Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?

24567371

Comments

  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,989
    They will tell Supreme Court that EPA must regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

    http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061127/AUTO01/611270329/1148

    High Court cases will impact Mich.

    http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061127/AUTO01/611270375/1148

    Rocky
  • cticti Posts: 134
    Pluggin the data Shifty provided give a correlation co-efficient of .876. Seems good to me.

    Doing a simple scatter plot also shows, visually, a good correlation. A plot of the temperature v. time looks very much like the random walk of an increasing stock market. Sometimes it is up, sometimes it is down, but the general trend is a steady increase.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    The Earth has been warming since the Ice Age, and there is nothing humans have done, or can do, to change it. I think we are over estimating our capabilities, to think we could. Yes, we are creating pollution, but a good hard rain does wonders for that. Nature controls the temperature, not us.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,052
    Finally some real scientists that are not afraid to tell the truth.

    LONDON -- With a packet of claims that are almost certain to defy conventional wisdom, a television documentary to be aired in Britain this week condemns man-made global warming as a myth that has become "the biggest scam of modern times."
    The program titled "The Great Global Warming Scandal" and set for screening by TV Channel 4 on Thursday dismisses claims that high levels of greenhouse gases generated by human activity causes climate change. Instead, the program suggests that the sun itself is the real culprit.
    The documentary, directed by filmmaker Martin Durkin, is at odds with scientific opinion as outlined in a United Nations report in February, which blames mankind for global warming.
    In his program, Mr. Durkin rejects the concept of man-made climate change, calling it "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times."
    The truth, he says, is that global warming "is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists, supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding, and propped up by compliant politicians and the media."


    Global Warming???
  • tpetpe Posts: 2,342
    "is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists,

    Does that even make sense? Why would a group that is anti-industrial have any desire to create and promote a multi-billion dollar industry? Especially one based upon misinformation. If you want to call them fanatical, environmentalists that's okay, since we all know environmentalists are fanatics. But the insertion of anti-industrial in that sentenced somewhat discredits the intelligence of the person that wrote it.

    If "green" is a multi-billion dollar industry than the current, entrenched CO2 producing industries are probably multi-trillion. If you take the purely cynical approach that governments will cater to the highest bidder this should be a slam dunk for the global warming myth crowd.

    The sun is indeed getting hotter but that has been the case from day one yet the planet has gone through cooling and warming cycles despite this.

    I'm not 100% convinced that mankind is responsible or even plays a role in global warming but the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is definitely increasing. I think the evidence between temperature and CO2 levels is pretty conclusive. The creators of this program must be saying that emitting CO2 and clearing rainforests does not impact the CO2 level in the environment. Okay, then what does cause this level to change?
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,052
    I don't disagree that we should try to do some things to cut back on CO2. I believe that the Global Warming hysteria being put forth is POLITICALLY motivated. Lots of BS and little science.

    Ball said it goes all the way back to 1992 and to Kyoto architect, Canadian Maurice Strong.

    "Maurice Strong has said that the industrial nations are the polluters and (that) it is our duty to get rid of them," said Ball.

    "The minute you start to question it (global warming), you lose the moral highground," he added.

    Addressing the hysteria of a global warming that frightens school children who are being told that the earth will burn up, Ball said "thirty years ago, global cooling was the consensus."

    Ball also challenged the authority of the oft-quoted United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988 to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans.

    The UN report by the IPCC was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.

    "There are 2,000 people on the panel, not 2,000 scientists. Most are bureaucrats and politicians," he said.


    NO Consensus
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,052
    on a cross Canada jet flight. That is about what the average small car produces in one year. We are beating the wrong horse.

    What’s being done about emissions from air transportation?

    Not much, unfortunately. Countries with national emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol, like Canada, are only required to account for emissions from domestic flights. Emissions from international flights are not counted. And very little has been done to actually limit these emissions. To date the only formal plan to control and reduce international aviation emissions is being developed within the European Union (EU).
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "Does that even make sense? Why would a group that is anti-industrial have any desire to create and promote a multi-billion dollar industry?"

    Makes perfect sense to me.

    You are confusing the words "industrial" with "industry". It can be said there is a motion-picture "industry", a public-service "industry", a pharmaceutical "industry", etc etc yet NONE of these things are generally thought of as being "industrial".

    Yes, there IS a global-warming "industry" (ie. a large loose collective of individuals, groups, and businesses which make money from the concept of global-warming). And yes, by and large this group is anti-industrial.

    Yes, one can identify corelations between global increases in CO2 and global increases in temperature. It's the CAUSATION which is (IMO) still up for debate.

    "Okay, then what does cause this level to change?"

    Consider: roughly 40% of the photosynthesis on Earth is done by bacteria in the worlds oceans. With fluctuations in water temperature, huge die-offs of these bacteria can occur, resulting in less removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

    So, which phenomenon causes which? All that is discussed is that CO2 CAUSES temps to increase due to the greenhouse effect. But, do temp fluctuations resulting in bacteria reductions in the oceans CAUSE less removal of CO2? I'm not saying one event 100% causes the other; I'm simply wondering why other explanations (besides it's ALL MAN'S FAULT) aren't being discussed.
  • tpetpe Posts: 2,342
    supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding,

    That seems to be the premise this "myth" position is based upon. First off let's agree that these scientists have a greater knowledge of factors that effect climate and the atmosphere than you or I. In that case they aren't mistaken about global warming, they are deliberately lying. So a large international collection of highly educated professionals have entered into an agreement to mislead the world in order to receive research grants? Research grants to further study global warming, which they already know is a myth. Are they getting rich off these grants? In order for these type of people to prostitute their science the financial incentive would have to be substantial. And even then a good percentage would have the integrity to expose the myth. Conspiracies do happen but I find this one to be somewhat implausible just because of the scope, the individuals involved, and the fact that they are spread out over the globe.

    It would be interesting to see this program. I suspect it will have a documentary flavor to it, kind of like a Michael Moore film.
  • tpetpe Posts: 2,342
    I disagree with your definition of "industrial". Do a google search on "industrial complex" and you get the whole spectrum of industries. Including such things as pharmaceutical, military, prison, meat, surveillance, eco, etc.. Just like you have a pharmaceutical industry you have an oil industry. You don't have an oil industrial. I guess you could say that the industrial revolution was fueled to a large part by CO2 producing power plants. What if it had been supported by nuclear power plants instead? Would it not still have been the industrial revolution?

    simply wondering why other explanations (besides it's ALL MAN'S FAULT) aren't being discussed.

    Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't we conclude that man is a contributing factor. That contribution is greater than 0% and less than 100%. To me someone stating that global warming is a myth is taking the position that mankind is not contributing to global warming or his contribution is negligible. Your reference to bacteria affecting CO2 levels is a good one. If bacteria can impact the environment why can't man?
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,052
    I would like to see a panel of REAL scientists debate the subject. Not a hack like Al Gore get up and draw the conclusion that We (the USA) are to blame for all the world's ills. How many real scientists are involved in these media events, such as the Oscars? The only scientist I ever talked to was studying ice core samples in the Arctic. He did not agree or disagree with the concept that man could be causing global warming. He claimed more study was needed. I would think that is the consensus among REAL scientists.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,052
    I like to think of the current global warming hysteria as a scam, scandal or sham. Maybe the globe is warming so what. You can also find evidence that it is cooling off. This is one of the coldest winters on record for SoCAL. I lost dozens of trees that are 25-30 years old. Canada claims it is an extremely cold winter. All that means is weather patterns change. When you start pumping our children full of stories of NYC flooding because daddy drives a PU truck you are not doing a service to educating a child. You are polarizing the nation. Global Warming as an issue is just more polarization that is not needed.
  • langjielangjie Posts: 247
    global warming is the wrong name...it should be global climate change

    i just know that the less greenhouse gases you product, the better
  • Karen_CMKaren_CM Posts: 5,024
    We're not holding a "how to save the planet and who's full of baloney seminar" here. :surprise: The question is...are today's vehicles possibly contributing to global warming, so let's keep it focused on that.

    Thanks for your cooperation!

    Community Manager If you have any questions or concerns about the Forums, send me an email, karen@edmunds.com, or click on my screen name to send a personal message.

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,052
    The baloney factor is relevant to the subject. The leading proponent has written in his book that we should do away with the internal combustion engine. That does not leave much to propel our automobiles. Which does not leave much for Edmund's to report on. There are those that would be happy to see all the cars go away and we be forced to ride a bike or the bus.
  • prosource1prosource1 Posts: 234
    Ted Turner was touting his 'millions invested' in global warming technology. The facts are that there is no real evidence, when one examines the facts, that humans have anything to do with climate change. Read the facts.

    http://www.nov55.com/gbwg.html
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "If bacteria can impact the environment why can't man?"

    I never said man can't.

    The problem I have with the whole issue is the presupposition that man is responsible for MOST of global warming, that the effects of global warming are all BAD, that if ONLY man changed his habits global warming wouldn't occur, and that man CAN change with little to no economic hardship.

    That's a lot to swallow.
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Posts: 5,711
    as to what really is causing global warming? I'm not so sure man has the technology to accurately determine just what does cause global warming.

    So this topic is just one of frustration. We can talk about our cars, bluetooth, Rockford Fosgate 650 watt car stereo's with subwoofer's in the trunk, highway memorials, what's causing our car to pull to one side, etc., but talking about global warming and just how much cars add to it may be like finding a needle in a proverbial haystack, eh?

    2011 Kia Soul Sport 5-speed

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,052
    My motive in starting the thread was to find out where Edmund's car enthusiasts stand on the subject. I would say most here are wanting to see more evidence. The whole GHG movement is anti-car, anti expansion and anti-people. We are not going to come to any conclusions for sure. At least none that all will agree upon. It does not take science to tell us that everything we do has an impact on the world around us. We just try not to mess up anymore than is necessary for a decent lifestyle.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 10,900
    ...man is responsible for MOST of global warming, that the effects of global warming are all BAD...

    Since we haven't seen the full effects of GW, how do we know it's not BETTER than what we've experienced? It would be different, for sure. But what if we were experiencing global cooling instead? Would that be OK?

    So... if cars have a major responsibility in effecting global warming, then if we decrease our use, are we sure we won't be worse off?

    MODERATOR
    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,052
    It could be worse. There are about 5 million horses in the USA. Can you imagine the mess if we had 235 million horses to replace all the cars? I for one do not want to get down and shovel road apples into a plastic baggy. I'll keep my cars thank you.
  • fezofezo Posts: 9,387
    "The whole GHG movement is anti-car, anti expansion and anti-people."

    I would certainly consider that a pretty extreme and unsubstantiated statement. Certainly not one that can generate anything other than a "sez you" kind of response.

    So, what is the basis for that statement? Do you draw any sort of line between supporting mass transit and being anti-car? I know a lot of gearheads that still ride the bus or subway. I actually find the technologies being developed to lower emission very interesting. How long do you figure before we're dealing with diesel hybrids that get in excess of 150 mpg. I expect to see it and I'm not a young guy.

    Meanwhile, I'd love to see scientists on TV rather than actors patting each other on the back. Beats CSI:Muncie .
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    It could be worse. There are about 5 million horses in the USA. Can you imagine the mess if we had 235 million horses to replace all the cars?

    To what extent are horses contributing to global warming?

    Went to Mackinac Island in northern Michigan in July many years ago. No cars (except police) are allowed on island. Only horses. On some streets the smell/stench was unbearable.

    Perhaps the energy from sun in combination with changes in earth's magnetic fields is causing warming. Believe that North magnetic pole has been shifting at an unusual rate in recent years. Does this have some effect on additional sun radiation reaching earth?
  • newdavidqnewdavidq Posts: 146
    Why is global warming bad? The medieval warm period was one of the most prosperous times for the earth's people. The Vikings were farming in Greenland; wine was being produced in Britain. If things warmed up a little, we'd be able to grow more corn in North Dakota to make more ethanol.
    Besides, the rise in sea level is probably overstated (like so much else on the subject). Now, the little ice age, which ended only a couple of hundred years ago, >that< was something. Bottom line, climate is hugely complex and not even our fastest computers can accurately model it. And cars certainly have some effect on climate, but my guess is that it's small. In the next decade or two China and India will largely negate anything we do in the US anyway, so keep on truckin'!
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Posts: 5,711
    the Chinese automotive market is gonna go bonkers! GM was very, very smart to buy out Daewoo Motors in 2002. Look at the factories they now have in S.Korea. And they are partnering with Shanghai Motors and Suzuki as well. They can always pop a GM label on an Asian make and import into China and make a bundle.

    I wouldn't buy a GM, Ford or DCX product, though. I will buy a Japanese and/or South Korean car, though, and I already have(bought two Kia's...I'm working on the Japanese purchase as I type this).

    But this topic is on automobiles and whether they are having a global effect on global warming. I would say they do but it's negligible. I mean, don't lawnmowers produce more carbon monoxide than cars...I mean...a 3hp Briggs and Stratton internal gas combustion lawnmower engine produces more biocarbons by far than an automobile. 20 to 1 is one figure I can sort of recall. 20 times more pollution from a lawnmower than an automobile. How can a person quantify this, though?

    I mean, look at how many cars are on the road in the U.S. alone!

    2011 Kia Soul Sport 5-speed

  • tpetpe Posts: 2,342
    So... if cars have a major responsibility in effecting global warming, then if we decrease our use, are we sure we won't be worse off?


    That's an interesting question. Let's say the bulk of the scientific community was stating that, instead of warming, we were in a rapid cooling cycle and the only thing we can do to prevent another ice-age is produce as much GHGs as possible. Given this scenario would the same people be supporting or refuting the connection between man made GHGs and the earth's temperature? I personally think you'd see a lot of people switching sides. In other words some people's opinions aren't solely based on the science but a predisposition to side with or against environmentalists.
This discussion has been closed.