Thank you SUV's?

Is particle pollution good for the planet?

Global dimming:

After 9-11 all planes in the US were grounded for three days. With the exception of a very few planes for security.

1.) An analytical scientist in New York studying the affect That airplane smog trails have on the weather got a full placebo affect and had full confirmation that due to the lack of airplane trails in the sky the temperature in New York increased 1 degree c. in just three days. He then published his findings.

Scientific community said "wow interesting".

2.)Gerry Stanhill 40 years ago was given the task of measuring the amount of light hitting Israel for irrigation purposes. He then later returned a few years ago and found that there was less light hitting Israel, after checking his instrument to make sure they were working properly he published his findings.

Scientific community said "Bah humbug".

3.) After finding Mr. Sandhills publishing some really smart chick in Germany found that the same thing was happening there. Together they worked to find it was happening ALL AROUND THE WORLD!! (dum dum duuum)

Scientific community said "Get outa here naa"

4.)The P.E.R. pan evaporation rate is going down in accordance with the amount of megajoules hitting the water and the earth.

Scientific community said "leave me alone grrrrr"

OK, OK eventually the rest of the smarty pants community cot on and said "Aw man you mean we don't know how bad global worming is due to global dimming"

Here is a doc on the subject with the usual (WE ARE ALL DAMNED!!) spin on it.

Google Video Link

My question is.

Should we cut back on both particle and gas emissions?

Or Should we output a lot more particle and just cut way back on gas emissions.

Could the gas guzzlers actually be saving our ars?

still watching the video, however I'm not so sure about the SUV aspect, but I'm fairly convinced in the affect that air traffic has over our climate and that it lends even more credence that testing in the form of "chemtrails" is being done to "slow" global warming.

will add more comments if I feel necessary after the completion of the video... thanks for the link btw.

'Global dimming' is mainly caused by industrial aerosols - suphur particles etc from factories and also from forest fires - rather than from SUVs.

All driving an SUV does is reduce the amount of oil left in the world more quickly and reduce the money in your bank account more quickly

reply to post by worldwatcher


Hello World,

I wonder just how far back the slowing proses began.

When did this fall on the think tank table of the people up top?

If global worming is just a natural and inevitable proses for this earth and the guys running the show knew about it saying anything to the public could have the same affect as telling us that an asteroid the size of Texas is on its marry little way to earth.

That could explain why clean energy has been held back and why industries are such pigs.

Maybe????

reply to post by Essan


Hi Essan,

Yea I know, I was mostly using that tital as a metaphor......and well.....as a view magnet.........

But as for forest fires, its funny that after the fires in southern California we are finally getting some rain we really needed it down here we still do. San Diego's water contract with Colorado is up for renegotiation. They don't want to sell us water any more.

But guess what San Diego is due for another storm this friday.

Wonder if there is any connection?

I personally think that experimenting with aircraft contrails has been happening for at least 20 years now, more than likely earlier when you think of the "exotic weapons testing" "haarp" etc. I also think that all the "morgellons" and the whole "chemtrail" thing is just an unforseen but now probably usuable side effect from this type of experimentation. Could be that a concerted effort to use the "lesser of two evils" global dimming began in the 90's. The mid 90's is when I recall the whole "chemtrail" issue started to become more popular. Who really knows...but as it looks, we're damned no matter what.

Originally posted by Izarith
1.) An analytical scientist in New York studying the affect That airplane smog trails have on the weather got a full placebo affect and had full confirmation that due to the lack of airplane trails in the sky the temperature in New York increased 1 degree c. in just three days. He then published his findings.

Daytime temperatures increased in the day, yes. But at night it dropped drastically (due to heat radiating off the planet). So net temperature increase is lower than if the sky was covered with clouds.

Aircraft contrails contributing to global warming?

reply to post by Beachcoma


Hello Beachcoma,

Hey thanks for the info but that's exactly what I'm talking about I'm not saying that the plane trails are contributing to global worming. I'm saying that they help fight, they slow the process down.

Sure co2 is a green house gas but insects produce far more co2 than we do right?

I'm just wondering if particle pollution is saving are butts by turning our clouds into mirrors and helping reflect some of the heat that would get trapped on earth due to green hose gases.

What do you think?

Interesting on the 9/11 effect of grounding planes. Consider the amount of fuel that was spent (and dumped) by the Military doing the cold war loop over the north pole 24/7 in stratofortress-sized planes and what they do each day training.

I'm with Worldwatcher - planes (and cows, LOL).

Me, I drive an SUV, but consider I put about 1000 miles per YEAR on it and mostly ride my bicycle everywhere.

If I occasionally take my wife lunch at work I ride my bike and deliver it; go pick up something at a near by store - same. In fact I rode my bike to pick up some pneumatic struts for the my SUV's back hatch window.

(given, most/many SUV drivers aren't like this).

What's amusing is that we get a lot of letters to the editor from people talking about 'bicycles' holding them up. That's ludicrous. It's the line of fifty cars at the stop light that holds you up for 10 minutes, going through two cycles of red/green, not some guy on a bike who makes you slow down to the speed limit for, what, 2 seconds?

Disperse those fifty drivers uniformly around town on bicycles, and you'd breeze through every light.

Even guys riding side-by-side don't account for significant time - it's the 'we own the road' mentality that causes drivers to get anxious for the 10-20 seconds it takes to pass them safely.

They don't realize that one guy riding a bike 7miles each way to work saves 100 gallons of gas/year or more, which the road ragers can use to fuel their Expeditions...

Consider that every cyclist you want to run over would mean extensive road blocks for "teh Ambulance" - Adopt a better attitude - think green whenever you see a cyclist.

2 cents.

reply to post by Badge01



Hello Badge,

Well first off Grrrrrrr!!

I'm a cab driver and you guys drive me crazy but you are right drivers need to cool down and drive safe around people on bicycles. Just kidding.....

But the same goes for people on bicycles your not king of the sidewalk....

Badge, I congratulate you on using the bike so much. I would do it but I just don't feel safe on the road. I and a friend of mine had bad rollerblading accidents and it's just not the same anymore, and it wasn't even in high traffic areas.

Originally posted by Badge01
What's amusing is that we get a lot of letters to the editor from people talking about 'bicycles' holding them up. That's ludicrous. It's the line of fifty cars at the stop light that holds you up for 10 minutes, going through two cycles of red/green, not some guy on a bike who makes you slow down to the speed limit for, what, 2 seconds?

It is rare that you get stuck at a light for 10 minutes. If the bicyclist slowed you down enough so that you are late to the next light, I can relate to the frustration.

Even guys riding side-by-side don't account for significant time - it's the 'we own the road' mentality that causes drivers to get anxious for the 10-20 seconds it takes to pass them safely.

No, it's the realization that a person on a bike is essentially unprotected and any impact at all may be lethal, as opposed to fender benders that would happen between two vehicles.

They don't realize that one guy riding a bike 7miles each way to work saves 100 gallons of gas/year or more, which the road ragers can use to fuel their Expeditions...

I think you are way high up on you moral high horse, umm, high bike. Not everybody's commute is amenable to biking, in fact it would be a minority of commuters. And I wish there were more bike lanes but alas there aren't many.

reply to post by Izarith


Yes, I understand what you were saying earlier. I posted that link to show that instead of cooling via global dimming (from the particulate matter), the contrails are actually having the reverse effect, since at night when the sun isn't shining, vapour clouds the jets leave behind act as a sort of 'blanket' that traps heat by preventing it from radiating out to space.

Try to observe the temperature difference on cloudless night as compared to one where it is cloudy. I guarantee you the cloudless nights are cooler.

Anyway, if you click on that link I gave you and read that thread, you'll see that there is whole bunch of other pollutants (including massive amounts of greenhouse gasses) being released by air traffic. This is something often ignored by the corporate media.

The controversy stems from the fact that high-altitude emissions - from nine to 13 kilometres up for subsonic flights and higher for supersonic - cause disproportionately more warming than those at ground level, anywhere from 50 per cent to four times as much, making its global-warming role more significant than its emissions tally alone would indicate.

Source

Originally posted by Badge01
Me, I drive an SUV, but consider I put about 1000 miles per YEAR on it and mostly ride my bicycle everywhere.

Nothing wrong with SUVs, if you car-pool and the vehicle runs on natural gas

Edit: Grrrammar

[edit on 5-12-2007 by Beachcoma]

reply to post by Izarith


I understand, mah brother.

You may be talking about the wild guys who ride fixies and dart in and out of traffic. I apologize for 'teh bike messenger' species of our culture.

I ride with care and politeness and wave at everyone and try to pass on daily good will. I admit sometimes I get in Lance mode and ride like my hair's on fire, but I go mostly in low traffic areas or pick a time of day when I think traffic is lower.

Thanks for the kind words and support.

Do you ever watch Cash Cab? Is that guy kewl, or what?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Even guys riding side-by-side don't account for significant time - it's the 'we own the road' mentality that causes drivers to get anxious for the 10-20 seconds it takes to pass them safely.

No, it's the realization that a person on a bike is essentially unprotected and any impact at all may be lethal, as opposed to fender benders that would happen between two vehicles.

Thanks for the support and I understand and will consider your words.

I must admit I don't quite follow this one point. Are you saying that since it appears to you that cyclists take risks it makes you fearful?

If you are in an area where there are so many bikes it makes you fearful, consider that it's often the road layout (twisty rural roads; two lane 45-50mph roads with little shoulder, etc.)

Bike paths actually make it more hazardous to both riders and drivers. As you enter and leave them or as you try to find a way to make a left turn, it's a problem and as bike paths cross car driveways with hedges it's easier for a driver to back into the path.

We need road designers to implement plans to reduce everyone's anxiety. After all I'm a driver, so I share your concerns in many areas. It's only in the last 4 years that I've upped my riding and reduced my driving

It may behoove people to think about (re)learning to ride a bike as gas prices rise, no? (teasing, a little).

There are roads that I won't ride - I try to find a detour, but according to studies, most of the time riders and drivers get along if conditions are optimal.

I thank you for your patience, and have a great day!

SUV's are without a doubt.......the SAFEST vehicle on the road for a family to drive.

As long as my wife is driving herself and my 2 kids around, I want her in an SUV.

So yes, THANK YOU.....SUV's.

[edit on 5-12-2007 by traderonwallst]

reply to post by Badge01


"Do you ever watch Cash Cab? Is that guy kewl, or what?"

Hello Badge,

Yea It is a cool show...........

About the bicycling thing bottom line is if your driving a car keep your eyes open and be nice and do what is safe around bucklers. If you mix road rage and a bike, people can get hurt. Like Badge says its just a moment then there in your rear view its not that big of a deal.

reply to post by traderonwallst


Hello trader,

What? Your kidding right?

Well maybe as long as you don't have to make sharp turns.

Hey wait one minute we are supposed to be talking about global dimming............

Ah well thanks for the post.........

reply to post by Izarith


Good points about getting back on the discussion. Maybe if people would try to counter act the 'less green' acts with more green acts it would be a good compromise.

As far as safety and why have an SUV... I do feel safer being up above traffic, though the mis-match of the bumpers can be a problem for lower cars.

I actually drive more conservatively due to the roll hazard, and my SUV is a smaller two-door model, but not the compact RAV type. I have it mainly to transport my expensive bikes inside where they won't get wet or damaged if I'm driving to a ride (which is infrequent).

Sorry if I came across as 'high horse' earlier.

Meanwhile - it's 29degrees and snowing. Still debating getting my 'rain bike out' and going for a short one.