NASA Says: Autos #1 Climate Change Cause

General Discussion
1

In the “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist” department…



http://www…-c-2010-02



The NASA study reports:



?Cars, buses, and trucks release pollutants and greenhouse gases that promote warming, while emitting few aerosols that counteract it. In contrast, the industrial and power sectors release many of the same gases–with a larger contribution to radiative forcing–but they also emit sulfates and other aerosols that cause cooling by reflecting light and altering clouds?



In their analysis, motor vehicles emerged as the greatest net contributor to atmospheric warming now and in the near term, with a total radiative forcing of 199 mWm-2 in 2020. …?



Now, we all know a lot of work is going into creating greener cars. However, as someone trained in sustainable urban planning, I think getting out of the automobile habit altogether would be a great step forward for our society and the world. It would address this #1 climate change (and ocean acidification) concern, but it would also help address obesity tremendously, the economy, and other things. As Alex Steffen of Worldchanging writes, ?we already know that the way to solve the problem of cars is to build better cities.?



I think we should take this opportunity to consider how we could live without cars, how we could help create a transformation of our transportation and urban systems. This is one of the first steps we need to take to address critical societal concerns of each the environment, health and the economy.

2

You have already posted this link here. Try another auto enthusiast forum.

3

I did? Where?

4

I was hoping that no one would respond at all and would allow this post to just drift right off the bottom of my page at 0 replies.

But alas, I have just contributed to the problem…

5

If cars were that much of a problem we’d have have killed ourselves off by 1970. I know people who probably inhale a heckuva lot more toxic waste smoking cigarettes for decades than you get from today’s cars, and a lot of them live to old age without getting cancer (not that I recommend this, I quit 11 years ago). I saw your facebook page, and a lot of the pictures on it are cold cars putting out steam.

Get a life and find a real problem to worry about. Anthropogenic global warming is a scam!

6

No greenhouse gas? They’ll have to use oil.

7

?Cars, buses, and trucks release pollutants and greenhouse gases that promote warming, while emitting few aerosols that counteract it. In contrast, the industrial and power sectors release many of the same gases–with a larger contribution to radiative forcing–but they also emit sulfates and other aerosols that cause cooling by reflecting light and altering clouds?

So, in other words, you’re saying it’s all the cars’ fault for running too cleanly?!? So you’d say that EPA emissions standards are “harming the earth?”

Look, where I live, particulate pollution (the stuff that apparently combats global warming) is the biggest health threat. Yes, it might cool the earth slightly by making the atmosphere more opaque, but it also is harmful to anyone with respiratory disease.

As far as I’m concerned, the fact that NASA found that cars aren’t putting out their “fair share” of soot is to their credit, not detriment.

Manmade global warming (which I do happen to believe in, BTW) is a problem that will ultimately be solved with technology…not by everybody putting on a hairshirt. It’s not the first time this has happened.

Back when urbanization led to cholera/bubonic plague…we developed sanitary sewer technology.

Back when is was postulated global population growth would demand more food than we had arable land to grow it…we developed nitrogen-based fertilizers, to grow more food on the same amount of land.

The biggest problem with GW is entrenched extremists: on the Right, claiming it’s not happening; on the Left, advising draconian cutbacks on standards of living that they know have no chance of being implemented.

The sooner we retreat from entrenched positions, and “roll up our sleeves and get to work,” the better we’ll fare.

8

So what’s the plan to deal with events like the "last mini-ice age? This nature “dude” has been in control long enough and it is time to announce there is a new Sheriff in town (OK just kidding). My point is, climate change on a grand scale is a fingerprint of the forces at work on our planet and also from outer space. These forces are not really asking us how we want the climate to move.

I do agree that “Cause” could look a bit for a different audience,just my 2cents.Now if you want to post some details about how the EPA has harmed the economy with what I see very little in exchange, this could be good reading.

I am not a fan of the “newt” man (he is the trickyest of them all, because hes is the smartest, in a sense) Wants to change the name of the EPA (and also what it does) to the “Environmental Solution Agency” sounds OK to me.

What we be more interesting, Newt as President or “The Donald” as President? Trump has already come out and said “reality check, Ron Paul is not electable”. I like this “cut the BS attitude” shown by Trump. The Chinese are number one on his “let’s put this situation in order” list.This also sounds just great.

9

In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. I am more worried about the magnetic north pole shifting. Buy our vacation property in antartica now!
http://api.ning.com/files/SIaIJiJjRsIEA-tJD6OOEBzejrBs4lGx9VuYQCBlEqUdoHkkPR5kQ3BueM4Wenr9fDys3NfXgBPVnrkbOxbmbrN*uNNwII/54556main_nmppath2001_med.gif

10

Oldschool, Trump ain’t electable, either. First, he can’t run and win as a Democrat. He’d have to run as a Republican, and that would require winning the primary…and you can’t win the GOP nomination w/o placating the “God squad.”

From what little we know (and of course much more would be unearthed if he ever ran), Trump seems pretty amoral. Good for business; bad for the GOP nod. I mean, can you even imagine Trump trying to pass himself off as “godly?”

11

I once thought I had a sure way to create energy without pollution: We put a huge generator out in space. The generator would be powered by a long belt that would go around the equator and then around a pulley on the generator. Unfortunately, the earth wouldn’t rotate as fast due to the drag of this huge generator. We would then move closer to the sun and have even worse global warming.

12

It’s Not “Global Warming” Any More. It’s “Climate Change.” Once The Wackos Were Presented With Evidence Of Cooling, They Changed The Terminology To Fit Any Occasion Of Weather Extremes.

Take a look at history and you will find examples of “global warming,” “Global Cooling,” and “climate change,” before man, after man, before the industrial revolution, after the revolution, . . .

CSA

13

Moderator…please remove this thread. This idiot is NOT wanted here and does nothing but post this silly and stupid posts as a way or promoting train travel…Please BAN him from Cartalk for everyones sake.

14

MNH, your own post breaks rule #1, “If you can’t be polite, don’t say it”.

My post is 100% an article from Scientific American about a NASA report. I doubt most would call either source silly or stupid. I haven’t even added any opinion have let the cartalkers discuss this issue. The question is why do so many find this truth so hard to face?

15

CCC, You Don’t Have A Question Mark And You Haven’t Asked A *Question. That’s What You Are Supposed To Do. I’ll Be Polite. Take A Look At The Responses To Your “Lecture.” People Don’t Want What You’re Selling, Again.

*The button you clicked says, “Submit A Car Question.”

Your Pal,
CSA

16

Sorry guys, but nothing really makes these posts out of bounds. For example, CSA, if you think that CCC should go away for posting stuff like this then the very same applies to your posts about"socialism" nonsense. All you’re saying right now is that you think that the shrill, radical right has a place on these boards, but not the shrill left.

If it was really true that it was as simple as this post doesn’t belong then it would have drifted off the bottom of the page at 0 Comments. The fact is that this is a CarTalk board and the issue posted is a car issue. If you don’t want what is being sold then don’t open the post or respond.

And if you want to go on something really lame like the button says “Submit a Car Question” then you’re completely grasping at straws. This is a Discussion Board and you won’t find anything in the rules that says that every valid post must state a question. The link and header on my page clearly say Recent Discussions

That said, I posted my $.02 above. After this I’m now done contributing to keeping this thread active.

17

Glad to see this. Thanks for posting.
Our impact is minimal.
China is going to cause a greater impact with their terribly inefficient driving, (constant start and stop).
Do their vehicles have any emissions equipment?
Unleaded gasoline?

18

Sorry, Cigroller, But I Asked A Question. Although Most Respondents Chose To Ignore My Question (My Question Wasn’t About Socialism), I Nonetheless Asked One. This Post Has No Question.

Furthermore, I don’t mind this being posted here and I know I can choose to ignore it, but I was pointing out that the submission was actually more a lecture than a question and this was probably the reason for negative feedback.

CSA

19

Cigroller, you’re right, except that my post is not “shrill left”, unless Scientific American and NASA are considered “shrill left”.

20

CCC, . . . And Your Question Is . . . ?

CSA