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?
6848 messages, Last post on Nov 27, 2009 at 8:44 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
Actually, I already follow most of the diesel forums.  Thanks houdini1 for the support... you understood my point. One needs to measure "emmissions per mile" to get a proper picture of any vehicle emmissions. Any vehicle that uses less fuel per mile must, by definition, be putting out less emmissions. A Prius has those batteries to dispose of. Any battery is considerd hazzardus waste. (Did you see Sundays report about 100s of people dying due to lead-recycling from batterys?) Closer to the subject again... I just saw on the news that the sea-ice is covering more square miles than it has in 28 years. As an addemdum to that, it was reported that no measurable increase in average global temparture has been seen in 6 years. I just wish I had written down their sources to the above 2 bits of info.... I know some folks here like to see the source of data. I do recall that the second report was from someone in Hawaii. I know that on a recient episode of "Deadliest Catch"... the ship got unexpectly cought in ice. The skipper declared that he has not seen the ice come this far south in about 30 years. (Perhaps that somwhat confirms the 1st report I mention above.) |
|
|
Replying to: houdini1 (Jan 05, 2009 2:41 pm)  I was just making the point that there's not just "one drawback" to diesel. Particulates are a big issue. I've seen some ice coverage news not long ago too, Bpeebles. The thickness was an issue (thinner ice won't last the summer or something like that). |
|
|
Replying to: bpeebles (Jan 05, 2009 4:10 pm) 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bpeebles (Jan 05, 2009 4:10 pm) Don't worry the CC cultists have an answer for that. It seems that this new ice is the "wrong kind" of ice and is prone to melting away. Now, how these folks know what kind of ice was there in 1979, I don't know. Maybe it was certified organic ice which has a different chemistry than this new modern ice. 
|
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Jan 06, 2009 9:01 am) "Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center." Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979 (Daily Tech) In other matters, it appears there is a difference in terminology: "According to the National Academy of Sciences, the phrase climate change encompasses changes in temperature, precipitation and wind lasting for an extended period of time. While global warming refers to an increase in the temperature at the atmosphere near the earth's surface." Climate Change versus Global Warming (Muncie Green)
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jan 06, 2009 9:07 am) Would welcome a little GW right now; it's chilly here and Russia is playing silly beggars with natural gas supplies. 
|
|
|
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-01-01-mammothimpact_N.htm I really think that whether GW (or Climate Change or whatever the vogue word of the day is) is 1%, 10%, or 25% contribution by man, that we spend our energy and resources on the more important threats to the environment. As theorized in that article, these impacts set fire to the entire continent of North America! We need to have our scientiic resources focused on these planet-killer threats, not running around trying to figure out the small part man has in putting CO2 in the air. Or how to stop a 1C increase! There aren't many resources right now focused on detecting or stopping these sorts of comet/asteroid collisions. To me spending money on GW is like worrying about what is causing a skin-rash, when you really should be focusing on preventing a heart-attack. But since we have some sort of "religious" subconcious-psych-issue going with "man is bad", and "we must repent for sins against nature", we spend time worrying about the less important issues.
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jan 06, 2009 9:59 am) Skin rashes can be fatal too.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jan 06, 2009 10:41 am) A 1C or few C rise in temperature would allow more organisms to thrive in wider parts of the globe. On the other hand the natural planet-killer events will wipe-out most large species either immediately, or make the climate harsh for years and kill the initial survivors that way. I have 0% chance of dying from GW in the next decades; my chances of dying from a planet-killer are similar to buying a lottery ticket each day. I'd prefer any GW-research-$ be used for scanning the skies, and developing technology to prevent impacts. |
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jan 06, 2009 11:32 am) Oh, NASA is tracking some 1,000 potentially hazardous asteroids. |
|
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
