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?
5725 messages, Last post on Jul 01, 2009 at 1:03 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Oct 30, 2008 7:48 am) Just because you do not see a value in research doesn't make it worthless. Do you think other countries will stop doing research. Within a decade or two of us stopping research the U.S. would become nothing more than a banana republic. “China's Spending on Research and Development Growing Faster than U.S. ... While the United States still has a bigger share of the global R&D market, second-ranked China is gaining ground.” http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200610/china.html Companies throw money away on useless research and products all the time. Sometimes their research is second to none as in the case of Bell Labs. Do you think AT&T would have gotten were they did if they had stopped basic research? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs “As a tax payer I find the following pork unacceptable. ...Representative Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) for $211,509 in olive fruit fly research in Paris, France. “ You are kidding right?  $211K, a General in the Military sneezing would spend more money than that. Have you heard the expression penny wise and pound foolish? Try this link: http://sarahpalintruthsquad.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/memo-to-sarah-palin-fruit-f- ly-research-has-led-to-advances-in-understanding-autism-video/ Basic research is important. Research into climate is also important. How much money we can spend is certainly open to debate, but if we stop doing research we will be in trouble. The rest of the world will not stand still.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Oct 30, 2008 6:25 am) Molten Earth core vs Solar contribution of energy "The simple answer is that the temperature of the earth's core has nothing to do with the presence of the sun. " http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=29757 Neutrino flux measurements from the Earth's core (see kamLAND) show the source of about two-thirds of the heat in the inner core is the radioactive decay of 40K, uranium and thorium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env087.htm "As you guessed, the earth's interior would have cooled off by now if there weren't some source of energy. That source happens to be radioactive decay of elements such as uranium. This process continually heats the earth, and does not defy the second law of thermodynamics."
|
|
|
|
|
“Electric lighting consumes 19 percent of the world's electricity grid production. If all the incandescent light bulbs in the United States were replaced with CFLs, the country would avoid 158 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, according to an industry estimate, the equivalent of removing more than 30 million cars off the road.” http://www.enn.com/sci-tech/article/38545 Great, now everybody quick change all your light bulbs. We got this GW problem licked. But wait........ “GROWTH RATE Growth of world fleet: World car fleet is growing at about 6.5%/year or 55 million net additional cars/year (car production 2007: about 70 million, 15 million scrapped in year). Fast growth in China, India, East Europe, Africa, Mid East and Latin America easily counterbalances the slight contraction (about 1% to 2%/year since 2005) in a few western EU countries and declining growth of car fleet in USA.” http://www.serendipity.li/fe/car_fact_sheet.htm Crazy, even if we could somehow get everybody to change to CFLs tomorrow, the increase in the world car fleet would wipe that out in 6 months....BUT... the bigger problem is not GW....the problem will be the fight over oil and resources as the world population creeps ever upward....
|
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Nov 02, 2008 5:41 pm) I think you are mistaken. If I give you a million dollars to prove the earth is flat I have wasted my money. If the government gives you a million dollars to prove water is bad for us the government has wasted our tax dollars. The difference is I have the right to waste my money on research. The Federal Government does not have that right. They have taken liberties with our tax dollars that would not hold up to the scrutiny of the Constitution if we had a court that was accountable. Spending my tax dollars on research would be acceptable if it was not researching a predetermined conclusion. Man Made Global Warming being one of the biggest scams we have had to deal with. I'm not sure your point on industrial R&D. That is necessary and not all will produce results that are useful. Just the cost of doing business.
|
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Nov 02, 2008 6:18 pm) While I did replace the 56 incandescent light bulbs in my home. It was because I am cheap I was trying to cut my electric bill. Which it did. This mandate will further erode our trade imbalance with China. ALL CFLs I have found in our stores are made in China. I bought the 76 cent ones from SDG&E as again I am frugal. They are Lights of America (made in China). I do agree that cutting GHG to 1990 levels is not going to happen. No signatory of the Kyoto have complied with that failed document. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 02, 2008 6:48 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Nov 02, 2008 6:02 pm) And the other link I can agree with that the Earth would have froze w/o the radiation, and would be in equilibrium with the surface. Consider that even with the Sun providing so much energy, the earth's oceans once froze over. Now take away the Sun and take the air to -458F (near absolute zero), and that freezing moves inwards probably at 0.5 - 1 mile / year. Whether rock is a good insulator or not, it will conduct heat away. There is not enough radioactive elements in the Earth to stop this, and many of the elements have long-halflives, meaning they're not radiating much anyway. There is nothing that will stop that -458F temperatures from conducting the heat away, from hundreds of thousands of sq. miles of rock. What has kept this from occurring is the heat from the Sun for the last 4 billion years. Do a calculation of how much energy the Earth has received over its history from the Sun, and compare that to the amount of radioactive material in the Earth and how much energy that has been. Which is larger? It is simple that the Sun puts much more energy into the Earth's system, and keeps the planet from freezing. |
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Nov 02, 2008 6:18 pm) Why would I want to cut down on my electricity usage, when it replaces my heating with oil? I'm buying 1500W electric space-heaters for my house this year. And I switch to incandescent light bulbs in the colder months to provide more heat.  I agree with your points though, that lead to the fact that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Now that we know how to get oil and such, and the benefits, someone, somewhere is going to us eit.
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Nov 03, 2008 7:05 am) Right tool, right job. Like, say, commuting in a gas miser and saving the dually for towing the horses to the trailhead on the weekend.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 03, 2008 7:28 am) What? If I use 20W CFC + 80W from a heater is more efficient than a 100W incandescent? 100 is not < 100 ! Law of Conservation of Energy, my friend. 100W is 100W no matter how it's obtained and used. Whether your coffee pot, iron, light bulb ... is drawing the energy which is all converted into heat (kinetic energy is also converted to heat), it's the same. The added expense of CFC's and extra heaters do not make sense during heating season, when compared to the inexpensive, great heating incandescent.
|
|
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
