Software

General discussion

Locked

What About Global Warming?

By FluxIt ·
I read through several Global Warming threads and saw many things that were curious. Then I came across this article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

While I have not made a decision on the human contribution to Global Warming, I have a tendency towards a neglible impact. I believe that Global Warming is a natural process and that the natural has a greater impact on the climate than human influence. Certianly, humans cause an impact but it is usually a whisp in the spanse of time and space.

What do you think about the article?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Cost

by Oz_Media In reply to Pictures

When the California clean air act was brought about, people with 70's muscle cars were at arms over the new 'whimpy cars' that couldn't get them down the highway like a 440 did. We all know this was an untrue fear. In fact there are many 4 cylinder passenger cars that wil literally eat a 440 now.

By the time fuel injection was common, all the former carb mechanics were complaining that new cars were wimpy and too problematic. Now we see that fuel iunjection is not only more efficient but provides a longer lasting vehicle, requires less maintenance and is a lot easier to tune and repair than an old Thermoquad carb.

For some reason, many peopl still think that cars here ae the same as cars in Europe, which is also a myth. The same model car (usually adorned with a different model badge) will be sold in Europe as North America. However the European car burns fuel mroe efficiently and has FAR better quality materials in the build. No, a Ford Probe is not a Ford Probe everywhere in the world. European Probes will outperform and outlast a North American version...but why?

Hydrocarbon fuels are extremely efficient energy sources, our vehicle are not. In an effort to offer an inexpensive car that still has reasonable emissions levels, we waste fuel energy in the form of heat. Thin materials, inexpensive aterials cause so an inefficient fuel buring process that many joules are lost in the form of heat. Therefors they ae covered with those stupid little tin heat shields todivert extra heat away from parts so they don't fail, tht heat is simply disipated into the air. So the great energy potential of fuel is wasted in order to make a light car, the light car increases economy, not the quality of the components. As we now see, many manufacturer's are resorting to muscle cars again to gain market share, as the cheap tin boxes are passed over by potential buyers. NO we are resoring to moving back to heavier components and lower mileage in order to get the most out of the potential energy and durability, ie the SUV.

In Europe, more stringent standards need to be met, the effort of manufacturers is to build 'Europoean quality' cars that utilize better naterials to increase the fuel efficiency and gain more horsepower form the fuel energy.

The cars they use for the Eurpoean market are far too expensive by North American standards, eve thoguh fuel is far cheaper, cars need to be as well or they just dont sell.

If more people were interested in quality over cost, we would have North American manufacturers providing better quality cars with better fuel efficiency. Less fuel energy wasted as heat and more HP to the rear wheels.

OS we CAn build more efficient cars, however the marketplac edemands acompromise. Unfortunately that cpmpromise comes at the cost of our health, but that is rarely considered.

An example of how we THINK we are efficient:

BC Air Care reports may show an allowable Co level of 8.6ppm. So when the old clunker pulls off a 6.5ppm we say it flew through air care. In actuality it does not, a newer car will often have a max of 2.0ppm.

Based on an air care repoert, one may conclude that his/her car is runnign efficiently, in reality it is far from the truth. Our Canadian emissions are base don US diveability stats, converted to Canadian driving conditons. SO we are not actualy driving these great, fuel efficient cars at all. just what te manufacturer has made us FEEL is a fuel efficient car, becaus ethey offer no other alternative in North America....due to cost of production and a possible drop in sales.

If you ever think anything in North America is not done for the pure sake of makig a dollar, go back to sleep and try again tomorrow.

Money doesnt' make the world go 'round, as the song implies. Money makes North America go 'round, and that's all.

Collapse -

R12 Misconceptions

by Oz_Media In reply to The Problem Is

R12 is a restricted refrigerant in vehicle use. The EPA exceptions are merely there for the sake of retrofitting and leakdown/bleed from SOME applicances but not for automotive recharging. R12 can only be bought with a licence and really shouldn't be used anyway as it can be lethal to humans, forget about the ozone for a minute.

As a certified air care and alternate fuels mechanic I have seen some rather gruesome videos of the REAL reasons R12 is no longer used in automobiles. It is not an issue of emissions control, although that is a small contributing factor behind such legislation.

R12, or Dichlorodifluoromethane to be more specific, contains chemical agents that when burned, produce phosgene gas. Current automotive replcements provide a dozen alternative refrigerants, mainly just proprietary versions such as R-406A (very common) and Dupont's HFC-134A.

Why was this gas changed? Air care and California emissions were not in place at the time R12 was first considered lethal to humans, but when people were left for dead unexpectedly from vehicle accidents, refrigerant was often found to be the blame.

R12, as mentioned earlier, creates a gas when burned (ie, in a vehicle or house fire).
R12 refrigerant (also once used for home refrigerators)creates a gas called phosgene when burned, a chemical agent used in chemical warfare.

Phosgene gas: because R12 has a relatively low boiling point, it was considered the safer gas for refrigerant, when exposed ot air it would boil off and become a heavy, cold steam (like propane does)but as vehicle engines became smaller, temperatures became higher and the possibility of R12 exposure to extreme heat was more and more common.

When an accident occuurred it was more and more common for people to become very ill or die from exposure to phosgene gas withing a day or two.

What is phosgene? In short, nerve gas. Phosgene was used as an early alternative to chlorine bombing in WWI. It is colourles, odourless and cannot be easily detected. This alone makes it an unsafe gas for common use, but when in a vehicle fire or exposed to the high heat of exhaust manifolds, phosgene from R12 is not the only killer, once the emergency vehicles use water to douse the fire, water breaks down the phosgene into other highly toxic gases.

So the use of R12 in vehicles is not only retricted, it is pretty stupid also.

Anyone who feels that a retrofit is too expensive is merely not understanding the reasons that we don't use such harmful gases, it is not just our ozone layer, though that focus is always there, but it is a deadly gas to use and really stupid too when far safer chemical compounds are readily available at a mere fraction of the R12 cost.

Why no R12 now?

It is lethal
It is detrimentaal to the environment
It is far too expensive

Your boss must have an air conditioning ticket or the like that allows him to purchase controlled R12? Many heating and air conditioning contractors do, but it is not to be used in recharging vehicle systems, just refrigerators, and other small home appliances when absolutely necessary.

The R12 certification is designed to allow removal of R12 in such systems to be retrofitted and replaced by other safer refrigerants, it is not designed for people to purchase R12 and start recharging old automobile air conditioning systems.

And since when did Colin not know what he was talking about when it came to cars?

Homework, homework, homework!

Collapse -

Travelling Global Warming Show

by sn53 In reply to What About Global Warming ...

On the downside it sounds like this is an inconvenient truth. Therefore the True Believers will probably attack you for posting this.

I believe American-caused global warming is nothing more than a gambit to gain more control over our lives and our money than anything else.

Again, the True Believers in the religio-environmentalist movement will probably pounce on your and my apostasy.

Collapse -

LOL, I Like Your Analogy

by FluxIt In reply to Travelling Global Warming ...

People become fervent over many things. My view on Global Warming is somewhat pragmatic.

I believe that there is a global effort to exercise control or influence over the United States and Global Warming is only one instrument in this effort. The old montra was a marxist approach of endearing the forgotten people and organizing militias to fight for their rights. It was a common global theme for over 50 years.

Today, you should note that the Global Warming players include countries like France and groups that are mostly enviro-fascist people. They are organizing treaties, global doctrines, and other agreements like the Biodiversity Treaty. The common theme in these 'crisis' are either to create economic funnels draining cash out of an economy, turning over sovereign territory, or otherwise exert influence over a country such as the United States.

These these things worry me. The radicalize leftist parties, namely the Democraps, have an agenda to convert the United States into a new form of government over time. They cannot do it directly so they incrementally march towards the goal. I beleive Global Warming is an instrument for this effort.

Collapse -

"...and Global Warming is only one instrument in this effort"

by Absolutely In reply to LOL, I Like Your Analogy

I suspect my time would be wasted addressing your concerns regarding "a global effort to exercise control or influence over the United States." The statement implies, with little or no room for uncertainty, a belief not amenable to revision. So, instead, I suggest that writing off Global Warming as "only one instrument in this effort" is tantamount to betting all your marbles on the assumption that having been blackmailed once, every subsequent phone call is from the same blackmailer.

The United Nations is not the only organization of people on Earth, nor do they hold an intellectual monopoly on scientific research.

Collapse -

So lost!

by Oz_Media In reply to LOL, I Like Your Analogy

"a global effort to exercise control or influence over the United States"

Let me guess, you whisper at home because the French government is spying on your thoughts too, right? Everyone is jealous of America and wants to see her sink, right?

That lump in your neck is not a possible cancerous tumor, it is an alien implant to monitor your thoughts and eventually help Europe take over the world, right?

Laughable, coments, assertions, so called facts, etc. simply laughable. Go and curl up under your bed with your shotgun and fear the uprising of the globe.

Your comments are so self centered and inasanely paranoid that it is funny to think people actually believe that crap still. It's the kind of stuff we laugh at in the movies, have you been watching too much King of the Hill, Dale?

NAME: Dale Gribble

OCCUPATION: Licensed owner/operator of "Dale's Dead Bug."

HOBBIES: Paranoia, smoking, golf

QUOTE: "Guns don't kill people. The Government does."

FAVORITE CONSPIRACY: You really believe they landed on the moon?

How may hours a week do you spend on the Area 51 website? I hired a guy in Oregon once that had a similar mindset, what a nutter, had to let him go eventually (and very carefully) as you never know what you loonies will come up with next.

Collapse -

Grip followed by Clue

by Tig2 In reply to Travelling Global Warming ...

First- stay off my religious ***. I probably give a heck of a lot more space than I receive.

On second thought, I KNOW I do.

I think that there is more to learn on the Global Warming debate. On one hand, I look at the vast NUMBERS of us and think that there is a connection. I look at corporations buying preserved land (rainforest, anyone???) and think again.

Should we go greener? Probably. Should I be forced to give up a big,safe truck that gets me to the commuter bus? No.

But how is any of this different to Eco Action from the 70's? It isn't.

How about the "Re-use, re-align campaigns of the 40's?


Bottom line. We are required to THINK. Not blindly, but with knowledge, care, and consideration. We have to consider our legacy.


Sorry sn, some of us "religious nutcases" prefer to think.

Collapse -

Do religious nutcases think?

by sn53 In reply to Grip followed by Clue

Tigger said, "Bottom line. We are required to THINK. Not blindly, but with knowledge, care, and consideration. We have to consider our legacy."

Sounds perfect. If you are actually thinking you are less likely to give up your right to live free.

"Sorry sn, some of us "religious nutcases" prefer to think."

I encourage it. Of course, if you begin thinking and avoid environmental-wackism then the problem is most likely solved.

This problem is far more political than it is scientific.

Collapse -

I agree with you 100%

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Do religious nutcases thi ...

This is a Political Debate and there is no Science Involved. It's not expedient for Politicians to admit the truth as that will adversely impact upon their election contributions so they make up stories from people willing to be bought at any price and use that information to muddy the waters.

The simple truth is that 99% of all Scientists accept that there is a Climate Change Occurring Right Now and 1% who are paid by the Industries responsible are getting equal time in any coverage as the 99% to make the general population believe that there is some argument when actually there is none.

The Tobacco Industry did exactly the same thing for over 15 years and kept insisting despite the overwhelming evidence that there was no Scientific Proof that Smoking and Cancer where related. Most wouldn't even accept that smoking was addictive.

Now the same Lobbing Agency formed by the Tobacco Industry is funding the Global Warming Detractors that in itself should be enough to make even the most jaded person think twice before sprouting off an opinion about the rubbish being peddled by the media who I might add have a vested interest as well.

Col

Collapse -

And, before that, the Ozone "Hole" & Acid Rain were dismissed as myths.

by deepsand In reply to I agree with you 100%

Never mind that we here in Pennsylvania saw our forests being killed and the paint on our vehicles looking as though someone had doused them with Coca Cola.

All truths of great import are at first dismissed as fantasy.

Related Discussions

Related Forums