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?
6881 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 7:41 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: joshuag (Nov 24, 2008 1:00 am) The question isn't whether the Earth is heating or cooling, or staying the same (which really never happens if you measure the temperature precisely enough). We can look back thru the geological and historical records and see that there have been rapid temperature swings both ways. The question is is whether man is having a significant impact. I have yet to see Al Gore or any of the other GW proponents show the mathematical equations of the variables that one could sit down and plug the numbers into. Does anyone know here where this equation resides that you or I can view it? I want to see that scientists understand how the oceans, air, sun, geothermal venting and biosystems all interact. For example - I want to see where scientists have mapped all the methane emission points around the world, and how much of this potent GHG is going into the air. I want THE equation. Tie up all the loose ends of these variables, and show me that man's contribution is significant. Let's sail to the edge of the Earth and show me that it's flat.
|
|
|
Replying to: joshuag (Nov 24, 2008 1:00 am) A lot more scientists have been shut out or lost their jobs for presenting data that refutes the man made GW theories, than those that join to cash in on the carbon credit windfall. There is a real lack of honest debate in the scientific community. What makes it very difficult is having a 100+ countries contributing money to scientists that will go along with the agenda. I have a real problem with UN conferences where dissent is considered heresy. The only consensus is in the minds of those that decided GW was man made before seeing any evidence. |
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Nov 24, 2008 5:26 am) It's written down on the same page where gravity is explained. Hmmm, no equation there, no wonder I'm levitating. 
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 24, 2008 7:58 am) Garbage in = Garbage out. I would like to see whether they are feeding garbage in. You seem to be willing trust a political scientific group that may or may not be biased; as there is quite a bit of $ and fame involved here. When $ and fame are involved, I don't trust human weaknesses. Ever since multiple expert individuals and departments of the U.S. got up in front of us and made the case of WMD in Iraq, "absolutely-positive; verified by hundreds of scientists, witnesses, satellites and analysts ..." I have to reconsider these sort of issues. The case for GW may not be much different. I certainly see no signs of any significant GW; and if there is any I see no compelling mathematical case that it is humans and not natural. All I see is a group of well-paid scientists and bureaucrats promoting their careers and finances. I hear their words (that and $1.00 will get you a cup of coffee); I see no proof.
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Nov 24, 2008 8:09 am) I've seen glacier shrinkage in the last 25 years (Portage being the most notable one). But I'm not a scientist, in climate fields or otherwise. But they've certainly got my attention. When $ and fame are involved, I don't trust human weaknesses. Remember the YouTube high school science teacher link posted here a year or more ago? I guess the guy got his 15 minutes of YouTube fame, but he's teaching about greenhouse gas emissions for little fame, and being a teacher, certainly not much money. Are you going to focus on Gore or the greenhouse? In the news, Governors push climate agenda. (Chron.com) |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 24, 2008 8:55 am) And how is that proof that it is (significantly) caused by man's industrialization? "According to one theory, he says, the boundary walls were abandoned between 1300 and 1400 A.D., probably because the climate changed. It turned cold. Animals died, farms failed and people starved, leaving no one to tend the walls. This hump on the ground offers a glimpse of just how much climate influenced the history of these early settlers." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16835101 And before that the climate had warmed and cooled. And there were no automobiles and industry, unless you want to blame climate change on the 100 million or so people lighting camp-fires. 
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 24, 2008 8:55 am) Like for example, since we are in the left coast (North American Continent) we are known for and are worried about earthquakes, the 1906 being the last "BIG ONE" of noteriety. Well, it is absolutely light weight worry wart status compared to a longer ago earthquake ZONE in the ST LOUIS, MO area specifically referred to as the MADRID fault line. (History Channel program I believe) It last shot off in 1811 (95 years before the famous SF Quake and the aftershocks lasted for literally 30 days !!!!!!!!! It affected folks for easily a 400 miles radius Yet who the HELL has heard of this INXS of 8.0 earthquake, let alone remember it.... compared to the 1906 SF Earthquake!!?? The other one that could literally wreck WORLD WIDE havoc is YELLOWSTONE National Park, which is a HUGE dormant volcano.It has for literally untolled centuries emitted "toxic (to us) gas 24/7. It is funny how a lot of environmentalists refer to this area as "PRISTINE WILDERNESS" threatened by MANS encroachment. My .02 cents is they are afraid of precisely the WRONG thing !!!??? |
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Nov 24, 2008 9:05 am) Well, I didn't say it was proof, but it has got my attention. Like Ingason says in your link, it's like a giant puzzle. And what's really puzzling is how the science has become a public opinion industry as much as simply having scientists continue to try to figure out if emissions are a problem and if reducing them will have any effect on the climate. Ruking, I lived in Memphis for a while decades ago, and the city fathers were worried then about the woefully inadequate building codes and what was going to happen when the Mississippi flowed north again thanks to the New Madrid fault. At least now I'm upwind from Yellowstone.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 24, 2008 9:24 am) Well with the 1811, 30 day aftershocks are the buildings all on rollers and shock absorbers?  Or... are there a lot of unreinforced BRICK buildings still hoping to dodge the inevitable BIG ONE
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 24, 2008 9:24 am) But we can affect the volcano under there. Mankind is so powerful that surely we can pour enough water underground to put the volcano out. After all that is only a small part of the Earth, and we are so powerful and control our environment! The bad news for GW is that the steam that would be produced is much worse than CO2 as a GHG. Sure we can have an effect on anything including continenetal drift, the Earth's rotation, and we can even change the amount of H2O by filling and sending rockets into space. There's a significant difference between having "an effect" and having "a significant effect". |
|
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
