The Autobahn-"Global Warming hysteria's next casualty!

[FrayAdjacent]

I doubt LA traffic that crawls at a couple MPH would be very clean at all...


I used to have a Honda Insight a few years back, and it taught me a few things. One of which was what I call the 'sweet spot', which is the speed (highway) at which you get the best fuel efficiency.

This is a combination of things about a vehicle:

Mass
Speed
Aerodynamic efficiency (drag - can be affected by wind!)
Engine efficiency

Basically, every vehicle is going to have a point at speed where it will get the best fuel economy, then as speed increases, fuel efficiency drops. This is mosly due to the fact that drag DOUBLES every 10mph faster one travels. My Insight, although very light (1800lb) was VERY aerodynamic, and it's 'sweet spot' was at about 65mph.

If I bumped that up to 85mph, my fuel efficiency dropped about 25%.


Of course, it could get AMAZING economy at 35, 45 and 55mph... but above about 70, it starts dropping.

This same theory will affect ALL vehicles, but their 'sweet spots' will differ a lot.


And I'll cap it off by saying - I don't really buy into the whole 'global warming' crap that says we (humans) are causing it. The planet naturally goes through cycles, and we're probably just on a warmer upswing.

[Jump]

Quote:

"The same use of fuel was supposed to have brought on a new ice age. This was proposed back in 1978 but the ice age never came to pass. Same people now say our use of fuel is causing global warming yet no mainstream media discuss this revealing fact. Why?"




I really wish people would quit trying to use this argument against the possibility of Global Warming. It was the '70s!!!! That was 30 years ago. Our family got their first color TV in the 70s. There was no such thing as a personal computer or cell phone. Technology, research methods/techniques have improved tenfold+. General and scientific knowledge has grown tremendously in all areas. I truly doubt that if the scientists in the 70s had access to the same equipment, techniques and knowledge as exists today, that they would have come to the same conclusion. This argument point is akin to stating that these same people once told us the world was flat. Now they try to tell us it is round. Why should we believe them?

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by Jump

Quote:

"The same use of fuel was supposed to have brought on a new ice age. This was proposed back in 1978 but the ice age never came to pass. Same people now say our use of fuel is causing global warming yet no mainstream media discuss this revealing fact. Why?"




I really wish people would quit trying to use this argument against the possibility of Global Warming. It was the '70s!!!! That was 30 years ago. Our family got their first color TV in the 70s. There was no such thing as a personal computer or cell phone. Technology, research methods/techniques have improved tenfold+. General and scientific knowledge has grown tremendously in all areas. I truly doubt that if the scientists in the 70s had access to the same equipment, techniques and knowledge as exists today, that they would have come to the same conclusion. This argument point is akin to stating that these same people once told us the world was flat. Now they try to tell us it is round. Why should we believe them?

Your making my point about tolerating no dissenting voice. Granted the science is more sophisticated, or so were told, to measure such things. But then how do you account for, using the same science more or less, that Mars is growing warmer? Since the planet has gone through warming and cooling cycles since it came into being, why is this cycle man made and basically the fault of the US? I still ask you to ponder, what is Mr. Suns roll in our heating and cooling as opposed to our cars. Why also is higher taxes and the cut back on our standard of living the answer while the rest of the world gets exempt? Doesn't that bother you a bit? Why are you so willing to believe it is our fault and not the same forces that had a mile of ice over the spot I am sitting at right here in the Hudson Valley?

No, I don't buy it at all and basically I could make a computer model that would prove a pig is a steam engine but that would not make it so.

986geezer, with the Boxcar down off the jack and just about ready to go.

[Jump]

I really have no idea if we are truly in a global warming cycle or if man is playing a role. I'd say that there is as much proof proving definitevly that man is causing global warming as there is that he isn't. i.e NONE with the key word being definitevly. I would have a hard time believing that all the crap that modern man is throwing into the air through our vehicles, factories, power plants, etc. at the same time as we are clear cutting the rain forests, isn't going to have a negative impact on the environment in the long run. Are we to that point now? Well, of course that is what the global warming believers would tell us. At this point, only time will tell. I really hope for the sake of future generations that you are right because they're screwed if you aren't!

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Jump, if you truely are concerned that your car/s are doing all this you will get rid of them and walk or bicycle, cut off all electric to your house etc. but be mindful of your campfire as it will pollute some I am sure. I am being somewhat sarcastic but that is basically the answer if the premise is true. What bothers me about this is the absolute media blitz on this subject, a media that basically supports one political party. Again you must be suspicious that other emerging industrial countries are given carte blanche to burn coal etc. but only the US is to cut back. I am just not believing it based on seeing what has been predicted in the past and what has really happend. Again, the sun is constantly changing in intensity, take a look at stars that twinkle, that is changing intensity of far off suns. Why can't our sun be in a warming cycle, i.e. Mars warming up along with us. That rain forest argument is like the current polar bear argument, dramatic but lacking proof. I will rest my involvement in this subject right now and tell you to enjoy your '02S while you still are able to afford gas for it. After 20 years, if ecos get there way, and you are paying 5 or 7 bucks a gallon and nothing has changed, then what?


986geezer

[RandallNeighbour]

Setting the controversy over global warming aside...

I fly to Germany every three or four years just to rent a Carrera and drive the piss out of it for a long weekend! I would imagine there would be global-heat (non just warming) from those of us who love to drive the autobahns if they posted speed limits on it.

Let's pray this does not happen.

[Brucelee]

Another point of view!


Thursday, February 08, 2007
Global Warming Dissent
We have blogged fairly regularly on the fact that the notion of anthropogenic global warming has become an official orthodoxy, not a scientific theory subject to debate and discussion.

Yesterday’s column by Jeff Jocoby of the Boston Globe outlines how much serious dissent there is among reputable scientists.
You know that big United Nations report on global warming that appeared last week amid so much media sound and fury? Here’s a flash: It wasn’t the big, new United Nations report on global warming.

Oddly enough, most of the news coverage neglected to mention that the document released on Feb. 2 by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was not the latest multiyear assessment report, which will run to something like 1,500 pages when it is released in May. It was only the 21-page “Summary for Policymakers,” a document written chiefly by government bureaucrats -- not scientists -- and intended to shape public opinion. Perhaps the summary will turn out to be a faithful reflection of the scientists’ conclusions, but it wouldn’t be the first time if it doesn’t.

In years past, scientists contributing to IPCC assessment reports have protested that the policymakers’ summary distorted their findings -- for example, by presenting as unambiguous what were actually only tentative conclusions about human involvement in global warming. This time around, the summary is even more confident: It declares it “unequivocal” that the Earth has warmed over the past century and “very likely” -- meaning more than 90 percent certain -- that human activity is the cause.

That climate change is taking place no one doubts; the Earth’s climate is always in flux. But is it really so clear-cut that the current warming, which amounts to less than 1 degree Celsius over the past century, is anthropogenic? Or that continued warming will lead to the meteorological chaos and massive deaths that alarmists predict? It is to the media. By and large they relay only the apocalyptic view: Either we embark on a radical program to slash carbon-dioxide emissions -- that is, to arrest economic growth -- or we are doomed, as NBC’s Matt Lauer put it last week, to “what literally could be the end of the world as we know it.”

Perhaps the Chicken Littles are right and the sky really is falling, but that opinion is hardly unanimous. There are quite a few skeptical scientists, including eminent climatologists, who doubt the end-of-the-world scenario. Why don’t journalists spend more time covering all sides of the debate instead of just parroting the scaremongers?

Only rarely do other views pierce the media’s filter of environmental correctness. A recent series by Lawrence Solomon in Canada’s National Post looked at some of the leading global-warming dissenters, none of whom fits the easy-to-dismiss stereotype of a flat-Earth yahoo. There is, for example, Richard S.J. Tol -- IPCC author, editor of Energy Economics, and board member of the Centre for Marine and Climate Research at Hamburg University. Tol agrees that global warming is real, but he emphasizes its benefits as well as its harms -- and points out that in the short term, the benefits are especially pronounced.

“Tol is a student of human innovation and adaptation,” writes Solomon. “As a native of the Netherlands, he is intimately familiar with dikes and other low-cost adaptive technologies, and the ability of humans in meeting challenges in their environment.” Whatever changes global warming may bring, Tol is confident that human beings will adjust to them with ingenuity and resourcefulness.

Another dissident is Duncan Wingham, professor of climate physics at University College London and principal scientist of the European Space Agency’s CryoSat Mission, which is designed to measure changes in the Earth’s ice masses. The collapse of ice shelves off the northern Antarctic Peninsula is often highlighted as Exhibit A of global warming and its dangers, but Wingham’s satellite data shows that the thinning of some Antarctic ice has been matched by thickening ice elsewhere on the continent. The evidence to date, Wingham says, is not “favorable to the notion we are seeing the results of global warming.”

Still other scientists profiled by Solomon contend that the sun, not man, plays the dominant role in planetary climate change.

Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center, for instance, believes that changes in the sun’s magnetic field, and the corresponding impact on cosmic rays, may be the key to global warming. Nigel Weiss, a past president of the Royal Astronomical Society and a mathematical aerophysicist at the University of Cambridge, correlates sunspot activity with changes in the Earth’s climate. Habibullo Abdussamatov, who heads the space research laboratory at Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, points out that Mars is also undergoing global warming -- despite having no greenhouse conditions and no activity by Martians. In his view, it is solar irradiance, not carbon dioxide, that accounts for the recent rise in temperature.

Climate-change hyperbole makes for dramatic headlines, but the real story is both more complex and more interesting. Chicken Little may claim the sky is falling. A journalist’s job is to check it out.
But when journalists have signed onto a moralistic crusade, don’t expect much checking.
Labels: Global Warming, Jeff Jacoby, Political Correctness, Skeptics

[YellowJacket]

Originally Posted by Jump

Quote:

"The same use of fuel was supposed to have brought on a new ice age. This was proposed back in 1978 but the ice age never came to pass. Same people now say our use of fuel is causing global warming yet no mainstream media discuss this revealing fact. Why?"


I really wish people would quit trying to use this argument against the possibility of Global Warming. It was the '70s!!!! That was 30 years ago. Our family got their first color TV in the 70s. There was no such thing as a personal computer or cell phone. Technology, research methods/techniques have improved tenfold+. General and scientific knowledge has grown tremendously in all areas. I truly doubt that if the scientists in the 70s had access to the same equipment, techniques and knowledge as exists today, that they would have come to the same conclusion. This argument point is akin to stating that these same people once told us the world was flat. Now they try to tell us it is round. Why should we believe them?

Actually, that's the case at all. While the belief used to be that the world is flat, science has definitively proven otherwise. As in, undeniable proof can be given to the Earth's spherical shape. There is no such evidence for Global Warming -- there's convincing evidence at best; a bunch of smoke and mirrors at worst.

But another way to put a hole through your point is the technology comments -- by discussing the multiple changes in technology in the last 30 years, you're forgetting that we haven't reached the pinnacle of technology yet. 30 years from now, it's equally probable that we'll look back on technology of today, and say "man, global warming -- we thought we had it all figured out, didn't we?" So, you prove nothing by citing better technology. Sure, we have better ways to measure climate, and we have better models for analyzing those data, but we have not fundamentally improved our accuracy in intepreting ambiguous data in the last 30 years, and that's what people are doing over and over.

I don't understand why the media and warming advocates have to take such a hardline stance on Global Warming. Why isn't it acceptable to say "there is EVIDENCE to support the theory, just as much to refute it. But just to be safe, we're advocating/lobbying/whatever to reduce emissions, improve gas mileage, etc." When you start saying "it's DEFINITELY happening" I become skeptical immediately, unless you're just telling me that the world is round. Then, people like myself who would otherwise advocate a bit of green social responsibility, get offended and want nothing to do with it.

Obviously, I'm late to the debate, but I just chuckle when I see these defenses like the one I quoted.

For all you guys that believe in global warming, I have a idea how you can help.

I live in an area that at one time was completely tropical jungle. I am right now doing some landscaping on my property. For only $1,000 I will plant a tree on my property in your name. I will even send you a photo of it. Imagine, your very own rainforest tree? You can show all your democrat friends just how you are stopping global warming. Imagine how warm and fuzzy you will feel knowing you own a part of the solution. And since cars are part of the problem, you can always sell you Porsche to finance your trees. PM me if interested! Save the world like an old Hippy should!

[Brucelee]

You always have to examine the motives of those who would have you galvanize against a sudden and imminent calamity.

For example, in the scenario where we "have to do something drastic" about global warming, the winners are:

1-Lawmakers and regulators-We need a bill!

2-Taxing advocates and their agents-We need money!

3-Energy/carbon traders-We will make the money on the spread!

4-Climatologists-who ever heard of these guys ten years ago?

5-Candidates running for office-You need us to lead you!

6-News media-read about it here

7-Book publishers-Read more about it.

8-Alternate energy advocates-Buy from us!

9-Environmentalists-Worship at our altar!

Who are the losers?

All of us who will be taxed, regulated and rationed.

Let the good times roll!

[Jump]

Originally Posted by YellowJacket

Actually, that's the case at all. While the belief used to be that the world is flat, science has definitively proven otherwise. As in, undeniable proof can be given to the Earth's spherical shape. There is no such evidence for Global Warming -- there's convincing evidence at best; a bunch of smoke and mirrors at worst.

But another way to put a hole through your point is the technology comments -- by discussing the multiple changes in technology in the last 30 years, you're forgetting that we haven't reached the pinnacle of technology yet. 30 years from now, it's equally probable that we'll look back on technology of today, and say "man, global warming -- we thought we had it all figured out, didn't we?" So, you prove nothing by citing better technology.

Obviously, I'm late to the debate, but I just chuckle when I see these defenses like the one I quoted.

I have no proof that the world is round. They tell me that it is and they show me pictures but how do I know that the pictures are real? The best I've seen is a slight curve when I'm up in a jet but that doesn't prove it is round does it? Why should I believe them? OK, I'm being facetious obviously. I don't think I ever said that there was undeniable evidence. In fact, in a previous post I was pretty clear in stating that there was no definitive evidence. You seem to have completely missed the point, that what scientists thought yesterday doesn't always hold true today as our knowledge increases. Pretty plain and simple to understand I think and you seem to understand it as you then confirm it in your next point.

Doesn't your supposed hole through my point actually add credence to what I said? Wasn't the point that referencing 30 year old data can be mostly irrelevant? All that we can go on is what we have today. Does that mean we'll believe the same 30 years from now when our knowledge, technology, and research base multiplies some more? Of course not. And thirty years from now it is also possible that they will look back and say, those people in 2006 had all of the evidence right in front of them and they refused to do anything about it. Right now I'll put it at 50-50 as to which of those two viewpoints they have in 2036.

Am I totally sold on man caused Global Warming. No I'm not. Do I see a possibility that it could be true? You'd have to be clueless to at least not be willing to entertain the discussion until we know for sure either way. My statements were not a defense of anything and I really don't understand how someone could interpret them that way. What I was merely suggesting was that we consider the evidence as it stands today (for or against) and not bring silly arguments into the discussion like was done.

Can you please explain to me what you're chuckling about?

[Brucelee]

BTW-

I am not suggesting that climate change is not ocurring. As I understand it, it is ALWAYS ocurring.

What I am suggesting is that:

1-The news media has decided what IT wants to write about and it is NOT a balanced discussion of the topic. There will be no airing of solid scientific discourse.

2-The conclusions about the degree of climate change, its rate, how to measure it, what it all means, are WAY off from being agreed upon. Yet, it is being presented as simply so.

3-This will NOT stop the guys I alluded to above, ALL of whom have a vested interest in having man made global warming be a reality and that it have AWFUL consequences.

4-It is not at all clear to me that ANYTHING that we do right now will make much difference in the long run. Moreover, any discussion of the positive consequences of a warmer planet are also verbotten.

5-That government actions will have an agenda that suits the government just fine. Look for LOTS of regulations and LOTS of new taxes, hidden and overt.

After all, the government has been making a living off of "sin taxes" for many years now.

Carbon is the new SIN.

[Brucelee]

A little balance!



Written By: Thomas Gale Moore Ph.D.
Published In: Environment News
Publisher: The Heartland Institute


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Pundits, politicians, and the press have argued that global warming will bring disaster to the world. Their dire predictions aside, there are many good reasons to believe that, if global warming occurs, we will like it.

Where do retirees go when they are free to move? Certainly not to Duluth. People generally like warmth. When a television weather reporter says, “it’s going to be a great day,” he usually means the weather will be warmer than normal. The weather can, of course, be too warm, but that is unlikely to become a major problem if the Earth’s temperature warms as projected.


How Warm, When, and Where?

Even though it is far from certain that global temperatures will rise noticeably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the United Nations body that has been studying this possibility for more than a decade) has forecast that, by the end of the next century, the world’s climate will be about 3.6o Fahrenheit warmer than today. Precipitation worldwide, it is projected, will increase by about 7 percent.

IPCC scientists predict that most of the warming will occur at night and during the winter. In fact, the temperature record shows that, over this century, summer high temperatures have actually fallen, while winter lows have gone up.

Temperatures are expected to increase the most towards the poles. Thus, Minneapolis should enjoy more warming than Dallas. But even the Twin Cities should find that most of its temperature increase will occur during its coldest season, making the climate more livable.


Warmer Winters Are Good

Warmer winters will produce less ice and snow to torment drivers, facilitating commuting and making snow shoveling less of a chore. Families will have less need to invest in heavy parkas, bulky jackets, earmuffs, mittens, and snow boots.

Department of Energy studies have shown that a warmer climate would reduce heating bills more than it would boost outlays on air conditioning. If we currently enjoyed the weather predicted for the end of the next century, expenditures for heating and cooling would be cut by about $12.2 billion annually.

Most economic activities would be unaffected by climate change. Manufacturing, banking, insurance, retailing, wholesaling, medicine, education, mining, financial, and most other services are unrelated to weather. Those activities can be carried out in cold climates with central heating or in hot climates with air conditioning. Certain weather-related or outdoor-oriented services, however, would be affected.

Transportation generally would benefit from a warmer climate, since road travelers would suffer less from slippery or impassable highways. Airline passengers, who often endure weather-related delays in the winter, would gain from more reliable and on-time service.


Warmer Is Healthier, Too

The doomsayers have predicted that a warmer world would inflict tropical diseases on Americans. They neglect to mention that those diseases--such as malaria, cholera, and yellow fever--were widespread in the United States in the colder 19th century. Their absence today is attributable not to a climate unsuitable to their propagation, but to modern sanitation and the American lifestyle, which prevent the microbes from getting a foothold. It is actually warmer along the Gulf Coast, which is free of dengue fever, than on the Caribbean islands, where the disease is endemic.

My own research shows that a warmer world would be a healthier one for Americans and would cut the number of deaths in the U.S. by about 40,000 per year, roughly the number killed on the highways.


CO2 No Pollutant for Plants

According to climatologists, the villain causing a warmer world is the unprecedented amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) we humans keep pumping into the atmosphere. But as high school biology students nationwide know, plants absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Researchers have shown that virtually all plants will do better in a CO2-rich environment than in the current atmosphere, which contains only trace amounts of their basic food.

Plants also prefer warmer winters and nights, and a warmer world would mean longer growing seasons. Combined with higher levels of CO2, plant life would become more vigorous, thus providing more food for animals and humans. Given a rising world population, longer growing seasons, greater rainfall, and an enriched atmosphere could be just the ticket to stave off famine and want.


Sea Levels Pose Little Threat

A slowly rising sea level constitutes the only significant drawback to global warming. The best guess of the international scientists is that oceans will rise about 2 inches per decade.

The cost to Americans of building dikes and constructing levees to mitigate the damage from rising seas would be less than $1 billion per year, an insignificant amount compared to the likely gain of over $100 billion for the American people as a whole.

Let’s not rush into costly programs to stave off something that we may like if it occurs. Warmer is better; richer is healthier; acting now is foolish.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Thomas Gale Moore is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author of Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry about Global Warming recently published by the Cato Institute.

[Brucelee]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTJmNWI4N2Y2NTBmY2E3ZTIzZjcxM2IzM2ZjNjRkYWI=

Another one