Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?

gagrice · July 2013

so we are now in agreement on that matter---great!

Possibly so. I am not a 7 day, 5000 year creationist. Too hard to answer too many questions. I don't have any problem being out in nature and believing someone much more powerful and wonderful than I am created all of it. I think the study of DNA has brought a lot of skeptics into the Intelligent design camp. Dr Collins being one of the more outspoken ones. However there are universities that would not allow a professor to put forth any sort of intelligent design theories. I find that very closed minded.

Mr_Shiftright · July 2013

Science, including the science of global warning is not concerned with belief systems.

Science deals only with the falsifiable. Sciencr exists to disprove its own theories if it can
Since belief systems cannot be proven false nor do believers wish to prove them false, they are not part of science

Mr_Shiftright · July 2013

Scientists use the word "theory" in a different way than we use it in common speech.

A scientific theory is the working hypothesis that attempts to explain an already observable phenomenon.

Then, this theory is put to the test--the idea being to disprove it, shake it loose, knock it down. One method is experimentation, and if the experimentation proves rather than disproves the theory, then the experimental evidence is put to "peer review" to see if the data can be replicated or supported by OTHER scientists who are attempting to knock it down.

The "theory" of evolution for instance, has withstood 150+ years of trying to disprove it. No one ever has, by scientific method.

With Global Warming it seems to me the 'theory' is in 2 parts: One, that the earth is heating up and Two, that made-made emissions are either the cause or an antagonist.

The first part is proven or disproven with historical data from the written record and from core-sampling going way back, and of course, from simple present day observation of the melting ice cap, rising ocean temperatures, carbon absorption, etc. I'm sure there are many other ways I don't even know about.

The second part is trickier, wherein the scientists have to use data from before and after the Industrial Revolution. It's tricky because even if we measure a higher rate of warming after the Industrial Revolution, we still aren't sure if this is causality or correlation.

If the rate of emissions per year and the rate of warming are more or less in sequence, increasing exponentially, then it is tempting to conclude that GW is man induced.

In other words, my understanding is that the RATE of temperature increase exceeds any "natural" rise in temperature as indicated by the historical record or the core sampling.

ANYWAY, the "theory" is still being tested vigorously, so we'll see how it develops!

houdini1 · July 2013

Correct. If the theory is still being tested, the game is not over.

Mr_Shiftright · July 2013

Well the first part of the theory IS game over, that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, faster than any historical sampling. So that's a done deal.

The second part, that man-made emissions is the PRIMARY cause, is still up for grabs.

The idea that mankind contributes to the accumulation of atmospheric gases is kind of a no-brainer. C02 is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases trap heat.

What the effect of that release of man-made emissions is, ultimately, might be difficult to predict by modeling.

all we really know at this point is that more energy is coming into the atmosphere (from the sun) than is going out (from the earth's escaping heat) and this imbalance has been measured.

But the cause of this imbalance? We don't know the "smoking gun" conclusively.

Some say the earth has not gotten much warmer the last ten years, but this is just cherry picking single points of data in a very noisy signal...the TREND says otherwise.

houdini1 · July 2013

Actually, the warming trend ended about 15 years ago. This is an admission made by Britain's Met in the fall of 2012. The media have confirmed the lack of warming, including the N.Y. Times which has stated that the warming stopped about 15 years ago.

There is such little understanding of the causes of long term climate change that anyone who says all the answers are all in and the game is over is just being dishonest.

Long before man could have possibly had any impact on climate there was a warm period much greater and longer during the middle ages. We will always have climate changes, they are cyclical, recurrent, and certainly unpreventable.

After you cut through all the BS and outright lies, at least 25% of the "experts" still believe that the cause of climate change is unknown and that changes to the climate are due to natural, normal cycles of the earth.

gagrice · July 2013

There is such little understanding of the causes of long term climate change that anyone who says all the answers are all in and the game is over is just being dishonest.

I had no problem with CC when it was in the realm of science. When it became political and the charlatans saw an immense amount of money to be filched from the people is when I became a total skeptic. I do not believe for a second that leaders like Gore and Obama honestly believe the trash they are spewing. This is not chump change we are being robbed of. We are talking $100s of millions. Already in the pockets of the criminals like Al Gore. If he was traveling around the country pushing his agenda in a Prius, I would say he is a honest environmentalist. When He flies in to San Francisco in his Gulfstream, travels to the venue in a Limo that remains running the entire time he is giving his speech, I don't buy his commitment to the planet. Those are not theories, they are facts.

Mr_Shiftright · July 2013

another straw man argument.

GW is definitely real, and it is a done deal. There is no serious debate any longer about the earth warming up, at least not from credible, credentialed, qualified scientists.

GW doesn't care about politics or the machinations of little men. It just keeps rolling.

Not to burden the topic, but here is the testimonial from just some of the world's most prestigious scientific organizations:

Statements from Scientific Organizations:

American Association for the Advancement of Science:
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society"

********************

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem"
*************************

American Geophysical Union
"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system  including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons  are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century."
*************************

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."

*****************************

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earths physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

*****************************
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."

gagrice · July 2013

You keep addressing the scientific data which I have little argument with. It is the political scams, and raping the public with those GW scams I have a problem with. I think you even admitted that man's contribution to GW is in question. While our president and his ignorant little minions act like man is the major cause of GW. I see NO legitimate defense for the Bozo of the Ozone Al Gore and his continued lies and half truths about CC. He is still the leader of the pack. He is not a scientist in any stretch of the imagination, yet he has cult like following. Even the UN IPCC report only claimed 15% for ALL transportation. So why is so much emphasis on that minute portion of the perceived problem? Of course we found that report to be highly flawed.

Mr_Shiftright · July 2013

More straw man arguments.

The facts are the facts, and the topic is about cars and GW.

I am totally convinced that man-made emissions are contributing to GW. I can't say they are the only cause of it.

As for Al Gore and whomever else, they have raised global consciousness on this issue, and whether by completely accurate data or not, people like him will win a place in history for that effort. Beethoven might not have been a very nice person, but the music is still good.

gagrice · July 2013

Beethoven did not scam the tax payers out of $billions of wasted dollars.

Mr_Shiftright · July 2013

what scam is that exactly?

I think the moon landing was wasted taxpayer dollars for instance. Does that make it a scam, or just spending in areas that some deem unnecessary?

stever · July 2013

So, you want us to sit back and do nothing? (dailytech.com)

That doesn't seem to be in the national interest either.

gagrice · July 2013

There's an elephant in global warming's living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.

The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.

With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

Mr_Shiftright · July 2013

One flaw in that argument, aside from it being an incomprehensible screed of innuendo. Or, as one person described the author " an emotionally incontinent ninth grader".

But nonetheless, back to the point.

Al Gore was, in fact, right about GW.

and by the way, Al and Obama can't "spend" any money. The people you elected spent the money, that being Congress. They sign the checkbook.

gagrice · July 2013

You are forgetting your higher utility bills as a result of the GW mandates in CA. You may not mind paying for NOTHING. I do. As far as the article's writer, it is unlikely you and I would agree on any writer. As All show bias one direction or the other. That is why this country is split down the middle. And becoming more and more divided by the day. I feel the eco nuts have destroyed the economy in CA and you are OK with that. If you are independently wealthy, that would explain it. Those that have it made don't mind screwing over those that are striving to get the brass ring.

houdini1 · July 2013

Too bad all these prestigious organizations have such a bad track record with their predictions, eh? According to them, all our coastal cities should be under water by now.

Like all the famous con men of old, they just keep rolling along, getting richer, moving their doomsday date further down the line while secretly laughing at all the masses of idiots who continue to believe and finance them.

As David Hannum said, "There is a sucker born every minute". All those in the GW cult prove the saying.

gagrice · July 2013

Just to show I have an open mind I will post an article written by a drinking buddy from the Arctic days. Steve is probably the foremost Polar bear scientists in the World. I believe what he says. We have spent many hours drinking and debating who is to blame for GW. My contention, if 95% of all species that have lived are now extinct, why do we pretend we can stop the trend? Is it our mentality that says there is no problem $money cannot overcome? I might agree with Steve and Al if the political wonks were not filling their pockets with millions of dollars of other people's money.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/are- -polar-bear-populations-booming

Those that find the polar bears a nuisance.

http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/dec12/polar_bears.asp

gagrice · July 2013

I wonder how many of those conspiracies will become reality, when Snowden tells all he has stored on those four laptops? I did not trust our governments long before guys like Snowden and Wikileaks started blowing the whistle.

That is exactly what I want US to do about GW. NOTHING. Clean the air, rivers, lakes and ocean. Quit trying to play god. I think the idiots we have running this state and Federal government believe they could have stopped the Ice Age.

fintail · July 2013

Look at the people who want to hang Snowden on spurious treason charges - they are definitely hiding something. None of them are people I'd trust.

What irks me about the GW boogeyman is why the west should commit economic suicide to deal with it, while the BRICs and friends are allowed to continue with business as usual. The globalist one-worlder's dream, race to the bottom.

gagrice · July 2013

The real sick part is so many idiot leaders signed onto Kyoto. And to my knowledge NONE have lived up the the Kyoto treaty. It was just another scam to steal from the gullible American tax payers.

Could this be true??

New EIA data shows USA inadvertently meets 1997 Kyoto protocol CO2 emission reductions without ever signing on thanks to a stagnant economy. Lowest level of CO2 emissions since 1994.

In 2012, a surprising twist and without ever ratifying it, the United States became the first major industrialized nation in the world to meet the United Nations original Kyoto Protocol 2012 target for CO2 reductions.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/usa-meets-kyoto-protocol-without-ever-embr- acing-it/

houdini1 · July 2013

Probably true because of Obama's manipulation of the EPA and their war on coal...at the taxpayer's expense.

gagrice · July 2013

No doubt, Obama's war on coal is going to devastate several states. It will raise electric rates, cause more unemployment with nothing to take its place. If it is a state that NG can be extracted they will not suffer as badly. End result more people below the poverty level, and on welfare. I know right today we in CA pay 2.5 times as much for our electricity as those on Coal power. Come up with a comparably priced alternative before you kill all those jobs and inflate the cost of electricity.

stever · July 2013

I think cheap natural gas is hammering coal (not to mention nuclear). NG prices are probably suppressing solar and wind expansion as well. Warren Buffett probably isn't too thrilled about empty coal cars on his trains.

texases · July 2013

Yes, it's cheap gas that's resulted in the US seeing the biggest drop in CO2 emissions of any country. Nothing to do with Obama's just-announced policies on coal, and, most importantly, NOTHING to with the myriad expensive government programs to try and promote expensive, inefficient, and, in many cases, just plain wasteful 'green' technologies.

That's my problem. Let's assume we want to reduce CO2 emissions because of GW. We make a HUGE amount of CO2, so it follows that we have to be VERY careful how we do it, or we could go broke and still fail. That's where today's government programs are: we ARE broke (just look at the EU), and the government programs (ethanol, huge subsidies for EVs, solar and wind) will break us AND do next to nothing to reduce CO2.

Natural gas is THE short term solution, back out coal production, meanwhile pursue nuclear power.

And we don't need a 'war on coal'. Just apply existing regulations to power emissions, and get rid of the nightmare that is mountain top removal. Low natural gas prices will do the rest.

As an EU researcher it, biofuels (as they currently exist) are a "crime against humanity". The US uses nearly HALF it's corn crop for ethanol, driving up corn prices world-wide. Europe uses both corn and wheat. And the drive for biodiesel resulted in mass destruction of rainforests in SE Asia to plant palm oil plantations. The GW impact of that may never be made up with biodiesel use, a true ecological disaster.

The 'law of unintended consequences' has no better case study than the world's missteps on GW.

stever · July 2013

Current nuke technology isn't there - it's insane to subsidize that industry to generate cheap power to run air conditioners for thirty years and then spend billions for untold decades keeping tabs on the poisonous waste. I'm amazed they are still working on the one in Georgia - glad I'm not a shareholder or ratepayer there. Although I may still wind up on the hook since it sounds like it could be Solyndra Two. (CS Monitor).

texases · July 2013

The waste from nuclear plants is really not that big an issue, we almost solved it with the depository in NV, but that's been NIMBY'd to death.

The large costs are still an issue, though.

stever · July 2013

Even if Yucca Mountain had already opened, can you imagine the train wreck moving the waste there? You think crude exploding in Quebec and spilling into the nearby lake and river was bad....

texases · July 2013

There's one place the government's spent a lot of money - nuclear container safety for trains and trucks. You can find lots of videos of huge flaming wrecks at high speed that demonstrate the safety of the containers. Really not an issue.

stever · July 2013

lol, you'll excuse me if (Fujiyama) I don't want to be (TMI) on the train or semi (Chernobyl) transport route.

texases · July 2013

Chernobyl is like being worried about the safety of a 1930 Ford. TMI, bad accident, nobody hurt. Fukushima, don't put a reactor in a tsunami threat area. There are clearly risks, as there are with ALL power sources. Wind power? Kill thousands of threatened raptors. Solar? Cover thousands of square miles of wilderness with collectors, at huge cost.

gagrice · July 2013

I'm with you. Natural gas as an interim to good clean safe Nuclear power. Reprocessing the fuel removes most of the storage risks. We need to get our heads out of the sand on energy. Wind and solar are purely tax havens and ripping off the public. Residential solar is fine and may or may not pay off. I don't think they will last the warranty period. And the homeowner will be SOL as the company will no longer exist. There are several solar arrays in my neighborhood that have all gone to pot. I will take pictures for the skeptics.

stever · July 2013

Maybe you'd like to store some of those "indestructible" tanks full of nuke waste on your acreage. (seattletimes.com).

Let me know when Price-Anderson gets repealed and that bit of corporate welfare goes away.

gagrice · July 2013

Those are weapons grade nuclear waste site. Not nuclear energy waste. That is not on my list of possible places to move. However they are protected as you pointed out by the Price-Anderson Act passed by a totally Democrat controlled Congress and signed by a president that was not sure if he was a Democrat or Republican.

As far as the people in the vicinity of Hanford. They live there on their own free will. That complex has been a nuclear site since I was born in 1943. Is it safe? Probably not real safe. The real question is what is safe. You walk across the street and get hit by a car you could be dead. That means that was an unsafe place to be for you at that moment. I would take my chances living near Hanford over any of the major cities in America.

gagrice · July 2013

PS
Don't eat any salmon out of the Columbia or it's tributaries.

stever · July 2013

Ditto the streams around Oak Ridge or Monroe MI or Westmoreland PA or Briadwood IL....

Really though, I don't know why Greenpeace and the rest spend so much time and money fighting nukes. About the time everyone gets complacent, another accident happens and swings more public opinion against nukes. Looks like we're averaging about 3 or 4 major ones a decade now since the 50s. (Wiki).

texases · July 2013

And I bet the total loss of life from all of them is less than the lives lost in one year from coal mining and use. We really need to understand the risks of all the sources we use.

gagrice · July 2013

My fish today is limited to Costco fresh Tilapia from farms in Costa Rica. I miss my seared Ahi. Just not worth the risk. Canned Tuna is a rarity in our diet. And it was pole caught off the NW coast. Last salmon we had my son brought us. He says Alaska salmon fishing is in the toilet due to commercial limits being raised too high. I need to get my aquaponics system up and running to have safe food to eat. GW is the very LEAST of our problems.

gagrice · August 2013

How will the warmers spin this one?

Unprecedented July Cold  Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record

http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/unprecedented-july-cold-arctic-sees-shortest-summe- r-record/

Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that, says Steven Goddard website.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/03/unprecedented-july-cold-arctic-sees-short- est-summer-on-record-normally-the-high-arctic-has-about-90-days-above-freezing-t- his-year-there-was-less-than-half-that/

gagrice · August 2013

And on the other side of the Equator, equally devastating news. We are headed for an ice age, and I blame it on all the yokels driving Prius. :P

Exclusive: Frost damages nearly fifth of Brazil sugar cane crop: analyst

Wednesday Jul 31, 2013 | Reese Ewing for Reuters

SAO PAULO (Reuters) - Last week's frosts in southern Brazil damaged nearly a fifth of the unharvested cane crop in the principal growing region, an event likely to cut sugar exports from the world's largest producer, agriculture research company Datagro said Wednesday.

Severe early morning frosts on July 24 and 25 in three of Brazil's top sugar-cane states devastated large areas, Datagro President Plinio Nastari told Reuters. The cold blight comes at the peak the crushing season when more than half of Brazil's expected record 590-million-tonne crop remains unharvested.

Although Nastari was unable to say how much mill-output will drop or reduce a global sugar glut that has pushed prices to three-year lows, he said 65 million metric tons, or 18 percent of the cane standing uncut in fields was damaged by the frost.

Frost in tropical Brazil has long been a weather risk for global coffee markets. This frost, though, is the first in recent history that threatens to significantly cut sugar output and it's impact will likely extend into the next harvest too.

stever · August 2013

"Automakers have sold about 298,000 hybrids, which alternately run on gasoline engines and battery power, so far this year.

And while electric vehicles may be considered greener and more glamorous, hybrids have quietly entered the mainstream of the American auto market.

Today, more than 40 conventional hybrid models are available, from mass-market automakers like Toyota and Ford to luxury brands like BMW and Mercedes. Hybrids account for about 3 percent of overall industry sales, with the market-leading Toyota Prius cracking the Top 10 list of best-selling passenger cars."

A Hankering for Hybrids (NY Times)

In climate news that affects an old friend of mine in the tourism biz, Harding Icefield shrinks, Exit Glacier retreats (thesewardphoenixlog.com).

gagrice · August 2013

The fact that Yosemite was formed by glaciers that are long gone would contribute to the theory of gradual warming for the last million years. The hardest thing for me to accept is man being a significant part of the equation. We are producing more GHG every year yet the climate has NOT followed the same pattern. I can tell you I am glad I am no longer in the Arctic. Those that are have endured worse winters in just the last 7 years since I left. And now only 45 days above freezing. I am sure there will be some villages that don't get their much needed fuel delivered by barges.

As for hybrids. They are becoming more main stream. Except the Volt. I see it is not selling as well as last year. How is the plugin Prius selling?

gagrice · August 2013

Just anecdotal observation via Weather Underground. Other than a 3 week period of normal 90s weather in July, we are enjoying low 80s for the foreseeable future. On average over the last 10 days we have been 4-6 degrees below normal both day and night.

houdini1 · August 2013

Plus no mention from the media of the record setting ice sheets covering Antarctica.

Anecdotal wise, it is almost 11 AM here in eastern Kansas and it is 68 degrees. Unheard of. The high today is forecast to be in the 70's.

Usually, at this time of year, we are parched, dry, everything is dried up, and it is 100 degrees plus. Not this year. Everything is as lush and green as it was back in early June. I would have said May...but it was still snowing then.

For the first time in memory, farmers are complaining about too much rain.

texases · August 2013

The hybrids that are making a difference are the 'regular' ones, not the plug-ins. We'd save much more gas installing a Leaf's worth of batteries in 10 hybrids...

gagrice · August 2013

August 13, 2013 2:16 pm

Not a single person showed up at the Georgetown waterfront Tuesday for a climate change agenda event put on by Organizing for Action, the shadowy nonprofit advocacy group born out of President Obamas 2012 campaign, the NRCC wrote in its blog.

The event page for the Climate Change Day of Action Rally disappeared after rainy weather appeared to drive away whatever people planned to attend. The embarrassing showing follows the news that only one volunteer stayed for an OFA Obamacare event in Centreville, Va., last week to work the phones:

http://freebeacon.com/ofa-gets-zero-attendance-for-climate-change-rally/

gagrice · August 2013

What Global Warming? 2012 Data Confirms Earth In Cooling Trend
August 13, 2013 - 12:16 PM

http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/07/noaa-confirms-model-defying-global-temperatur- e-stagnation-2012-was-among-coolest-in-21st-century/

gagrice · August 2013

Very hard to push the GW agenda when the weather does not cooperate. Today was the first day of normal day time highs this month. We are still 10 degrees below our over night low average. Time to scrap the GW plan.

Its mid-afternoon in mid-August and, under full sunshine, Washington, D.C. is just 77 degrees. The average high for August 14 is 87.

Today currently ranks as tied for the 4th coolest August 14 on record dating back to 1929.

This mornings low of 62 degrees ranks as the 11th coolest since 1929, seven degrees below normal. The last time it was this cool in August was August 31, 2009 notes CWGs Rick Grow.

Prior to August 2009, youd have to go all the way back to Aug 13, 2006 to find a colder low (61) [at DCA], Grow says. Today, tomorrow and Friday are on track to be the coldest three consecutive August mornings since 2004, which featured lows of 62 (6th), 58 (7th), and 59 (8th).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/08/14/how-unusu- al-is-this-cool-weather-in-washington-d-c/?hpid=z4

houdini1 · August 2013

Same type of weather in KC. Mid 50's this morning with an expected high of 80. Low humidity and full sunshine. Just about perfect...and 10 to 12 degrees below normal.

I think about 90% of our citizens know that GW is a scam. The warmers who are still pushing GW have a financial interest and want something for free. Then there is always a few misguided folks who will fall for anything.

gagrice · August 2013

There are also those that just cannot accept the fact that scientists are greedy human beings like the rest of US. It makes it easier to slightly twist the facts if your grant or paycheck are involved. Which most of the time they are. For example:

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell today challenged her employees to take an active role in the moral imperative to address climate change.

I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior, she said.

Fourth, when the leader of an agency talks like this, its not an off the cuff remark between friends, it is an admonishment at best, a threat at worst, designed to tell the employees of Interior that they best damned well toe the line in believing in Hotcoldwetdry, because dissent will not be tolerated.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/08/interior-department-head-n- o-climate-change-deniers-allowed-2690304.html

Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles