Comments on: The Weekly Carboholic: NE Pacific clouds observed to amplify warming http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/07/31/the-weekly-carboholic-ne-pacific-clouds/ Think. It ain't illegal yet... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:03:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Scholars and Rogues » The Weekly Carboholic: Climate disruption will disrupt volcanism too http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/07/31/the-weekly-carboholic-ne-pacific-clouds/comment-page-1/#comment-71762 Scholars and Rogues » The Weekly Carboholic: Climate disruption will disrupt volcanism too Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:32:30 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10570#comment-71762 [...] are always being improved with new understanding of how climate works (especially in two key areas, cloud and aerosol dynamics). But regional climate modeling is particularly difficult for two reasons: [...] [...] are always being improved with new understanding of how climate works (especially in two key areas, cloud and aerosol dynamics). But regional climate modeling is particularly difficult for two reasons: [...]

]]> By: Russ Wellen http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/07/31/the-weekly-carboholic-ne-pacific-clouds/comment-page-1/#comment-69606 Russ Wellen Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:55:57 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10570#comment-69606 That's wild about the clouds. Had no idea. As for the Model T's, I'm down with them. That’s wild about the clouds. Had no idea. As for the Model T’s, I’m down with them.

]]> By: Brian Angliss http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/07/31/the-weekly-carboholic-ne-pacific-clouds/comment-page-1/#comment-69601 Brian Angliss Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:08:16 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10570#comment-69601 I've got no problem requiring SUVs to have the same efficiency requirements as passenger cars. It would drive most of them off the road if phased in faster than 5 or 10 years, but I don't inherently have a problem with that either. We have the technology to make 100 mpg cars today via dramatic reductions in weight. The problem is proving that a carbon fiber and epoxy frame and body panels are safe when hit by a two ton truck. I keep hoping that's what will come out of the Automotive X-Prize. I’ve got no problem requiring SUVs to have the same efficiency requirements as passenger cars. It would drive most of them off the road if phased in faster than 5 or 10 years, but I don’t inherently have a problem with that either.

We have the technology to make 100 mpg cars today via dramatic reductions in weight. The problem is proving that a carbon fiber and epoxy frame and body panels are safe when hit by a two ton truck. I keep hoping that’s what will come out of the Automotive X-Prize.

]]> By: Lex http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/07/31/the-weekly-carboholic-ne-pacific-clouds/comment-page-1/#comment-69600 Lex Sat, 01 Aug 2009 14:45:25 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10570#comment-69600 Of course you couldn't barrel down the highway at 80 mph cocooned in 4000lbs of metal and plastic, protected by 17 airbags while your kids watched two different movies in the back with the air conditioner running alongside the heated driver seat to keep dad from getting too cold and everyone having three cupholders in a model T. I see the scientific point about a small gain at the low end being bigger than a small gain at the high end. But our lack of gain in efficiency is related more to consumer choice and federally mandated safety requirements than engineering. My point is that if we must have SUV's on the road, then they should be held to the same efficiency standards as passenger cars...because that's what people use them as. Especially considering how safe a passenger car needs to protect the occupants in a car-SUV collision. (That's why you can't hang your elbow out the window of most new cars; the sill has been raised to SUV bumper height.) Of course you couldn’t barrel down the highway at 80 mph cocooned in 4000lbs of metal and plastic, protected by 17 airbags while your kids watched two different movies in the back with the air conditioner running alongside the heated driver seat to keep dad from getting too cold and everyone having three cupholders in a model T.

I see the scientific point about a small gain at the low end being bigger than a small gain at the high end. But our lack of gain in efficiency is related more to consumer choice and federally mandated safety requirements than engineering.

My point is that if we must have SUV’s on the road, then they should be held to the same efficiency standards as passenger cars…because that’s what people use them as. Especially considering how safe a passenger car needs to protect the occupants in a car-SUV collision. (That’s why you can’t hang your elbow out the window of most new cars; the sill has been raised to SUV bumper height.)

]]>