How much pollution does a car produce?

Teleological

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
836
Anthropogenic (as a result of CO2) global warming is a farce.

“We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don’t cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years,” Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper “Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming.”
Anybody else noticed how "hot" it is in Gauteng this summer?
Do humans really think we can compete with the sun in affecting climate...
 
Last edited:

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,217
Teleological, just be aware that the article you linked above is a blog post from Republican senator James Inhofe. He's not a very credible source:

So Sen. James “global warming is a hoax” Inhofe (R-OK) issues a report in which he claims:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.

“Padded” would be an extremely generous description of this list of “prominent scientists.” Some would use the word “laughable” (though not the N.Y. Times‘ Andy Revkin, see below). For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?

I’m not certain a dozen on the list would qualify as “prominent scientists,” and many of those, like Freeman Dyson — a theoretical physicist — have no expertise in climate science whatsoever. I have previously debunked his spurious and uninformed claims, although I’m not sure why one has to debunk someone who seriously pushed the idea of creating a rocket ship powered by detonating nuclear bombs! Seriously.
Link
 

ravage

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
207
oh my...

I'm sorry BlueCollar and ToxicBunny, but why do you even bother arguing with some of these guys (i dont think i need to mention names :p)

Seriously, one has even said "I care little for you arguments" and essentially said "I'm right and you're wrong, because i say so".

I used to love reading the science and philosophical debates section, but it appears to have been ruined by a few people :(

Oh and on topic :D:

Regarding the introduction of the topic, if electric and hydrogen powered cars (ie, "green" cars) become mainstreamed, will it have a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions?

The answer may appear obvious, but i read somewhere (sadly, no links) that the process for making some Green cars releases some harmful gases :confused:

edit: bah, i should have read this entire last page, it appears much of the senseless arguing has died down :)
 

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,217
@ Ravage: don't worry - the senseless arguing will flare up again, just as soon as some Neocon news site proclaims (yet again) that "new evidence" shows the IPCC to be wrong or whatever.

Regarding the environmental effects of manufacturing "green" cars, obviously, the making of any 2 ton piece of machinery will create pollution, and yes, the large batteries hybrids/EV's do use more energy in their manufacturing than is required to make a normal internal combustion engined car. However, this is easily offset by greatly reduced fuel consumption of the greener cars. You can read an article I wrote here, explaining this in more depth.

Transportation is one of the biggest (but not the biggest) contributors of greenhouse gases globally, so reducinh vehicular emissions will certainly help.
 

Teleological

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
836
Teleological, just be aware that the article you linked above is a blog post from Republican senator James Inhofe. He's not a very credible source:

Link
I'm aware that the link is from Republican senator James Inhofe, and I'm am sure you are also aware that the link you provided is from a physiscist's blog.
I liked this comment by Ron there:
Ron: "Try these simple rules of thumb i have developed: All politicians are crooked. All journalists and (especially) bloggers have an agenda. All scientists have tunnel vision."
Now apply it equally and lets look at a few of the links provided by the "crooked" Republican senator James Inhofe.

1)HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S
CLIMATE SYSTEM
Peer-reviewed literature. In a nutshell, if the CO2 content in the atmosphere doubles (estimates of CO2 doubling every 70 years doubling present levels @ +- year 2075) then expected rise in temperature as a result of the CO2 is expected to be 1.1+-0.5 Kelvin. Far below the IPCC climate models. If you look at some of the above clips, the earth and life on it seems to be quite robust and 1 or 2 degrees wont be catastrophic (quite the opposite it seems), and extra CO2 does have a positive effect on crop yields (as outlined a few posts back).

2) The following peer-reviewed article also cautions on the use of climate models to predict future climate changes.
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions.

3)And Were is the warming the last 3-4 years?. Graph on last page.

@ Ravage: don't worry - the senseless arguing will flare up again, just as soon as some Neocon news site proclaims (yet again) that "new evidence" shows the IPCC to be wrong or whatever.
Let's look at what the "Neocon" Dr Vincent Gray has to say about the IPCC.

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures. Be sure to read the rest.

Pollution is bad and I'm all for the developemet of hydrogen technology and/or electric cars. But to tax CO2 emmisions that will lead to minimal gains is ridiculous and will only suit those with already vested interests in "Green companies". Diverting food sources for the production of energy (e.g. ethanol) is also a bad idea imo. The sun does look like the major player in climate change and there is nothing that we can do about it, other than research technologies that will help humans survive in case of extreme warming AND extreme cooling. Not CO2 taxing.
 
Last edited:

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,217
I'm aware that the link is from Republican senator James Inhofe, and I'm am sure you are also aware that the link you provided is from a physiscist's blog.
I liked this comment by Ron there:
Ron: "Try these simple rules of thumb i have developed: All politicians are crooked. All journalists and (especially) bloggers have an agenda. All scientists have tunnel vision."
Now apply it equally and lets look at a few of the links provided by the "crooked" Republican senator James Inhofe.

1)HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S
CLIMATE SYSTEM
Peer-reviewed literature. In a nutshell, if the CO2 content in the atmosphere doubles (estimates of CO2 doubling every 70 years doubling present levels @ +- year 2075) then expected rise in temperature as a result of the CO2 is expected to be 1.1+-0.5 Kelvin. Far below the IPCC climate models. If you look at some of the above clips, the earth and life on it seems to be quite robust and 1 or 2 degrees wont be catastrophic (quite the opposite it seems), and extra CO2 does have a positive effect on crop yields (as outlined a few posts back).

2) The following peer-reviewed article also cautions on the use of climate models to predict future climate changes.
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions.

3)And Were is the warming the last 3-4 years?. Graph on last page.

Let's look at what the "Neocon" Dr Vincent Gray has to say about the IPCC.

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures. Be sure to read the rest.

Pollution is bad and I'm all for the developemet of hydrogen technology and/or electric cars. But to tax CO2 emmisions that will lead to minimal gains is ridiculous and will only suit those with already vested interests in "Green companies". Diverting food sources for the production of energy (e.g. ethanol) is also a bad idea imo. The sun does look like the major player in climate change and there is nothing that we can do about it, other than research technologies that will help humans survive in case of extreme warming AND extreme cooling. Not CO2 taxing.
This I agree with 100% - I've never really been a fan of biofuels, especially when using maize, soy etc. Maybe Jatropha's better, but I still think that burning fuel in an ICE isn't the way to go. Busy doing a proper reading of the other stuff and will comment later.
 

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,217
Ok, I'll start with Vincent Gray's letter.

Gray has 2 problems with the IPCC's standpoint. The first is their claim of global warming, and the second is their claim that CO2 is responsible for this warming.

In attacking the notion of global warming itself, Gray lists two factors, and then mentions a third.

a) There's no global warming

Gray states that the global warming claim "is based on a graph showing that "mean annual global temperature" has been increasing." (It's this graph, BTW)

Here's what Gray says:

1. No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made.

How can you derive a "global average" when you do not even have a single "local" average?

What they actually use is the procedure used from 1850, which is to make one measurement a day at the weather station from a maximum/minimum thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to be the average. No statistician could agree that a plausible average can be obtained this way. The potential bias is more than the claimed "global warming.
The point is that the global warming graph is looking at trends, not absolute levels. As long as the methodology for determining the mean daily temperature figure is the same at every station (which it is), trend data is possible. From Grist:
Often, as in this case, it is easier to determine how much a given property is changing than what its exact value is. If one station is near an airport at three feet above sea level and another is in a park at 3000 feet, it doesn't really matter -- they both show rising temperature, and that is the critical information.
Gray then mentions the problem of urban heat islands.

2. The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns.
The urban heat island theory has been thoroughly disproven. Read here for plenty. I especially like the comparision between the night time satellite image showing the urbanised areas worldwide and the surface temperature anomaly satellite image.

It's also worth noting that direct surface temperature measurements as discussed above are only one indactor of global warming. Evidence for global warming can also be found in:

* Satellite measurements of the upper and lower troposphere
* Weather balloons show very similar warming
* Borehole analysis
* Glacial melt observations
* Declining arctic sea ice
* Sea level rise
* Proxy Reconstructions
* Rising ocean temperature



Gray then states that direct surface temperature

there has been no "global warming", however measured, for eight years, and this year is all set to be cooling. As a result it is now politically incorrect to speak of "global warming". The buzzword is "Climate Change" which is still blamed on the non-existent "warming".
Excellent answers to this can be found here.

In short though:

At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!)

According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data.
b) CO2 doesn't cause global warming

The next section of Gray's letter is concerned with his perceived shortcomings with current climate modelling techniques. He basically says that just because there's a correlation between CO2 and GW, doesn't mean CO2 causes GW. He also argues that the current models are unable to make predictions. A summary of what he says in his letter can by found in one of his comments on a RealClimate article, which in turn is nicely counter-argued by some other contributors. (Interestingly, the article in question is a response to the Douglass et al paper you linked).

# Vincent Gray Says:
22 December 2007 at 8:52 PM

This argument is not about a PREDICTION. It is about a a SIMULATION. There is so much variability between models and between data collections that it is not surprising that some madels can be found which simulate some data.

This does not prove the correctness of the models because of the well-known (but little accepted) maxim that a correlation, however convincing does not prove cause and effect.

No model has ever convincingly predicted future climate. Global temperatures, however measured, have been relatively unchanged for some eight years, in violation of all model PROJECTIONS. Until models can be shown to be successful in prediction, why should anybody believe in them?
# Hank Roberts Says:
22 December 2007 at 10:43 PM

But, Vincent, can you cite any source to support any of what you write above? I can understand you saying you believe it. But I’ll be surprised if you can show anyone else has published research supporting what you believe. Please provide your evidence that my hypothesis about this is wrong by giving cites — that’s how science works, after all.

Hansen’s Scenario C looks very good so far, after 20 years. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

Eight years is insufficient data to reliably demonstrate a trend (or lack of one) against the noise level in climate. Didn’t I find this for you earlier? Has someone told you different? Who? Where?

William Connolley gives you the information to be appropriately skeptical about what people tell you, and points out how you can download the data set and do your own statistics to test what you’re being told and shows you what you will get using standard tests of significance on one sample data set, and comments:

“15 year trends are pretty well all sig and all about the same; that about 1/2 the 10 year trends are sig; and that very few of the 5 year trends are sig. From which the motto is: 5 year trends are not useful with this level of natural variability. They tell you nothing about the long-term change.”
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/05/the_significance_of_5_year_tre.php#

So, even Hansen’s 20 year old model has been quite good at predicting (and over a long enough period of years for the trends to be statistically interesting). Does having a factual basis to believe this change what you believe? Do facts make a difference?
# Barton Paul Levenson Says:
23 December 2007 at 7:12 AM

Dr. Gray writes:

[[No model has ever convincingly predicted future climate. Global temperatures, however measured, have been relatively unchanged for some eight years, in violation of all model PROJECTIONS. Until models can be shown to be successful in prediction, why should anybody believe in them?]]

Climate models successfully predicted that the climate would warm, that the stratosphere would cool, that the poles would warm more than the equator, that nights would warm more than days, and they predicted quantitatively how much the Earth would cool after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. What else do you want?
Finally, a couple of points about Vincent Gray. Firstly, he's a chemist, not a climate scientist. Secondly, he's affiliated with The Heartland Institute - an ExxonMobil funded think tank. Link.
Never trust a GW skeptic who has ties to big oil, is what I always say.
 
Last edited:

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,217
Ok, now onto the Douglass et al paper. I'm no climatologist, so the RealClimate article that I linked above is a little over my head. Fortunately though, one of the readers of the article posted a "layman's version" in the comments.

# Richard Ordway Says:
12 December 2007 at 11:02 PM

Joe says: “Anyone want to give me a laymen version?”

Hmmmm, a short answer might look like this:

A new study (that is already full of fatal omissions and inaccuracies) has just come out in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (Inernational Journal of climatology).

Remember, a study needs at least two things to really be important scientifically:

1. To come out in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (this is true with this study).

2. This same study has to stand up under world-wide peer-review scrutiny for accuracy (This study has already failed this criteria).

A rundown of the study might be this:

Independent computer models (about 23 or so world-wide, I believe), generally show a warming of the surface and even more in the tropsophere in the tropics due to increased water vapor (warm the air up and it has more available water vapor (a greenhouse gas)..so a “new greenhouse gas” comes into play where the air is warmed (ouch, what a simplification).

…the higher up you go the less water vapor you normally get because it is too cold to have available water vapor (the rate of condensation strongly exceeds the rate of evaporation)…unless you warm it and “suddenly water vapor just appears” where it was mostly absent before. However, it did already exist lower down because it was already warm and already contained water vapor because it was warm.

The study states that that instruments do *not* show more warming the higher you go in the tropics…even though the models do.

Hence, independent world-wide computer models are wrong when they predict global warming in the next 100 years…

and secondly, because computer models base their future (and present) warming predictions on increasing greenhouse gases (and they “don’t get the warming correct now”), that greenhouse gases actually are not causing the warming we have been seeing for the last 100 years.

This means then, that mainstream science only predicts global warming based on computer simulations…so global warming is not a problem.

This then means that the warming (most of it) is part of a natural cycle (cosmic rays and solar wind) and is not man-made…

so we can burn all the oil, coal and gas that we want without guilt (and we certainly don’t have to regulate them)…and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is irrevocably wrong and can be ignored with impunity.

This also would mean that President Bush is “correct” to do nothing right now about global warming even though every other major world country is taking action including the last holdout- Australia on Kyoto, I believe).

Anyway, here are some fatal problems with the study as I understand them that invalidate this study:

1. Even if the study were right…(which it is not) mainstream scientists use *three* methods to predict a global warming trend…not just climate computer models (which stand up extremely well for general projections by the way) under world-wide scrutiny…and have for all intents and purposes already correctly predicted the future-(Hansen 1988 in front of Congress and Pinatubo).

Now the three scientific methods for predicting the general future warming trend is:

1. Paleoclimate reconstructions which show that there is a direct correlation between carbon dioxide increasing and the warming that follows.

2. Curent energy imbalance situation between the energy coming in at the top of the atmosphere (about 243 watts per square meter WM2) and fewer watts/M2 now leaving due mostly to the driving force of CO2…ergo the Earth has to heat up.

3. Thirdly, climate computer simulations that have been tested against actual records before they actually happened….and were correct.

Now, on to actual problems with the paper:

Any real scientist, ahem, includes error bars in their projections because of possible variables. The study does not include them. If it did, or they were honest enough to, they would fit the real-life records (enough to overlap the two records) and be a non issue.

Secondly, this study is dishonest and does not show all the evidence available (v1.3 and V1.4)…boing…this paper has just failed peer-review. Science is an *open* process and you just don’t cherry pick or real scienists will correctly invalidate your results.

Third, with this omitted data, the computer models agree with the actual data (enough for it to be a non-issue).

Fourthly, the study does not honestly work out the error bars for the models themselves by giving them reasonable uncertainty for accounted-for unknowns such as El Nino (Enso) and other tropical events.

Now however, there are honest unknowns with the models and how they (slightly) mismatch histoical records…but they are accounted for in the big scheme of things…more work needs to be done…but it does not invalidate what the models are saying for general warming trends…unbrella anyone?

In other words, this study is a strawman and the authors know it.
 

Teleological

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
836
Ok fair enough, Dr Gray is a nutter/chemist that cannot look past his next paycheck from Exxonmobile and is not qualified to make a comment on the models. I'll take that, even though I think it is a cheap shot at a dissenting voice.
And applying this evenly
All politicians are crooked. All journalists and (especially) bloggers have an agenda. All scientists have tunnel vision.
, don't you think IPCC scientists has a paycheck to lose if they don't agree with the so-called consensus? Also, isn't www.realclimate.org a blog? What do you think the agenda is there? But ok, let's move on.
I'll take the notion that the Douglas paper is perceived as a "dog" by some. But being cautious about models is not a bad thing. Note that they do not make predictions but projections, the same way the weather man does.

Coming back to the Schwartz paper. Why should there be taxes on CO2 emissions when
The resultant equilibrium climate sensitivity, 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m-2), corresponds to an equilibrium temperature increase
for doubled CO2 of 1.1 ± 0.5 K.
Is the likelihood of a of 1.1 degree Kelvin increase (as a result of CO2) within the next 70 years such a terrible prospect when life seems to flourish in hotter climates. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere also has a positive effect on crop yields.

Also, the effect that the sun has on climate change is much more powerful than CO2 related causes (See the crooked politician's links). Wouldn't it be prudent to prepare for extreme cooling AND extreme warming rather than CO2 taxing?
 
Last edited:

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,217
Thanks for your input on this topic, Teleological. I apologise if it times I've come across as snotty - I'm so used to agressive/antagonistic GW deniers that I'm a little unaccustomed to civilised debate :p

Realclimate is a blog. In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have singled out Inhofe's blog just because it's a blog. You got me there. :D Still, RealClimate is one of the most respected science sites on the Interwebs. Regarding the Schwartz paper, there are apparently some problems with his calcs, but right now I'm busy burning some hydrocarbons (even leftist hippies like me gotta braai sometimes), so I'll jump in a little later.

I'd also like to clarify that I've no vested interested or agendas WRT the science of climate change - except for my own puny blog which ahsn't earned me a cent. I'm also very far from an expert.

I do, however, have no doubt that the greater climate science community is not part of some massive consipiracy out to dupe the public or that the thousands of climate scientist who advocate the "consensus" view of climate change are unwilling to re-evaluate their work simply because of the paycheques that come in. If anything, the pay should be better for those whose work is in line with what Big Oil wants to hear i.e. CO2 aint a problem. If some discovery comes along that refutes the consensus, then that's great news, but as I was saying in the other thread, one peer reviewed article doesn't mean much, and a skeptical paper can only act as a seed of change in the juggernaut that's the scientific community. Thus, I don't believe it's at all reasonable to all-of-a-sudden dismiss the accepted notion of anthropogenic climate change just because the occasional paper says it's bull**** (especially because up until now, none of these skeptical papers have stood up to any degree of scrutiny, peer review notwithstanding).
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
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.
Interesting but just about a week a go saw a great photo of Al Gore and guess what it says! He exploited climate change we he was vice!, pushing it to the front for the so-called greenies!

Then I remember about this thread where you guys tried and burn me making that suggestion. So global warming may indeed be over emphasized.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
80,586
Provide a link to this photo, and its sources if you please.

And how exactly does pushing climate change as an issue equate to a conspiracy theory? its just good politicking...
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
Provide a link to this photo, and its sources if you please.

And how exactly does pushing climate change as an issue equate to a conspiracy theory? its just good politicking...
I was standing in a shop you know... when I read the article... since you and your friends ensure that those with opposing views are not allowed a fair chance, forumites with opposite views should be banned, that is the overall view especially in the pd-section... I did exactly what I said can't you read?...

Then I remember about this thread where you guys tried and burn me making that suggestion.
I did not jump up and down and got estatic and thought hell now I can just them ok?... I only remembered this thread and had a good laugh...
 

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,217
I was standing in a shop you know... when I read the article... since you and your friends ensure that those with opposing views are not allowed a fair chance, forumites with opposite views should be banned, that is the overall view especially in the pd-section... I did exactly what I said can't you read?...



I did not jump up and down and got estatic and thought hell now I can just them ok?... I only remembered this thread and had a good laugh...
Obviously you just skipped over all the stuff about scientific consensus, responses to skeptical arguments, the nature of the peer review process etc, and jumped to the part where you say "Global Warming's bull**** because some ex-politician 'exploited' the issue".

Please read everthing that's actually in here before you dismiss global warming because you saw a picture of Al Gore in a book store.

Further, I don't see anywhere in this thread where someone has not been allowed a fair chance to express their views.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
cant we just tax people who eat red meat, sheep, cows etc... it is they who are responsible for all the co22 emissions, methane...
Now let us be a little technichal on this farting story...
1)Do you pay my medical aid in the first place?

2)Should nobody eat red meat , how much income will the goverment lose?

3) With what will you replace red meat ?, there are substances in red meat that human beings require... and the cost thereof?

I am sitting with a book that says eat according to your blood type.
One blood type can generally eat everything and be healthy...
A second should stay away from fish and fowl...
The third should stay away from red meat...
The other should stay away from fruit and veggies...
Very interesting this book....
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
80,586
Mr TB : basing an opinion on a poster you glanced at in a shop isn't exactly a good way to go through life, and exploiting an issue to seem "different" to the voting public doesn't make an issue rubbish either, or any less true.

As for your book about eating according to blood types, is it one of those new fangled rubbishy diet books?
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
Obviously you just skipped over all the stuff about scientific consensus, responses to skeptical arguments, the nature of the peer review process etc, and jumped to the part where you say "Global Warming's bull**** because some ex-politician 'exploited' the issue".

Please read everthing that's actually in here before you dismiss global warming because you saw a picture of Al Gore in a book store.

Further, I don't see anywhere in this thread where someone has not been allowed a fair chance to express their views.
No you are missing the point, you are assuming I want to discuss the issue now..., not so I was involved in this discussion quite a while back and various snotty and arrogant remarks were made towards me...

Seeing the picture of Al Gore only brought back the sweet memories of a sarcastic bunch of Mr Know-Alls that I had a discussion with...:D:D:D
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
80,586
Correct me if I'm wrong but when you were "involved" in this discussion awhile back, your "evidence" etc was pretty much universally panned and shown to be rubbish?
 
Top