General => Lounge => Topic started by: V8Demon on March 19, 2008, 10:24:27 PM
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: V8Demon on March 19, 2008, 10:24:27 PM
Some of you know who Gary Witzenburg is. He has a long and celebrated career in automotive journalism and has even written a few books to include Mercury Cougar 1967-1987 .
Read THIS (http://"http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Commentary/At_Witz_End_I_Dont_Buy_Global_Warming.S192.A12265.html")
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: xjeffs on March 19, 2008, 10:30:40 PM
I think GW has come into question since the temperature has stayed relatively flat since 1998.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: ZondaC12 on March 19, 2008, 10:59:29 PM
I was aggravated (though not too surprised) to not see this on the evening news back in oh AUGUST when it happened...http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2007/08/17/nasa_blocked_climate_change_blogger_from_data seems one could argue global warming was a Y2K bug lol. The corrected data makes 1934 the hottest year of the 20th century, not 1998. And in the ten hottest years as you follow the list it tends to jump back and forth from the first half to the second half of the century entry after entry, yielding no pattern at all.
I always believed it was just another case of a few misleading many with fear/guilt etc, and still do. Just another good reason not to jump to conclusions too quickly and try to extreme-overhaul everything you do when it might not even be necessary.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: EricCoolCats on March 19, 2008, 11:14:26 PM
Quote
Some of you know who Gary Witzenburg is. He has a long and celebrated career in automotive journalism and has even written a few books to include Mercury Cougar 1967-1987.
Yeah, well, he got some facts dead wrong in that book too...
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: Cougar5.0 on March 19, 2008, 11:37:01 PM
Wow, that guy likes insulting people and likes to combine the words "CO2" and "harmless". I read the entire article but there was little meat on them there bones.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: oldraven on March 20, 2008, 07:26:04 AM
He just summed up my current view of Global Warming (a year ago I thought very different). He's not very good with tact, but he has made all the major points.
Food for thought, during the Medieval Warming Period, people were farming in Greenland. It was also a time of economic and agricultural boom. Amazing how the earth bounced back without regulating how much those farmers sheep were allowed to fart.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: Thunder Chicken on March 20, 2008, 09:24:11 AM
I don't know whether global warming is happening or not (our last several winters, including this one in which as I type on the first day of spring there's a freezing rain storm going on outside my window, would seem to suggest "not"). Truthfully, it doesn't matter to me whether it's happening (and even more truthfully, after the long, cold, snowy winter we're still trying to see behind us, I'm secretly rooting for global warming). All of that is on the back burner in my mind. Still, I see great merit in the push for alternative energy and energy conservation, if not for any other reason but that for every bit of energy I conserve I spend a little less money.
That's right - I conserve energy because I'm CHEAP. I bought a 40MPG Saturn because I was too cheap to fill up a 20MPG Lincoln. I cut my trips to the city in half because I'm too cheap to buy the gas necessary to do it 4 times a week. I drive at exactly the speed limit on the highway because I'm too cheap to burn the extra gas required to drive faster (and WAY too cheap to pay a $250 ticket). I bought 7 cords of firewood for $900 because I'm too cheap to fill up a 200-gallon oil tank several times at $800/shot. I turn the TV off when I'm not watching it, replaced all my bulbs with CFL's, and use the clothes line because I'm too cheap to pay high power bills.
My stingy ways have saved me a lot of money in the two years I've owned this house. For example, CFL's not only burn less energy, they last longer (I've yet to have one burn out, including the one in the basp00get that has been lit constantly all last winter and all of this winter). It's had the added bonus of keeping more of my money out of Chavez's bank account (most of our oil on the east coast comes from Venezuela). Every drop of oil my stingy ways has conserved is a drop of oil that will be available in future. The environmental impact of my stingy ways is merely a side benefit.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: ZondaC12 on March 20, 2008, 09:34:05 AM
^^^ Definitely a good point. Nuttin' wrong with trying to save as much as you can on fuel.
http://www.newscloud.com/wire/redir/1706828/ It's so obvious diesel is the way to go. Funny how all of those are from Chrysler but thats still SIX cars made HERE that we can't own here. I mean I'm all for regulating the diesels from THE non-attainment areas, but I don't see the merit in screwing us ALL just because of those areas.
All I know is good luck getting the big 3 to meet 35 MPG cafe by 2020 without diesel. WITH it, they could probably pull it off even sooner!
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: EricCoolCats on March 20, 2008, 09:46:28 AM
Quote
replaced all my bulbs with CFL's
Homo. :flip:
J/k Carm, I wouldn't consider that being cheap. It's being frugal, and being smart, with everything that you do. You're not that far from what I and most others have been forced to do, thanks to the economy: tighten the belt, buck up, and do what needs to be done. My home heating supplement to propane has been an electric ceramic heater, which has done a wonderful job in keeping things moderately temperate in the house. Cost $40 new, has added only about $20/month to the electric bill, and like your situation, it beats a $3/gallon fill of the 500-gallon propane tank. Then again, I have a ranch house so it's a lot easier to do in my situation.
Hell, I probably drive the least of anyone here: 7 miles a day total, 35 miles a week. I fill up the tank on the Mountaineer once a MONTH. And even I had to make adjustments in my life to ensure that I have enough money to fill the tank. Can't wait until summer, when I've got the other two cars out (and one of those takes premium unleaded). But that's the price I must pay to have three vehicles, and two summer toys. It's my responsibility.
I'm still not sold on the CFL bulbs, especially because their light output can suck. I'm replacing everything in my house, garage and basp00get with flourescent, halogen or LED lighting, mainly for longer life but also with the added benefit of reduced energy consumption. Plus they'll look cool. ;)
Really, I'm well on the path to being energy independent as much as possible. I make my own water (well), I have my own sewage containment (septic), I get my TV shows from the air (satellite), and I have my own holding tank for my heating fuel (propane) whose price is locked in, and once I buy it, it's all mine unlike natural gas. Now the sad part is, I live about a mile from city limits but none of the city utilities are even available to me, and probably never will, so all these things I'm forced to have out of necessity.
But...I got to thinking about how to turn that into a positive. All I need to do now is begin to generate my own electricity and I can be free of most major utilities (still have to have cable Internet and phone). Now as it is, I have one of the lowest electric bills of anyone that I know, but that doesn't mean I can't improve upon it. In about 5 years the house will be paid off, and then I will immediately take out another loan to buy a bank of solar panels for the roof. Hopefully the overall cost will drop by then and the technology will become a little more efficient. Also, I've considered installing a windmill that's hooked to a generator, if only for the fact that windmills are just so ed cool to watch.
In this respect it's possible that one type, or both combined, will lead to an almost negligible electric bill, thus freeing me from the electric company...but more importantly, reducing my carbon footprint by saving some coal that Ohio Edison would burn to make my power otherwise. And the bonus: Ohio is one of 45 U.S. states that will buy back any excess power that I generate, so I'd get a credit for it. During peak hours in the summer that's going to be a blessing.
So inadvertently I am becoming more responsible for the planet in my own small circle. I wouldn't say I'm totally "green" or a "tree hugger" (that's Nick's title LOL) but I am certainly aware of things now more than ever, and have figured out ways to incorporate them into my life without too much inconvenience. They happen to fit my lifestyle now.
But I'm still not putting the catalytic converters back on the convertible anytime soon. ;)
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: CougarSE on March 20, 2008, 09:56:12 AM
Quote from: EricCoolCats;209986
Homo. :flip:
Hell, I probably drive the least of anyone here: 7 miles a day total, 35 miles a week. I fill up the tank on the Mountaineer once a MONTH.
I drive less than two miles a day :flip: Work is just right down the road.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: ZondaC12 on March 20, 2008, 10:04:32 AM
Quote from: EricCoolCats;209986
But I'm still not putting the catalytic converters back on the convertible anytime soon. ;)
GOOD! LOL I dunno I just looooooove the smell of my exhaust so much more. That and I wonder what it would sound like with 'em on. With all the sound deadener in these cars my catless with Flowmaster 40s sometimes seems too quiet, I'd hate to think of what it would be with cats!!! However, mom scolds me all the time "I'm telling you that thing is OBSCENELY loud, obscene!" So that makes me all warm n fuzzy inside :D.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: Thunder Chicken on March 20, 2008, 10:15:36 AM
Quote from: CougarSE;209988
I drive less than two miles a day :flip: Work is just right down the road.
I've got you both beat. My work (main job, Thundercat Electronixx) is just down the hall, first door on the left :hick:. Granted, every once in a while I do go into the city and build a cop car or two when the shop is busy...
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: CougarSE on March 20, 2008, 10:26:19 AM
:yuck:
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: Cougar5.0 on March 20, 2008, 11:12:04 AM
Huh, my company office is a 55 mile commute each way :( Yes people, that's about $13/day commute. To compensate, I work from home on Mondays & Fridays - talk about boring.
I agree with Carm on the O/P issue - I'm agnostic and somewhat pro-global warming from where I sit :hick: Any right-wing wacko (left wing fruitloop) that says "it's cold (hot) out today so global warming must be fake (real)" get's a big roll of my eyes :rolleyes: Also, anybody who writes an article where they already have an opinion and they simply want to write a piece that supports their position whilst taking broad-brush swipes at people who believe different also get's a big old eyeroll from me (the clown who wrote the article in the O/P) :rolleyes: It's clear where his prejudices lie.
I like CAFE standards BTW - they're like the Apollo program in that they spur new technology. The last ones gave us EFI, CATs & tighter tolerance, cleaner burning engines. Now we have record breaking power (500HP) & weight (up to 5k lb) vehicles rolling off regular production lines. I think it's time to force the car companies to put some of these beasts on a diet. I have no idea why the new Mustangs weigh as much as my 20+ year old Cougar, but clearly they're not trying very hard to put new materials & technologies to work (other than to sell more vehicles to the reptile brained people). Well, unless the concept of peak oil production and the plot below have no meaning:
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: oldraven on March 20, 2008, 11:30:22 AM
He wasn't trying to argue that Global Warming isn't happening (really, all of page four explains this), just what the causes really are. The fact (yes, fact) that the sun is hotter than before should be as obvious a cause of GW as you can get. That is a giant slap in the face worth of cause and effect.
I can't wait for high efficiency solar tech to finally have its day. Really, if the sun is hotter, do you think maybe 'somebody' is trying to give us a hint?
"Hey, I've got some free energy here."
*crickets*
[SIZE="4"]"I said, Free Energy!"[/SIZE]
*mooooo*
[COLOR="Red"][SIZE="7"]"it! I'm giving this stuff away! Listen to me!"[/SIZE][/COLOR]
*"Is it getting hotter down here, or is it just me?"*:flame:
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: JeremyB on March 20, 2008, 12:00:34 PM
Quote from: Cougar5.0;209996
I have no idea why the new Mustangs weigh as much as my 20+ year old Cougar, but clearly they're not trying very hard to put new materials & technologies to work (other than to sell more vehicles to the reptile brained people). Well, unless the concept of peak oil production and the plot below have no meaning:
The new Mustang is quieter, torsionally stiffer, has much more power, bigger wheels/tires, bigger brakes, ABS, traction control, air bags, more crash resistant, etc. All of those positives come with a mass penalty. Engine technology advances have essentially been negated by consumer's want/need to have safe and quiet cars.
The concept of peak oil, or at least Hubbert's (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory") concept of peak, is still very much a theory. I think his idea is too simplistic. Once prices rise to a certain amount, unconventional sources (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-conventional_oil") will become cost effective. Locations considered environmentally unfriendly will be pursued. I don't see a symmetrical bell curve, rather a slow decline on the far side.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: V8Demon on March 20, 2008, 12:29:34 PM
Quote from: EricCoolCats;209934
Yeah, well, he got some facts dead wrong in that book too...
I'll know soon enough.....My copy is on it's way;)
Quote from: oldraven
He wasn't trying to argue that Global Warming isn't happening (really, all of page four explains this), just what the causes really are
I guess you refer to this:
Quote from: Witzenburg
If so, what is causing it? The list of potential culprits begins with the Sun and includes water vapor (the major "greenhouse" gas), ozone, bacteria, insects, forest fires and, yes, CO2. But while CO2 in the last half-century has increased 19 percent from 316 to 376 parts per million, it still amounts to less than one three-thousandth of one percent (.000333 percent) of the total atmosphere. And when CO2 was increasing dramatically between 1945 and 1977, says Western Washington University geologist Don J. Easterbrook, the Earth was cooling.
I recently saw a rather good documentary on the Polar Ice caps on the Discovery Channel. The point of view of some of the scientitsts interviewed was that where the increase in "greenhouse gases" will actually plunge the Earth into another Ice Age. The temperature will rise at first, melting the Antarctic ice to the point where the underwater temperature transfer will cease. The details become complicated and are better explained here: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046
Me? I like the idea of direct injection which hopefully will become mainstrem through CAFE. Perhaps one day, a coversion kit will be available to do a direct injection turbo pushrod 5.0:burnout: I also wish I had a little more cash in the bank account. I have a lot of concrete work to do around the house this year. I've been putting the back off and now the front stoop basically exploded after the monsoon season we just had...I'm residing the front facade as well. You've all seen the wonderful pink the previous homeowners put up:hick: Luckily, the back and sides are white. If I had a little extra scratch I'd be installing solar heat panels....
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: Cougar5.0 on March 20, 2008, 01:09:46 PM
Quote from: oldraven;210002
He wasn't trying to argue that Global Warming isn't happening ...
Not sure anybody said he was - I certainly didn't make that argument. Is the sun getting hotter? That's news to me. A report on the radio yesterday said that the oceans haven't increased in temperature in the past several years, thus calling into question some of the theories of global warming - so I'm not sure about anything - unlike the bitter fellow that wrote the article who seems to not know what he's talking about.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: oldraven on March 20, 2008, 02:09:03 PM
Quote from: V8Demon;210012
where the increase in "greenhouse gases" will actually plunge the Earth into another Ice Age.
But the question is whether the greenhouse gasses cause that melting or simply a rise in temperature. Everyone is on mass assuming that it is greenhouse gasses. I know they have an effect in urban areas, where they cloud over an area, but the majority of the earth has no smog, and the poles in particular. We had a massive period of Global Warming within our own history, and it was not followed by an Ice Age. There was a major cooling period afterwords, but nothing that will cover half our world in ice or re-establish the land bridges.
Quote from: Cougar5.0
Is the sun getting hotter? That's news to me.
You and I obviously read different news, then. ;)
I agree, the guy has no sense of diplomacy, but he speaks the truth. Much of the 'facts' about Global Warming and it's causes are hardly facts at all. We're getting the results of studies, which always end up supporting a preconceived notion, and theories, not hard proof. In fact, there is an equal amount of studies and theories out there that say the opposite. The media has just decided to ignore or discredit them to keep pushing the big headline trend that has people reading. What sells more magazines; "Global Warming Doomsday Imminent", or "False Alarm, Everything Is Going To Be OK"?
That said, I don't think we need a BS fear tactic to get us to change the way we treat our planet and our own health. Our own dwindling pockets are more than enough reason to drop our fuel usage, and politics is a close second. Global Warming aside, we do need to curb our severe air pollution if only to get rid of acid rain and lung cancer.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: Cougar5.0 on March 20, 2008, 02:24:15 PM
Quote from: oldraven;210028
That said, I don't think we need a BS fear tactic to get us to change the way we treat our planet and our own health. Our own dwindling pockets are more than enough reason to drop our fuel usage, and politics is a close second. Global Warming aside, we do need to curb our severe air pollution if only to get rid of acid rain and lung cancer.
Isn't that all that needs to be said?
Posting the rantings of some right-wing spewer of broad-brush mindlessness and then seeing him backpedal in another part of the article to acknowledge some "facts" is assinine in my opinion. I have no respect for people who write with a political bent - left or right. He is a non-entitiy to me as his view is distorted by his clear spewing of right-wing "talking points" - same as if he was some left-wing whacko criticizing me for having a race-car as a hobby. "go sit in the corner and eat some granola and calculate the value of pi to the 234242th place - k? Stay out of my hobby"
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: V8Demon on March 20, 2008, 02:35:16 PM
Quote
What sells more magazines; "Global Warming Doomsday Imminent", or "False Alarm, Everything Is Going To Be OK"?
[News anchorman voice]"What happens when this out of control bus full of 7 year olds careens into a fuel tanker!!!???? FILM AT 11![/News anchorman voice]:hick:
Quote
But the question is whether the greenhouse gasses cause that melting or simply a rise in temperature.
The real question;)
Consider this. Major snowfall occured in New England in 1816 IN JUNE. The scientific answer as to why?
Quote
"The Year Without a Summer" occurred in 1816 (known in Jefferson County by the saying "1800-and-froze-to-death"), and was caused by the fall-out from a monstrous volcanic eruption of Mount Tambora on the island of Sambawa in Indonesia the previous year. A billion cubic yards of dust was ejected over fifteen miles high into the atmosphere and continued far into the stratosphere where winds distributed it all over the world. This volcanic ash high in the atmosphere caused a shielding of the earth from the heat of the sun (basically what would happen in a "nuclear winter") and much lower temperatures worldwide. New England saw a heavy and crippling snowfall between June 6 and June 11, 1816 and frost for every month of the year in 1816. Crops failed in the New England regions as well as the Ohio River Valley, Western Europe, and Canada. By 1817 most of the dust had settled and conditions had returned to almost-normal.
More stuff here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: oldraven on March 20, 2008, 02:47:44 PM
Did we read the same article?
He never back pedalled. Where did he contradict himself? Uhm... he's trying to point out the 'broad-brush mindlessness' of people swallowing something that is being pushed on us all by mass media, while any other point of view is being completely swept under the rug. You have to read both sides to get the real story. Dismissing anything that looks 'right-wing' to you (I'm a leftie, so you know) means you're playing right into the hands of your particular flavour of media. Al Gore's entire documentary (scare tactic propaganda, depending on how you see it) was left leaning. Did you believe any of that? Well, the majority of the western world has and won't hear anything that even tried to debunk the connection between global warming and CO2 emissions. Otherwise you may as well just have your fingers in your ears singing 'lalalalala'.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: Cougar5.0 on March 20, 2008, 04:06:56 PM
We'll see ;)
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: tbirdsps on March 20, 2008, 06:27:37 PM
Great discussion.....but.
Where did the Ozone hole go? Less than 10 countrys actually banned CFCs. Is the hole full now?
If Global Warming is melting the ice at the north pole why is there more ice at the south pole?
In 1970 the "experts" were predicting an ice age in 30 years. Did we cause the ice age to not happen?
On the west coast a "La Nino" causes a lot of rain due to the cooler ocean temps. This last winter was described as a "La Nina" year where the west coast was predicted to be dry. Why were we wetter this year than the last 5 years?
The answer to all the above is that although scientists are smart people they still cannot predict the weather more than 7 days out.
The old Farmers' Almanac is a better predictor and averages over 80% accuracy 1 year out. Why don't the scientists use the Almanac?
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: Cougar5.0 on March 20, 2008, 06:48:41 PM
Heh - let's use single examples "down south" - just for fun :evilgrin:
Quote
Cities in peril as Andean glaciers melt
Ice sheets expected to last centuries could disappear in 25 years, threatening water supplies
(http://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2006/08/29/Upsala372.jpg) View from the top ... Two images of the Upsala glacier in Argentina show the retreat of the ice (top: 1928; bottom: 2004).
Andean glaciers are melting so fast that some are expected to disappear within 15-25 years, denying major cities water supplies and putting populations and food supplies at risk in Colombia, Peru, Chile, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina and Bolivia.
The Chacaltaya glacier in Bolivia, the source of fresh water for the cities of La Paz and El Alto, is expected to completely melt within 15 years if present trends continue. Mount Huascarán, Peru's most famous mountain, has lost 1,280 hectares (3,163 acres) of ice, around 40% of the area it covered only 30 years ago. The O'Higgins glacier in Chile has shrunk by nine miles in 100 years and Argentina's Upsala glacier is losing 14 metres (46ft) a year.
Although a few glaciers in southern Patagonia are increasing in size, almost all near the tropics are in rapid retreat. Some glaciers in Colombia are now less than 20% of the mass recorded in 1850 and Ecuador could lose half its most important glaciers within 20 years. ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/aug/29/glaciers.climatechange
Quote
As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows
Scientists are puzzled, but the phenomenon seems to fit the latest global-warming models.
For decades, the vast expanse of sea ice that surrounds Antarctica each winter, and all but vanishes each austral summer, has languished as the Rodney Dangerfield of Earth's cryosphere.
Antarctic sea ice has gotten little respect, especially compared with its top-of-the-world cousin, or with the enormous ice sheets on Greenland and the Antarctic continent. The sea ice is hard to reach. It has little direct effect on people. And the Southern Ocean was not a cold-war playground for US and Soviet submarines, which amassed a wealth of information on changes in Arctic sea ice before the era of long-term satellite observations.
But as a research target, southern sea ice's stock appears to be rising.
Over the past 20 years, southern sea ice has expanded, in contrast to the Arctic's decline, and researchers want to understand why. Many climate-model experiments show the Arctic responding more rapidly than Antarctica as global warming kicks in. But after looking at the latest projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Arctic sea ice is well ahead of the models, and Antarctic sea ice is well behind what the models project," says Stephen Ackley, a polar scientist at the University of Texas, San Antonio.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: oldraven on March 20, 2008, 07:58:21 PM
Quote from: tbirdsps;210087
The old Farmers' Almanac is a better predictor and averages over 80% accuracy 1 year out. Why don't the scientists use the Almanac?
Amen! That book is bourne of some anchient dark art, but it works. My Dad won't go without one.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: jcassity on March 20, 2008, 11:18:31 PM
speaking of which,, time to plant potatoes now. Our family has for many decades planted potatoes on the first weekend after good friday or at the least, the first dark moon following. I guess i have some time since the moon is still quite large.
As for global warming,,, all i can say is that science has a lot to learn.
We as a species can do better with our polution and its control. there is no exuse for the abusive infrustructure that works on old technology. If the earth goes through cycles, then so be it it but we dont have to be dirty creatures and leave a mess.
Im watching aircraft take off while waiting for the plane to get to the gate. I want to compare one polluted take off of a 747 to a car.
wonder how many cars it would take running at the same time to compare to the pollution a 747 makes during take off only.
sick thinking i know but still,, it makes you wonder based on how many aircraft are taking off in the world each hour.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: xjeffs on March 21, 2008, 12:02:43 AM
Quote from: Cougar5.0;210020
Is the sun getting hotter? That's news to me.
The surface temperature on Mars has been increasing also.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: V8Demon on March 21, 2008, 12:34:08 AM
Quote
how many cars it would take running at the same time to compare to the pollution a 747 makes during take off only.
sick thinking i know but still,, it makes you wonder based on how many aircraft are taking off in the world each hour.
80,000 or more pounds of gas for ONE transatlantic flight....Sometimes more depending on the aircraft type and cargo. 6.8 pounds to a gallon of aviation fuel. The car industry has MANY more emission regulations. Interesting isn't it?
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: Cougar5.0 on March 21, 2008, 09:54:49 AM
That is an interesting question. Here is a comparison of "typical" miles per gallon and then passenger miles per gallon:
According to the 2003 Sierra Club Article: "Flying creates 13 percent of transportation-generated carbon dioxide worldwide, accounting for 3.5 percent of all global warming emissions. Other aviation gases include hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide, which contribute to acid rain. EPA estimates that commercial aircraft will generate as much as 10 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions from mobile sources in cities with heavy air traffic by 2010. And in an odd twist, some of today's quieter, more fuel-efficient aircraft engines generate an average of 40 percent more smog-forming nitrogen oxides than the engines they replaced.
Should we also try to clean up aircraft pollution (not very practical if you think about how a turbine operates), or should we remove pollution control from cars because it is unfair that the planes get a "free ride"?
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: V8Demon on March 21, 2008, 10:19:09 AM
Quote
Should we also try to clean up aircraft pollution (not very practical if you think about how a turbine operates),
The engines on the newest variant of the Boeing 747 are said to be 25% more fuel efficient than the ones on the first models...But as your reference shows that may not necessarily be a good thing.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: JeremyB on March 21, 2008, 11:51:31 AM
Quote from: V8Demon;210163
80,000 or more pounds of gas for ONE transatlantic flight....Sometimes more depending on the aircraft type and cargo. 6.8 pounds to a gallon of aviation fuel. The car industry has MANY more emission regulations. Interesting isn't it?
A 747-400 has a range of 7260 nmi (8355 mi) with a fuel load of 57285 gallons. This comes to 0.1458 mpg. Seating capacity for a 2-class arrangement is 524 passengers, giving a mpg-person of 76. Seating capacity for a 3-class arrangement is 416, resulting in a mpg-person of 61.
A 30mpg station wagon with 4 people riding in it would get 120 mpg-person (30*4). A 50 mpg Prius with only a driver would get 50 mpg-person.
One can see how jetliners (at least full ones) don't do so bad wrt mpg-person. Especially considering they travel 10 times faster than automobiles and you can drink on them.
The newer, more fuel efficient engines run leaner, thus generating more NOx. They don't have the benefit of catalytic converters.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: jcassity on March 22, 2008, 12:50:15 AM
you all are consistant in over compliating simple shiznit.
Take off only. Aircraft type was stated-747
the smoke out the tail end is as black as a coal fired plant
forget all about that mile per person .
so,,,,,,,,,, lemme ask it again.
How many cars would it take to equal the pollution of one 747 take off only?
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: V8Demon on March 22, 2008, 09:04:33 AM
When a 747 takes off, it has to land. That means it has to travel a distance in between. Unlike a car a 747 isn't taken out for a smoky burnout or two only to be put away till the next sunny day. I gave you the answer to what I knew as personal experience and Jeremy expanded upon that.
As to you specific question I don't know. Sorry for overcomplicating the issue.;)
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: Cougar5.0 on March 22, 2008, 09:33:57 AM
...and I posted the average passenger miles per gallon for air travel compared to other forms of transportation - which would seem to be a significant number if we are talking the real world - doh - thanks for mentioning that! (not)
I also posted what air-travel contributes to overall transportation generated emmisions that can/may contribute to warming - which includes automobiles and all other transportation emmisions (trains, busses etc...). What else do you need to know?
Quote
"Flying creates 13 percent of transportation-generated carbon dioxide worldwide, accounting for 3.5 percent of all global warming emissions.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: 5.0willgo on March 22, 2008, 01:28:07 PM
Quote from: jcassity
How many cars would it take to equal the pollution of one 747 take off only?
I didn't actually read the article but googled and found... http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/acro_poltn.html (http://"http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/acro_poltn.html")
Quote
One two minute 747 take-off is equal to operating over two-million lawnmowers for 20 minutes. That is two states' worth of lawnmowers (Nitrogen oxides, Carbon monoxides, Hydrocarbons).
One DC-10 takeoff's pollution is equal to 21,530 cars.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: jcassity on March 22, 2008, 02:53:25 PM
Ok Answer- IT will take 2,400,000 pistons in operation for two min to equal one 747 take off of two min. 747 pollution range covers aboiut a 12-20 mile area during take off with pollution particles less than 1 micron (no filter available to date) 1 car's pollution covers about 60ft while driving with pollution particles greater than 40-150 microns, (filterable)
that means.............
there has to be 400,000 6cyl (average) vehicles running for a two min period to equal one 747 take off.
There are about 240,000,000 cars in the US (including those not sold yet at dealerships).,,or,,, 1,440,000,000 pistons in the US (including those cars not driven that day)
There are 34,444 US Civil aircraft and 5,778 commercial, total= @ 40,000 aircraft.
________________________ now lest examine the above info and compare it to a real time situaiton. http://local.google.com/answers/threadview?id=584144
Situation- all take off's in a day of aircraft compared to car pistons in operation world wide.
inventory world wide: 312,000 Active General Aviation Aircraft 17,770 Passenger Aircraft 89,129 Military Aircraft 26,500 Civil Helicopters 29,700 Military Helicopters.
Total Passanger aircraft in service=17,770 world wide
To be reasonable, lets assume 75% will execute 4 take off's per day. Total take offs of about 13,000 x 4= 52,000 take offs per day world wide.
52,000 aircraft take offs per day so....... 1 take off equals 400,000 6cyl cars in a two min time frame 400,000 x 52,000 = 20,800,000,000
SO,, it takes 20.8billion cars running at the same time for two min to equal all the worlds short 2min take off of the worlds passanger aircraft.
Remember, this does not include all the time spent in flight, just take off time.
But,, according to the FAA in the following link, cars are the bad guy. My thoughts are that the goverment is and always will need to be biased for the best interest of thier pockets. The only thing remaining to blame is the consumer,, ie-since we do not have any lobyists. I suppose it would be pointless to reasearch the below source to find out where they got thier data,,(:hick: I did and found that it was much more cost effective to illustrate small airports such as Roanoke va , lewisburg wv and tiny towns across the land). The results were a garranteed win for the report. Lewisburg WV btw has three flights a day,turbo prop only.
perhaps the chart on page 7 should be adjusted to something more realistic. I think my numbers are way too under inflated but to say aviation represents only 0.4% tells you one thing,, the goverment knows the public is stupid. http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/aeprimer.pdf
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: JeremyB on March 22, 2008, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: Cougar5.0;210308
...and I posted the average passenger miles per gallon for air travel compared to other forms of transportation - which would seem to be a significant number if we are talking the real world - doh - thanks for mentioning that! (not)
I had made a longer post up, but lost it to a power outtage.
That chart's numbers are about as real as Barney the Dinosaur. Here's a link to a source page. [Link (http://"http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/travel/train-plane-car.html")] I'll use the automobile as an example. 2.3 is listed as the average # of passengers per car. A link (http://"http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS01-07.pdf") in his page shows the average was 1.63 in 2005. Also the average mpg was ~21 in 2005. One must derate it by ~10%, as the EPA has done because the original EPA sticker numbers are too high when compared to real-world mpg. So 1.63*21*.9= 30.8 mpg-person. A difference of 112% from the number in the table. Very real, don't you think? :rolleyes:
Quote
I also posted what air-travel contributes to overall transportation generated emmisions that can/may contribute to warming - which includes automobiles and all other transportation emmisions (trains, busses etc...). What else do you need to know?
If you keep posting up stinknugget charts as you have, nothing. :D
In all seriousness, photobucket is blocked at work so I didn't see your original chart. As such, I wasn't trying to contradict your numbers because I didn't see any in the first place. I was simply trying to give a general idea of the upper bounds of flight mpg-person figures. That being said, IMO - those chart's numbers are worthless and no conclusions should be drawn from them.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: Cougar5.0 on March 22, 2008, 04:13:18 PM
Whatever - I'm done with this post. Every person has their own "correct" sources and everybody is mostly ignoring the other person and talking past them in order to make their own pet point. I knew this thread would be pointless to begin with and haven't put a lot of effort into it as it is clear that no person here is going to listen to another and nobody will change their basic beliefs which are shaped more by a person's personal beliefs and prejudices. This issue is way too complex to be discussing here anyway. Suffice it to say that we all seem to agree on 3 things 1) Global warming is a real phenomenon at this time though there is little agreement as to it's cause(s) 2) pollution is bad for people. 3) airplanes make a lot of pollution but nobody seems to acknowledge it's contribution to global greenhouse gas production (should we talk about coal fired plants next?). Anyway, it's time to move on before we start bickering like little girls.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: jcassity on March 23, 2008, 11:06:29 AM
no, your fine man and it was your sources that trigged my research on where the FAA cam up with thier sources. i am not debating with you or anyone,, i was just curious of the take off only pollution. I think the FAA link page 7 i posted is wayyyyyyyyyy wrong.
I just have a gut feeling without charts and soiurces that tell me aircraft should be near the top producer of pollution.
seriously though, are there really 20.8billion cars in the world and running at once to equal all the worlds 747 take offs per day? (this excludeds aircraft flight time)
It was ironic this topic came up as my oldest son is in need of a subject to research for home school science and this subject came up,,then i find a topic about it here. I would like to see someone elses view to shoot down what i have found because no one is perfect. Besides, , the subject is a little gray as no real hard core research has been done on this matter that i can see.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: JeremyB on March 23, 2008, 11:58:01 AM
Quote from: Cougar5.0;210353
Whatever - I'm done with this post. Every person has their own "correct" sources and everybody is mostly ignoring the other person and talking past them in order to make their own pet point.
I'm not saying what I have sourced is the be-all end-all. But the chart you posted is incorrect and cannot be used to compare automobile/airplane fuel efficiencies. One must have at least resonably correct data before one can interpreit it.
The quote saying "Flying creates 13 percent of transportation-generated carbon dioxide worldwide" is somewhat vague. However, if one assumes that the world statistics are buttstuffogous to the US (probably a bad assumption), then you can find that flying CO2 generation is out of line with total passenger-miles traveled. 2003 statistics (http://"http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_37.html") show that flying attritubed to only 9.57% of total passenger-miles traveled. Still, the contribution from autos isn't given, so a comparison cannot be made. 15% is not minute, but still much smaller than the auto's contribution. It is easier to legislate a change where the same work will give 5X (just a guess) more results.
Quote
This issue is way too complex to be discussing here anyway.
Global warming in general is a very complex matter, but comparing the relative badness of flying vs. driving isn't if one takes the time to find the correct data to draw conclusions from.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: V8Demon on March 23, 2008, 03:37:50 PM
Quote from: jcassity
I just have a gut feeling without charts and soiurces that tell me aircraft should be near the top producer of pollution.
seriously though, are there really 20.8billion cars in the world and running at once to equal all the worlds 747 take offs per day? (this excludeds aircraft flight time)
I don't believe anyone who has posted concerning this is in disagreement on that.
Quote from: JeremyB
A 747-400 has a range of 7260 nmi (8355 mi) with a fuel load of 57285 gallons. This comes to 0.1458 mpg. Seating capacity for a 2-class arrangement is 524 passengers, giving a mpg-person of 76. Seating capacity for a 3-class arrangement is 416, resulting in a mpg-person of 61.
Those #'s assume that every time a 747 takes off in that arrangement (class-2 or class-3) that it is in fact full. I believe you elluded to that already though. The last time I was on a plane was 2 years ago. It was an MD-80. There were 12 passengers on board...
Quote from: Cougar5.0
...and I posted the average passenger miles per gallon for air travel compared to other forms of transportation - which would seem to be a significant number if we are talking the real world - doh - thanks for mentioning that! (not)
My apologies.:sorry:
Quote from: Cougar5.0
Suffice it to say that we all seem to agree on 3 things 1) Global warming is a real phenomenon at this time though there is little agreement as to it's cause(s) 2) pollution is bad for people. 3) airplanes make a lot of pollution but nobody seems to acknowledge it's contribution to global greenhouse gas production
Pretty much hit the nail on the head.:burnout:
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: jcassity on March 24, 2008, 01:08:53 AM
Quote from: JeremyB;210483
I'm not saying what I have sourced is the be-all end-all. But the chart you posted is incorrect and cannot be used to compare automobile/airplane fuel efficiencies. One must have at least resonably correct data before one can interpreit it.
The quote saying "Flying creates 13 percent of transportation-generated carbon dioxide worldwide" is somewhat vague. However, if one assumes that the world statistics are buttstuffogous to the US (probably a bad assumption), then you can find that flying CO2 generation is out of line with total passenger-miles traveled. 2003 statistics (http://"http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_37.html") show that flying attritubed to only 9.57% of total passenger-miles traveled. Still, the contribution from autos isn't given, so a comparison cannot be made. 15% is not minute, but still much smaller than the auto's contribution. It is easier to legislate a change where the same work will give 5X (just a guess) more results.
Global warming in general is a very complex matter, but comparing the relative badness of flying vs. driving isn't if one takes the time to find the correct data to draw conclusions from.
jeremy, you did this to yourself:D I have a very finite and pointed question with plenty enough supplied information to come to one and only one end result. This whole "miles per person" senerio is for the birds as it makes no contribution to any part of the original question.
I run into this all the time,, just last week someone tossing in extra assumptions costed my project an additional 40grand across two days in fines. :hick:
the topic is very interesting and needs awareness though.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: JeremyB on March 24, 2008, 02:19:11 AM
Quote from: jcassity;210563
jeremy, you did this to yourself:D I have a very finite and pointed question with plenty enough supplied information to come to one and only one end result. This whole "miles per person" senerio is for the birds as it makes no contribution to any part of the original question.
Actually, I wasn't replying to your question. My reply in post #32 (http://"http://foxtbirdcougarforums.com/showpost.php?p=210198&postcount=32") was to Paul's statement in #29 (http://"http://foxtbirdcougarforums.com/showpost.php?p=210163&postcount=29"). 80,000 gallons is a lot of fuel (a 747's maximum capacity is <60,000 gallons and it can travel >8300 miles [2+ Atlantic crossing] on that amount) but it transports 100s of people, not 1 or 2. It is going to take more total fuel to move them. A viable metric to compare driving/flying efficiency is energy expenditure (mpg or btu) per passenger. If they were equal, then that means that flying uses the same amount of fossil fuels as a driving. If driving is twice as efficient as flying, then one would have the moral high ground on traveling via car.
Efficiency isn't the most important factor though. Total contribution is. Space travel is incredibly inefficient compared to other modes of transportation, but launches are so rare that its total contribution isn't very large, thus there isn't a large movement to reduce space-transportation related pollution.
If flying made up 50% of all transportation related pollution, then it would be clear to say that the gov't needs to fix the problem with a quickness. If flying made up 1% of all transportation related pollution, then it would be prudent to focus on the largest polluter.
The Sierra Club was quoted saying flying generated 15% of transportation related CO2 in 2003 The FAA (using EPA data) said aviation generated ~10% of transportation related greenhouse gases in 2001. Data from the EPA also says that on-road vehicles generated ~7.7 times a much greenhouse gases as aviation. [source, pg 10 (http://"http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/aeprimer.pdf")] Keep in mind the 2001 data was an aberration in aviation's favor due to the decrease in air travel after 9/11.
On-road vehicles generate the majority of transportation related greenhouse gas emissions, and are most harshly regulated. I think this is "fair". To a degree, aviation is self-regulating, at least wrt to efficiency. A fully loaded 747 is 40% fuel. A fully loaded Thunderbird (the car ;))is 3% fuel. Fuel efficiency is far more important to the bottom line of airlines than us, as they burn more of it proportionally. A more extreme example is a launch vehicle. The Delta-IV Heavy (http://"http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delheavy.htm") is ~89% fuel. A tiny improvement in Isp (engine efficiency) will result in large gains in payload to orbit. Thus rocket engine designers go to great lengths to eek out another 1% of Isp. An even more extreme example concerns interplanetary probes (which I used to buttstuffyze). The entire purpose of a science mission is to do, well, science. On a mission requiring a large amount of propulsion from the spacecraft, the science payload will be a tiny fraction of the spacecraft mass (and the spacecraft is a tiny fraction of the launch vehicle mass). Here, propulsion engineers will go to great lengths and spend millions to improve engine efficiency of the spacecraft by .1%. The greater the importance propulsion has upon vehicle performance/cost, the greater the designers will seek propulsion efficiency.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: JeremyB on March 24, 2008, 04:20:57 AM
Quote from: 5.0willgo;210326
I didn't actually read the article but googled and found... http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/acro_poltn.html (http://"http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/acro_poltn.html")
That article is grossly incorrect. I'll use some concrete math to prove it. My one assumption is that they are calculating and equalizing fuel usage between the two.
A 747-400 (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Specifications") with 4 GE CF6-80C2 (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_CF6#CF6-80C2")B5F engines (62100 lbf) puts out a total of 248400 lbf at a TSFC (http://"http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/sfc.html") of .34 (http://"http://www.bh.com/companions/034074152X/appendices/data-b/table-2/default.htm") at takeoff. 2 minutes of takeoff power will consume 2815 lb of fuel.
A 22" Sears (http://"http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_07137561000P?vName=Lawn+%26+Garden&cName=Lawn+Mowers&sName=Side+Discharge+Mowers") side-discharge mower puts out 3.5hp at a BSFC (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption") of ~.52 (http://"http://www.land-and-sea.com/dyno-tech-talk/using_bsfc.htm"). It would take 4634 mowers to burn 2815 lb of fuel in 20 minutes. It would take 46391 mowers to burn 2815 lb of fuel in 2 minutes. It would take 1295 155hp SO 5.0s to burn 2815 lb of fuel in 2 minutes. (.42 BSFC)
The formula for TSFC is lb/hr/lbf. The formula for BSFC is lb/hr/hp.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: V8Demon on March 24, 2008, 07:26:15 AM
Quote
My reply in post #32 was to Paul's statement in #29. 80,000 gallons is a lot of fuel
Yes 80,000 gallons is a lot.
I SAID POUNDS! :hick:
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: JeremyB on March 24, 2008, 10:32:37 AM
Durrrrr :dunce: I knew I was going to miss something posting so late.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: Cougar5.0 on March 24, 2008, 11:01:47 AM
Quote from: JeremyB;210483
I'm not saying what I have sourced is the be-all end-all. But the chart you posted is incorrect and cannot be used to compare automobile/airplane fuel efficiencies. One must have at least resonably correct data before one can interpreit it.
I deleted the chart - I should have looked at the chart more carefully before posting it. PPV (auto) is closer to 1.6 & avg MPG is lower & I couldn't find the backup data following the reference (Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory) so I apologize for posting that .
Quote
The quote saying "Flying creates 13 percent of transportation-generated carbon dioxide worldwide" is somewhat vague. ...
So when you quote the same 2003 Sierra Club article later here, it's suddenly not so vague? :P (I'll give you that it was in context of a more complete explanation.)
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: Dogcharmer on March 24, 2008, 01:29:30 PM
Oil prices are going to crash eventually. The shorts are going to make a killing! I wish I had some money to short oil futures because the oil price chart looks like a bubble that's getting ready to burst. My theory is that market speculation is driving the price more than actual demand at this point. I suspect alot of it is short covering but once the shorts get it right they're gonna pound that price into the ground to the point that the long contract holders are gonna have to bail and the price will probably over correct to the down side. Which will be great for the end user.
All that's lacking for this to happen is a catalyst... Such as a new large oil discovery, tapping into an older one (ND) or ambiotic oil (deep earth, not fossil).
I could be wrong or way off but that's how I see it and if I had some cash I'd be putting money on it too!
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: JeremyB on March 24, 2008, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: Cougar5.0;210590
So when you quote the same 2003 Sierra Club article later here, it's suddenly not so vague? :P (I'll give you that it was in context of a more complete explanation.)
Heh. :hick:
By vague, I meant to the hypothesis that seemed to be being discussed: Aviation is a large contributor to US emissions and should be regulated more stringently like CAFE does to automobiles. The Sierra Club quote is for worldwide figures, while we are talking about the US. Also, it gave no data for automobile emissions, so a comparison of relative badness could not be made. That being said, I had the EPA data, and the SC data agreed somewhat with the EPA so I put it in to have more data points. Niggling points, but data buttstuffysis is part of my job and the attention to detail makes for proper comparison of data.
I share your views on partisan presentations of issues. It is a pain to have to come to a conclusion on an issue when each side vehemently thinks it is correct.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: Thunder Chicken on March 24, 2008, 03:32:52 PM
Quote from: Dogcharmer;210602
Oil prices are going to crash eventually. The shorts are going to make a killing! I wish I had some money to short oil futures because the oil price chart looks like a bubble that's getting ready to burst. My theory is that market speculation is driving the price more than actual demand at this point. I suspect alot of it is short covering but once the shorts get it right they're gonna pound that price into the ground to the point that the long contract holders are gonna have to bail and the price will probably over correct to the down side. Which will be great for the end user.
All that's lacking for this to happen is a catalyst... Such as a new large oil discovery, tapping into an older one (ND) or ambiotic oil (deep earth, not fossil).
I could be wrong or way off but that's how I see it and if I had some cash I'd be putting money on it too!
That is EXACTLY what is going to happen. Only a fool pays more for something than it's worth, and that is exactly what speculators are doing. They're in a feeding frenzy, using each other's greed to drive the price of oil well beyond what the traditional "supply and demand" system will support. They're doing it because right now they view it (and by "it" I mean not only oil, but other commodities as well) as a safe haven compared to other market sectors that happen to be going through a big correction right now.
I think the catalyst may even be simpler, though - these speculators buy oil at a price and hope they can sell it at a higher price in a month or two. Sooner or later, that "month or two" will come and there won't be anybody to buy the oil because people are using less (in other words, we know it's overpriced and are buying less because of it). The speculators will then panic because they've either got to sell the oil they'd bought or take delivery of it, and very few investment banks have oil storage tanks lying around. As with anything else on Wall Street, the panic will feed itself (speculators will be anxious to trim their losses so they'll want to sell quickly), and the price will crash dramatically over a very short period.
Then, about two years later, we'll see the price start dropping (very reluctantly) at the pumps.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: jcassity on March 27, 2008, 02:09:19 AM
SO,, we lost how many miles of which polar ice cap yesterday? IT was on yahoo the wife said.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: oldraven on March 27, 2008, 07:20:42 AM
Quote from: jcassity;211081
SO,, we lost how many miles of which polar ice cap yesterday? IT was on yahoo the wife said.
I just read that yesterday as well. All I could do is shake my head at the people who said "We got lots of snow. Global Warming doesn't exist!" :rolleyes: I know there was at least one thread on here that was making that statement, and a large majority of people were giving their "Hells yeah!" comments.
Title: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.
Post by: oldraven on March 28, 2008, 02:54:26 PM
Another good article with some perspective, for once. (something desperately lacking form the ICE=GW crowd)