As pointed out in the excellent book Stop Signs: Cars and Capitalism: On the Road to Economic Social and Ecological Decay
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/49946
The car is a huge devourer of space †roads garages petrol stations and parking make up between one-third and one-half of the total space in US cities.The two million cars added to the US automotive fleet each year require asphalting space equivalent to 400000 football fields paving over prime farmland. Parking is an omnipresent visual blight on the urban landscape and the car promotes an ugly urban housing sprawl.Actually fortunately since 2006 when the US hit Peak Cars the number of cars in the US has been declining. But tragically China and India's increases in Auto Addiction are one of the major factors leading to their huge increases in usage of dwindling Peak Oil.This article is WRONG. Simply cutting down trees does not increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If you burn those trees then atmospheric CO2 increases. However the entire forests of the upper midwest were cut down a century ago and that habitat destruction contributed nearly no increase in green house gases because the trees are still in the houses that they build in Chicago Detroit and all the other cities surrounding the Great Lakes. If you cut down trees and sequester the wood (carbon) there will be NO release of CO2.I don't think anyone would argue that more trees is better than fewer trees but we haven't seen ANY warming in the last 16 years. In the 1970's they were talking about the coming ice age. Then all of a sudden it was replaced by talks of the impending doom caused by ice caps melting.We have been told for more than 30 years that the end is coming if CO2 increases just a little bit more. Now that it has reached record highs warming has stalled and we're seeing the truth. Heck 10 years ago people were saying our children wouldn't know what snow was and we've had record snow falls recently. Al Gore said Katrina and the 2005 hurricane season was a sign of things to come because of global warming and that was followed by 4 years of pretty mild hurricane seasons.At this point wouldn't a scientist say Well our theory isn't matching our observations so lets revise (or drop) our theory?The fact that there hasn't been any warming in the last 16 years is in dispute but it really doesn't matter. We've been told that there will be fire and floods but in 30 years I haven't seen anyone affected by melting ice caps. It snowed here in Phoenix a few months ago (3rd time in 30 years). It hit 122 degrees here in Phoenix but that was 23 years ago and we haven't gotten close since. All of this points to either false or greatly exaggerated claims by the global warming proponents.What does it take to prove that the theory is wrong?Ppardee it takes evidence to prove the theory is wrong. The cooling argument is a bit data-mined. You can look at any short term chart and pick a time where the data range shows something opposite to what the trend is showing. The FACT is that the Earth is still accumulating heat. The ocean is accumulating it at a faster rate than the land. Btw we've seen these stretches of cooling in the past as well but the upward trend remains. 2005 and 2010 were the hottest years on record globally. Next...More extreme weather is predicted with global warming and climate change. If you have more heat energy in the system you'll have more dynamic weather. You know who said there wouldn't be snow with global warming? Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Climatologists haven't been saying that at all. To say oh look it's snowing. Where's your global warming now just shows ignorance of the matter.You point to Phoenix and their record high. You're omitting the rest of the planet. Can you see how that's a mistake? Btw record highs are happening at a rate twice that of record lows.OH and the they were predicting an ice age in the 70's argument is full of holes as well. There were 6 times as many scientific studies that were predicting global warming than global cooling. Time popularized the ice age issue; that's an article and not a scientific publication however. In fact I saw a film from the 50's that addressed the concern of global warming. I guess Al Gore got an early start eh?To clarify this is a graphic of human CO2 emissions only. It is not a graph of greenhouse gas emissions which would include methane and other gases. It is also not a graph of what causes global warming (no one actually knows though theories abound). It also conveniently doesn't include natural CO2 emissions which far exceed human emissions. Human emissions are calculated to be less than 4% of all CO2 emissions. 96% is from natural sources.http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htmDespite the widespread presumption that CO2 emissions are a significant contributor to global warming in actuality no one has yet demonstrated that. In fact all the historical paleoclimate data shows that CO2 increases a long time after warming begins by hundreds of years. Warming appears to increase CO2 not the other way around.http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/Here's a paper investigating the relationship between recent warming and CO2 again showing that CO2 appears to be caused by warming:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658It is true that in a closed greenhouse if you increase CO2 a lot (ie; doubling it) the greenhouse's atmosphere will warm slightly as a result. But the earth's atmosphere is not a closed greenhouse. Again all the paleoclimate data shows that CO2 increases come hundreds of years after warming.The only place CO2 significantly contributes to warming is in the computer Global Climate Models that also assume (incorrectly) that CO2 increase is a positive feedback that causes more actual warming than predicted by the simple mathematical logarithmic relationship of CO2 to warming in a closed atmosphere. And all of the computer models have significantly overstated the actual warming observed probably for the very reason that they make an incorrect assumption about the relationship of CO2 and warming:http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.pngandhttp://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.pngIf you have trouble with the idea that it appears that CO2 isn't a significant contributor to global warming have a look at these graphs of CO2 and warming over the past few decades using measured CO2 and measured global temperatures:http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_of_Carbon_Dioxide_with_Temperatures_Negative_Again.pdfand http://www.climate4you.com/images/AllCompared%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gifNote especially that since 1998 CO2 continues to increase but global temperatures do not. Also between about 1935 and 1990 global temperatures decreased while CO2 continued to increase.Is the current level of CO2 about 0.04% of the atmosphere anything to be concerned about? Historically it has been quite a bit higher and life flourished on Earth. We can see from satellite imagery that the increased CO2 of the last few decades has greened the planet which makes sense because CO2 is essential to plant health. So no nothing to be concerned about and remember that humans are only contributing a small amount compared to natural sources.orbit7er you would be happy to know that peak oil is a myth. Every time someone sets a limit on known global oil reserves called peak oil more is discovered or innovation and market forces makes previously difficult-to-extract oil economical to extract.Frostty the earth is indeed accumulating heat and always has been and it's also shedding it. The earth is dynamic. And the suggestion that the oceans are still trapping more heat and warming while the surface hasn't warmed for the last 15 years doesn't hold water pardon the pun. There is no evidence that the oceans are trapping any heat in fact it appears they are losing heat:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/06/new-paper-on-argo-data-trenberths-ocean-heat-still-missing/@Frosttty: It actually takes evidence to prove a theory RIGHT. You have to go into the experiment assuming the theory is wrong or more accurately you need to go into the experiment with the intent of proving your theory wrong otherwise you will always find a way to prove it right. Since we clearly can't design experiments to accurately test the affect of CO2 on global warming we must assume the theory is wrong until we prove it isn't.The fact that people were predicting global warming in the 50's is even more damning. 60 years later where is it?The cooling data isn't cherry picked data. NOAA has a chart of global mean land and ocean temps from 1880 to present and the temperature has flat-lined (and slightly declined) since just before 2000. You can change how you define the temp increase by where you set your starting point but that's not manipulating the data. If it were then all of the AGW proponents would be guilty because this is not the hottest the Earth has ever been.www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201201-201212.pngPicking out 2005 and and 2010 as record temperature years is no different than picking out individual days as record days. I realize that one day in one location doesn't make for a global trend but my point is that we should have seen more days like that. The weather is the same as it was 20 years ago.The real question is why we have seen less than 1 degree C temperature increase since 1880 even though CO2 is now 50% higher than it was in 1880? Are we expecting that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic? It certainly isn't linear and we haven't seen the run-away warming we were warned about. What evidence do we have that this is not natural warming?killerT and you others who are freaking out about global population and resources don't worry be happy.Every prediction about mass starvation and insufficient food production due to the population explosion of the 20th century has been wrong. Here is a graph of global average living standard as measured by GDP per capita and the famously wrong predictions of Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich:http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/20130606_living_standard_vs_population.gifAlso killerT you'll be excited to know that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is improving crop yields.If you're still worried about the population explosion it's already tailing off as birthrates in almost every post-industrial nation have declined below replacement. Poor countries are predicted to do the same once their standard of living increases sometime about mid-century. Global population is expected to peak at about 10 billion which is easily sustainable and probably decline after that.And if you want to see how CO2 does actually have a measurable effect on something globally take a look at this:http://c0.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/20130606_gdp_capita_carbon_use.gifCarbon emissions track very well with the rise in standard of living. More carbon use by humans (access to cheap energy) is directly correlated to decreasing poverty and sickness.ppardee here's some more ammo for you. Have a look at the Greenland ice core graph. It looks suspiciously like the warming of the 20th century is a natural correction after the Little Ice Age (1550-1850) since the preceding warm periods (Minoan Roman Medieval) appear to be warmer than the current one:http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gifSorry Frostty I missed correcting your 2005 and 2010 were the hottest years on record globally statement. They were not. According to the Goddard Institute at NASA and the NOAA they were the warmest globally since 1880 as measured by instruments.http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.htmlThe dataset they use to determine land surface temperatures is from NOAA (and other) weather station measurements. Meteorologist Anthony Watts has demonstrated that the majority of those weather stations in the U.S. are poorly sited and are measuring local anomalies caused by generically the urban heat island effect. That ranges from measuring exhaust from air conditioners to heat generated by buildings and pavement all located too close to the measuring station. The NOAA has recently responded in the last year by narrowing down the stations used to ones that meet much more strict criteria for good siting. We'll have to see how that affects future data from NOAA.Here are 4 links on the subject:http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdfhttp://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdfhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/an-update-on-my-climate-reference-network-visualization-project/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/04/berkeley-earth-very-rural-and-not/-laurenra7- Thanx for your well reasoned contribution.I would like to add that as CO2 levels rise and fall there is no direct cause and effect with global warming. What you do see as CO2 levels increase plants thrive growing larger faster and producing larger crops.Chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs the chemicals that used to be in aerosol cans refrigerators and air conditioners where found to deplete the ozone layer. As there grew more and larger holes the global temp increased but after we banned the use of CFCs not only did the ozone layer begin to repair itself but global temps started declining.-archosaur- You seem to be operating under a misconception. You are right in that cutting down trees does not release CO2 (As long as you don't use a chainsaw or truck to haul away the wood) But that is where you wander off. Trees don't sequester CO2 they BREATH it in as an indispensable component for photosynthesis. What they breath out is Oxygen. Then an animal comes along (me or you) and breaths in the fresh purified O2. We breath out dirty CO2 and the plants greedily and happily suck it in. Plants and animals form a symbiotic relationship you need one for the other to survive. So no cutting down a tree doesn't release CO2 but killing the tree stops it from scrubbing the CO2 out of the air and replacing it with purified Oxygen.the implication they want you to take from this is that man made greenhouse gasses are the real problem. What you need to realize is that these percentages are just a minute part of what goes into climate change. If you believe that CO2 is the problem then do us all a favor and stop breathing because by your logic you are polluting the air and by mine you are polluting the airwaves with your nonsense. Man made CO2 accounts for a minute fraction of the CO2 released into the atmosphere. That's not to say we should cut down every tree and strip mine every acre of land available but lets stop with the absurd allegations. Most lumber related industries plant more trees than they cut down. That's not because of government regulations its just good business sense (greed) If they don't plant more trees they won't have resources to exploit later. You want to see real greed? Take a look at these green' politicians (Gore) who have made billions pushing an agenda that only helps their pocket books. It hurts most everyone else especially those in developing nations who are told they can only use green (inefficient) energy sources which are far two expensive to be practical. But hey just keep on telling yourselves that you are saving the world who cares if a few million Africans die because they lack simple things we take for granted here like refrigeration (to preserve medicine) because its nearly impossible to get access to reliable energy sources where they live thanks to our efforts to save the environment.Not much to add here.@Calin You're correct but you miss archosaur's point. Cutting down forests is carbon-neutral; it doesn't release carbon. But it clears the way for another tree to be planted in their place. The tree itself is the sequestered Carbon that it breaths in. Move that CO2 pod out of the way to place a new sequestering machine to grow in its spot. Then hide those CO2 pods in peoples' houses. They'll never suspect it!As far as the 'global warming' issue ppardee and lauren have it pretty well covered.Only thing missing is the clarification of one point; question-ability of non-satellite data aside today is still likely the warmest the planet has ever been on record.We had a mini-iceage a few hundred years ago and we've been recovering from that at a rate of about 1.5C/century. That linear recovery rate is modulated by a ~120 year period of oscillation and right now we've peaked at the crest of that sinusoid and are starting to go downward - hence the stasis for the past 16 years.So Yes the planet IS warming. And yes 'today' is the hottest day on record. But that warming has little to do with us and of course you're going to hit records when you level off after decades of warming up. And we'll keep hitting new records every few years unless the planet actually cools for a decade or two. It should also be noted that during the entire Holocene (last 10000 years) the variance in temperature change was +/-2.6C/century. For those who took highschool stats that means the warming trend for the past 30 years 1.5C/century is within a standard deviation of the rate. ^ What that means [practically speaking] is I could take reliable climate data of past 120 years insert it into random places over the past 10000 year and you couldn't pick it out - it wouldn't look abnormal. That is why the current rate of warming is not statistically significant enough to determine the magnitude of human contribution; the change so far is within the noise of the system.As for people concerned about heat-death CO2 can't cause it. To get another degree warmer we'd have to double current CO2 levels to ~700+ppm (logarithms mate).Unless you presume positive feedback from the incremental heat more CO2 will add. And it is a good bet we will shift largely from CO2-energy before we reach that. But cycles in Solar intensity cloud behavior and other natural processes have already intermittently warmed us by that amount. Why can heat from CO2 set off a positive feedback spiral with water vapor but extra sun intensity can't? Human perturbations are smaller than natural ones; if positive feedback was a reality we would've gone off the cliff long ago; and we'd be warming at a growing rate rather than a slowing one.Also cooling the planet is child's play. If it was ever really a problem there are some very cheep non-permanent methods to reflect sunlight and cool down the planet to a desired temperature. I'm just against doing that because I don't know yet if we're better off with a planet a little warmer or cooler than we have now. Time will tell.** Correction: 60 year sinusoid modulating warming rate sorry. 120 years is the record we have showing it; it's troughed and crested twice since then. Last crest was around 1940 and last trough was around 1970. Rough picture of it http://www.iceagenow.com/Burt_Rutan_calls_AGW_a_Fraud_files/image005.jpgIn the image; the IPCC extrapolation is logical - if you only look since 1970 and presume a positive-feedback. But if you care to look a bit further back you'll find it more likely we're on a modest modulated linear warming rate.The poles of the Earth are going through a shift change. This may take 1000 years perhaps but the change is happening and has been going on for the past 300 years. As the process continues the Earth will loses it magnetic field against the suns radiation. This process is unstoppable and extreme in effect upon the Earth compared to the human induced industrial revolution warming. The human induced global warming is real and does have an effect towards global warming but it is minor in effect to the pole shift change. Lastly the Earth is effect to minor detail from the sun solar cycles.The human induced industrial global warming is shortly accelerating the global warming but the polar shift in the long run is worse. It just takes a longer time for the effect.Sá´Âᴀʀᴠᴡá´Âʀá´Âêôâ ᴀᴠʜá´Âá´Âᴠᴡêá´Âʜ Gá´Âá´Ââʟá´Â! Iá´Â's ʙÊÂ-ÃÂᴀʀ á´Âʜᴠʙá´Âsᴠᴊá´Âʙ Iᴠᴠʜᴀá´Â. Lᴀsá´ Má´Âôá´ÂᴀʠI âá´Âᴠᴀ ôá´Âá´¡ AʟÃÂᴀ Rá´Âá´Âá´Âá´ ÃÂʀá´Âᴠʙʀêôâêôâ êô $7778. I sá´Âᴀʀá´Âá´Âá´ á´Âʜês 9 á´Âá´Âôá´Âʜs ᴀâᴠᴀôᴠᴘʀᴀá´Âá´Âêá´Âᴀʟʟʠsá´Âʀᴀêâʜᴠᴀᴡᴀʠsá´Âᴀʀá´Âá´Âá´ á´Âᴀá´Âêôâ á´Âá´Âʀᴠá´Âʜᴀô $83 ᴘá´Âʀ ʜá´Âᴜʀ. I á´¡á´Âʀᴠá´Âʜʀá´Âᴜâʜ á´Âʜês ʟêôᴠwww.Mojo50.com