Aston Martin's Cosworth 6.5L 1000 hp V12 is NATURALLY ASPIRATED

 We are still coming out of the last Ice Age so of course it is getting warmer.  Nothing much to do with the piddling activities of one species. 

But the rate of change is greater than it has ever been.  You think the rapid increase in slope is a coincidence and nothing to do with industrial revolution? 

That it's normal for the cooling that happens over 7000 years to be cancelled out by the warming that happens over just 100 years!?

Source: 

Marcott, S., Shakun, J., Clark, P. and Mix, A. (2013). A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years. Science, 339(6124), pp.1198-1201.

http://dx.doi.org/10...science.1228026

Bear in mind that Science is an extremely credible top-level journal, where only scientifically-sound research can pass scrutiny for publication.

After all, just one species can definitely affect climate.  It's happened before, for instance when large scale Azolla (fern) blooms caused global cooling: https://pubs.geoscie.../191-192/130053

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 17 February 2019 - 05:41.

You are not using the same thermometers, or even physical parameters for that graph. Sorry about that. It's a splendid trick. Did you know that if you use the proxies for temperature that were used for the hockey stick reconstruction before 1880 that they actually say the Earth is cooling now? Research Keith Briffa.

But the rate of change is greater than it has ever been. 

Nobody knows if that is the case or not, because there is no comparative data more than about 100 years old.  Sorry to break it to you and the scientific community, but they did not have modern instruments or trained personnel to operate them in the Middle Ages or in Classical Greece.  The comparisons are being made based on assumptions around tree rings and alluvial deposits and Antarctic ice samples and the like.  If climate change had not been promoted into a religous belief that may not be gainsayed, such comparisons would be treated with the scepticism they deserve.

 We have been through all these arguments before-many times -without any conclusive result. 

  Maybe we should turn our mighty intellects to the problem of drought-proofing Oz.  There is always plenty of water somewhere in Oz - and not much  in other areas.  The Bradfield Scheme was interesting - but maybe with the change of diverting the Diamantina into the Darling system  rather than into Lake Eyre as Bradfield intended.  

 A scheme like the above would be useful whether we get GW or not.   Ruining the economy by sacrificing it to the God of GW is not going to do anyone any good at all.    

The comparisons are being made based on assumptions around tree rings and alluvial deposits and Antarctic ice samples and the like.

So you dismiss a credible publication in Science as an assumption.     

You are not using the same thermometers, or even physical parameters for that graph. Sorry about that. It's a splendid trick.

 

According to Jones, of the 12 reconstructions of temperatures over the past 1,000 years used in the last IPCC assessment, only three included Yamal data. Other reconstructions were based on retreating glaciers, or water temperatures in boreholes, or core sunk into ice sheets – but they too reproduce a hockey stick shape.

https://www.theguard...g-data-withheld

Seems conclusive in support of man-made climate change to me!? 

Irrational bias against credible academic journals is both bizarre and untenable, especially for an engineer like yourself (an applied scientist).  An ability for others to reconstruct the same results using alternative methods, or repeat the experiment and get the same result, is fundamental in science and has absolutely been demonstrated regarding the hockey stick graph.

If climate change had not been promoted into a religous belief that may not be gainsayed,

This is irrational bias.  Evidence is absolutely the only thing that matters in science. Not opinion, not doctrine. Science is an extremely rigorous journal of high integrity.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 22 February 2019 - 03:31.

Ruining the economy by sacrificing it to the God of GW is not going to do anyone any good at all.    

On other hand an increase in global temperature by 8 deg C by the year 3000 causing all the ice at the poles to melt and a transformation to a greenhouse earth during a stage that is meant to be an icehouse earth will do humans no good at all either.     Recall, after all, that money is not edible.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 22 February 2019 - 03:37.

Hopefully, V8 F is from the UK, and has been drinking excellent beer. Or from Russia and drinking vodka.

Because i cannot make an ounce or gram of sense out of his recent posts.

This is irrational bias.  Evidence is absolutely the only thing that matters in science. Not opinion, not doctrine. Science is an extremely rigorous journal of high integrity.

You seem to regard one publication as Holy Writ.  It isn't.  It is a publication, with an editorial agenda. 

And evidence is a very elusive and loose thing when it comes to scientific studies.  Just because half a dozen people get together and write a paper, you will accept as gospel?  What are you going to do when a different half a dozen scientists write a paper saying the opposite? 

Courtesy of New Atlas. https://newatlas.com...formance/58695/

The powertrain includes the massive 1,000 bhp (745.7 kW) V12 engine, a 6.5-liter, naturally-aspirated monster made by Cosworth. The engine achieves that output at 10,500 rpm and peak torque of 545.7 lb-ft (740 Nm) at 7,000 rpm. Then comes the Rimac-designed battery-electric system, which adds another 160 bhp (119 kW) and 206.5 pound-feet (280 Nm). For a total system output of 1,160 bhp (865 kW) and 663.8 pound-feet (900 Nm) at 10,500 rpm and 6,000 rpm respectively. Power for the batteries is derived in part from a kinetic energy recovery system (KERS) and the electric boost motor is from Integral Powertrain.

With the torque peak rpm at 66% of the power peak rpm, this is not a "peaky" engine.

(1) And evidence is a very elusive and loose thing when it comes to scientific studies.  (2) Just because half a dozen people get together and write a paper, you will accept as gospel?  (3) What are you going to do when a different half a dozen scientists write a paper saying the opposite? (my numbering)

Quoted for evidence. Of muddled, ill-informed thinking, or perhaps just not thinking. This is a classic, deserving of a place in the annals of 'off the wall' conspiracy theories. It is so far off the mark as a critique of the scientific method that responding makes me feel complicit. However not responding gives this sort of nonsense clear air to pollute the debate.

1. Scientific papers require evidence, or they will not be published in reputable journals. They will not survive peer review unless the paper's thesis is consistent with the evidence. This is not foolproof, but the exceptions are rare.

2. If I am an expert in the field, I will read and assess the paper on its merits. I may have differences with the authors on their evidence, and/or their reasoning. If I feel strongly enough about any perceived deficiencies I, perhaps with 'half a dozen other people' scientists with relevant credentials, write a paper setting out those deficiencies and providing a response to them, and seek to have that published, probably in the same journal - see (1) above.  If I am not an expert, I don't pretend to be one. 

3. You say that like it is a bad thing, it is in fact a very good thing.  See (2) above.  That is how science makes its advances, it debates things.  In the course of a debate, a consensus can emerge - think evolution, gravity, climate change.  It mightn't be 100% but it doesn't have to be.  Those outside the consensus can still argue their position (based on the evidence they can put forward), and if it is convincing the consensus will swing in behind the new evidence.  Think Galileo.  After all, the evidence is going to decide who is right, whose career is going to flat-line, so jumping ship makes a lot of sense if it looks like you are not going to be on the right side of the evidence (history).

You are welcome to your views BRG, but that post does them no favours.

1 except that the peer review process is buggered when it comes to climate change. See the climategate emails

2 yes fine

3 Well yeah, that's how science works in theory. but when my (1) happens then the alternate view gets no oxygen, no cites, and hence no grant money.

 

You are welcome to your views BRG, but that post does them no favours.

Well, thank you so much.

I would answer your points, but Greg Locock has kndly demolished them already, so no need.

1 except that the peer review process is buggered when it comes to climate change.

And psychology, medicine, the "social sciences", to whit, the remarkably amusing tale of rape-culture of dog parks and other peer-reviewed and published "science" and who knows where else? Peer review sounds like it's meaningful and perhaps in some or most or 99.999% of cases, it truly is. However, like everything else, the lowest tolerated behaviour (or threshold if you will) sets the standard of what is acceptable. That absolute bullshit can pass a peer review and be published as peer reviewed science dilutes and makes worthless everything else claiming such status as proof of integrity, scientific rigour and lack of bias, lies or other nonsense. "Science" has a problem. The public reputation of peer-reviewed science, of those that pay it any heed it all, is such that nobody will bat an eye when the peer-reviewed flat-earth proof gets published.

. . . "Science" has a problem. The public reputation of peer-reviewed science, of those that pay it any heed it all, is such that nobody will bat an eye when the peer-reviewed flat-earth proof gets published.

. . . or the peer reviewed climate change rebuttal. Now where did I put that dang thing?

   97% of all scientists agree that GW or Climate Change is real.  Anybody on this Forum who has a different view to this should be immediately  banned from this Forum and then buggered senseless by the local  Cardinal. 

Hands up everyone who doesn't think that the earth has warmed since the last ice Age? Good, that's GW deniers out the window as an excuse for moaning. Hands up everyone who doesn't think that man has had any effect at all, even a tiny little bit, on the climate? if you answered yes in that case you think AGW is real. And agree with the supposed 97%. But you may not agree with many of that supposed 97%.

Courtesy of New Atlas. https://newatlas.com...formance/58695/

 

The powertrain includes the massive 1,000 bhp (745.7 kW) V12 engine, a 6.5-liter, naturally-aspirated monster made by Cosworth. The engine achieves that output at 10,500 rpm and peak torque of 545.7 lb-ft (740 Nm) at 7,000 rpm. Then comes the Rimac-designed battery-electric system, which adds another 160 bhp (119 kW) and 206.5 pound-feet (280 Nm). For a total system output of 1,160 bhp (865 kW) and 663.8 pound-feet (900 Nm) at 10,500 rpm and 6,000 rpm respectively. Power for the batteries is derived in part from a kinetic energy recovery system (KERS) and the electric boost motor is from Integral Powertrain.

 

With the torque peak rpm at 66% of the power peak rpm, this is not a "peaky" engine.

 

 

​97% of all engineers  agree that  the AM  has not got a "peaky' engine and that it idles like a Morris Minor on a good day.   Any opinions to the contrary  are not allowed  and the owners  of these opinions will be banned from this Forum forever.  

   97% of all scientists agree that GW or Climate Change is real.  Anybody on this Forum who has a different view to this should be immediately  banned from this Forum and then buggered senseless by the local  Cardinal. 

If you don't believe what I believe, you should be raped.

That's...just...wow. You should get some counseling friend.

 

Courtesy of New Atlas. https://newatlas.com...formance/58695/

 

The powertrain includes the massive 1,000 bhp (745.7 kW) V12 engine, a 6.5-liter, naturally-aspirated monster made by Cosworth. The engine achieves that output at 10,500 rpm and peak torque of 545.7 lb-ft (740 Nm) at 7,000 rpm. Then comes the Rimac-designed battery-electric system, which adds another 160 bhp (119 kW) and 206.5 pound-feet (280 Nm). For a total system output of 1,160 bhp (865 kW) and 663.8 pound-feet (900 Nm) at 10,500 rpm and 6,000 rpm respectively. Power for the batteries is derived in part from a kinetic energy recovery system (KERS) and the electric boost motor is from Integral Powertrain.

 

With the torque peak rpm at 66% of the power peak rpm, this is not a "peaky" engine.

 

 

​97% of all engineers  agree that  the AM  has not got a "peaky' engine and that it idles like a Morris Minor on a good day.   Any opinions to the contrary  are not allowed  and the owners  of these opinions will be banned from this Forum forever.  

 

What - no buggery? (The pool of suitable Cardinals is shrinking. You may need to settle for an Archbishop or less.)

What - no buggery? (The pool of suitable Cardinals is shrinking. You may need to settle for an Archbishop or less.)

 I don't  think there is much (or any) point in arguing over whether it is "peaky" or not  - just wait until someone finally drives it  and see how it goes.  Has there been any reports of it actually moving under its own steam?  Seems to be taking a long time.   I also note that I am getting the impression they are thinking about a twin-turbo V-6 for production versions of the Valkyrie  - which is a lot less exotic and interesting than a V-12 but probably more practical.     

Edited by Kelpiecross, 06 March 2019 - 03:41.

If you don't believe what I believe, you should be raped.

 

That's...just...wow. You should get some counseling friend.

 All Canadians are perverted and mentally defective.  You would probably love it. 

Your meds buddy, you've forgotten to take your meds.

Your meds buddy, you've forgotten to take your meds.

  At this very moment I am making a very rude farting sound  and  consequent extremely bad  odour in the general direction of  Canadia. 

 It is a well-known fact that Canadia is the Sierra Leone of the Arctic.  

Your Tourette Syndrome is showing again.

 I've got a much bigger dick than you. 

Just to add to the sub-topic on this thread

Interesting scientific research paper suggesting an unusual and different relatively recent human effect on climate change.

The media report :

https://www.bbc.co.u...onment-47063973

The research paper :

https://www.scienced...277379118307261

Makes sense to me. Won't make any sense to the AGW deniers.

I’ve been married almost 20 years, I don’t use mine anymore anyway.

  You should complain - I've been  married (to the same Sheila) for 43 years.  

Edited by Kelpiecross, 11 March 2019 - 09:56.

Makes sense to me. Won't make any sense to the AGW deniers.

  You got that right.  Doesn't make sense to me  - if the  CO2 has gone up by about 100ppm  since about 1750  with no really noticeable effects  I would not expect 7-10ppm to do anything much at all.  

 If you are really genuinely  concerned about GW etc.  you should be advocating doing something about alleviating its possible effects -  if it is actually happening there is no way to stop it. 

You got that right.  Doesn't make sense to me  - if the  CO2 has gone up by about 100ppm  since about 1750  with no really noticeable effects  I would not expect 7-10ppm to do anything much at all.  
 
 If you are really genuinely  concerned about GW etc.  you should be advocating doing something about alleviating its possible effects -  if it is actually happening there is no way to stop it.

Are you a scientist?

 If the definition of a scientist is whether one has a science degree or not  -  I have a science degree.   Do you?  

That explains it. I don't have a science degree and I don't pretend to be a climate scientist.

You have a science degree and you do pretend to be a climate expert.

Every thread in this forum has turned into you against the world.
The subject of this tread is supposed to be "Aston Martin's Cosworth 6.5L 1000 hp V12 is NATURALLY ASPIRATED" and you hijack it into another anti global warming rant.
Why don't you just start a global warming conspiracy thread so we can all ignore it instead of hijacking the whole place?

  I am terribly upset that I have annoyed you - it won't happen again. 

Edited by Kelpiecross, 12 March 2019 - 16:17.

 If the definition of a scientist is whether one has a science degree or not  -  I have a science degree.   Do you?  

I would define a scientist as someone who works as a scientist. Any pleb can get a degree.

I would define a scientist as someone who works as a scientist. Any pleb can get a degree.

 I would be inclined to agree.   But it was a little more difficult in 1971 to get a degree.  Today you can get degrees  in all sorts of ridiculous subjects.  

 Note that I didn't claim to be a scientist.   

Edited by Kelpiecross, 13 March 2019 - 04:46.

Note that I didn't claim to be a scientist.

  You got that right.  Doesn't make sense to me  - if the  CO2 has gone up by about 100ppm  since about 1750  with no really noticeable effects  I would not expect 7-10ppm to do anything much at all.

There are a couple of errors in your post.

1.  The bulk of the recent CO2 spike has occurred in the last 100 years. It didn't even break out of the historical (or pre-historical) band until 1950. Some of the effects of the last 50 years of CO2 are still to be felt. If you look at the 400,000 year chart there are no other spikes that compare in terms of slope, duration or amplitude.

2.  The temperature anomaly (now much higher even than the chart below) is quite "noticeable". I suppose you think the spike has finished - Andrew Bolt was calling the end of temperature increases back in 2011.

3.  The Little Ice Age at only1 degree below the Medieval warm period was not "much at all" in temperature terms. . . . and the paper claims that the 7-10 ppm was responsible only for about half of the observed cooling. 

Edited by gruntguru, 15 March 2019 - 00:28.

You were trying to imply it till I called you out

 No I wasn't.  You might claim that  you are not a pineapple but you certainly have the brain of a pineapple  - and not a very clever one at that. 

Edited by Kelpiecross, 15 March 2019 - 09:30.

(Sorry CP)

gg - We have been through this a 1000 times . Your reasoning might be correct but my basic attitude to GW/CC remains - it  might be happening/it might not be happening.  It might cause harm/it might not cause harm/it might actually have a beneficial effect.  

 The situation is far too uncertain to take the drastic action that the Greens and Labor are advocating.   There is no uncertainty about this - it will destroy the economy  and have zero effect  on GW/CC.

   Do you agree that there is absolutely nothing that can be done that that will  have  even the tiniest effect on  atmospheric  CO2 levels?  Even if the entire world totally stopped burning  coal/hydrocarbons etc.  it would take hundreds of years for the CO2 levels to start to drop.  

 Symbolic gestures like those you are  promoting are totally pointless.   Do you agree with this last statement?

Edited by Kelpiecross, 15 March 2019 - 04:15.

Hello everybody

Sorry my english is not very good, but i hope you understand me

I know, that's not the topic.

Greatest scientific fraud of the modern times. I do not understand why nobody understands this.

Every engineer understands that, but some want to cheat and make a lot of money.

Dr. Don Easterbrook. Legendary Climate Change Senate Hearing

Best Movies about Climatic ever, but only in german.

Dr. Werner Kirstein - Die CO2-Lüge (The Co2-lie) (Werner Kirstein was over 40 years climatologist)

Erdklima vs. Klimapolitik - Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein (Earth climate vs. Climate Policy)

Wo bleibt der Klimawandel? Vortrag von Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein (Where staying the climate change?)

Ivar Giaever (Physics nobel laureate): Global Warming Revisited (2015)

Nobel Laureate in Physics; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"

Prof. Dr. Henryk Svensmark The Connection between Cosmic Rays, Clouds and Climate

If that's still not enough then look for it: Climategate + CRU or climate deception NASA , NOAA. Everybody cheated.

Prof. Dr. Joachim Schellnhuber (PIK, IPCC) and himalaya glacier melt. Also fraud. climate hockey stick graph also fraud.

"Selective statistics" and translucent correlations.

This is just a small excerpt but I hope enough.  I do not want to say more about that

Edited by HighPressureEngine, 15 March 2019 - 16:06.

When I read all this Greenstuff etc and some of the opinions about it vented over here....

It reminds me about a movie I once saw, supposedly taking place in WW2 and the English Secret Service needing a message from Albert Einstein to be brought over to another famous scientist who, without realising what he did, was working for the Nazis and bringing them closer to the Atomic bomb.

the in this story rather A-political Einstein was not willing to cooperate and get involved in this. Then he asked what the Secret Angency believed what the Nazis would do if the Secret Angency was right. He got the answer that he, Einstein, knew even better than any other  in the room what kind of devastation would be unlocked.

He then asked an assistant of the Secret Service boss if he believed what his boss was telling.

The answer of this assistant was, from what I remember it, something to be translated as.....

"I don't know if my boss is right. But I do know that I don't want to be the one who took the risk of not believing him and acted accordingly."

Edited by Henri Greuter, 15 March 2019 - 21:10.

   Henry - I am afraid the movie you refer to was (not surprisingly)  fictional.

   Henry - I am afraid the movie you refer to was (not surprisingly)  fictional.

I know it was fictional, though it was based on some actual facts: the attack on the heavy water factory in Norway was part of it.

Doesn't take away that I felt that answer of the assistant very eery and one that is very appropriate for more current situations going on right now and for which a number of people close their eyes because of whatever reasons that makes it convenient to do so,

  It is probably unwise to attempt to justify drastic economy-destroying  action on a vague  and incorrect parable.  You would make a good Green in Oz.  

  It is probably unwise to attempt to justify drastic economy-destroying  action on a vague  and incorrect parable.  You would make a good Green in Oz.  

If that's aimed at me, I hope that your grandchildren (and you) will not have to cope with far more serious problems that we by now have to deal with and of which we are wondering if they are not also caused by the doings and undoings of the generations before ours and that were dismissed as laughable and irrelevant for whatever reasons.

Time will tell who was right after all and there will be people eventually who will pay a prize for whatever decisions made back then, now and in the near future.

So Henri, what are you personally doing about this. Given up flying in jets for holidays? What do your children or grandchildren think of that idea?

If that's aimed at me, I hope that your grandchildren (and you) will not have to cope with far more serious problems that we by now have to deal with and of which we are wondering if they are not also caused by the doings and undoings of the generations before ours and that were dismissed as laughable and irrelevant for whatever reasons.

Time will tell who was right after all and there will be people eventually who will pay a prize for whatever decisions made back then, now and in the near future.

 Yes - it was aimed at you Henry.   I  have absolutely no fears at all for my descendants  will be harmed by GW/CC.   There are plenty of much more likely real dangers to worry about.

 Actually - I was more interested in correcting your very inaccurate use of the history and progression of scientific knowledge and discovery - a subject I take a great interest in.  

  Lise Meitner would be horrified.  

 Yes - it was aimed at you Henry.   I  have absolutely no fears at all for my descendants  will be harmed by GW/CC.   There are plenty of much more likely real dangers to worry about.

 

 Actually - I was more interested in correcting your very inaccurate use of the history and progression of scientific knowledge and discovery - a subject I take a great interest in.  

 

  Lise Meitner would be horrified.  

How must I take someone who twice quotes a post of me and in his replies continues to misspell my name serious enough to know that he can read good enough to use the read info elswhere?

Besides that: about that movie I remember I wrote that the story   supposedly took place during the war.

I also wrote that:  the in this story a-political .

Signs enough that the film was not a historic authentic right to the detail historic document. I could give more details about the film that were not accurate but why should I.

Only one comment since you mention her name: In that movie the name Lise Meitner was never ever mentioned. The other two scientists playing a role in that movie, I won't name them because I know that their true part in the events on which the fulm was based was different then what was seen in the movie, so why taint their names with false accusations.

Edit:  because I knew the film version of this scientist not being representing the real person, that was why I did not name this scientist. But I felt I had to name Albert Einstein because of the little plot I was to describe and a bit what kind of character he was within the film..

EndEdit

My aim with the post was to point out that it is very dangerous to dismiss a number of theories by scientists and analysists because of inconvenience. History is full of such occasions and humanity of that moment and sometimes those who came after them had to pay the prize for that.

But of course it can be the other way around. George Bush Jr dragged the USA into a war in Iraq on what eventually will be false accusations and false intelligence. The price for that??? Where shall we start?

Anyway, that comment made in the movie was, at least for me, one of those phrases you once in a while hear that you keep remebering because of it somehow making sence to you for whatever manner. And over time it could have been said on a number of occasions.

Thinking green can go way too far and into the absurd, pretending nothing is going on and that there is absolutely no human influence at all is the other side. In between there is the compromise.

Please, don't bother to reply anymore on my post if you still can't figure out what my real name is and spell it right. Besides that, I won't see it anyway because I won't look into this thread any longer.

But feel free to vent off to the others in the audience remaing over here. It will be identical to doing things behind my back and in secret but I don't care about.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 17 March 2019 - 12:03.

It is a well-known fact that the correct spelling of "Henri"  is  "Henry".     Doesn't really take much to set you off,  does it?