Is your car a "gross emitter"?

[XH29N0G]

I have a quick things to add about the global warming/climate change debate and ozone because I think it is needed for balance. 

In the 90's I had heard that replacing the term was a conscious effort to change it and was part of the talking points lists (basically because global warming seemed bad).  I really first noticed this about the time that scientists started talking about rapid climate change  and brought up the analolgy that we might have a wall switch rather than a dimmer switch as a control.  At that time, evidence had just been found that in parts of Greenland that in the past (as the last ice age waned) that there was a period when the regional climate changed by as much as 8 degrees (C - more in F) over a period of 40 years and stayed there. This was not global, but no less important.

Anyway, that is what I had thought I knew when I read the post that said the terms were changed because everyone acknowledged that warming was not occurring and ceded on that term (weakness).  So I decided to give it a little more look.  It looks like both terms have been around and both have been politicized and also used simply as descriptive terms.  There does not look like any magic with them.  There is a pretty good explanation that NASA posts.   

Not trying to rile, but I think it is important to bring up so that the discussion is balanced. 

[1974dodgecharger]

I just cant afford a new car to be honest  I tell people I drive a 48 year old car with manual steering, manual brakes, manual clutch, no air conditioning and people actually feel sorry for me.....

I started a GOFUNDME.COM account for a new HELLCAT CHALLENGER and im up to 32k in cash...................


















just kidding..................

[Ghoste]

I believe what I want and others are free to believe what they like.  My biggest problem with the entire environmental movement and most especially the latest craze with "climate change" is that in my opinion they are all hypocrites.  When someone asks me if I care about the future for my grandchildren it makes me want to vomit (and not picking on you JR because I hear the phrase bandied about by world savers quite a bit). 
Unless the person asking me that question is dressed in animal hides they made from a commonly found species and they used the stone tools they made by hand to kill it and they live in a cave, then they have no right whatsoever to try and put a "don't you care about _______" guilt trip on me.  If you use a car, boat, bike anything as a toy then you are wasting resources and contributing to the problem you choose to believe in.  If you own rayon, if you have a computer in front of you, if you have a flatscreen tv, if your bread came in a plastic bag.  If you do anything that requires a synthetic then you have no right to use a guilt trip on people.  You are free to believe in man made climate change and knock yourself out doing something about it but you have no right to accuse me of not caring about my children.  As a species we are hypocrites all and theoretical man made climate change has most certainly become all about money.  Save the planet?  Give me a break.  As a species we wring our hands over this and then turn around to the government and tell them to fix it so we can get back to enjoying our favorite reality show on a lounger clad in synthetic fabric placed on a synthetic flooring.  The government of course, having no magic powers, "fixes" it by providing more money to "Dr. Fundmyresearch", and then placing limits on how much of the element carbon we can use.  The best way to do that apparently is to impose a financial penalty on businesses that use carbon and have those monetary hikes passed on to the consumer.  The government gets money and good press, thereby retaining power, the business can go on happily doing whatever they do to make money and we pay the extra money so we can ignorantly go on using whatever artificial product we choose.  Everyone is happy, lots of money changes and not a single thing was done to alter this "problem".
We are hypocrites, me, you, all of us.  You want to protect our grandchildren from things that are our fault?  Lets find ways to stop investing more money into better ways to kill one another.   

[XH29N0G]

You make a valid point. 

[Patronus]

I'm not concerned about us outlasting the earth. The planet doesn't care if were here or not. But I'd like to, you know, not be the cause of our own extinction when we render the planet uninhabitable for ourselves.

And yet that is precisely what's going to happen.

[Homerr]

I'd say that, yes, everyone has bought bread in a plastic bag, put gas in their tank, and participated in the petrochemical-industrial complex paradigm in many ways.  We are all partly responsible for where we are at today.  To say that one is 100% green or that man has not changed the environment are hypocritical positions in the argument.  We are all really somewhere in the middle and our choices reflect where we personally are at on that spectrum.

[skip68]

Dam Ghoste, I think I'm falling in love with you.    
What you just said completely hit the nail on the head.  And that's the real truth folks.    I couldn't ride my quad in California unless it gets a sticker that supposedly money is for clean air and various other taxes.   So it's NOT ok to pollute California's air, but if I give them money it's perfectly fine.  
Just like the smog B.S.    They've been restricting and changing banning for 20-30years in California.  Now, the entire time California's been taking money and even denying people using a wood stove or fireplace.  So, my question to California or anyone for that matter is this.  

WHY IS THERE STILL SMOG IN CALIFORNIA and where is all the money going?    

And guess what? The air doesn't stay in California.  It crosses in to other states.    California does not own the air.   It belongs to all of us and whether I run a chainsaw in California or in Nevada it has the same effect on the earth.   So in short, unless you have everyone worldwide living by the same rules you will have failure.  The only thing you'll accomplish with a percentage of the population doing what you say California is possibly buying time for the inevitable failure.   If anything is hurting our air quality it's places like China and we support their polluting by buying their products.  Why?   Because it's cheaper so it's ok.  It's all about money.  Always has been and always will be and anyone that believes otherwise is a fool.    

[JR]

Dam Ghoste, I think I'm falling in love with you.    
What you just said completely hit the nail on the head.  And that's the real truth folks.    I couldn't ride my quad in California unless it gets a sticker that supposedly money is for clean air and various other taxes.   So it's NOT ok to pollute California's air, but if I give them money it's perfectly fine.  
Just like the smog B.S.    They've been restricting and changing banning for 20-30years in California.  Now, the entire time California's been taking money and even denying people using a wood stove or fireplace.  So, my question to California or anyone for that matter is this.  

WHY IS THERE STILL SMOG IN CALIFORNIA?.......

...Because it's cheaper so it's ok.  It's all about money.  Always has been and always will be and anyone that believes otherwise is a fool.    

We complely understand why there's smog in Cali. A quick Google search will tell you:

A Perfect Place for Smog

California's topography (the physical shape of the land) and its warm, sunny climate are perfect for trapping and forming air pollutants. Most California cities are built on plains or in valleys surrounded by mountains. These areas are natural bowls that trap air pollution and prevent the air from circulating. On some days temperature inversions (where the air closer to the ground becomes cooler than the air above) act as lids which trap air pollutants close to the ground. This prevents vertical mixing (the upper, cleaner air mixing with the lower, polluted air) and the dispersion of pollutants...

And:

Why is air pollution a problem in California?
Three main factors are behind the unhealthy levels of air pollution in California:

Large amounts of air pollution are generated by the activities of 33 million people,
Terrain or topography traps pollution, and
A warm, sunny climate helps form ozone and other air pollutants.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/knowzone/students/airpollu/airpolpage/whyis.htm

That is a government ran site, feel free to look for that information anywhere else, the science will confirm it.

It sure would be convienent if all of life's problems could be solved by saying "its a conspiracy man". But science doesn't work that way.

Its not like there is a different type of science that understands electricity and how the engines in your Chargers run, its all the same science. The science that put a man on a moon and keeps us alive through modern medicine also confirms the effects of climate change. It's not like we can cherrypick what parts of the truth we like and what parts we don't.

[skip68]

Funny but I did just what you said Jr after I posted.  The geographical lay of the land is a trap bowl so to speak for a lot of California's smog issues.  That does put them at a disadvantage for preserving air quality and I admit I put my foot in my mouth just a bit.  Far as the money part, I don't think I'm far off.     

[Chad L. Magee]

Being a scientist, I thought I would just step back and watch the discussion build for a while.  It is refreshing to see people discussing real science topics, rather than shy away from them.  We do change the surroundings in which we live in, sometimes in not so good ways.  How much effect and what if anything should be done about it are up for debate.  I often teach about how the chemicals we use affects the environment in both good and bad ways, even at the same time.  The difference between the two is a matter of perspective.  Rather than just give what I think on the subject at hand, I would rather people discuss what they know about the facts and come to their opinion based upon them.  This is something I push in my chemistry classes: the ability to analyze the world for themselves, rather than just gleaning off of others' opinions.  I also stress what is a good vs. bad source of data, as there is a difference.  They can test an hypothesis if they like to (if it is possible) and then review their own opinion based upon the data.  This is part of the scientific process at work.

Here is some food for thought:

There are current research projects going on in developing catalytic systems that could potentially reverse the buildup of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.  One involves the conversion of trapped carbon dioxide with waste plastic to make carbon nanomaterials (graphene specifically) and pure water as a byproduct of the process.  [Graphene is the new darling of my area of chemistry, as it has many potential applications.]  However, it is not an economically feasible upcycling method, but that may change with the passage of time.  The key is in the production of more energy efficient catalysts, which may not get done during our lifetimes, but you never know...

[ACUDANUT]

 The only thing putting holes in our o zone is rockets and Space ships. Ban them all.  
After all, we still know nothing about nothing after 50 years going into space. Let's not talk about the raping we get from Russia for a ride up to our Space Station.  
IMO, it's wasted Tax Payers Money.  Man is not meant for outer earth travel, Period.
Can I get a Amen. ? 

[skip68]

  Thanks Chad, I knew I was right.      seriously though, I'm glad you posted.  You're a scientist and you drive a old charger.   I think that answers the question to this thread that obviously the old classics aren't a big enough contributor to the climate.   Something we all can agree on.     

[skip68]

Can I get a Amen. ? 

Amen.   

[MxRacer855]

Hold on one second guys... I've got to stop my build and scrap my '68 real quick...

[JR]

The only thing putting holes in our o zone is rockets and Space ships. Ban them all.  
After all, we still know nothing about nothing after 50 years going into space. Let's not talk about the raping we get from Russia for a ride up to our Space Station.  
IMO, it's wasted Tax Payers Money.  Man is not meant for outer earth travel, Period.
Can I get a Amen. ?  

Absolutely not. To date, NASA has documented over 1,800 pieces of everyday technology that were a direct result of space exploration. Heres a short list of 20.

"To prove this point, every year since the mid-1970s, NASA has published a list of space technologies that have been integrated into everyday items. The tangible benefits span from life-saving medical devices to protective eyewear. To date, NASA has documented nearly 1,800 "spinoff" technologies. Here's a short list.

Artificial limbs
Baby formula
Cell-phone cameras
Computer mouse
Cordless tools
Ear thermometer
Firefighter gear
Freeze-dried food
Golf clubs
Long-distance communication
Invisible braces
MRI and CAT scans
Memory foam
Safer highways
Solar panels
Shoe insoles
Ski boots
Adjustable smoke detector
Water filters
UV-blocking sunglasses"

http://www.businessinsider.com/everyday-items-developed-by-nasa-2012-8

Those inventions alone seem fairly worthwhile to me. That's just a sample of technology space exploration has brought us. There is no benefit to sticking our heads in the sand and stopping research and space travel.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, NASA's current tax funding amounts to one half of a penny for every dollar you pay in taxes. That's only 1/2 of one percent of every dollar the government takes in. I certainly think the organization that's driving the development of those lifesaving technologies is worth that much at least.

[Daytona R/T SE]

Humans need to stop breeding.

100 years from now...

Everybody is dead.

Problem solved.

[ws23rt]

The only thing putting holes in our o zone is rockets and Space ships. Ban them all.  
After all, we still know nothing about nothing after 50 years going into space. Let's not talk about the raping we get from Russia for a ride up to our Space Station.  
IMO, it's wasted Tax Payers Money.  Man is not meant for outer earth travel, Period.
Can I get a Amen. ?  

I have thought about this long and for many years.

I cannot give an Amen to this thinking.

Man is not meant for outer earth travel?----How is this different than outer cave travel?

Wasted tax payers money?---That's the question I have the most trouble with because of the inherent waste that happens when the gov. spends our money.  The incentive to control costs in a company/industry (for example) is to use their money in a focused manor. (preserve assets). 
When the gov. runs into a financial bottle neck the easy way out is to just --acquire-- more.  A business needs to earn the money to address their needs.

I agree with JR about the many pluses we enjoy because of the space program.  I also can't dismiss the employment and money circulation that are part of that endeavor.---I do choke a bit speaking about taking money to spread money---It goes against something primal in me.  However a large exploratory move takes a large investment.

If we look at the edge of the (disc? ) we live on and wonder what's on the bottom it's our nature (for the most part) to want to look under there.  This is a natural instinct that many creatures (just like us aside a few bits of DNA) have. It's the way things are with evolution.

Our minds and opposable thumbs have given us many things---chargers included---It could very well be that we that we drown ourselves in the greatest green house gas of all --water--It could come about because of us or another set of events. A few moves of the earth's plates could turn our world into Venus. Speaking of which---maybe we came from there?---It got hot and we split thanks to extra planetary exploration.

If that happens it will open the door for another set of creatures that perhaps like it wet and hot (on top of the disc ) Maybe they won't fart and make it longer than we did.

I still find it amazing that some of us think they have a handle on all this.  Me included I am just enjoying the ride.

[Mike DC]

  
$900 Billion -  cost of the entire NASA space program from 1958-2014.  Inflation adjusted.  Includes the Moon landings, shuttle program, etc.


$2200 Billion  - cost of the 2nd Iraq war (not including Afghanistan or 1st Iraq war), 2002-2013.



Sorry to tread on something so political.  But NASA seems like a decent deal when put in perspective. 

[draftingmonkey]

All I know is that every time I eat Mexican food with lots of hot sauce things get very warm and I become a "Gross Emitter" (just ask my wife).

[Chad L. Magee]

Sorry for the rant:

One thing I have noticed in my lifetime is that we have devalued the pursuit of scientific knowledge and put more emphasis on the pursuit of other things like (insert random Hollywood gossip here).  USA did not become great once by being complacent in this area, we evolved it through innovation after innovation which required the dedication and skill of many people.  NASA used to be something that we looked up to but not anymore, which is a sad reality.  We once had a sense of national pride to know we did this and that in space.  Kids would look to the stars and dream of one day reaching them.  They were aware of what was going on in space as it was even brought up in the schools.  How many people do you know are even aware of the probe passing Pluto this summer, let alone it's location?  Yet, they know all about (insert random Hollywood gossip here).  I wish I had an easy fix for all of this, but alas, I do not....

My  , for what it is worth now....

[Ghoste]

Very true Chad.  I was going to mention in my own rant about how much more important Bruce Jenner getting a sex change last week was than anything else in our developed world.

[ACUDANUT]

The only thing putting holes in our o zone is rockets and Space ships. Ban them all.  
After all, we still know nothing about nothing after 50 years going into space. Let's not talk about the raping we get from Russia for a ride up to our Space Station.  
IMO, it's wasted Tax Payers Money.  Man is not meant for outer earth travel, Period.
Can I get a Amen. ?  

Absolutely not. To date, NASA has documented over 1,800 pieces of everyday technology that were a direct result of space exploration. Heres a short list of 20.

"To prove this point, every year since the mid-1970s, NASA has published a list of space technologies that have been integrated into everyday items. The tangible benefits span from life-saving medical devices to protective eyewear. To date, NASA has documented nearly 1,800 "spinoff" technologies. Here's a short list.

Artificial limbs
Baby formula
Cell-phone cameras
Computer mouse
Cordless tools
Ear thermometer
Firefighter gear
Freeze-dried food
Golf clubs
Long-distance communication
Invisible braces
MRI and CAT scans
Memory foam
Safer highways
Solar panels
Shoe insoles
Ski boots
Adjustable smoke detector
Water filters
UV-blocking sunglasses"

http://www.businessinsider.com/everyday-items-developed-by-nasa-2012-8

Those inventions alone seem fairly worthwhile to me. That's just a sample of technology space exploration has brought us. There is no benefit to sticking our heads in the sand and stopping research and space travel.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, NASA's current tax funding amounts to one half of a penny for every dollar you pay in taxes. That's only 1/2 of one percent of every dollar the government takes in. I certainly think the organization that's driving the development of those lifesaving technologies is worth that much at least.

These things would come from living underwater in a module too.  

You never addressed the damage done to the O zone from rockets blasting into space.  IMO, we don't belong there.  I am not a tree hugger or anything, but do you know how much we have spent going into space and the amount the Russians charge us to go to our own space lab on their rocket. 

[lloyd3]

We used to make heroes out of truly heroic people. Now, we makes heroes out of folks who merely distract us (largely thanks to Hollywierd, TV, and Madison Avenue). Big difference! I remember when I was a teenager, older folks used to tell me that sex & drugs & rock & roll were a communist plot to subvert the country from within.  I now think that they might have been onto something.

[XH29N0G]

I learn something new each day.  I wasn't aware of the issues and discussion about rockets and ozone until this discussion.  It also appears that the number of these launches is expected to increase.  It looks like about 50% military, 20% commercial, and the rest some sort of science/exploration.

I like the idea of space travel and bringing back samples, but wouldn't want to do it myself.

[ws23rt]

I haven't read anything on the ozone hole punching thing for a long time.

I also haven't read anything about the hole my charger punches through the carbon heavy air I drive in.