Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?

larsb

going in the other direction:



Graph showing one degree Fahrenheit rise in the temperature record of the entire earth's surface during the 20th Century.

Can't see that as a "scare" but as a "fact."

What are these deniers LOOKING at to think we are not getting warmer?

In the USA, 21 of the last 25 years have been warmer than the mean since 1880. That's not a cooling trend, mis amigos.

stever

Didn't you get the memo? We don't call them deniers anymore. We call them, er, other scientists. :shades:

Too much baggage with some words and it obfuscates the discussion.

roadburner

Didn't you get the memo? We don't call them deniers anymore. We call them, er, other scientists.

Don't kid yourself. To the true GW believers they are infidels of the worst sort. They have turned their backs on the Prophet Gore and all that he proclaims...

ruking1

And here I was going to lobby to bring back burning at the stake. Hmmmmmmmm would we need an excessive carbon generation permit in the process of prosecuting a public pillory?

stever

Think of it as a continuum (Tides should like this).

You have Michael Crichton on one end of the line and Kim Stanley Robinson on the other end. Most people will fall somewhere between those two but it doesn't make any of us infidels nor does it warrant trying to change someone's position by calling them names. Doesn't mean that we are welded to one spot in the line either.

If they start parachuting cats on my spot on the line, I'm heading in another direction. :shades:

larsb

THAT'S RIGHT SORRY, MY BAD !!!

deniers=slur

Gotcha !!!

kernick

I'm an "enthusiastic embracer" ... that is if this slight warming continues. I've had snow on the ground for 4.5 months now, and have been sitting inside way too long.

imidazol97

>turned their backs on the Prophet Gore and all that he proclaims

Count me among them.

tidester

Hmmmmmmmm would we need an excessive carbon generation permit in the process of prosecuting a public pillory?

Sequestration is the preferred method. :P

tidester

Think of it as a continuum ...

Nice. Intellectual diversity is more productive than bipartite confrontation.

stever

I was going to say bell curve but there's that whole Herrnstein thing out there. It probably only fits for grading papers anyway. :shades:

guertin

A simple statistical calculation shows that currently humans contribute only about 0.04 deg. C to the warming of the last 100 years. The remaining about 0.5 deg. C warming is the result of natural phenomena (most the sun-earth system). And, that means even removing every vehicle on the planet, it would make little difference. So, let's not blame SUVs for global warming.

If anyone wishes to see the calculation, I will be pleased to post it.

I'm an environmental scientist with a Ph.D. in chemistry and physics. I will challenge anyone to show that I'm wrong on this nonissue!

imidazol97

>
If anyone wishes to see the calculation, I will be pleased to post it.

I'd llike to see it.

larsb

Something like that cannot be quantified in such a manner. There are too many unknown variables.

But if you think you can show it, let's see it...........

gagrice

Something like that cannot be quantified in such a manner. There are too many unknown variables.

If what you say is true. Al Gore and company are big fat liars. Either my SUV can be shown it contributes to GW or it cannot. I am not going to park it because some half wit Nobel Peace prize winner says I should.

larsb

You know that I meant that the man's "simple calculation that shows man is 0.4 percent responsible for global warming" or whatever he said was not quantifiable.

ruking1

Indeed, if it really made that much of a difference they would offer models that use fuel alternatives that consume 20-40% less (aka,diesel). Instead the regulators sanction ethanol, and get oems like GM to make E85 SUV's , which oxymoronically consumes 25% and up MORE !!!! To add insult to injury, it cuts into food stocks, boosting the price of food.!!! ???

gagrice

That is exactly what I thought you said. That being the case how can you attribute GW to the cars we drive. And if you do what percentage would you give them. I think The UN report mentions 15% of CO2 is attributed to ALL means of transportation World wide. How is that figure any more accurate than saying man has contributed 0.4%?

gagrice

Looking back I believe the poster said humans have contributed .04 degrees "C" over the last 100 years. Not 0.4%. Not that we have come to any conclusion on the subject.

The whole GW issue becomes more contentious with less of a consensus every month. Will REAL science ever be heard over the din from politicians and Hollywood celebrities? We know who & what the media like to put forth. Doom and gloom sells better than peace and prosperity.

larsb

By the way:

It's not a lie if the person saying it believes it to be true.

Al Gore = not a liar.

larsb

Gary-

Please give me a source of the REAL SCIENCE of which you speak so I can look at it.

I guess I've been just looking at the FAKE SCIENCE up to now.

gagrice

I was going on the 11 items that Al Gore and company knew were false when they made the movie "The Inconvenient Truth". Those prevarications are well documented.

Here is just one big ONE.

Take sea level rise for example. Gore spends a lot of time talking about how dramatic melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps that could raise sea level by 20 feet by 2100.

Well, the "consensus" of climate scientists as represented in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that sea level is likely to rise between 4 inches to 35 inches with a central value of 19 inches. Nineteen inches is not nothing and is 3 times greater than the sea level rise the world experienced during the 20th century, but Manhattan and most of Florida will most likely still be above water in 2100.

gagrice

Please give me a source of the REAL SCIENCE of which you speak so I can look at it.

That is the WHOLE point. There is little or no science involved with GW. It is a political agenda pure and simple. With a lot of graphs and charts based on bogus computer simulations and advocates with great imaginations. It is designed to make money and control the populace. Haven't you received your carbon tax bill in the mail yet?

larsb

Well, the one chart I repeatedly post is NOT from a simulation - it's from REAL, current, everybody-knows-it temperature data.

In the USA, 21 of the last 25 years have been warmer than the mean since 1880.

That's not garbage science, just REAL data.

Is that or is that NOT indicative of a warming trend?

gagrice

I guess you have not read all the reports of those measurement points being invalid. You cannot put a thermometer on a building in downtown USA and get a legitimate temperature. That is exactly what was used for much your data. If all the data points were out in the country with no man made structures to influence the temperatures you would have a much better study to use. I can cook eggs on the pavement in downtown Los Angleles most any time of year. Go to one of the few open areas in LA and the temperature will be drastically lower. I just signed up to put in a weather station on my property that will be tied into the MADIS project. Hopefully over the next few years we will get some legitimate, non-politically enhanced data.

http://madis.noaa.gov/

ruking1

..."Please give me a source of the REAL SCIENCE of which you speak so I can look at it.

That is the WHOLE point. There is little or no science involved with GW. It is a political agenda pure and simple. With a lot of graphs and charts based on bogus computer simulations and advocates with great imaginations. It is designed to make money and control the populace. Haven't you received your carbon tax bill in the mail yet? "....

Indeed as Gagrice has hinted, the real issues are economic and various methods of extra control .

So for example all one needs to do is look at ones electric/nat gas bill.

1. I can not cancel the "services," the house will immediately be subject to
a. various tax liens
b. health codes leading to condemnation
c. (3 mo hence) forclosure

2. I can literally NOT use any electicity and/or nat gas and still HAVE to pay upwards of 90% of the bill for said products NOT used!

3. All this "GREEN" talk is economic code for higher prices, higher costs, lower value.

gagrice

It seems the greens want to make sure the airlines have a full plane before leaving the gate.... I can remember a lot of flights canceled. I many times thought it had to do with wanting a full load. Should the airlines be forced cancel your flight if the plane is not full?

A major airline is under fire from environmentalists for flying an aircraft across the Atlantic with only five passengers on board.

The flight from Chicago to London meant that the plane, a Boeing 777, used 22,000 gallons of fuel.

It led to American Airlines being accused of reckless behaviour by green lobby groups.

The latest "eco- scandal" flight took place on February 9 after American was forced to cancel one of its four daily services from Chicago to London.

While it was able to find places for nearly all the passengers on the fully-booked flight, five still had to be accommodated. Those who did fly were upgraded to the business class cabin.

But while they enjoyed lavish hospitality, the airline was accused of an "obscene waste of fuel" by Friends of the Earth.

It is estimated that each passenger produced 43 tons of CO2 – consuming enough fuel to carry a Ford Mondeo around the world five times.

Operating the near empty flight is estimated as having cost American about £30,000. But a spokesman said it had no alternative.

Eco Control

gagrice

You have to wonder if it was one of the greenies headed to a GW conference just how much they would complain about a lightly loaded plane. A Gore has no problem. He just jumps into his Gulf Stream and goes. How many tons of CO2 does he contribute on each flight?

larsb

Well, Gary, nice data, but here is the real story.

The charts STILL, after the CORRECTED ANALYSIS, show a temperature curve UPWARD.

the page:

Nasa Corrects It

Data Flaw

Finally, we note that a minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century. As shown in Figure 4 and discussed elsewhere, the effect of this flaw was immeasurable globally (~0.003°C) and small even in its limited area. Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record. Obviously the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis (Hansen et al. 2001), 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (not globally) but by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty.

And the PDF showing the two charts side by side:

Feuding Charts

gagrice

Those charts show about 0.8 to 0.9 degree C gain over 125 years. I think that is what our one poster also said. Now how does that relate to my SUV causing it to rise? How can you surmise from that 0.9 degree rise in 125 years that the temperature will rise an astonishing 3 full degrees Celsius in the next 92 years? If it does rise by 3 degrees over the next 100 years, how is it any different than the 3-9 degree rise in Alaska and Siberia 6000 years ago? It is much easier for me to believe known solid scientific data than political speculation. Even you would have to admit that most of the hysteria is based on emotion more than science.

gagrice

The current temperature as shown in those graphs is not much more than it was in the 1930s. Now if history is correct that was a time of World Wide depression. A lot of people were having a hard time growing enough food to survive. No big industries were booming at the time. Our economy was near a standstill. If man had much to do with GW that should have been a dip in temperature rather than a rise. Though thinking about it. The Chevy Suburban was first introduced in 1935, which is one of the warmest years in US recorded history. Maybe that is the connection the GW people are using.

larsb

As I have said many times:

The CAUSE of the warming is UP FOR DEBATE.

The FACT that we are warming is NOT UP FOR DEBATE.

That's all I'm saying, and all I have been saying. I have not posted one single entry in this forum saying I think cars are a major cause of global warming.

I'm just saying we need to investigate the possibility and if it turns out that cars are contributing, then something needs to be done to curb their usage.

What? I don't know, but there are a lot of smart people out there who can figure it out.

larsb

Some of that warming in the 1930s was "dust bowl" related. That has already been discussed on this forum.

And some years are just abnormally warm or cold. Nothing will EVER change that.

tidester

And some years are just abnormally warm or cold. Nothing will EVER change that.

Oh, really? Then why do none of the global climate models ever predict those "anomalous" years? I notice that you conveniently ignored my earlier question regarding this issue (scroll back for details). All four major global temperature monitoring organizations, including NASA, showed a precipitous decline in the global temperature last year yet NONE of the GCMs of the past 20 years predicted such a drop. So, why is that?

One can only conclude that the models are seriously lacking and, therefore, cannot be relied upon.

larsb

You answered your own question. They cannot be predicted because they are ANOMALIES.

Anomaly: a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form. the amount of deviation of a meteorological quantity from the accepted normal value of that quantity. an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.

You don't have to rely on a MODEL at all to see the temperature rise. There is ACTUAL HISTORICAL temperature data to show it.

We. Are. In. A. Period. Of. Warming.

P E R I O D.

What is the cause is the question here, and if man-made transportation devices play any part at all.

roadburner

One can only conclude that the models are seriously lacking and, therefore, cannot be relied upon

You don't get it do you?
When the temperature goes up it's ironclad proof of Global Warming.
When the temperature goes down it's merely an anomaly.
:P

larsb

roadburner quipped, "When the temperature goes up it's ironclad proof of Global Warming. When the temperature goes down it's merely an anomaly."

Very cute, but inaccurate.

I don't know who you think is saying THAT, but I'm not saying that at all. 1934 was an anomaly also, and that year is tied with 1998 as the hottest since 1880 in the U.S. of A.

Hot and colder years, outside of the current trend, are considered anomalies.

Nothing about Global Warming trends or Global Cooling trends will ever change that fact.

tidester

There is ACTUAL HISTORICAL temperature data to show it.

The ACTUAL HISTORICAL data showed a precipitous drop in global temperature last year. None of the global climate models of the past 20 years predicted that. In fact, none of the global climate models have even predicted with reasonable accuracy the temperature rises of ANY year over the past 2 decades. That makes EVERY year an anomaly with regard to the global climate models. Not only are they wrong in magnitude but they are often wrong in predicting the direction of change. Please explain why the models should be believed at all if every year is an anomaly?

The ACTUAL HISTORICAL temperature data shows both periods of warming and periods of cooling. With all due respect, the fact that larsb is here for one of them is hardly proof that this one is exceptional in any way. The very long time scale trends are toward cooling (see Frozen Earth by Doug Macdougal, for example) and we are simply in an interglacial period. Interglacial means warming and that began long before mankind had even the slightest possible impact on climate.

anomaly: … the amount of deviation of a meteorological quantity from the accepted normal value of that quantity. an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.

Interesting. If you look at the data, which I suppose you have done, then you cannot miss the fact that those global temperature charts show significant deviations from the norm in practically every year. The interesting part is that you chose to engage in semantic acrobatics while evading the original question. Why should we believe the global climate models when their past performance is so dismal? Inquiring minds want to know.

tidester

You don't get it do you?

Apparently not but it begins makes sense if you accept the premise that global warming causes global cooling! :shades:

imidazol97

>There are too many unknown variables.

You are admitting that the idea that it can be shown that autos are a major cause is not so, because "There are too many unknown variables. "

fljoslin

I just want to make a comment about these discussions. Global Warming is really yesterday's news or "so last year". The proponents of these ideas realized that in the best case scenerio the Globe is not warming, but that only certain regions may be warming temporarily. Many studies also showed that "Global Warming" if it really did happen would have many beneficial changes for the human species, or at least for many of them. Also, some regions were actually experiencing cooler temperatures which hurt the whole warming theory. Global warming has been blamed for extremely cold winters and severe floods etc. The name was then changed to Climate Change so any climate change was due to the "bad" actions of us humans and must be avoided. The latest incarnation of this notion is sustainability where the climate and climate change has almost gone out of the discussion and now it is simply to decrease to the lowest level possible any impact of humans in any way on the environment at any cost. The need for science has been eliminated. This is the future.

tidester

Global Warming is really yesterday's news or "so last year".

Unfortunately, yesterday's news is tomorrow's legislation as you suggest in your last sentence.

larsb

Look.

You seem to be focusing on the incorrect models.

Forget that for a second.

The FACT (not guess, not estimate, not computer calculated) is that we are in an upward trend on temps.

That cannot be denied.

The question is: Is man playing a part? Are cars playing a part? What should be done if so?

Let's talk about THAT for a while, because THAT is the main issue here.

jipster

A Gore has no problem. He just jumps into his Gulf Stream and goes. How many tons of CO2 does he contribute on each flight?

I've always thought this argument a low blow, and a not very logical one at that. My understanding is that Al Gore tries to limit his "carbon footprint" as any good greenie would. This doesn't mean he totally abandons modern day society, and goes out and lives in a tent. Nor that he take up horseback riding instead of cars, trains and planes. The guy is pretty busy. I'm guessing he has business appointments and speeches every day all across the world. "So what?", if he uses his private jet to fly where he needs to be? Maybe Gore should get in a Donald Duck floatie and try to paddle across the Pacific to his next appointment... would that make you any happier? :sick:

scwmcan

No, I think the point isif he is trying to limit his carbon footprint, he should be taking a commericial flight instead of a private plan, he could still do his globe hopping, just without sprewing as much into the atmosphere, just because he has the money too doesn't mean he should get a free pass on his pollution footprint if there are other less damaging options available *isn't that his whole message to all of us after all?).
Scott

gagrice

Maybe Gore should get in a Donald Duck floatie and try to paddle across the Pacific to his next appointment... would that make you any happier?

I have no problem with a multi millionaire flying anywhere he wants in his Gulfstream. That includes Al Gore. I just don't want him perpetrating the lies to our children through his bogus movie that mommy and daddy are going to flood NYC by driving an SUV. You can be a multi millionaire and get around without a big carbon footprint as Ralph Nader does. Living what you preach is something many of our politicians don't believe in. That is the group I put Al Gore into.

Al Gore in a Donald Duck floatie in the middle of the Pacific would be a sight to behold. :shades:

grbeck

jipster: The guy is pretty busy. I'm guessing he has business appointments and speeches every day all across the world. "So what?", if he uses his private jet to fly where he needs to be?

I'm pretty busy, too. And I have important things to do every day, although I don't have to jet around the world to do them.

Therefore, I can say, "So what?" if I use my automobile instead of walking, biking or riding the bus. Correct..?

stever

The last time I checked a few months ago, Al doesn't own a jet (or a plane period that I could find). He certainly has access to all sorts of private aircraft, including Sergey and Larry's big honking 767's presumably via his senior advisor role to Google.

Google is evil. :shades:

alltorque

I just want to make a comment about these discussions. Global Warming is really yesterday's news or "so last year". The proponents of these ideas realized that in the best case scenerio the Globe is not warming, but that only certain regions may be warming temporarily. Many studies also showed that "Global Warming" if it really did happen would have many beneficial changes for the human species, or at least for many of them. Also, some regions were actually experiencing cooler temperatures which hurt the whole warming theory. Global warming has been blamed for extremely cold winters and severe floods etc. The name was then changed to Climate Change so any climate change was due to the "bad" actions of us humans and must be avoided. The latest incarnation of this notion is sustainability where the climate and climate change has almost gone out of the discussion and now it is simply to decrease to the lowest level possible any impact of humans in any way on the environment at any cost. The need for science has been eliminated. This is the future.

Well said that man. That, for me, pretty much encapsulates where I think we are. Science was proving inconveniently gruyere-like, (as science often does), so its been largely abandoned in favour of politics which, of course, never has any holes in it. The two "front" words are Climate Change. The two underlying words are Control and Money.

H.L.Mencken wrote:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

ruking1

.."H.L.Mencken wrote:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. "...

Everyday is Halloween!? What ever happened to the separation between church and state? :sick: