Top 10 Worst Polluters - Page 7 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cphilip · #91 07-16-2008, 12:21 AM

You said that it is a fact that Solar activity (radiation) has not increase over the last long period of time.

In fact that is not a fact at all. Evidence exists it has increased and remains at an increased level. Then you decided to address that plateau as if it said something was said different than it really does. It simple says it increased and remains at an increased level, however does not appear to have continued that upward trend lately (since about 1970)... but also it has not decreased and so remains at an increased level from 100 years ago. It still remains at that upward level even today. It has increased and still is increased as compared to levels 100 years ago. You said there was no evidence of this at all.

So its simply not true that there is no evidence that Sun activity has not increased in the last 100 years and that it continues to remain at an increased level, even today.

It is also quite clear that CO2 levels follow this increase fairly steadily and seem to be more of a symptom of Global Warming than a Cause.

It is also evident that one thing then compounds another in a spiraling "cause and effect" that each thing encourages the other in a sort of chain reaction until something breaks that pattern.

Increased Solar activity decreases Cloud formation in some areas which allows more of the Solar ray to reach the surface. Then things can warm the surface of Oceans and Land and these then create their own secondary effect. One thing after another, warmer Oceans release more CO2... and so on...

For example. Drought typically and eventually cause sustained and prolonged Drought. Because the air is too dry to be able to moisten up and allow rain to make to the surface unless something powerful overcomes that effect. Drought from lack of systems capable of producing rain can then cause mediocre systems, that normally would make it to the ground, to not bring relief. It dries up in the middle atmosphere before it can make it to the ground because the air is very dry. Dryer than normal. And it may take a powerful system to break that.

#92 07-16-2008, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I'm never the one who starts discussing GW.

Post #6, you talk about "carbon footprint" several times which only relates to the man-caused GW myth. Post #7 moxie mentions something about it relating to the article. #9 YOU reply to his statement by saying "Man-induced global warming is real". Which means YOU elevated the disussion by taking it well beyond what moxie's meant.

Quote:

Point out one specific thing that I said about GW that is incorrect

That is too time consuming and too much text to copy. I'll point out what you said about it that is correct, that will keep this post much shorter and on topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

But that's where diesels have an advantage over gasoline vehicles, their carbon footprint is lower.
...
Actually you're still leaving some carbon behind even when burning B100.
...
So while CO2 may not totally be the convict
...
We also know it was warmer long before the industrial revolution.
...
What's relevant is the relationship between temperature, the Sun's activity, and CO2 level.
...
I guess none of this is really "proof" of man-made GW

DieselAddict · #93 07-16-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cphilip

You said that it is a fact that Solar activity (radiation) has not increase over the last long period of time.

In fact that is not a fact at all. Evidence exists it has increased and remains at an increased level. Then you decided to address that plateau as if it said something was said different than it really does. It simple says it increased and remains at an increased level, however does not appear to have continued that upward trend lately (since about 1970)... but also it has not decreased and so remains at an increased level from 100 years ago. It still remains at that upward level even today. It has increased and still is increased as compared to levels 100 years ago. You said there was no evidence of this at all.

So its simply not true that there is no evidence that Sun activity has not increased in the last 100 years and that it continues to remain at an increased level, even today.

It seems that we have a communication problem. You might want to re-read my posts. I never said what you claim I said about the solar radiation increase. I only said that the radiation has not increased in the last 30 years or so (yet temps have gone up significantly).

DieselAddict · #94 07-16-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForcedInduction

Post #6, you talk about "carbon footprint" several times which only relates to the man-caused GW myth. Post #7 moxie mentions something about it relating to the article. #9 YOU reply to his statement by saying "Man-induced global warming is real". Which means YOU elevated the disussion by taking it well beyond what moxie's meant.

That is too time consuming and too much text to copy. I'll point out what you said about it that is correct, that will keep this post much shorter and on topic.

I don't consider mentioning the carbon footprint as a discussion about GW. The carbon footprint was mentioned in the article that this thread is about and I was simply explaining that diesels have a lower carbon footprint than gassers and that's true regardless of what anyone thinks of GW.

cphilip · #95 07-16-2008, 01:59 PM

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Temperature_Gallery

DieselAddict · #96 07-16-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cphilip

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Temperature_Gallery

Don't just throw links at me. I can do that too. Again, what specifically did I say that's not true?? It seems that through these links you're trying to show me that the climate has always been changing and the media/scientists have been wrong in the past. I'm not disputing any of that but that does not in any way take away from the reality that there's no cause other than increases in CO2 that would rationally explain the recent warming of the last few decades. If there's an alternate explanation, I'm all ears.

#97 08-02-2008, 05:53 AM

http://www.emercedesbenz.com/Aug08/01_001313_Mercedes_Benz_E320_BlueTEC_Named_Top_Green_Car_By_Kelley_Blue_Book.html

Kelley Blue Book has officially announced their choices for this year's best environmentally friendly vehicles, naming the Mercedes-Benz E320 BlueTEC one of their "Top 10 Green Cars" of 2008.

1. 2008 Toyota Prius | 46 mpg (48 city, 45 highway)

2. 2008 Honda Civic Hybrid | 42 mpg (40 city, 45 highway)

3. 2008 smart fortwo | 36 mpg (33 city, 41 highway)

4. 2008 Nissan Altima Hybrid | 34 mpg (35 city, 33 highway)

5. 2008 MINI Cooper | 32 mpg (28 city, 38 highway)

6. 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid | 32 mpg (34 city, 30 highway)

7. 2008 Honda Fit | 31 mpg (28 city, 34 highway)

8. 2008 Mercedes-Benz E320 BlueTEC | 26 mpg (23 city, 32 highway)

9. 2008 Toyota Highlander Hybrid | 26 mpg (27 city, 25 highway)

10. 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid | 21 mpg (21 city, 22 highway)

Cervan · #98 08-02-2008, 06:07 AM

Know whats really sad? my honda made 55mpg and its not even a hybrid..

CoyoteStarfish · #99 08-02-2008, 06:18 AM

Whoa whoa now.

First surprise is just how pitiful the E320 BlueTEC economy performance is.

Second, the smart only has marginally greater MPG over a mini? What are these automakers not doing right?

#**100** 08-02-2008, 06:31 AM

The Smart has always been a piece of junk.

Cervan · #**101** 08-02-2008, 07:07 AM

The automakers and oil companys are in bed together.

#**102** 08-02-2008, 07:08 AM

...is the myth that people keep pushing.

Cervan · #**103** 08-02-2008, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForcedInduction

...is the myth that people keep pushing.

But then what is the truth?

#**104** 08-02-2008, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cervan

But then what is the truth?

Horsepower and emissions, people want lots of power and near-zero emissions. More power takes more fuel and tight emissions limits choke efficiency.

If they were to design the engine without emissions limits, there is no reason a Smart couldn't get into the 70+mpg range.

Ara T. · #**105** 08-02-2008, 07:59 AM

If they'd wanted the Smart car to be more fuel efficient it would be. Mind you all it takes Premium gas too!

It is efficient enough, its real advantage is for tight city streets and tiny parking spots. Things you really dont find in the US for the most part.