76olds

The new climate change strategy is here to stay . The liberals here in Canada are pushing for 0 green house gases in the automotive sector. How long will it take ? Who knows. I would think they will eventually push to get our cars off the road.

oldspackrat

All the cars except for their limos. of course, since they are way more important than us, the people that voted them in office & provide them with a very good living....

76olds

All that green house emission , carbon footprint stuff has been going on here in Canada for at least ten years now.
First the added gas guzzler tax to new "sport" car purchases, Then they came out with a little sticker called "Carbon Neutral " at a cost. The liberals are running wild with getting the green house emissions down in the auto industry. I think its only a matter of time before they start hitting the older car guys with huge premiums to drive our cars.

wr1970

By the time you do anything!!! Chest thumper!! I would mount you on my engine for a blower! Might get better use out of you in the trunk where my fuel cell is!If i change my engine location i could maximize by using your mouth for the blower and your AZZ for fuel.Not getting even getting a head!

76olds

Ahhh Nelly, I had no idea you wanted to get that close to me. Having me mounted in you engine bay, that's so nice of you.
Unfortunately I don't swing both ways. Sorry for the disappointment Nelly.
Love 76olds

wr1970

Actually you got nothing! Except blah blah blah!You have been outed and that is all there is to it.Maybe you should have some more booze!

joe_padavano

The gas guzzler tax has nothing to do with emissions, at least not directly. It was created to reduce dependence on imported oil. Sure, burning less fuel means creating fewer emissions, but that was not the primary intent of the law.

Frankly, I am in favor of protecting the environment. I have to breathe this air, and my kid has to breathe it for more years than I do. I've seen the brown cloud blowing through the pass in the mountains when driving west on I-10 from Barstow to L.A. in 1980. I've had my eyes burning from the smog in the valley on a particularly bad weekend after the Street Machine Nationals in Northridge in 1981. The emissions controls have made it much better in the L.A. basin since then.

The problem I have is with the inability of the EPA and most liberals to understand the concept of diminishing returns and exponential cost growth. Most environmentalists think that there should be no limit on the amount of money that is spent to mitigate the smallest amount of pollution. Business people understand the concept of value engineering. This proposed law violates the latter, providing no measurable benefit other than an optical one.

Fun71

I agree with you on this, but it really needs to be done in a sensible manner. Back in the early '90s when I lived in Texas mandatory auto emissions was beginning in metropolitan areas above a certain population level. The Beaumont/Port Arthur/Orange area in SE Texas was mandated by the EPA to implement auto emissions testing, even though studies showed 92% of the air pollutants in the area were from petrochemical industry sources, not automobiles. That meant if 100% of the automobiles were removed from the roads (not just emissions tested, but completely removed), the air quality wold improve by 8%, so how much improvement would result from mandatory tailpipe testing?

This is the type of ridiculous "one size fits all" EPA legislation that drives me nuts. Here in Phoenix, in the middle of the desert, we are held to an air quality standard for airborne particulates (a.k.a. dust). This has resulted in EVERY road within the county being paved in an attempt to meet the standard. And then every summer, we get big 'ol dust storms blowing through, in direct defiance of the EPA mandates. This often results in a fine for the county being out of compliance.

oldspackrat

Power & money(taxes,fines).

joe_padavano

My point exactly. The problem now is that the environmentalists have already gone after the biggest pollution sources, so now they have to start attacking the insignificant ones to continue to justify their existence. I saw a story recently about how outdoor power equipment (lawnmowers, gas cans, etc) are a bigger pollution source than automobiles. That's not because lawnmowers represent such a big emissions source, but because cars have become such a small one. We've done a tremendous job of making clean cars, but no good deed goes unpunished...

76olds

I've been outed ??

Railguy

That story to me sounded to unbelievable to make it on fox.......if that's possible.
Railguy

hookem horns

Meanwhile planes, trains and ships have nearly no emissions rules. "Race cars" can't move the needle one bit by comparison, but maybe it was a misguided attempt to close a loophole of someone saying their daily driver is a race car. I agree with Joe's earlier comments about wanting to protect the environment but got to keep these things in perspective.

z11375ss

No government entity takes these on line petitions seriously. Nor do they have to by law. Don't kid yourself. PAVE THE PLANET!

Fun71

Well that's a certain way to create an enormous heat island and ensure global warming.

z11375ss

Global warming was invented to line the pockets of certain people like Al Gore. The sun emits SO much energy that the solar cycle is a bigger climate changer than all the machines on earth. Don't be so egotistical to think man could do something on this scale. Research it on your own instead of listening to the people profiting the most from you paying more for electricity and gas. The same folks were claiming we were headed for an ice age in the 70s. Anyone remember that? They lied about their findings and published falsified data to back up their claims of warming. Think for yourself man.

oldcutlass

Its now called climate change, soon it will be spring.

rocketraider

Like!

joe_padavano

Sorry, but the evidence is pretty clear that the average temps are going up. Whether this is man-made or the result of natural conditions is debatable, but the data is both clear and non-partisan. Sorry folks, but do you take a crap in your bath water before you get in? Why is it OK to take a crap in the air that we have to breathe?

455man

That's funny I've read facts that show we are cooling and so is the rest of the solar system. The air I breathe out helps plants. Without enough CO2 plant life diminishes. I'm sure in 40 yrs we'll be having this same debate until they finally get the control that they are after.

oldcutlass

Back in the 70's these same experts were saying the earth was cooling and we were heading into another ice age. Supposedly the air was much worse....

joe_padavano

I don't know where you're read these "facts", but here is the data. This has been primarily collected by NASA/NOAA weather satellites, some of which I've even worked on. Note that the data starts in the mid-1970s because that's when the first geosynchronous orbit weather satellites (the GOES family) were launched. These are the data points I trust, because that's where you have to be to collect global-scale data. Also note that this data has been normalized to the average over the last century, so that's why it's centered at zero. Above means hotter than average.




Just for grins, this is the chart from the 1880s (when formal record keeping started) to today. Note the error bars on the chart, and more importantly, how large the error bars are for the pre-1970s data. That's why the global-scale monitoring from GEO is so important.



I believe the data, not what some yahoo writes on Twitter or a blog. Reasonable people can disagree over the cause, but you can't refute the data.

KVP

Joe,

Thanks for taking the time to post the charts and giving an explanation.

Keith

Koda

The data is believable, but it does not say who is causing it or how.

joe_padavano

Which I've said several times in this thread.

455man

The problem with the data is the scientist have been caught altering their data over and over again to justify their politics. Here is an article where the same NASA says we are entering a mini ice age.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...obal_cooling1/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014...nasa-and-noaa/

We could do this all day.

joe_padavano

Not sure those are exactly non-partisan, fact-driven sources...

gs72

With our current administration, I'm not sure a non-partisan fact driven source exist.

wr1970

Funny all those big polluters!! Like coke furnaces in foundries gone! Coal fired steam engines gone except a few exhibition ride trains! Dumps burning trash gone! Leaded gas gone! buffalo herds done to very small amount!These a just a few of the many. Joe i like your charts The experts didn't collect good data at all from the 70's on back i'm in my opinion. This planet is on a warming trend. As far as i am concerned the states with the big forest fires are major problem with pollution of air and why is that not a factor! This is a every year deal. Let alone the deforestation in south america and burning down there. Everyone go plant some trees and do your part. A hole farmers are removing tree rows that were for dust control in Kansas.

hookem horns

Or the past administration, or the one before that.

Comes down to the old Kirk emotional response vs. the Spock logic, and Joe's data is more Spock-like. Even if mankind is not the cause, we are likely amplifying the impact. That said, the odds of "race cars" making a difference are lower than me winning the Powerball lottery.

z11375ss

I'll say the same thing about yours Joe. They were caught skewing the data. That's a fact.

After the Obama administration took office, however, and started pushing the global warming narrative for political purposes, NASA was directed to alter its historical data in order to reverse the cooling trend and show a warming trend instead. This was accomplished using climate-modeling computers that simply fabricated the data the researchers wished to see instead of what was actually happening in the real world.

From here; http://www.hangthebankers.com/govern...-warming-data/

We COULD do this all day. Keep paying higher fees for your part in the scam. Not for me, thanks.

76olds

I remember back in the early 70's visiting with my grandparents , they had to put towels and blankets over the farmhouse windows trying to keep the house cool because it was sweltering hot. No A/C back then.
It's all a big crock of $hit as far as I'm concerned.

jaunty75

The 1970s are so recent that it's laughable to draw any conclusions based on what's happened between then and now.

You want graphs? I've got graphs, too. It all depends on how far back you want to go and how much you want to expand the y-axis.

I apologize for the smallness of these, but I think they're readable.


In this one, the Antarctic Ice Core record, the last 120 years is the little red box at the far right.






Here's the last 10,000 years.





Here's the Greenland Ice Core record.





There is a huge natural variability in the earth's climate that masks anything that's happened in the latter part of the 20th century, whether man-caused or natural.

joe_padavano

I don't disagree with this, which I why I again point out that the actual causes of the temperature climb are debatable. I will, however, note that only since the mid-1970s have we been able to combine global-scale monitoring with ground truth to calibrate the models. Ice cores rely on extrapolations that may or may not be accurate, and with any extrapolation, even a minute error gets magnified greatly the further out you extrapolate. I have to deal with this in engineering where we create a structural model for analysis then run a test to verify (and update when necessary) the model. My point is that I discount the pre-1970 data in both directions and I agree that 40 years of high accuracy data is meaningless on a global environment scale.

And finally, (to get this thread back on topic) I fully believe that eliminating all race cars in the world would not have a measurable effect on the environment, which gets back to my original premise that this current EPA proposed ban is ludicrous and an overreach of authority. That's not to say that we shouldn't pay attention to the environment, but this proposed law is NOT the way to do it.

Fun71

Joe, your mention of average temps reminded me of one of our weather casters last year saying here in Phoenix we had one of the hottest average summers on record. He pointed out that the daytime temperatures were not any hotter than in the past, but due to the concrete "heat island" of urban expansion the night time temperatures didn't drop as much as they did back when this area was all open desert. So combine the still-normal daytime highs and the now-higher night time lows and the "average temperature" is higher.

Indy_68_S

Hehe...

I forget who said it, but "It won't matter what people do or don't do. In a million years the planet will be fine."

Railguy

Here where I live the crops are about 3 weeks early, have been for 7 or 8 years. Tics are everywhere every time I go for mushrooms I come home with 8 or 10. No exaggeration. Now we have the emerald beatles killing all the ash trees.when I was little the ground froze in the fall and kept going deeper as winter went on .Not now. It doesn't matter how many people the media pay to tell me different or how load they yell it ,I m going to believe what I see.
Railguy

z11375ss

When I put a 455 in place of my 350 my car got hotter. This has to count for something! I just hate the fact the Globull warming alarmists are the same people jetting to summts all over the world spewing tons of CO2 into our atmosphere telling us we have to eliminate race cars to bring down the levels of CO2. Anybody here own their own private jet? Me neither. The, "Do as I say because it's for your own good" mantra makes me ill. Either stop flying your jets and make a difference or STHU. Mankind cannot not make a difference until China and India decide they will play by the rules set out. Punishing the U.S. is not the answer. I mean, really, look at China. This is a joke.

jaunty75

You are exactly correct. I saw an article just the other day about how our Canadian friends to the north could reduce to ZERO their emissions of CO2, etc, and the effect on the atmosphere would be ZERO. There are just too few Canadians to make a difference. Even the U.S., which is, of course, much larger in terms of population, still contributes something like only 5% to world emissions. India and China, with a combined population of something like 2.5 billion people (more than 8 times that of the U.S. and about 70 timese the population of Canada), are where the real issue is. But those countries want to develop the standard of living of their peoples, and who can blame them.

z11375ss

They are living where we were at the turn of the 1900's. Complete and utter devastation of the environment.