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?
7017 messages, Last post on Dec 09, 2009 at 5:16 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
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?
|
|
|
Replying to: 0patience (Apr 11, 2007 4:00 pm) I don't think a single person that knows anything about the science of GW is not aware that climate changes have occured for billions of years on earth, for many reasons. There's also absolutely no doubt that man adds carbon to the atmosphere and we know why. The question is, how much is that addition affecting current (and future) climate change. there are many scientists and data who say it is happening and many who say it is a natural trend of the earth. The reason is that it is both. Climate change is a natural trend. Man's impact, whatever it is, is superimposed on the natural trend. The vehicles today are 100 times more efficient. They've improved, but not even in that time zone. In 1971, the fleet average was about 14 mpg. In 2000, it was about 22. New car averages went from about 15 to about 28. This is about 100% (double) which is perhaps what you meant. Let's limit how many breaths we take per day... Our options are not limited to such things. We can find alternative energy sources (non fossil-fuels) and develop carbon sinks. Not to mention other, presently unheard-of technology to stabilize things. Ignoring the problem is, OTOH, undoubtedly not a good idea for our decendants, if not us.
|
|
|
Replying to: li_sailor (Apr 11, 2007 5:09 pm) The vehicles today are 100 times more efficient. They've improved, but not even in that time zone. In 1971, the fleet average was about 14 mpg. In 2000, it was about 22. New car averages went from about 15 to about 28. This is about 100% (double) which is perhaps what you meant. I was referring to emissions. I mis-spoke. I should have typed that the polutants are about 100 times less. Diesels, especially. Our options are not limited to such things. We can find alternative energy sources (non fossil-fuels) and develop carbon sinks. Not to mention other, presently unheard-of technology to stabilize things. One solution, with Ethanol, E-85 and biodiesel, while is theoretically great, all have their short comings. With the demand for corn, will come rising corn costs. Greater demand will bring higher costs and lower availability. Biodiesel has problems with gelling and causing filtering problems and until those can be solved, can't be used very efficiently in the winter without additives. Ignoring the problem is, OTOH, undoubtedly not a good idea for our decendants, if not us. Oh trust me, I am not saying to ignore the problem, but to say that the sky is falling is reaching a bit. Take the facts and make your own judgement, but take in ALL the facts, not just the ones that Gore wants you to hear. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 11, 2007 6:13 am) Nice sidestep - but you're ignoring my point: just WHAT IS the "optimal" average global temperature? Did that temperature just HAPPEN to be whatever it was in the year 1900? If global WARMING is "bad", then the flip side (global COOLING) must be "good", correct? No? Then are you saying that ANY CHANGE to our global temperatures (whether man-made, man-contributed, or completely natural) MUST be bad? Does this even make any sense? All I'm asking is for you to ask yourself: if this is PURELY a scientific debate, WHY does one NEVER hear about the possible BENEFITS of global warming? Now, about your 'negative affects': "1. More and longer droughts, leading to more wildfires in the West (where I live)" Warmer global temps means more evaporation of surface water to the atmosphere. More water content in the global atmosphere means GLOBALLY more precipitation. Is it possible that weather PATTERNS would be affected leading to LOCAL areas receiving less average rain? Sure. But it's also possible that areas currently receiving little rain may in fact receive MORE desired and needed rain. You can't just look at YOUR little corner of the globe and say "gee, we may get more wildfires so global warming is bad for EVERYBODY" (I also find it mildly suspicious that the geographical areas of this country MOST prone to believing alarmist environmental propaganda ALSO happen to be the areas to suffer the most in a GW scenario.....) "2. Melting polar ice means rise in sea levels..." First point of physics: if we (hypothetically speaking) melted every last ounce of SEA ice on this globe, sea levels would not rise by a single mm. Fact. Floating ice ALREADY displaces it's own mass of liquid water; melting it wouldn't do a thing. Second - the latest updated UN reports on sea level rise, over the next 100 years, is less than 20". That's 20 INCHES. Over 100 years. In fact, it's been difficult to actually measure just how much the global sea levels rise (or fall) due to the simple fact that the land ITSELF rises (and falls) over time. It's called plate tectonics. "3. Warmer gulf waters means stronger hurricanes." In simple terms, a hurricane is a heat engine, which depends on a difference between a heat supply and a cold sink for its power. For a hurricane this is the difference between the temperature of the ocean at the storm's bottom and the upper atmosphere at its top. So yes, warmer water temps would lead to stronger hurricanes IF THE ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE WAS CONSTANT. But, ummmmm, aren't we talking about global warming, in which the ATMOSPHERE gets warmer? And, since the atmosphere tends to warm up MUCH faster than water, one would think that the temperature DIFFERENCE between the water and the air was being REDUCED, leading to (ta daaaaa!) WEAKER hurricanes....
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
