Nope. Is based on facts I’ve sourced because you asked. Your unsubstantiated opinions again conflict with science. More appeal to the stone fallacy from you won’t negate your lack of understanding of physics and mathematics. And fibbing about data from the DOE or claiming DOE data is my data won’t either.
Let’s review. Your data —-> 1. Energy attributable to walking - the difference in calories for the extra energy required to walk versus driving. Add all the agricultural input BTUs to create that energy within the body. 2. Fossil fuel energy to drive the car - the BTU content of the fossil fuels. Add nothing else. No inputs for the synthesis of the gasoline or the car. Is that about right?
I’d say someone who doesn’t know the difference between walking, driving an ICE vehicle, and a Fred Flintstone mobile ought not to be taken seriously on this subject at all. Especially when you try to subtract calories not used for walking from calories used only for walking. And then misrepresent DOE data. And then try to avoid accounting for the 7-10 multiplication factor to account for 7-10 fossil fuel calories used to make one calorie of food. You’ve REPEATEDLY attempted to dishonesty manipulate the data. I’m just reporting FACTS.
No. Only agricultural inputs that are direct uses of fossil fuel. Fuel used in tractors. Fuel for transportation. Natural gas used in the Haber/Bosch process. It’s a direct comparison of actual direct fossil fuel usage to do work. The steel in the example car isn’t counted. Nor is the steel in a tractor. The drilling cost for the oil running the car isn’t counted. Neither is the drilling cost for oil powering the diesel tractors. The energy for concrete and steel in the gas station being used for BOTH the car being driven and the trucks and vans transporting food isn’t counted. These are all irrelevant because the same infrastructure is being used in both cases. The same road is being driven on to deliver the food as the example car. Same road to drive to the store to get the food. Get it? If you want to start itemizing you must account for infrastructure used by ag but not by your personal car. Let’s try something maybe even an engineer could understand. A calorie of food uses 7-10 calories of fossil fuel to “create”. So if you really want to get crazy with accounting, guess what? The “extraction cost” per BTU of fuel going into your body compared to “extraction cost” of fossil fuel going directly into the car is going to be 7-10 times HIGHER for the food. Similar for refining. The food is going to require MORE refining energy than the gasoline going into the car. I’m starting to see you just don’t have the background knowledge in physics and mathematics to understand this.
Based on your comment then, the fuel used to deliver gasoline to gas stations should be counted as part of #2. The fuel and electricity for drilling should be counted. The drivers of oil to the refinery should be counted. And just like your example, we won’t count the steel for the automobile or the steel to erect the refinery. Go ahead and factor in those numbers, and let me know how that works out.
557 you are like Charlie Sheen in the role of Chris in the movie Platoon in the scene that Chris saves the little girls from being raped, shaking his head at the poor bastards about how they just don't get it. The disappointment I have toward fellow ABET grads that fail to understand the magnitude of how our use of organic reserves has supplemented every aspect of our lives cannot be overstated.
Addressed above. Since food calories took 7-10 fossil fuel calories to “create”, the electricity for drilling for fossil fuel used in food creation for doing walking work is 7-10 times the electricity used for drilling for the gasoline in the car to do driving work. Very simple math. It takes 7-10 BTU of fossil fuel to make a BTU of food. So for every BTU of energy used by a walking body (usable energy to do work), 7-10 BTU of fossil fuel had to be extracted (drilled, pumped, refined, etc). For the car, one fossil fuel BTU of oil was extracted (drilled, pumped, refined, etc.) to create one BTU of usable energy to do work of driving. So the result is exactly the opposite of what you need to support your opinion. For food, it takes 7-10 times as much energy for extraction per unit of usable energy to do work than energy used for extraction per unit of usable energy to do work in the car. Same for refining. Same for drivers of oil to refineries. Since it takes 7-10 units of fossil fuel to make a usable unit for the human body, it’s always going to take 7-10 times as much refining, drilling, etc. per usable BTU of food than usable BTU of fuel for the car. If I buy 1 unit of tequila it takes “x” units of energy to produce it. If I buy 7-10 units of tequila it takes “7x” units of energy to produce it. Middle school math.
LOL. Love the analogy. I almost watched that the other night. Now I may have to…it’s been years since I’ve seen it. To the every bit of life part, yes, it’s flabbergasting. Food, clothing, packaging, transportation, entertainment, everything is dependent on mostly fossil energy. It doesn’t have to be. Food could be green, but the consumer doesn’t want that. Yet. That’s what I’m trying to change.
Platoon and Hamburger Hill both came out when I was active duty Army, and had spent some time reading stuff about the 'nam. At the time I much preferred Hamburger Hill, as it reflected a bit more of the basic absurdity of it all without the drama. Overly dramatized was what I thought of Oliver's movie. Not anymore. I like the dramatic plot line, and it serves to represent much better the battle that our troops actually faced in situations that led to horrid things like My Lai much better. This bullshit that these folks grasp onto with respect to saving the Earth is absurd in general and simply abhorrent to me when I see posts from degree'ed engineers riding the train of bullshit. In this thread we have a self-proclaimed EE talking about how nifty the Trondheim project is when in fact it is simply absurd. These resources will damn well run out and we haven't the blink-of-an-eye-in-time to get a replacement in place. If it's even possible. And what is the IPCC working group for this? It doesn't exist.....
I learned a lot about WW2 from vets as a kid and young adult. For nam not so much. Most vets I knew from nam couldn’t talk about it yet. Some went to their grave that way. Some to the grave because they couldn’t sort it out (probably mostly the fault of us civilians). The living ones that eventually sorted it out I’m not close to anymore. I think it’s very important to learn lessons from those who experienced it. It’s the only way to create a society less prone to violence. The climate change narrative is crafted to prey on the vulnerable. If a person is looking for meaning and purpose in life it can be as attractive as any other type of cult. I’ve probably been too hard on engineering as a broad demographic. The old saying “what do you call the physician who graduated last in their class in medical school” applies to all fields. There are farmers that don’t understand carbon belongs in the soil as crazy as that sounds. Don’t you think folks will get more serious about solutions if we at some point hit peak oil and supply actually begins to fail to keep up with demand? I don’t see people really caring when we have hot wars in the Middle East and Europe and oil is still only $70/barrel.
You get an F man. Your entire premise is flawed! FAIL!!! I would have loved to have had you for a student. A self-proclaimed mathematician who has no idea what he’s talking about. The kind of guy that professors like to put in his place.
LOL. Sorry all you have is ad hominem now. The math is middle school level and you can’t comprehend it. I’ve been through it multiple times and you can’t point out any errors. Just say “you’re wrong”. I’ve substantiated all the data with links and shown the math. All you have is unsubstantiated opinions and fallacy and a record of lying about my posts. You misrepresented data from the DOE. You said DOE data was my data. You claimed I was wrong for rounding when the rounding changed the end result by 0.028%. You dishonestly tried to subtract calories from calories burned by doing the work of walking. You claimed athletes burn more calories to do the same work as non athletes even though physics and biology show it’s the opposite. Literally everything you’ve posted conflicts with verifiable physics, biology and mathematics. The FACT remains. Walking can and often does burn more fossil fuels than driving an ICE vehicle the same distance. That FACT remains no matter how much ad hominem or appeal to stone fallacy you post. I’ve delivered the data and shown the math from several different angles. I’m sorry it’s too complicated for some to understand. You can’t teach. You don’t present any data nor do you provide any calculations to back your opinions. Teachers have facts and ability to do math. All you do is say I’m wrong. That’s not an argument. It’s certainly not teaching. Teachers don’t lie about data others present. I got along well with professors because I was receptive to what they had to teach. When presented with information that was novel and sometimes seemingly unbelievable (there are some crazy things in biology) I didn’t tell professors they were wrong. If I questioned the information I checked it out to verify the accuracy. I never caught one lying about data. Some professors put me in my place by employing me to tutor their classes the year after I took their class. One asked me to conduct research with him. I don’t know why you think I’d have beef with professors. I love to learn. Professors generally like that. Maybe you had ******* professors but I had good experiences with mine.
From my perspective it does seem there is a crafted narrative with variations in both content creation and audience interpretation. I do not see though that I fully agree some of our right honorable members here that are all in on the "alarmist" side share any Venn diagram space with the vulnerable. Who are the vulnerable? Mentally vulnerable you mean? Folks in search of meaning as a priority? Interesting angle. Maybe it applies to some of the folks here that are participating in threads surrounding the general topic. I take no umbrage at anyone tossing shade at engineers in general and especially when they invite it upon themselves. I read a random article many years ago about a leading golf professional that had acquired the nickname figjam. Spoiler: fisjams The vast majority of engineers I've worked with are folks that lean toward the introverted side of life and are happy to crunch out moderately challenging activities in front of a pair of 1920 x 1080 monitors for 40 hours a week. I have specialized in CSE stuff and it's great. Detailed tasks that take me often to the full limit of my attention span. All within my head with input almost wholly reliant on vision and output always through the keyboard and mouse. If I have to even think about using a screwdriver I'm an easy 20% pissed off immediately. Amusing. A bit pathetic this, for a former 15E cable humping Pershing Professional. Hahaha, definitely amusing now. I wouldn't be able to do what I do without having spent the time and money, my own money by the way, dedicating myself to not just getting in and out with the degree, but to have done so with a complete understanding of the content. A complete understanding of course not being fully possible as the studies revealed that contrary to my opinion upon having graduated high school, there is a whole lot of fundamental stuff that humans simply have not yet figured out. Chemical engineering revealed substantial areas ripe for further investigation, and if I had had the financial resources or even a much more moderate and stable version of family upbringing then I'd have had a fair shot at pursuing that sort of stuff, I think perhaps. One of my observations that I think holds weight is that most engineers don't actually do real engineering. Real engineering is simple and straightforward by my definition. It's using math to solve a word problem. The closest I get to this most often is having to sort out boolean logic for programming a PLC. This is an activity that unfortunately has a long history of folks with no formal engineering education gotten their hands on, but folks with the education generally can be expected to screw this stuff up with equal and perhaps even worse results. And then there is the lack of sufficient testing, as this step requires the same level of effort as the programming and a bit more in fact. It's not real engineering though, real engineering involves word problems that haven't already been solved and then using the tools provided by applied math to solve them. Space X rocket scientists are not resolving stuff Werner von Braun already solved, for example. Engineers have a common foible in that we like to be correct. Of course everyone likes to be right, but we like to be correct and to be able to prove it. Often this will become the goal, impeding progress to sort out an issue that could have been left alone. I just lost a day's progress at work this week over another engineer holding up work for this exact example. As I have exhausted my serotonin supply dealing with the CSE tasks on my plate, I simply fold on even attempting to engage my ears and mouth: inputs and outputs atrophied by my particular specialization, to argue the point with Billy. Lost a day, let's move on. So f'g stupid. Coupled with the unfortunate remnants of not always helpful reptile brain, engineers will on occasion spin up their AI skilz and produce a word salad as their "proof" that can be quite difficult to shred. I don't do this, spool up my brain to verbalize a bunch of word salad in defense of my position on a topic: hence why BB is back on ignore. She brings complete s to the table on these discussions anyway. And always fades off after the first few pages, I've noticed before I decided to sort her out of my attention. There's a gal I work with, Leanne, she's among the Phil Mickelson types of engineers I've worked with over the years, fisjams.... Dude - I have no clue. That 50 year mark may extend to 200. It will end though, of that I have zero doubt. It may in fact be the boogie man that the "alarmists" claim it is. The results are not as stark as made out to be. Mushroom and you have both pointed out the advantages of a warmer Earth. The loss of these resources will be far more detrimental than these "alarmists" ever even mention.
I do not see that you have made any attempt here to fact check 557's assertions about the amount of energy used to get a pack of Ball Park Franks onto the shelf at your local grocery store. Until you take the time and effort to do so, you are the one making faith based claims about knowing anything about where we are at and where we need to get to regarding our dependence on the Earth's organic reserves. The fact that you've made this thread tells me you have not engaged with any independent serious engineering analysis of the premise nor the solutions associated with the IPCC agenda.
No problem dude. Step right in. Original point was that it was stated that it takes more energy to walk to a destination than it does to drive. Care to weigh in?
The vast majority of what I post in this subforum is hard science based on peer reviewed research. In the past I’ve pledged to preface content that is based on personal observations (more opinion than formal research) with this warning that some following content is my opinion. With that out of the way, I believe there are many things that make one vulnerable to accepting things not based on evidence. A short list: 1) A need to fit in (tribalism) 2) Past training to appeal to authority (media, white lab coats, political figures, even celebrities) 3) Past training to accept appeal to emotion arguments at face value 4) Related to #3, past training that didn’t include education on critical thought, logic, and cost/benefit analysis. When taken together, the list points to our educational system as the primary driver in making people vulnerable to things like false premises of the climate narrative. The degree to which current government training programs affect the individual depends a lot on factors outside the educational system. Like parental influence. Recreational pursuits. Vulnerability of this type isn’t unique to climate. It made people very vulnerable to accepting misinformation and disinformation on Covid as well (just as another contemporary example). It’s not that people who accept misinformation and disinformation are stupid or slow. They have just been trained to react to stimuli instead of educated on how to think (and why it matters). I think the evidence for this is pretty solid. The majority of arguments you see from the climate zealot are primarily based on appeal to emotion and appeal to authority. There is seldom critical thought in the background. It’s a simple response to stimuli. When they are exposed to information they are unfamiliar with, the immediate reaction is appeal to authority argument and appeal to emotion fallacy. And of course the always present tribalism. That’s it in a nutshell. Of course things like consumption of a lot of media are a factor as well. If you are inundated with a premise over and over and over, human minds are just hard wired to eventually accept it. It’s why I encourage sourcing information from many unrelated sources instead of just one organization. It also helps to associate with and have meaningful conversation with intelligent, thoughtful people not part of your tribe (few can handle existing outside a tribe). Critical thought and cost/benefit analysis both require inputs from tribes you don’t normally associate yourself with to be comprehensive and accurate. And to be less vulnerable one must THINK. If you do not think these issues through, by definition you only have appeal to authority to fall back on. It’s never good to let others do your thinking for you. You must glean information from others, but by allowing others to think for you, you are letting them make decisions for you as well. And there is ALWAYS a group or organization just waiting to profit (financially and politically) from being allowed to make decisions for you. You must possess the patience of a saint. Yes, it will happen eventually. Probably not in our lifetime but some generation will have to face it. And yes, I agree a world quickly deprived of fossil fuels would be a very ugly place of mass death and violence. Survival on this cold earth would be very difficult (impossible for most humans) without fossil fuels. Australia is a pretty warm continent overall. Yet they use 7 times more energy to heat human habitat than to cool it. And still, there is 14 times more all cause mortality related to suboptimal cold temps than mortality related to suboptimal hot temps in Australia. And that’s just need for temperature control. Most clothes are fossil fuel based. Food is. A lot of water we use would be inaccessible without fossil fuels.
Since you are misrepresenting my post here it is again. Some bolding of pertinent text you are omitting in your claim here.
You stated a lot of horse caca. You also said this, and the true emissions being presented is the hot air to make this statement. “But it’s a lie. Cycling and walking use as much or more fossil fuels than driving an ICE vehicle on fossil fuels. And 99.999% of people are too uneducatedto see the lie. “
That is a true statement. It’s factual as shown by mathematical analysis of the data from DOE. Per DOE data, a person with a fully fossil fuel powered hybrid would use two to three times as much fossil fuel walking as driving their ICE vehicle. A big percentage of non hybrid cars and all motorcycles and scooters use less fossil fuel than walking. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a1127/4206698/# So since you don’t like rounding, it takes 3,966 fossil fuel BTU to walk a mile. And per DOE the average ICE car takes 3,549 fossil fuel BTU to drive a mile. Based on verifiable FACTS for which I’ve supplied references, my statements are correct. You disliking those facts doesn’t change physics or math. Thanks for your opinion that the DOE, physics and mathematics are horse caca. Amusing statement.
