Bust out the SUV's, global warming not their fault after all!
This link here states that the sun's heat output has been increasing by .05% for the last 30 years at least.
also says it's likely that this has been going on for the last 100 years. so maybe those cars aren't at fault after all?
so what do you guys think? sound plausable to you all?
edit: fixed the link, sorry.This link
also says it's likely that this has been going on for the last 100 years. so maybe those cars aren't at fault after all?
so what do you guys think? sound plausable to you all?
edit: fixed the link, sorry.This link
Comments
Even if SUV's have nothing to do with it, I still hate the damed things. For other reasons, like how I always look in my rearview to see one about 2 feet behind me, they use mad gas, and (stereotype) they always drive like complete idiots (/stereotype). I have more, but regarding global warming, I didn't think SUV's were that much a part of the problem in relation to any other type of car.
Originally posted by der Kopf
Well hey, should we forget about the cancerogenous microparticles in the exhaust fumes of cars and trucks and whatnots that use diesel gas (gasoline) instead of regular? It is a known fact that the increase of allergies and asthma in youngsters (and oldsters) are linked to this. So, the more gasoline your car uses, the more kids are being choked. Think about the next time you bust out the suv. Global warming is only that part of the 'SUV situation'.
Sounds like more of a reason to ban the production and use of diesel gasoline instead of banning SUV's. Diesel is much less refined than regular gasoline.
Additionally the increase in asthma is also related to the particulates created by tires wearing down. I would be happy to advocate a means of tires not wearing down but I do not believe there is a real solution to that happening. Likewise all vehicles use tires, even hybrid gas/electric cars.
People just focus on SUV's because they are popular right now. I don't see how a full size sedan or full size pickup truck gets any better mileage than an SUV. They just aren't as popular so people can't pick on them as much.
Just looked it up to make sure I wasn't talking out my butt.
Some examples from Ford.com
Windstar minivan 17/23
Full size van 14/18
Escape SUV 23/28
Explorer 17/21
F150 17/20
Ranger 19/22
Focus 26/34
Taurus 20/28
As you can see the only place you can really get an increase is by driving a small sedan like the Focus. Taurus does pretty well but the difference is small in the city and small SUV's like the Escape can match or best it.
Anyone who has a large activity oriented family is going to buy an SUV or at minimum a van. As you can see the vans don't really do any better than the SUV's.
It is just a another little issue that people like to rage on about. There isn't any real way to resolve it I suppose except to not have children or not do anything and sit around getting obese.
My wife and I own a Jeep Cherokee and a Honda Accord. The Honda does get better gas mileage than the Cherokee. However we can't pick up large items in the Honda while also transporting two children in car seats. We cannot tow any sort of trailer be it our boat or my pick-up bed trailer for hauling around construction materials for house projects. (Example this weekend we picked up half a pallet of sod for our front yard.)
My Jeep is supposed to get 15/20 for gas mileage. Her Honda gets 23/30 so obviously we try. However her Honda is obviously limited for certain things.
In this regard you just end up kind of screwed because even the small SUV's (like the Escape) are just based upon car platforms and aren't really meant for towing.
Just my two cents,
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
Way too much has been invested into the "industrialization causing global warming" theory as fact to just let it go.
It IS fact. Any atmosphere traps the heat of the planet, and some gases are more effective at that than other. It is FACT that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have this effect because they can absorb and reemit the dominant light emitted thermally by the earth surface (Infrared in our case). Which means that the total heat on the earth is climbing, which implies a rise of temperature. You still can't refute that. Industrialization is producing a shitload of CO2, you can't deny that. You can automatically conclude global warming.
Of course there are other factors in play, including solar activity. The earth is not a closed system. However, any of these other circumstances cannot remove CO2's responsibility in the process. It's pretty simple science.
"According to the EPA, in typical urban areas cars, buses, trucks, and off-highway mobile sources such as construction vehicles and boats produce at least half of the hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Even though nationally these pollutants are created from a great variety of industrial and combustion processes, the personal automobile is the single greatest polluter."
There are some good tips there.
as for CO2 being this big bad greenhouse gas, IIRC the largest producer of greenhouse gasses on the planet is cattle, not cars. they produce methane, which traps way more heat than CO2 anyway.
so it's not really the technology causing the biggest problems anyway. it's the sun and the damn cows.
Originally posted by alcimedes
ahh, but Matlock, if you'd read the post i linked, it's saying that the biggest reason the earth is heating up could very well be the fact that the sun is getting hotter. seems logical to me.
as for CO2 being this big bad greenhouse gas, IIRC the largest producer of greenhouse gasses on the planet is cattle, not cars. they produce methane, which traps way more heat than CO2 anyway.
so it's not really the technology causing the biggest problems anyway. it's the sun and the damn cows.
I had read it. But I was replying to the post suggesting that greenhouse effect is a myth. Like I said there are other causes but greenhouse can't be neglected.
It could be argued that mass cattle production IS industrialization. Only 15% of methane is produced by cattle, 60% by other human activities.
Methane might be more effective for greenhouse effect, but much more CO2 is produced, and this account for as much impact in the end. And because cars are not the only source should not mean that we don't have a problem here. EVERY sources should be corrected if possible. For instance changing the food given to cattle is believed to reduce methane emission by a significant amount.
Originally posted by der Kopf
Well hey, should we forget about the cancerogenous microparticles in the exhaust fumes of cars and trucks and whatnots that use diesel gas (gasoline) instead of regular? It is a known fact that the increase of allergies and asthma in youngsters (and oldsters) are linked to this. So, the more gasoline your car uses, the more kids are being choked. Think about the next time you bust out the suv. Global warming is only that part of the 'SUV situation'.
Modern diesel cars do not polluate more than modern gasoline car. It can be the contrary. A diesel produce less CO2 than his gasoline counterpart, due to the difference of efficiency of both motor ( a diesel eat less than a gazoline one).
The main problem of gazoline car are the small particles. My car has a filter of particle who erase more 95 % of it. even at -13 ° C I never see any black smoke coming from it. The equivalent of my car with a gazoline motor will polluate more.
The question is not Diesel vs Gazoline, but new vs old car. Olds cars (and truck) polluate a lot more than moderns one.
Originally posted by alcimedes
ahh, but Matlock, if you'd read the post i linked, it's saying that the biggest reason the earth is heating up could very well be the fact that the sun is getting hotter. seems logical to me.
as for CO2 being this big bad greenhouse gas, IIRC the largest producer of greenhouse gasses on the planet is cattle, not cars. they produce methane, which traps way more heat than CO2 anyway.
so it's not really the technology causing the biggest problems anyway. it's the sun and the damn cows.
Yes the warmth of the sun and methane from animals effects it . This has been known for years. However pollution from cars and other man made devices adds to and has a greater effect. It's the concentration of gases. Just go out on the L.A. freeway on a busy day. With the cows at least you can breathe.
Here's a link. I wouldn't be going hog wild on those SUVs just yet.
http://royal.okanagan.bc.ca/mpidwirn...enhouse.html#c
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Sounds like looking the other way to me.
Originally posted by Matlock
It's pretty simple science.
That's the root of the problem. If it's accurate, easy to understand and undermines his point, he'll just ridicule it.
If pollution from automobiles help worsen the problem of the 'Greenhouse effect', then obviously SUVs do more damage because they create more pollution.
Ban them? Not if you can make them as clean as cars.
That's the root of the problem. If it's accurate, easy to understand and undermines his point, he'll just ridicule it.
hmm, care you explain where i've done that?
actually, i was pointing out that the SUV's are evil concept sounds like it's blown out of proportion. instead, the fact that the sun has been getting hotter and hotter, year after year would be the biggest factor in the rise in temperatures.
but, just to be on the safe side, i showed the article to a resident atmospheric expert here at the U of MN.
turns out these are the following sources of CO in the atmosphere. (in metric tons)
(natural)
CH4 oxidation 60-5,000
Oxydation of natural hydrocarbons 50-1,300
Microbial activity in oceans 20-200
Emissions from plants 20-200
Total 150-6,700
(anthropogenic)
Fossil Fuel combustion 250-1,000
Forest Fires 10-60
Total 260-1,060
also, turns out most the methane comes from Bogs (115), then Rice paddies (110) then cattle (80)
also, cars and fossil fuel burning only account for 2.8% of the atmosphere's particulate matter (the leading cause of the greenhouse effect). in comparison, sea spray account for 28%, and naturally occuring dust 9.3%.
we've also had a worse problem with the greenhouse effect in the past, during the depression. the dust from the great dust bowl was causing bigger spikes in the temperature back then than anything we have now.
just a bit of info i picked up and thought i'd share.
so i guess i'll have to curse the cows after i curse the damn rice paddies.
Originally posted by alcimedes
hmm, care you explain where i've done that?
I can't because I wasn't quoting something he said to you! (bunge releases the crow because he doesn't have to eat it now...)
Originally posted by alcimedes
actually, i was pointing out that the SUV's are evil concept sounds like it's blown out of proportion.
The SUV as the evil source is somewhat blown out of proportion, but automobiles are a big problem.
The methane from rice paddies surprises me. Is that a natural byproduct of rice? Seems strange.
Originally posted by bunge
The SUV as the evil source is somewhat blown out of proportion, but automobiles are a big problem.
The methane from rice paddies surprises me. Is that a natural byproduct of rice? Seems strange.
Anything that rots ( and that's any organic matter ) gives off gases. But, you've got to be blind to think that it's ok to belch out as much emissions as you like from man made machinery. SUV's are over rated period. Trendy and in some cases kind of top heavy and dangerous.
Originally posted by jimmac
Sounds like looking the other way to me.
What global warming? Where? Huh? This isn't one of those "scientific" things is it? Just give me my Ford F-950 XXL or my Dodge Ram Super Dooper Extended Cab Heavy Duty truck and let me on my way...
I have gas to burn,
Nations to conquer and
Infidels to convert.
Originally posted by jimmac
But, you've got to be blind to think that it's ok to belch out as much emissions as you like from man made machinery.
Not in the least.