How much pollution does a car produce?

Baron Hohenzollern said:
Seems to be one ongoing right now....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/s/summaries/solarmwp.jsp

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aa7704-07.pdf

So much for that theory.
Click to expand...

Firstly, could you stop posting from oil-funded "research organisations."

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (co2science.org) receives funding from Exxon-Mobil.

WRT to the Usoskin article, it's discussed in the Realclimate article I linked earlier.

Therefore, in the view of the uncertainties and the conflicting data it doesn’t seem to be appropriate to make uncritical and sensational claims about the history of the sun. As long as the differences between the 10Be records are not understood, conclusions based on only one of these records should be treated with caution. Atmospheric 14C concentrations, on the other hand, are much less sensitive to a climate influence during the last 1000 years and, therefore, can provide good estimates of the history of the sun. However, the disagreement between 14C-based solar activity and group sunspot number (Muscheler et al., 2005) should remind us that the variations of the solar activity are not yet completely understood.

Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.
Click to expand...

Yes Baron, there are dissenting theories about the nature of climate change, but at this point NONE of these theories has been able to provide anything that cannot be explained by the current accepted mainstream explanations.
 
BlueCollar said:
Firstly, could you stop posting from oil-funded "research organisations."
Click to expand...

Why? Have a problem with their method? demonstrate their flaws for us. I'm sure after an hour of googling you might come up with a spectacular ad-hominem link that attacks and vilifies the person rather than their argument.

But I care little for your sh!te links with irrelevent attacks that bare no relevance to the studies itself. Demonstrate why they are wrong.

Their funding is of no concern to me.

Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.
Click to expand...

And this has been addressed already.
 
Last edited:
Their funding should be of concern to you - they're an interest group whose sole concern is to protect the interests of an oil company. It's thus very likely that they will present skewed information, if not outright misinformation.

Secondly, I've now linked repeatedly, refutations of the solar influence on current global warming. What more exactly do you want?
 
Last edited:
BlueCollar said:
Yes, my post #48.
Click to expand...

Those funded by oil companies are biased and those not funded by oil companies are objective... you are actually a bigot ain't you?

Edit: But then again national museums like Smithonians are heavily funded by those in support of evolution...
 
Last edited:
BlueCollar said:
Their funding should be of concern to you - they're an interest group whose sole concern is to protect the interests of an oil company. It's thus very likely that they will present skewed information, if not outright misinformation.
Click to expand...

Easy to say, to prove it is another thing.

Secondly, I've now linked repeatedly, refutations of the solar influence on current global warming. What more exactly do you want?[
Click to expand...

No you've given the same one over and over again, despite the fact that I already addressed it, indicating that there is in fact solar activity currently and that the Modern Maximum isn't a figment of the imagination. No matter how much Professor Alice in Wonderland, wants it to be.
 
Mr TB said:
Those funded by oil companies are biased and those not funded by oil companies are objective... you are actually a bigot ain't you?
Click to expand...

I believe you're trying to call me a hypocrite not a bigot.

I've said it earlier and I'll say it again. What motive would the climate science community have to create some global conspiracy theory about climate change? Can you not see the difference between one group who is paid to protect the interests of an industry whose profitability is threatened by the anthropogenic climate change model, and another group who conducts research for the purpose of understanding natural phenomena?

Here's some more info on RealClimate which you might find illuminating.

The creation of RealClimate was noticed by both the prestigious academic journals Science and Nature.

In 2005, the editors of Scientific American recognized RealClimate with a Science and Technology Web Award, writing:

A refreshing antidote to the political and economic slants that commonly color and distort news coverage of topics like the greenhouse effect, air quality, natural disasters and global warming, Real Climate is a focused, objective blog written by scientists for a brainy community that likes its climate commentary served hot. Always precise and timely, the site's resident meteorologists, geoscientists and oceanographers sound off on all news climatological, from tropical glacial retreat to "doubts about the advent of spring."

In 2006, Nature compiled a list of the 50 most popular blogs written by scientists, as measured by Technorati. RealClimate was number 3 on that list.
Click to expand...

Source

How many scientific journals have given praise and recognition to Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change?

How plausible is it that it's the academic community that's involved in spreading misinformation, as opposed to big business lobbyist groups? Come on man, catch a wake up.
 
Baron Hohenzollern said:

No you've given the same one over and over again, despite the fact that I already addressed it, indicating that there is in fact solar activity currently and that the Modern Maximum isn't a figment of the imagination. No matter how much Professor Alice in Wonderland, wants it to be.
Click to expand...

Where exactly did you address it? The article I have repeatedly linked specifically refers to the shortcomings of both Svensmark and Usoskin.

Referring to the article you posted from co2science, let's overlook that they're a big oil mouthpiece for now. Here's how their article concludes:

In light of these several real-world observations, it would seem almost impossible to deny that there was indeed a Medieval Warm Period of vast geographical extent, that it was at least as warm as the Current Warm Period (and probably even warmer), and that it was caused by some aspect of solar activity. Hence, there is absolutely no need to invoke the historical increase in the air's CO2 content as a cause of the world's current warmth; the sun suffices nicely in this regard.
Click to expand...

The studies cited here infer from localised data make conclusions about global climate change.

We argue, on the basis of differences between regional and true hemispheric/global temperature trends evident during the instrumental period that past warm/cold periods can only be determined from truly hemispheric- and global-scale series. Inferences from regional data in isolation will clearly provide a biased view of larger-scale changes. Over longer periods (e.g., the past couple millennia), differences are clearly apparent between individual proxy series and the hemispheric/global composites (see our Figures 4 and 5). ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ and ‘‘Little Ice Age’’ are therefore restrictive terms, and their continued use in a more general context is increasingly likely to hamper, rather than aid, the description of past large-scale climate changes.
Click to expand...

Source.


For some variety, here's some more criticism on the solar activity/cosmic ray theories you like so much:

The bottom line is that changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures. However, what research also shows is that increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun’s energy over the last 50 years.
Click to expand...

even if cosmic rays have a detectable effect on climate (and this remains unproven), measured solar activity over the last few decades has not significantly changed and cannot explain the continued warming trend. In contrast, increases in CO2 are well measured and its warming effect is well quantified. It offers the most plausible explanation of most of the recent warming and future increases.
Click to expand...

Link
 
Last edited:
mebox said:
Guys check this out: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/electric...ctric-bike-may-make-your-face-melt-318548.php

The first commercial electric bike. I actually dig its looks to. Too bad about the price tag @ around R68 000, but i guess as the technology catches on they will get cheaper.
Click to expand...

Nope. I have an electric bike (it's not a 3 wheeler though). It has a Li-Ion battery, a 250W motor and a top speed of 35km/h with a 50km range. Costs R14k in SA. <spam> pics and info in my blog.</spam>
 
Last edited:
BlueCollar said:
I believe you're trying to call me a hypocrite not a bigot.

I've said it earlier and I'll say it again. What motive would the climate science community have to create some global conspiracy theory about climate change? Can you not see the difference between one group who is paid to protect the interests of an industry whose profitability is threatened by the anthropogenic climate change model, and another group who conducts research for the purpose of understanding natural phenomena?

Here's some more info on RealClimate which you might find illuminating.



Source

How many scientific journals have given praise and recognition to Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change?

How plausible is it that it's the academic community that's involved in spreading misinformation, as opposed to big business lobbyist groups? Come on man, catch a wake up.
Click to expand...

I've said it earlier and I'll say it again. What motive would the climate science community have to create some global conspiracy theory about climate change?
Click to expand...

What have the scientific community to gain in forcing thenselves onto Smithonians? Your question is not valid...
In both cases nothing but they still do it...

The scientific community proved they are not open to new ideas... cold fusion is a great example...
The scientific community is a closed community that will conspire to protect itself...
 
Mr TB said:
What have the scientific community to gain in forcing thenselves onto Smithonians? Your question is not valid...
In both cases nothing but they still do it...

The scientific community proved they are not open to new ideas... cold fusion is a great example...
The scientific community is a closed community that will conspire to protect itself...
Click to expand...

Mr TB, please take your conspiracy theories back to the PD section kthx. There is NO EVIDENCE of any conspiracies or collusion in the reputable scientific community about climate change. This is not a thread about evolution, so I don't want to hear about the Smithsonian. It's irrelevant.
 
BlueCollar said:
Mr TB, please take your conspiracy theories back to the PD section kthx. There is NO EVIDENCE of any conspiracies or collusion in the reputable scientific community about climate change. This is not a thread about evolution, so I don't want to hear about the Smithsonian. It's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Sorry pal but then you should not have mentioned such ideas in the first place.
You asked the question and got an answer...
EDIT:
Oh yes I was not talking about evolution... you were the first to blame the other party of conspiracy... I used it as an analogy to show that the scientific community are not clean.
 
Last edited:
Mr TB said:
Sorry pal but then you should not have mentioned such ideas in the first place.
You asked the question and got an answer...
EDIT:
Oh yes I was not talking about evolution... you were the first to blame the other party of conspiracy... I used it as an analogy to show that the scientific community are not clean.
Click to expand...

You didn't give an answer. You asked another question about the Smithsonian.

What have the scientific community to gain in forcing thenselves onto Smithonians?
Click to expand...
 
BlueCollar said:
You didn't give an answer. You asked another question about the Smithsonian.
Click to expand...

You are quite right, I indeed answered but rather sarcatically with a question, using the analogy to indicate the scientific community are far from as holy as they pretend to be...

But that is not really part of this discussion, did you read NASA's research on Mars?

Phoenix.Mars
 
Answering a question with a question is never an answer, and the scientific community do not pretend to be or even try to be holy.

Now what exactly does the mars research have to do with this discussion?
 
ToxicBunny said:
Answering a question with a question is never an answer, and the scientific community do not pretend to be or even try to be holy.
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha... oh please!... :rolleyes:

Now what exactly does the mars research have to do with this discussion?
Click to expand...

The thread is about climate change is it not?
 
oh please what?

you made a statement, back it up now..


And no, this thread is about how much pollution a car produces, mars unfortunately doesn't have a road network with millions of cars on it.
 
Ahhhh ok, so you obviously have no intelligent response...

Kthxbaai
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X