Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Similarly I could say to the author that if one does not manipulate and analyze the data as a whole, one does not know anything about the phonebook as a whole, they simply have a bunch of groups of individual numbers.
Isn't data useless unless it's analyzed and applied to some question?
I didn't realize you spoke for the entire board
Here's one link, although I've seen this elsewhere. And I believe it's on the IPCC site as well, haven't looked yet:
world carbon emissions
...from it:
Four major sectors produce carbon emissions. Electricity generation is responsible for the largest share—42 percent. Transportation generates 24 percent of global emissions. Industrial processes account for 20 percent, and residential and commercial uses produce the remaining 14 percent.
************
re Road & Track as a source of GW data:
I don't see what the author...would have to gain in his research if the # was 15 or 24.
You're kidding, right? They have no interest in whether more or less cars are sold? And underplaying their impact has no effect on that?
I'll read the report, thanks, but...are you trying to say that if the total heat content of the atmosphere is rising over time, that doesn't matter in terms of, for example, melting of the ice on land on the planet?
IOW, you say "not that it matters so much", but are you saying it doesn't matter? Are you saying that a rising overall heat content won't eventually affect all local conditions?
You're kidding, right? They have no interest in whether more or less cars are sold?
me: you're right
Road&Track doesn't cater to the mass car market. Their typical reader is into sport cars and exotics, and racing league updates; whether just dreamers or purchasers. I think they could care less whether the auto market for Camry's, Impalas, F-150's and Durangos was 17 million or 14 million.
I'm listening... what's the solution(s)?
I'll suggest my personal view of the problem and solution:
1st thing to figure out: GW is happening. So what? What are the problems facing humanity? My thoughts:
1. Loss of livable land near coastal areas due to rising sea levels
2. Loss of fresh water supply due to glaciers receding and lakes evaporating
3. Loss of breathable air due to high CO2 contents
Solutions:
1. Make alternative living arrangements and move the people before half of Bangladesh or the nation of Maldives goes underwater. To where? Thats for the politicians to hammer out. May be Central Asia or North Dakota - some higher land.
2. Build freshwater plants that use sea water. I was impressed with the Australians when they did this for Sydney, using wind power only. Then I learned the only other freshwater plant in the world is in Israel. When Sri Lanka got struck by that Tsunami, USS Bataan had to steam in there to generate 90,000gal of drinking water/day. My suggestion - build lots of such water plants. Do not make people depend on the natural cycle for drinking water (or water for irrigation). How to power such plants? Comes from the 4th solution...
3. Reduce pollution. Develop machines to trap atmospheric CO2 and make O2 out of it. If there are other useful byproducts, cool. Such development may take time, and in the meantime, reduce CO2 output every possible way - burn less gas, control industrial emissions, etc. I have proposed at least 12 methods over a few days on the $4/gal gasoline thread, but no one seemed interested. How to power these CO2->O2 plants? Read solution #4...
4. Reduce the use of fossil fuels, slowly abandoning it. Use nuclear power stations all over the world for electricity. It doesnt pollute the atmosphere and the spent fuel can be stored underground until we find a better solution. Scrap the NPT. If a nation is determined about developing nuclear power by itself, the NPT cannot stop it. Examples - Israel, India, Pakistan, (soon to join Iran). Instead, engage any such nation into a dialog - ask them how much will it cost for them to
a. Bribe the Pakistanis to get the blueprints
b. Smuggle parts from North Korea through international waters
c. Steal fuel from Europe or shop it from the black market or have your own R&D develop it
d. Build underground complex to avoid detection by American satellites
e. Deploy anti-aircraft missiles for (justified) fear of being bombed by Israel
At a lower cost, offer to build them the power plants, giving contracts to Bechtel or Halliburton (or whoever inherits Enron). We could use global tenders, too, in this age of free trade. Now we can monitor the use of nuclear fuel, too.
Disclaimer: The above are my ideas only. These have serious economic and political repercussions, and need to be examined thoroughly by appropriate authorities.
"Cars and trucks" may just include cars, PU's SUV's, vans, RV's and diesel trucks - dump trucks, and 18-wheelers.
"Transportation" may include all listed in "cars and trucks" + trains, subways, buses, cargo ships, pleasure boats, all sorts of aircraft, golf carts, elevators, and escalators. Just because some of those are electric or natural gas doesn't mean they don't derive from carbon-fuels.
You know you are old when you have all the answers but nobody asks the questions.
I think I am getting old. Cheers, - MS.
Yes, you could say that. However, the point in regard to telephone numbers was that you cannot attach any real meaning to the average of those phone numbers whether you're looking at a single page or the entire phone book.
However, temperature is a statistical "moment" which (a) is only defined locally and (b) relates to energy content only in systems that are very close to thermodynamic equilibrium. I.e., the notion of a global temperature is fundamentally unsound.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Not at all. Given that Earth is an open and nonequilibrium thermodynamic system then (a) the notion of a "global temperature" is questionable and (b) the use of an arithmetic average is without basis. Any number of other averaging or "central tendency" techniques are equally valid and the one you choose will give different results with regard to "global warming" or "global cooling."
Also, see my previous reply to Kernick.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
For those in NYC, I would suggest moving to the 3rd floor of your apartment building. Buy an Avon inflatable for those trips to the supermarket.
Solar activity just might have something to due any warming of the globe. 20, 50 or 100 years is a blink of the eye in earth's history. And how about those melting polar ice caps on Mars and further away planets? Do cars or energy plants in the USA cause other planets to warm up?
Why was Greenland named "Greenland" when it was "discovered" centuries ago. Were the Glaciers green?
I think a massive nuclear power plant build up would be a solution, to excessive CO2 and greenhouse emissions, that would work in the U.S. Trouble is everyone is still afraid of them, and I doubt any politician would want to risk their election bid on this type of platform.
That was marketing. Eric the Red wanted more people to settle there. Or so one theory goes (the GW theory is that the southern tip was green in the Medieval Warm Period.
Steve and Tidester - you get paid by how many posts come up everyday right?
If that was true Kernick, we would have retired to Ireland back in the IDLSWDY days. :shades:
And, its smaller size is not the size eveyone needs...if one is going to legislate the sizes of vehicles, then we may all end up in Mini Coopers...
Here's a site that debunks the Science Daily article you posted: Blogs for Global Temperature Denial
The kicker was that the maker of this machine stated that to make a global difference in removing harmful CO2 buildup we would need to place over 3 million of his machines in different places on the earth. The machines are about 12 feet tall by 3 feet wide by 2 feet thick, give or take a foot or two here or there.
The science of the machine was very briefly touched on and no mention was made of production unit cost at all.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Tell that to the committee that awarded Prigogine the Nobel Prize in 1977.
An arithmetic average temperature is a reasonable first-order estimate of the heat content ...
You missed the point. Temperature differences (gradients) matter more than heat content.
Thermal equilibrium is not a pre-requisite for estimating total heat content of a system.
But thermal equilibrium is requisite to determining a global temperature. That is fundamental.
Also, heat content is a linear function, so arithmetic is the way to go.
A linear function of what? Global temperature? How can you say it is linear when global temperature is not even defined in a nonequilibrium system? Temperature is only defined in a system that is in thermal equilibrium and only locally in one that is not. But, again, temperature differences matter more than heat content with regard to "global warming."
Even within the less relevant context of heat content, the value of arithmetic averaging is dubious because most of the near surface thermal energy of the planet resides in the oceans. The so-called "global temperature" refers to atmospheric temperature.
I have little patience for criticisms of one method that propose no better method. Is there one?
Your patience or lack thereof isn't a particularly compelling defense of an invalid method. It's like asking for a better method to run a red light after it has been pointed out that running red lights is an improper method of driving a car.
How much patience do you have for simulations of climate which glaringly lack much of the essential physics such as cloud physics, ocean physics etc.? And for much of the physics that is considered in the models, parameters replace true simulation. Those parameters have sufficiently large error bars on them that the knobs can be turned to and fro to produce any desired result. This is not science. It is numerology.
I would propose (a) dropping the politics, (b) reducing the decibel level of climate change alarmism and, most importantly, (c) doing the science right. That means not "running red lights" and I guess that puts me in agreement with that green environmental skeptic, Bjorn Lomborg.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Um ... Did you happen to notice that the title is "Blogs for Global Temperature DENIAL?" That is a not very subtle signal that what you are about to read is a political hatchet job. Beyond the politics, that blog is devoid of substance and the author demonstrates little understanding of fundamental thermodynamics. You'll have to do better than that to "debunk."
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Yes, thats possible. You see, in my proposals, I never blamed any human activity to be the only cause for GW. I am not even debating how to measure earth's temperature. The facts are:
1. The arctic/antarctic ice and greenland are melting
2. Glaciers on every mountain are receding
3. Lake levels are dropping, and a few have vanished altogether
4. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is on the rise.
We could debate our heads off on what are the causes and who is responsible, but I just want us humans to survive through the changes and their effects. We are fragile and have a very narrow band where we can survive. 100 years may be a blink in some timescale, but for us it is roughly 3 generations.
Haha, you can never be sure who is reading your posts. Are you refering to the last part of the post that I deleted?
I didnt want to hear buzzing black choppers around me, I tell you. Moreover, it was sorta irrelevant to the post. Cheers, - MS.
One of the proposal was a "carbon tax", to tax entities, I believe on the amount of carbon they spewed into the atmosphere...all that does is make somebody pay money for "exhaling" an element, so the money can be distributed to the poor and poorer countries of the world...so, there really is no intent to change anything, but a global way to tax something...simply another plan to redistribute wealth from those who produce to those who don't...i.e. the "worthless, useless and shiftless"...
It just galls elitists who can't stand that this nation not only HAS more wealth, but GENERATES more wealth than anybody else, and they can alleviate their guilt by having the US pay money into some worldwide fund (managed by the idiots at the UN who have the distinct ability to make FEMA and Katrina look competent) so that money can be given to other idiots who wouldn't know what to do with a dollar if they were standing at a diaper stand and their diapers were full...
Sam Kiniston was right...if you want to help the poor in Ethiopia, do not send them money or food, as it is confiscated by the dictators...if anyone had any brains, they would send them U-Hauls...
While we do discuss global warming and cars, most of these "solutions" are simply greedy bureaucrats trying to find another way to make us feel guilty for having success, and trying to confiscate our money thru a worldwide tax that only the USA would be paying...
You also only address the dynamics of local temp differences...I understand that, but are you trying to say the the overall heat content has no bearing on the overall dynamics of the collection of local areas? That can't be true.
As I understand it, the greenhouse effect of having "extra" CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the overall heat content of earth, and this will have "some effects", including effects on weather and effects on melting polar ice. You seem to be saying that there is no way to measure this.
If that's so, then we have no idea what effect the extra CO2 will have. Is that what you're saying?
You'll have to do better than that to "debunk."
Fair enough, but you'll have to do better than that to prove that the notion of global temperature is a fraud.
So if I want to measure the temperature of my oven on my lab-bench, I could put 50 thermocouples in there and if they are fairly precise say to 0.1F, and the readings were between 345-355F, this theoretician is going to tell me it's useless for me to use an average temp? I could see he would be totally useless if I asked him to bake a part at 350F, because he could never find an oven that was "theoretically correct".
That is why we need engineers in the world as well as scientists.
And if you are worried about the people in Bangladesh send them our empty oil barrels so they can build a raft.
I am lost in the heavy duty scientific debate. I am casting my vote in the Tidester camp. Experience tells me that politicians are rarely doing anything that is not designed to pad their pockets. Global Warming is the political football for this generation. Very little science and LOTS of BS.
In other words, what the study proves is that it is a natural cycle that we are in teh middle of. The primary source of C02 gasses on earth is the oceans. The warmer the oceans, the more C02 they produce. Oceans are big, they take a long time to raise a degree or two. After a hundred years or so of warmer global temperatures The oceanic temps begin to rise and thus the C02 levels in the atmosphere rise.
For those of you around long enough to remember, the "Sky is falling" types were trying to make us feel guilty about using Aerosol hair sprays and doderants and that we were causing global COOLING. That's right, in the 70's we were about to bring about the next ice age and we'd only have our selves to blame.
The sad part is an entire generation is being manipulated. My 16 year old niece and all her friends buy this crap hook, line and sinker.
But I did. I stated several times that "heat content" is less important than temperature gradients. The problems with focussing on "heat content" include (a) missing the boat on what drives weather and climate (temperature gradients!) and (b) dangerously misleads the public and policy makers into believing that CO2 control is the cure-all.
While there may be other nonclimate-related reasons for minimizing our CO2 output, its importance in "global warming" is vastly overstated. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas while atmospheric H2O, also a greenhouse gas, is far more abundant. (One wonders why the climate models don't include the effects of the major greenhouse gas - but that's another story!)
Moreover, the long term historical data clearly shows that atmospheric content of CO2lags behind both global warming and global cooling. The casual dismissal of that fact by the "global warming proponents" is rather grotesque (i.e., "well, today man is a factor so we can selectively ignore that inconvenient bit of history!" - yes, that is really what they say - see e.g. realclimate.org).
The upshot is that "global warming" and "global cooling" are not equivalent to climate change, that is to say, climate change can and does occur without global warming or cooling. Climate is an extremely complex phenomenon and we are deluding ourselves if we mistakenly adopt the position that CO2 is the culprit.
I strongly recommend reading this summary page from real climate scientists at the Colorado Climate Center: Climate Science
Again, thanks for asking.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Exactly! And the fall of "global temperatures" also precedes the decline of atmospheric CO2 levels. That is yet another inconvenient truth.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
That is not my intent but let's take your thermocouple example. If I distribute those thermocouples about the room in which I am sitting I would likely get an "average" temperature of about 68° F.
That average, however, is a bit misleading. There is a lightbulb about 1 meter off to my right where the temperature is a couple thousand degrees. It doesn't really contribute much to the "average temperature" of my room but it does produce a quite substantial amount of thermal convection (i.e. weather or climate!).
If I turn off the lightbulb, the average temperature of the room hardly changes but the convection subsides to practically nothing in short order. Had I elevated the temperature uniformly throughout my unlit room to make up the (slight) difference, I would hardly notice it but I would notice the absence of that convection. How the energy was distributed mattered more than how much energy there was.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
BTW, yesterday at the haircutting place I was reading a National Geographic magazine and guess what one of the topics was? Bingo! Global warming! It is the June 2007 National Geographic if ya want to check it out.
I don't even want to cause my brain the pain of remembering what I read yesterday but one thing I do remember clear as the travesty that was the 2006 Super Bowl sham of Pittsburgh over Seattle: the ice is melting away on a clear and steady basis around the world. One particular picture was of a glacier atop a mountain range in Montana. They showed the range completey engulfed in ice from a 1938 picture. The other picture was from the 2000's, I think 2005, and the ice was nearly gone. And we're not talking some blow-off the rocks ice here, we're talking solid and sure heavy coverage ice glacier material, gone.
I just looked at the pictures so I can't give you any real science, don't ya know!
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
News at 11.
Many glaciers that retreat do so not because of warming but because of changing snowfall patterns - i.e. when sublimation or calving rates exceed snowfall rates. It is even possible for glacial retreat to accompany cooling!
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
The land bridge was inundated when ocean levels rose after global temps increased.
Far as I know the mammoths didn't drive Lincoln Navigators.
So perhaps the changes in our troposphere, which are inaccurately referred to as global warming, are caused by natural cycles about which we can't do much. Unless someone has a way to manage sunspots.
Chubby Al hasn't decreased the number or size of his houses, but he'd like to require the rest of us to live in little urban clusters, drive Aveos and work only in approved industries.
Have another donut Al, and don't talk with your mouth full.
Ah! But you are not denying the possibility......
No, you didn't.
I'm not dicussing "what drives weather", so it's impossible for me to "miss the boat" on it.
Here are 2 simple questions:
1) Is it possible to measure the heat content of the earth, over time, to a reasonable extent?
2) Does an increase in the heat content of the earth pose a problem?
I would hate to buy a Yugo and find out it was not my truck warming the globe.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/
Whenever they want to tax ANYTHING related to global warming, that ought to be your first and only clue necessary to prove that they are not going to do anything except remove guilt money from our pockets...
I have no guilt and I am keeping my money...
And to think they removed CFC from aerosol hairspray and R-12 freon because of an ozone hole whose size is changing for the last mega-million years...could we be any more gullible than that???
2) No, not in the context of the current climate change debate. (ibid.)
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
It is still necessary to charge the older colder AC units. I took my ex-wife's 90 Camry down not that long ago. I think the shop charged me $12 to recharge the AC. With all the regs and tariffs on Freon the local US shop wanted $135 for the same service.
IMO, the global warming issue is already overpoliticized but I don't think it helps to fuel the fires here with attacks on political figures. There is no lack of factual or technical issues for which they can be criticized. Also, my personal view is that ad hominem arguments are counterproductive and never persuasive.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
That context is fairly broad, and includes effects on weather patterns, polar ice melting, etc.
Yes.
Ok, it's possible to measure the earth's heat content. Glad you said yes, otherwise I would have had to give up and start bashing SUVs :-P
So, if, via that measurement, we determine that the heat content is rising over time, it's reasonable to assume that there will be a net melting of polar ice, no?
Assuming your answer is yes (and that it's correct!), then that leaves (at least) 2 questions:
1) will the current trend of CO2 rising cause a rise in global temperature and
2) is the cause of that current trend anthropomorphic?
Agreed?
Thanks for engaging!
I'm just wondering since they can see cloud formations and can study the globe from high above and such. What goes with Mars doesn't necessarily go on the earth, or does it? Ice melts, etc.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
NASA's Global warming site says we're toast until 2100 at least even if all greenhouse gas emissions cease immediately.
I suspect that most of their info comes from satellite and observatory data. The shuttle is a bit like an SUV - big and impressive but is it really all that useful for the price and operating expense if all you are just trying to do is science?
I guess the shuttle can't be beat if you happen to need to haul 8 astronauts to the dark side of the moon to tow an asteroid around.
No, that is not a reasonable assumption. Melting requires the temperature to rise above the melting point of water. Antarctica, e.g., has an "average" temperature of about -58° F. Even the "predicted" increase of 2° C "global temperature" doesn't get you close to the melting point.
Shifting weather patterns (which occur with or without "global warming" and which affect snowfall patterns) have greater influence on glacial growth or shrinkage than "global temperatures."
1) will the current trend of CO2 rising cause a rise in global temperature ... [?]
That's like asking whether the size of my savings account will increase if I deposit 25 cents into it. Well, yeah! But (a) would it really matter and (b) aren't there any other factors that would overwhelm that pittance?
2) is the cause of that current trend anthropomorphic?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! However, it may well be anthropogenic. :P
Agreed?
Agreed to what? Do I agree that there are questions? Yes, I agree emphatically that there are questions. Are yours the right questions? No. (see above) Do I agree that your implied answers to the wrong questions are right? Yes and no! (see above)
otherwise I would have had to give up and start bashing SUVs
Yikes, you win - by intimidation!
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
steve, from your NASA link came this: "Industrialized nations could also buy or sell emission reduction units. Suppose an industrialized nation cut its emissions more than was required by the agreement. That country could sell other industrialized nations emission reduction units allowing those nations to emit the amount equal to the excess it had cut."
Sounds almost like sharing the load yet it still encompasses that healthy competition that we've all come to know and love! To stamp out global warming, no less.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
You're much to modest tidester. I must say your argument against M.M global warming in quite convincing. But 2 questions... 1) What if you are wrong? 2) What is it that you propose be done, and not be done, about C02 emissions and other manmade pollutants?
Wrong about what? My only stated position is that the science of climate change isn't there yet and the process is blatantly political. Do you mean what if I am wrong about the necessity of doing the science right and keeping politics out of it? In that case, I just don't understand your question.
Apparently, you mean "some people believe that CO2 drives global warming and man is responsible for elevated CO2 levels so we MUST do something!" You are invoking what is known as the "precautionary principle" which loosely states that "we don't have much to go on but we must do something!"
Without sidetracking into the tortuous philosophical nuances of the precautionary principle, I'll just say that if the premise is correct (and I disagree that it is correct!) then taking action requires the following:
Before any action is taken one has an absolute obligation to honestly and objectively evaluate the full consequences of "global warming" and to honestly and objectively evaluate the full consequences of imposing the change you propose. Neither of those steps have been taken. There has been some scaremongering on both sides but no one has seriously and objectively done either.
And, by the way, if you are the one proposing such actions then the burden is on you to make the scientific case that climate change is anthropogenic. Despite proclamations in the affirmative, that has not yet been done.
What is it that you propose be done, and not be done, about C02 emissions and other manmade pollutants?
Ah, now that is an entirely different question! If you wipe climate change and its dubious connection to anthropogenic CO2 levels off the slate, then we have a basis for dialog.
There are a host of valid reasons why we should reduce pollution levels (some do not consider CO2 to be a pollutant but I'm not interested in that discussion). I propose addressing issues of pollution for what they are.
Unfortunately, it appears that many are unwilling to do the heavy lifting with respect to pollution problems and opt instead to deliver a knock out blow with the gauntlet of global warming. That is lazy and intellectually dishonest.
Finally, I would also propose disbanding the IPCC and giving the task of honestly and objectively conducting the science and analysis of climate change to an independent organization that doesn't have to employ political scare tactics in order to secure continued funding. Just for the record, IPCC does not conduct science. Rather, they pick and choose information from published literature and, being under the auspices of the U.N., they do have an agenda, unfortunately.
Hope the helps.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
That's no fun. :P
Remember the T-Shirt? "Biology is Politics."
Wasn't it Tip O'Neil who said "Act locally, think globally?" :shades:
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
If the U.N. wants to do something that's precautionary, and is almost a certainty to happen - maybe we should get a little more involved in designing and testing a planetary defense system against comets and asteroids. As we saw 10 or 15 years on Jupiter, a comet can make for a really bad week.
It is a fact that comets and asteroids will hit the Earth. It is a theory that the Earth will warm a few degrees; but since we're not sure of all the variables this may not happen beyond what is natural as the oceans may absorb the CO2 or sunspots decline, or any of many other natural phenomenon.
It is rather interesting how many Nostradamus's appear in our society. I guess it makes great headlines (FAME). It is very disappointing though how many people follow these soothsayers without much proof, and independent thought - like sheep. Always looking for someone to tell them the answer, or the solution. Sometimes there is no solution; - get ebola there is no known cure, IF CO2 causes global warming there is no stopping the production of CO2 - the Earth will warm to whatever point it will.
Whether you believe CO2 causes GW or not, I have not heard what the solution is to stop emitting CO2, except return to the 17th technology, and people aren't going to do that. We'll burn our fuels and then that could happen.