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 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Trends are what should worry us, not individual years which were below or above the norm.
PS. How did this car forum get hijacked into the "Global Warming Discussion Forum?" Very few of the recent posts have anything to do with cars.
Except that temperatures recorded in the year 1816 weren't the result of "normal temperature variations." (And those low temperatures weren't only recorded in America - Europe also experienced them. Crops failed in Europe that year because of late freezes.)
Those temperatures were the result of dust left in the atmosphere from a volcanic eruption the previous year. Which undermines your contention that dust in 1934 caused the high temperatures that year, and supports kernick's post that dust will LOWER temperatures by reflecting more solar heat.
lasrb: Trends are what should worry us, not individual years which were below or above the norm.
Then why did you single out the year 1934 in the first place?
1. drought, which is actually quite common in that part of the country. In '34, it was a particualarly bad one though.
2. horrendous farming practices that destroyed the top soil and allowed it to be blown away.
I don't remember it having much to do with temps, but I could be wrong about that.
And a volcano erupting and causing dust in 1816 does not "undermine" my contention that the dust in 1934 caused the higher temps at all.
It's obvious that "world-wide dust events" cause cooling, and we know that from the death of the dinosaur, and the concept of the Nuclear Winter, et al.
What I was talking about was a localized area in the USA suffering dust bowl conditions and said dust contributing to drought. A drought means hotter than normal temps because the cooling periods that are created with thunderstorms and rain are not seen.
We KNOW the Dust Bowl did not cool the USA in 1934, since that was the hottest year on record.
1934 May
Great dust storms spread from the Dust Bowl area. The drought is the worst ever in U.S. history, covering more than 75 percent of the country and affecting 27 states severely.
To say that the dust had nothing to do with the drought is just as ludicrous as saying it had nothing to do with the heat.
drought has nothing to do with temps. It's bassed on the amount of rainfall an area recievs compared to the normal average amount.
Drought "by definition" has nothing to do with temps.
But you LOSE THE COOL AIR associated with RAIN when there is a drought. THAT FACT ALONE means that in drought conditions, the overall temps will be hotter because of the lack of cooling days you lose with the lack of rain.
Let me ask you a question.
Which month will be hotter:
1. A summer month with zero rain.
2. A summer month with rain 15 days of the month.
See my point now, finally?
If your statement is true, it can mean part of the country is warming and part is cooling. The Midwest and Texas are seeing record rainfall. They must be in a cooling trend. While CA is in drought conditions. The UK has had record rainfall. So we have a wide variation in World wide weather. This would go against a World Wide trend of any sort. Something many scientists that are not sucking on the GW teat are saying. I don't know why it is so difficult for people to accept that politicians contrive scenarios to make themselves look smarter than they really are. By the time they are shown to be full of crap they have made their millions and are living off the fat.
I think what you mean is droughts are usually accompanied by higher temps, but not defined by them.
and yes, sometimes when it rains it actually gets hotter. unless its a long lasting, pouring rain, the humidity will spike which traps an enormous amount of heat. And the humid heat is far worse than the dry heat. Again, where I live, rain in the hot months usually leads to heat index's of 102-108 degrees.
spot on. another thing the GW crowd ignores. the amount of precipitation world wide is very consistent and constant. where it falls may very, but always falls in about the same amount.
Not surprising that some areas will experience more rain.
But in Central Texas, some of the towns which have had large amounts of rainfall are not even as wet as 2004, or even 1997.
I hear:
"Blah blah blah Conspiracy, Crooked Politicians, blah blah blah Contrived Problem, robbing us, blah blah blah."
Gary, as much as you want to believe GW is just a political scam by US politicians, how do you explain scientists in so many other countries saying we are in a warming trend?
Did at some point a few years ago some Secret Worldwide Politicians Association have a Top Secret Meeting and say, "We should get some scientists to start saying the Earf is getting warmed by human activity, then we can STEAL money from the people and supposedly attack this non-existent phenomenon and all get rich !! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!"
You see how silly that sounds?
Honda Civic LX manual base MSRP is $16,960
So, you spend $5640 more to save what exactly?
I was catching up with the posts that I missed over last few days and came across this one, addressed to larsb. The argument to that point was about conservation of fossil fuel but this was off course and talking about ownership costs.
The funny thing about ownership cost is, that if more people actually did math, they will start to look beyond initial costs. And trucks/SUV market would die sooner than it will otherwise. So, back to conservation we are. I was in Houston over the weekend and while driving around in his Pacifica, I asked him what mileage he gets. He told me 17-18 mpg. Then he told me that he doesn’t care, because his company pays for it. I didn’t say much, but to me, some things go beyond how much they cost you in monetary terms.
I’m about as happy to get 32 mpg on a highway trip in my 06 TL as I’m in my 98 Accord, even though TL costs me 8% more to refuel (premium versus regular grade). For me, it is more about how many gallons I burn. And I’m not really looking forward to recoup the premium of owning a more expensive vehicle, again, in terms of $$$ alone.
consensus is not science. at one time so many scientist thought the world was cooling, we were entering the next ice age. there were even plans being developed to coat the poles with soot so sunlight wouldn't be reflected back. But anyhow, science is about fact. facts that can be proven through expirimentation. and thats what global warrming lacks. Its all theory, conjecture, and unreliable computer models. There is deffinitly a political aspect to it, even if you don't see it. why else, if we are in such dire straits with this non-sense, would countries like china be exempt? why the whole scheme of carbon credits, which basically allow a country to pollute as much as it wants, so long as its buying credits to do so?
Follow the money my friend, and you'll find your answers.
How do you explain that? I’m not trying to tie global warming to this effect, but unless we understand factors affecting climate patterns, we shouldn’t go deeper into it. I’ve seen enough anti-GW arguments already, using “facts” like oh but it was so cold yesterday
Besides, we also need to discuss UHI effect that I asked you specifically about.
The world is warming.
The CAUSES of that warming are up for debate. The fact that we are warming is no longer debatable.
See my chart on a previous post, and there are other charts also:
And:
Summary: Warming Effect is occurring.
Causation: Unsure.
the fact is, when temps are averaged over the entire globe, on a 365 day period, there is very, very little warmming occuring. no more than a degree or two. thats why you always here about a high temp here or there, or flooding here or there, or whatever. when you examine it on a global scale over a full year to exclude regional and seasonal flucuations, there is scant evidence of a warmming trend. if you expand it to more than one year, there is no real temperature change. the hot and cold years will balance out.
The volcano erupted in April 1815, and the cooling effect was witnessed in the summer of 1816 - or over a year later.
The fact that there was lots of dust in the air in 1934, and it was a very hot year, does not "prove" that dust had anything to do with the record heat that year.
The effects of the 1815 eruption were not experienced for over a year, so that undermines your contention that dust in 1934 also caused record high temperatures in 1934.
larsb: We KNOW the Dust Bowl did not cool the USA in 1934, since that was the hottest year on record.
You're asking the wrong question; see above.
And you know what? NOT EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD IS ABOUT MONEY.
Many, many things are. But sustaining the Earth for future generations trumps the almighty dollar.
We should all want the Earth to be habitable when no one remembers what a "dollar" was.
"When it rains, it gets cooler.
If it does not rain, it will stay hot."
There is no way to know where the world is headed to. The only thing we do know, is that climate change on this planet is neither new, nor unprecedented, and often deadly. more than 90% of all life that has lived on this planet has gone extinct. And mostly from abrupt climate changes. there have been periods where it has been much cooler. there have been periods where its been much warmer. there have been temperate periods like what we currently enjoy. But, the only constant is change. Or, do you suppose the planet has always been one temperature, and always stayed that way till people arrived and started burning coal and oil?
Without people burning fossil fuels, what made the glaciers that reached down to iowa melt and retreat into northern canada? what made the glaciers in green land recede to where they are now. what caused the glaciers in norway to melt forming the fjords that are there today?
link title
Anyone heard any car news re GW lately?
link title
I've posted some of these comments. Why? No I'm not trying to make it look like there's no GW. What am I trying to point out - that I wouldn't mind seeing the Earth warmer. How much? Oh maybe another 5F would be nice.
If you look at population distribution and how many species live in any given climate, you will see that the warmer climates have higher population densities and the most varied lifeforms. If people don't like warmer weather, why has there been such a shift in population in this country? I'm sure Minnesota and Montana are very nice, and Canada has vast stretches of land, so why do so many people flock South when they retire?
Where am I going to live when I retire? Somewhere warmer than New England. When people stop moving to Arizona and Florida, and start moving to Alaska then I'll believe that people want it cooler.
A: There is global warming and human activities are accelerating it.
B: There is global warming and human influence is insignificant/non-existent
C: There is no change in climate.
I wonder which of these anti-GW people would pick. What would you?
Do you think this is a realistic depiction of what is called "Urban Heat Island"? And here is a thermal picture of north-eastern USA. Dark colors are cooler clouds, and white blotches represent cities (as in UHI).
Anybody questioning human influence on weather and environment should visit third world countries where limited to non-existent regulations have resulted in horrible conditions. I can't imagine what our part of the world will be like, if everybody chose to be that way... ignore the impact. Fortunately, we don't, and a good reason why we can even talk about new cars being so much more cleaner than those from the 1960s.
Without people burning fossil fuels, what made the glaciers that reached down to iowa melt and retreat into northern canada?
I am not a Scientist or an activist involved with (or against) the global warming phenomenon. But, I’m fairly logical when it comes to addressing claims like this. Let us begin with a simple question: How quick was the recession?
Anybody claiming that climate cannot change is about as crazy as some who believes that there is no difference between an accelerated change versus one that takes a “natural” course.
And yes, UHI effects goes down as you move farther from the cities, but does that mean it doesn't affect the climate in ever expanding city? And that is with plenty of regulations.
"Automobiles are the second largest source of global warming, creating nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually, reports the Natural Resources Defense Council........"
Carbon this footprint
"Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth."
Ah, may be! Does that prove human influence can be ignored and we can rid ourselves of all the "clean air" regulations? Why not?
Global Warming is. It is BIG MONEY. The US alone plans to spend $6 billion over the next few years studying GW. How much will be spent to disprove all the GW theories?
But sustaining the Earth for future generations trumps the almighty dollar.
If that was the case you would not buy anything made in the highly polluting Chinese factories. You buy from China because it is cheaper (LESS MONEY) and they build things that would not be permitted to be manufactured in the USA.
comparing global warrming to clean air is like comparing apples to oranges. wanting cars to burn cleaner so the air is of a better quality is entirely different than wanting to get rid of them so the planet won't burn up. I'm all for clean air, and we do a great job of in in this country. not perfect, but very good. There are still things to improve, and air quality is a much more worth target of activism and funding than GW.
Explain. And, what do you mean by "clean air"? Hey, doesn't earth go thru natural cycles of clean and dirty air?
Besides, would you mind preparing a list of gases that you want to discuss, and those that you don't want to?
No one in the research world is getting rich off that $6 billion dollars. They are spending the money trying to find causes and solutions for the warming we are seeing.
A) She did not say it, and
"Automobiles are the second largest source of global warming, creating nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually, reports the Natural Resources Defense Council........"
no one in the research world will get their grant money (their paycheck) unless they start with the conclusions that man is causing global warming. Neither the UN no any other polictical body is going to fund research into weather on not GW is real.
You like to use the word conspiracy. So I will say it. This is not a conspiracy. It is business as usual in our Congress. Pork Barrel politics at its finest.