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?

1365366368370371

Comments

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,884
    edited January 4

    What I find interesting with the anti coal arguments, are the fact that most scientists say the SoX put out by burning coal has contributed to the cooling. I have no doubt the climate is changing, some places warmer others cooler. I just don't buy the political anthropological blame for the changes. We have killed a large part of our ability to compete in the 21st century by going along with the political agenda on cutting coal & killing mining of essential REEs. Then the same people whine about the Chinese building our solar panels and wind generators. Well duh, what did they expect?

  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,127

    What's really interesting to me, perhaps not much affecting global warming, is that people aren't driving as much nor are they buying as many cars as they did.

    And if apps like Uber take off, combined with autonomous cars, more Zipcars, etc., private car sales may really fall off. Not to mention bus and taxi use. The side effect could be lower emissions.

    Here's a more recent Uber story, also from Wired.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,884

    I hope you are right because I HATE sharing the road with all those people. :) I personally look for the economy to really tank this year and those rosy projections for more car sales will fall short. Our jobless rate has NOT fallen, only people giving up. They are not included. I know 3 young people that have looked for over 2 years for a job. Two are college grads. The entry level employers don't want to give them a job they may bail out of in a few months. All living at home along with millions of other 18-30 year olds. I blame a lot of our lousy economy on the ECO NUTS pushing the illusive green agenda. It has NOT produced enough jobs to spit at.

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,884

    Help is on the way. Why did the Aussies and Ruskies take so long to ask for help?

    The request for the Polar Star to assist the beset vessels was made by RCC Australia to the US Coast Guard on 3 January, 2014. The US Coast Guard officially accepted this request and released the Polar Star to RCC Australia for search and rescue tasking at 8.30am on 4 January, 2014.

    The Polar Star will leave Sydney today after taking on supplies prior to its voyage to Antarctica.

    It is anticipated it will take approximately seven (7) days for the Polar Star to reach Commonwealth Bay, dependent on weather and ice conditions.

    At 122 metres, the Polar Star is one of the largest ships in the US Coast Guard fleet. It has a range of 16,000 nautical miles at 18 knots. The Polar Star has a crew of 140 people. The Polar Star is able to continuously break ice up to 1.8 metres (6ft) while travelling at three (3) knots and can break ice over six (21ft) metres thick.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/04/usa-to-the-rescue-us-coast-guard-ice-breaker-asked-to-assist-antarctic-rescue-vessels-trapped-in-ice-due-to-spiritofmawson-fiasco/

  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,127
    edited January 5

    Sounds like an expensive undertaking. But the powers that be will file the cost under "good training" for jockeying for position in the melting Arctic (melting is their word, not mine). (adn.com)

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345

    @gagrice said: Help is on the way. Why did the Aussies and Ruskies take so long to ask for help?

    At 122 metres, the Polar Star is one of the largest ships in the US Coast Guard fleet. It has a range of 16,000 nautical miles at 18 knots. The Polar Star has a crew of 140 people. The Polar Star is able to continuously break ice up to 1.8 metres (6ft) while travelling at three (3) knots and can break ice over six (21ft) metres thick.

    Lots of power behind all that weight. Those thicknesses are simply incredible. You can be sure it ain't no gas job doing all that work..

  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,127
    edited January 5

    "Polar Star's three shafts are turned by either a diesel-electric or gas turbine power plant. Each shaft is connected to a 16-foot (4.9 m) diameter, four-bladed, controllable-pitch propeller. The diesel-electric plant can produce 18,000 shaft horsepower (13 MW) and the gas turbine plant a total of 75,000 shaft horsepower (56 MW)." (wikipedia)

    Now that I think about it, I guess it's heading for Antarctica because all the ice is melting in the Arctic this year so they won't have anything to do north of the equator. :D

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,884

    @Stever@Edmunds said: Sounds like an expensive undertaking. But the powers that be will file the cost under "good training" for jockeying for position in the melting Arctic (melting is their word, not mine). (adn.com)

    You are a diehard believer for sure. That is an interesting article how our lazy liberal government has let the rest of the World get ahead of US in the Arctic. It will be a much better route from Asia to the East Coast than the Panama Canal. Not to mention tourists watching polar bears floating by on tiny little chunks of ice. You can have all that cold, I want to live where it is warm. Bring on the GW. How many feet did you say the ocean would rise. I want to have beach front property.

  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,127
    edited January 5

    You do get another prospective occasionally reading the Anchorage Daily News. Liberal rag it may be, it does cover the Arctic more that the Outside media. There's another recent article about building a "fancy" harbor in Nome since cruise ships are going there now, and they want to go further north. Shades of Uncle Ted and I think both Lisa and Begich are both behind it.

    "The lack of a deep-water harbor along Alaska's north and west coasts has been a point of concern as climate warming has made Arctic waters more accessible and nations have taken an interest in the region's resources."

    Thinking about the ships stuck in the ice reminds me of the pics of the cranes falling into the harbor trying to recover a sunk car off a pier. (hoax-slayer.com)

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,884
    edited January 7

    Better toe the Pseudo Science of the GWarmers or you are in trouble.

    **What Catastrophe? MIT’s Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist **

    In his mid-seventies, married with two sons, and now emeritus at MIT, Lindzen spends between four and six months a year at his second home in Paris. But that doesn’t mean he’s no longer in the thick of the climate controversy; he writes, gives myriad talks, participates in debates, and occasionally testifies before Congress. In an eventful life, Lindzen has made the strange journey from being a pioneer in his field and eventual IPCC coauthor to an outlier in the discipline—if not an outcast.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html#

  • houdini1houdini1 Kansas City areaPosts: 5,870

    The GW crowd has been using the very derogatory term GW deniers to describe those of us who don't think the debate is over. Now the term Global Cooling deniers seems to fit them.

    Throughout history every true scientist has always pursued the truth, no matter where that truth may lead. Understanding always changes and evolves. When a "scientist" tells you the debate is over, that person is not a scientist, he is a fool.

    2013 LX 570 2010 LS 460 2002 Tacoma 4x4

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,884

    @houdini1 said: Throughout history every true scientist has always pursued the truth, no matter where that truth may lead. Understanding always changes and evolves. When a "scientist" tells you the debate is over, that person is not a scientist, he is a fool.

    That would be my view of science in general. Look at history hardly a day goes by that some new discovery refutes some long accepted theory. Warmers are the flat earth bunch of the 21st century.

    image

    image

    image

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,563
    edited January 8

    I've always seen the use of "denier" in this context to capitalize on the usage of holocaust "denier", maybe associating with the wrongness and unpleasantness of those who fall under the latter, and the emotion that comes with it. Words can be chosen for the greatest impact, and the GW community is as apt to propaganda as anyone.

    @houdini1 said: The GW crowd has been using the very derogatory term GW deniers to describe those of us who don't think the debate is over. Now the term Global Cooling deniers seems to fit them.

    Throughout history every true scientist has always pursued the truth, no matter where that truth may lead. Understanding always changes and evolves. When a "scientist" tells you the debate is over, that person is not a scientist, he is a fool.

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,884

    In the case of the GW political machine I would say they are in denial. The Northern Hemisphere is going through record cold this winter. Looking at Sydney, Cairnes and Perth they are below normal for this time of year. What I am seeing in the MSM is hanging onto any glimmer of hope that their Man Made GW is real. Science is not important to schmucks like Al Gore. The political agenda is foremost in his mind. You could freeze him in his mansion in Malibu and he would still keep preaching the agenda. That is what politicians do. Man is NOT putting out less CO2 than 20 years ago. Yet it is cooler across the globe. No matter how the government agencies try to spin the data. If the theory of more CO2 means warmer temps, the theory is flawed.

  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,127

    Need to work out a swap.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,884

    If he is seeing an actual 122-126 F ambient temeperature, where is he and what would be normal for this time of year? According to Weather Underground Perth hit 84F yesterday, normal 86F. Sydney was 70F yesterday normal 77F record 96F. High for Australia was 111F at Telfer, with a low of 24F at Perisher Valley.

    And our NWS said it was in the 70s yesterday which is not true. It was a beautiful 68 with an over night low of 49. If you listen to the forecasts on radio they will drop numbers like the 70s and low 80s. Don't believe it. We have had great weather over the last week but no 70s. High 60s and low 50s over night. The valleys are cooler overnight. Some dropped into the 30s around us. Still have to have a fire in the wood stove or run the furnace. They filled my propane yesterday @ $3.79 GGE. 48 days on that tank cost to refill $468. Or $9.75 per day to keep the house at 68 cold degrees. A little more warming would be nice with the eco nuts running up the cost of our utilities.

  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,127

    You don't know Graham? He's a hoot.

    Forget where he lives, but he does travel the country a lot. And it's a big country.

    You'll recall that Australia is so hot they had to add new colors to the weather map. (washingtonpost.com)

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,884

    Graham sounds like someone from a Jeeves and Wooster story. Love the British humo(u)r.

    Wasn't the lowest temperatures also recorded down under. Bunch of extremist on the bottom of the globe. :) I have been outside in -58 F and survived. I have worked out in chill factor of more than -100 F and that is miserable.

    Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), and his team found temperatures from −92 to −94 degrees Celsius (−134 to −137 degrees Fahrenheit) in a 1,000-kilometer long swath on the highest section of the East Antarctic ice divide.

    The measurements were made between 2003 and 2013 by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensor on board NASA’s Aqua satellite and during the 2013 Southern Hemisphere winter by Landsat 8, a new satellite launched early this year by NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey.

    “I’ve never been in conditions that cold and I hope I never am,” Scambos said. “I am told that every breath is painful and you have to be extremely careful not to freeze part of your throat or lungs when inhaling.”

    http://nsidc.org/news/press/2013_ColdestPlace_PR.html

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,884

    Is radiation from unknown sources a bigger threat than CC? We along the Coast have reason to be concerned about Fukishima radiation. It is in the fish from Baja to Alaska. Now this new threat.

    International Medcom CEO Dan Sythe later put the dirt sample in a spectrum analyzer to view the radioactive “signature” of the particles, the photon energy associated with each isotope. What he found was different from cesium-137, the fissile material used in the Fukushima reactors. He would know – since the 2011 meltdown, Sythe has visited Japan nine times to help map the cesium fallout.

    Instead he was seeing radium and thorium, naturally occurring radioactive elements.

    “It doesn’t mean that it‘s OK. It's not something you'd want your baby playing in,” Sythe said. “All we’re saying is this radiation is not from Fukushima.”

    Sythe summarized his findings on his blog in the hopes that it would dispel a sense of panic spreading on the Internet that Fukushima radiation was hitting U.S. shores. People were posting online claiming that the West Coast would soon be “toast,” he said, so it was vital to get better information online.

    http://www.hmbreview.com/news/experts-say-beach-radiation-unrelated-to-fukushima/article_d3bb5b14-77ea-11e3-a37b-001a4bcf887a.html

  • texasestexases Posts: 5,528

    Those folks would be REALLY terrified if they were aware of all the natural radiation they get every moment of every day, from cosmic rays, local dirt, whatever. Once diluted by the oceans and atmosphere there is no appreciable change from those 'background' levels possible on the west coast, unless one started eating fish caught offshore Fukushima (now that's a BAD idea).

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,884

    They caught 15 Bluefin tuna off San Diego that have elevated levels of Cesium 134 & 137. Fish in Alaska are showing all sorts of strange afflictions. I quit buying any Pacific seafood over a year ago. Let someone else find out if it is safe. I don't want to glow in the dark.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/12/fukushima-radiation-something-else-causing-mass-die-wildlife-pacific-ocean.html

  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,127
    edited January 8

    Fish are pretty mobile last I looked. And stuff like cesium-137 bioaccumulates. And it's not like Tepco has turned off the spigot from the three meltdowns. And it's not like they are being very open about what's happening. (tokyo-np.co.jp)

    How about some nice whale steaks Gary? (petethomasoutdoors.com)

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,884

    Never ate any whale meat. I have tried Muktuk a few times. I rate it right up with Tofu for flavor. I think we are on the same page with what is going on as a result of the Fukishima meltdown. I think it could be the biggest disaster by far of the last 100 years. Makes all the babble about GW seem insignificant. How many millions will get cancer from the fallout and seafood? At least with rising oceans you have a chance to move inland. We have a nephew that surfs here year round. He has several health issues the doctors are stumped by.

  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,063

    @gagrice said: Is radiation from unknown sources a bigger threat than CC? We along the Coast have reason to be concerned about Fukishima radiation. It is in the fish from Baja to Alaska. Now this new threat.

    Sythe summarized his findings on his blog in the hopes that it would dispel a sense of panic spreading on the Internet that Fukushima radiation was hitting U.S. shores. People were posting online claiming that the West Coast would soon be “toast,” he said, so it was vital to get better information online.

    http://www.hmbreview.com/news/experts-say-beach-radiation-unrelated-to-fukushima/article_d3bb5b14-77ea-11e3-a37b-001a4bcf887a.html

    Interesting.

  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,127
    edited January 8

    Much prefer tofu, never had a steak either. Frozen raw tom cod dipped in seal oil was pretty tasty though.

    It's hard to get too hot and bothered by the pollution caused by rare earth mining for solar panels after seeing all the nuke problems. People are upset that the Italian mob has been illegally dumping nuke waste offshore but the US dumped waste offshore for years and years too. And those casks are leaking or getting pulled up by fishermen.

    @imidazol97, enenews is another "interesting" site. Lot of dreck there but there is the occasional nugget. If enough flack gets raised, maybe the government will start doing a better job of getting the info out.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,884

    @Stever@Edmunds said: It's hard to get too hot and bothered by the pollution caused by rare earth mining for solar panels after seeing all the nuke problems. People are upset that the Italian mob has been illegally dumping nuke waste offshore but the US dumped waste offshore for years and years too. And those casks are leaking or getting pulled up by fishermen.

    No doubt about waste being dumped all over that is now becoming a problem. Many sites are quietly being cleaned up by the Feds at a very high price. Much more than disposing of them safely to start with. The $9+ billion we have given to tin pot dictators under the guise of GW could have been used much more efficiently cleaning up our messes.

  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,127

    lol, they "cleaned up" TMI in 12 years at a cost of $1 billion.

    The clean-up entailed sending the waste to Idaho where it's sitting around in casks. Talk about a full employment scheme for the untold decades. And the Pennsylvania rate payers or utility companies aren't on the hook for guarding that stuff (much less "processing" it).

    How hard is it to decommission a solar plant?

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • texasestexases Posts: 5,528

    I have no problem making solar cells, or getting rid of them. It's the paying part that's the problem, along with the many square miles of countryside required to generate significant power.

    Here's what happens to a country (Spain, a prime place for solar, even) when the government supports solar, then has to abandon it or go bankrupt:

    nytimes.com/2014/01/06/world/europe/spains-solar-pullback-threatens-pocketbooks.html?partner=EXCITE&ei=5043

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,884

    @Stever@Edmunds said: lol, they "cleaned up" TMI in 12 years at a cost of $1 billion.

    The clean-up entailed sending the waste to Idaho where it's sitting around in casks. Talk about a full employment scheme for the untold decades. And the Pennsylvania rate payers or utility companies aren't on the hook for guarding that stuff (much less "processing" it).

    How hard is it to decommission a solar plant?

    It is really difficult to tell the bank your solar panels are no longer needed and the loan on your home is still in affect. SDG&E have been grumbling about the payback from home owners with solar panels that produce more than they use. Those that bought hoping to pay off their loans could end up like the folks in Spain. And who will fix the ones that go bad 10 years from now when the Mfg is bankrupt?

    And don't forget the $4.2billion that SCE and SDG&E have to come up with to Decommission San Onofre Nuclear plant that is now shut down. Plus they still owe $2.6 billion on their loan. Best to just use coal or NG and forget all these exotic alternatives that cost more than they produce.

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,884
    edited January 11

    This has been my belief for most of my life. It is urbanization that is destroying the planet and likely causing GW. Not to mention increased crime and general Cess Pool effect of big cities.

    Urbanization Has Been Destroying the Environment Since the Very First Cities The development of the ancient city of Akko, roughly 6000 years ago, led to the collapse of the local ecosystem

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/urbanization-has-been-destroying-the-environment-since-the-very-first-cities-180948243/?utm_campaign=201401-hist&utm_medium=email&utm_source=smithsonianhistandarch

This discussion has been closed.