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?
6976 messages, Last post on Dec 05, 2009 at 10:24 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: sidious6688 (Oct 27, 2008 6:26 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 3:54 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 4:31 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Today here in upstate NY we are expecting a foot of snow. What's up with that? Where is all that wonderful GW I've been hearing about? Would all you SUV owners please drive up here and rev your engines until spring returns? Come quick, I'm getting chilly. 
|
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Oct 28, 2008 3:54 am) I have to disagree there. The 25 years I spent in the Prudhoe Bay Oilfield there were 100s of scientists studying everything from tundra grass to ice crystals in the upper atmosphere. Many if not most of the studies were paid for by BP and the other oil companies. They came from Universities all over the World to further their knowledge of the Arctic and the impact of oil exploration and production.
|
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Oct 28, 2008 5:27 am) I guess it got misdirected. We got it here in So CA. It was 93 yesterday and a record for this day in history. So I guess I don't get to drive my SUV.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Oct 28, 2008 5:53 am) It would be curious to see how many weather records have been broken this decade vs the previous one. I'm sure a computer model could compensate for the difference in the length of time. Then we could find another computer modeler to compare weather to climate. |
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Oct 28, 2008 5:27 am)  You would think by now significant portions of NYC would be under water due to the artic melting ... I am now in shorts and short sleeve polo shirt (not in upstate NY). But then it was that way before I left for upstate NY, and by all indications 34 years later is pretty much the same. I might have to put on socks to break this global warming cloud cover that is fixing to burn off, and go to 77 degrees. |
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Oct 28, 2008 4:26 am) The Earth only has a molten core because the sun keeps it relatively warm on the outside. The Earth - in the cold of space, absent the sun, would be frozen solid fairly early in its 4 billion year history. There would be no daily rotation, and no magnetic fields generated in the core. There is a relatively minor amount of radioactive materials that might provide a degree or 2 of heat. The Sun thru its gravity provides the rotational energy, and the bathing radiation and light, and warmth to keep the core molten, the ocean's unfrozen and the magnetic fields around and in the Earth. The Sun is the original source of all energy that has, is and will be used on Earth. http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/s3.htm "The first basic question about the Sun is how bright is it? It puts out A LOT of energy every second. How much? The answer from our measurements is 4 × 10(X26) watts. Such a large number is beyond most of our comprehension, so let's put the Sun's total energy output (ie., its luminosity) in more familiar units. It is equal to 8 × 10(X16) of the largest power plants (nuclear or hydroelectric) on the Earth. Our largest power plants now can produce around 5,000 Megawatts of power. Another way to look at this is that the sun puts out every second the same amount of energy as 2.5 × 10(X9) of those large power plants would put out every year---that's over two billion!"
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Oct 28, 2008 3:54 am) One other point though: many people don't understand the difference between correlation and causality. Just because humans may have increased CO2 output and global temperatures may have risen doesn't mean there's any relationship between the two. We have a correlation. Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the percentage increase of CO2 presently in the atmosphere is tiny. Some studies suggest that elevated temperatures cause CO2 release trapped in ocean waters... I'm all for research, but determining causality with absolute certainty requires control of all other factors. I'm skeptical humans are even remotely close to having this capability for a system so large as the earth. The primary reason there are so many conflicts for what is the best "diet" is failure to be able to control for all factors. |
|
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
