Scientists say they have proved clima...

Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus...

There are 8138 comments on the Hartford Courant story from Dec 9, 2008, titled Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus.... In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth's climate say they have completed one crucial task - proving beyond a doubt that global warming is real.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

PHD

Cibolo, TX

#7375 Dec 18, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh-huh, I see. "..you should not post if you only say I,I,I. Now include you, you, you." Good luck with that.
Theoretically lowering the Heisenberg limit does not directly translate to higher efficiency in matter waves stimulating electron flow. The Laws of Thermodynamics are not on the Supreme Court docket. Soon? The US went from Kitty Hawk to the moon in 60 years, and from the moon to earthbound in 40. ASTONISHINGLY, in a mere 104 years we've gone from the Model T running on gasoline(!) to the Veyron running on - gasoline. Efficiency might improve, but the fundamentals remain.
To the Tesla X. You can post in any fashion in this Great Country called the USA. The point is change is all around you and like most are afraid of change. Ask Einstein.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7376 Dec 18, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>To the Tesla X. You can post in any fashion in this Great Country called the USA. The point is change is all around you and like most are afraid of change. Ask Einstein.
Time is change, and it would be silly to be afraid of it. Remember all the great inventions of the 70's-80's that were supposed to give great gas mileage? Magnets around fuel lines and spark boosters on distributor caps? There are people who fell for them and it's not MY fault I wasn't one of them. The latest and greatest will be an antique next year. Some of them - like a brick cellphone will be a pioneer device, and some of them will be destined to be nothing more than a curious footnote. Disagree just to disagree?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#7377 Dec 18, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Time is change, and it would be silly to be afraid of it. Remember all the great inventions of the 70's-80's that were supposed to give great gas mileage? Magnets around fuel lines and spark boosters on distributor caps? There are people who fell for them and it's not MY fault I wasn't one of them. The latest and greatest will be an antique next year. Some of them - like a brick cellphone will be a pioneer device, and some of them will be destined to be nothing more than a curious footnote. Disagree just to disagree?
Deny just deny. Speaking of the 70's if youíre old enough to remember there was an Opel GT built in a back yard garage that ran 179 mpg until one of the Big Three purchased it and crushed it. If youíre interested in that Ford Edison relationships do visit the old power house Ford built and you will see some of Edisonís work.Agree just agree?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7378 Dec 18, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Deny just deny. Speaking of the 70's if youíre old enough to remember there was an Opel GT built in a back yard garage that ran 179 mpg until one of the Big Three purchased it and crushed it. If youíre interested in that Ford Edison relationships do visit the old power house Ford built and you will see some of Edisonís work.Agree just agree?
Thanks, I'll take you up on that with a slight modification
Evaluate just evaluate.
I don't remember the Opal GT, but I recall when MIT students built a 50 mpg Pinto(Vega?) using off the shelf parts, and there was a guy that told Mike Douglas that he had a way of making NH3 fuel using solar power...don't know what happened to him.
Been to Deerborn and Ft. Meyers... not to Menlo Park.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7379 Dec 18, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>To the Tesla X. You can post in any fashion in this Great Country called the USA. The point is change is all around you and like most are afraid of change. Ask Einstein.
Whatcha think about swing piston engines as in the MYT? Seems like the connecting arm seals and centrifugal wear would be a little problematic?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#7380 Dec 18, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, I'll take you up on that with a slight modification
Evaluate just evaluate.
I don't remember the Opal GT, but I recall when MIT students built a 50 mpg Pinto(Vega?) using off the shelf parts, and there was a guy that told Mike Douglas that he had a way of making NH3 fuel using solar power...don't know what happened to him.
Been to Deerborn and Ft. Meyers... not to Menlo Park.
Sorry that power house was in Dearborn not Ft. Myers I referenced. Not sure about the Pinto or Vega will research the archives of my library. NH3 the issue if it is green house gas.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#7381 Dec 18, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatcha think about swing piston engines as in the MYT? Seems like the connecting arm seals and centrifugal wear would be a little problematic?
Not versed on the swing piston engine but a good subject to study. At this time I would have to agree with your observation/study.
litesong

Everett, WA

#7382 Dec 18, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
Whatcha think about swing piston engines as in the MYT?
For a present tech engine, used in much of the world, what do you think of Ford introducing the 3-cylinder one liter Eco-Boost turbo engined Fiesta to the U.S.? Being a small car person, I think its worth a try. However, Chevy already has the tiny 1.4 liter 4-cylinder turbo in the fairly heavy 3000+ pound Cruze, getting 42 mpg. Real-world mpg feather footers are getting 50+mpg on the highway.

I would hope the Ford Fiesta gets 45-50mpg EPA on the highway, altho the low end of the spread might be most realistic. Its too bad the Hyundai Elantra took a 2mpg EPA cut recently. Love the looks of the Elantra. However, the ugly Nissan Versa sedan with CVT transmission got a 2mpg boost, just playing with the computer.

Love CVT transmissions. Looks like the Honda has a very responsive CVT in their new Accord!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#7383 Dec 18, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatcha think about swing piston engines as in the MYT? Seems like the connecting arm seals and centrifugal wear would be a little problematic?
Perhaps the next breakthrough will be micro turbines married to an electric hybrid. This gets around many of the problems encountered with direct drive turbines in automobiles.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#7384 Dec 19, 2012
Three cylinder old school renewed. Get a bike litesout and peddle your way around your eternal pessimistic attitude.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7385 Dec 19, 2012
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
For a present tech engine, used in much of the world, what do you think of Ford introducing the 3-cylinder one liter Eco-Boost turbo engined Fiesta to the U.S.? Being a small car person, I think its worth a try. However, Chevy already has the tiny 1.4 liter 4-cylinder turbo in the fairly heavy 3000+ pound Cruze, getting 42 mpg. Real-world mpg feather footers are getting 50+mpg on the highway.
I would hope the Ford Fiesta gets 45-50mpg EPA on the highway, altho the low end of the spread might be most realistic. Its too bad the Hyundai Elantra took a 2mpg EPA cut recently. Love the looks of the Elantra. However, the ugly Nissan Versa sedan with CVT transmission got a 2mpg boost, just playing with the computer.
Love CVT transmissions. Looks like the Honda has a very responsive CVT in their new Accord!
Rational or not, I have to admit to being a bit of a nationalist, so my opinion skews toward the Fiesta. It has a decent safety rating - which I find vital, since the crumple zones are tiny with sub compacts. A huge chunk of fuel efficiency does revolve around driving habits, regardless of the drive train.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#7386 Dec 19, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Rational or not, I have to admit to being a bit of a nationalist, so my opinion skews toward the Fiesta. It has a decent safety rating - which I find vital, since the crumple zones are tiny with sub compacts. A huge chunk of fuel efficiency does revolve around driving habits, regardless of the drive train.
The Eco-Boost engines are marvels of technology. Most people don't need V-8 or even V-6 power. What they require is 0-60 acceleration and excellent fuel economy. Much of today's upper end power is simply wasted and of no use for commuters.

Except for those applications requiring towing power, I see the V-8 engine as a dying power-plant. Even Jeep is producing a small-block, direct injection diesel engine for its Grand Cherokee next year.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7387 Dec 19, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps the next breakthrough will be micro turbines married to an electric hybrid. This gets around many of the problems encountered with direct drive turbines in automobiles.
It isn't only the torque band that is an issue with attempts at using turbines in cars, it's also operating temperatures and noise. It's going to remain a concept for awhile longer. A lot of (if not most) hybrids are already using Atkinson cycle engines, which are fairly efficient for the job. The trick isn't to find a different engine, but a better one.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7388 Dec 19, 2012
DillinghamLawFirm wrote:
<quoted text>
The Eco-Boost engines are marvels of technology. Most people don't need V-8 or even V-6 power. What they require is 0-60 acceleration and excellent fuel economy. Much of today's upper end power is simply wasted and of no use for commuters.
Except for those applications requiring towing power, I see the V-8 engine as a dying power-plant. Even Jeep is producing a small-block, direct injection diesel engine for its Grand Cherokee next year.
I agree with your assessment that the power train needs to be balanced to the needs of the vehicle, and the vehicle should be tailored to its usage.
However, marvel of technology? Granted, the Eco-Boost is more efficient than others, but it's still the same basic technology we've been using for decades.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#7389 Dec 19, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your assessment that the power train needs to be balanced to the needs of the vehicle, and the vehicle should be tailored to its usage.
However, marvel of technology? Granted, the Eco-Boost is more efficient than others, but it's still the same basic technology we've been using for decades.
It is, though, a quantum leap forward. It produces more usable power than many older V-8 engines and is far more efficient. Witness even the V-6 power-plant in the new Mustangs: More power and far more fuel economy than many of the old GTs and Cobras. My first car was a 1968 Firebird with a 400 HP engine. It was a heavy, fuel-sucking monster. It could burn my rear 50s, but it only got 12 MPG, and it could pass almost anything but a gas station. It was also unreliable and unsafe by today's standards. The new V-6 Mustang would eat its lunch.

If I wanted my 1968 back, then I'd buy a 2013 Camaro. Same basic style and all of today's benefits. We need improvements, but they continue to come.

Now, create an all-electric Corvette--the fabled "Cor-Volt"--and I'm standing in line for the convertible model.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#7390 Dec 19, 2012
DillinghamLawFirm wrote:
<quoted text>
It is, though, a quantum leap forward. It produces more usable power than many older V-8 engines and is far more efficient. Witness even the V-6 power-plant in the new Mustangs: More power and far more fuel economy than many of the old GTs and Cobras. My first car was a 1968 Firebird with a 400 HP engine. It was a heavy, fuel-sucking monster. It could burn my rear 50s, but it only got 12 MPG, and it could pass almost anything but a gas station. It was also unreliable and unsafe by today's standards. The new V-6 Mustang would eat its lunch.
If I wanted my 1968 back, then I'd buy a 2013 Camaro. Same basic style and all of today's benefits. We need improvements, but they continue to come.
Now, create an all-electric Corvette--the fabled "Cor-Volt"--and I'm standing in line for the convertible model.
I wasn't dissing the technological refinements. I was just meaning that at the end of the day, it is still a turbocharged gasoline injected reciprocating piston engine.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#7391 Dec 19, 2012
Two versions of the rarely ordered in-line six-cylinder engine were available on the 1968 Pontiac Firebird: The 175- and 215-horsepower 250-cubic-inch engines with torque ratings of 240 and 255 foot-pounds, respectively. The more common engine was the 265-horsepower 350 V-8 with 355 foot-pounds of torque and a two-barrel carburetor, but buyers could also order the 320-horsepower High Output version that wielded 380 foot-pounds of torque. Performance enthusiasts naturally gravitated to the 400 V-8s, and there were three versions of it: the four-barrel carburetor 330-horsepower 400, generating 430 foot-pounds of torque, the High Output 335-horsepower 400, with 430 foot-pounds of torque and a four-barrel carburetor, and the Ram Air High Output version with same horsepower and torque ratings as the HO version. The 400 HO featured a revised cam and free-flow exhausts, and came with a four-speed manual transmission. Later Firebirds received the Ram Air II option that generated 340 horsepower. The Ram Air option was available for an extra $600. A three-speed manual or two-speed automatic transmission matched the non-HO engines.
Oh the 2013 Camaro was styled off of the 69 Camaro. You should have kept that 69.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#7392 Dec 19, 2012
PHD wrote:
Two versions of the rarely ordered in-line six-cylinder engine were available on the 1968 Pontiac Firebird: The 175- and 215-horsepower 250-cubic-inch engines with torque ratings of 240 and 255 foot-pounds, respectively. The more common engine was the 265-horsepower 350 V-8 with 355 foot-pounds of torque and a two-barrel carburetor, but buyers could also order the 320-horsepower High Output version that wielded 380 foot-pounds of torque. Performance enthusiasts naturally gravitated to the 400 V-8s, and there were three versions of it: the four-barrel carburetor 330-horsepower 400, generating 430 foot-pounds of torque, the High Output 335-horsepower 400, with 430 foot-pounds of torque and a four-barrel carburetor, and the Ram Air High Output version with same horsepower and torque ratings as the HO version. The 400 HO featured a revised cam and free-flow exhausts, and came with a four-speed manual transmission. Later Firebirds received the Ram Air II option that generated 340 horsepower. The Ram Air option was available for an extra $600. A three-speed manual or two-speed automatic transmission matched the non-HO engines.
Oh the 2013 Camaro was styled off of the 69 Camaro. You should have kept that 69.
When I bought it in 1983, the frame was bent so that it wore in the left side's tires. I didn't notice it until afterward. Today, it would be an easy fix. Setup, measure, and pull of about three hours. Back then, not so much. Mine was the HO, not the Ram Air. It was also missing part of the grille moulding. It had a

I'd love to find and restore it, but it would never be a daily driver. I believe I paid $2500 for it in Tacoma, WA, when I was in the Army.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#7393 Dec 19, 2012
DillinghamLawFirm wrote:
<quoted text>
When I bought it in 1983, the frame was bent so that it wore in the left side's tires. I didn't notice it until afterward. Today, it would be an easy fix. Setup, measure, and pull of about three hours. Back then, not so much. Mine was the HO, not the Ram Air. It was also missing part of the grille moulding. It had a
I'd love to find and restore it, but it would never be a daily driver. I believe I paid $2500 for it in Tacoma, WA, when I was in the Army.
It had a ...

???

Btw, welcome to the forum. Nice to hear from FL!
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#7394 Dec 19, 2012
DillinghamLawFirm wrote:
<quoted text>
When I bought it in 1983, the frame was bent so that it wore in the left side's tires. I didn't notice it until afterward. Today, it would be an easy fix. Setup, measure, and pull of about three hours. Back then, not so much. Mine was the HO, not the Ram Air. It was also missing part of the grille moulding. It had a
I'd love to find and restore it, but it would never be a daily driver. I believe I paid $2500 for it in Tacoma, WA, when I was in the Army.
I do believe your answer was directed towards climate change. It had something to do with m.p.g. contributing to climate change. Some one missed your response. It must be the legal lingo you used that confused them. I'm with you back in the early 90's I restored a 68 Formula 400. Should have kept that 68.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min Julia 1,521,955
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 27 min Roger 10,581
News Why Aren't There More Gender-Neutral, Trans-Fri... 1 hr max 1
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Buster Steinbeizer 240,352
Michael Hahn, Kim Goldman Hahn, The OJ Simpson ... (Apr '06) 7 hr guest 397
Obumbler Back To Community Organizing 7 hr CIA and FBI 6
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 14 hr Rose of Tralee 105,130

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages