Well, I'm just saying your gas rates have probably gone up over 22 years, so if nothing else changed (insulation, climate, new, more efficient combustion appliances), your bill would be going up.
Think how much more your bill would be if you were in GC. :shades: (global cooling)
Your first sentence agrees with what I have been saying all along: the permanent trend is ever increasing prices, while keeping costs LOWER !!!!!
The second part brings me to the point! More/HIGHER CONSUMPTION (all things being equal) does not point to global warming!!?? And keep in mind I am located in the heart of "a test case global warming area" !!
According to the party line, if global warming is going on, it damn sure should be going on here!?
I'm not following - your consumption may not have changed over 22 years. Who cares what the cost is?
And who said your local area was a global indicator? The climate may be warming or cooling; meanwhile some glaciers may be shrinking while others may be growing.
If more fuel use results in more emissions, then yeah, some people think that contributes to a warming climate.
We're having some disconnect here. Must be the frosty weather in Boise today. :shades:
the new 2010 Pininfarina-Bollore B0 due to America in September of 2010.
This appears to be the car I am firmly setting my sights on for a competent "green" automobile. I am looking to get off of gasoline and ICE's. I have learned that internet reports stating that Pininfarina-Bollore wanted to sell the B-Zero but rent out the batteries are not true. That rumour has been shot down by Bollore! Excellent. I was dreading having to pay a "rent" on the batteries. Now we can all buy our own electric cars that include the batteries and be done with it! I can't wait for this car to hit the U.S. I would love to have one of the cars coming over in 2009 but I could wait until 2010 to buy one, too. I could easily drive the 7 hour drive to Los Angeles, CA, to purchase my Pininfarina-Bollore B0. I live in SE Arizona. 20,000 to 25,000 Euro equals what in USD? About $27,000 to $32,000? Anyone know for sure? Remember that the Obama rebate would take $7,500 off of the price of this car in America. I would be a good purchaser for this car because it has solar panels and I live in Arizona where it's so sunny all of the time.
Total charge time is only 5 hours! Whoa! Another thing that is so impressive with this manufacturer's electric vehicles is the report of the LeBlue cars (the B0's prototype with the same electric "engines") going 220,000 km's without any problems or without any maintenance! What's not to like here?
I'll be anxiously awaiting the 2009 Turin Auto Show March of 2009, then. And initial sales of the B0 are to be on the Internet, eh? I'm down with that, gentlemen. Count me in on this little 2010 Pininfarina-Bollore B0. This sounds like it's easily the smartest and the best looking all-electric car yet to market.
According to John Coleman that founded The Weather Channel it was hijacked by the radical environmentalist. Did NBC see the light and clean house?
NBC Universal made the first of potentially several rounds of staffing cuts at The Weather Channel (TWC) on Wednesday, axing the entire staff of the “Forecast Earth” environmental program during the middle of NBC’s “Green Week”, as well as several on-camera meteorologists. The layoffs totaled about 10 percent of the workforce, and are the first major changes made since NBC completed its purchase of the venerable weather network in September.
Among the meteorologists who was let go was Dave Schwartz, a Weather Channel veteran and a viewer staple due to his lively on camera presentations. USA Today reported that meteorologists Cheryl Lemke and Eboni Deon were also let go.
The timing of the Forecast Earth cancellation was ironic, since it came in the middle of NBC’s “Green is Universal” week, during which the network has been touting its environmental coverage across all of its platforms. Forecast Earth normally aired on weekends, but its presumed last episode was shown on a weekday due to the environmentally-oriented week.
Forecast Earth was hosted by former CNN anchor Natalie Allen, with contributions from climate expert Heidi Cullen. It was the sole program on TWC that focused on global climate change, which raises the question of whether the station will still report on the subject. Cullen’s future role at the network is not known.
OF--you are confusing "local weather" with Global Warming. That's why they call it Global. You can't see global warming out your window.
Global warming is as real as real can be. The science of it is getting really dialed in, going from computer modelling (problematic, as you know) to more empirical data gathering.
It's a bit harder to pin down HOW MUCH of it is due to automobiles, I would imagine, but the science is getting much better at ascertaining how much of it is man-made.
I think any country that does not immediately start addressing this issue is doomed to extinction economically, not weather-wise. (that would take decades and decades) As this pertains to cars, it's obvious to me that the future lies in vehicles that will conform to global world standards that will have to be implemented. If American automakers decline to do this, then the Japanese and Europeans will, and we won't have an auto industry of any kind in 10-20 years IMO.
I think any country that does not immediately start addressing this issue is doomed to extinction economically, not weather-wise. (that would take decades and decades) As this pertains to cars, it's obvious to me that the future lies in vehicles that will conform to global world standards that will have to be implemented. If American automakers decline to do this, then the Japanese and Europeans will, and we won't have an auto industry of any kind in 10-20 years IMO.
What "standards" would that be? Hybrid sales are increasing, got the "Volt" type cars coming along.
The world economy remains entirely unconvinced! Even as they all give lip service aka hot air about :hot air. All those things that literally increase the so called "global warming" have been dramatically increased both in per capital volume and the "per capita" is actually increasing (more folks)
Not to pick on the Chinese, but they aspire to more vehicles and they will soon match the 254.1 M US car volume and of course European Countries have pretty close to the same population. So if you add US 254.1 M and Euro 260 M and TBD 300 M Chinese volume (not to exclude other countries vehicle populations, you are talking a min of 814 M vehicles !!!!
I poached what I posted on another thread
..."Indeed the Big Three's recent "tribulations" have finally let the facts come to light that DEMOCRATS have ALL ALONG ( least 53 years!?) been major cheerleaders for quashing higher fuel standards, aka Michigan's House of Representatives and acknowledged DEAN (Democrat) The Honorable John D. Dingell. "...
Keep in mind the current standards are 27 mpg with a defacto 22 mpg American fleet wide.
This is not news to anyone, but the House, Senate, Executive Branch, State Governors, etc, etc, are THE democratic MAJORITY. So there is a min of 4 more years and probably another 4 year option for a total of 8 years of more of the same.
Great. Let the Chinese burn all the coal they want. Let them smog up the whole country to the point where they can't breathe anymore; then, America or Europe or Japan, having developed all the clean technology while the Chinese were burning dirty, can sell the Chinese everything they desperately need.
FUEL STANDARDS -- global warming is not conservative, or liberal or republican or democrat. Global warming is a national issue. You cannot pin global warming on a political party (not that you were, but just saying). Our sloppiness in environmental protection is like our sloppiness in budget and trade and SS and Medicaire deficits. We just didn't address the issues, we let them slide. Decade after decade, president after president. They are all to blame.
Chickens, here's your roost!
WORLD STANDARDS -- that's a good question. I threw that term out without really considering what that meant, but I suspect this next generation of automotive technology will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary for the next decade, and then perhaps revolutionary after that, as in hydrogen powered, etc.
It could be for instance, that some countries may not even allow imports of autos that do not conform to these world standards. Perhaps you can send a Volt to Europe but not a Corvette, or a MINI diesel hybrid to America but not a Range Rover.
Obviously "standards" will include much more than cars--it will have to be industries-wide.
Well the Clinton administration locked down the absurdly rich coal exporting trade very early in his adminstration and you can probably deduce that was a LONG time ago. Indeed even Al Gore as I recall was the VP!?
Now this is common knowledge but Warren Buffet has been an investor in rail roads. DAH?? How is that related? Well funny, Mile or so long COAL trains are a very cost effective way to get coal to the ports.... for EXPORT.
Now if the new Secretary of State WILL be the "other half "of that famous tag team... well... draw your own conclusions.... Not to mention the Clinton Administration veterans the new President elect is seemingly tapping.
Every American political leader had the bag over their heads. This is a trans-political issue and nobody is guiltless. We can find tweaks this way and that but this problem is way bigger than any one man's actions. It's a product of the last 100 years.
We can do 'business as usual' but we'll pay....no, our grandchildren will pay...a punishing price for it.
There's no "doom and gloom" about it. Facts are facts, they don't care what we believe or not believe to be true. Denying something doesn't make it false, and asserting it doesn't make it true, right?.
I mean, there's hardly a man left alive who would say for instance:
"I think we should let the Big Three make only large SUVs and pickups"
OR
"Now that gas prices are down, let's make all cars V8s"
of course not. Slowly but surely everybody gets on board with "basic real world".
The trick is not to panic and do something equally stupid in the OTHER direction.
While I haven't seen the Tom Cruise/ Nicole Kidman film "Eyes Wide Shut" that title to me (my .02 cents) is more expressive than say having a "bag over their heads. "
I tell you the next 20 years are going to be very interesting in terms of the various "lifestyles" in different countries and how those will develop. Americans are going to have to learn to live differently----not worse, but different.
...""I think we should let the Big Three make only large SUVs and pickups" ...
This is not to be contrary, even as it can be construed as contrary, BUT why NOT? If a V8 gets the new 2012 standard of 35 mpg or in the spirit of past exceptions 28.5 mpg?(same ratio as 27 mpg standards with defacto 22 mpg) (for example on the diesels in the news a frequent contributor posted a link to a twin turbo diesel V8 gets 45 mpg on race day and 70 mpg @ 65 mph)
Well I guess it is more of follow the capital investments, aka what are the so called "RIGHT" investments. The central issue with so called alternative fuels is what will be the longer term viable choice (not choices) as we STILL want the Lone Rangers one Silver Bullet solution: even as it makes all the sense in the world to have say 10% of EACH solution, i.e., 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 !!! . So if we have forgotten what has gotten us into this so called mess in the first place, it is the lone silver bullet solution, increasingly being imported !!!!
So for example the following are in various stages of vilification (no particular order): ethanol, fuel cells, nat gas, bio diesel, bio mass, batteries, plug in electric, RUG, PUG, D2 E 85, air, water, solar, gee that about covers everything
If you believe the more radical proponents of your position we are ALREADY doomed. CO2 levels will continue to rise for decades even if we reduce our carbon emissions to ZERO (by the way that would require that all human life dies, but who cares right).
So if you really believe in global warming there is nothing we can do anyway.
As to AL Gore he is a snake oil selling hypocrite who wants us to all starve while he makes MILLIONS and has a carbon footprint as large as Bigfoot.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
It doesn't matter if you think Al Gore is a hypocrite or not. The truth is either the truth or it isn't, right? Forget about Al Gore. Al Gore is irrelevant. Pretend one of the Muppets is telling you about Global Warming. :P
Yes sure, I do believe that any country who refuses to address global warming as an ECONOMIC issue is doomed to ECONOMIC extinction. It goes without saying. Why?
Clean tech, green tech, alternative energy, safe nuke, hydrogen power---any country that doesn't get to the front of the pack on these will suffer tremendously. How could it not?
As for being "doomed" in terms of human life, nobody can make such a claim with any hard evidence, because it hasn't happened yet!
We CAN see enormous ice-melting, species die-off, etc. right now right here, so that's evidence. We can't predict the future, however, we can only speculate upon it.
MAKING V8s -- Oh, so what if they got 35 mpg with pushrod V8s? It's old tech and therefore not adaptable to what is transpiring. IMO it's just "fighting the last war, not the current one". A '58 Studebaker got better mileage than 90% of today's cars do right now. That didn't make it the car of the future did it?
The conundrum that I had previously outlined, just wrapped itself around you. What is the definition of the future? (AKA follow the money).
Truly the "crisis" is easy to solve. I just solved it in a previous post. There is really no will to solve it.
So if the future is a car that runs on water for example) , why aren't water powered cars being produced!!??? If part of the solution is 10% diesel why aren't we doing anything to stimulate 10% diesel passenger vehicle fleets? If three percent electric plug in cars are part of the solution why was it killed? ETC, ETC, ON and ON.
..."A '58 Studebaker got better mileage than 90% of today's cars do right now. That didn't make it the car of the future did it? "...
Well think of it...the system was quite alright with 90% of todays cars getting worse mileage than that, now weren't they!!?? Now if you were NOT alright with that it was slim pickens for the other 10%?
Further think of it, if you had a logistical system to keep a 58 Studee going, it would be exempt to run todays' highways as an historical vehicle. How do you think celebs like Jay Leno runs his collection deep in the heart of LA LA, PC land!! Not that I am personally acquainted with him.
The liberal media and treehuggers want us all to believe that MAN is the cause of so-called "global warming"
It is a fact that the average surface-temparture of Mars has risen several degrees over the past 10 years or so (easily measured with a laser)
Since it is also a fact that the Mars temparture rise is caused by the SUN being hotter... and the Earth is irradiated by the very same sun.... intelligent minds can conclude that the Earths average temparture must have gone up too. (Also because of the sun)
Unless somone can convince me that MAN caused the surface-temp. of Mars to rise...then lets just forget the entire concept of MAN causing it here on Earth.
Intelligent minds also know that all this "carbon" which man is supposed to be releasing into the atmosphere has ALWAYS BEEN HERE on Earth. Over the past several-million years, plants have been taking it out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis . (This is essentually where crude-oil came from to begin with) The notion that MAN is somhow releasing carbon from nowhere into the atmosphere can only be beleived by somone who was not listening in 7th grade science class. I know I am old... but I think it was some physical " law" reguarding matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
SIDE NOTE: Anyone old as I can recall that the very same groups that are crying "global warming" today are the ones that claimed "Global IceAge" back in the 70s and "Hole in the Ozone" in the 80s. I cant wait to hear what they will claim after people realize that they are full of cr@p with the "global warming" story.
..."It is a fact that the average surface-temparture of Mars has risen several degrees over the past 10 years or so (easily measured with a laser) "...
Would they argue... see human actitivity causes interplanetary global warming on MARS too!!! :lemon:
Oh --- and I forgot to mention that alghough ONE of Earths polar IceCaps may be melting.... Did you miss the news that the OTHER IceCap is growing?
Perhaps Earth is tilting slightly on its axis.... THAT I would beleive. (but MAN still aint the one that caused it!!)
It scare the bejesus out of me that some politicians actually think we should spend money to "solve" the "global warming" problem. They are so stupid. Why dont we also spend money to "solve" the problem of "water being wet", or "snow being cold" Either way, it is a losing propasition and I would prefer that my money was not spent on stupid stuff.
Oh, now you've said the "L" word and backslid on your science credentials. :P I think there are a few battery-powered liberal media radio stations somewhere is some cactus-strewn landscape somewhere, and perhaps a 4 -person volunteer low-wattage station in Berkeley, and a few aging hippies leafleting in Eugene Oregon, but other than that, there's no substantive liberal media. Five or six (I forget) huge corporations own ALL the major American media, and I doubt any of the CEOs are revolutionaries--LOL!
As for Man causing global warming, that's true, that is a controversial question, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is made up of scientists from 113 countries, finds a strong possibility that man is heavily impacting current global warming.
I'd say burden of proof is now on the skeptics:
Here's the 21 page report if you care to read it. I find it very interesting. Tell us what you think. No punches pulled on this one. They are pretty certain something's up and we're part of that something.
I'd like to send a copy to all the automakers in fact as it might stimulate imaginative engineering, like better EVs, Hybrids and Hydrogen cars. This is the strongest worded report IPCC has put out.
LOL - even the name "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" assumes that the climate is changing and somthing needs to be done about it.
Even a 4th grader should see through that ploy. Why even bother reading a report from such a "panel", I already know what their conclusions will be. Remember, I am old and I have seen this before. They can make it look official, but in the end, the results are predictable.
If there were such a thing as "Intergovernmental Panel on Barking Dogs".... would that mean somthing needs to be done about canines making noise?
Earth tilting slightly....hmmmm. You may have hit on the next big Crusade:
"Americans are so overweight they are causing earth to tilt".
In the meantime Al Gore has cornered the market on helium and mandates that we must breathe pure helium for 2 hours each day to offset excess weight...makes about as much sense as "fixing" global warming.
Many of the scientists that contributed data for the report have refuted the way the politicians compiled it. Some may be facts and some is fiction. All is done by an entity I have very little faith in. The UN is the body that ripped to World off for billions with the Iraq food for oil program. And you expect me to believe anything they say?
Most scientists now say the last 10 years is a cooling trend. That being the case how could man have anything significant to do with i?. We have not produced less CO2 over the last 10 years.
I am for burning less fossil fuel. Just getting past those eco wackos in the USA, that have blocked most of the vehicles built in the World that use less fuel.
As I am sure you are aware the Global Warming Cult have changed to Climate Change so they can push their snake oil in all kinds of weather. I'm shooting the first carbon credit sales person that comes to my door.
No, no, not KALX---I was thinking of KPFA. I wish I could stream it here so people could hear what REAL liberal media sounds like (aside from very dim due to the weak batteries).
Ah, so all the world's scientists are now on the suspect list? Hmmm, don't like the sound of that!
Politicians didn't frame this 21 page report. It's as it was written by the scientists.
Read it, it's interesting. Takes 15-20 minutes at best.
ANYWAY -- we gotta veer back to the topic of automakers & global warming or we'll get yelled at!
Don't you see the Big Three's lag in hybrid development and their consequent misplacement of product mix in general as a sign that they are out of step with developing technologies?
GEEZ now there is a WEAK station that just won't die. I think two guys hijacked the station 35 years ago, but no one remembered where they were located so they could give in to their irrational demands. Must be global warming!
Well, you had me going with KALX (just missed Hendrix singing Blue Suede Shoes).
But KPFA streams on the net too. Sounds like it's bluegrass night there.
[edit - Ruking, usually you can find the stream just by going to the web site; otherwise try Shoutcast.com or similar for 1,000s of stations worldwide.]
Thanks for the link. I can only get that OTHER school's ( Stanford's) 90.00 FM in these parts. I was pulling your chain on KPFA. Its pretty clear down here @ 94.10 FM.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is made up of scientists from 113 countries, finds a strong possibility that man is heavily impacting current global warming.
If your a student of history you will realize that the timeline is littered with the best scientists of their era being wrong. And I can certainly with a straight face standup and say "man is heavily impacting" as heavily is very subjective, and could be anywhere from 0.001% to 99.999%, without being a lie.
I'd say burden of proof is now on the skeptics.
No. In science proof is required of those proposing something. The FDA does not do testing; it reviews the testing presented. Similarly when cold-fusion was announced, the burden of proof is on the proposers.
I just saw a National Geographic show concerning the Vikings and Europe in the 1200-1600 time-frame and sudden climate change has been documented in pre-industrial ages.
Even today the amount of emissions from man is small compared to nature. The amount of energy we use is very small compared to the Sun's and other radiations that reaches the air and surface of the Earth. I think you need to stop thinking man is the omnipotent factor in nature; do a little research and look at the numbers on nature's emissions and energy, relative to humans.
Yeah, but any scientist that disagree with Global Warming, their jobs are threatened if they speak up about how they feel and the way they see the science. Some have even had their lives threatened because they spoke up about how they felt. Kinda scary.
Very similar to the scientific experts who kept Galileo locked up because they knew the Earth was flat.
The question isn't whether the Earth is heating or cooling, or staying the same (which really never happens if you measure the temperature precisely enough). We can look back thru the geological and historical records and see that there have been rapid temperature swings both ways. The question is is whether man is having a significant impact.
I have yet to see Al Gore or any of the other GW proponents show the mathematical equations of the variables that one could sit down and plug the numbers into. Does anyone know here where this equation resides that you or I can view it? I want to see that scientists understand how the oceans, air, sun, geothermal venting and biosystems all interact. For example - I want to see where scientists have mapped all the methane emission points around the world, and how much of this potent GHG is going into the air.
I want THE equation. Tie up all the loose ends of these variables, and show me that man's contribution is significant. Let's sail to the edge of the Earth and show me that it's flat.
Some have even had their lives threatened because they spoke up about how they felt. Kinda scary.
A lot more scientists have been shut out or lost their jobs for presenting data that refutes the man made GW theories, than those that join to cash in on the carbon credit windfall. There is a real lack of honest debate in the scientific community. What makes it very difficult is having a 100+ countries contributing money to scientists that will go along with the agenda. I have a real problem with UN conferences where dissent is considered heresy. The only consensus is in the minds of those that decided GW was man made before seeing any evidence.
Computers, even the best supercomputers are number crunchers solving an equation some scientist wrote. Garbage in = Garbage out. I would like to see whether they are feeding garbage in. You seem to be willing trust a political scientific group that may or may not be biased; as there is quite a bit of $ and fame involved here.
When $ and fame are involved, I don't trust human weaknesses.
Ever since multiple expert individuals and departments of the U.S. got up in front of us and made the case of WMD in Iraq, "absolutely-positive; verified by hundreds of scientists, witnesses, satellites and analysts ..." I have to reconsider these sort of issues. The case for GW may not be much different.
I certainly see no signs of any significant GW; and if there is any I see no compelling mathematical case that it is humans and not natural. All I see is a group of well-paid scientists and bureaucrats promoting their careers and finances. I hear their words (that and $1.00 will get you a cup of coffee); I see no proof.
I've seen glacier shrinkage in the last 25 years (Portage being the most notable one). But I'm not a scientist, in climate fields or otherwise. But they've certainly got my attention.
When $ and fame are involved, I don't trust human weaknesses.
Remember the YouTube high school science teacher link posted here a year or more ago? I guess the guy got his 15 minutes of YouTube fame, but he's teaching about greenhouse gas emissions for little fame, and being a teacher, certainly not much money. Are you going to focus on Gore or the greenhouse?
And how is that proof that it is (significantly) caused by man's industrialization?
"According to one theory, he says, the boundary walls were abandoned between 1300 and 1400 A.D., probably because the climate changed. It turned cold. Animals died, farms failed and people starved, leaving no one to tend the walls.
This hump on the ground offers a glimpse of just how much climate influenced the history of these early settlers."
And before that the climate had warmed and cooled. And there were no automobiles and industry, unless you want to blame climate change on the 100 million or so people lighting camp-fires.
This is really a general comment to the subject, so it is NOT a ping on Steve the host, but what on earth or what is the rule that says the earth should keep its glaciers packed, to adding to the pack!!!!! ??? ALL the evidence on or about the earth indicates the ONLY constant is CHANGE!!! This is true with or without MAN!!!!! Some change is literally in the blink of the proverbial human eye.
Like for example, since we are in the left coast (North American Continent) we are known for and are worried about earthquakes, the 1906 being the last "BIG ONE" of noteriety. Well, it is absolutely light weight worry wart status compared to a longer ago earthquake ZONE in the ST LOUIS, MO area specifically referred to as the MADRID fault line. (History Channel program I believe) It last shot off in 1811 (95 years before the famous SF Quake and the aftershocks lasted for literally 30 days !!!!!!!!! It affected folks for easily a 400 miles radius Yet who the HELL has heard of this INXS of 8.0 earthquake, let alone remember it.... compared to the 1906 SF Earthquake!!??
The other one that could literally wreck WORLD WIDE havoc is YELLOWSTONE National Park, which is a HUGE dormant volcano.It has for literally untolled centuries emitted "toxic (to us) gas 24/7. It is funny how a lot of environmentalists refer to this area as "PRISTINE WILDERNESS" threatened by MANS encroachment. My .02 cents is they are afraid of precisely the WRONG thing !!!???
And how is that proof that it is (significantly) caused by man's industrialization?
Well, I didn't say it was proof, but it has got my attention. Like Ingason says in your link, it's like a giant puzzle.
And what's really puzzling is how the science has become a public opinion industry as much as simply having scientists continue to try to figure out if emissions are a problem and if reducing them will have any effect on the climate.
Ruking, I lived in Memphis for a while decades ago, and the city fathers were worried then about the woefully inadequate building codes and what was going to happen when the Mississippi flowed north again thanks to the New Madrid fault. At least now I'm upwind from Yellowstone. :shades:
So when the Mississippi River did a 180 degree and flowed north did mudder natural send out impact studies???
Well with the 1811, 30 day aftershocks are the buildings all on rollers and shock absorbers? :shades: :lemon: Or... are there a lot of unreinforced BRICK buildings still hoping to dodge the inevitable BIG ONE :lemon:
But we can affect the volcano under there. Mankind is so powerful that surely we can pour enough water underground to put the volcano out. After all that is only a small part of the Earth, and we are so powerful and control our environment! The bad news for GW is that the steam that would be produced is much worse than CO2 as a GHG.
Sure we can have an effect on anything including continenetal drift, the Earth's rotation, and we can even change the amount of H2O by filling and sending rockets into space. There's a significant difference between having "an effect" and having "a significant effect".
what do you guys think about the news stated a few posts back on here regarding the apparent fact that the sun is heating us up more than the past? That really has a caveat on it, because, by the past how far back do we go for this "upward trend in the sun warming our Milky Way up?" The last 5 years? The last 10 years?
Well this is really not new news at all. It has been know for quite while. (for me since grammar school 52 years ago) It is news in that it has been ignored in the computations and probably only now being once again acknowledged?
Comments
Yes it is...but only when convenient.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Think how much more your bill would be if you were in GC. :shades: (global cooling)
The second part brings me to the point! More/HIGHER CONSUMPTION (all things being equal) does not point to global warming!!?? And keep in mind I am located in the heart of "a test case global warming area" !!
According to the party line, if global warming is going on, it damn sure should be going on here!?
And who said your local area was a global indicator? The climate may be warming or cooling; meanwhile some glaciers may be shrinking while others may be growing.
If more fuel use results in more emissions, then yeah, some people think that contributes to a warming climate.
We're having some disconnect here. Must be the frosty weather in Boise today. :shades:
This appears to be the car I am firmly setting my sights on for a competent "green" automobile. I am looking to get off of gasoline and ICE's. I have learned that internet reports stating that Pininfarina-Bollore wanted to sell the B-Zero but rent out the batteries are not true. That rumour has been shot down by Bollore! Excellent. I was dreading having to pay a "rent" on the batteries. Now we can all buy our own electric cars that include the batteries and be done with it! I can't wait for this car to hit the U.S. I would love to have one of the cars coming over in 2009 but I could wait until 2010 to buy one, too. I could easily drive the 7 hour drive to Los Angeles, CA, to purchase my Pininfarina-Bollore B0. I live in SE Arizona. 20,000 to 25,000 Euro equals what in USD? About $27,000 to $32,000? Anyone know for sure? Remember that the Obama rebate would take $7,500 off of the price of this car in America. I would be a good purchaser for this car because it has solar panels and I live in Arizona where it's so sunny all of the time.
Total charge time is only 5 hours! Whoa! Another thing that is so impressive with this manufacturer's electric vehicles is the report of the LeBlue cars (the B0's prototype with the same electric "engines") going 220,000 km's without any problems or without any maintenance! What's not to like here?
I'll be anxiously awaiting the 2009 Turin Auto Show March of 2009, then. And initial sales of the B0 are to be on the Internet, eh? I'm down with that, gentlemen. Count me in on this little 2010 Pininfarina-Bollore B0. This sounds like it's easily the smartest and the best looking all-electric car yet to market.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
NBC Universal made the first of potentially several rounds of staffing cuts at The Weather Channel (TWC) on Wednesday, axing the entire staff of the “Forecast Earth” environmental program during the middle of NBC’s “Green Week”, as well as several on-camera meteorologists. The layoffs totaled about 10 percent of the workforce, and are the first major changes made since NBC completed its purchase of the venerable weather network in September.
Among the meteorologists who was let go was Dave Schwartz, a Weather Channel veteran and a viewer staple due to his lively on camera presentations. USA Today reported that meteorologists Cheryl Lemke and Eboni Deon were also let go.
The timing of the Forecast Earth cancellation was ironic, since it came in the middle of NBC’s “Green is Universal” week, during which the network has been touting its environmental coverage across all of its platforms. Forecast Earth normally aired on weekends, but its presumed last episode was shown on a weekday due to the environmentally-oriented week.
Forecast Earth was hosted by former CNN anchor Natalie Allen, with contributions from climate expert Heidi Cullen. It was the sole program on TWC that focused on global climate change, which raises the question of whether the station will still report on the subject. Cullen’s future role at the network is not known.
If you're dissing the Irish the answer is 7. One to hold the light bulb and six to drink until the room spins.
(Relax PC Police, I'm as Irish as they come so it's OK for me to tell Irish jokes).
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Global warming is as real as real can be. The science of it is getting really dialed in, going from computer modelling (problematic, as you know) to more empirical data gathering.
It's a bit harder to pin down HOW MUCH of it is due to automobiles, I would imagine, but the science is getting much better at ascertaining how much of it is man-made.
I think any country that does not immediately start addressing this issue is doomed to extinction economically, not weather-wise. (that would take decades and decades) As this pertains to cars, it's obvious to me that the future lies in vehicles that will conform to global world standards that will have to be implemented. If American automakers decline to do this, then the Japanese and Europeans will, and we won't have an auto industry of any kind in 10-20 years IMO.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
What "standards" would that be? Hybrid sales are increasing, got the "Volt" type cars coming along.
Not to pick on the Chinese, but they aspire to more vehicles and they will soon match the 254.1 M US car volume and of course European Countries have pretty close to the same population. So if you add US 254.1 M and Euro 260 M and TBD 300 M Chinese volume (not to exclude other countries vehicle populations, you are talking a min of 814 M vehicles !!!!
I poached what I posted on another thread
..."Indeed the Big Three's recent "tribulations" have finally let the facts come to light that DEMOCRATS have ALL ALONG ( least 53 years!?) been major cheerleaders for quashing higher fuel standards, aka Michigan's House of Representatives and acknowledged DEAN (Democrat) The Honorable John D. Dingell. "...
link title
Indeed we don't even believe it
link title
Keep in mind the current standards are 27 mpg with a defacto 22 mpg American fleet wide.
This is not news to anyone, but the House, Senate, Executive Branch, State Governors, etc, etc, are THE democratic MAJORITY. So there is a min of 4 more years and probably another 4 year option for a total of 8 years of more of the same.
FUEL STANDARDS -- global warming is not conservative, or liberal or republican or democrat. Global warming is a national issue. You cannot pin global warming on a political party (not that you were, but just saying). Our sloppiness in environmental protection is like our sloppiness in budget and trade and SS and Medicaire deficits. We just didn't address the issues, we let them slide. Decade after decade, president after president. They are all to blame.
Chickens, here's your roost!
WORLD STANDARDS -- that's a good question. I threw that term out without really considering what that meant, but I suspect this next generation of automotive technology will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary for the next decade, and then perhaps revolutionary after that, as in hydrogen powered, etc.
It could be for instance, that some countries may not even allow imports of autos that do not conform to these world standards. Perhaps you can send a Volt to Europe but not a Corvette, or a MINI diesel hybrid to America but not a Range Rover.
Obviously "standards" will include much more than cars--it will have to be industries-wide.
Now this is common knowledge but Warren Buffet has been an investor in rail roads. DAH?? How is that related? Well funny, Mile or so long COAL trains are a very cost effective way to get coal to the ports.... for EXPORT.
Now if the new Secretary of State WILL be the "other half "of that famous tag team... well... draw your own conclusions.... Not to mention the Clinton Administration veterans the new President elect is seemingly tapping.
We can do 'business as usual' but we'll pay....no, our grandchildren will pay...a punishing price for it.
There's no "doom and gloom" about it. Facts are facts, they don't care what we believe or not believe to be true. Denying something doesn't make it false, and asserting it doesn't make it true, right?.
I mean, there's hardly a man left alive who would say for instance:
"I think we should let the Big Three make only large SUVs and pickups"
OR
"Now that gas prices are down, let's make all cars V8s"
of course not. Slowly but surely everybody gets on board with "basic real world".
The trick is not to panic and do something equally stupid in the OTHER direction.
I tell you the next 20 years are going to be very interesting in terms of the various "lifestyles" in different countries and how those will develop. Americans are going to have to learn to live differently----not worse, but different.
This is not to be contrary, even as it can be construed as contrary, BUT why NOT? If a V8 gets the new 2012 standard of 35 mpg or in the spirit of past exceptions 28.5 mpg?(same ratio as 27 mpg standards with defacto 22 mpg) (for example on the diesels in the news a frequent contributor posted a link to a twin turbo diesel V8 gets 45 mpg on race day and 70 mpg @ 65 mph)
So for example the following are in various stages of vilification (no particular order): ethanol, fuel cells, nat gas, bio diesel, bio mass, batteries, plug in electric, RUG, PUG, D2 E 85, air, water, solar, gee that about covers everything
If you believe the more radical proponents of your position we are ALREADY doomed. CO2 levels will continue to rise for decades even if we reduce our carbon emissions to ZERO (by the way that would require that all human life dies, but who cares right).
So if you really believe in global warming there is nothing we can do anyway.
As to AL Gore he is a snake oil selling hypocrite who wants us to all starve while he makes MILLIONS and has a carbon footprint as large as Bigfoot.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Yes sure, I do believe that any country who refuses to address global warming as an ECONOMIC issue is doomed to ECONOMIC extinction. It goes without saying. Why?
Clean tech, green tech, alternative energy, safe nuke, hydrogen power---any country that doesn't get to the front of the pack on these will suffer tremendously. How could it not?
As for being "doomed" in terms of human life, nobody can make such a claim with any hard evidence, because it hasn't happened yet!
We CAN see enormous ice-melting, species die-off, etc. right now right here, so that's evidence. We can't predict the future, however, we can only speculate upon it.
MAKING V8s -- Oh, so what if they got 35 mpg with pushrod V8s? It's old tech and therefore not adaptable to what is transpiring. IMO it's just "fighting the last war, not the current one". A '58 Studebaker got better mileage than 90% of today's cars do right now. That didn't make it the car of the future did it?
Truly the "crisis" is easy to solve. I just solved it in a previous post. There is really no will to solve it.
So if the future is a car that runs on water for example) , why aren't water powered cars being produced!!??? If part of the solution is 10% diesel why aren't we doing anything to stimulate 10% diesel passenger vehicle fleets? If three percent electric plug in cars are part of the solution why was it killed? ETC, ETC, ON and ON.
..."A '58 Studebaker got better mileage than 90% of today's cars do right now. That didn't make it the car of the future did it? "...
Well think of it...the system was quite alright with 90% of todays cars getting worse mileage than that, now weren't they!!?? Now if you were NOT alright with that it was slim pickens for the other 10%?
Further think of it, if you had a logistical system to keep a 58 Studee going, it would be exempt to run todays' highways as an historical vehicle.
It is a fact that the average surface-temparture of Mars has risen several degrees over the past 10 years or so (easily measured with a laser)
Since it is also a fact that the Mars temparture rise is caused by the SUN being hotter... and the Earth is irradiated by the very same sun.... intelligent minds can conclude that the Earths average temparture must have gone up too. (Also because of the sun)
Unless somone can convince me that MAN caused the surface-temp. of Mars to rise...then lets just forget the entire concept of MAN causing it here on Earth.
Intelligent minds also know that all this "carbon" which man is supposed to be releasing into the atmosphere has ALWAYS BEEN HERE on Earth. Over the past several-million years, plants have been taking it out of the atmosphere via photosynthesis . (This is essentually where crude-oil came from to begin with) The notion that MAN is somhow releasing carbon from nowhere into the atmosphere can only be beleived by somone who was not listening in 7th grade science class. I know I am old... but I think it was some physical " law" reguarding matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
SIDE NOTE: Anyone old as I can recall that the very same groups that are crying "global warming" today are the ones that claimed "Global IceAge" back in the 70s and "Hole in the Ozone" in the 80s. I cant wait to hear what they will claim after people realize that they are full of cr@p with the "global warming" story.
Would they argue... see human actitivity causes interplanetary global warming on MARS too!!!
Same agenda, different bottle for the snake oil. It is all about mind control of the masses. Put it on TV and the sheep will follow.
Perhaps Earth is tilting slightly on its axis.... THAT I would beleive.
(but MAN still aint the one that caused it!!)
It scare the bejesus out of me that some politicians actually think we should spend money to "solve" the "global warming" problem. They are so stupid. Why dont we also spend money to "solve" the problem of "water being wet", or "snow being cold" Either way, it is a losing propasition and I would prefer that my money was not spent on stupid stuff.
As for Man causing global warming, that's true, that is a controversial question, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is made up of scientists from 113 countries, finds a strong possibility that man is heavily impacting current global warming.
I'd say burden of proof is now on the skeptics:
Here's the 21 page report if you care to read it. I find it very interesting. Tell us what you think. No punches pulled on this one. They are pretty certain something's up and we're part of that something.
I'd like to send a copy to all the automakers in fact as it might stimulate imaginative engineering, like better EVs, Hybrids and Hydrogen cars. This is the strongest worded report IPCC has put out.
REPORT
Nope, both polar ice caps are losing ground, so says NASA:
Nasa Joins Gore Conspiracy
Well can we agree on this statement: "Man's industrial activities probably contributes to natural global warming?"
Even a 4th grader should see through that ploy. Why even bother reading a report from such a "panel", I already know what their conclusions will be. Remember, I am old and I have seen this before. They can make it look official, but in the end, the results are predictable.
If there were such a thing as "Intergovernmental Panel on Barking Dogs".... would that mean somthing needs to be done about canines making noise?
You dare dis KALX 90.7 FM in the dungeons of Dwinnelle Hall !!!??? Shame on you !
"Americans are so overweight they are causing earth to tilt".
In the meantime Al Gore has cornered the market on helium and mandates that we must breathe pure helium for 2 hours each day to offset excess weight...makes about as much sense as "fixing" global warming.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Most scientists now say the last 10 years is a cooling trend. That being the case how could man have anything significant to do with i?. We have not produced less CO2 over the last 10 years.
I am for burning less fossil fuel. Just getting past those eco wackos in the USA, that have blocked most of the vehicles built in the World that use less fuel.
As I am sure you are aware the Global Warming Cult have changed to Climate Change so they can push their snake oil in all kinds of weather. I'm shooting the first carbon credit sales person that comes to my door.
Ah, so all the world's scientists are now on the suspect list? Hmmm, don't like the sound of that!
Politicians didn't frame this 21 page report. It's as it was written by the scientists.
Read it, it's interesting. Takes 15-20 minutes at best.
ANYWAY -- we gotta veer back to the topic of automakers & global warming or we'll get yelled at!
Don't you see the Big Three's lag in hybrid development and their consequent misplacement of product mix in general as a sign that they are out of step with developing technologies?
But KPFA streams on the net too. Sounds like it's bluegrass night there.
[edit - Ruking, usually you can find the stream just by going to the web site; otherwise try Shoutcast.com or similar for 1,000s of stations worldwide.]
If your a student of history you will realize that the timeline is littered with the best scientists of their era being wrong. And I can certainly with a straight face standup and say "man is heavily impacting" as heavily is very subjective, and could be anywhere from 0.001% to 99.999%, without being a lie.
I'd say burden of proof is now on the skeptics.
No. In science proof is required of those proposing something. The FDA does not do testing; it reviews the testing presented. Similarly when cold-fusion was announced, the burden of proof is on the proposers.
I just saw a National Geographic show concerning the Vikings and Europe in the 1200-1600 time-frame and sudden climate change has been documented in pre-industrial ages.
Even today the amount of emissions from man is small compared to nature. The amount of energy we use is very small compared to the Sun's and other radiations that reaches the air and surface of the Earth. I think you need to stop thinking man is the omnipotent factor in nature; do a little research and look at the numbers on nature's emissions and energy, relative to humans.
The question isn't whether the Earth is heating or cooling, or staying the same (which really never happens if you measure the temperature precisely enough). We can look back thru the geological and historical records and see that there have been rapid temperature swings both ways. The question is is whether man is having a significant impact.
I have yet to see Al Gore or any of the other GW proponents show the mathematical equations of the variables that one could sit down and plug the numbers into. Does anyone know here where this equation resides that you or I can view it? I want to see that scientists understand how the oceans, air, sun, geothermal venting and biosystems all interact. For example - I want to see where scientists have mapped all the methane emission points around the world, and how much of this potent GHG is going into the air.
I want THE equation. Tie up all the loose ends of these variables, and show me that man's contribution is significant. Let's sail to the edge of the Earth and show me that it's flat.
A lot more scientists have been shut out or lost their jobs for presenting data that refutes the man made GW theories, than those that join to cash in on the carbon credit windfall. There is a real lack of honest debate in the scientific community. What makes it very difficult is having a 100+ countries contributing money to scientists that will go along with the agenda. I have a real problem with UN conferences where dissent is considered heresy. The only consensus is in the minds of those that decided GW was man made before seeing any evidence.
It's written down on the same page where gravity is explained. Hmmm, no equation there, no wonder I'm levitating. :shades:
Garbage in = Garbage out. I would like to see whether they are feeding garbage in. You seem to be willing trust a political scientific group that may or may not be biased; as there is quite a bit of $ and fame involved here.
When $ and fame are involved, I don't trust human weaknesses.
Ever since multiple expert individuals and departments of the U.S. got up in front of us and made the case of WMD in Iraq, "absolutely-positive; verified by hundreds of scientists, witnesses, satellites and analysts ..." I have to reconsider these sort of issues. The case for GW may not be much different.
I certainly see no signs of any significant GW; and if there is any I see no compelling mathematical case that it is humans and not natural. All I see is a group of well-paid scientists and bureaucrats promoting their careers and finances. I hear their words (that and $1.00 will get you a cup of coffee); I see no proof.
I've seen glacier shrinkage in the last 25 years (Portage being the most notable one). But I'm not a scientist, in climate fields or otherwise. But they've certainly got my attention.
When $ and fame are involved, I don't trust human weaknesses.
Remember the YouTube high school science teacher link posted here a year or more ago? I guess the guy got his 15 minutes of YouTube fame, but he's teaching about greenhouse gas emissions for little fame, and being a teacher, certainly not much money. Are you going to focus on Gore or the greenhouse?
In the news, Governors push climate agenda. (Chron.com)
And how is that proof that it is (significantly) caused by man's industrialization?
"According to one theory, he says, the boundary walls were abandoned between 1300 and 1400 A.D., probably because the climate changed. It turned cold. Animals died, farms failed and people starved, leaving no one to tend the walls.
This hump on the ground offers a glimpse of just how much climate influenced the history of these early settlers."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16835101
And before that the climate had warmed and cooled. And there were no automobiles and industry, unless you want to blame climate change on the 100 million or so people lighting camp-fires.
Like for example, since we are in the left coast (North American Continent) we are known for and are worried about earthquakes, the 1906 being the last "BIG ONE" of noteriety. Well, it is absolutely light weight worry wart status compared to a longer ago earthquake ZONE in the ST LOUIS, MO area specifically referred to as the MADRID fault line. (History Channel program I believe) It last shot off in 1811 (95 years before the famous SF Quake and the aftershocks lasted for literally 30 days !!!!!!!!! It affected folks for easily a 400 miles radius Yet who the HELL has heard of this INXS of 8.0 earthquake, let alone remember it.... compared to the 1906 SF Earthquake!!??
The other one that could literally wreck WORLD WIDE havoc is YELLOWSTONE National Park, which is a HUGE dormant volcano.It has for literally untolled centuries emitted "toxic (to us) gas 24/7. It is funny how a lot of environmentalists refer to this area as "PRISTINE WILDERNESS" threatened by MANS encroachment. My .02 cents is they are afraid of precisely the WRONG thing !!!???
Well, I didn't say it was proof, but it has got my attention. Like Ingason says in your link, it's like a giant puzzle.
And what's really puzzling is how the science has become a public opinion industry as much as simply having scientists continue to try to figure out if emissions are a problem and if reducing them will have any effect on the climate.
Ruking, I lived in Memphis for a while decades ago, and the city fathers were worried then about the woefully inadequate building codes and what was going to happen when the Mississippi flowed north again thanks to the New Madrid fault. At least now I'm upwind from Yellowstone. :shades:
Well with the 1811, 30 day aftershocks are the buildings all on rollers and shock absorbers?
But we can affect the volcano under there. Mankind is so powerful that surely we can pour enough water underground to put the volcano out.
Sure we can have an effect on anything including continenetal drift, the Earth's rotation, and we can even change the amount of H2O by filling and sending rockets into space. There's a significant difference between having "an effect" and having "a significant effect".
When will it end? Armageddon?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick