Filled up for $1.78/gallon

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

One must also take into account, while the rest of the nation freezes in extremely cold temperatures, the Liberal North East ( a vast consumer of all energies) is enjoying a rather mild winter which has led to surplus of heating oil due to less demand. More crude is now available for gas but since that demand is off things are starting to back up.

We also are not "addicted" to oil. Oil is the life blood of a free capatilist economy. Are we addicted to a steady flow of red blood cells? Too bad the Ecocrats will not allow drilling in the Arctic or Gulf for our own oil which would add to the surplus and thus furthur drive down prices and boost the overall everyday Joe's economy. We can only wait and see.

986geezer

Well, you wouldn't want to increase SUPPLY would you? Geez, that would only increase GLOBAL WARMING, which as we all know, is going to kill us by 2010!!!!!!!!!!

[jeffsquire]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

I love Supply and Demand.

_________________________

WEll said. It's funny though. After all the hype it all comes down to supply and demand, for whatever reason.

[jeffsquire]

Originally Posted by jmabasa

I don't get it! Why is gas so much more expensive here in CA?!

_______________________
Simply put: because you guys are crazy out there.

PS. great picture.

[jeffsquire]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

Well, you wouldn't want to increase SUPPLY would you? Geez, that would only increase GLOBAL WARMING, which as we all know, is going to kill us by 2010!!!!!!!!!!

________________________

Funny you should mention this. Last week I was looking at a cartoon with my son. I think it was called "Captain Enviroment" or something. Anyway, it was created in 1993. 5 kids were part of Captain Enviroment's posse. They alll have superpowers of some type that heal the earth. They have weapons like the Scum-o-copter, the sludge cannon, eco body armor. . . you get the point. The premise of this cartoon series is that the earth will be a catastrophic, madmax-type wasteland by the YEAR 2000!!! unless we stop consuming so much energy. THere's an eco-villain and all the bad guys have sludge, dirt or toxicity incorporated into their surnames. It was outrageous and mortifying yet hysterical to watch. Luckily my son found it humorous but I see how this type of stuff terrifies some young folk.

[jeffsquire]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

Well, everything is relative. It's just that Gasoline prices impact the psyche more than many other things because it represents a loss of freedom - the freedom to go where and when one wants.

Many other everyday items cost waay more than gasoline, some ridiculously, and inexplicably so, but don't spark the reaction fuel prices do. Some examples:

• Mobil1 - $24/gal
  
  Whole Milk - $3.80/gal.
  
  Listerene - $9/gal.
  
  Bottled Water - $8.72/gal.
  
  Starbuck's - $64/gal.
  
  Orange Juice - $4.89/gal. (and rising)
  
  Diet Snapple - $10.32/gal.
  
  Soft Drinks - $7.04/gal.
  
  Pepto Bismol - $123.20/gal.

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

_______________________

Alas don't forget Perrier or other high end water bottles. $10 a gallon. Much more depending on when and where you buy it. Even at Walmart bottled water runs about $3.00 for a 12 pack of half liter bottles. WATER, mind you. Water!! The planet's most plentify resource.

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Ah yes Bruce, the Global Warming (caused by American capitalisim of course) story. A computor model shows that greenhouse gasses caused by US mainly, have made the planet warm up and will soon kill us all. I will bet I could make a computer model that would prove a pig is a steam engine but that wouldn't make it so. G.W. is a THEORY. A cursory course in geology will reveal that the plant has cooled and warmed over the centuries, plates have shifted, mountains have risen and fallen, well you get the picture. The ice was one mile thick over here in the Hudson Valley and the debris it deposited created Long Island. All this without evil characters like Wallmart, Exxon, Wall Street and Enron. How could this be? Maybe the activety of the sun had something to do with it? Nah, doesn't fit the political agenda of the Progressive marxists who hunger for control. This anti american trash is pushed in our high schools and colleges but not everybody is buying it.

Enough of my soapbox, just might be able to get my gas guzzleing taxed 986 out for a spin as the sun is shining and I may need to pick up a few cigars (OH NO not Cigars!!). I may even start installing my nice new center caps. We will see.

986geezer

[Brucelee]

As usual, the science of "global warming" is more complex and less dramatic than the popular press or politicials can handle.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[Brucelee]

An except:



What are the take-home messages:


The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.

The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.

The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).

The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)

Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.

Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).

Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

Remember: Water vapor and carbon dioxide are major greenhouse gases. Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%. Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation. Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides. Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas -- they are mostly water droplets -- but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth. Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13µm) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect - that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide). Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6µm. Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect. Adding them in near-saturated bands has little additional effect

[z12358]

Z: You can bring a thirsty donkey to the water but you cannot make it drink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

"The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities"[1]—has been investigated: In the journal Science in December 2004, Dr Naomi Oreskes published a study of the abstracts of the 928 refereed scientific articles in the ISI citation database identified with the keywords "global climate change" and published from 1993–2003. This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view—the remainder of the articles covered methods or paleoclimate and did not take any stance on recent climate change. The study did not report how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly accepted the hypothesis of human-induced warming, but none of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis[1]."


Z: You can learn about a person from the company he keeps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories


Z.

[Brucelee]

"This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view—"

The "consensus view" was that the Sun revolved around the Earth and that the Earth was flat.

This agreement did not make it so.

Nor does consensus trumph bad science.

I heard printer ink was the most expensive liquid per gallon. Im sure a gallon of molten gold would be more but you get the idea. Thats why I just buy a new printer everytime I run out of ink. Get the newest printer and ink cartridges for about 20 bucks more.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

An except:



What are the take-home messages:


The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.

The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.

The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).

The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)

Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.

Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).

Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

Remember: Water vapor and carbon dioxide are major greenhouse gases. Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%. Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation. Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides. Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas -- they are mostly water droplets -- but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth. Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13µm) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect - that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide). Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6µm. Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect. Adding them in near-saturated bands has little additional effect

Hi,

I agree mostly (about 99%) with what you say/cite here. Global Warming is a theory, as yet unproved. Lack of historical records and the relative infancy of climate modelling are poor foundations from which to make predictions.

The Historical Record dates mainly back only 150 years or so. Speculation beyond that is based on such diverse sources as Chromatic study of gas bubbles trapped in ice (which is really only a snapshot from which much speculation is derived) to old paintings of Winter Scenes which showed rivers being frozen, which are now usually not frozen over. There can be many other explanations of such events than Climate Change, such as occasional aberrations, which we have also experienced in our lifetimes, but which in and of themselves, do not support a theory of man-made climate change.

Computer modelling is currently such that the earth is broken into 15 mi.² grids. In each of these, the grid is either reflective (cities, desert, rock) or absorbant (vegetation, Lakes, etc.), precipitating or dry, etc. Now, we all have experienced where it can be cloudy or raining just a couple blocks away, while in our position, it is sunny and dry. So, these models are not yet developed to a point where they provide useful and undeniable replication of real-world events.

So, in all, I remain unconvinced of some of the more dire predictions. That said, there are literally billions of tons of Carbon released into the atmosphere which were, prior to the industrialization of the world, locked up in the oceans and rock. A gallon of gasoline weighs about 6.25 lb. and is composed of about 80% Carbon. This means that everytime we burn a gallon, we're releasing 5 lbs. of Carbon into the atmosphere (or about 80 lbs./tankful). I cannot state, nor do I believe, that this is having no effect whatever.

Global Warming may well be happening, and a Tipping Point may be reached in my, or my nephews' lifetimes. I'm just saying that so far, the Science has not proved such a thing. And if unproved, there is no guarantee that they will ever be correct with these predictions, or if so, as severely as a prevailing view seems to think. But, the Science is not as pure or as empirical as the Scientific Method dictates. Politics and Funding have much to do with how the argument is presented and pursued. How much funding do you think is currently available to those Scientists and Institutions who are proferring the opposing view that all this is incorrect?. If you are a scientist with a family to support, and a career to advance, or a University with need to fund R&D and gain Grant money, which position are you most likely to pursue from a practical standpoint?...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[blinkwatt]

Originally Posted by boggtown

I heard printer ink was the most expensive liquid per gallon.

Wait I thought White-out was the most expensive per gallon?

[Paul]

Originally Posted by jmabasa

I don't get it! Why is gas so much more expensive here in CA?!

Don't you guys get paid twice as much as the rest of us????

[jeffsquire]

QUOTE=z12358]Z: You can bring a thirsty donkey to the water but you cannot make it drink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[I]"The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years.......you can learn a lot about a person from the company he keeps.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories[/urlZ.[/QUOTE]
__________________________________
Sure can.

-" One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic.. . . . .Allegre's conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global warming alarmists have insisted that there is a “consensus” about manmade global warming. Proponents of global warming have ratcheted up the level of rhetoric on climate skeptics recently. An environmental magazine in September called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics and CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley compared skeptics to “Holocaust deniers.” See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568 & http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml In addition, former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers."

Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists. “Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote. See: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
For more on this, see the following link.
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

100 years of media reports on global warming and cooling. They can't decide what it is. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_timeswarns.asp

[jeffsquire]

[QUOTE=z12358]Z: You can bring a thirsty donkey to the water but you cannot make it drink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

"The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities"[1]—has been investigated: In the journal Science in December 2004, Dr Naomi Oreskes published a study of the abstracts of the 928 refereed scientific articles in the ISI citation database identified with the keywords "global climate change" and published from 1993–2003. This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view—the remainder of the articles covered methods or paleoclimate and did not take any stance on recent climate change. The study did not report how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly accepted the hypothesis of human-induced warming, but none of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis[1]."
QUOTE]
_--------------------------------------------
SO we don't know who is the author of those 928 articles? Gee, I wonder how many authors wrote those articles. Were there 928 seperate authors? DOes one author who is a true believer write multiple articles about global climate change? ALmost certainly.

What does explicitly or implicitly support mean?. Suppose the following is written: "While manmade activity likely affects the 'global climate change' and the enviroment, we just dont know how much, significant or insignificant it is. " Does this mean that I implicity or explicity believe in global warming? It sounds like it but what am I really saying. To attribute this statement to a consensus belief of global warming is atrocious, yet almost certainly common if one were to peruse your 928 articles.

Even if everything you printed here is true, and just suppose there really is a "consensus" about manmade global climate change, then fully 25% of the remainder of articles don't agree.

[z12358]

JS:
SO we don't know who is the author of those 928 articles? Gee, I wonder how many authors wrote those articles. Were there 928 seperate authors? DOes one author who is a true believer write multiple articles about global climate change? ALmost certainly.

The study covered ALL 928 articles in the ISI database (covering ALL peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world) having "global climate change" in their keyword list.

What does explicitly or implicitly support mean?. Suppose the following is written: "While manmade activity likely affects the 'global climate change' and the enviroment, we just dont know how much, significant or insignificant it is. " Does this mean that I implicity or explicity believe in global warming? It sounds like it but what am I really saying. To attribute this statement to a consensus belief of global warming is atrocious, yet almost certainly common if one were to peruse your 928 articles.

The above example would not have entered the 75% consensus universe as it would have directly contradicted with the consensus hypothesis: "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities".

Even if everything you printed here is true, and just suppose there really is a "consensus" about manmade global climate change, then fully 25% of the remainder of articles don't agree.

Not true. Read carefully. Quote:
"The study did not report how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly accepted the hypothesis of human-induced warming, but none of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis."

Z.

[z12358]

MNBoxster:
Global Warming may well be happening, and a Tipping Point may be reached in my, or my nephews' lifetimes. I'm just saying that so far, the Science has not proved such a thing. And if unproved, there is no guarantee that they will ever be correct with these predictions, or if so, as severely as a prevailing view seems to think.

More often than not science deals with probabilities. Predictions produced by a hypothesis don't have to be spot on (in both level and timing) to raise credible concerns. Consider also the risk management aspect. Even if there was only a 20% chance that we're causing global warming and that we're close to (or beyond) the tipping point with signifficant and unforseeable consequences if true, can we -- the mankind -- afford to disregard that risk? If a doctor tells you: "I can't yet prove it for sure, but there is 20% chance that you have lung cancer right now." -- would you continue smoking until the proof showed up? Would you refuse to invest in further tests and research, so that you can have the $$ to buy a new suspension for your car, as you planned?

But, the Science is not as pure or as empirical as the Scientific Method dictates. Politics and Funding have much to do with how the argument is presented and pursued. How much funding do you think is currently available to those Scientists and Institutions who are proferring the opposing view that all this is incorrect?. If you are a scientist with a family to support, and a career to advance, or a University with need to fund R&D and gain Grant money, which position are you most likely to pursue from a practical standpoint?...

Arguments like this are very presumptious and USA-centric. Presumptious because they perpetuate the myth of a liberal media and liberal science, and USA-centric because they assume the whole world (scientists, media, and politics) is engulfed in it. Are you claiming that the GWB administration is actually arm-twisting USA scientists into raising the global warming issue? Sorry to say it, but it borders on the delusional. Why would a country like Norway that is extracting so much of its revenue from oil production and sales be interested in perpetuating a "myth" or signing a treaty (Kyoto) that would negatively affect its revenue stream? Could they be onto something that's far more important than the $$ they are about to forgo?

Z.

[Brucelee]

First off, as the article that I cited states fairly clearly, there is some evidence that the planet is "warming" to some degree and in some places. The amount/degree of warming and its impacts is FAR from a settled issue. It some sense, it depends WHERE and HOW your measure.

The leap from there to where most alarmists go is HUGE and simply not as "accepted" by the scientific community as the media would have you believe.

To me, the real issue is, IF warming is ocurring, how extensive/intense is it and what is a logical extension of the current trend lines (this is where those fuzzy climate models come in.)

More importantly, there is no hard evidence that I can see that suggests that this warming is induced by carbon emissions and/or if so, that we know to what degree. If our carbon emissions were the cause of warming, how did the planet start to warm long before we were generating these emissions?

To wit, based on what I have read, we began coming out of the "little ice age" in the 1800s, long before we were driving cars. If that is true, I find it funny indeed that we now look at the Porsche in your driveway and want to ban it.

Thoughts?

[Rail26]

I just traded in the Box. 1.78 clams a gallon, I can now afford my dream ride! I was thinking about putting a new exhaust, lowering it and do you think 10 ft wheels will fit or will I need spacers?