Autobahn Speed Limits

drtoddw

Jammer bieten keinen 100 %-Schutz
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
3,177
Reaction score
3,724
Location
West Coast of the Mitten
Rating - 0%
0   0   0

DominatingDrew

It Depends
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
385
Reaction score
503
Location
United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
"Not every instrument and every measure will be accepted," reads the draft. "It will take political deftness, diplomatic skill and a willingness to compromise to achieve the climate change goals" From AutoBlog. I hope they'll keep the unrestricted sections, especially since I'm going to Germany in June and will hopefully be able to drive on the Autobahn.

I'm all for reducing CO2 emissions, but I'd rather have financial incentives for people to make decisions that lead to less CO2 than to outright ban something that is so special about Germany.
 

Luminox2323

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Aug 11, 2018
Messages
313
Reaction score
502
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Why would they? I am amazed at how “trained” German drivers are on it. They move over when a fast car is approaching? Imagine that! I felt very safe traveling at high speeds, because drivers were paying attention and being aware of what’s behind them.
 

Transporter

ModWight Transporter
Premium Member
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
1,599
Location
In front of you but behind a Rabbit
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
"Not every instrument and every measure will be accepted," reads the draft. "It will take political deftness, diplomatic skill and a willingness to compromise to achieve the climate change goals" From AutoBlog. I hope they'll keep the unrestricted sections, especially since I'm going to Germany in June and will hopefully be able to drive on the Autobahn.

I'm all for reducing CO2 emissions, but I'd rather have financial incentives for people to make decisions that lead to less CO2 than to outright ban something that is so special about Germany.


Cars pollute the least when they are running wide open. want to reduce CO2, then ban drive-thru lanes and stop & go traffic because that is when cars pollute the most.

By the way CO2 is not a greenhouse gas nor a pollute for without it Man can't survive. Fun Fact: Termites release more CO2 into the air in one year then man has released into the air in the last 200 years! If CO2 is such a big deal, why isn't there a world wide effort to eliminate ALL termites?!
.
 

DominatingDrew

It Depends
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
385
Reaction score
503
Location
United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Why would they? I am amazed at how “trained” German drivers are on it. They move over when a fast car is approaching? Imagine that! I felt very safe traveling at high speeds, because drivers were paying attention and being aware of what’s behind them.
It seems to be more for environmental reasons than safety reasons.

Cars pollute the least when they are running wide open. want to reduce CO2, then ban drive-thru lanes and stop & go traffic because that is when cars pollute the most.
.
I would love to "ban" stop and go traffic through road pricing (guaranteed to get rid of traffic if done correctly), but unfortunately that's not really a popular opinion at the moment.

By the way CO2 is not a greenhouse gas nor a pollute for without it Man can't survive. Fun Fact: Termites release more CO2 into the air in one year then man has released into the air in the last 200 years! If CO2 is such a big deal, why isn't there a world wide effort to eliminate ALL termites?!
.
We need CO2 to survive because it's a greenhouse gas (meaning it traps in heat). The average temperature of the earth would be 0F (-18C) without it. It's not
a pollutant at a local level because it's not harmful to breathe as long as you have oxygen. (Side Note: in a perfect combustion reaction of hydrocarbon + oxygen there is just CO2 and water vapor as resultant gasses, but because the ratio is never perfect, gasses like Ozone, Nitrogen Oxides, and Carbon Monoxide are produced. Modern fuel injected cars are pretty good about keeping the ratio close to perfect and have catalytic converters which is why modern cars smell less like gasoline and pollute less than older carbureted cars and lawn mowers).

Nature does emit a lot more CO2 than we do through termites and whatnot. However, the problem is that nature also absorbs as much CO2 as it emits. When we burn fuel and release CO2 into the atmosphere, while it's a very small amount compared to the earth, it doesn't get absorbed and accumulates over the years. This causes the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to go up from about 280 ppm from before the industrial revolution to 409 ppm today. A rise this fast in geological time is unprecedented. There is a station in Hawaii that has been keeping track since the 50s, and we can tell what it was before that by ice cores.
 
Last edited:

Deacon

TXCTG
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Newly Registered
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
7,853
Reaction score
8,827
Location
Hill Country, TX
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Short version: yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, no termite CO2 isn’t an issue, and it’s mind-screamingly maddening that blatant disinformation like that keeps getting spread around and people keep believing it and that we have high ranking government officials pushing this kind of ignorance.
 

Transporter

ModWight Transporter
Premium Member
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
1,599
Location
In front of you but behind a Rabbit
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It seems to be more for environmental reasons than safety reasons.



I would love to "ban" stop and go traffic through road pricing (guaranteed to get rid of traffic if done correctly), but unfortunately that's not really a popular opinion at the moment.



We need CO2 to survive because it's a greenhouse gas (meaning it traps in heat). The average temperature of the earth would be 0F (-18C) without it. It's not
a pollutant at a local level because it's not harmful to breathe as long as you have oxygen. (Side Note: in a perfect combustion reaction of hydrocarbon + oxygen there is just CO2 and water vapor as resultant gasses, but because the ratio is never perfect, gasses like Ozone, Nitrogen Oxides, and Carbon Monoxide are produced. Modern fuel injected, cars are pretty good about keeping the ratio close to perfect and have catalytic converters which is why modern cars smell less like gasoline and pollute less than older carbureted cars and lawn mowers).

Nature does emit a lot more CO2 than we do through termites and whatnot. However, the problem is that nature also absorbs as much CO2 as it emits. When we burn fuel and release CO2 into the atmosphere, while it's a very small amount compared to the earth, it doesn't get absorbed and accumulates over the years. This causes the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to go up from about 280 ppm from before the industrial revolution to 409 ppm today. A rise this fast in geological time is unprecedented. There is a station in Hawaii that has been keeping track since the 50s, and we can tell what it was before that by ice cores.

The false NASA data has already been proven that it was falsified by the research from MIT. CO2 has not increased in the last 10,000 years. If it was increasing as they falsely claim it has over the last 30 years, we would be having trouble breathing! CO2, isn’t even a half of one percent of the atmosphere and never will make it to even a full half of one percent no matter what man does as long plants live on the planet and in the oceans because it is impossible to overcome Nitrogen and Oxygen at their levels. Additionally the earth’s plants can handle 1000 times the current amount of CO2 IE impossible for it to increase. The Earth’s plants turning any and all CO2 but the small amount of residual CO2 into Oxygen which is again why CO2 hasn’t increase in 10,000 years.
 

DominatingDrew

It Depends
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
385
Reaction score
503
Location
United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The false NASA data has already been proven that it was falsified by the research from MIT. CO2 has not increased in the last 10,000 years. If it was increasing as they falsely claim it has over the last 30 years, we would be having trouble breathing! CO2, isn’t even a half of one percent of the atmosphere and never will make it to even a full half of one percent no matter what man does as long plants live on the planet and in the oceans because it is impossible to overcome Nitrogen and Oxygen at their levels. Additionally the earth’s plants can handle 1000 times the current amount of CO2 IE impossible for it to increase. The Earth’s plants turning any and all CO2 but the small amount of residual CO2 into Oxygen which is again why CO2 hasn’t increase in 10,000 years.
If you don't believe NASA's data, I doubt an anonymous person on an internet forum will be able to change your view on the matter. And I get it; I hate the idea of climate change. I'm an American. Our lifestyle consists of cars, planes, meat, and unnecessarily large houses. People are resistant to accepting climate change not because of incomplete science, but because it's an attack on our lifestyle. Our identities. Our freedom.

Climate change is stacked against human nature. It's a problem with distance consequences that no one person or nation is responsible for. It's the ultimate example of tragedy of the commons. I like to think of it like your health. Eating McDonald's every day is going to eventually come back to haunt you, but when you're dealing with the stresses of daily life it's just so easy to see whatever you're dealing with that day as a bigger issue than your health in 20 years.

I get it, I loathe the though of admitting that we are negatively affecting the earth, but admitting we have a problem is the first step in doing something about it, even if it's investing in green technology (because it would be naive to expect people to make major lifestyle changes).

Nonetheless, I doubt either of us will change our minds on the science, so I'm just going to respectfully agree to disagree. Have a good long weekend.
 
Last edited:

Deacon

TXCTG
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Newly Registered
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
7,853
Reaction score
8,827
Location
Hill Country, TX
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
I'm just going to respectfully agree to disagree.
Well, no, as they saying goes, we’re all entitled to our own opinions, but we’re not entitled to our own facts. You don’t get to disagree with facts. You can disagree about what to do about them, but the wholesale dismissal of fact in favor of the way we wish things were is the single greatest disease of our society today, regardless of topic or political leanings. Politics is the way we approach the legislation that governs our world. It still requires that we acknowledge reality. For climate change specifically, you can say hey we’re all going to die anyway so let’s live it up until we slowly disappear, or we should institute some draconian authoritarian measures in hopes of stemming or reversing our contributions to it, or something in the middle. But saying reality is a fantasy and fantasy is reality isn’t the kind of thing you can simply “agree to disagree” about.

EDIT: And the realty is the autobahn sections of unrestricted speed are so very far down the list of things to worry about when it comes to climate change as to be laughable as a justification.
 
Last edited:

DominatingDrew

It Depends
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
385
Reaction score
503
Location
United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Well, no, as they saying goes, we’re all entitled to our own opinions, but we’re not entitled to our own facts. You don’t get to disagree with facts. You can disagree about what to do about them, but the wholesale dismissal of fact in favor of the way we wish things were is the single greatest disease of our society today, regardless of topic or political leanings. Politics is the way we approach the legislation that governs our world. It still requires that we acknowledge reality. For climate change specifically, you can say hey we’re all going to die anyway so let’s live it up until we slowly disappear, or we should institute some draconian authoritarian measures in hopes of stemming or reversing our contributions to it, or something in the middle. But saying reality is a fantasy and fantasy is reality isn’t the kind of thing you can simply “agree to disagree” about.

EDIT: And the realty is the autobahn sections of unrestricted speed are so very far down the list of things to worry about when it comes to climate change as to be laughable as a justification.
Look, I agree with you. Climate change is happening, and I don't think ruining the Autobahn is the way to fight it (Electricity generation is the lowest hanging fruit in my opinion) However, usually you have more success at convincing someone that a fact is a fact by maintaining a respectful environment and trying to understand where they're coming from rather than just dismissing them and ranting about it. That's the type of environment that just leads both sides to be more polarized.

Climate change is a scientific rather than political topic, but it can evolve into a political debate very quickly which is what I sensed was about to happen and obviously isn't allowed on RDForum. I already feel bad about sort of derailing this thread (though it is kind of relevant since that's the reason for the proposed speed limits), and just didn't want it to go any further. Even if you are right, sometimes debating someone will just be pointless and go on forever. I'd rather just call it a night and not cause any hard feeling between forum members when we all came here for the same hobby.
 

Deacon

TXCTG
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Newly Registered
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
7,853
Reaction score
8,827
Location
Hill Country, TX
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
However, usually you have more success at convincing someone that a fact is a fact by maintaining a respectful environment and trying to understand where they're coming from
Not really. I mean, yes, but that presumes a rational and reasonable person and discussion. When the response to reams upon reams of factual data is, “Nuh-uh!” then saying we agree to disagree simply validates that their simple denial of fact is open to agreement or disagreement, reducing solid fact to the same nebulous and changeable whims of opinion. It’s not. Climate change in particular is a prominent target of fact deniers. As Alexander Pope said, terribly paraphrased, “A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or don’t sip at all.” But the internet in particular has allowed so many to take a sip and then make authoritative statements contrary to fact because the facts don’t flatter their world view as neatly. So we get misguided and badly misinformed (or worse under-informed) attempts at hole-poking to try to bend reality to our preferred world view.

Even if you are right, sometimes debating someone will just be pointless and go on forever.
Yes, of course you’re right about that. But saying you agree to disagree elevates opinion to the same level as fact. If you want to call it a night you can say everything you said and leave that part out. “Listen, I realize the odds of changing your mind about denying the data are low. But before I sign off and call it a night, let me say this. Large numbers of people smarter than both of us combined have spent their lives meticulously gathering the data. Rather than baselessly insulting their intelligence and dismissing it altogether because you don’t like the potential implications of the data and denying it all wholecloth by arbitrarily ascribing sinister agendas and conspiracies to such a massive number of objective measurements, maybe it’s worth reconsidering your approach and then forming your opinions about what to do with the facts. Science doesn’t care whether we like the facts or shut our eyes to the facts. Reality is still there and still requires that we reckon with it at some point.”
 
Last edited:

RaggedEdge

Premium Member
Premium Member
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2018
Messages
663
Reaction score
1,316
Location
Middle Tennessee
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The same people who tell me anthropogenic climate change is real, also tell me I'm a bigot when I say a man who cuts off his genitals and takes hormones to grow breasts is not a woman, but a mutilated man.
 

Deacon

TXCTG
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Newly Registered
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
7,853
Reaction score
8,827
Location
Hill Country, TX
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Well then, they are exactly equivalent, the objective data must be made up entirely.
 

SVG

Premium Member
Premium Member
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Oct 1, 2017
Messages
350
Reaction score
461
Location
CA/MT
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I'll chime in here with a couple of thoughts on "Climate Change". I'll keep it to just a few points as I don't believe any minds will be changed.
  1. The earth's climate has continually changed throughout its existence.
  2. Some of the senior members here may remember the Time Magazine article in the 70's warning us of the coming "global freeze". We were all going to freeze to death! When it was clear that wasn't the case the goal posts had to be moved. Global Warming! Ah, that's it. Over time scientists, at least credible ones not on the government tit (a very important fact), started shooting holes in the data. It turned out that the GW government funded apostle's had been cooking the books. Time to dust off the goal post mover again...................................................................... Climate change!! A stroke of marketing genius. Since the climate has always been changing it makes the theory infallible. It cannot be disproven. Snow storms, hurricanes, typhoons, floods, you name it, Climate Change!!
  3. This is the point that should bring out any cynicism you might have. If it doesn't I recommend you order a bottle of it and drink it. The solution was to regulate CO2 emissions via a "carbon exchange" run in large part by Goldman Sachs. If that alone doesn't spike your BS meter then stop reading now and tune back into CNN/CNBC for more programming. Think about it for a moment. It would be the scam of all scams. It would make the Federal Reserve look like a bake sale in comparison. Follow the money! BTW, didn't Al Goreleone inform us via an "Inconvenient Truth" that the polar caps would be melted and the polar bears would be wearing sunscreen by now?? What happened??
  4. Why is it that the western developed nations are meant to abide by new regulations but gross polluters like China, India, etc. get a free pass? Oh I know, we're supposed to use our wealth to bring them up to our standards. Do you really think China will harm themselves economically by retrofitting their power generating industries? Rather, they will watch us become even more uncompetitive and increase their market share. Follow the money!
  5. I've been hearing the new Democratic Commie wunderkid (AOC) spewing forth that her "green new deal" will generate income that will be dispersed to the commoners. Oh boy that sounds good! Who wouldn't like some free cash? If you believe that'll happen I bet you believe "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" or "Obamacare will lower healthcare costs" or "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" or "The Founding Fathers were all evil slave owners" or "Mission Accomplished" or some such similar BS.
  6. I've been in a room with Stanford Professors (relatives) who act as if the science is "settled" regarding CC. Let's just say I remain unconvinced based on what I see. Keep in mind that most of university research is government funded via grants. If you aren't in the "choir" you get run of the plantation (no $$ for you). Always follow the money!
  7. I expect a furious rebuttal to this.
Rant over. Oh, I think lowering the speed limit on the Autobahn is BS.
 

RaggedEdge

Premium Member
Premium Member
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2018
Messages
663
Reaction score
1,316
Location
Middle Tennessee
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Well then, they are exactly equivalent, the objective data must be made up entirely.
I find arguing on the rhetorical level to be much more fun than the dialectical.

Guess we could start discussing the fact that being skeptical in regards to the theory of anthropogenic global warming is actually healthy. While there are those who claim the science behind it is settled, I would strongly argue otherwise. Computer models should not replace sound scientific experimentation.
 

STS134

Premium Member
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
8,462
Reaction score
7,333
Location
Saratoga, CA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The false NASA data has already been proven that it was falsified by the research from MIT. CO2 has not increased in the last 10,000 years. If it was increasing as they falsely claim it has over the last 30 years, we would be having trouble breathing! CO2, isn’t even a half of one percent of the atmosphere and never will make it to even a full half of one percent no matter what man does as long plants live on the planet and in the oceans because it is impossible to overcome Nitrogen and Oxygen at their levels. Additionally the earth’s plants can handle 1000 times the current amount of CO2 IE impossible for it to increase. The Earth’s plants turning any and all CO2 but the small amount of residual CO2 into Oxygen which is again why CO2 hasn’t increase in 10,000 years.
I'm sorry your comment is just dumb. There is no evidence that NASA or anyone else has been faking data. Here is the track record of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere:
1280px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png


Now, of course, all of this increase is not man made. The industrial revolution didn't come about until the 1800s, and CO2 levels have been increasing since the end of the ice age. CO2 levels have gone up and down over the last several hundred thousand years, and the industrial revolution only accounts for a small part of the increase, right at the end. But it's now at 400-410 ppmv, and has gotten there from around 300 ppmv in about 100-200 years. In geologic time, that's an explosion.

As far as your comment about people having trouble breathing, that just shows scientific ignorance. Those of us who watched Apollo 13 remember this scene:


The levels they refer to in the movie are partial pressures, in mmHg. Now the total amount of gas is relevant if we want to give the concentration as a fraction of the total, i.e. in parts per million. If the pressure were 1 atm = 760 mmHg, then 15 mmHg would be 15/760 mmHg or around 19736 ppm. But the spacecraft actually operated at around 1/3 atm with pure oxygen, so it was actually closer to 60000 ppm. But biologically, partial pressure is more important, so 20000 ppm at 1 atm is the relevant value here. Partial pressure affects how fast the gases diffuse through tissue in our lungs, which is why those oxygen masks that drop down from the ceiling on planes actually work. They don't increase the absolute pressure, but they do increase the fraction of the gas we're breathing that consists of oxygen. The body expects about 21% of the air to be oxygen at 760 mmHg which is around 160 mmHg. So whether it's 760 mmHg of total pressure with 21% oxygen, or 160 mmHg of total pressure at 100% oxygen, the body does not care.

We're still far away from the level at which humans would have problems with CO2 poisoning but keep in mind, any time you go in an enclosed space, like inside a car with 5 people inside, the levels of CO2 are going to be elevated compared to the atmosphere outside. And there are a lot of other really bad consequences of carbon dioxide levels reaching anything between where we are and 20000 ppm.

As far as Autobahn and speed limits though...that is just stupid.
 
Last edited:

Deacon

TXCTG
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Newly Registered
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
7,853
Reaction score
8,827
Location
Hill Country, TX
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Guess we could start discussing the fact that being skeptical in regards to the theory of anthropogenic global warming is actually healthy.
Skeptical doesn't just mean doubtful (like some think) or denial. It means thinking intelligently with a solid groundwork of information and approaching the topic with a critical eye. Just saying "Nuh-uh!" and trying to find some way to poke a shallowly informed hole in well-established science doesn't make you a genius.

While there are those who claim the science behind it is settled, I would strongly argue otherwise.
That's not an argument. That's simple contradiction. As Monty Python once said, "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes." Just saying "Nuh-uh!" isn't an argument, strong or otherwise.

Computer models should not replace sound scientific experimentation.
Yeah? How are you going to set up some experiments? Please, by all means elaborate for us. I'm sure you'd agree that setting up a clone of earth and observing it over a million years isn't a feasible experiment, much less repeating it over and over again, and then repeating it some more and tweaking variables. Observation and objective measurements with a deep understanding of our atmosphere and the mechanisms that are employed within show that human beings add an outsize amount of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere (not just carbon dioxide but methane and others), much more than the natural world is able to offset through natural processes, and that's causing changes in the climate. Whether that means we all die in 50 years or we've got 500 years, and how close we are to the tipping point of critical mass from which we cannot reasonably expect to recover, that may be open to a little bit of very well informed guesswork based on computer modeling. WHETHER humanity has dumped large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is not open to argument. WHETHER it's more than the natural world can offset is not open to argument.

The questions open to argument are not whether or how much man has contributed, only how severe the effects will be and when.

And the question of whether the autobahn is worth worrying about is closed with a hearty no ;)
 

erickonphoenix

LLE, Left Lane Enforcer
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
9,969
Reaction score
15,000
Location
Houston
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I was chatting with a chick from Germany a few years ago that figured the whole system would get regulated some day because of congestion. Except maybe the Black Forest highway because that was more a tourist route.

As for climate change I'm all for just having a good time and leaving a mess for our kids to clean up. A big project will be a good way to keep them busy.
 

RaggedEdge

Premium Member
Premium Member
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2018
Messages
663
Reaction score
1,316
Location
Middle Tennessee
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Yeah? How are you going to set up some experiments? Please, by all means elaborate for us. I'm sure you'd agree that setting up a clone of earth and observing it over a million years isn't a feasible experiment, much less repeating it over and over again, and then repeating it some more and tweaking variables.
Tough ****, the fact is the theory of man-made
global warming is not falsifiable which creates a very big problem with calling it a scientifically proven fact.

All of the doomsday scenarios are based off computer modeling and that is fine, but saying that you doubt these computer models doesn't make one a stupid rube who hates science.

Example of computer model error:

Climate models fail to simulate recent air-pressure changes over Greenland
 

Donation drives

RDF Server & License Fees (Jan/Feb 2019)

This donation drive covers the server and licensing fees for RDF for the months of January and February 2019...
Goal
$795.00
Earned
$630.00
This donation drive ends in

Latest threads

Social Group Activity

Forum statistics

Threads
78,204
Messages
1,163,364
Members
17,991
Latest member
dclinc
Top