Member Since: 15 Apr 2005
Location: Dorset
Posts: 7454
nice one DG 2004 Discovery 3 - gone
2006 Discovery 3 - gone
2008 Discovery 3 GS - gone
2011 Freelander LE Special Edition - gone
2007 Discovery 3 XS - gone
2012 Discovery 4 GS - current
4th Feb 2007 5:00 pm
stapldm
Member Since: 11 Sep 2006
Location: Swine Town
Posts: 2330
OK let's see how much of my O-level chemistry has stayed with me since school (and never used since...)
Carbon dioxide is CO2, 2xOxygen and 1xCarbon atoms make one CO2 molecule.
1 mole = is a quantity of 6E23 (6 with 23 zeros after it)
Using the atomic weights from the Atomic table:
1 mole of Carbon atoms is 12 grammes
1 mole of Oxygen atoms is 16 grammes
This means one mole of CO2 is 12+(16x2) = 44 grammes, and ratio of weights is 3g carbon to 8g oxygen.
So for every 3 g of Carbon burnt to produce CO2, 8 g of oxygen is required.
Ok, Ok, I can now keep going round in circles doing this ad nauseum; it's still all utterly useless isn't it...
I'll wait for someone with a brain to explain the chemical reaction that occurs when diesel detonates Dr. Ian Malcolm:
"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
Transgenic tomato anyone?
Suck, squeeze, bang, blow. The basic principles of a four stroke engine.Arctic Frost RR Sport. TDV6 SE. Aspen Leather, Tow pack, PTI, Privacy Glass, Tasmods, Mudflaps & a RRSport umbrella in the boot.
_____________________________
4th Feb 2007 6:53 pm
Martin Site Admin and Owner
Member Since: 06 Nov 2004
Location: Hook Norton
Posts: 18468
Diesel combustion formula (assuming complete combustion):
For each 1 gram of CO2 produced, the mass of fuel required is found as follows:
Molecular weight (Mr) of CO2 = 44.01 grams per mole
Molecular weight (Mr) of diesel = 166.31 grams per mole
moles of CO2 = (mass of CO2 / Mr of CO2 ) = ( 1 / 44.01 ) = 0.022722.. moles
moles ratio of fuel/CO2 in the combustion equation = ( 8 / 96 ) = 1 / 12
moles of fuel = mole ratio x moles of CO2 = ( 1 / 12 ) x 0.022722.. = 0.0018935.. moles
mass of fuel = moles of fuel x Mr of fuel = 0.0018935.. x 166.31 = 0.314909.. grams
Therefore, by scaling up, 1 tonne of CO2 emitted requires ~315kg of diesel to be burnt, or 371 ish litres
NB: It's not quite as simple as this, since the combustion products, along with the 'inert' atmospheric nitrogen present, dissociate into a number of other chemicals including CO, NO, NO2 etc, so in fact more diesel is burnt for each gram of CO2 produced. However it's a good estimate 06 D3 SE / 15 LR D90 XS SW / 88 LR 90 Td5 / 68 BMW 2000 ti
Any issues with the site let me know!
Arctic Frost RR Sport. TDV6 SE. Aspen Leather, Tow pack, PTI, Privacy Glass, Tasmods, Mudflaps & a RRSport umbrella in the boot.
_____________________________
4th Feb 2007 7:06 pm
SN
Member Since: 03 Jan 2006
Location: Romiley
Posts: 13710
Someone's still a bit fresh out of the education system methinks? Steve N | 21MY Defender | 08MY Discovery 3 (history) | 06MY Discovery 3 (ancient history)
4th Feb 2007 7:47 pm
dlm3
Member Since: 24 Oct 2006
Location: League City, Tx
Posts: 54
Howdy all,
I promise not to get all prickly on this subject this time around - I was in a bad mood when the predecessor to this thread appeared and I can only apologize for being a bit excessive
In any case, I have no intention of complying with nonsensical popular trends, buying toyota priuses and the like in order to reduce my CO2 emissions. I like my D3 and as long as I can afford to put petrol in it, I intend to do so. And I sleep well at night. Why ? Read the following (among many others):
Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," [says Dr. Nir Shariv], particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist.
The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
There are plenty of others who are talking, but it's hard for them to make themselves heard above the din of the global warming hysteria. (interesting that lately they're calling it 'global climate change' - perhaps to hedge their bets if the weather gets colder ?)
I've read elsewhere that there was a warming trend, and it ended in 1998. The solar cycle waxes and wanes, and it was waxing up to that point. We're now on a downward trend, though the solar cycle has reached a minimum this year and may head upward over the next few before going down again.
Add to it that a typical volcano emits more than the annual output of every man, woman, child, cow, and automobile on the planet in a single eruption and you really must wonder what is really going on with the alarmists out there.
But as someone earlier pointed out, when politicians start talking about taxing you for CO2 emissions, what they're really doing is looking to stick their hand in your wallet for more cash to pay for their pet projects. This is just a convenient excuse. As the old saying goes in politics: "Follow the money."
4th Feb 2007 8:23 pm
BCP
Member Since: 25 May 2005
Location: East Scotland
Posts: 1464
No prickles sought nor entertained. There is much hysteria and evangelism on this subject however as nations ( and I note your home state) we must look to our energy usage and future use and security. Those of us who drive the D3 are being quite unfairly targeted by the one track current media hype on use. Note my comments in previous posts, most of this attack is a poorly veiled jealousy and dislike of other groups.
With regard to CO2 offsetting, I am keen to offer this to D3 members but I'll need to go off and check the practicalities (and speak to Martin). Perhaps we could draw this thread to a close and I'll get back to everyone in a week or so?
BCP
4th Feb 2007 8:53 pm
dlm3
Member Since: 24 Oct 2006
Location: League City, Tx
Posts: 54
BCP wrote:
There is much hysteria and evangelism on this subject however as nations ( and I note your home state) we must look to our energy usage and future use and security.
I'm no evangelist. I'm just a dumb engineer. But I read a lot, and am a fairly good observer.
I concur as far as security goes - feeding dictators and terrorists via petrodollars is a distressing problem, but energy usage and pricing is a slippery subject. Not to get obsessively technical, but if you allow the price of oil to float with supply and demand, alternate energy sources that become competitive with oil will supplant it.
When prices rise, people figure out ways to reduce their energy usage - including driving smaller cars and more efficient diesels, or even Toyota Priuses (which do not pay for themselves at the current price of petrol).
In any case, necessity breeds innovation. When you need it badly enough, someone will find a way (whatever "it" is). But not until the time is right.
After all, people have been trying to make a competitive electric car since the 1890s with no examples to date (the Tesla is interesting, but it's hardly competitive at $250K each, and it's tiny - not safe on pickup truck laden Texas highways!)
5th Feb 2007 4:52 am
zetecr
Member Since: 11 Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 64
dlm3 wrote:
I'm no evangelist. I'm just a dumb engineer. But I read a lot, and am a fairly good observer.
This is another dumb engineer speaking, but with a different view. I do agree there is a lot of misguided reporting and hype around, but when you concentrate on the science of it, there seems no doubt about the global changes that are taking place and what is causing it. To quote a single scientist against overwhelming scientific consensus and data is to stand on very shaky ground indeed.
The way I figure with my feeble brain, I see the whole concern has to with shifting the equilibrium point in a hugely complex feedback system (with both positive and negative feedback loops), and I have to say, people that believe the sheer scale of human activity would not significantly affect the various environmental cycles on earth has to be kidding themselves. The thing is that we do not understand the dynamics and intricacies of earth's climate and ecosystems, yet we dare to fiddle with it, and with increasing violence. Imagine placing a prehistoric man (or a woman... sorry, couldn't resist), who has no understanding of various feedback loops involved in driving, at the control of a Disco3 at speed - If he is to survive, he'd better leave the controls alone!
The concept of supply and demand is irrelevant in this debate because it is merely the means to run an efficient economy, and serves no purpose in us, as human race, making a decision about how we want to manage our affairs in light of new data.
The lads that reckon they run the free world ( Whoward, B Liar & Uncle Geo) reckon they have another reason to dip into our pockets.
TAX. Yes the boys have put their brain together ( a trilogy in no parts) and come up with more revenue.
They will get everyone they reckon. $1 a p^ss.
Sounds stupid. Is stupid. But no more stupid than 1/2 of the taxes (often hidden) we pay. Just another cashcow for Govt. Did you think I would leave you crying,
When there's room in my D3 for 7,
Climb in here Joe we'll soon be flying,
I can go just as fast with 7.
2005 TDV6 S with Terrain Response (& all that entails), Tasmods (gorn). 2008 TDV6 HSE (gone). A Dark Side umbrella (here) & car (here).
Member Since: 24 Oct 2006
Location: League City, Tx
Posts: 54
zetecr wrote:
This is another dumb engineer speaking, but with a different view. I do agree there is a lot of misguided reporting and hype around, but when you concentrate on the science of it, there seems no doubt about the global changes that are taking place and what is causing it. To quote a single scientist against overwhelming scientific consensus and data is to stand on very shaky ground indeed.
Oh? I may be a dumb engineer, but I am used to dealing with ill informed, willfully ignorant and even sometimes hostile audiences, particularly in public forums. I'm not given to making unsupportable claims. Nor did I in this instance.
I don't argue with your feedback system notion - that strikes me as a very accurate explanation of why we see hurricanes and the like, as the planet responds to disturbances. But human activity is tiny as compared to astronomical and volcanic events. (Look up the term Gamma Ray Burst and you'll see one of the easier ways to disinfect the Earth - as has happened before in geological history)
The guy whose article I quoted is only one of many - but unlike their colleagues who get government grants for spouting apocalyptic nonsense 'in need of further research [money]', astronomers and climatologists who discount the prevailing view are being threatened with losing grant money because they don't toe the line, and are ignored by the news media because they present a view that does not further the argument of the 'consensus'.
If the global warming theory can't explain facts that cast doubt upon it, the theory is rubbish.
Recall, for example, that global warming was going to make the Atlantic hurricane season of 2006 the worst on record. It was a dud. And did you know that the ice sheet in Greenland is thicker this year than was expected? Antarctica too. (I don't recall where I saw that one, but could dig it up if anyone cares)
Solar cycles are a well known, long observed phenomenon. There have been studies for many years that show changes in tree growth that correlate well to recorded solar flare activity. Similar effects show up in ice cores and other physical indicators. This is not new. It is well established, and yet is ignored in the popular press and the rhetoric of politiicians of a certain persuasion.
If a theory espoused is carried on by 'consensus' in spite of contradicting facts, there is one word that describes those who knowingly do so:
F R A U D
It'll take a few years, but the facts, and truth, do have a way of bubbling to the surface.
In the meantime, D3 owners should enjoy driving their rides without guilt, and if they want to plant a tree, by all means they should. After all, and as I've mentioned previously, trees are a great addition to the landscape and provide lots of useful shade.
And my sincere apologies to all for indulging in this completely divergent discussion.
6th Feb 2007 5:43 am
sideview
Member Since: 02 Dec 2006
Location: in the valley
Posts: 1663
I think that many on the forum would agree with you dlm! The point of this from my understanding is that the greenie's argument is SUVs are gas guzzling CO2 hogs blah blah. Although completely unfounded & inaccurate, it is becoming widely accepted as truth. The UK is really getting hit by this rubbish more so than stateside (sure it will trickle over here more ). By offsetting the CO2 we DO use, it dismisses the greenies argument.
I like the idea, with some good publicity about it & why, definitely won't stop the nonsense but it's a nice start in to the immediate problems...but can I have flowers planted instead? I'm not so good at giving advice...may I offer you a sarcastic comment instead?
Member Since: 11 Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 64
dlm3 wrote:
Oh? I may be a dumb engineer, but I am used to dealing with ill informed, willfully ignorant and even sometimes hostile audiences, particularly in public forums. I'm not given to making unsupportable claims. Nor did I in this instance.
My apologies as you seem to have taken this personally dlm3. My intention wasn't to attack a fellow d3 driver, but present a counterpoint.
As you pointed out, the thing about science and the Scientific Method is that it is self-correcting. When a theory is put forward, the task of other scientists is to make observations and devise methods and experiments to try and prove it wrong! The detractors of global warming has now had more than 10 years to prove it wrong, but the fact is that it has only gained ground against the scepticism of many governments and scientists, including I guess those you choose to quote. You posit this is due to government blackmail, but you only need to look at the situation in Australia, where our Prime Minister keeps dodging carbon trading schemes and carbon taxes (on the “valid†grounds that it would jeopardise Australia’s competitiveness), and still scientists speak up with concerns. I don’t think these guys are being paid by the government to speak… The truth really has been bubbling up to the surface for the last 10 years.
dlm3 wrote:
If the global warming theory can't explain facts that cast doubt upon it, the theory is rubbish.
Scientific theories often do not explain "all facts that cast doubt upon it". Your statement is akin to saying the theory of evolution should be thrown out because it can't yet explain how a complex structure like the eye could have evolved. (I’m hoping you are not a creationist). Theories undergo constant refinement and revision through further observations and experiments. Who knows? Perhaps both Global Warming and even Evolution may one day be proven wrong. But for now, the scientific consensus is that these theories best explain the observational data available. With theory of evolution, we can take our time to discuss and explore the truth. With global warming, IF it is correct, we don't have much time at all. I suggest it deserves the benefit of doubt.
6th Feb 2007 11:54 am
dlm3
Member Since: 24 Oct 2006
Location: League City, Tx
Posts: 54
Zetecr, I don't take offense, and I'm happy to have a rational conversation with another fellow D3 owner anytime, even on this subject (which I don't much like - I'd rather talk about Land Rovers) - but you did say I made an unsupportable argument, forcing me to go and back up my previous statements just for completeness.
Nevertheless, I'm not so dumb as to get into a creation vs. evolution argument - to whatever extent there is similarity, it is irrelevant to whether or not human-induced global warming theory and its purveyors are frauds and useful idiots.
There is strong evidence that global warming, to whatever extent it is occurring, is a natural phenomenon and thus out of the control of us mere humans. It is unquestionable that there are natural processes that occur with greater effect than all of human activity combined - Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines a few years back had a profound effect on global weather within days of its eruption. Even the worst predictions of the global warming crowd suggest that any change takes decades to develop, not weeks.
And it is also without question that warming has occurred before. Greenland was not so named because it was covered with ice and snow - but it obviously is not so warm today - and that is within recorded history. Where I live in coastal Texas was once submerged in an inland sea stretching from what is now Brownsville, Texas all the way to the Canadian border and from the Appalachian mountains to the Rockies - though this was more like forty million years ago and the temperatures were *much* warmer than they are today, or even those predicted in the most pessimistic fantasies of the global warming crowd.
The link between human activity and any observable climate change is weak at best, and its supporters have yet to prove a word of it - you can't prove what you cannot test. At most they make hand-waving arguments in highly touted conference reports based on unvalidated computer models and cherry-picked data. And even there, deeper inspection into these conference reports often reveals significant disagreement in the climatology community -but that rarely, if ever, reaches the executive summary (for financial reasons) or the nightly news. Complicating things further, some semi-retired politicians and Hollywood fabulists help produce popular - yet provably inaccurate - movies on the subject to throw up even more fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) in a population already pummeled with daily tragedy and despair in the news.
But the money and power that go with global warming theory are significant. There's a whole class of people who have pushed this nonsense and its many predecessors (freezes, famines, pestilence, floods, and pollution) for the last forty years. Their solutions are always (a) put them in charge; (b) get rid of cars; (c) tax wealthy nations and (d) don't ever question anything they say or do because their intentions are all for the common good.
My facts can stand the light of day. I don't have to believe that Greenland was once fertile, or Britain once had a small-but-thriving wine industry. There's written history. You can go look it up. I don't have to take it on faith that there was once an inland sea in North America - I've seen the remains of massive coral reefs from San Antonio to Albuquerque. And you don't have to do what I say, I don't want your hard-earned money, you're free to argue with me all you like, and I think Land Rovers are essential to life.
Ask yourself this: What if the greens are allowed to make the draconian changes they have planned ? And what if it turns out the earth warms up entirely because of solar activity anyway? (or as currently seems more likely, starts decreasing its activity resulting in a little ice age as happened in the 1700s) Do we just say "Oh Bu**er!" and go back to growing wine grapes in Scotland while we try to put back the broken pieces of the free world ?
Sorry. The 'protective principle' was enshrined as a means of using imagined global catastrophes to justify the public policy remedies of people whose political goals had more in common with Marx and Lenin than Adam Smith and John Locke.
Well-informed, free people have to choose their own direction. And by and large, left to their own devices and kept within some broad limits (like try not to harm/maim/kill one another), we as a species do OK. If global warming is real, we will figure out a way to make it work to our advantage (plants and trees love CO2 and warm climates, as do most of the world's population who live within the tropical zone around the equator) as we have done with every other change imposed upon us throughout human history.
We're a pretty ingenious species. We'll find solutions if and when the need arises.
In the meantime, I'm not going to worry about it much, except to stomp on FUD when I see it.
(I honestly didn't think I had anything more to say on this subject. Again, I apologize for wasting bandwidth on it.)
Oh, and Sideview - trees are often cited because they have large concentrations of leaves, but flowers, ferns, shrubs and grasses do too - anything that uses chlorophyll to convert CO2 into protein and energy - even weeds! It doesn't make that much difference in any case - Earth's oceans host the blue-green algae that is the world's primary processor of CO2 by many orders of magnitude. But flowers and plants are nice to look at and make the places we live more pleasant. I'm all for it.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
TAX. Yes the boys have put their brain together ( a trilogy in no parts) and come up with more revenue.
). By offsetting the CO2 we DO use, it dismisses the greenies argument.
