Although this story about the fracture of the Antarctic's Wilkins ice shelf isn't strictly car-related, TTAC's Best and Brightest are well aware that global warming is the intellectual justification for draconian CO2 tailpipe regulations. As far as The New York Times is concerned, the "broken ice" is proof positive that humans are warming the planet. Needless to say, something must be done (but not about the fracture, silly reader)! "Nothing dramatizes the urgency of global warming quite like a fracture of this scale. There is nothing to be done about a collapsing polar ice sheet except to witness it. It may be too late to stop the warming decay at the boundaries of Antarctic ice, yet there is everything to be done. Humans can radically change the way they live and do business, knowing that it is the one chance to find a possible limit to radical change in the natural world around us." Make no mistake dear Pistonheads, your non-hybrid anything is directly in The Old Gray Lady's– and like-minded regulators– crosshairs.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
So a localized event provides proof of a global phenomenon. Well, in response, I say that Eastern Ontario and Quebec have had more snow this winter than any other time in the past 3 or 4 decades. So, using the same logic as the NYT, I guess global warming must be untrue, because we have so much snow.
If the tree-hugging fear-mongerers can use a specific incident to prove a general effect, why can’t anyone else?
Whether we are causing global warming or not (I’m 90% for the “we are”), how we are living isn’t helping. But I’m kind of annoyed that the automobile is the sole scapegoat for this. Home heating and power are the major culprits also.
In Germany (I saw this on PBS) the government actually pays people to put up solar panels that contribute to the grid on their property. Not just a tax credit. Yes, the up front cost can be somewhat terrifying depending on how big you wanna go, but the rate for power in Deutscheland is fixed for like the next 20 years, so you do make your money back and then some. As a result the cost of developing the solar tech has come down.
We don’t have to do the same thing, but I believe our gov’ment can do better to foster alternative tech instead of stifeling the development of the ICE.
Actually, if all the politicians (government AND otherwise) would shut tf up, there’d be a lot LESS hot air around.
“Whether we are causing global warming or not (I’m 90% for the “we are”), how we are living isn’t helping. But I’m kind of annoyed that the automobile is the sole scapegoat for this. Home heating and power are the major culprits also.”
Automotive is 8% measured by direct emmission alone
The MSM chooses to ignore the extremely cold winter in the Arctic where the ice is back to what they consider normal levels or above and choose one isolated incident occuring at the end of the Antarctic summer to prove their point. The NY Times will never be confused with ‘Fair and Balanced’ reporting.
Abe Lincoln
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
Global warming seems to be more of a political ideology rather than a scientific issue.
The ARGO Buoys have shown a slight COOLING over the last five years, but you don’t hear about this on the news. If there had been even a billionth of a degree of warming, though, you can bet your cars would have been confiscated *for your protection*
We learned in grade school the the Great Lakes were made by glaciers thousands of years ago. If warming is so bad then what can we do so that Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and the other states bordering the Great Lakes are covered in ice? Wouldn’t that be the optimum outcome for the global warming crowd?
If it’s enough to break off ice helves, then the world is simply doomed.
I think I’m going to go out and buy a Sequoia to travel along this flooded wasteland.
As a scientist once pointed out, it’s not global warming that’s the problem. It’s rapid climate destabilization. In other words cold where it used to be warm and vice versa. Which will mean flooding, tsunamis, screwed up crops, etc. After having the warmest winter ever in nyc which was preceded by the warmest winter ever last year, I am a bit concerned that this city may find itself under water in the next 50 years. I mean there were only a couple days below freezing this whole winter, and when I moved here in the 80s it would be below freezing most of Dec. through Feb. You won’t find any actual scientists who view climate change as a political ideology, however you will find most reporters have no idea what they’re talking about.
This guy makes a pretty reasoned point… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
That the concern should be more about risk management. It’s hard to get people to have a rational discussion about the topic as everyone has a personal stake and no one really wants to hear, “sorry, but you’re really going to have to change the way you do things”, myself included. However the scientist in me realizes that this discussion should be made as objective as possible without saying “tree hugger” or “tree killer”…
You know, perhaps with a bit more rise in the temperatures of the sea, and a bit more melting of the glaciers at the poles we could put some of our coastline under the sea for a while. That would be fun…of course some of the inland states would become coastal property and the process would rinse and repeat till we’re all under water at the rate they predict we’re going.
Or we could be just fine. Localized temperature changes are not the same as global. We have to look at the global changes each year to get an idea of what is really going on. This winter in Ohio wasn’t the coldest, but it was one where we’ve seen record snowfalls. NYC was warmer than usual. See what I mean?
I believe we are impacting our environment and weather based on the fact we’re rapidly reproducing around the world and consuming more natural resources and spewing all sorts of stuff into the atmosphere at rates that will, at some point, cause damage that the planet cannot withstand (if we haven’t already started reaching that point).
Cars aren’t the only thing causing damage and shouldn’t be pointed at as the sole culprit. I think we can all safely say that as EPA regulations became stricter our air has gotten better, especially in large cities.
Then again…
As NPR reported last week: The oceans don’t seem to be warming.
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years.
-&-
Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can.
Bottom line:
Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.
After having the warmest winter ever in nyc which was preceded by the warmest winter ever last year, I am a bit concerned that this city may find itself under water in the next 50 years.
According to NOAA, your information is incorrect.
Dec-February
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/feb/12_02_2008_DvTempRank_pg.gif
February (normal)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/feb/02Statewidetrank_pg.gif
They say that Mars is warming up too. I’ve heard the Matians have a thing for Hemi powered flying saucers.
When I was growing up, Kansas City was quite cold in the winter and we had to play indoors for several months each year.
Nowadays people don’t even bother to winterize their motorcycles because there are so many good riding days throughout the winter.
The whole argument is moot. China, India and others are increasing there greenhouse gas emmissions exponentially. China is now the worlds largest emmitter. No point in destroying our economy for no reason since we cannot make any difference. If the AGW crowd is right we are doomed so might as well enjoy the ride.
dolo54,
This guy does make a point. I do appreciate his reasoned argument. However, it can be argued that the economic impact could be worse. Should we bargain our future as a rich nation based on what is still considered by many as a theory?
He makes three assumptions: That we are the cause of the warming, the warming is happening, and a few degrees of warming will cause a global catastrophe. I am still not convinced either way.
Anyways, thank you for the insight.
There’s another way to look at this whole issue. Think of it as an excercise in response/stimulus. As has been pointed out by RF, there’s an awful lot of development possibility left in the internal combustion engine. Regardless of whether or not you accept the possbility of global warming, as gearheads, we all stand to benefit as the resulting stimulus serves to advance the state of the art.
The past is a good indicator. The double whammy of the first pollution control laws and the first gas crisis produced, in the short term, some awful cars. Yet a funny thing happened. As the emissions standards tightened, the internal combustion engine got much more efficient. Given our love of fast cars, can anyone say that this is not likely to happen again? So what if global warming turns out to be a non-event? We still win. If it does turn out to be a problem, we will have done the right thing.
Finally, I agree completely that in the overall energy picture, cars represent a small percentage. But with the rapid growth in China and India, we can expect that percentage to grow. As I see it, we are in a period where we have a lot of leverage over the future. Rather than dismiss global warming out of hand, consider the benefits that will definitely come from acting as if it is real.
Lightning doesn’t strike twice, bunkie.
The past is a good indicator. The double whammy of the first pollution control laws and the first gas crisis produced, in the short term, some awful cars. Yet a funny thing happened. As the emissions standards tightened, the internal combustion engine got much more efficient. Given our love of fast cars, can anyone say that this is not likely to happen again? So what if global warming turns out to be a non-event? We still win. If it does turn out to be a problem, we will have done the right thing.
The development of electronic fuel injection represented a monumental leap in the development of the internal combustion engine. I doubt we’ll see this kind of large-scale improvement again. Will there be further advancements? Yes, but nothing as significant as what came about since the as crisis and emissions regulations of the 70’s.
Oh yeah, well, if the NYTimes prints a silly argument, that pretty much proves that this whole global warming thing is false. No need to really research the topic. After all, more ice in the arctic, blah blah. I read that in the paper.
So a localized event provides proof of a global phenomenon. Well, in response, I say that Eastern Ontario and Quebec have had more snow this winter than any other time in the past 3 or 4 decades. So, using the same logic as the NYT, I guess global warming must be untrue, because we have so much snow.
If the tree-hugging fear-mongerers can use a specific incident to prove a general effect, why can’t anyone else?
The short answer is: yes you can. Your point is very valid. I am always amused by those that point to a single event for which there may be many possible causes, as clear and unrefutable proof of human activity induced GW.
The polarisation and emotions in this debate puzzles me. It is clear that the mainstream media especially liberal rags like the NYTimes and the Toronto Star have lined up with the-sky-is-falling crowd. They often react with self-righteous fury to those that suggest that GW may be a cyclical phenomenon as opposed to a strictly human induced condition. One wonders why they react with such intolerance to opposing ideas and beat you over the head with ‘it’s scientifically proven fact’ and other such assertions. So I would ask one simple question which if it can be proven scientifically I want to hear the answer. I am not a scientist myself but as an electronics and industrial automation teacher at a large College I do have some grasp of technical concepts. the question is this: Walk me through the proof that GW is due to human activity alone and specifically, demonstrate to me how this Antartic Ice shelf fracture proves human induced global warming? Any takers?
Oh, and re China, despite their love for burning coal,
“No gasoline-powered car assembled in North America would meet China’s current fuel-efficiency standard.”
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/326294
global warming or not, that can’t be good, as we watch GM crank out press releases every week about how they’re not doing too badly, thanks.
“No gasoline-powered car assembled in North America would meet China’s current fuel-efficiency standard.”
The Buick Lacrosse is a big seller in China.
how does the Star explain that? I call BS on the red loving Star.
http://www.chinacarforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3462
double post
double post
“Walk me through the proof that GW is due to human activity alone and specifically, demonstrate to me how this Antartic Ice shelf fracture proves human induced global warming? Any takers?”
Well, as an electronics teacher; walk me through the proof of the atomic theory, that electrons exist. Scientific theories don’t have “proof” the way you can prove 2+2=4; but if they have plenty of evidence from various sources and no viable competing theories they’re good enough to work with until something more precise comes along. I could demonstrate to you that F=MA, but of course that’s not true; ask Einstein. The evidence for AGW is remarkably solid; the debate now raging in the scientific world is how much the temp rises as the carbon dioxide rises, and how soon that’s going to get us into real hot water.
But that always leaves room for somebody to shake their head and say “no, not convinced yet”. Kind of like the folks who still don’t believe that smoking causes cancer; by coincidence, many of the same folks who made a living telling us that there was lots of scientific doubt about that are the ones now telling us there’s lots of scientific doubt about AGW. Pat Michaels, for example. That’s why scientific theories are tested by making predictions in advance then seeing if they are verified, rather than by looking at results after the fact and deciding whether they are good enough or not. In any other field of science, the combination of “it’s not warming, it’s warming but it’s not human-caused, it’s human-caused but there’s nothing we can do about it, we could do something about it but it’s too expensive, it’s the sun, it’s cosmic rays, more carbon dioxide and more heat will bring about a golden age of agriculture, if we don’t keep the temp up there will come an ice age” would not be considered a unified rational response, rather a bunch of squabbling fringe theories.
So, see if this doesn’t convince you: Hansen’s temperature predictions from 20 years ago, with the actual temperature data plotted.
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/images/Hansen-2006.png
Scenario A is if carbon dioxide output accelerated; scenario C is if it slowed; scenario B is his “most likely” prediction; and as labeled, red is data from weather stations, black is land/ocean measurements.
Of course, somebody won’t be convinced by the fact that a (now superseded by models with many more things factored in) model predicted 20 years of temperature accurately, if they have a better model. Or even one remotely close. I have an open mind; I’ve been asking skeptics for years now to show me any climate theory not involving AGW that made any predictions which were verified, haven’t seen any yet. Haven’t seen any climate theory not involving AGW that even made any predictions at all, in fact. Because that would put them at risk.
PS, preemptive strike: I don’t hate cars, I am a major motorhead, never had a car I didn’t work on to squeeze every last HP out of. Swap carbs, swap cams, port heads, swap engines, the works. But that leads me to face facts.
windswords:
Yes, I’ve read that planets and moons throughout our solar system are warming too, suggesting that something with the sun’s cycles is at least part of it.
But if that’s the case, what can we do about it? If we can’t prevent it, maybe we’re better off just preparing for it? Maybe we’re just screwed?
Oh, swell. Farago put up a post about Global Warming. Now, none of us will get any work done today.
gzuckier: Regarding China, a little perspective please. Here is a paragraph from the article that you linked to:
Still, it is doing far more than Canada, the U.S. or just about any other place to clean up its act. It has begun to impose regulations and targets for car emissions, renewable fuels, carbon storage, forest renewal, energy efficiency and industrial pollution. It’s investing heavily in new technologies, including “clean” coal and alternative power sources. In many ways it’s putting us to shame.
China is doing more…because it HAS to do more just to reach the same level of environmental protection that citizens of the United States and Canada already enjoy. And in many cases, it is only doing what the United States and Canada have already done.
As a comparison, the contestants on The Biggest Loser have done alot to lose weight…because all of them are at least 75-100 pounds overweight. They must do more than someone who is 5 pounds over his or her ideal weight, so even if they do lose 75-100 pounds, they are not necessarily healthier than the person who is already relatively fit.
As for global warming – there is no doubt that the earth’s temperatures have fluctuated throughout history, and it’s entirely plausible that we are in a warming phase. Whether this warming trend is manmade is still open to debate. Good, lively discussions on this very topic have appeared at Edmunds.com and the Volokh Conspiracy (a blog), and let’s just say that there is still plenty of room for debate on whether global warming is being driven by manmade factors.
When glaciers are disappearing all over the world, and arctic and antarctic ice are melting, when spring is coming earlier, its pretty obvious the world is getting warmer. The NYT may focus on this one event, but it’s all over the place. But while automobiles are a significant part of the problem–they are not even a quarter of the problem, and policy-makers need to address all carbon sources equally, which is why the carbon tax is such a great idea.
Quasimodo-
The development of electronic fuel injection represented a monumental leap in the development of the internal combustion engine. I doubt we’ll see this kind of large-scale improvement again. Will there be further advancements? Yes, but nothing as significant as what came about since the as crisis and emissions regulations of the 70’s.
First, how does this invalidate my argument? There is room for improvement, perhaps not as much as we have seen or as rapidly, but improvment nonetheless.
Second, even our most efficient IC engines can’t achieve even 50% efficiency. I know that there’s a law of dimishing returns, but it seems to me that we can achieve something of signifigant value here. And that’s just powerplant efficiency. Lighter materials will have an effect as well.
I have great faith in the ingenuity of human beings. My point is that if we take up the challenge, we will definitely benefit.
Oh boy, where to start. First of all, in no way does this single event suggest anthropogenic global warming. There is continued debate about the source of our recent warming trend. Stories like this suggest (to me anyway) that those in favor of strict legislative acts to mitigate future warming are beginning to become alarmed by the continued scientific dissent to their agenda (using demagoguery such as does this story indicates a position of weakness). What we need is an open debate regarding this subject coupled with continued research (preferably undertaken by teams of scientists with diverse views on the topic) to determine the cause of warming as well as what consequences we can expect from continued warming (some climate models demonstrate that a higher global mean temperature leads to a more stable climate {i.e. fewer catastrophic events such as hurricanes and such}). In sum, AGW is a legitimate but unproven concern (there is no ‘consensus’, nor is such a thing useful in science). There is very little we can do to stop it if it does in fact exist (and what little has been proposed will have devastating economic consequences). Therefore, it is important that we determine the veracity of this theory before acting.
# lprocter1982 :
So a localized event provides proof of a global phenomenon. Well, in response, I say that Eastern Ontario and Quebec have had more snow this winter than any other time in the past 3 or 4 decades. So, using the same logic as the NYT, I guess global warming must be untrue, because we have so much snow.
The NYT is just sensationalizing. Global warming does not mean that everything is going to get hot; but rather it’s the extreme change in averages going both ways, not just getting warmer. One big unknown is what happens to the Gulf Stream if all this fresh water from the glaciers slows down or completely stops the flow? We could actually see a dramatic cool down in a lot of places.
“When glaciers are disappearing all over the world, and arctic and antarctic ice are melting, when spring is coming earlier, its pretty obvious the world is getting warmer.”
Well spring still hasn’t come here yet. It snowed 5″ yesterday and the Tigers opener is Monday and might well get snowed out.
The Arctic ice is back to normal or greater due to extreme cold temps in the Arctic this year(the MSM seems to have missed this-deliberatly I assume)and it is still in the minus 30’s in the Arctic. Antartic ice is also at a high historical level and somebody should tell the ‘scientists’ that icebergs are not a new invention.
I’ve lost track… whose hair is on fire today?
Grab a coffee and enjoy the movie, folks:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4302904746669786959&q=the+global+warming+swindle&total=382&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
Free of charge. That is, no carbon tax required…even though that coal-fired plant is providing power to your home computer and data-modem.
Scare tactics such as this are the same scare tactics that “Al Queda” uses. Don’t believe the fear-mongering, Nobel-Prize winning Al Gore either.
Thought you all might like to know there is “Global Warming” on Mars and Jupiter too. Google and find the NASA articles …it’s true. Yes, the Polar Caps on Mars are melting too.
…which just proves that the “increase” in temperature comes from the VERY SOURCE of *ALL* our planet’s atmospheric heat: The SUN.
Thought you might like this too:
http://www.ecorazzi.com/2008/03/04/weather-channel-founder-wants-to-sue-al-gore-for-global-warming-fraud/
That’s right…the very founder of The Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud!!!
The words “politicians” and “liar” go together like “taxation” and “regulation”.
…all this coming from someone who actually DOES value fuel-economy and clean air!!! But I don’t like being lied to…not at the global level, nonetheless.
In 10 years there will be a whole new environmental crisis, and no one will give so much as a thought to global warming. People have been predicting the imminant end of the world since the beginning of time. In a way it is good. Obviously we need to keep an eye on what harm our activities cause the environment. Unfortunately, we also need to keep an eye on the political and economic opportunists who exploit these fears for their own benefit and our detriment.
We should all heed the NY Times’ call for sacrifice. Canceling subscriptions would be an excellent start. A lot of fuel gets burned hauling all that paper around. And we’d save the trees!
I took a look at that piece in Toronto Star about China’s “quiet leadership” on the environment. It was quite an eye-opener: I hadn’t realized Walter Duranty is still alive and working in Canada under a pseudonym.
The plural of anecdote is not data. Furthermore, given the NYTimes rater tenuous grip on reality, I am not entirely sure if they understand that, even though Winter has ended in New York City, Summer has ended in Antarctica.
Anyone who is really interested in the amount and extent of ice in Antarctica should look at these charts: Southern Hemisphere sea ice area and South Polar sea ice anomaly, which were posted by the Polar Research Group of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Illinois.
If anything, the charts show no warming tend nor any negative sea ice anomaly.
“Media Hype on ‘Melting’ Antarctic Ignores Record Ice Growth
Contrary to media hype, the vast majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1979, according to peer-reviewed studies and scientists who study the area. (LINK)
Former Weather Channel Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo rejected the hype surrounding the recent Wilkins Ice Shelf collapse in Western Antarctica. “The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area, which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic ice cover, like an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof,” D’Aleo wrote on March 25. (LINK) “We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear,” D’Aleo added.”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f1f2f75f-802a-23ad-4701-a92b4ebbccbf&Issue_id
The science is pretty simple, without bothering to get into thermohaline effects, feedback, etc.
Looking at the Greenland ice core samples, every time CO2 goes above 350 ppm, really bad shit happens, really fast.
We’re currently at 385 ppm. We were at 280ppm back in 1850.
Many gasoline-powered cars assembled in North America can meet China’s current fuel-efficiency standards
PDF Link here.
The most relevant charts are at pp 28 & 29.
The Global Warming Hysteria we see pushed by such “geniuses” as Al “I invented the internet” Gore, is a complete fraud.
It is NOT based on scientific fact, it is, however, based on a political agenda, one who’s major tenet is that Western Civilization is somehow “BAD”.
No, Al, the Polar Bears are NOT all drowning, the ice caps are not going to disappear and the oceans are not going to raise 30 feet by the end of the century
I am all in favor of clean, efficient energy. I actually live that way as much as possible, unlike the Al Gore’s of the world who want YOU to have to change YOUR lifestyle to accommodate THEIR goals, but EXEMPT THEMSELVES from the same restrictions.
dolo54: Yes, the “risk management” argument is probably the most compelling I’ve heard for taking decisive action on this issue. It almost doesn’t matter whether global warming is “real” or not, or whether it is caused by humans. If it is real, and if humans have a major influence, and if the consequences could be sufficiently bad (e.g. parts of Manhattan under water, complete failure of the Gulf Stream, etc.), then the cost of doing nothing is potentially so high that spending quite a lot of money now (whether directly on capital expenditures or indirectly on reduced economic growth) is arguably justifiable even if it all turns out to be much ado about nothing.
It’s like homeowner’s insurance – just because you bought it and never needed it doesn’t mean it wasn’t money well spent.
Brownie,
Feel free to spend all your money on this, don’t let me stop you. I have no problem with that. It is when the watermelons want to force me to contribute and waste billions on this that I disagree.
To alexeck: the science is in no way simple. The simplistic “atmospheric C02 acts like a greenhouse/blanket” explanation is both inaccurate and deceptive. Global climate is enormously complex. Already, many of the computer models cited by AGW disciples have been demonstrated to be dubious in terms of accuracy. Thermohaline effects are allegedly caused by GW. If AGW is not actually occurring, thermohaline effects and feedback mechanisms are moot in this context. Also, your assertion that CO2 levels above 350 ppm always directly correlate to catastrophic events leads to a question. Why have we not seen any of this ‘bad sh*t’ that you mention? Richard Lindzen (MIT) concluded that we have seen no statistically significant warming since 1995, and the last two years have seen decreased hurricane activity. I anxiously await this catastrophe.
brownie: It is a compelling argument, until you spend more time thinking about it. Using the insurance analogy (I will avoid homeowners given that it is mandated by lenders in many cases): would you pay insurance premiums before knowing what your actual risk was? Would you enter into a contract without knowing what the premium was? We do not yet know what the risk is, nor the actual economic costs. Again, should we not be as educated as possible before making any decisions?
I am not saying that AGW is spurious. I am saying that we do not yet know enough about the science to spend trillions of dollars to combat the problem. I find it ridiculous that Al Gore and so many media outlets declare the debate over, while never debating those that hold different opinions, nor publishing stories that contradict their beliefs. Science is supposed to be a search for truth. Consensus is therefore a stupid term when relating to science; it is better to be in the right than in the majority. Bear in mind that until very recently Newton’s and Maxwell’s equations would have been the consensus view as far as the governing laws of the universe.