Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
6840 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2009 at 2:33 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: gagrice (Apr 10, 2007 1:18 pm) Not so much in 2007. As Ahnold said in 2005, "The debate is Ovah." There are vastly more studies and credentialed scientists now who have data supporting AlGore's view than there were a few years ago. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas (most everyone believes it is) and cars and manufacturing operations which are geared toward creating things which humans use create CO2 and it adversely affects the global climate, then cars DO contribute to the problem. How muchso is the question.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 10, 2007 1:23 pm) I don't see any plan laid out that will not be economically disruptive. No country that has signed on to Kyoto has lived up to the treaty. That should tell you something. Japan is trying and is way behind their goal. Kyoto was ill conceived and a political tool, nothing more. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 10, 2007 1:23 pm) Yep, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is water vapor. And water vapor contributes FAR more to the 'greenhouse effect' than does CO2. Which begs the question: why the heated debate over man-made CO2 emissions? Why no debate over man-made water vapor? Has the amount of WATER VAPOR in the atmosphere changed perhaps?
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Apr 10, 2007 2:25 pm) You know it has. Melting snow produces water vapor. More snow melts because the temps are hotter. Are autos a considerable cause?
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 10, 2007 2:31 pm) Very good. But, if WATER VAPOR is a much greater component of the greenhouse effect, is it POSSIBLE that NATURAL processes leading to additional water vapor in the atmosphere has a GREATER impact on global warming than manmade CO2 (which has a much lesser effect in the greenhouse effect). In other words, could a NATURAL PROCESS (perhaps, increased solar radiation) lead to increased evaporation rates, leading to increased water vapor, leading to a greater greenhouse effect? And, if water vapor is a BIGGER COMPONENT of the greenhouse effect, and if we feel than man is at least partially responsible for water vapor, why not concentrate efforts on reducing man-made water vapor? BTW, what is the tailpipe emissions from a hydrogen powered automobile? Um, water vapor....... 
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Apr 10, 2007 2:53 pm) Those we CAN control and those we CANNOT control? Is that not a logical conclusion? Control what you can control and the rest is out of your hands.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 10, 2007 2:57 pm) I am not saying that we should all build bonfires with old tires and dump raw sewage into the streets. I just think the whole issue of "Global Warming" is designed to play on the ignorance of the masses. What these jerk politicians are saying is you little people have to sacrifice so we can maintain our opulent lifestyle undisturbed. When Al & Ahnold bring their tonnage of CO2 down, I'll think about doing the same. Guess what I can add a few hundred tons a year and still be a better example than they are. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 10, 2007 2:57 pm) Yes. I believe that global warming is caused by several factors. "Those we CAN control and those we CANNOT control?" Ask yourself: if water vapor is a much bigger component of the overall greenhouse effect, AND if man's activities lead to more water vapor in the air, then WHY is all the political pressure focused on CO2? Does the pursuit of "alternate" energies/fuels/technologies reduce CO2 yet lead to MORE water vapor? I think that's a fair question. Here's another one for you larsb: what is the Earth's "normal" temperature? Just WHAT is the "optimal" temperature for the planet? Why the AUTOMATIC assumption that ANY change in global temperatures (either up or down) is, by definition, bad? |
|
|
rorr says, "Why the AUTOMATIC assumption that ANY change in global temperatures (either up or down) is, by definition, bad?" I don't know what people are saying about "lowered temps" but let me comment on "higher temps." Negative affects of higher temps: 1. More and longer droughts, leading to more wildfires in the West (where I live) 2. Melting polar ice means rise in sea levels, which means coastal areas (expensive homes and beautiful beaches) will be swamped and the coast will move inland, costing you and I (via government spending) billions of dollars to re-work the beach for tourism. 3. Warmer gulf waters means stronger hurricanes. See tons more info here: Click here |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 11, 2007 6:13 am) If you look at the evidence of global temperatures over what time man can scientifically gather information from, you will see that the evidence shows that the earth has and will continue to, undergone temperature changes. Some fairly severe. And man wasn't around during those times, so what factors do they contribute those to? As I said before, there are many scientists and data who say it is happening and many who say it is a natural trend of the earth. There are those who will filter the data to read the way they want. There have been soil samples that show a high CO concentration from times where they calculate the earth's temps were warmer. What was the CO levels from? Us? We weren't around. So, we are in for drought, famine and mayhem. What's new? This has been an ongoing thing since the 70s. The vehicles today are 100 times more efficient. They produce far less "greenhouse" gases in the last 10 years, than the last 100 years. If you really want to cut down CO levels, then let's concentrate on one of the largest contributors of CO. MAN. Not manmade things, but man himself. What we exhale. So, why don't we eliminate the problem. Let's put a limit on kids. 2 per family. Let's limit how many breaths we take per day, allot each person so many breaths per day and fine them for going over their allotted usage. Man has over run this planet and we continue to multiply. So, let's limit everything. Kind of sounds silly, doesn't it?
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
