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
When a big spike like that going up and down in each cycle, the exact peak of old data is simply missed because we do not have day-to-day or even year-to-year temperature reading from 135k years ago. We end up averaging hundreds if not thousands of years to establish a data point for those years . . . and that low frequency of data collection is what's missing the high frequency components in the Fourier Transform, and effectively stripping the past peaks from the graph.
All that graph really tells us is that both temperature and CO2 levels go up and down dramaticly (the exact peak can be nearly infinite for all we know, due to too low frequency in data collection 135k years ago, when the last peak approximately took place), long before there were cars, or even human. We'd better develop our economy, skills and technology as best as we can to cope with come-what-may. Having one of our hands tied behind our back is not going to help.
As for the question of whether to do something about it or to do nothing, that's an important question, but is probably outside the scope of this topic. More germaine and fundamental is the question of whether there really IS a problem and it's quite clear that there are many in denial on this.
Wringing ones hands and passing legislation forcing us to all drive a Yugo, is sheer ignorance. Of course we would have to exempt all the stalwarts of our government that "NEED" to have a higher standard of living than the little people.
While I'm not generally with you on GW you are spot on here. You don't make good decisions in a state of hysteria whether it is massively retolling industry of trading in the Expedition on a Prius because gas went up this week.
hysteria=bad
Ok, we got past that hurdle, thank goodness.
Now. There seems to be a problem, what should we do? Something? Nothing? Something in-between?
gagrice: ...passing legislation forcing us to all drive a Yugo...
Another point of agreement, boy we're on a roll:
Yup, let's not do that. At least pick something we have enough of to go around.
And...I personally reject those theories that link "wringing of hands" with CO2 level. No way, I say.
If a problem exists work on a solution that is practical. If that means moving further inland or building a dike...
Are you only interesting in actions after all the horses are out of the barn?
"President Bush's sudden conversion last week from skeptic to global warming warrior was probably best summed up by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who observed: "Nobody can ignore the question of climate change." link
I guess the "flip-flop" took ~6 years in this case, so that doesn't seem too sudden or hysterical (pols can't really change their mind right, they can only flip-flop?)
I haven't seen any details of the new climate change strategy that directly relates to auto emissions.
Advequityguy mentioned the "global warming religion" the other day. There's going to be a wave of news on Thursday when the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee meets to hear "An Examination of the Views of Religious Organizations Regarding Global Warming."
That should make good theatre, but isn't the video conferencing technology getting good enough to let all these witnesses participate from their home communities instead of flying and driving to DC?
Even better would be to make our representatives meet via video and don't let them congregate in DC, where they are easy targets for all the lobbyists who otherwise wouldn't trek to Pocatello or Tupelo to wine and dine our Senators. But that's a different rant.
If theoretical treatise of signal processing is too much, here's a concrete sample to chew on: if we take temperature in a New Mexico desert, say the daily temperature fluctuation is 120 degrees in summer afternoon, 60 degrees in summer night, so 90 degrees for average temperature on the summer day ; 40 degrees in winter afternoon, and -20 degrees in winter night, so 10 degrees for winter day average. If you plot the daily average temperature (ie. reducing sampling frequency from hourly to daily; in other words, increasing graduality from by the hour to by the day), it will be a function going up and down between 90 degrees and 10 degrees, missing both the 120 and -20. That's what's happening to the graph that you presented. There could have been a few decades or a few hundreds of years period with CO2 spiking up to 500ppm, then spike back down with the same slope as the rest of the graph that you are showing, and get missed altogether every single time simply because the decades-long or 100-year long spike get buried in the averaging with much lower CO2 values over thousands of years that co-locate in the same data point.
Please refer to my previous post for a more thorough and scientific analysis of the data sampling principle.
To you, perhaps
Your example of air temp fluctuations is rather fatuous. Air temps can change easily, global CO2 concentrations do not.
Please refer to my previous post for a more thorough and scientific analysis of the data sampling principle.
It's way beyond the scope of this topic.
What to do may cause some disagreement. I think cutting the CO2 levels by the amount laid out in Kyoto is about as doable as moving everyone out of NYC to avoid drowning.
I do agree on cutting CO2 emissions by using less fossil fuel is a good idea. I don't think we are ready for any significant cuts currently. We have come to a level of comfort that will be hard to give up. Downsizing our homes and our vehicles will only come about when that is all we can afford. I have a feeling we are due for a recession. That in itself will cut CO2. The sad part for the USA is the loss of middle class that will go along with a deep recession. I am not real optimistic about our future. And Global Warming is a very small part of the picture. Take a close look at France and Holland to see what we will be facing sooner than later.
Sampling theorem is the crux in understanding what that graph means. Too bad you can't be bothered with the basic signal processing theorem that is fundamental to understanding the data.
Their graph is "backwards", lol.
The obvious solution to this mess is to make cars that run on carbon dioxide and exhaust oxygen.
Never said it didn't.
...far more dramatic than air temperature change in the desert...
There are far more dramatic examples of percent change everwhere. What's the relevance? It takes relatively little energy to affect the temp of air. To change the global CO2 % is not so trivial. The analogy is flawed.
Sampling theorem is the crux in understanding what that graph means.
Sorry, I don't think so.
If you're saying that the graph needs an asterisk, then maybe someone who does subscribe to Science can find it.
Seriously though, let's get to the facts of the discussion instead of personal jibes. If you find fault with the signal processing theorem that I mentioned or my application of it, I'm all ears.
me: One of the problems I see with all these reports is that you frequently see "I/we believe ..." coming from the scientists. These are scientists who "believe" in the models they created for themselves. Its's great for scientists to theorize and believe, but when have scientists become so vocal about beliefs instead of PROOFS. PROOF is the basis of science; belief is the basis of religion.
But whether we have belief or proof, I think a lot of people are assuming GW is a problem. If you think the current climate is optimum, I guess it is a problem. Frankly, I think the climate is cold. So I really don't get upset about GW if it does exist. If it does exist everyone's warned many decades in advance to start relocating from the coastal areas.
I just don't see anyway you're going to stop the increase in CO2. It would be more fruitless than just Saying No to drugs, or to ask al-Qaida to be nice. If you strongly believe in GW, whatever scenario of global change you see, you should be making decisions on where you live and such, to adapt to the change. I'd bet you could get a good deal on land in central and northern Canada. And there's plenty of room out in the Dakotas.
As far as whether the atmosphere can change quickly - certainly. We do not live in a linear, nonchaotic world. There are many events that can change the atmosphere quite suddenly - comet impacts and volcanic activity are 2 examples. or a climate change might even be triggered by something like the Gulf Stream having shut down.
Well, yes and no.
First off, there is no "proof" that GW is caused by humans. Nor that current CO2 levels will cause any of the various scenarios depicted by various scientists. Nor is there proof of evolution, nor is there proof that gravity exists.
However, the study all of these concepts fall under the guise of science, as theories.
I think a lot of people are assuming GW is a problem....
And a lot think it's not. That's not really as important as whether there is a reasonable basis to those assumptions.
I just don't see anyway you're going to stop the increase in CO2.
That doesn't mean there aren't ways to address it. We're still grappling with whether there is a problem and what will the effect (if any) be.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
Next we're going to define "good style" in automotive terms. :shades:
I'm sorry, but the rigors of modern science really do not permit this kind of pseudo-religious argument. Gravity is witnessed every second with the sattelites we have in space, as they beam down GPS info etc.. We also witness evolution in our daily lives in the form of ever changing roach trap formula and flu vaccins. Natual selection actually fits in quite well with the view of a naturally non-linear and chaotic world/universe that any species is at the mercy of. The human-centric GW theory actually smacks of the same kind of self-important mentality that leads to creationism.
My thought is that while global warming cannot be proved... why take the chance? Why gamble that it is all a part of the natural cycle of the earths heating and cooling? For our childrens children sake, that is one gamble I would not want to take. I agree, to wait and do nothing(or very little) is a mistake.
Start taking the necessary steps to reduce CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases. Carpool, recycle, insulate... take individual responsibility for keeping our planet healthy.
Sure we can discuss that nothing is proven; just like you can't prove that - this post was actually written, or that it actually exists (you're imagining it!).
We (U.S) are only 5% of the world's population. What do you tell the average Chinese and other emerging economies about using energy? Do you think the average person in the world is not going to want to live some portion of our lifestyle. Don't you think every person on the Earth is going to want the TV and car, and chance to travel like we have? Do you think the U.S. will willing come down to the average Chinese person's lifestyle, just so they don't want to increase to a fair level with us?
If we want to match the typical resident of we'd probably have to reduce our energy usage 80-90%.
This is just like saying "Just Say No to Drugs", or "Make Love, not War".
Yeah, I saw it. :shades:
You guys are killing me. First you send me chasing after a dozen nobel laureates (or soon to be some) trying to discern what the heck they are saying, and today I'm sidetracked on some "proof" that gravity doesn't exist - we are in fact on a sphere hurtling through the space-time continuum riding on some super fluid.
And I thought trying to keep up with some 300+ models of cars in the US was tough. :P
Lol, and you, yours. I guess it's called the Gravitational Theory for our amusement.
Gravity is witnessed every second...
Yup, and we witness the sun 'rising' every day, too. Guess that proves the sun orbits us
Ok, guys, I give you permission to have your own definition of theory
China is well aware of the issue, and they say that they will undertake some steps to reduce GW emissions, but they claim they are developing and we (who put most of the extra CO2 there) should take the initial onus. Hard to argue, really.
Do you think the average person in the world is not going to want to live some portion of our lifestyle.
There's what we want, and what we need to do. That's a no-brainer, and the reconciliation is big problem in the US and also in the world at large. Heck, there's very little here on TH
If we want to match the typical resident of [China]...
We probably don't. There are other available points on the spectrum.
[Imitating Mulder] You have seen the apple fall with your own eyes. How many apples need to fall before you believe in this surreal and sinister force of gravity?
I know that brightness has tried. Let me try:
Historical CO2 levels (going back 10's and 100's of thousands of years) are typically determined based on ice core data.
The data is NOT precise enough for scientists to determine the CO2 level in the year 123,472 BC. Therefore, they can't PLOT the CO2 level for the year 123,472 BC. The data isn't even precise enough to determine the average CO2 level over any particular decade or any particular century (once you go back over a few thousand years).
Which means that the data that is plotted is the AVERAGE CO2 level in a period of several hundreds of years. Meaning that they have NO IDEA what the PEAK values were over those time periods. At ANY of the various spikes in CO2 levels occurring 1000's of years ago, there's no way to know if the CO2 level was substantially higher or not for a few decades simply because the methods we have available AREN'T PRECISE ENOUGH to make that determination on such a small time scale.
NOW THEN.....take another look at your chart.
You will (hopefully) notice that it goes back OVER 400,000 years. Trying to plot even a 40 year period would represent only 1% of 1% of the total time scale. You will also (hopefully) notice that CO2 and temperature levels showed remarkably regular periods of 'peaks' occurring roughly every 100,000 to 110,000 years. In fact, according to YOUR chart we are currently IN one of the naturally occurring peak periods.
Nope. The sun can be witnessed by an earth-bound observer to be "rising" from the horizon due to earth's self-rotation, therefore rising sun is no proof of sun orbitting the earth, just like rising CO2 level or temperature is no proof of humans being the reason, or that their levels are highest ever in any period of past where we do not have the same kind of graduality of data collection that is comparable to the entire duration of the claimed ahistorical spike.
Notice what I wrote about the evidence of Gravity, the GPS sattelites. These are not only geo-synchronous sattelites that can only stay up there in a fixed spot (relative to earth's surface) due to gravity but also atomic-clocked accurately enough to detect the effect of the earth's gravitational well. If the gravity didn't exist, the whole GPS system wouldn't be working.
In terms of planet temperatures, one could clearly argue that:
1. proximity to a solar heat source is the number one controlling factor.
2. planet tilt and spin rate strongly control the solar heat dispersal.
3. chemicals that absorb light strongly influence climate (isn't it Venus that has the high CO2 levels that make the surface hot?).
All of the counterarguments relayed here are more or less lawyer diversion tactics. Something along the lines of "if I can prove that Albert Einstein had an extramarital affair, than all of his theories must be nonsense and discredited because of his adultery." (Note - I am not comparing Albert Einstein to Al Gore or any other global warming advocate).
1. Far more trees were removed when the glacial ice covered half the North American Continent, reaching all the way down to New York City . . . in other words, no tree in Canada, New England, Up state, or the Midwest.
2. Far more trees were removed, again, when North America was settled by Native Americans, who burned down entire forests to make room for buffalos, on which their livelihood depended.
3. Far more trees were removed, yet again, when North America was settled by European settlers, who practiced small lot intensive farming and sheep herding. The overwhelming majority of New England trees are replants after the British Royal Navy took the original virgin forest for ship building . . . just like they had done to Britain, several times over.
4. Einstein was a genius, but he was not born early enough to be in a place to predict atomic theory.
5. Historical temperature record does matter, because the whole theory about humans driving this planet hotter than it ever was falls complete flat if the plaet was warmer before there ever was human being.
6. For what it's worth, trees can not even begin to compare to oceanic algae in terms of CO2 sink function. All the CO2 that trees ever absorb shows up as plant mass; old trees don't even grow much, so it can't possibly be absorbing much CO2.
7. Even the algae can not compare to the ocean itself, and the limestone formation/subduction at the bottom of the ocean, in terms of CO2 absorption capacity.
Now here is the real biggie for us car lovers:
8. Subducted limestone mixed with water under high temperature and high pressure conditions that are common in the earth's upper mantel can produce hydrocarbon! That may well be the fundamental source of carbonaceous fuel (natural gas, oil and coal). So the burning of carbonaceous fuel may just be the most efficient way of utilizaing geothermoal, gravitational energy (earth's upper mantel being constantly energized by the earth-moon interaction), and radioactive energy (redioactive decade inside the planet), the three main energy sources for the high temperature and high pressure inside the planet.
Once we recognize that the planet has undergone temperature swings far in excess of the 1-2 degrees that are projected for the next 100 years (projected, BTW, by the folks who cannot predict tomorrow's weather and never will), we MUST realize that warming and cooling are not only natural, but unstoppable...
But that will not stop the zealots from passing laws to shut down industry, force 200 mpg Kenworth tractor trailers (as tho passing a law will make it so), and make forest fires illegal because wood is destroyed and carbon is released, even tho forests have been burning for MILLIONs of years...
That is why I am afraid of alarmists and zealots who fail to acknowledge that the virtual definition of nature is to CHANGE, and we are observing the occurrence of that natural change...to actually believe that Man is that powerful is beyond absurd, when Nature can lift a continent in an hour and create or destroy North America in a heartbeat, and we think we will affect the ozone hole by spraying a few cans of paint with CFCs...
Your beliefs do not scare me, but the silly laws you could pass in your arrogance scare the daylights out of me...
And Brightness, one more thing to add to your excellent points about the trees; There are more trees in the US today than at any time in the recent past.
BTW, I'm getting 19.5 mpg around town in my 4300 lb. 4runner which I need for work, while the Chinese are building one coal fired power plant a week.
DQ
Meanwhile, the gleanings here seem to indicate that GW is real, it may not be man-made and cars may not be the biggest contributor to GW right now anyway. And even if cars were a major cause, no one either sees the need, or is going to have the will, political or otherwise, to do anything about it.
Get back to us in a few years when you figure it all out, Gary. :shades:
So, the alarmists and zealots as you call them, are going to ask for the moon, but they'll settle for something more down to earth.
BTW, the Rene Descarte approach of cynical "what-if, just to be safe" towards faith matters doesn't really work; it suffers from the following logical conundrum: how do you know the real almighty doesn't get mad at you for bowing down in front of the fake idol that you are worshipping? :-) Likewise, how do we know global warming is a worse problem than global freezing-[non-permissible content removed]-off?? In fact, if history is any guide, warming periods coincided with prosperity, and cooling periods coincided with poverty, war, diesese and human misery. The prescriptiive solution for the two fears are diametricly opposed to each other.
1) The Earth's climate and geography are constantly changing, and you need to accept and adapt to change.
2) Right now mankind is fairly weak. We do not have the power to stop a single storm, stop an earthquake, or the continents from moving, stop a comet ... We are at the mercy of whatever nature throws our way, and nature really is ambivalent about us being on the earth. Nature is not "warm and fuzzy". Humanity can not destroy the Earth. If humanity dies off the earth will go on fine, just as it did after the dinosaurs.
3) It is idealistically correct to err on the side of caution, so that we don't kill ourselves off. It is correct for society to want to conserve. But when you look REALISTICALLY at how people and society behave, there is no answer on HOW you get people to stop increasing CO2. You can come up with all the conservation ideas you want, but if carbon based fuels are available, and there are not sufficient alternatives, then they will be consumed.
4) I believe any great reduction in energy conservation in this country would throw the world into an economic depression. Let's say we ask everyone to cut back driving 50% next year. So people don't take vacations, shop less, factories decrease production, less trucks are then on the road, we don't drive to movies, sporting events, don't go to restaurants ..., the refineries slowdown, fuel shipments are cut. Also - we build smaller houses, that are faster to build and have less "stuff" in them, cutting into the labor and materials needed. I could see a depression occurring from this.
5) Our government and society want economic growth, and all else being equal, that makes us use more energy, and right now that's mainly carbon-based. This is really a global issue as well.
I think that the wise course is to build efficiencies into everyday life rather than some sort of major curtailment of activity. Much of this is underway as we speak and is really the market doing its thing than anything else. I'm talking about hybrid vehicles and diesels coming soon. The local utilities are offering all sorts of incentives to use less - like paying for part of a new high efficiency furnace.
There are lots of things that won't hurt a bit and others that would be nearly undetectable that would do the trick. You want to help the economy while using less fossil fuel? Next time you go pleasure shopping o with a friend. Not only will you move two people on the gas for one but you'll egg each other on and spend more.
See? Everybody's happy - except maybe your wife.
Just because a position is a compromise doesn't mean that what gets passed won't be absurd...
1. All the jetting around world and mortorcading disrupt the economic life of the place where the gathering of the good-for-nothings is taking place;
2. The gathering and legislating is a huge waste of energy and tax dollars, both of which have to be extracted from the real economy.
3. Hopless agreements like Kyoto that can never be implemented make a farce out of international treaty agreements.
Comes to think of it, the last item may not be such a bad thing :-)
The really bad thing is actually setting precedence for political machination should there be a real natural catastrophy . . . like you mentioned "unless flooding innundates the shores within the next few months" . . . the knee-jerk blame-another-human response will be just as tragic as stoning of witches and fornicators after any and all natural disasters that took place throughout most of human history. The blame-human GW theory follows from a long religious tradition of human sacrifices.
Like I noted before, I don't think global warming can be proved to be the result of mans doing. The planet has been here far too long to be looking at temperature or CO2 fluctuations. I still maintain one should take the better safe than sorry approach. And that does not mean having everyone go out and live in tepees and start riding horses instead of SUV'S.
Can a lot more be done individually and corporate wise. Sure. I think we're headed in the right direction, but there is room to do more without disruption to the economy... which seems to be your main concern.
me: Not really. There are what - 200 million private vehicles on the road today? The vehicles on the road today are not going away anytime soon - figure 10 to 15 years. It will be a long time before diesels and hybrids replace all the vehicles we have now and what is being designed. How many diesels and hybrids are being built each year? Do the math. By the time we get enough diesels and hybrids or whatever, natural oil production will be declining. And you may raise mpg 35%, but I bet there are 20% more vehicles on the road.
The same with housing and our lifestyles; you can start building smaller houses and houses closer to offices, and such, but it will take many, many years to replace what we have now.
If the worst-case GW scenarios are true, we need to drastically reduce CO2 emissions now, because the warming effect lags behind the CO2 emissions by a few decades.