Blizzard

[SteveC]

Finally, the snow has stopped here! Over the past two days, most of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast in the U.S. received between 18-36 inches of snow (my town received about 23"), which made many roads in the area impassable and affected air travel all across the country. It was snowing at the rate of 2-3 inches an hour at the worst, with 40 MPH winds, making visibility less than a quarter mile. The only good thing about the storm was it happened on a holiday, so many people already had the day off. It's still supposed to take another two days to get all the roads plowed, and for the airports to get back to normal.
New Jersey had budgeted $13 million for snow removal for the entire winter, but had already spent $30 million before this storm, with this storm expected to cost that much alone. My town, which usually does a very good job, has only plowed my street once, leaving an area that's not wide enough for two cars to get by. Unfortunately, my car is horrible in the snow, so I won't be going anywhere before Wednesday. I wish I could join my parents on their trip to Puerto Rico later this week.

 

[Mercutio]

Why is snow on the east coast national news? Every time y'all get a foot or two of white stuff it gets to be front page headlines.

The people who actually live on the East coast KNOW it's snowing. The people in the midwest and northern states have it just as bad or worse, and the people in the south and southwest can't even pronounce the word ("Snoo?" No. "Snau?" No. "Nukuler?" <SLAP>)

This rant brought to you by the number e.

 

[Handruin]

Sometimes I don't even know it's snowing until I leave in the morning for work, and even if it is, I could care less...I'm used to the snow. I never watch the news. But you're right Merc, I have no clue why it makes front page news, it's silly.

 

[Tannin]

It's happening all over the world, Steve.

Over here it's extreme heat, but changing the climate patterns does all sorts of odd things. For example, it's expected that a sustained 2 to 4 degrees overall warming will more than likely shift the Gulf Stream, meaning that the United Kingdom will get much colder than at present, winding up more like Siberia.

Just this week, Professor David Karoly (School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma) and Dr James Risbey (Centre for Dynamical Meteorology and Oceanography, School of Mathematical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne), announced some pretty conclusive proof (if any more be needed) that human-induced climate change was a key factor in the severity of the drought in Australia.

In 2002 Australia recorded its highest-ever average daytime maximum temperatures, with the temperature across Australia 1.6°C higher than the long term average and 0.8°C higher than the previous record. The critical Murray-Darling Basin which is Australia's largest food producing area, experienced average maximum temperatures more than 1.2°C higher than in any previous drought since 1950. Professor Karololy said: "The higher temperatures experienced throughout Australia last year are part of a national warming trend over the past 50 years which cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone ..... Most of this warming is likely due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human acitivity such as burning fossil fuels for electricity and transport and from landclearing. This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed."

Dr Risbey added that although the 2002 drought was related to natural climate variations associated with El Niño, the higher temperatures could not be attributed solely to this: while higher temperatures are expected during El Niño triggered droughts, the 2002 drought temperatures are extraordinary when compared to the four major droughts since 1950, with average maximum temperatures more than 1°C higher than these other droughts."

The severity of the drought is unprecedented: see, for example, Farm production to drop 80%. Worst of all, the fires this summer - despite a massive fire prevention and control effort involving every available technology (giant helicopters, satellite observation, modern weather forcasting, bulldozers, aircraft) and generous help from New Zealand and the USA - have been the worst ever recorded: almost exactly twice as bad as the fires of 1939, which has gone down in legend as the year of the notorious Black Friday.

I hear you Steve. Fire and ice: either way, this is serious stuff we face.

 

[jtr1962]

I'm personally glad when we get hit with snow like this. I went for a nice long walk last night when it started coming down, and another one tonight about two hours ago. With the airports closed and nobody driving everything is so much more peaceful. The air is so much cleaner as well. If only people would listen and stop driving and flying it could be like this all the time. It's nice to relax and get away from the routine of life until the snow is cleared. New York would be a great city if only the cars and airplanes would go. They cause more stress than they're worth. Cars alone kill 50,000 annually in the U.S., injure millions, and cause millions more to die from various cancers. The price we pay for the small convenience they might offer is just too high.

Your post on global warming is spot on, Tannin. We need to stop burning fossil fuels yesterday, no ifs and or buts, and put every dollar at our disposal into commercializing fusion. If it were within my power, I would ban their use immediately regardless of the economic consequences. Eventually society would adjust. More people would walk, bike, or take trains. We would eventually have a worldwide maglev and high-speed rail network faster than planes, and even spanning oceans. Most of our transportation infrastructure could be underground. The world would be as quiet as it was today, and the air and water pure again. I can dream, can't I?

 

[LunarMist]

Why is snow on the east coast national news? Every time y'all get a foot or two of white stuff it gets to be front page headlines.

Because it has not snowed so much here since a Pentium 133 OC'd to 150 was considered a fast processor.

 

[CougTek]

We need to stop burning fossil fuels yesterday, no ifs and or buts,...

The good news is : U.S. oil stocks will soon be depleted.

The bad news is : Bush is extanding U.S.' control over new oil-rich territories, so fossil burning will last quite a while again. The pipeline in Afghanistan, Irak soon. I hope you didn't truely believe his motive was hunting terrorist, didn't you? This son of a bitch is one of the worst environmental terrorist on the planet. And this year's Detroit car show was a nice finger to Kyoto too, with monster engine above 400hp everywhere.

 

[mubs]

WRT Tannin's and jtr1962's posts, maybe I'm a pessimist in this regard, but I honestly don't see that anything significant will be done until it's too late. I say this because it's not enough for some people or some nations to get their act together; the entire planet has to agree and act on first stopping and then reversing the damage done.

In a different lifetime, I read a book by Robert Heinlein (can't remember the name) in which a bunch of people travel from earth to colonise another planet that's a couple of lifetimes away. That is my favorite "escape", jtr1962!

 

[Fushigi]

WRT Tannin's and jtr1962's posts, maybe I'm a pessimist in this regard, but I honestly don't see that anything significant will be done until it's too late. I say this because it's not enough for some people or some nations to get their act together; the entire planet has to agree and act on first stopping and then reversing the damage done.

Agreed. Too many people seem to not care at all about driving 12-15MPG SUVs. Really, for Americans to wake up, we need to have fuel prices above $3 a gallon, maybe $4 or $5. Only then will people actually become seriously concerned about their consumption. Obviously, the environment angle doesn't work.

In a different lifetime, I read a book by Robert Heinlein (can't remember the name) in which a bunch of people travel from earth to colonise another planet that's a couple of lifetimes away. That is my favorite "escape", jtr1962!

Methuselah's Children, IIRC.

 

[Buck]

Really, for Americans to wake up, we need to have fuel prices above $3 a gallon, maybe $4 or $5. Only then will people actually become seriously concerned about their consumption. Obviously, the environment angle doesn't work.

As long as diesel stays below $2.00

Oh sorry, you're trying to be serious.

 

[jtr1962]

WRT Tannin's and jtr1962's posts, maybe I'm a pessimist in this regard, but I honestly don't see that anything significant will be done until it's too late. I say this because it's not enough for some people or some nations to get their act together; the entire planet has to agree and act on first stopping and then reversing the damage done.

I have to agree with that. Not just with global warming, but it seems that politicians and world leaders won't do anything about a problem until it comes and bites them in the behind. Maybe when the sea levels start to rise enough that water is at the steps of the Capitol Building or White House they'll change a few things-only by then it'll be too late. And even if the first world nations do something, developing third world nations are among the planet's worst polluters. Whole swaths of rain forest are cut down and burned. Either everyone has to agree, or there must be enough powerful nations in agreement to force those who disagree to act responsibly as well. As the world's most powerful nation, the U.S. is setting a piss-poor example.

In a different lifetime, I read a book by Robert Heinlein (can't remember the name) in which a bunch of people travel from earth to colonise another planet that's a couple of lifetimes away. That is my favorite "escape", jtr1962!

A nice thought, and if I knew there was another habitable planet that we could reach in a few years, something I might actually consider. Alas, we've stopped exploring space almost 3 decades ago. I used to want to be an astronaut. If fact, if we hadn't stopped exploring space that's what I probably would have been if I qualified. After the lunar landings, I figured a moon base and Mars landings in the 1980's, a Mars base by the 1990's, perhaps exploring the moons of Jupiter or Saturn by now. Instead, we've spent nearly three decades in low-Earth orbit. At this rate, we'll be lucky to have a Mars base in my lifetime, let alone explore habitable worlds around other star systems. I'll venture to guess that's probably 1000 years off.

 

[jtr1962]

Bush is extanding U.S.' control over new oil-rich territories, so fossil burning will last quite a while again. The pipeline in Afghanistan, Irak soon. I hope you didn't truely believe his motive was hunting terrorist, didn't you? This son of a bitch is one of the worst environmental terrorist on the planet. And this year's Detroit car show was a nice finger to Kyoto too, with monster engine above 400hp everywhere.

Bush's environmental record is awful, although Clinton's wasn't any better. In fact, it was under Clinton that SUVs were allowed to proliferate. SUVs were/are not required to abide by the same mileage requirements as cars, and Bush's proposal that their mileage be increased by 1.5 mpg in the next three years is laughable. I also doubt Gore would have been any better since big oil controls both parties.

I don't know why Detroit continues to market cars with big engines. The problem is that the cars are stupidly designed, which is why they claim to need big engines. For a 10-second burst of acceleration every now and then you don't need a big engine, you need a way of storing energy, and you also need a more efficient way of delivering it to the wheels. A completely electric transmission would fit the bill. Current mechanical transmissions force the engine of an accelerating car to spend most of it's time outside it's peak power RPM. As a result, on average maybe only half the power is delivered to the wheels when accelerating, even though the steady state efficiency of the transmission might be over 90%. Electric motors can deliver 90% of the engine's power to the wheels when accelerating, so suddenly your peak power requirement drops from, say 200 HP to 110 HP. Since the peak power is only needed for a few seconds, you can use capacitors instead of the engine. Capacitor technology has matured to the point where their use in electrics or electic-gas hybrids makes sense. Net result is that your engine now only needs to supply the average power needed, not the peak. For a normal vehicle(not an SUV), this might be on the order of 30 HP(mayber 35 HP for AC and other accessories. So now suddenly you can replace 200 HP engines with 35 HP ones and most drivers will notice no change whatsoever in how their vehicle performs. Additionally, you can recapture most of the kinetic energy when stopping through regenerative braking. Since the engine will usually be running at one speed, no energy will be wasted speeding it up or slowing it down(also less wear and tear on it). Top speed may be less, but how many people actually drive over 80 MPH anyhow. Good aerodynamics and low-rolling coefficient tires will still allow a 35 HP vehicle to reach 125 MPH, which is plenty for normal driving. Why aren't vehicles made this way? Beats me, we've had the technology for over a decade.

As for SUVs, both by their weight and boxy shape they're inherently inefficient and shouldn't be made in large numbers. Very few users actually require the off-road capabilities or towing capacity of an SUV. Mostly they are just highly visible symbols of contemptuous consumption. Perhaps some sort of hard-to-get government permit should be required to buy them or maybe an annual gas guzzler tax of a few thousand dollars every time the vehicles are registered. A third way is to govern down their maximum speed to 35 MPH by law, which would limit their usefulness to primarily off-road situations.

 

[jtr1962]

Too many people seem to not care at all about driving 12-15MPG SUVs. Really, for Americans to wake up, we need to have fuel prices above $3 a gallon, maybe $4 or $5. Only then will people actually become seriously concerned about their consumption. Obviously, the environment angle doesn't work.

Tannin and I have both suggested a gas tax as the best way to get people to buy more responsible vehicles. I'm still surprised that more thought isn't given to gas mileage when people buy vehicles just from an economic perspective. A 12 mpg SUV will burn about 22 more gallons of gas than a 100 mpg vehicle(yes, Detroit can make a vehicle like that-see my response to Cougtek above) when driven 300 miles per week. With gas prices approaching $2 per gallon this is hardly pocket change. Even at $1/gallon that's still over $1100 in a year, which is hardly something to sneeze at. Given that most people don't use an SUV's off-road or towing capabilties, and it's a myth that they're safer in accidents(plus they cause more severe damage to the vehicles they hit), I'm really at a loss to explain their popularity. They certainly aren't attractive by any stretch of the imagination. A nice $5/gallon gas tax would send most SUVs to the scrap heap, where they belong. I doubt the typical SUV driver could afford to pay $125 per week just for the gas tax.

An even larger problem is the simple fact that too many people live in areas where it is uneconomic to run trains or buses, and many of those that don't still choose to drive. I honestly flabbergasted that in a city like New York, with one of the world's most comprehensive subway and commuter rail systems, so many people still choose to drive. In every contest between car and train, whether it's speed, efficiency, pollution, space used for right-of-way, all-weather operability, or capacity, the train wins hands down. About the only thing running here these past few days has been the subways. The roads are still a mess. Cars just stink for lack of a better word. Unsafe, noisy, smelly, and slow are some adjectives that come to mind.

 

[.Nut]

The weather's been quite cold here as well. I noticed that when I went surfing yesterday that the waves were coming in from the northeast instead of the southeast, which must mean that a Nor'Easterner has hit. The coconuts have been falling of the sweaty palms a little harder than normal as well, what from the large bump on the top of my head. And, I've only had to apply a sunscreen with a rating of "4" this week.

 

[Pradeep]

And this year's Detroit car show was a nice finger to Kyoto too, with monster engine above 400hp everywhere.

Mmmmm, more power. Let's face it, it's fun to drive a vehicle with a massive abundance of power to spare. And isn't there a gas-guzzler tax on innefficient new vehicles (a one off payment)?

jtr, it sounds like you need to move to Singapore where you require a permit from the government to purchase any car. Last time I saw the cost was something like US$20,000 just for the permit to buy a 4 cyl car. Sure the city is pretty clean but what kind of freedoms do the people really have? Not many.

 

[Cliptin]

I understand that in Japan there is a financial disincentive to own older cars. So they keep buying new ones.

 

[jtr1962]

jtr, it sounds like you need to move to Singapore where you require a permit from the government to purchase any car. Last time I saw the cost was something like US$20,000 just for the permit to buy a 4 cyl car. Sure the city is pretty clean but what kind of freedoms do the people really have? Not many.

Well, I agree some of the laws in Singapore are ridiculous, like the ban on chewing gum but I don't see anything wrong with the permit idea. Cars can easily overrun a city and make it unliveable if you let them. In fact, every large city and many smaller ones have chronic traffic and pollution problems. If the US required getting a permit to own a car if you live in areas with adequate public transportation(i.e. the entire NY Metropolitan area), I think it would be a change for the better. Most of the trips in NYC are very short. These are the worst kinds of trips to make by car. Simple fact is the 99% of the people who drive don't need to. It's a convenience, not a necessity. You can take a bus, train, bike, or even walk. I see many people taking cars to go a few blocks. This is asinine. Even if you're buying groceries there is such a thing as a shopping cart. I would personally have no problems at all if cars were banned from the five boroughs. They are a mode of transport best suited to remote, rural areas, not cities.

[begin rant]

Even if they didn't pollute, I still would want them banned because of the accidents they cause, the confusion they create, and the space used by roads. All the land taken up by roads, especially expressways, would be better used for housing, which is something NY sorely needs but lacks the land for. And banning cars would not only reduce the caseloads in hospitals, but also the incidences of obesity.

I'm also sick and tired of pedestrians and cyclists being relegated to second class citizen status because of cars. The streets were plowed, and there were huge piles of snow on every corner that pedestrians had to climb over. In my opinion the needs of pedestrians should have come first. I'm tired of having to wait for cars every time I cross a street. Cyclists have it even worse. Drivers run you off the road, yet you can get a ticket for riding on the sidewalk(another asinine law passed by the brain-dead City Council). As a result, you really have nowhere to ride. The choice is either risking getting killed or getting a summons. Really, really stupid since bicycles are an ideal method of transportation in a city like NY where most trips are 5 miles or less. And then there's all the space people take just to park their stupid cars.

I tend to think my right to breathe clean air and continue to live where I want supercedes someone else's convenience. I can't wait until there's enough evidence to positively link air pollution to cancer and other ills. Then it's going to be bye-bye Exxon, Ford, GM, American Airlines, etc. And any connection of burning fossil fuels to global warming will be the final icing on the cake.

I would have Henry Ford shot if he were still alive today.

[/end rant]

 

[jtr1962]

I understand that in Japan there is a financial disincentive to own older cars. So they keep buying new ones.

Newer doesn't always mean more fuel efficient. Just look at SUVs. Some of the larger cities like Tokyo also require you to have an off-street place to park before you can get a car. This is something the US would do well to emulate. All those rows of parked cars are an eyesore.

 

[fool]

If you’re not one of the people who really need the off road capabilities then as far as I can see there are four reasons to buy an suv.

1. The height, relative to everyone else, of the driving position gives you much better visibility. Of course the more suvs there are the less this applies. The height is also very psychologically reassuring, you feel far less exposed in traffic.

2. They’ve got so much space inside you can get all the stuff you need and all the rubbish you don’t feel complete without into them.

3. The belief that there less dangerous to the occupants in the event of a crash.

4. Responding to an almost irresistible subconscious urge to demonstrate beyond even a penumbra of doubt that people, especially your good self in particular, while able to rationalise are not rational

 

[The Grammar Police]

Well said, Fool, and welcome.

Or, as Michael from the movie The Big Chill so eloquently put it:

(The conversation is about life, the universe and everything.)

Other player, name I forget: "But that's just a rationalisation"

Michael: "Don't knock rationalisation. Rationalisations are more important than sex."

Other person: "Don't be ridiculous. Nothing is more important than sex."

Michael: "Oh yeah? You ever try to go a week without a rationalisation?"

 

[Fushigi]

1. The height, relative to everyone else, of the driving position gives you much better visibility. Of course the more suvs there are the less this applies. The height is also very psychologically reassuring, you feel far less exposed in traffic.

2. They’ve got so much space inside you can get all the stuff you need and all the rubbish you don’t feel complete without into them.

A minivan meets these requirements with fuel economy that is nowhere near as bad as a large SUV.

And what you said about ride height relative to other vehicles is very true. As SUVs comprise more of the market, that advantage has been disappearing. Of course, it also means the height advantage is even worse for car owners.

3. The belief that there less dangerous to the occupants in the event of a crash.

A large metal frame is nice, but SUVs only have to meet truck safety standards, not the more stringent car standards.

4. Responding to an almost irresistible subconscious urge to demonstrate beyond even a penumbra of doubt that people, especially your good self in particular, while able to rationalise are not rational

And here's the winner! In the end, SUVs are ego-stroke vehicles.

Hey, I admit I look at some (not many) SUVs and think, "that'd be a cool ride". But upon considering my actualy transport needs I cannot justify the environmental and wallet impact buying one would create.

The best thing for consumers has been the advent of some of these crossover vehicles like the Nissan Murano, Mitsu Outlander, Volvo XC, etc. Adequate power, reasonable economy, sufficient space, and AWD/4WD designed more for handling & snow vs. mountain climbing.

My current sedan should be good for at least 3 more years, after which I'll have to decide what kind of vehicle meets my needs best. If I have a young one to take care of, I will likely be pushed to a minivan or crossover. Otherwise I am giving strong consideration to the Civic gas/electric hybrid. I hate Honda dealers, though, so I'm hoping other manufacturers enter the hybrid game quickly. Don't bother to mention the Prius -- Toyota hit that one with the ugly stick one, more like 12, too many times for me.

- Fushigi

 

[Cliptin]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/874636.asp

 

[Fushigi]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/874636.asp

What a load of BS. Let's all go buy 14MPG brutes so that we can handle the snow during that once-every-40-years snowstorm.

1. The pres could have stayed where he was until the weather improved. He can be president from anywhere.

2. Why dig out the schools when the students can't get there anyway? No mention was made of getting the volunteers to plow the schools and all of the roads for the buses & parents to use to get the students to the schools. Of course, while you're at it, you also better plow out the gas stations so people can refill those SUVs.

3. Why get the doctors to the hospitals when the ambulances can't travel the roads? I've yet to see an AWD ambulance here in the Chicago area. There are helicopters for dire patient emergencies. The existing staff can work in shifts until replacements can get through. Rough, but entirely possible. (Before you slam me for making the workers stay at the hospital, my wife works at a hospital)

It has been my experience that people who need a truck for their livelihood typically have no problem volunteering when they are needed during these extreme situations. Let's face it: not that many people are needed on the job during these types of emergencies. Also, there are the city snowplow and sand/salt spreader trucks. Those can be used to shuttle around emergency services folks. Real snow-belt areas sometimes also rely on snowmobiles.

- Fushigi

 

[SteveC]

I would have Henry Ford shot if he were still alive today.

I'm guessing that Robert Moses isn't one of your favorite people either.

 

[jtr1962]

I would have Henry Ford shot if he were still alive today.

I'm guessing that Robert Moses isn't one of your favorite people either.

I hate that SOB. The expressways he built cut a lot of neighbourhoods in two. Thankfully he was stopped before he built one right through Manhattan. He had planned to raze Chinatown and other parts of lower Manhattan for it. He is evil in a way Bill Gates couldn't evil imagine. :evil:
Evil, evil, evil. :evil: :evil: :evil:

Don't get me wrong-I realize the need to have an efficient transportation network. I just wished we relied more on rail and only on cars in rural or more remote suburban areas. I also see no good reason why the expressways couldn't be built entirely underground in the cities with exhaust fans to blow the polluted air back to Long Island, where most of the users of these expressways are from. They would have been alot more palatable to city residents that way, and the land over them could still have been used for housing. Additionally, they wouldn't be subject to the whims of nature.

 

[zx]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/874636.asp

That's bullshit! Didn't SUV's contribute to make snow storms get worse!

Plus, in Quebec, more than half of the vehicles (don't remember exactly how many) are sub-compact or compact cars. Those aren't the types of cars that usually handle well in snow or ice. You don't see everyone in Quebec buying an SUV's just because of the bad weather!

That article must be a joke.

 

[zx]

There is something that I really don't get with people and SUV's. Why would you spend 25000$ on a car that does not handle well. Of the few cars I drove in my life, i like driving those who have acceptable handling. Plus, my sence of security is much higher in a car that handles well than in a car with a high center of gravity. I can't understant how people in SUV's feel "secure"? How can you feel secure when the car you drive has more chance to tip over!

 

[Pradeep]

Generally unless you do something pretty stupid an SUV is not going to roll over. I find having a higher seating position helps when looking over snowbanks at intersections, more chance of seeing another vehicle coming along.

Nissan Murano gets 20MPG in city, not exactly an economy vehicle. And nicely equipped it is nearly $35,000. I imagine the Volvo is even more. The Outlander is pretty good value for money but by the time you pay for 4WD etc it is close to $30K.

Just sitting here posting on the Net is using up electricity, that is either creating nuclear waste, causing air pollution, or loss of habitat via hydro dams. Everything has effects.

 

[Fushigi]

Nissan Murano gets 20MPG in city, not exactly an economy vehicle. And nicely equipped it is nearly $35,000.

But 20MPG city is on par with many midsize sedans (my car with a 3L V6 is rated at 19 city & 27 highway). Basically there's little to no mileage penalty but you have the space of a traditional SUV, like the Explorer which is rated at only 15MPG city. The Murano bests it in the city mileage dept. by 33%. An Eddie Bauer Explorer retails for $35770 so I can't see that there's a price penalty for the Murano compared to the Explorer either. In fact, that is the base price for the EB Explorer; things like a moon roof, 6-disc CD changer, canopy air curtain, etc. are still extra.

In a nutshell, the crossovers are giving car-like ride and closer to car-like efficiency while providing SUV-like capacity and SUV-like inclement weather capability. The sacrifice is off-road capability, but that is simply not a factor as most folks want 4WD/AWD for snow/rain and not for the local dirt mound.

- Fushigi