Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?

1106107109111112223

Comments

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    As I said many times here before the Earth is too cold in most areas and could use a little warming.

    I've have this conversation with one of my northern friends. He got a nasty spider bite as a kid and hates the suckers. He saw an article in the National Geographic or on Discovery the other day that said that spiders are getting bigger because of global warming. So he's ready to contribute to Al Gore all of a sudden. :D

    Enjoy the chiggers, ticks, termites and fire ants the South is sending your way.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Enjoy the chiggers, ticks, termites and fire ants the South is sending your way.

    Well if the increased heat drives away the turkeys that fight with their reflections in my cellar windows, that'll be an equal tradeoff.

    Sounds like you agree that a warmer climate is good for life in general. Tropical areas such as the Amazon do have the most diversity and concentration of life.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    The poles get most of the attention, but Global Warming To Severly Affect Animals In Tropic

    So all the birds that eat the skeeters will get hammered.

    “The tropical species in our data were mostly thermal specialists, meaning that their current climate is nearly ideal and any temperature increases will spell trouble for them.” (AfterTek)
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    OMG !! Where can we hide?

    Florida, get ready, you're next...in about 100 million years or so...maybe !

    Seriously, there are so many factors affecting local sea levels that no one knows what is going on for sure. Typical scare tactics from Treehugger, with no facts or figures, just hyperbole.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    " and then sit here and think that for some reason this natural change all of a sudden should have stopped in the 20th century, and the coastlines and climate need to be maintained as is for eternity. "

    True, but people do not want the change. They will fight to live in a lake bottom when it gets wet or on the shore as the ocean rises. A billion people around the world might need to move if the sea level rises a few feet. Where do you suggest we put them? What about the trillions of dollars in buildings and oil infrastructure that will get flooded?

    Also, do not underestimate man's ability to impact the climate.
    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights2_dmsp_big.jpg
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Or can we meet the goals Congress and CA have for US?

    The long term goal with cap and trade is „80 by 50‟– an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. Let‟s do the easy math on what „80 by 50‟ means to you, using Utah as an example. Utah‟s carbon footprint today is about 66 MM tons of CO2 per year. Utah‟s population today is 2.6 MM. You divide those two numbers, and the average Utahan today has a carbon footprint of about 25 tons of CO2 per year. An 80% reduction in Utah‟s carbon footprint by 2050 implies a reduction from 66 MM tons today to about 13 MM tons per year by 2050. But Utah‟s population is growing at over 2% per year, so by 2050 there will be about 6 MM people living in this state. 13 MM tons divided by 6 MM people = 2.2 tons per person per year. Under "80 by 50‟ by the time you folks reach my age you'll have to live your lives with an annual carbon allowance of no more than 2.2 tons of CO2 per year.

    Question: when was the last time Utah's carbon footprint was as low as 2.2 tons per person per year? Answer: probably not since Brigham Young and the Mormon pioneers first entered the Salt Lake Valley (1847).

    You reach a similar conclusion when you do the math on "80 by 50‟ for the entire U.S. "80 by 50‟ would require a reduction in America's CO2 emissions from about 20 tons per person per year today, to about 2 tons per person per year in 2050. When was the last time America's carbon footprint was as low as 2 tons per person per year? Probably not since the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock in 1620.

    In short, "80 by 50" means that by the time you folks reach my age, you won’t be allowed to use anything made with – or made possible by – fossil fuels.
    So I want to focus you on this critical question: “How on God's green earth – pun intended – are you going to do what my generation said we'd do but didn't – and that's wean yourselves from fossil fuels in just four decades?” That's a question that each of you, and indeed, all Americans need to ask now – because when it comes to “how” there clearly is no consensus. Simply put, with today's energy technologies, we can't get there from here.


    http://www.questar.com/news/2009_news/UVUSpeech.pdf
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Actually what you write is infinitely achieveable. I got a glimpse of it in my "youth" and in effect flashed back to it as I pondered the numbers you cited in your post.

    LARGE numbers of folks living, working, etc.,24/7 in tents !!!! It was a (2 month) bivouac in northern florida of approximately 5-7,000 folks. Lovely humid weather. "light" mosquito populations, (spray planes shooting malathion) not too many cases of malaria.... lovely just lovely. not many folks died during this hoopla, app 8 folks.
  • basswoodbasswood Member Posts: 6
    I have read that the correlation between temp. increase and CO2 is inverse. That is, the temp. increase causes a greater release of CO2 from oceans. And the greatest increaser of temp. is the sun. I find it strange that none of the global warming alarmists seem to mention the influence of the sun on temp. because that would take man out of the picture for blame and big-bucks programs to alleviate the "problem." And why do we hear only one side of the problem? Why are the antiwarming people totally ignored.It isn't because their science is bad; it's because somebody else has a political agenda. I hope somebody wakes up before this global hoax costs us so much we'll never recover!
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Totally ignored? The anti crowd is very vocal, even in here.

    Searching for "global warming solar" gets about ten million hits, from National Geographic to NASA.

    In CAFE news, "The plan aims to cut down on anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists believe are a major cause of global warming."

    Bye bye to SUVs and large trucks, say critics (Daily Tech)
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    Even though I believe that you understood him perfectly, let me explain further. I think the poster was talking about being ignored by the so called main stream media. Have you seen many stories that refute man made global warming (other than to poke fun at them) on NBC or any other main stream outlets?

    Don't worry basswood, the money is not actually being wasted. It is just being taken from you and me and given to Al Gore and his buddies.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Well, that could be. I get my news off the net and radio and the one paper we still take, and only watch TV if I'm stuck in an airport somewhere. Twenty minutes of talking heads sandwiched by 10 minutes of commercials doesn't lend itself to much news coverage.

    What's funny is that the one paper we pay for is the Wall St. Journal, not generally considered to be a liberal rag. Yet they frequently run stories about global warming, and their science columnist gets his shots in too, like this "done deal" blast - A call to arms on climate shift. HuffPo calls their climate coverage schizophrenic at best. I think Murdock figures that there's money to be made in lowering emissions.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    It is good to see the Obama is now the ruler over the law of Physics. I will be eagerly waiting for the PU Trucks and SUVs with a combined 30 MPG. Mini trucks and SUVs do not count..
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ..."The government reported Wednesday that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions declined by 2.8 percent last year compared to 2007, the largest annual drop since the government began regular reporting of greenhouse gas pollution."...

    link title
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    That's depressioning. :)

    Bump up the price of oil back over $100 a barrel and we'll chase the bark bettles out of the arctic.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Well NO ! It is proof positive that the realities are FAR different. Indeed that banner metric was achieved with the price of oil/ rug to pug, d2 at LOWS !!!!!

    In addition it makes absolutely NO/NONE/NADA difference !!!!!

    It also goes to show that diesel passenger cars will give 20-40% decrease and it is systematically being limited to be dialed off the US market. The passenger diesel fleet has decreased 33% from 3% of the passenger car fleet to 2% despite the recent introduction of the 50 state legal VW Jetta TDI . The overwhelming majority of the diesel passenger vehicle fleet are light (heavy actually) trucks.......
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Well, your link starts off:

    "There is a positive note to the country's economic woes and last summer's $4-per-gallon gasoline: The nation in 2008 had a record decline in the amount of climate-changing carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere."

    Diesel is a tiny blip compared to the overall economic situation. High fuel prices, high unemployment. It sounds like people cut way back on their driving so less stuff got dumped into the air.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ..."Diesel is a tiny blip compared to the overall economic situation. "...

    Indeed I am glad you are in agreement with my assessment in my prior post. 1. diesel being an very small part of the passenger fleet 2. diesel structually adding less C02 per mile driven( same model of course). It also is indicative the very same folks who call for this are not as serious as they profess to be.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Well, as often happens, I guess I don't know what you were trying to say in your last post.

    If you are calling for mass defection from ICE to diesel, you're going to have to figure out the particulates first.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    It's more of how to replace the revenues TAXATION, et al... built on..... RUG to PUG . The technological issues are/have been already "off the shelf", for decades if not generations. European passenger vehicle fleets are already over 50% diesel and GROWING.

    Another "alternative fuel" plug in electrical (golf cart technology) has been "off the shelf" for a generation or more.

    In the service I had (3 phase) electric tow vehicles with a 1968 build date over 40 years ago !!!

    For that matter, 53 years ago, I used to take central (electrical powered ) "cable" cars and overhead wired electrical buses. Of course folks would literally scatter and pray when those antenna used to whip around off "cable".
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Just because the EU has lots of diesel vehicles doesn't mean they are clean.

    Neither are electrics, if they get their power from coal.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Nor does it mean they are statistically validated dirtier!

    Also electricity in Europe is mainly nuclear powered... oxymoronically American nuclear technology.....

    Again President Obama has trumpeted clean coal.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    The US already has twice as many nuke plants as France. More aren't politically feasible.

    "it is debatable whether favoring diesel cars is good environmental policy.

    With the new Euro 5 requirements, the main conclusion is that emissions from new diesel cars give lower net climate, environmental, and health-care costs than emissions from new gasoline cars. However, the climate effects of NOx, CO, VOC and soot particles are not analyzed in the report."

    Diesel Versus Gasoline: Which Is Best For The Climate? (Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo)

    Just wait until they analyze the particulates (soot).
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Quote
    The US already has twice as many nuke plants as France. More aren't politically feasible.

    Response:

    The population (304 M) of the USA is almost 5 times (4.94 x) greater than France (61.5 M) So per capita the US is FAR behind even France.

    It was "politically not feasible" to achieve record low C02 emissions with no other re mediation than folks just cutting back, also !!?? DID however !!!!!

    Quote

    "it is debatable whether favoring diesel cars is good environmental policy.

    As if greater RUG to PUG use is!!??? As the argument is framed when it is anti diesel and ignored when alternative fuels are hitting markets....

    Again it is highly disingenuous that RUG to PUG 30 ppm sulfer is 2x dirtier than D2 @ 15 ppm or less. Bio diesel at 5 ppm or less makes RUG to PUG 6 x dirtier.

    So un sound bite able, the policy is:

    "continue to burn far more (diesel advantage 20-40% over RUG to PUG) while professing that burning less to none is.... better. Let us all salute the golden calf and ... burn more on while we profess to burn less !! :P
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    It was "politically not feasible" to achieve record low C02 emissions with no other re mediation than folks just cutting back, also !!?? DID however !!!!!

    Higher gas taxes would help there, especially when gas falls down to the $2 a gallon level. Conservation works on a couple of levels.

    The bio-PUG sounds like a real can of worms. Some biofuels fail emissions test (Des Moines Register)

    PUG is a lousy acronym to substitute for alternate ICE fuels, btw. This debate is full of lousy acronyms though. :-)
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    You have got to be kidding. In this day and age, how could anyone suggest higher taxes for anything !!

    I know Europe has much higher taxes and free medical care, but they are mainly socialist countries. Do you think that the people there are better off than the people in the U.S. ?

    In the main, those people are so beaten down that if Iran invaded them tomorrow I honestly don't think any European country, with the possible exception of Great Britain, would even put up a fight.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I'm not sure what your sentiments about the state of people in the EU has to do with clean air. They've never looked beat down to me the few times I've had opportunity to go over there.

    Reducing GW keeps stuff out of the air and that works for me.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Stop eating lamb, switch to Pork or Chicken.

    Burping of the lambs blows roast off menu

    GIVE up lamb roasts and save the planet. Government advisers are developing menus to combat climate change by cutting out “high carbon” food such as meat from sheep, whose burping poses a serious threat to the environment.

    Out will go kebabs, greenhouse tomatoes and alcohol. Instead, diners will be encouraged to consume more potatoes and seasonal vegetables, as well as pork and chicken, which generate fewer carbon emissions.

    “Changing our lifestyles, including our diets, is going to be one of the crucial elements in cutting carbon emissions,” said David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change.

    Kennedy has stopped eating his favourite doner kebabs because they contain lamb.

    A government-sponsored study into greenhouse gases found that producing 2.2lb of lamb released the equivalent of 37lb of carbon dioxide.

    The problem is because sheep burp so much methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Cows are only slightly better behaved. The production of 2.2lb of beef releases methane equivalent to 35lb of CO2 Tomatoes, most of which are grown in heated glasshouses, are the most “carbon-intensive” vegetable, each 2.2lb generating more than 20lb of CO2 Potatoes, in contrast, release only about 1lb of CO2 for each 2.2lb of food. The figures are similar for most other native fruit and vegetables.


    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6350237.ece

    I see more cap n trade on restaurants serving lamb. That is going to make the large Muslim population very angry if they only get to eat pork. :blush:
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    Out will go kebabs, greenhouse tomatoes and alcohol. Instead, diners will be encouraged to consume more potatoes and seasonal vegetables, as well as pork and chicken, which generate fewer carbon emissions.

    Pig farms can be very stinky. Must be that their stink emissions are not harmful.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Green homeowner hit with noise abatement order because 40ft wind turbine is driving his neighbours mad

    When Stephen Munday spent £20,000 on a wind turbine to generate electricity for his home, he was proud to be doing his bit for the environment.

    He got planning permission and put up the 40ft device two years ago, making sure he stuck to strict noise level limits.

    But neighbours still complained that the sound was annoying - and now the local council has ordered him to switch it off.

    Officials declared that the sound - which Mr Munday says is 'the same pitch as a dishwasher and quieter than birdsong' - constituted a nuisance, and issued a Noise Abatement Order.

    This is despite the turbine being more than 164ft from the nearest neighbour's house, as ordered by the planners. The ruling could have serious implications for the Government's drive to promote wind power and the use of renewable domestic energy if repeated across the country.

    Electrician Mr Munday, 55, and his wife Sandra, a veterinary nurse, challenged the decision by the Vale of White Horse district council in Oxfordshire.

    But Didcot magistrates rejected their appeal and they were left to pick up the £5,392 court costs as well.


    Wind generators make noise, solar panels cause glare and are an eyesore. So much for doing your part to save the planet. Spending $1000s to defend being green is crazy. Cheaper just to pay for electricity with the cap n trade tax imposed by the criminals in the government.

    good read
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    An "historic" ( aka, monument to poor planning and design) wind farm in the Altamont Pass, CA area has been sued, stopped numerous times and it is located in an area that literally... no one lives. (aka can't hear and complain about the massive noise.

    link title

    link title

    Another government SNAFU in that there is begrudging acknowledgement there are significant % of "windless" days.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    164' is nothing. My neighbor's diesels bug me and they are more like 200' away.

    The problem with wind generators is too many moving parts. Solar is more attractive that way, although there's still significant maintenance if you store your power.

    Buying electricity through a plug in the wall is like getting a shrink-wrapped T-Bone or chicken wing at the super though. No one really understands where this stuff comes from anymore and they never think about the economic and social costs of producing stuff.

    I just upgraded my heat pump system to a ~15 SEER blah blah blah. Has to be at least twice as efficient as my mid-70s model that died. But the nice thing is that it's much quieter than the old air handler was.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Is it just me, or has this particular forum just turned into a "global warming bash-fest?"

    I don't think there is a poster on here who says YES to the question, "Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?"

    Most of them just laugh at that thought.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    It's the method of the anti's. Ridicule the science so the scientists shut up. Meanwhile the air's not getting any cleaner. :shades:

    (btw, yes :shades: )
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Agreed on the method. And the fact that the air needs help.

    Carry on...........:)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    It has never been the ridicule of science. The issue has always been despite the science, "it" continues. So for example the US had a 2.8% decrease in GHG emissions, and to use your words ..."the air's not getting any cleaner"...
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Actually I've read that the air did get a bit cleaner when traffic lessened. (link).

    I've heard that the same thing happened after the airlines shut down for a few days after 9/11, but there's too many 9/11 links to sift through to see where I might have seen that report.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Again so where is the follow through? Cut out those global warming seminars unless they sail to, bike to, walk to? Why do your 50 pairs of sneakers need to be made 10,000 or so miles away......
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    It's easier to make the other guy change. :shades:
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I would say that attitude is not unlike....Al Gore's for example.

    Makes the reasons for the French Revolution (Marie Antoinette's famous "let em eat cake" excesses) seem mild in comparison.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    Apparently your mid 70's unit lasted for over 30 years. You will be lucky if your new unit lasts for 5 years. We bought a new home about 3 years ago and I am keeping my fingers crossed.

    We lived in the same house for 26 years before we moved and our old original A/C unit and furnace was still going strong when we sold the house. The guy who checked the furnace and A/C unit each year always told us not to buy a new one as long as the old one worked because the new ones were junk. Yes, he also sold them.

    I hope he was wrong in both our cases ! :)

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Indeed, I am also hearing that about washing machines, dryers, etc etc. Stuff that formerly last 15,20,25,30 years and beyond, 2 years max to a major problem.... The macro truth is we are turning EVERYTHING from the longer term to disposable, and as Nero did, strum his lyre while Rome burns.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    The parts warranty is 10 years and labor 2 (I think - I've already misplaced my paperwork. I'm way behind on my filing). Since the compressor blew a while back, my bill popped up $100 a month to pay for the running of the heat strips (aka emergency heat). I could only tolerate a few months of that.

    White roof paint is getting a lot of press this month, but I knew about that issue years ago. I still couldn't talk my wife into a lighter colored roof though and we have basic black up there.

    More stuff for the "other guy" to do. :)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    33 years ago, I owned a house in Miami, FL. It was an absolute no brainer to 1. paint your roof white with glass and metallic additives (reflect heat and slow convection some). 2. install roof fans either passive/ powered and/or both. The decreased use of energy as reflected in the lower bills were absolutely dramatic.

    Up until recently in "environmentally PC" CA that was all but against the law. And if you didnt "get that" or cease and desist, they could force an eviction via tax liens.

    Even today the obstacles are STILL daunting. Cities that "franchise" power companies still benefit with increased electrical as well as natural gas use. So in truth, not only is there little to incentive, the lack of incentive is codified in laws, rules, regulations, etc.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Is it just me, or has this particular forum just turned into a "global warming bash-fest?"

    For me it is pointing out the different government entities that are not on the same page. And Automobiles Are NOT the major cause of GLOBAL WARMING according to the IPCC report. All transportation combined contributes 15% of the GHG. So I am one of the resounding NO posters. Of course I am also one of the posters that do not believe Man has a significant role in Climate Change.

    Pollution is a different story. I know some would like to lump them all together and cloudy up the waters. Man is a major producer of all kinds of pollution. CO2 is not a pollutant just because someone declares it so.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Here's the latest shock story via Drudge:

    Climate change causes 315,000 deaths a year-report (via ForexYard for day traders - someone smells a buck).
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    "Climate change is the greatest emerging humanitarian challenge of our time, causing suffering to hundreds of millions of people worldwide," Kofi Annan, former U.N. secretary-general and GHF president, said in a statement.

    And I am supposed to believe anything that criminal says? He should be in prison for his part in the Oil for Food rip-off.

    Notice Annan doesn't mention how in all those poor countries how the leaders keep the food given by well meaning people to help the poor. The poor countries are causing most of their own problems. Blaming it on the rest of us is silly. It is just another scam like the oil for food. No major country is going to significantly cut back on GHG. Even if the politicians get their Cap n Trade tax passed. China and India are not on board if it causes any disruption to their economic growth. I wonder how many people realize how all these rules have impacted our economic growth. The auto industry is the last major manufacturing to be eliminated from our country.

    Annan is there to as a TAKER. He was born into wealth and power. He is part of the real problem in Africa today. The leaders of most of the African countries keep the poor in their place with intimidation and violence.

    I am surprised the number that will die as a result of starvation is so low.

    I spent several hours today with a friend that spent his life in foreign countries trying to teach people how to be self sustaining through agriculture. He has doctorates from Davis & OSU. After several years in the Peace Corp he switched to working through missions. It is the governments in Africa and Central America that are the problem. Not Global Warming. It is a big excuse to blame the problem on someone besides themselves.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Go Aggies !!

    North Korea is doing pretty well with their missiles and "building the BIG ones" scare scam.... They are shipped all the basic commodities so the folks don't revolt. When the President for Life wants more money, he just cranks the volume. Funny that no one has figured that out yet.
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    Can you imagine a tropical beach in Fl. with house tops sticking out of the water for miles, and then a 4 mile bridge out to the condos on the high sand. Only until the first cat 4 hurricane. Then they are all gone.

    If I downsize from 22 mpg to 28 mpg car, then what will the sea level rise become limited to? My thinking is it will rise more because of the production of the new car. About 60,000 miles later, the effect is cancelled, and the level starts falling again.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Cataclysmic events are an integral part of the earth's history.... pre-dating mankind. They will continue with and without us. Of course we will invent reinvent and/or cling to that ontological paradigm if a tree fell in the forest....link title

    So I am sure there are those who credit public baths (or whatever hypothesis du jour) in Pompeii with causing the eruption of Mt Vesuvius.....

    A little Yahoo news tidbit ala, est. @ 260 M years old....

    link title

    Must have been those pesky SUV's and PU trucks ! ;)
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

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.