California May Reduce Carbon Emissions By Banning Black Cars

[FindLiberty]

Cool.

I wraped my black car in tin foil... now it matches my hat.

 

[Zuras]

Didnt mythbusters prove that air conditioners SAVE fuel over having your windows down? So it is clear that Cali must ban all cars that do not have AC and make it so that all car windows can not go down.

Well, that would highly depend on the aerodynamics of the car(s), the degree the windows had been rolled down, as well as highway driving or more urban settings. I can assure you it's not true in any kind of typical urban setting. Mythbusters has a habbit of chosing highly specific examples and generalizing from that. It's a good way to demonstrate something, but a horrible way to prove it.

 

[ItsTime]

Well, that would highly depend on the aerodynamics of the car(s), the degree the windows had been rolled down, as well as highway driving or more urban settings. I can assure you it's not true in any kind of typical urban setting. Mythbusters has a habbit of chosing highly specific examples and generalizing from that. It's a good way to demonstrate something, but a horrible way to prove it.

Then we must ban urban driving as well.

 

[Kraig]

This is akin to turning power off the top floors of big buildings in Atlas Shrugged.

 

[acptulsa]

Well, that would highly depend on the aerodynamics of the car(s), the degree the windows had been rolled down, as well as highway driving or more urban settings. I can assure you it's not true in any kind of typical urban setting. Mythbusters has a habbit of chosing highly specific examples and generalizing from that. It's a good way to demonstrate something, but a horrible way to prove it.

Kind of like making assumptions about California weather by looking only at Santa Barbara weather?

 

[ItsTime]

vw car 258 mpg for 600 bucks

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=186374

 

[pcosmar]

Originally Posted by Zuras
I'm dieing of laughter here.
My step dad lived in califonia almost his entire young adult life. In 30 some years he never saw it snow once.

"but my daddy said"
Sorry your daddy was wrong.

Zuras,

Damn.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Zuras]

"but my daddy said"
Sorry your daddy was wrong.



My thoughts exactly.

Quick quiz: is the sun shining or not?

Answer below...
Don't cheat.
Think about it
Cheater.












Yes! The sun is shining. You need all the help you can get. Take your Thorazine if you got it wrong.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Cool.

I wraped my black car in tin foil... now it matches my hat.

And now it will be done in half the time.

 

[pcosmar]

Quick quiz: is the sun shining or not?

Answer below...
Don't cheat.
Think about it
Cheater.
Yes! The sun is shining. You need all the help you can get. Take your Thorazine if you got it wrong.

Clarification
That is snow in California.
You are full of shit. Give it up, Your attempts at seeming intelligent FAIL.

 

[Zuras]

Clarification
That is snow in California.
You are full of shit. Give it up, Your attempts at seeming intelligent FAIL.

Good for it. It's not where my step dad lived, and its not an area where 99.9% of Califnornians, live either. Why don't you take a picutre of a coral reef and tell us about all the underwater citizens of california?

 

[acptulsa]

Good for it. It's not where my step dad lived, and its not an area where 99.9% of Califnornians, live either. Why don't you take a picutre of a coral reef and tell us about all the underwater citizens of california?

Um, you made a grossly overgeneralized statement about California and got pwned for it, and now you're trying to get out from under your own ignorance by accusing someone of using overgeneralized statements about California?

This would be the pot calling the wedding dress black.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Not sure what you mean by measurably, or, rather, not sure you know what you mean by measurably. Maybe you are thinking of significantly. and that's debatable.

If you wanted to prove your theory, you would need to experiment, and measure. After you measure, you can then decide whether it is significant.

What costs?

The cost of a bunch of numb-skull bureaucrats using massive amounts of time coming up with these ideas, discussing them, documenting them, writing them into law, explaining them, enforcing them, fighting battles in court, etc. All taxpayer dollars. Which is nothing compared to what automakers might have to spend implementing, negotiating, studying/experimenting, and fighting these hair-brain ideas in court.

Black absorbs more energy and throws off more heat because of it.

Yes, we all know that. But that is not their (and your?) theory. The proposal (based on a theory) is to save gas by banning black cars. That is not proven.

That heat will raise the temperature of anything nearby by radiation/convection/conduction.

Do you understand the concept of insulation? None of the black exterior of an auto is in direct contact with the interior. And most of it is absolutely not (hood, fenders, truck). A hot roof will radiate heat upward, away from the car.

The question of whether a black car uses more gasoline is far more complex than "black gets hotter".

 

[pcosmar]

Good for it. It's not where my step dad lived, and its not an area where 99.9% of Califnornians, live either. Why don't you take a picutre of a coral reef and tell us about all the underwater citizens of california?

The point is, Don't make stupid statements that are NOT based in fact.
Back to the OP,

California May Reduce Carbon Emissions By Banning Black Cars

This is the kind of stupidity that we have come to expect from California.
What a joke.

 

[Zuras]

The point is, Don't make stupid statements that are NOT based in fact.
Back to the OP,

This is the kind of stupidity that we have come to expect from California.
What a joke.

I didn't make any stupid statements, nor any not based in fact. All I did, like usual, is slap your little know-nothing ass around. Cry about it some more.

 

[acptulsa]

I didn't make any stupid statements, nor any not based in fact. All I did, like usual, is slap your little know-nothing ass around. Cry about it some more.

You slapped someone around by claiming that there's no such thing as California snow? You not only showed your ignorance and your unpleasant manner, but you showed you know nothing about the history of your nation. Try reading up on the Transcontinental Railroad--particularly the Central Pacific's efforts to crest the Sierras. Hell, try reading up on anything!

 

[pcosmar]

I didn't make any stupid statements, nor any not based in fact. All I did, like usual, is slap your little know-nothing ass around. Cry about it some more.

Yeah yah yah.
Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance. Grow up kid.

 

[acptulsa]

Yeah yah yah.
Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance. Grow up kid.

I don't know about that. His ignorance is not something to be underestimated. I'd have to say it's too close to call.

One thing is certain. Combined they are, well, utterly remarkable. And a good recipe for hoof-in-mouth disease.

 

[Zippyjuan]

California is a big state with many different climates. There are portions which have not seen snow for decades and portions which get lots of snow every year.
The original post is just a bs thing but people do seem to be having fun with it so carry on.

 

[Zuras]

If you wanted to prove your theory, you would need to experiment, and measure. After you measure, you can then decide whether it is significant.

Some basics of the modern scientific method:
1. You don't prove anything.(this is nit picky)
2. You determine statistical significance contraints(p val) BEFORE data is collected. Afterwards you calculate it, but what is or is not significant is determined before any samples are measured collected. (this is NOT nit picky)

Collecting your data and then determining what you will cosndier significant is grounds to get booted out of any respectable universty/company.

The cost of a bunch of numb-skull bureaucrats using massive amounts of time coming up with these ideas, discussing them, documenting them, writing them into law, explaining them, enforcing them, fighting battles in court, etc. All taxpayer dollars. Which is nothing compared to what automakers might have to spend implementing, negotiating, studying/experimenting, and fighting these hair-brain ideas in court.

You might be surprised. I remember doing a physics problem about a solar sail going to mars or sometthing, and the difference between the black and white sails performance was incredibly disparate.

Yes, we all know that. But that is not their (and your?) theory. The proposal (based on a theory) is to save gas by banning black cars. That is not proven.

As far as I can see, it doesn't need to be proven because it would follow law of physics. You have no evidence to the contrary, thuse the onus would be on you to disprove the idea a black car consumes more energy to keep cool than a white car. To me, it's like saying "prove you exist". I don't have to.

Do you understand the concept of insulation? None of the black exterior of an auto is in direct contact with the interior. And most of it is absolutely not (hood, fenders, truck). A hot roof will radiate heat upward, away from the car.

There is no such thing as a perfect insulator, neither electric nor thermal, and even if there was, they wouldn't even put it in a car because the car would be worth more than a nasa shuttle.

The question of whether a black car uses more gasoline is far more complex than "black gets hotter".

Not if you control for everything but paint job it isn't.