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
I hereby declare that deniers will heretofore and forevermore (by me) be referred to as GWSes.
I agree with promoting clean energy and alternative energy sources. I think it takes on the wrong connotations when you throw in unsubstantiated gobbledie [non-permissible content removed] about changing the course of a planet. Most every study I have looked at show warming and cooling trends over the millenia. Now all of a sudden man caused it and we are going to change it.
Now we have a lot doubters and spouters with a little science thrown in.
Mine is GWSes.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/man_braves_freezing_weather_to
No wonder we've seen such a migration to the South and West in this country, and with all the land in Canada and Alaska - the population is so low.
I saw that a bill was introduced in the Senate that would force the EPA to allow California to proceed with it's initiative to lower CO2 emissions. This bill was co-sponsored by, among others, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That being the case, whether or not this bill passes, I think it's a pretty safe bet that if our next President is a Democrat CA will be allowed to proceed with it's plan. And since CA along with all the other states that want to adopt this standard make up over 50% of the population this would reflect the feds respecting the wishes of the majority. In a democratic society that is probably something they should strive to do.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1658637.htm
It appears they are concentrating on their main source, and our main source of CO2 emissions - electricity generation.
(from CO2 Lagging Temperature)
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Its all about MONEY ! Give me $2 Billion and I'll prove that GW is caused by the sex acts of monkeys in China !
So you say I could not do that............well then you'd have to get another $2 Billion to prove me wrong !
Follow the money !
GW is a natural climate happening ! Its happened before and will happen again !
Presumably, atmospheric CO2 levels are uncharacteristically higher now because we're putting a lot of it there ourselves. Besides atmospheric CO2 levels historically lagging behind temperature changes, the current build up of "excess" atmospheric CO2 appears to have little (if any) impact on "global temperatures." For example, temperatures during the period between about 1940 and 1970 were exceptionally low while atmospheric CO2 levels were at record highs. The case for anthropogenic climate change is, therefore, rather weak if not totally off the mark.
The other greenhouse gas, H2O, along with the Sun are far more important agents of climate change than the minor greenhouse gas, CO2.
I suppose you can fund a study that proves whatever you want it to prove. Exxon/Mobil had been doing that for years. The tobacco industry tried it for awhile. Despite the fact that Exxon/Mobil is the most profitable corporation on the planet they finally conceded that they were fighting a losing battle. Why would this ever happen if all you have to do is spend money to shape public opinion?
from your link
CO2 warming also explains how the relatively weak forcing from orbital cycles can bring the planet out of an ice age
That seems to be saying that CO2 can have a significant effect on the earth's temperatures. The assertion that CO2 levels have lagged global warming seems plausible. However it is a very different world today with ~8 billion people, the clearing of the rainforests, and the burning of massive amounts of hydrocarbons. So we now have a world that can increase CO2 on it's own, without the help of the sun. And the article acknowledged that this will increase global temperatures.
For example, temperatures during the period between about 1940 and 1970 were exceptionally low while atmospheric CO2 levels were at record highs.
When you say that CO2 levels were at record highs are you saying that they are higher than they are now or just higher than they'd been in the past? Can you provide data that backs up your claim that temperatures were exceptionally low from 1940-1970? The data that I've seen shows that the temperatures around 1940 were unusually high with the next 30 years being lower but still higher than the temperatures during the first 30 years of the century. So what's more compelling, a 30 year trend or a 100 year trend?
It is quite another thing to take a theory of global-cooling, or global warming, and use it to berate everyone for the environmental purpose of stopping development, or rolling back everyone's lifestyle, in order to "protect" nature from our development. If environmentalists didn't constantly "cry wolf" that the world is ending because of this or that "if we don't act now", maybe they would have a little more credibility? I see GW as just being one more scare-tactic of environmentalists to use as a tool to prevent development.
If and when green-technologies make sense , businesses will embrace them, as they do any money-making enterprise. To think that Exxon-Mobil or other companies are thwarting development is follish. I'm sure they'd love to have the patents on a break-thru technology, which would make them far more than what they make on their other operations.
I really don't think that reducing GHG emissions necessarily has to equate to slower economic growth or a lowering of our standard of living. For example, If you replace all of your incandescent lightbulbs with CFLs how does that represent a sacrifice? I've never been an advocate of conservation. I think we could accomplish our objectives by simply using our current resources more efficiently and transitioning to renewables.
To think that Exxon-Mobil or other companies are thwarting development is follish. I'm sure they'd love to have the patents on a break-thru technology, which would make them far more than what they make on their other operations.
That would be pretty tough to do given how much Exxon-Mobil makes on their gas/petroleum operations. This question as to why Exxon-Mobil doesn't spend more on "green" technologies was recently asked of their CEO. His response was that his first obligation is to his shareholders. The revenue derived by these alternative energy ventures wouldn't even register on their bottom line.
All GWers need to switch to the next unprovable threat to life on this planet as we know it... :P ozone. :sick:
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Of course! I've pointed this out many times. What I was referring to, is whether human-activity is significant in those cycles. And I've pointed out that the time-frame of the last-600,000 years is a very small time reference when looking at what the CO2 and temp. records of the Earth have been.
If you replace all of your incandescent lightbulbs with CFLs how does that represent a sacrifice?
In the cooler months it makes no difference to me, and I switch to incandescent. Why? Because I have electric heat, and whether I get the heat from the bulbs, it is that much less that the base-board heat has to come on. It is only inefficient to use incandescent bulbs when you have the windows open or AC on.
The revenue derived by these alternative energy ventures wouldn't even register on their bottom line.
Right. I'm sure all energy companies do their own research or give grants to professors at universities, but it is in moderation. I'm sure you give to charity, but if someone asks you why you don't give much more, what's the answer? You need to take care of yourself and family first.
And I'm sure if you had the text the CEO is responding to the green-technologies available today. I do not expect Exxon to pour money into solar or wind projects if fossil fuels are comparable in price per unit of energy. Now if exxon thought they could make a solar panel that was 4X more effective than today's technology, that is surely worth more than the $30 - 40 billion in profit they made this year. If you even sold 50% of the global households (and all the office business) a $20,000 solar system what would that be worth?.
I don't blame companies for turning down most green technolgy production at this point as many companies have already lost money or went bankrupt on them. When fossil fuels go higher then that analysis changes, but we're not at that economic point. And the current technology isn't that great. Probably the research in nanotechnology might payoff in 20 -30 years for very efficient solar panels
Well, maybe we should take a look at florescent lights a bit closer.
First can you manufacture them in the USA? I have not seen any home type CFLs that are not made in China. This new energy law will put several thousand US workers on unemployment. If for environmental reasons they cannot be made in the USA, they should not be mandated. If we are going to clean up the environment, we should not be sending our dirty work to China or India.
Second, I have many in my home and am currently rethinking their negatives. We have a friend that breaks out in a rash whenever he sits for more than 1/2 hour in a room lit with florescent lights. This is rare yet we do not know what long term exposure to CFLs will cause.
Third is disposal. Currently you have to pay to dispose of florescent lights in CA. So you pay more initially and then pay to dispose of them. The reason being CFLs do have mercury in them. How damaging will they be in a landfill? Most people will just toss CFLs in the trash rather than pay for disposal.
Fourth, they do NOT save energy until they have been on for about 15 minutes. When I go into a room and turn on the light, most times I do what ever and leave turning out the light. So I am NOT saving energy with CFLs under those conditions. Our reading lamps are CFL as they stay on for much longer than most of the lights in our home.
CFLs do have a little bit of mercury in them so improper disposal would represent an environmental problem. However it seems that all the environmental groups are very much in favor of transitioning to CFLs. You may be more of a treehugger than the typical Sierra Club member.
As far as your friend breaking out after 30 minutes exposure, that's something new to me. A person with this condition would really be limited on who he could work for given that most office spaces are lit with flourescent light. I would definitely consider this long term exposure.
I've never heard that CFL's don't save energy until after they've been on for 15 minutes. I know that they don't reach full brightness for a few minutes and frequently turning them on and off reduces how long they will last.
Gary, I watched a MythBusters episode this past weekend that addressed that subject.
You are incorrect, sir.
MYTH: Temporarily leaving a light on is more engery efficient than turning it off and back on. - Result: Busted
Through numerous tests, the MythBusters calculated that the power surge from turning on a light would only consume as much power as leaving it on for a fraction of a second (except for fluorescent tube lights - NOT COMPACT FLORESCENT - the old-style TUBE LIGHTS because of the ballast - the startup on the old-style tube lights consumed about 23 seconds worth of power). Furthermore, the wear and tear of turning the light on and off repeatedly did not reduce the bulb’s total life expectancy enough to offset the increased electricity usage. Therefore, it is far more economical to turn a light off rather than leaving it on.
Remember: When you turn on an incandescent bulb, it is using xx watts right away and throughout the time it is on. A compact florescent bulbs of comparable lumens will be using far fewer watts during that same amount of time than an incandescent.
And all this is moot, really, because incandescents will be outlawed and gone in a few years.
Switching CFLs on and off does shorten lamp life, but [the] conclusion that they need a three- to five-hour on-cycle to maintain a reasonably long life does not appear to be correct. Robert Clear, a staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, told Enviromental Building News that it has been difficult to get data on this question, but a 1998 study of electronically ballasted CFLs found a 20% reduction in lamp life if the on-time was reduced to one hour. With significantly shorter on-times, the lamp life is dramatically reduced: with 15-minute on-time cycling, lamp life dropped 70% and with five-minute on-time lamp life dropped 85% (which brings the lamp life close to that of incandescent light bulbs). “This suggests that you should consider replacing incandescents with CFLs in any application where the lamp is on an average of [at least] about 10 minutes per start,” said Clear. He added that “every switch cycle is equivalent to about 6 minutes of lamp life. This means that you should turn a CFL off if you think it won’t be turned on again for another five minutes or so.” This approach should also maximize electricity and cost savings"
When you say that CO2 levels were at record highs are you saying that they are higher than they are now or just higher than they'd been in the past?
Not at all. But CO2 emission by cars and factories far surpassed anything we had done previously. If global warming theory is to be believed then that should have been a warming period. It was not.
Can you provide data that backs up your claim that temperatures were exceptionally low from 1940-1970?
I'm using approximate dates but the phenomenon is well known as a even a cursory Google check will verify. You may find this article interesting in that regard: The Cooling World
So what's more compelling, a 30 year trend or a 100 year trend?
The assertion that global warming is anthropogenic is not compelling on any time scale.
Well evaporation is definitely a function of surface area of water. What does man do but take concentrated areas of water - streams, rivers, and lakes, and instead of allowing that water to run into the oceans and seas, we spread that water all over the land to irrigate our crops, grow lawns, fill swimming pools, and such. Spreading the water out creates increased evaporation and increases of the GHG water in the atmosphere.
Is this significant compared to the amount that occurs naturally; probably not. But neither is the amount of CO2 created by man compared to that released naturally. But I bet there is more H2O vapor in the air now then in recorded history.
But it might make you consider that it is simplistic to just consider 1 small variable in the climate, when there are other variables out there.
And that Newsweek article that Tidester posted, should really make you consider why you trust the experts now more than the experts 30 years ago? I don't think we've made any great genetic leap (in IQ) in our experts.
The technology of CFLs has improved since then by a lot.
Popular Mechanics did a test in May2007. Here is the link to their PDF file:
CFLs outperform all incandescents
Apparently this company makes CFLs in the U.S. of A.:
'Cause I'm Proud To Be An American, Where My CFLs Aren't Free
global temps
The previous graph that tidester posted showed clear warming and cooling trends that occurred at intervals of roughly 100,000 years. I suspect that if this graph had the resolution to be able to see 30 year snaphots you would find some that showed deviations from the obvious prevailing trend.
You cannot possibly compare mankinds current impact on the environment with what it was 100s of thousands of years ago. .
I read the article that you posted and I don't think you are accurately expressing or interpreting what it said. My interpretation of that article is that global warming has been triggered primarily by a change in the earth's orbit around the sun. This results in an increase in southern hemisphere temperatures and in CO2 levels which is responsible for amplifying this affect and spreading these temperatures to the northern hemisphere. I didn't see the terms may and theory when talking about CO2's contributory effect. I don't doubt that there are many mechanisms at work but CO2 levels is definitely one of them.
I was attempting no such thing. You asked for information about the cooling from about 1940 and I simply pointed you to that article which discussed it.
This results in an increase in southern hemisphere temperatures and in CO2 levels …
N.B. ...results in an increase … in CO2 levels … And where does that CO2 come from? Certainly not from mankind. It comes from such sources as the oceans which hold far more CO2 than mankind can ever emit. But global warming has already taken place by the time CO2 is released by the warmed oceans. The reverse happens on the downside. Earth begins its cooling even with all that additional CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2 gets dissolved back into the oceans after the Earth has cooled. People seem to have the causality relationship flipped over.
I don't doubt that there are many mechanisms at work but CO2 levels is definitely one of them.
At best, the historical data indicates that CO2 is ancillary and that other factors are far more important. One must wonder why a relatively minor player is placed front and center on the political stage above all other mechanisms.
The new home we bought has Hunter fans with lights in every room. I don't think I will be changing them out as they are guaranteed for life and the best money can buy. When I put a CFL in the light pulsates off and on. I guess I just buy up a life time supply of incandescent 60 watt bulbs. I also cannot find a 3 way CFL for a couple lamps we have. CFLs do not work with dimmer switches. CFLs DO cause interference to stereos and TVs.
I will search out Lights of America tomorrow and report back on their origin. I looked through all the CFLs at Home Depot a couple weeks ago and all were Made in China. The CFLs they had at Costco today were Made in China also. We are not buying anything made in China at least not knowingly.
We have all CFLs in the home we are moving out of. I started using them at least 10 years ago. It is just this mandate has me up in arms. I do not like the government involved in every aspect of my life. We have over 30 recessed lights with 85 watt incandescent floods. I was looking for replacement CFLs when this mandate and not being able to find CFLs Made in the USA came about.
Very simple, it fits the agenda. The well meaning folks that want to get rid of the internal combustion engine found a culprit, CO2, that they can convince the unsuspecting masses to abhor. Once you have a group of believers, they will be following you right over the cliff. Or in this case abandoning their SUVs for econoboxes. CO2 is one of those things you cannot see. That makes it perfect for a faith movement. When it was announced that the air coming out of the PZEV cars was cleaner than the air going in, emissions was no longer a good culprit to use for their purposes of enslaving the masses. So conveniently GHG becomes the movement du jour.
That statement fails to account for you selecting the timeframe you want to choose. If you want to discuss the climate of Earth, you need to look at very, very long time periods to get an understanding of what is normal. Looking at a few hundred years of climate is like trying to tell whether a baseball team is doing well, by randomly choosing to watch a half-inning sometime in the summer.
Your graph while showing small increases in temperatures, also actually argues against increasing CO2 being a main factor in temp. increases. Industrialization increased in all those decades, and CO2 would be building up in the atmosphere all during that period. If the climate was simply following CO2 levels, there wouldn't be any decades of declining or flat temp. , as you can see for the few decades after 1940. If Co2 is a major factor the temp. should increase in step with the buildup of CO2 during those decades. Since it didn't all you're left with is that there is temp. increase sometimes while CO2 was increasing all the time. At best CO2 is thus a minor factor.
So why is the current CO2 level higher than ever before? Just a fluke? BTW, the oceans are a CO2 sink.
One must wonder why a relatively minor player is placed front and center on the political stage above all other mechanisms
Because it's a factor we might have some control of. I doubt we can affect the earth's orbit around the sun. The idea that we are placing this priority on global warming because a few thousand scientists might be getting grants to study this possibility doesn't seem all that plausible.
I'm hearing a lot of people say that they aren't going to buy into the idea of global warming without conclusive scientific proof. They claim it's some myth being perpetuated by fanatics with an agenda. I wonder if global warming skeptics in the Bible belt use that rational?
Is it a warmer cooling than what should be, maybe - but the whole global warning thing is a serious myth.
Consider the fact that in the UK, it's actually illegal to show the al gore movie in classrooms without a huge disclaimer that the information is mythical...as in FALSE.
Check the research prior to falling for the global warming myth..
Just like Acid Rain was going to kill us all before the year 2000......then they realized....opps there really wasn't a big acid rain epidemic. Opps...
BUT the news didn't cover that, why? Because they reported on the importance of reducing carbon output back then to reduce acid rain.
Zzzzzzzz
Does our vast output of resources affect the planet, I can't believe that it wouldn't. Is NY and Florida going to be under water in 20 years? Well, other than NY let's hope not ok?
What the judge said was the film could be shown if updated guidelines were followed. The judge also said "had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans." (BBC)
Sounds like acid rain is still an issue.
Reading the EPA links reminds me - maybe we need to rename this topic from GW to climate change?
You are not paying attention. Yes, I said higher CO2 levels today are likely emitted by mankind. The point was, historically, atmospheric levels of CO2 lag behind global temperature changes - both up and down. You need to come up with another mechanism to explain global warming.
You must also understand that while the oceans are a CO2 sink, the capacity of those oceans to hold CO2 depends on how warm or cold those oceans are. Colder water can hold more CO2 than warm water. If the water warms up, it cannot hold as much CO2 and the CO2 is released into the atmosphere. When the water cools, it can absorb CO2. It's basic physics. Try heating a can of Coke and see what happens to the CO2 inside.
The idea that we are placing this priority on global warming because a few thousand scientists might be getting grants to study this possibility doesn't seem all that plausible.
I never made that claim and I regard it as a moot and irrelevant point.
I wonder if global warming skeptics in the Bible belt use that rational?
You just crossed the line. Argument by slur and insult suggests that you aren't able to make your case based on reason, facts and evidence.
GW is too narrow and may be debunked if/when we get a real cooling period in a couple of decades. ACC, on the other hand, covers a multitude of sins which allow the doom-mongers free rein to blame mankind for everything from cooling to boiling and drought to flood. GW can be denied/whatever but there's no denying Climate Change - it's been going on forever - and Anthropogenic Climate Change neatly rides on its back.
The discussions are the same; just the name has changed..........subtly. :shades:
So yes, let's now concentrate on ACC.
I agree and disagree. There are a lot of posters here making claims against global warming that could be classified as slurs. By stating its a myth started by a handfull of fanatics with an agenda. They've converted enough of the mallable brains out there that this myth has taken on greater significance. People who believe in GW could consider that a slur against them. I simply drew a parallel. Or is this one of those politically correct areas. I'm a politically correct non-believer.
From the previous post. This is a good example of what I'm referring to.
covers a multitude of sins which allow the doom-mongers free rein to blame mankind for everything from cooling to boiling and drought to flood.
Well if you're conceding that mankind is likely the cause for higher levels of CO2 and you've previously conceded that CO2 is a minor player in GW than the logical conclusion is that mankind is having a minor impact on GW. That's fundamentally different from saying that anthropomorphic activity has no affect on the planet's temperature.
I think even the most adamant skeptic, myself being one, would concede that man has an impact on the planet. Whether it is CO2, CO, NOX, all the GHGs etc, etc... The issue is the cult like following of political types wanting to make this a divisive issue for political gain. I do not see how you can consider it anything else. When you have ultra radical types like Robert Kennedy Jr claiming that GW Bush was at fault in Katrina because he did not sign onto Kyoto. There are people that actually listen to RFK jr and think he knows what he is talking about. You have Al Gore writing books and making movies that advocate banning cars. They use dooms day scenarios to convince people the planet will become uninhabitable if we do not act fast to reduce CO2.The truth is, even in our worst cities the CO2 levels are no where near toxic levels.
Should we do our best to not mess up the planet. Of course. Does that mean driving a Yugo or some other little econobox? NO it does not. Would it be nice to have a super clean society with nuclear energy and cars plugged in ready to quietly take us to work in the morning? Yes it would. Will we eventually see that? Maybe we will.
Prophecies of doom are a pretty effective tool for getting people to adopt a point of view. When predictions aren't accompanied by any scientific data these people should be feared. I believe there is scientific data supporting GW. I'm not claiming it is 100% conclusive so I'm not 100% certain mankind is contributing to it. On the other hand I've looked at the data refuting GW or man's impact on it. I don't consider this data to be 100% conclusive either.
I think the one indisputable fact is that CO2 levels are higher than at any other period of time that we have record of. It's hard to imagine that this hasn't been influenced by our modern day, carbon based, industrialized society. So the real question is whether or not CO2 levels are all that significant when it come's to the planet's temperature? I think they probably are but am willing to entertain the possibility that they aren't.
As far as the people preaching GW having a personal, self serving agenda; I just don't see it. What does Al Gore have to gain by everyone driving an econobox, or transitioning away from coal fired powerplants?
How about $100,000,000 net worth. Up from about $1,000,000 when he left the Vice Presidency. His divisive books, movies, and speeches are all making him rich. All the while he continues his high CO2 output. "Earth in the Balance" advocated us getting rid of the internal combustion engine. It did not offer any alternative. He is an elitist that thinks the masses need to be controlled by the few. GW is the means to that end.
PS
I bought my copy of "Earth in the Balance" before he became the GW Guru. I got the hardbound copy for a penny plus postage on Amazon.com. Now the paperback is $10.85. Yes Al Gore is making a FORTUNE as high priest of his GW religion.
Sorry, my man, that is also an outdated statement.
They can be found with dimmer compatibility. I had a couple in a dimmable fan a few years ago. Found them in stock in a lighting store in Phoenix. They will work in your Hunter fans too. Here is one link I found.
Dimmable CFL
There are also CFLs which work for 3-way lamps (which, by the way, are sorta outdated and not very useful, IMHO) and I found one for my Granny last year.
3-way CFL
Not hard at all to find this stuff Gary - one Google search and you are done !!
And I found this too:
Can compact fluorescent bulbs create interference with electronic equipment, such as radios?
Many electronic devices, such as radios, televisions, wireless telephones, and remote controls, use infrared light to transmit signals. Infrequently, these types of electronic devices accidentally interpret the infrared light coming from a compact fluorescent bulb as a signal, causing the electronic device to temporarily malfunction or stop working. (For example, your television might suddenly change channels.) Fortunately, this only happens when light is produced at the same wavelength as the electronic device signals, which is rare.
To reduce the chance of interference, avoid placing compact fluorescent bulbs near these kinds of electronic devices. If interference occurs, move the bulb away from the electronic device, or plug either the light fixture or the electronic device into a different outlet.
I don't know about you, but after using CFLs for about 10 years now myself, I have NEVER had one interfere with any other electronic component. Have you?
That's one individual, not enough to shape global policy. If there's money to be made preaching GW shouldn't there be just as much money to be made by preaching the opposite?
Just to clarify. Is it your opinion that Al Gore doesn't really believe in global warming, he's simply promoting it as a way to make money?
BTW, I like your term "high priest". Tidester criticized me for crossing the line when I made an analogy between this GW issue and religion, as if I was the only one. It turns out that GW believers can't make these kinds of references but GW skeptics can.
I've been using CFLs for around 3 years in rooms that have remote controlled devices. I've never experienced any interference either.