By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
How long before we are charged a tax on our personal CO2 emissions. Don't want to pay it? Hold your breath. :sick:
And me, I'll probably have to pay double due to my methane emissions.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
After hitting a record high a week or so ago, we got dumped with a foot of fresh powder up at the hill, so whether it's cooling or warming this week, I'm psyched (and exhausted). :shades:
(Aside to Kernick - how much heating oil did you use last month?).
Not according to the graph on this site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
"How did man cope with that?"
Why is that relevant? You are comparing now to an unrelated period in human history. During the 12th Century did they have hundreds of millions of people living on the coast? How much of a change is needed today to impact our current systems (water supplies, farming, weather, cities on the coast)?
"How did man cause it?"
I find it amazing that you would even ask that question. If the answer is no that does not automatically mean that man is not impacting climate now. Back then how many coal power plants or cement plants did they have? How about now? Where there a billion cars on the road back then???
"If scientists could answer those questions they may be able to convince me they are not motivated by greed."
It looks like you will never be convinced because you are basically coming up with questions that are not relevant and expecting an answer.
You do not think man is now impacting the climate with over 6.5 billion people. Do you have a point where you think the population will grow enough to impact climate? What is the number..10 billion, 100 billion, or maybe you think we can keep expanding until the planet looks like Coruscant from Star Wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coruscant
You mention the term greed.
"Greed is the self-serving desire for the pursuit of money, wealth, power, food, or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed
I would say that the deniers are the ones with the biggest case of greed.
So - get in line. There's 60 million of us who get a go first.
Sorry, off-topic but couldn't resist.
ETA : Waiting for the announcement, due any day now according to my good friend from Texas. Apparently the USA will shortly change to become the USSA ........the United Socialist States of America. Now that'll take your minds off Climate Change. Personally, I think Obama is the right man for the job but putting things right will not make him the most popular guy in America. At least noy initially. I believe there are lots of hard decisions to be taken and lots of hard lessons to be learnt. I believe there is some credence to man-enhanced climate change but that the early wolf-crying almost fatally damaged the cause of science in many peoples' minds.
This old earth is tougher than you think. It has been hit by asteroids countless times that had the destructive power on the order of 100,000 nuclear bombs each strike.
Who knows what else has happened in the last few billion years. Man's efforts are puny by comparison. The earth is still here and in pretty good shape.
Waste is bad, and we are wasting valuable time and resources by worrying about the placement of deck chairs on the Titanic with all this silly GW wolf crying.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
If any have been to Boston in the last 7 years, they have spend 2 Billion plus probably MORE in over runs to dig the underground transportation tube!!?? ) NYC is at probably a cost of billions more is digging to "UPGRADE" underground fresh water systems. Of course the subway systems which is what the GW cists wholeheartedly recommend is... underground...... How insane is that? (given the GW assumptions and premises)
Say one thing to scare people but do something else. People keep falling for the same old stuff. :confuse:
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
And in the news, a recent global warming news story sorta mostly related to automobiles.
Road transport has biggest long-term impact on global warming, says EU (Environmental Expert)
Put me down as man having a small, maybe even negligible affect on the climate. I believe the retired scientists that are not worried about losing their grant money. Having it pulled by the fools in Congress that have big plans for Cap and Trade tax money.
The truth is more the NOT is also at work.
I do not say this to be contrary, even as I know it is....contrary. The world wide demand is projected to GROW 4% year over year. Developing countries not only aspire and conspire to burn more fuel, but do so by permission (Kyoto Accord being one such venue) at lesser prices, far less acknowledge emissions controls, and even far less verifications and @ less mpg.
Not really on point with global warming though. But you can bet that there's plenty of money and political pressure driving the global warming debate. It's cheaper for industry to debate and try to protect the status quo instead of dealing with lowering CO2 emissions.
I guess so since I can do nothing about volcanoes, geysers, rocks, oceans, and other natural occurrences. Is this what you are referring to?
The earth along with all of us would perish in a heartbeat without co2. Plants have to have it to exist. Co2 goes up and down a little with the growing season which is only natural.
My personal contribution is about like taking a leak in the Pacific ocean and then worrying about the additional salt content.
It would not be surprising to me at all, if in a few years, all these experts suddenly decided that we needed more co2 in the atmosphere.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
"The climate is undoubtedly changing, and it is changing faster than many scientists thought it would, especially in the Arctic.
Regardless of the ineffectual Kyoto Protocol, carbon dioxide emissions from human activities increased by 3% per year during 2000-2006."
BBC Viewpoint
This might be just a case of a difference of opinion. The real effect is the Kyoto Protocol gives the appearance of doing something about C02 emissions and they do... according to your estimates allowed a growth of 3%.
Steiner is being pushed out by Sea Grant. That is funded by NOAA. So how is that different than what I have said? A scientist that does not agree with the Feds will get his grant pulled. So when I see VERY reputable retired scientists saying Man Made GW or CC is a government scam. I am much more likely to believe their findings than some hack scientist like Hansen and his buddy Gore that are making $millions off of the ignorance of the American and World masses.
Not sure. I have a 500 gal. tank and didn't refill yet. I'd guess 200 gal. as the only time the heat's above 58F is 6-11pm and on weekends when I'm home. My hot-water also is oil-fired first before going into the electric storage tank. So I use some oil year-round.
Thanks Kernick - just trying to help a buddy up north compare notes.
"What we are trying to accomplish with this conference is to present to the politicians and to the public that the debate is not over about global warming or climate change; that there is plenty of room for disagreement; and that sound science shows that the earth is not warming," says Miller.
"For much of the latter part of the 20th century there's been a mild warming as we come out of an ice age -- but the planet today is much cooler than it was a thousand years ago."
About 800 scientists, economists, legislators, policy activists, and media representatives are expected to register at the second International Conference on Climate Change, opening Sunday, March 8 and concluding Tuesday, March 10 at the New York Marriott Marquis Hotel.
And what they are trying to do is reach some sort of common ground because those guys can't agree on whether GW is happening or not and whether if it is happening, is it human caused. Another faction thinks GW is happening but doesn't want to spend any money trying to "fix" it. So their message isn't getting through, since there's not really a consensus.
Like everything else, it boils down to marketing eh?
One of the things that is routinely ignored is the fact there is NOTHING that says climate has to be static. That is probably an underlying assumption which has time and time again been proven incorrect.
That's why people move to San Diego.
Shows the CO2 contribution from the transportation sector.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/03/09/Warming_skeptics_face_shrinking_suppo- rt/UPI-13251236598998/
The tide has turned. Of course scientific discussion never really ends. Lots of details to sort out as the following web site shows.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5084#more
And if you are into card games.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-d- eniers-top-10
And finally:
"Having neither the time nor skills to weigh up each piece of evidence we fall back on decision-making shortcuts formed by our education, politics and class. In particular we measure new information against our life experience and the views of the people around us. "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/09/denial-climate-chang- e-psychology
Curious, how many folks out there have a science background? My background is in Geology.
I may be skeptical, but I am a LOT more open minded than those that are following Al Gore and his so called consensus. He is a politician and knows how to use half truths and out right lies to convince weak minds that what he is saying is factual.
Find me a scientist that is one hundred percent convinced that GW is caused by man, that is not on a payroll or grant with an attached agenda.
I have posted articles by scientists that at one time believed in the theory and now question it. They are not working for anyone. They are just convinced that the whole GW theory is blown out of proportion for political and monetary gain.
Do you feel any guilt for helping to decimate the manufacturing industry in this country while putting thousands of honest hard working people out of work? One of the reasons so many companies have had to move off shore is that they simply could not deal with all the clean air and water rules and recs here. Some of these rules are worthwhile, but many are simply overkill.
The economic chaos we are currently going through is, in large part, because of the loss of our manufacturing base. Our auto manufacturers have held out the longest but they are now teetering on the brink.
At some point in the near future we all may be staring out of our tent flaps and enjoying the pristine sunsets even as we shiver in the cold.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
So long as we are a capitalist country, I don't feel guilt for corporations or businesses focusing solely on the profit motive. If companies go off-shore, well, that's between management and the shareholders. Our tax and legal system doesn't have to reward them for doing so however.
Someone posted a link in here the other day that said the US is currently doing more manufacturing than ever, so I think that's a bit of a red herring. Micron may fold in my area and stop making computer DRAM. But someone else may start making solar panels. Global warming is a huge economic opportunity, and not just for the scientists and pols. Nothing stays the same, and if the US automakers aren't flexible enough to change with the times, then they will be left behind.
At some point in the near future we all may be staring out of our tent flaps and enjoying the pristine sunsets even as we shiver in the cold.
I have nice down bags from LL Bean. :shades:
I happen to really like this country and my way of life and I feel a deep sense of gratitude to all those wild, crazy, and wonderful pioneers who shaped this country into what it is today.
Whether you like it or not, this country was built by those dirty oil wells, smoke stacks, steel mills, and nasty pollution spewing old automobiles and trucks that many seem to hate so much today. If it wasn't for them you would not have those nice comfortable down bags or much of anything else.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
No one followed the global warming skeptics storm in NYC that ended today?
Global-Warming Skeptics Raise A Storm In New York (Radio Free Europe)
and
"A “truth-based” system to limit heat-trapping gases only if warming is scientifically confirmed might satisfy both sides of the debate, the associate professor of economics at Canada´s University of Guelph said at a conference in New York. The U.S. president has proposed rolling back emissions to 1990 levels regardless of the extent of higher global temperatures.
At a three-day event billed as the biggest meeting of global-warming skeptics, McKitrick and colleagues are challenging the accuracy of long-range climate forecasts and published theory on the extent of warming as their contrarian views are shunned by corporate and political leaders, from the president to the head of U.S. utility Public Service Enterprise Group.
“Global warmers,” said McKitrick, should “love a truth- based system. We might get a rapidly shrinking cap and rapidly rising permit price. But we might not."
Bloomberg
Meanwhile, over in Copenhagen, "Over the next few days, the International Scientific Conference on Climate Change will hear from world experts including climatologists, social scientists and economists on how the prognosis for global warming, and its physical and societal impacts, has changed since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its last report in 2007. The science in the 2007 report is now effectively 4-5 years out of date, so it’s clearly time for an update, which is why experts are here this week."
International climate science congress kicks off (Nature)
CLIMATE CHANGE: GLOBAL RISKS, CHALLENGES AND DECISIONS
http://www.iop.org/EJ/volume/1755-1315/6
"I have posted articles by scientists that at one time believed in the theory and now question it. They are not working for anyone."
These people are working for various companies and organizations that do not want to deal with the issue of climate change. These same "pure" scientists as you call them actually have an agenda.
I look at it this way, the earth is a system that we cannot ignore. It defines our very existence. We can either learn how it works and how we impact that system or suffer the consequences.
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first." Mark Twain
Don't you just love Mark Twain?
I agree with that and the Bible saying that Adam had dominion over the creatures of the Earth.
This is a somewhat different kettle of fish. We are debating if my SUV or your car is changing the climate to the extent it will cause irreparable damage. You seem to believe they will I do not. I look just back at my parents generation. They burnt sawdust all winter long to keep the house in Oregon warm. I stoked it and watched the smoke pouring out. my guess is that GHG from just one furnace in Portland Oregon put out more GHG than all my cars, PUs and SUVs combined. By the late 1950s you could not breath in LA where we were living because of leaded gas. Man did remove that and now LA just stinks from too many people. At least my eyes don't burn when I am forced to drive through going North. I also remember quite well the hand wringing and doomsday rhetoric in the 1970s when we were headed into another Ice age caused by man. I have noticed on weather underground that most of the record cold days was set in the mid 1970s.
I look at Al Gore and his paid minions like people that yell fire in a crowded theater. When you hear wolf so many times you no longer believe it. As Mark Twain says the Earth was here first. It will more than likely be here when man has blown each other off of the face of the Earth. As the current polls are showing people are losing interest in Global Warming and are more concerned with survival. Those that would try to make money off of what ever happens in the future in regards to the Climate are not helping.
Scientist do not have to prove that man does not have a large impact on the Climate. Science must PROVE he does. I do not see where they have done that. Just saying it is warmer today than yesterday thus it must be man does not prove anything.
You may want to watch this video.
http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_shares_mindboggling_new_science.html
Not only is evolution alive and well, man has finally gotten to the point where we can do it ourselves. So the answer to all this climate change stuff is re-engineer the human species to survive the change. Maybe we can bio-engineer our cars too....
Some interesting news from the UK. Cars are responsible for about 11.5% of the CO2.
Casey:
"Foreign aid could be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in a rich country to rich people in a poor country".
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
And to think they use the EVIL DIESEL with over 60% of the passenger vehicle fleet. And we haven't even talked about nuclear power !!??
link title
And that is why it is "not major". If you reduce driving 10% in the U.K. that reduces overall man-made CO2 - 1.2%. That's really not much, compared to how much the IPCC says we need to reduce man-made GHG. What's the desired reduction - 50%?
In other countries where there are few cars - CO2 is much lower than 11.5% due to autos. People are still burning wood and coal and whatever else they can get.
Whilst I don't deny the need to reduce car CO2 it is already in hand and there is a real need to address the other sources but they are not such easy targets, or as "visible", as cars so the car drivers will remain as the soft touch - and get the adverse publicity - to blow smoke over the major contributors. :mad:
C'est la vie.
and unwillingly": all the folks who are becoming and have been CAR LESS and HOME LESS. They can point to the defacto tent city in Sacramento, CA as one of the "achievements".
Tracy Vaughan, who moved to the city with her husband six months ago. "We both worked for the same company, we both got laid off on the same day," she said.
"So yeah, it just kind of happened."
So they are collecting $450 per week each unemployment and opt to live in a tent. They should be saving mega bucks collecting food stamps from the rest of US. These stories may appeal to the bleeding heart liberals. And make the GW crowd push for more of the same. It is the only way we will go back to 1990 levels of GHG. Nice tents for a homeless person. Did the city set up showers and toilets so they get free water and utilities. I bet they all have a stinking cell phone.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/12/2514425.htm
Northeast US to suffer most from future sea rise
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer – Sun Mar 15, 2:04 pm ET
link title
"Despite the heart-rending photos of polar bears perching on a thawing ice floe (they swim, you know), the latest word from the journal Polar Biology is that these creatures are likely to survive by switching their food source from seals to eggs of the snow goose. Some 125,000 years ago, there was significant global warming, with sea levels 12–18 feet higher than now and trees growing north of the Arctic Circle. The bears thrived through that just fine too."
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=18&article_id=7714&page_numbe- - r=2
Scientists Claim Earth Is Undergoing Natural Climate Shift
POSTED: 3:18 pm CDT March 15, 2009
UPDATED: 11:50 am CDT March 16, 2009
However, a new study by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee could turn the climate change world upside down.
"In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century," Tsonis said. "The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001."
The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000.
Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have?
"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.
http://www.wisn.com/weather/18935841/detail.html
(Tsonis)
"I was worried that this will happen, that is why we caution in the paper that while climate shifts may be part of the natural variability of the climate system they may be superimposed on a anthropogenic warming trend. We mentioned that also in the MSNBC story, and this will be my answer to anybody who asks me.
I like to report on the science only. If political organizations want to pick up what they like in order to pass their point and ignore the real science, there is nothing we can do.
Swanson wrote to me that this natural shifting is exactly what you’d expect if the Earth’s climate was indeed sensitive enough to carbon dioxide that it would respond by warming as has been projected.
We are describing in this paper what is generally referred to as “internal” (natural) climate variability, superimposed upon a robust global warming trend at century time-scales. Viewed in that light, the “halt” in global warming is no different than an El Nino/La Nina transition, which also breaks a warming trend - what we are describing is just climate variability that occurs over longer time scales."
Blogs / The Loom
Follow-up here: Ice Never Sleeps: George Will, Jr.
Quickie "it's happening" blurb at Discovery News (and don't ask me if Discover Mag is related to Discovery TV - almost as confusing as the GW issue).
I think what Tsonis and Swanson are saying is that because of the climate's internal variability, global warming may cease for the near term, but they suggest that warming over the 21st century may be larger than current models are predicting.
To me IF the global temperatures drop AT ALL, it cannot be mostly man made. We have not cut back on GHG in the least, World wide. We are progressively making more. With the growth in population I would expect us to double GHG in the near future from that holy grail of 1990 levels.
I suppose because we are in a hurricane downturn it is all Obama. RFK blamed Bush for Katrina. No Hurricanes it must be the President that calmed the seas. That is the mentality in the MM Global Warming Cult. Those that want to side with that kind of non science, we do have a free country for the moment.