that a balance can be struck. Cars aren't the only thing that pollute. The level of pollution of a car is amazingly low. Engines in lawn mowers, snowmobiles and jet-skis put out hundreds of times the pollution of a typical car engine despite their vastly smaller size. The auto manufacturers are doing A LOT to control emissions. Sure, they could do more, but tell me anyone else that is doing as much as the auto industry?

And the reason the IS gets such crappy gas mileage is gearing!! DUH! It is no more or less efficient in terms of emissions than anything else in it's class.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
ckolsen,
I have an IS300 and I also planted a tree in my back yard. All my grass is dead so I don't have to mow the lawn. I just drive my IS300 onto my yard.

is that good enough for being environmentally friendly.

Actually it's no my yard, it's an abandon lot by my crack house.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,515 Posts
Clam, there's also a whole bunch of useless crap in my head. Watch out, you'll start collecting these useless items as well! Well, at least some of it's useful.

Originally posted by mrclam:
how the hell brad, do you knwo all this :p i guess taht's waht happens from acquiring a lifetime of knowledge/research, i shoul ddo taht sometime =)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,902 Posts
I thought my bike comment was funny too...Bubba what the hell are you making the IS 300 into a Yard Car? Do you have it next to the Dough Boy pool or something? Please park that bad boy in the drive way and make a drought tolerant garden.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
Discussion Starter #38
You're too much brad, you say my information is from selected refutable studies when I didn't even quote a source. Are you clairvoyant? You probably think the moon's made of cheese because astronauts only brought back a few 'selected' rocks.

[This message has been edited by ckolsen (edited September 07, 2000).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,515 Posts
ckoli, excuse me. I jumped the gun and assumed you were not part of an assembled research team that drew the conclusions and assumptions you penned earlier in this post. You're too much, dude. You pick and choose the information you wish to disperse while not looking at the entire set of data. Then when you get caught you resort to semantics and false correlations. Geez, such sloppiness and emotion from an engineer. Tsk, tsk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
brad and ckolsen
I have a couple guns laying around..
You two can borrow them and settle this in my yard....just please avoid my IS300.

Or we can all play in my Dough Boy pool...agent smith already has fist dips though.
 
21 - 40 of 64 Posts
Top