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?
7981 messages, Last post on Mar 21, 2010 at 7:05 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: larsb (Oct 12, 2008 8:00 am) " So Warm !!! Gary, every time you post something about coldness, I'm going to post something about warmness to show people that local weather is not global climate. Hit the Beach It sure didn't feel like fall on much of the Central Coast Monday, especially at some local beaches. Local residents couldn't believe how warm it was, but they said they will take it, because this unusually warm weather gave them a gorgeous beach day. Temperatures climbed anywhere from 80 to 85 degrees near the coast Monday, bringing a lot of foot traffic out, especially near the waters. Folks who live here on the Central Coast said they planned the day around the warm conditions. " I shall go on record now as to expressing imho that it will be an exceptionally cold winter. Please feel free to respond, I welcome a good spirited debate. Though it will defy global warming, in the near term as theory, I am willing to take the risk. Should my analysis not prove correct, I shall be the first to eat crow.Tia. |
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Oct 25, 2008 12:32 pm) Of course mankind has an effect; everything has an effect. But what is having the main effect. Well it is the Sun. The Sun effects the climate by warming the Earth an average of 520F. If there is no Sun the Earth is just a frozen rock in space at -459F. The Sun is putting out enough energy in all directions, to do this at 93 million mile distance. And it does this century after century after century. This BY FAR dwarfs any contribution mankind will make to climate change. That is why even small changes in solar activity matter greatly. One day there will be a great GW of hundreds of degrees, as the Sun grows in size. It is the Sun that determines our current and future. And since out orbit isn't circular or even constantly elliptical our orbt around the sun determines the climate of the Earth.
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Oct 27, 2008 5:31 am) That is the bottom line. Unlike, man made Global Warming Fanatics, I would like to see more LEGITIMATE research. I do not think any government is capable of Totally Honest research on the subject. Nasa and other Federally funded scientists have complained that their data was distorted or covered up by both Clinton and Bush administrations. Government agencies are usually taken over by zealots of one persuasion or another. That pretty well determines the results we see from the scientist they hire. I would like to believe that our Universities are capable of honest debate and conclusions. Even they seem to be over run with predetermined results on just about every scientific subject. |
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Oct 27, 2008 5:31 am) It might be a reason the "arm chaired" scientists do not assign numbers, %'s to "man's contribution: stuff like grandma/grandpa driving her cream puff weekly to bingo night, etc. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Oct 25, 2008 12:32 pm) Let me be clear: I concur that all living things including humans affect the environment continually and that this has always been true. I also agree humans' present effect on the environment is greater than probably at any time in the past. This tells us nothing about whether human actions are of consequence in the context of all factors. What I find hilarious is not the question of whether or not humans have any impact on global warming; we may. However I think the default position must be that we don't until such proof is offered that we do. What I find hilarious is the doomsday predictions of some blindly believed by many that drastic climate change is only a few decades away. The same sort of predictions were made in the 1970s. These were largely based on the consistent rise in temperature in any number of major cities around the world. No one bothered to consider that these increases were due to the population explosion in those cities and were merely local events, not global. Additionally, temperatures have been recorded for a tiny portion of time relative to the earth's history. My previous post was simplistic; the point was humankind's impact on global temperatures is as yet unknown. Future predictions of catastrophe due to humans is a bit premature. Okay? I have no problem with money being spent on anything - just not taxpayers' money. Many well meaning organizations never solve problems because that would mean an end to their funding stream...
|
|
|
Replying to: sidious6688 (Oct 27, 2008 7:26 pm) That may be the Most astute saying yet on GW/CC research. Once you have solved the riddle you are out of a job. |
|
|
Replying to: sidious6688 (Oct 27, 2008 7:26 pm)  along with all power to the people! (wonder how they granted folks like me the degree. ) Then, they got me back by shipping me to upstate New York (during the winter, GEEZ) Over population would bring the DEEP freeze, yada yada, etc.. Must be global warming now that we got rid of lead in leaded regular and now use RUG?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: sidious6688 (Oct 27, 2008 7:26 pm) I would agree that predicting catastrophe is a bit premature, however, we have enough evidence to suggest there will be some changes in the future. It does make sense to keep funding research into climate. If we can make our climate predictions more accurate we can do a better job of planning. " I have no problem with money being spent on anything - just not taxpayers' money. " Gotta disagree with you on this one. Government is one of the few organizations that can adequately fund research. Exxon is not going to do it. Having said that I don't disagree with the idea of limiting the money spent. In other words, no blank checks. In fact I would guess we will be lucky to keep funding where it is now. The country faces some rather hefty bills in the future for infrastructure replacement (roads, bridges, water and wastewater systems.....). |
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Oct 28, 2008 4:54 am) I could support that (continuing research). However what we have today is beyond unbiased research. We have a group who put in some study, collect some short-term data - over a stretch they like, and want the glory and power of proclaiming "we have found a major issue, and we all must act!". IMO - 1) they are crying wolf because a bush is rustling, and 2) they have a psychological need to be recognized as important; or 3) they see $ in it for them or their institution. So research is fine; but there are far too many examples throughout history where even the greatest of scientists proclaimed understanding; only to find the Earth wasn't flat. So no I am not about to get the whole village up everytime someone sees a bush rustle. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Oct 27, 2008 5:31 am) Minor correction, absolute zero is −459.67 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale. The earth generates heat internally that will keep it above absolute zero. And the universal background radiation has been measured at about 2.7 degrees K. " This BY FAR dwarfs any contribution mankind will make to climate change. That is why even small changes in solar activity matter greatly. " Yes minor changes in the suns output matter a great deal. That is why we have been lucky that changes have also been minor. We humans live in a rather narrow range of temperature and weather. It is possibly that human activities are having a bigger impact then you think. Is it 10, 50 or 90%. I do not know and I suspect we don't have enough information to make the call yet. If we are responsible for 10% of the GW we would not want to put money into reducing CO2 emissions. The change will happen at about the same time even if we cut emissions by 50%. The overall GW change would still proceed at 95%. We would be better off preparing for the inevitable change. At 50% man induced GW we still would likley not want to put that much money into reducing GW. Cutting our contribution by 50% would still see the change proceeding at 75% (50% natural & 25% man). Inexpensive or no cost options might be considered, but again, we would want to brace ourselves for the change. At 90% man induced GW we would want to see what cost effective solutions are out there. Still, this would need to be a world wide effort. If China, India and the Middle East countries keep expanding it won't matter all that much what the U.S. or Europe does.
|
|
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
