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
Are you saying that people buy Ferraris and Lamborghinis then leave the driving to the chauffeur?
(Given that brand-new exotic Italian sports cars are sold to "high society" types - don't think that too many middle class, or even upper middle class, buyers are on the waiting list for a brand-new Ferrari).
Somehow, I don't think that is the case...
I don't know who the "uniformed" are, but let me assure you of one solid platinum fact:
I didn't "brand" any car dirty, EVER. It was done by professionals who do these sort of evaluations for a living.
And it wasn't to "whip up hysteria" whatever that means.
It was done, I'm sure, to inform consumers as to which cars to hopefully avoid buying. This, in turn, would allow automakers to work on cleaning those cars up a little bit or eliminating them altogether.
Anyway, cars pollute. We need a whole new generation of clean combustion technology or fuel cell or some alternative.
My personal vision of "high society" is people who get driven around by the hired help.
Not a rich guy who spends money on a Ferrari.
Here in GA, I would probably agree with that assessment, as it is the "rural folk" and "lower income city folk" that usually drive the clunkers over 20 years old that spew more crap out the tailpipe than the average coal fired power plant...
The problem is, those are the very people, the poor, that certain political parties cater to in their class envy arguments...if the poor could not drive to their minimum wage jobs, what would we do???
Elitist as that may sound, if the poor were forced to give up any car that did not pass pollution emissions testing, the air would be cleaner, but the "rich vs poor" argument would have sufficient fuel to heat the planet for the next 100 years...
The media would have a field day, either by picking on the poor country folk, or making it a racial issue...Jesse???...Al???...Farrakan???...where are you???
No, the EV1 did not work out just fine.
It was a very limited car.
it had a very limited range,it was frightfully expensive.
GM subsidized the lease on that car to you.
If you had to pay the acutal cost of the car(far more than a Ferrari) would you?
Probably not.
You got to drive a car that wasn't capable of providing real transportation,that was subsidized to the tune of a billion dollars by the largest auto company on the planet.
Had GM spent that billion on the rest pf their products,instead of making a useless car so you could feel good driving it,maybe they wouldn't be in this predicament.
Veggie oil conversion diesel cars are cleaner than ULSD diesel cars, are they not?
There are only a TINY number of veggie oil cars in operation anywhere.
Most alt fuel cars are powered by ethanol or natural gas.
And yes, obviously technology will help, and it will get better. Cars 5 years from now will be cleaner, but you know why? ARBITRARY STANDARDS imposed by the EPA and others, that's why. Arbitrary is not always bad.
Arbitrary isn't good either.
CARB passed an arbitrary law stating that 10% of cars sold in CA had to be zero emmission by 2000 or so.
Never mind that the technology didn't exist to make that happen. Well, they had to back off,and create more arbitrary classes to make themselves feel good.
We are at best 10-20 yrs away from a working affordable fuel cell.
You simply cannot wave a magic wand and poof! out comes "clean" technology.
There are always costs and choices to make.
Even your sainted EV1 really didn't help the environment one little bit.
The batteries are highly corrosive,and not recyclable,and where do you think the power comes from?
Coal or oil fired power plants.
AZ has a nuclear reactor,but people don't want any more built.
"a useless car so you could feel good driving it"
"branding a new car as "filthy" or even "dirty" is simply designed to whip up hysteria"
"Even your sainted EV1"
I'm not sure what assumptions you are making about my motives or my intentions, but allow me to steer you clear of whatever wrong road you have decided to take about me.
I want cleaner air. I want every agency with any regulatory power, every automaker, every governor, every Congress, every lobbying group, and lastly every CITIZEN, to all do whatever is in their power in a REASONABLE MANNER to reduce air pollution in this country. I live in Phoenix and I see dirty air all the time here in the Valley. I'm not on some hilltop looking down on the Peons around me screaming, "CLEAN THE AIR FOR ME, YOUR KING !!!" or anything stupid like that. I do my part and more. I own use all CFL bulbs at home, I recycle like a maniac, I re-use plastic baggies and grocery bags, I have owned two hybrid cars, I use a Segway for my commute, I spent about $8,000 on my new home in 2004 getting energy-efficient modifications like Low-E windows, extra insulation in the attic and walls, a high-efficiency heat pump, tinted windows, blinds, solar attic fans on my roof, etc.
Anything I can to to raise people's awareness (like posts on this board and others) about cars which I feel are contributing to the brown cloud I and my kids have to breathe here in this Valley, I will do.
I will staunchly defend and promote hybrids, which reduce fossil fuel use.
I will staunchly defend and promote electric cars, which EVEN WITH the power coming from Coal power are cleaner than almost all internal combustion cars.
I will staunchly defend and promote future clean energy sources for cars, ships, trains, and planes.
I will staunchly defend and promote CARB and EPA making stronger and stronger "arbitrary" decisions about how to clean cars up even more.
I will staunchly defend and promote fuel cell and other technologies which promise (however long it takes) to reduce our burning of dirty fossil fuels.
I will staunchly defend and promote clean diesel cars burning ULSD and veggie oil and using advanced PM and NOx filters.
I will staunchly defend and promote taking any and all measures necessary to solve the "global warming" issue, WHETHER OR NOT IT TURNS OUT TO BE HUMAN-CAUSED. ( I don't care WHY we are warming, I just want it to stop. Living here in the Valley and setting heat records every single year is getting old. )
So whatever box you had put me into, take me out and put me in the correct box now that you know my true feelings.
I am not your enemy unless you are a fan of and are a promoter of increased pollution and more waste, and I don't know anyone who fits into that category.
I will have to address your one point that is related to this thread. Yes it seems warm this year. No it is NOT setting records for heat. I believe if you will do some checking you will find this year is behind most of the records that were set in the mid 1980s. Same goes for So. CA. If memory serves me correct SUVs were not popular in 1985. That was a move that was mostly part of the decadent 1990s. Even if it is hotter in the desert, what do you expect living there? As far as the smog in Phoenix. That is your poor state legislature that has not done much to control the trucking industry burning HIGH sulfur diesel. It is also contributing to the smog in CA. Truck drivers fill with your CHEAP high sulfur diesel, then make their round trip in and out of CA. CARB in their infinite ignorance seems to think that they can control this by forcing CA truckers to buy high grade diesel and compete with out of state trucking companies. All CARB has done is force several CA trucking companies to fold. That is the reason that CARB rules should not over step EPA rules. If CARB as an agency would push EPA to make sweeping reforms across the country it would be a fair game. As it is there is nothing but chaos with each state taking responsibility. EPA does little but make up rules that mean little or nothing.
Hottest July on record for Boise.
Plastic grocery bags, Larsb? That's awful, those things should be universally outlawed - I take cloth ones to my stores.
Phoenix is one 110 degree day from having tied the record of 28 days in one year of 110 degree heat.
We ARE setting heat records here, this summer, in Phoenix.
It's getting warmer. Whether or not fossil fuel burning is contributing to the problem is still up in the air.
But the warming trend ITSELF is a fact, not an opinion.
PS And even after the new NASA rankings came out, 1998 and 2005 rank as the hottest GLOBAL years on record. 1934 was .02 degrees hotter than 1998 in the USA.
See a text chart here showing the Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomalies and Annual Means and 5-year_Means:
Temp Chart by year
I'd like the plastic ones outlawed too.
Just goes to show you can make statistics say anything you want them to. How many days in July and August of this year were record setting days? NONE!!! One day matched the old record. So I call baloney on your almost record setting formula. It is a lot like the hype around GW.
I just read a statistic that more Americans prefer paper bags. Just shows the lack of knowledge in our country. Paper bags are more energy intensive to produce than plastic.
"Paper bags are easier to recycle, but they weigh 10 times as much," says Robert Bateman of Roplast Industries, a bag manufacturer. "They use more energy and cause more waste in the process of manufacturing."
A paper bag eats up almost three times as much energy in the manufacturing process
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cheap/20041215a1.asp
For us we take our cloth bag from Albertson's to Von's. They want to advertise and give us a Von's cloth bag which we took to Henry's and now we have 3 cloth bags for shopping. Some stores are trying to charge for plastic bags. I think they are losing customers unless they all do the same.
It's kind of ironic that larsb decides to live in Phoenix. I can imagine that yes that valley can get pretty hot due to all the concrete and blacktop from the development, and all the electrical energy being used. Don't AC'ers simply create more heat outside while keeping the inside cool?
As for the air-pollution in Phoenix, you can look to CA and trucking. There is a whole logistical system of pollution from importing and transporting goods from the CA ports throughout this country. I was at the Grand Canyon - relatively far from urbanization and they have quite a bit of air-haze.
Where you gettin' that erroneous datum?
The July 2007 average high was 106.8, which is 1.00 degree higher than average mean.
August 12th set a record for hottest Aug 12th ever in Phoenix at 114 deesgrees.
August 18th and 21st both tied all-time highs for those dates.
The average daily high temp for August 2006 was 102.9 and so far through 23 days in August 2007 that average is 105.8 deesgrees.
So when I say this has been a hot summer in Phoenix, don't dispute it. I have lived through it.
8/12/07
"THE HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 114 DEGREES ON AUGUST 12 SET A NEW DAILY RECORD FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE. THE PREVIOUS RECORD WAS 113 SET IN 1933. IT ALSO TIED AS THE SIXTH HIGHEST TEMPERATURE EVER RECORDED IN AUGUST" ( the source was in all caps I did not do that.)
August 18th and 21st both tied records according to your page and mine.
Where are the discrepancies?
Just a little advice, you may be a little more successful in advocating for cleaner air if you lose the holier than thou attitude, be less judgemental... and just "chill" out some.
It did take me about a year before I was able to regularly remember to grab the cloth ones when I shop (we keep 5 or 6 in the car).
I'd feel pretty good about my carbon footprint with my working at home and using cloth bags, except that I've already flown a few thousand miles this year and have a third trip booked in a couple of months. Someone else will have to solve GW for me this year.
I'm sorry you see a "HTT" attitude, because in person I don't have one. I am without a doubt less Holy than most people I contact.
I'm not as judgmental toward people as I used to be.
I am judgmental when I see people make bad choices out of ignorance (ignorance being defined in this case as "lack of knowing better.")
I do a better job these days of not trying to make people think I know everything. A few years ago I was "Mr. Right" and would never let anyone get away with trying to show me up. I've still got a little bit of that left in me, but a lot less than earlier years.
I have chilled out in my older age; but in place to make that more difficult, things have gotten worse in the world. So because of that, it's not as easy to let things slide when I consider my children's future.
One thing that happens as you get older is that you get more stubborn, because you have more years under your belt "believing what you believe" so you have a knowledge base of "I have known/done this for so many years I just KNOW I'M RIGHT !!" and you did not have that advantage (which is also a hurdle to overcome in some cases) when you were younger.
Anyway, back on subject: Cars pollute, and whether or not they are a MAJOR cause of the warming we are seeing is left to be determined. I think they at the very least are not HELPING the situation.
The Pollution Solution -- Old Cars vs Politicians
I would agree with that to an extent. The earth has been here for billions of years, we have been recording the temperature for about 100 years. While I don't think we can look at 100 years of recorded temperature and say there is a manmade warming or cooling trend ( due to automobiles)... why take the chance? Do what you can do to reasonable limit the amount of pollution and waste. And by reasonable I mean measures that aren't going to be detrimental to the economy or overtly infringe on our personal freedoms. Yes, some sacrifices to the economy and personal freedom will need to be made, but on a small and progressive scale.
By the way, I do admire your selfless passion for cleaner air for everyone. But, people will disagree with you though on "facts"... as this subject matter, in most instances, is highly subjective.
1 Hybrids really don't lessen fossil fuel use.
Most hybrids get nowhere near their EPA numbers in the real world. In fact, it was the outcry over the Prius failing to achieve its EPA numbers that caused the EPA to modify its testing regimen.The bigger heavier hybrids are worse.
In fact Lexus doesn't even promote its hybrids as fuel saving at all. They are promoted for more power.
If you really want to be economically responsible,and lessen fossil fuel use save your money and buy a Honda Fit,or a Smart when they are available.
Or wait for the new diesels to come in small cars.
2 Electric cars are nowhere near as clean as you think. Esp when their source of power is taken into account.
You have to look at the WHOLE lifecycle,and you are not doing this.
You fail into the trap that only the EPA measurements are vaild.
If you look at the lifecycle from the mining of the coal,the transport,and the buring,you see that coal is WORSE that simply buying a small fossil fueled car.
Now, add the lifecycle of an electric car,with its expensive components,its need to have its batteries replaced,its short lifecycle,its lack of re-cyclability.
When you factor all that in,how do we benefit at all?3 Everyone wants cleaner energy sources for ships and planers,but there are technical and economic limits.
People won't stand for nuclear powered ships.
Modern passenger planes are cleaner than ever,but there are limits.
The problem w/ diesel cars in America is twofold,1 diesle fuel costs as much as premium unleaded so there is no savings there 2 Particulate emmissions are worse than gas cars. Even w/ the traps. Look at the cities of Europe w/ their sooty buildings.
Global Warming, Man cannot control the weather. no one,not even the most staunch global warming defender can claim that if we follow ALL the recommendations,and wreck our economy doing it, that we can stop or reverse the planets warming.
Fact is,Earth has been much hotter and much colder than it is now. these records that you speak of are useless because they only go back as far as Europeans and Americans have been keeping detailed records in AZ,which is less than 2 centuries. In fact,AZ has been under the sea in the past because the Earth was so warm that the polar ice melted completely. these cycles are part of the natural ebb and flow of life on Earth.
It is only human arrogance that assumes that we can have any meaningful impact on the planet. Heck, one good volcanic eruption can change the climate far more drastically than all the works of Man.
In 1883 Krakatoa's erution sent 25 cubic kilometers of rock and ash into the atmosphere. The earth cooled by 1.2 degrees centigrade,which is alot. Temps didn't return to "normal" until 1888.
No one wants more poluution,but we have to be realistic about what can be accomplished. there is so much hysteria and misinformation out there right now,that it really clouds the issues.
We need measured,thoughtful realistic responses,not knee jerk,the sky is falling emotionalism.
You will very rarely (if ever) see me slip up and call a mere "opinion" a fact.
I know how people jump on "Facts" around here, so to leave myself as "criticism-proof" as possible, I'm very careful about things like that.
Gotta work hard to keep your "Cred" intact 'round here !!
I'll use my own hybrids as an example. I bought a Honda Civic Hybrid in 2004 and drove it until mid-2006. I got 48.2 MPG lifetime in that car. Say, for example, I had bought a Civic LX. I could have at best gotten maybe 35 MPG lifetime, based on the common real-world MPG data on the Civic LX. So I drove 13.2 more miles on every gallon of gas, thus I used less gas than a comparable non-hybrid car would have used. That's saving fossil fuel.
My current Camry Hybrid saves fuel the same way. I'm averaging about 35.4 MPG in it right now, having had it for almost 15 months. A comparable gas-only Camry LE would have given me probably 26-28 MPG over that timeframe with a similar dricing pattern. So that's gas saved again.
I don't know where you read that hybrids don't save fossil fuel usage, but you need to check your source maybe.
Diesel does not cost as much as Premium unleaded in some areas of the country. In some areas, it's even cheaper than regular unleaded.
Your electric car scenario seems to be indicating a strong anti-electric car opinion on your part; so I'm not going to get into it with you because I know your mind is made up. Just go see this page for some numbers:
Electrics 1
We can agree to disagree, but the scientific data about electric cars falls on my side.
I'm preaching neither hysteria nor "sky is falling emotionalism."
I'm preaching for individuals and companies to do what they can, to clean up what can be cleaned up without breaking the bank, and to regulate things to be cleaner and cleaner as time goes by.
Does anything in that statement sound unreasonable to you?
The May 1934 Dust Bowl storms probably had a lot to do with 1934 being the hottest year in the USA since we started keeping records. It also preceded the great droughts of that year and probably helped cause them.
Similar to today - a lot of pollution in the air is warming and drying things up in a lot of places.
HHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMM..............
My mom and step dad moved to Phoenix in 1985. They left Albuquerque for a better job. They only lasted 1 year and told the company they could have the job and Phoenix, never to return. My sister moved there a couple years ago and wishes she had stayed in LV as bad as it is. The job is good the weather and dust are horrible.
Honda Civic LX manual base MSRP is $16,960
So, you spend $5640 more to save what exactly?
Assuming that you drove 15,000 miles/yr at 48.6 miles/gallon you would have bought approx 311 gallons.
At 35 mpg for the same 15,000 miles you would have bought 429 gallons.
your fuel savings @ $2.80/gal is $330.
So, spending an extra $5640 saves you $330.
Even if you kept the car for 10 years you wouldn't make the money back. No wonder Toyota is so flush,all those suckers driving Prius'
Now,that is the smallest hybrid. the bigger hybrids offer no real fuel savings at all.
The Toyota highlander hybrid is only 4mpg better than the regular Highlander.
BTW, the figure is 230 million gallons,according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,and that is since 1999.
So,only 35 million gallons a year.
If people kept their cars tuned and their tire pressure correct and practicied responsible driving habits they would save more than that.
So I ask you,how is it responsible to pay alot more for a car that costs more to manufacture,whose total environmental footprint is worse(due to the materials used in manufacturing, and that is never going to pay for itself?
if that isn't "breaking the bank" I don't know what is.
It is the same thing w/ electric cars. their short range and huge cost to manufacture makes them unsuitable for the majority of drivers.
As for recharging them,our nations powergrid is strained enough as it is.
Do you remember the troubles in CA a couple of years ago?
You can't just recharge an electric car at night. most commuters would burn up the charge just going to work and doing their normal commerce. they would need to re-charge while the car is at work in order to drive home,or elsewhere in the evening.
there is NO WAY that anyone who drive 15,000 miles/yr or more could ever make an electric car work for them.
I am not against the electric car,I just know that it is eminently unsuitable for myself and most other people.
Why don't you get outta there and move to a nice little town named Willcox, AZ? Or Sierra Vista, AZ? Air's pretty clean down here by da border, man.
And there's mountains to hike on and Fort Bowie (Geronimo's holding pen)to explore. The Chiricahua Mountains and their volcanic leavings in rock spires to peruse, Mount Graham and it's U. of Arizona telescopes to peer in to. Man, all I know is whenever(and it ain't often)I head to Phoenix it's to see a rock show and then get out as soon as I can. Maybe I'll go watch my Supersonics play the Suns there before they turn in to the Oklahoma City Sonics. Someone's got to wake the hell up in Seattle and do something to cement the Sonics to Seattle or Clay is gonna ship 'em to OKC. Nasty!
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
And there's already studies that have estimated that if large percentages of the passenger fleet were converted magically "overnight" to plug-in hybrids, the grid would stand up without modifications.
More on that later.
I thought you just got done telling us you post scientific facts? The scientific fact is that dust, whether from deserts or volcanoes has a cooling effect on the air temperature at ground level. Dust, which is then air pollution, reflects much of the sunlight back into space.
So maybe the hot weather of 1934, combined with poor agricultural land-use, created the Dust Bowl, and the dust helped make 1935 cooler? I'm not an expert on the dust-bowl but I do know scientists have proven dust in the atmosphere does create short-term global cooling.
That goes against what most of us experience on certain days - when the power companies ask us to conserve electricity. I know here in New England we import electricity from Canada, and that economic growth will come to a standstill in a few years unless we build more power plants. Vermont Yankee which is one of the oldest nuclear power plants, should have been retired by now but the power company keeps getting extensions on its operation as it's electricity is needed.
When you say studies show there is plenty of electricity, you should educate yourself on how we barely have enough electrical generation now, and how old our nuclear plants are and how long they were designed to run. The fact is this country needs more power plants and more refineries.
I do agree we are running on borrowed time with our utilities in many parts of the country. Water supplies and electric supplies are being pushed past the design limitations. The EV folks of which I could be one are banking on the cars only needing to be charged over night. In the next breath many speculate about charging stations for taking long trips. Well there goes the over night charging and here come the blackouts. I would hate to be in the middle of the desert trying to charge my EV when a blackout hits. Give me a diesel car and I will cut GHG and fossil fuel consumption all at the same time.
I guess the USA is behind the curve as usual.
PS
Japan who many here admire, are willing to risk the safety of the Whole World by building more nuclear power plants even on known earthquake faults. Yet we have not built one for decades. If EV and ZEV are ever going to be mainstream we better be building more nuclear power plants. I think the risk is worth getting cleaner energy.
A bit more conservation would buy us 20 years, easy. And seeing as that's how long it takes to get lots of these new plants on line, be they nukes or solar or wind or coal, best start cutting back on the incandescent bulbs now.
And I'm sure the automakers would love to help by bumping up our mpg incrementally every year, right?
incandescent bulbs actually create less pollution than compact florecents. How you ask? well, CF bulbs are all made in china. China uses primarily coal fired powerplants with none of the smog/pollution eliminating equipment that is required in the states. the amount of pollution gernerated by the chineese economy producing those bulbs is 20x greater than the pollution created by the extra electricity the incandesant bulbs use. and yes, that pollution hits the US. a great deal of it (plus dust) is blown across the ocean to the west coast. I've read that as much as 15-20% of the west coasts pollution comes from china.
and the law of unintended consequences strikes again.
Unplug all your standby instant-on crap while you're at it.
Gotta run - my Betty lamp is low on fish oil again and I have to recharge the laptop battery with my bike generator again.
Thats where the problems start. everybody has a different idea of whats "reasonable".
But the problem is, all the global warming nonsense is just theory, there is no fact involved. the computer models are unreliable, and can not factor in too many important variables like clouds, solar activity and so on. On top of that, most of the research is being done through grants. and the people who issue the grants want to see a particular result. with 10's of millions of dollars in grants floating around, science has become a business. But there are a few fact's the GW crowd ignores. the biggest is, over the last hundred years or so, the average temperature has fluctuated about 1 degree. that is well within normal variances. the upper atmosphere has dropped about 1 degree in temp, it's only the surface temps that have risen. Additionally, many of the highest temps are recorded in or near cities. Thats normal. with all the brick, concrete, and asphalt; cities serve as heat sinks, and retain the heat longer. carbon dioxide in not the leading green house gas, that would be water vapor. but even for those who want to cling to co2, man made co2 is greatly dwarfed by natural creation of it through decaying biomass and volcanic activity. one larger volcanic eruption puts more co2 into the atmosphere than all the fossile fuels ever burned by man. a thousand years ago, before the little ice age and durring the medival warm period, the earth was warmer than it is now. and guess what? humaninty flourished. manykind has always done better in a warmer enviorment than a colder one. But durring the medival warming period, the vikings settled and prospered in greenland, the population of europe exploded, and people lived longer. when the little ice age began, it all went downhill. europe was beset with constant plauge and famine (the black death alone killed 1/3 of the people), and the viking colonies were wipped out. infact, green land has never returned to the temps it saw when the vikings settled there. and finnaly, many times when glaciers retreat the remains of ancient forrest are found underneath, showing that they weren't always there.
The most likely cause of global warrming is the sun. scientist now know for a fact that the sun seems to go through cycles of increased energy output. there is argument as to how much of an effect that has, but its no longer deniable. and keep in mind, it doesn't take much. the last ice age, the little ice age, was triggered by a 4 degree change in temperaturs. which is probably why the geological record shows the planet constantly bouncing back and forth from ice ages to warm periods.
"Until very recently at least, global warming would have been seen as such an issue. Long accepted by the scientific community, research suggesting human activity is raising the earth's temperature with dire environmental consequences has been disputed by many in the business community, especially automakers and other sectors with big industrial outputs.
But corporate America has begun an about-face in the wake of a groundswell of popular interest, having seen what developing an environmentally friendly product such as the Prius has done for Toyota's reputation and its bottom line. July's Live Earth concert, whose proceeds are going to the alliance, was loaded down with corporate sponsors, among them Microsoft, whose MSN division had web rights to the show."
AdAge
And you thought a year of political ads was all you had to look forward to. The automakers are going to have even more public pressure to increase MPG and lower emissions in the next few years - this is shaping up like the anti-tobacco campaign.
Very true...the year 1816 was known as "the year without a summer" because of the dust thrown into the atmosphere by the April 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in the Dutch East Indies.
In June 1816, there were two large snowstorms in eastern Canada and New England. Nearly a foot of snow was observed in Quebec City in early June. In July and August of that year, lake and river ice were observed as far south as Pennsylvania.
No, I said "when I post a FACT I make an announcement that I am posting a Fact not an opinion." Nowhere did I say that the only thing I post are Facts.
And you see that in my statement you called out there is a "probably" included there? That means it's a guess or an opinion.
Surely something as simple as that did not need to be explained? LOL.
As far as the Dust Bowl.
FACT: There were severe droughts that year, 1934.
Opinion: It is not beyond imagination that the droughts were a factor in the heat, and were influenced in part by the the dust events.
It usually cools off somewhere when it rains, does it not? Rainy weather means cooler temps, and long periods without rain mean those chances to get some of that cooler "rain air" are gone.
Logical Conclusion: If the dust contributed to the drought, then it contributed to the hotter weather.
But how does that explain the year without a summer (1816)? Lots of dust everywhere, but the result was temperatures that set record lows.