I replaced the one on my 96 T100 2 years ago after it flunked smog. Cost me about $500 installed. Brought my NOX measurement from over 600 down to 1.
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
I replaced the one on my 96 T100 2 years ago after it flunked smog. Cost me about $500 installed. Brought my NOX measurement from over 600 down to 1.
What does a added fee on an electric bill do?
Sheriff Joe
DA
I didn't say they weren't useful, like attorneys, just expensive, like attorneys.
Does running premium really make a difference with the average car these days?
I know it used to.
No difference to catalytic converters. Just avoid leaded fuel.
I ran a test with this truck when I first got it - slightly better mileage with 91 than with 87, but not enough to make up for the difference in price. My wife's Mercedes wants 91 and will light the Check Engine warning if she runs too much 87.
November and 23017 weather year data is in --
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
2001 42 44 56 51 57 54 60 48 54 50 70 55 53 51 38 54 54 58 2001
2002 75 75 90 57 63 55 61 53 63 55 58 44 62 63 69 70 56 58 2002
2003 73 55 58 54 61 48 54 65 65 73 53 74 61 58 57 58 56 64 2003
2004 58 73 64 63 40 43 24 44 50 63 71 48 54 56 68 56 37 61 2004
2005 70 55 71 68 63 66 64 61 75 76 72 65 67 66 58 67 64 74 2005
2006 56 69 62 50 47 64 52 69 62 67 69 74 62 61 63 53 62 66 2006
2007 95 70 69 74 66 58 60 57 60 58 55 46 64 66 79 70 59 58 2007
2008 23 34 73 52 47 46 59 44 63 63 65 53 52 51 34 57 49 64 2008
2009 61 51 52 59 65 65 71 66 68 64 76 66 64 63 55 59 67 69 2009
2010 74 80 92 85 73 63 59 63 59 69 78 46 70 72 73 83 62 68 2010
2011 49 51 62 62 50 57 71 71 54 63 56 53 58 58 49 58 66 58 2011
2012 45 47 56 68 74 63 54 61 72 75 74 52 62 62 48 66 59 73 2012
2013 66 55 66 52 58 65 57 66 77 67 78 65 64 63 58 59 63 74 2013
2014 73 52 76 77 85 66 56 80 88 81 66 78 73 72 63 79 68 78 2014
2015 81 87 90 74 76 79 72 79 82 108 103 111 87 84 82 80 77 97 2015
2016 115 134 131 108 91 79 83 100 88 89 90 82 99 101 120 110 87 89 2016
2017 96 112 113 93 88 70 81 87 74 90 87 **** **** 89 97 98 80 83 2017
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
2001 42 44 56 51 57 54 60 48 54 50 70 55 53 51 38 54 54 58 2001
2002 75 75 90 57 63 55 61 53 63 55 58 44 62 63 69 70 56 58 2002
2003 73 55 58 54 61 48 54 65 65 73 53 74 61 58 57 58 56 64 2003
2004 58 73 64 63 40 43 24 44 50 63 71 48 54 56 68 56 37 61 2004
2005 70 55 71 68 63 66 64 61 75 76 72 65 67 66 58 67 64 74 2005
2006 56 69 62 50 47 64 52 69 62 67 69 74 62 61 63 53 62 66 2006
2007 95 70 69 74 66 58 60 57 60 58 55 46 64 66 79 70 59 58 2007
2008 23 34 73 52 47 46 59 44 63 63 65 53 52 51 34 57 49 64 2008
2009 61 51 52 59 65 65 71 66 68 64 76 66 64 63 55 59 67 69 2009
2010 74 80 92 85 73 63 59 63 59 69 78 46 70 72 73 83 62 68 2010
2011 49 51 62 62 50 57 71 71 54 63 56 53 58 58 49 58 66 58 2011
2012 45 47 56 68 74 63 54 61 72 75 74 52 62 62 48 66 59 73 2012
2013 66 55 66 52 58 65 57 66 77 67 78 65 64 63 58 59 63 74 2013
2014 73 52 76 77 85 66 56 80 88 81 66 78 73 72 63 79 68 78 2014
2015 81 87 90 74 76 79 72 79 82 108 103 111 87 84 82 80 77 97 2015
2016 115 134 131 108 91 79 83 100 88 89 90 82 99 101 120 110 87 89 2016
2017 96 112 113 93 88 70 81 87 74 90 87 **** **** 89 97 98 80 83 2017
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Call Toyota and then get back to us with the recommendations....
Oh by the way Spola.....Yes...Wait for it.........
You're a LIAR.
Using the Min recommended gasoline octane ( 87 ) will deposit
more residue in the Catalytic bed than ( 91 ) and based simply by
your posting habits and traits exposed on this Forum you're a
Cheap Skate and the end result is a seriously degraded Catalytic
Convertor over the life of your vehicle....You probably do not
maintain it to even Minimum specs that are in your owners Man.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Effects of man-made climate change turn on a dime again, Part XXIV
http://michellemalkin.com/2017/12/1...limate-change-turn-on-a-dime-again-part-xxiv/
Snowfall in central Alaska has more than doubled since the mid 1800s, says a study which pointed the finger at global warming http://u.afp.com/4Fb2
2:30 AM - Dec 19, 2017
Daily Mail Online
✔@MailOnline
Scientists blame global warming for DOUBLING the amount of snow atop an Alaskan mountain range http://dailym.ai/2CCeIVO
7:29 AM - Dec 19, 2017
http://michellemalkin.com/2017/12/1...limate-change-turn-on-a-dime-again-part-xxiv/
Snowfall in central Alaska has more than doubled since the mid 1800s, says a study which pointed the finger at global warming http://u.afp.com/4Fb2
2:30 AM - Dec 19, 2017
Daily Mail Online
✔@MailOnline
Scientists blame global warming for DOUBLING the amount of snow atop an Alaskan mountain range http://dailym.ai/2CCeIVO
7:29 AM - Dec 19, 2017
Sheriff Joe
DA
Just keeps getting better and better,
Allows Oil Drilling in ANWR...
https://apnews.com/2d9e099660064f2b...e-deal:-Congress-wraps-up-massive-tax-package
Allows Oil Drilling in ANWR...
https://apnews.com/2d9e099660064f2b...e-deal:-Congress-wraps-up-massive-tax-package
Bruddah IZ
DA
Coat tail riding government was late to that party and subsidies just increased the cost of CC's.
Bruddah IZ
DA
https://fee.org/articles/hg-wells-and-orwell-on-whether-science-can-save-humanity/?utm_source=ribbon
H.G. Wells and Orwell on Whether Science Can Save Humanity
Though Wells and Orwell were debating in the era of Nazism, many of their arguments reverberate today.
Wells, one of the founders of science fiction, was a staunch believer in science’s potential. Orwell, on the other hand, cast a much more skeptical eye on science, pointing to its limitations as a guide to human affairs.
H.G. Wells and Orwell on Whether Science Can Save Humanity
Though Wells and Orwell were debating in the era of Nazism, many of their arguments reverberate today.
Wells, one of the founders of science fiction, was a staunch believer in science’s potential. Orwell, on the other hand, cast a much more skeptical eye on science, pointing to its limitations as a guide to human affairs.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Orwell was not bashful about criticizing the scientific and political views of his friend Wells. In “What is Science?” he described Wells’ enthusiasm for scientific education as misplaced, in part because it rested on the assumption that the young should be taught more about radioactivity or the stars, rather than how to “think more exactly.”
Orwell also rejected Wells’ notion that scientific training rendered a person’s approach to all subjects more intelligent than someone who lacked it. Such widely held views, Orwell argued, led naturally to the assumption that the world would be a better place, if only “the scientists were in control of it,” a notion he roundly rejected.
Orwell believed that scientific education should not focus on particular disciplines such as physics, chemistry, and biology – not, in other words, on facts. Instead, it should focus on implanting “a rational, skeptical, and experimental habit of mind.” And instead of merely scientifically educating the masses, we should remember that “scientists themselves would benefit by a little education” in the areas of “history or literature or the arts.”
Orwell is even more critical of science’s role in politics. In “Wells, Hitler, and the World State,” Orwell treats calls for a single world government as hopelessly utopian, in large part because “not one of the five great military powers would think of submitting to such a thing.” Though sensible men have held such views for decades, they have “no power, and no disposition to sacrifice themselves.”
Far from damning nationalism, Orwell praises it to at least this extent: “What has kept England on its feet this past year” but the “atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners?” The energy that actually shapes the world, writes Orwell, springs from emotions that “intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms.”
Bruddah IZ
DA
https://fee.org/articles/free-markets-accomplish-progressives-housing-ideals/
Pro-Environment, Anti-Density
Cities have a reputation as dirty places. All those people, buildings, cars, pavement—it’s an environmental tragedy, right? Many well-meaning progressives seem to have taken that view to heart, and for decades have wielded environmental protection laws to keep buildings small and relatively spread out, and populations as low as possible—all in the name of preserving the environment.
But on a per-person basis, dense urban centers absolutely crush the suburbs on environmental-friendliness. We have smaller homes, often with shared walls, floors, and/or ceilings, all of which helps to reduce heating and cooling costs. We’re more likely to walk, bike, or take transit when we get around. And we share may public amenities, like parks, libraries, and roads, with many more of our neighbors. The map below is just one example of the environmental impact of dense housing, showing just how stark the difference in household carbon emissions is between the dense boroughs of New York City and the suburban communities that surround it.
Average annual carbon emissions per household in the New York metro area. Dense, “dirty” New York City produces about half as many emissions, per household, as the “green” suburbs beyond. Image from Berkeley’s CoolClimate maps site.
The real problem here is that housing is never just a question of “build” or “don’t build.” It’s “build here” or “build somewhere else.” And if you live in a coastal U.S. city, somewhere else is usually way worse for the environment. People don’t disappear just because they can’t move to our cities; they move to the suburbs of Texas, where housing continues to be produced in abundance and, as a result, costs have stayed reasonably low.
Opposing development on behalf of the environment is essentially “greenwashing,” and we need to acknowledge it for the lie that it is. It’s an environmental crime, not a triumph. We don’t celebrate the environment by moving into its midst and paving it over.
Pro-Environment, Anti-Density
Cities have a reputation as dirty places. All those people, buildings, cars, pavement—it’s an environmental tragedy, right? Many well-meaning progressives seem to have taken that view to heart, and for decades have wielded environmental protection laws to keep buildings small and relatively spread out, and populations as low as possible—all in the name of preserving the environment.
But on a per-person basis, dense urban centers absolutely crush the suburbs on environmental-friendliness. We have smaller homes, often with shared walls, floors, and/or ceilings, all of which helps to reduce heating and cooling costs. We’re more likely to walk, bike, or take transit when we get around. And we share may public amenities, like parks, libraries, and roads, with many more of our neighbors. The map below is just one example of the environmental impact of dense housing, showing just how stark the difference in household carbon emissions is between the dense boroughs of New York City and the suburban communities that surround it.
Average annual carbon emissions per household in the New York metro area. Dense, “dirty” New York City produces about half as many emissions, per household, as the “green” suburbs beyond. Image from Berkeley’s CoolClimate maps site.
The real problem here is that housing is never just a question of “build” or “don’t build.” It’s “build here” or “build somewhere else.” And if you live in a coastal U.S. city, somewhere else is usually way worse for the environment. People don’t disappear just because they can’t move to our cities; they move to the suburbs of Texas, where housing continues to be produced in abundance and, as a result, costs have stayed reasonably low.
Opposing development on behalf of the environment is essentially “greenwashing,” and we need to acknowledge it for the lie that it is. It’s an environmental crime, not a triumph. We don’t celebrate the environment by moving into its midst and paving it over.
I agree with all of the above.https://fee.org/articles/free-markets-accomplish-progressives-housing-ideals/
Pro-Environment, Anti-Density
Cities have a reputation as dirty places. All those people, buildings, cars, pavement—it’s an environmental tragedy, right? Many well-meaning progressives seem to have taken that view to heart, and for decades have wielded environmental protection laws to keep buildings small and relatively spread out, and populations as low as possible—all in the name of preserving the environment.
But on a per-person basis, dense urban centers absolutely crush the suburbs on environmental-friendliness. We have smaller homes, often with shared walls, floors, and/or ceilings, all of which helps to reduce heating and cooling costs. We’re more likely to walk, bike, or take transit when we get around. And we share may public amenities, like parks, libraries, and roads, with many more of our neighbors. The map below is just one example of the environmental impact of dense housing, showing just how stark the difference in household carbon emissions is between the dense boroughs of New York City and the suburban communities that surround it.
Average annual carbon emissions per household in the New York metro area. Dense, “dirty” New York City produces about half as many emissions, per household, as the “green” suburbs beyond. Image from Berkeley’s CoolClimate maps site.
The real problem here is that housing is never just a question of “build” or “don’t build.” It’s “build here” or “build somewhere else.” And if you live in a coastal U.S. city, somewhere else is usually way worse for the environment. People don’t disappear just because they can’t move to our cities; they move to the suburbs of Texas, where housing continues to be produced in abundance and, as a result, costs have stayed reasonably low.
Opposing development on behalf of the environment is essentially “greenwashing,” and we need to acknowledge it for the lie that it is. It’s an environmental crime, not a triumph. We don’t celebrate the environment by moving into its midst and paving it over.
Bruddah IZ
DA
The Conundrum by David Owen
Carbon...Carbon....Carbon....
CO2 ...oh my .....Carbon Dioxide
One part Carbon
Two parts Oxygen
4/5ths of our atmosphere is N2
The other 1/5th is almost all O2
But those Liberals want to focus on that pesky little amount of CO2
The gas that fluctuates with the Earths cycles ..........
CO2 ...oh my .....Carbon Dioxide
One part Carbon
Two parts Oxygen
4/5ths of our atmosphere is N2
The other 1/5th is almost all O2
But those Liberals want to focus on that pesky little amount of CO2
The gas that fluctuates with the Earths cycles ..........
Sheriff Joe
DA
Trump's on it.
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
Spencer and Christy play it up for their audience, and the denier click bait sites spin away. And, yeah, sooner or later they will re-tweak their v6 thing. In some ways, though, given how complicated every aspect of the microwave sounding stuff is (from the underlying physics, to correcting for the satellites, to the computational part) I've always thought that the underlying message of the troposphere warming data from UAH and RSS is more similar than different. At least in the big picture. And my recollection is that both groups are pretty much the same on stratosphere cooling, which is just as indicative and doesn't get the same attention. To get a sense of it, I went back to the warming rates I pulled out of the Vostok ice core data set awhile back and compared those to current lower troposphere MSU warming rates from different versions of RSS and UAH. So for the proxy data it was possible extract rates for ~20 warming periods going back 800K years. These all cluster pretty tightly except for one big outlier which is the current warming period. And, for all the arm flapping that goes on every time UAH shaves their warming rate down a bit, all the UAH and RSS rates are still about an order of magnitude faster than any other warming period in the last 800,000 years.
