Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest

Climate Change

206 posts in this topic

Dare I guess what's coming next?

:onfire222:

You know, it's very hard for me to have any kind words here. I was hoping this was becoming a conversation not just a bunch of comments talking past each other.

Good gracious. It's hard not to read your, ahem, "heated" response as a lack of willingness to put up with arguments you don't personally agree with. It seems that by "I was hoping this was becoming a conversation" you mean "I was hoping people would quit posting anything that might disagree with the current global warming prognostications."

You've made a number of posts yourself in this thread which were nothing more than a link and a quote to provide additional evidence and support of what you believe is happening to our climate. Why you single out my post (which specifically states as its objective to give evidence of why I'm reluctant to buy what the climate scientists/media are currently selling) as "talking past each other" escapes me, though for some reason I doubt it would have upset you so much if it were a list of quotes showing a longstanding affirmation of the current consensus, rather than a seesawing back and forth on it.

To repeat: Science is iterative and provisional. It will always waver to some extent.

Also, if your wavering list reflected scientific consensus, that would mean a lot more than just a bunch of isolated (and copied?) quotes.

Well, I certainly don't have any poll statistics to prove that any of it was a consensus, but it's not as if these are quotes from fringe publications. When the NY Times, Newsweek, and Time Magazine are all reporting the same thing at around the same time, I'll go out on a limb and assume there was at least some level of consensus.

So how do you tell the difference between one more provisional iteration in a long line of many, and "This time we've got it right."

Did you do all that research? Or is there a source you should cite?

I may not have been clear enough, but all of the quotes listed are from the link at the top of my post.

But, if you want another source cited within the link I gave, you can have this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good gracious. It's hard not to read your, ahem, "heated" response as a lack of willingness to put up with arguments you don't personally agree with. It seems that by "I was hoping this was becoming a conversation" you mean "I was hoping people would quit posting anything that might disagree with the current global warming prognostications."

You've made a number of posts yourself in this thread which were nothing more than a link and a quote to provide additional evidence and support of what you believe is happening to our climate.

This is my impression, also.

For the conversation to go to the next logical step in response to popechild's post, one good alternative would have been to detail the difference between the scientific methods (and size of data sets) available now versus during the time of previous climate-change scares which he cited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to add to the fray here, but some folks are saying that we will hurt the poor if we fight global warming.

Ellen, see PTC's post from a day ago in this thread...

Back to the topic: I would feel a little easier with discussion of what scientists (pro and con) are saying about this issue. Am thinking that that might well be where Alan is trying to take things, though it's only a guess.

Well, one could argue (heck, I'll go ahead and argue it) that newspaper accounts from reputable sources (NY Times, Newsweek, etc.) of what the contemporary scientists of the day were saying IS discussing what scientists are saying - I mean were saying - er...you get the point.

ABP - re: your point about the new scientific methods/data/etc. This certainly IS a valid point, and it's one duly noted, though it's often a little too easy to assume that as of right *now* we finally have enough information to understand everything. Especially considering how much we still have to learn about long-term climate science.

After all, the scientists in the 30's could have made the same argument, as could the scientists in the 50's, and then the scientists in the 70's as well. And the argument would have been true every time, as far as that goes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ABP - re: your point about the new scientific methods/data/etc. This certainly IS a valid point, and it's one duly noted, though it's often a little too easy to assume that as of right *now* we finally have enough information to understand everything. Especially considering how much we still have to learn about long-term climate science.

Yes, in each age there has been the Modern Science, which is the best ever, and which finally allows us to know the truth. ;)

I'm guessing that the data analysis methods have improved much more than the size of the data set, at least that which consists of direct temperature measurements.

One other direction I'd like to see this discussion go is the area of Climate Control:

(1) What is the fraction of (recent) global warming attributable to human activity? On "my" side of things, one always hears the old saw about trees and other plants producing much more CO2 than human activity. If so, this needs to be firmly established and believed by those for whom it is an inconvenient truth; if not, folks need to stop saying it.

(2) Will humans ever have the level of climactic "authority" to affect global temperatures as we'd like? Can we make a difference? This hearkens back to my old idea of 20 years ago of creating a Global Ozone Pump. I was always puzzled why Ozone was a bad thing locally (e.g., we have "Ozone Action Days" so as not to produce too much), but a beautiful thing globally (e.g., it is a bad thing to have a Hole in the Ozone Layer). My solution: Find a way to transport the Ozone from where it is harmful (e.g., hanging over Los Angeles) to where it is helpful (the "hole" in the Ozone Layer). But the larger point here is to find ways to expand our authority, our ability to control long-term temperature trends.

(3) If and only if we have sufficient authority in the matter, do we come to the next problem: Design a Control System to govern things like the afore-mentioned advent of lower solar activity. This is probably the easiest part, in theory. The main issue is that certain people holding the "levers" that govern global temperature trends (if such levers can be found) will find political advantage in not turning them in the way that the Control System theorists tell them to do. As usual, I think the human problem (sin) will be greater than the technological problem (finding a Control System which reacts to the proper input signals and ignores the ones it should ignore). All this, though, only if we have the means to make significant changes.

(4) Remember, that if we are going to be on the planet for a long time, we'll have to know both how to make it cooler and how to make it warmer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"were" saying is irrelevant to science. Based on that assumption, sooner or later scientists will come back to saying the Earth is flat.

Point well taken, but my sentiment on this issue (which has probably been clear in earlier posts) has been and remains the same as Popechild's, even if there are some holes in his one example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it me or is the temperature rising in here? It seems that thread-warming might be a more urgent issue than global-warming, though it undoubtedly contributes significantly to the latter thanks to the sudden release of steam.

Some comments on what's been said recently:

1. I don't think it is remotely irrelevant to consider the findings of earlier scientists. Only by doing so can we build up a reasonble picture of what change we really are dealing with. It's perhaps not even irrelevant to consider the predictions of earlier scientists - particularly since some or many of those relating to climate change are inevitably long term. If they made predictions which are showing some sign of being correct, then their theory about underlying causes deserves to be examined further. The corrolary is that if their predictions are turning out to be wrong, then we need to see whether or not those predictions and theories have influenced successive teams of scientists looking at the same issue, and re-examine their assumptions. Considering the work of earlier scientists is a way of us stepping outside the prevailing paradigm for a while which helps us to be more objective about the paradigmatic nature of our theories.

2. At the same time, the findings of earlier scientists are irrelevant because their predictions were made based on data then available and the state of the world as it was. But things have moved on. While natural cycles remain in place, human activity is constantly changing. The rate of global industrial development has grown immensely, with a concomitant massive increase in greenhouse gases. The thinning of the ozone layer is a recent problem which appears to be entirely due to CFCs in the upper atmosphere with the result that our crucial protective layer is damaged. (I also wonder whether the reduction in particulate pollution in recent decades has lessened the negative feedback of having clouds of smoke above major cities, but maybe that's too localised to matter)

3. It's not at all clear from most of the quoted earlier sources what kinds of scientists are making which predictions. It's a crucial point. Geologists may well have predicted overall global cooling in 1895 based on purely geological factors. And they may well have been spot on from the evidence they had available. But climate change is extremely complex and relates to many disciplines including astrophysics, meteorology, chemistry, biology, oceanography, etc. Our knowledge of oceanography has increased hugely in the last 20-30 years, and we understand far more about the vital role played by the oceans in climate control.

4. Some of the quotations didn't actually indicate which direction the climate would go:

1974

Time Magazine: “As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.”

New York Times: ...climatologists believed “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.”

But 'seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations' and 'Global climatic upheaval' are both predicted by climate change models which predict global warming. The average temperature might rise, but some places will probably get colder leading to greater instability of climate (which is why, if I understand correctly, Katrina was attributed by some to global warming; my view on that is that we couldn't possibly say unless it turns out to be the beginning of a clear trend). The UK may well lose out because melting Arctic ice could effectively turn the Gulf Stream off. We could end up as cold as Chicago in winter (whereas we virtually never are, despite being 9 degrees further north where I am on the south coast).

5. As has been pointed out by others here, the historical data is mixed to say the least. We only have actual instrument-based temperatures on a roughly global level since around 1850, though of course local records go back much further. Beyond that we draw inferences bases on tree ring growth (matched to year by carbon dating), glacier build-up, composition of coral, etc. We are developing ever-more sophisticated techniques for taking these measurements and drawing inferences. Our data set is far from perfect but it is improving rapidly - all the more so as the global scientific consensus is that climate change is happening at a frightening rate.

6. The consensus is now global. It may be that some of you Americans have a different perspective because, as I understand it, the official American Government line was that the evidence wasn't there. That is no longer the case.

7. The evidence for a fast rate of change is growing all the time. Climate change is natural and cyclical, and even a human-induced variation will be less extreme than some previous natural cycles. It is possible that we are witnessing a natural cycle that we are not aware of, and that we are drawing the wrong inference by pleading guilty ourselves. But that is at some levels a red herring. The evidence for rapid change is now huge. The implications for low-lying areas, for the global economy, for health and other things are enormous. The crisis is building so fast that we do not dare not risk absolving ourselves of responsibility because if we call that one wrongly, it will too late to undo it. Besides which, it is clear that human activity does exacerbate the problem, so even if there is a strong underlying natural trend, we must not make the situation worse.

8. For those of us living in the comfortable affluent west, we can afford to be unconcerned. We can afford the machines to make our lives bearable again. It is nonsense that taking steps to reverse global warming will affect the poor adversely - overall they will suffer far more if global warming is allowed to continue on its current projections. See this heartfelt article from Sabihuddin Ahmed, the High Commissioner for Bangladesh in the UK, recently published in The Independent[/]: For my people, climate change is a matter of life and death

For most people in the West, climate change threatens their lifestyles. For the people of Bangladesh, climate change threatens their very lives.

The impact is being felt now. The mangrove swamps are dying because the sea level is rising and the salt water is poisoning them. People are being displaced because of rising sea levels, caused in part by the dramatic melting of the Arctic icecaps, caused in turn by climate change. . .

Lives in Bangladesh will be devastated though no fault of the people concerned. We are not causing the climate change that is killing our people. The average Bangladeshi produces .3 tons of carbon dioxide per annum; the average citizen in the world's biggest polluting nation, the United States, produces 20 tons of CO2 each year. So as well as calling on all the world's rich nations to reduce emissions and tackle that challenge now, we also know that a certain amount of irreversible change is upon us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crisis is building so fast that we do not dare not risk absolving ourselves of responsibility because if we call that one wrongly, it will too late to undo it. Besides which, it is clear that human activity does exacerbate the problem, so even if there is a strong underlying natural trend, we must not make the situation worse.

To me, it makes a huge difference whether the human contribution is 0.1% of the total versus 1%, 10%, or 100% of the total. In the first two cases, at least, I am strongly motivated to seek a solution which lies outside the cessation of recently popular human activities (such as driving automobiles).

Directionality means almost nothing if we do not know relative magnitudes. And no one seems willing to state the magnitudes. I am in the auto industry, and we are under pressure to come up with (say) 50-100% improvement in fuel consumption for our products. But if we take the fuel consumption per mile in half, and then have 3 times as many people driving (China will contribute here), what have we accomplished? "But it is still directionally correct!" we are told. Yes, fine, but if the net effect is less than zero, I don't see how that is helpful.

Why is this important? Well, if the solution lies in something we are not even looking to affect, we are wasting time. Are we sure that we are barking up the right tree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it makes a huge difference whether the human contribution is 0.1% of the total versus 1%, 10%, or 100% of the total. In the first two cases, at least, I am strongly motivated to seek a solution which lies outside the cessation of recently popular human activities (such as driving automobiles).

If global warming were the only problem, then I'd probably go along with that - other than the problem of identifying the size of the human contribution. WHile we don't know that, we can't carry on as we are. But GW isn't the only issue: emissions cause other problems besides that. Then there's the problem of resources for fuel.

Yes, we don't gain overall if 3 times as many people drive cars which are 3 times more economical. But if we don't make the economy improvements we will end up much worse off because more people will start driving whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But GW isn't the only issue: emissions cause other problems besides that.

Which emissions (CO2, CO, NOx, HC, particulates)? And what effects?

When I was in school (the 1970s), the big enemies were CO, NOx, and unburnt hydrocarbons. With the advent of the catalytic converter, these are not a serious problem. If you drive any modern automobile through the streets of any large (say) Chinese city, there will actually be less of these pollutants coming out your tailpipe than went in at your air intake. You are cleaning the air as you drive.

So, we are left with CO2. If I am missing some pollutant (from IC-engined automobiles), what is it? All I ever hear about these days (Because the auto industry has effectively solved the other problems. You're welcome.) is CO2. If that is indeed the culprit, we are going to need to take more radical steps than doubling or trebling fuel economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which emissions (CO2, CO, NOx, HC, particulates)? And what effects?

When I was in school (the 1970s), the big enemies were CO, NOx, and unburnt hydrocarbons. With the advent of the catalytic converter, these are not a serious problem. If you drive any modern automobile through the streets of any large (say) Chinese city, there will actually be less of these pollutants coming out your tailpipe than went in at your air intake. You are cleaning the air as you drive.

So, we are left with CO2. If I am missing some pollutant (from IC-engined automobiles), what is it? All I ever hear about these days (Because the auto industry has effectively solved the other problems. You're welcome.) is CO2. If that is indeed the culprit, we are going to need to take more radical steps than doubling or trebling fuel economy.

The industry has done an incredible job of cleaning vehicle emissions up, but I confess to being a bit surprised that the air coming out is cleaner. I accept everything you say - for a brand new vehicle. I don't keep up with car engineering developments like I used to, but don't 3-way catalysts for petrol engines have a relatively short useful life? I only know one person who has bothered getting a replacement cat - but as far as I know emissions are only checked annually on diesels in the UK so why should they? If all the modern cars driving around have steadily degrading catalysts, the situation is immeasurably better than it was, but there is still net pollution. And there are still significant numbers of older vehicles on the road - especially in developing nations. I wonder how many cars in a large Chinese city would be modern enough. My experience of India is that there were very few indeed. Then there's the problem that catalysts don't work at 100% efficiency because you can't make an engine run at stoichiometric all the time - or can you with clever engine management systems? Isn't it also the case that 3-way cats need to run hot - so don't work efficiently on cold engines. Mind you, I haven't noticed many whiff of sulphur dioxide from cold engines for a while. As I say, I don't keep up very well any more. Do cats clear up all the benzene emissions now? Last I heard, they reduced it by 50%. Still, fantastic progress is being made and continues to be made.

So, OK emissions is at least partly a red herring. But the problem of finite hydrocarbon resources certainly isn't. Developing clever ways of producing fuels from coal instead of crude can't be the final answer since the quantity is finite, however good we get at extraction from shales.

I am strongly motivated to seek a solution which lies outside the cessation of recently popular human activities (such as driving automobiles).

Yes, but what? If it turns out to be the case that all this warming is purely natural (and as I've said, that's not what the consensus view of the evidence is), what could we do about it? We still only have control over human activities. Wouldn't it still mean drastically reducing greenhouse gases etc.? What else could we do? Actually, I heard a suggestion the other day. Since large volcanic eruptions put vast quantities of ash into the air which have been shown to reduce temperatures, couldn't aero engines be configured to spray volcanic ash into the air and weave us a blanket to reduce the intensity of solar radiation for a while?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am strongly motivated to seek a solution which lies outside the cessation of recently popular human activities (such as driving automobiles).

Yes, but what? If it turns out to be the case that all this warming is purely natural (and as I've said, that's not what the consensus view of the evidence is), what could we do about it? We still only have control over human activities. Wouldn't it still mean drastically reducing greenhouse gases etc.?

If, as you theorize, all of the warming is purely natural, that would mean that our greenhouse gases have no recognizable impact on global climate, which would mean it would be pointless to reduce greenhouse gases, at least as far as trying to control climate change is concerned.

"were" saying is irrelevant to science. Based on that assumption, sooner or later scientists will come back to saying the Earth is flat.

It may not be particularly relevant to current scientific study, but it's certainly relevant to whether we choose to believe said science (or at least how much *I* choose to believe it).

Your analogy of the flat earth would be more accurate if scientists had at one point said the earth was flat, then round, then just a generation ago flat again, then round again, and were currently admitting that while they were certain the earth was round, there was alot about the shape of the earth that they still didn't really understand very well, and much of their belief that the earth was round was based on theoretical computer models. In that case, I might very well be skeptical about whether or not the earth really was round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The industry has done an incredible job of cleaning vehicle emissions up, but I confess to being a bit surprised that the air coming out is cleaner. I accept everything you say - for a brand new vehicle. I don't keep up with car engineering developments like I used to, but don't 3-way catalysts for petrol engines have a relatively short useful life? I only know one person who has bothered getting a replacement cat - but as far as I know emissions are only checked annually on diesels in the UK so why should they? If all the modern cars driving around have steadily degrading catalysts, the situation is immeasurably better than it was, but there is still net pollution. And there are still significant numbers of older vehicles on the road - especially in developing nations. I wonder how many cars in a large Chinese city would be modern enough. My experience of India is that there were very few indeed. Then there's the problem that catalysts don't work at 100% efficiency because you can't make an engine run at stoichiometric all the time - or can you with clever engine management systems? Isn't it also the case that 3-way cats need to run hot - so don't work efficiently on cold engines. Mind you, I haven't noticed many whiff of sulphur dioxide from cold engines for a while. As I say, I don't keep up very well any more. Do cats clear up all the benzene emissions now? Last I heard, they reduced it by 50%. Still, fantastic progress is being made and continues to be made.

On the life of the 3-way cats, I haven't seen that data. I think that they must be pretty good for the first several years, to get past the annual Smog checks in states like California. But, your point stands; they dod degrade.

And, yes, you caught me fudging a bit on the Chinese city example. One of the main reasons a new car could clean the air like that is that all the old cars first put the pollutants there.

We do incredible amounts of computer modeling (for example, some people I work with use finite-element-based thermal analyses to design exhaust manifolds which will "light off" the cats more quickly). I think most modern catalytic converters reach steady-state performance in under a minute.

I'm sorry, I also don't know about the benzene.

So, OK emissions is at least partly a red herring. But the problem of finite hydrocarbon resources certainly isn't. Developing clever ways of producing fuels from coal instead of crude can't be the final answer since the quantity is finite, however good we get at extraction from shales.

I think there is a lot more oil that we are not (yet) willing to drill for. But again, it's only a matter of time. So, once again, your point stands. I have heard some talks from ethanol and methanol proponents, but they haven't really satisfied me. The one thing that this problem has going for it is that the consumer is on the side of the engineers, in that we all want to drive. It's not the same for the catalytic converter, where (without government intervention) most would want everyone else to buy one, but not voluntarily spend money themselves. If I had to bet on a solution for 100 years out, it would be either electric battery vehicles or hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles with, in both cases, the potential energy ultimately having been produced at a nuclear plant.

I am strongly motivated to seek a solution which lies outside the cessation of recently popular human activities (such as driving automobiles).

Yes, but what? If it turns out to be the case that all this warming is purely natural (and as I've said, that's not what the consensus view of the evidence is), what could we do about it? We still only have control over human activities. Wouldn't it still mean drastically reducing greenhouse gases etc.? What else could we do? Actually, I heard a suggestion the other day. Since large volcanic eruptions put vast quantities of ash into the air which have been shown to reduce temperatures, couldn't aero engines be configured to spray volcanic ash into the air and weave us a blanket to reduce the intensity of solar radiation for a while?

I don't know either, but we need to start looking. I am enjoying your thought provoking questions, so thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the main reasons a new car could clean the air like that is that all the old cars first put the pollutants there.

Ah yes, I see what you mean. It raises the interesting possibility of having pollution control officers tailgating old cars to suck up their emissions!

We do incredible amounts of computer modeling (for example, some people I work with use finite-element-based thermal analyses to design exhaust manifolds which will "light off" the cats more quickly). I think most modern catalytic converters reach steady-state performance in under a minute.

That is seriously impressive.

I'm sorry, I also don't know about the benzene.

It seems it might be a bit of red herring. I've disovered that in the UK at least, benzene content must now be under 1% of the fuel and the benzene levels in the air are around 1 part per billion (the legal limit is 5 ppb). Mind you, it still shouldn't be there at all since there are no natural sources of benzene pollution.

The one thing that this problem has going for it is that the consumer is on the side of the engineers, in that we all want to drive. It's not the same for the catalytic converter, where (without government intervention) most would want everyone else to buy one, but not voluntarily spend money themselves. If I had to bet on a solution for 100 years out, it would be either electric battery vehicles or hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles with, in both cases, the potential energy ultimately having been produced at a nuclear plant.

I agree. I would like to see fuel cells developing much faster than they are, though I realise that several of the oil companies are working hard on them because they don't need a crystal ball to predict the future trends for their primary product.

I don't know either, but we need to start looking. I am enjoying your thought provoking questions, so thanks!

Likewise!

Popechild wrote:

If, as you theorize, all of the warming is purely natural, that would mean that our greenhouse gases have no recognizable impact on global climate, which would mean it would be pointless to reduce greenhouse gases, at least as far as trying to control climate change is concerned.

You're right. I was careless ot use the word 'all', but the main point I was trying to make is that we can't sit around doing nothing on the offchance that our current inferences from the evidence are wrong and we're not to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The industry has done an incredible job of cleaning vehicle emissions up, but I confess to being a bit surprised that the air coming out is cleaner. I accept everything you say - for a brand new vehicle. I don't keep up with car engineering developments like I used to, but don't 3-way catalysts for petrol engines have a relatively short useful life? I only know one person who has bothered getting a replacement cat - but as far as I know emissions are only checked annually on diesels in the UK so why should they? If all the modern cars driving around have steadily degrading catalysts, the situation is immeasurably better than it was, but there is still net pollution. And there are still significant numbers of older vehicles on the road - especially in developing nations.

On the life of the 3-way cats, I haven't seen that data. I think that they must be pretty good for the first several years, to get past the annual Smog checks in states like California. But, your point stands; they dod degrade.

Speaking from my limited experience, I have a 1995 Toyota that, under Texas law, has its emissions analyzed every year as part of the inspection process. When the tests are complete, the technician is required to give you the results of the test that includes an analysis of your emission levels compared to the current standards. In the years I have owned the Toyota, there has been no measurable decrease in the efficiency of the emissions system. And I have not made any repairs to any portion of system either. I am always amazed by the extremely low levels of CO2 that my Toyota releases. I am way below the state standards for emissions. Before owning the Toyota, I had a 1984 Ford Ranger pickup truck that would not pass emissions testing no matter what I would do. I received deferments for several years (after spending more than $500 each year on emissions-related repairs) and was then forced into getting a new vehicle because the Ford would not have passed the newer and tighter emissions requirement when it was brand new.

So, for at least the first ten years of my Toyota, there has been no loss of efficiency. That may change, but most Americans don't keep a vehicle more than a decade or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, I also don't know about the benzene.

It seems it might be a bit of red herring. I've disovered that in the UK at least, benzene content must now be under 1% of the fuel and the benzene levels in the air are around 1 part per billion (the legal limit is 5 ppb).

My brother and I were talking about benzene levels in gasoline last year (my brother is an organic research chemist who does a lot of cancer related work) and he informed me that benzene is no longer present in gasoline refined in the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

benzene is no longer present in gasoline refined in the United States.

Hurrah for the USA (not often I say that! ;))! Maybe the UK will catch up on that one soon.

In the years I have owned the Toyota, there has been no measurable decrease in the efficiency of the emissions system.
Impressive. I don't know what factors contribute to deterioration, and maybe it's much less significant now if your experience is anything like representative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the years I have owned the Toyota, there has been no measurable decrease in the efficiency of the emissions system.
Impressive. I don't know what factors contribute to deterioration, and maybe it's much less significant now if your experience is anything like representative.

Toyota makes high-quality vehicles, so I don't know if our domestic manufacturers have the same kind of track record. Other posters from Texas may be able to add their experience to this discussion, since we receive data sheets from our emission inspections.

Do other states do emission inspections and provide test results to motorists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do other states do emission inspections and provide test results to motorists?

AFAIK this only happens with diesels in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

benzene is no longer present in gasoline refined in the United States.

I may have spoken too soon.

I may have misunderstood my brother, but I could have sworn he told me that benzene has been eliminated from domestic gasolines. It came up because he we were talking about the incidents and effects of benzene exposure (our father worked for 35 years in an oil refinery laboratory and was literally up to his elbows in benzene every workday when he cleaned the testing equipment). He mentioned that "until this year" (it was 2005), gasoline included trace amounts of benzene.

So take what I have reported with some skepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have spoken too soon.

I may have misunderstood my brother, but I could have sworn he told me that benzene has been eliminated from domestic gasolines. It came up because he we were talking about the incidents and effects of benzene exposure (our father worked for 35 years in an oil refinery laboratory and was literally up to his elbows in benzene every workday when he cleaned the testing equipment). He mentioned that "until this year" (it was 2005), gasoline included trace amounts of benzene.

So take what I have reported with some skepticism.

I withdraw my praise! :D

It's an interesting article. Given that it reports a proposal for 'cutting toxic emissions from cars nearly in half by 2030', that does seem to indicate that the emissions thing is not something which the auto industry has dealt with completely. I was struck by this paragraph:

Benzene, a naturally occurring carcinogen, accounts for about 1 percent of gasoline content; it causes an estimated 40 to 60 U.S. deaths a year. Under the Bush administration's proposal, by 2030 passenger cars would emit 45 percent less benzene than today and release 350,000 fewer tons of benzene and other toxins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article in The Independent today is timely given that we've just touched on emissions in China:

The explosive growth of the Chinese economy over the past seven years has been linked with a rise in emissions of man-made methane, a study has found.

Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas and, molecule for molecule, it is about 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide in its ability to exacerbate global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And even worse news today . . .

Drought threatening the lives of millions will spread across half the land surface of the Earth in the coming century because of global warming, according to new predictions from Britain's leading climate scientists.

Extreme drought, in which agriculture is in effect impossible, will affect about a third of the planet, according to the study from the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.

It is one of the most dire forecasts so far of the potential effects of rising temperatures around the world - yet it may be an underestimation, the scientists involved said yesterday. . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the producer of a new film about climate change called THE GREAT WARMING. It's narrated by Keanu Reeves and Alanis Morissette and is coming out in Regal Theaters on November 3rd. This is the third film I've produced about the issue, and I can attest to the absolutely non-debatable fact that global warming is real and is human induced, and that we need to act now to deal with it.

You'll also be interested to hear that this film goes beyond dire warnings of disaster (which I don't believe help much to galvanize people), to present the issue not only in terms of science, but also as a moral, ethical and spiritual issue. THE GREAT WARMING also includes many voices of faith and has been endorsed by a huge coalition of "allies" that includes conservative Christian groups, environmental organizations, etc.

We want to make this film a real catalyst for action, and have created what we call the GREAT WARMING CALL TO ACTION. Go to www.thegreatwarming.com and click on "Join the Call to Action". Take a look at the people who've signed our statement, download fact sheets, send away for a free 24page booklet, download a 60 page Biblical study guide, etc. Or you can make a difference by organizing a peaceful demonstration for the Nov 4th global climate change action day - there's an organizer's kit online.

All this to say that we all need to join hands on this one.

Karen Coshof - Producer THE GREAT WARMING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the third film I've produced about the issue, and I can attest to the absolutely non-debatable fact that global warming is real and is human induced

Did you even read this thread? Or are you just here to advertise for your film?

Of course it is debatable. We are debating it right here, to some degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure--that the Earth is round is debatable...

Context is an inconvenience isn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0