A friend of mine in Sweden tells me that studded tires in cities are reported to bring up to the atmosphere asphalt dust of some type that is causing illnesses and deaths. Can someone explain the situation in engineering terms so that engineers elsewhere might benefit from the information. Currently the ban on studded tires in USA states is due to the wear on the pavements, as I understand it, not health effects.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Studded tires on asphalt pavements and health effects 4
- Thread starter oldestguy
- Start date
blacksmith37
Materials
I guess this is on topic : the great majority of atmospheric particulates is produced by agriculture ;the number depends on season and location. Road dust is minimal except in cities and freeway medians.
This item caught my eye because I worked in Amoco R&D when we did the testing for the state of MN on the pavement wear by tires that ultimately led to the ban of studs.
And having followed meteorology for 50yr; I wonder why there is very low ,like 0.15, correlation (in the mathematical ) sense between CO2 and global temperature. It was also interesting in the 70's to see half the experts say the bad oil companies were causing global cooling and half said it was warming. I guess they had a secret meeting in about 1980 and voted for warming.
This item caught my eye because I worked in Amoco R&D when we did the testing for the state of MN on the pavement wear by tires that ultimately led to the ban of studs.
And having followed meteorology for 50yr; I wonder why there is very low ,like 0.15, correlation (in the mathematical ) sense between CO2 and global temperature. It was also interesting in the 70's to see half the experts say the bad oil companies were causing global cooling and half said it was warming. I guess they had a secret meeting in about 1980 and voted for warming.
There is a correlation:
Only 10% were predicting cooling in the 1970's:
So the consensus has risen from 62% to 97%
Think of the countless numbers of scientific discoveries since the 1960's that the climate scientists now have to support their theory. People used slide rules before the 1970's. Weather satellites had not been invented. For example, NOAA’s most momentous breakthrough achievements since then:
•Climate Model (late 1960s): Enabled scientists to understand for the first time how the ocean and atmosphere interacted with each other to influence climate.
•Coronagraph in Space (1995): Enabled improved forecasting of threats to electronic communications on Earth from coronal mass ejections on the Sun.
•ECOPATH Modeling (1983): Revolutionized scientists’ ability to accurately identify ecological relationships to understand complex marine ecosystems.
•Global Positioning System (1990s): Allowed NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey to develop revolutionary methods of positioning and surveying.
•Hydrographic Surveying Methods (throughout the 20th century): Enabled NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey to improve surveying efficiency in coastal waters by several different methods, most recently multibeam sonar starting in the 1970s.
•Large Marine Ecosystems (mid-1980s): Advanced the concept of understanding how best to manage large ocean areas for sustained biological productivity.
•Ozone Hole (late 1980s): Theorized and confirmed that man-made chlorine and bromine compounds were causing stratospheric ozone depletion.
•Polar-orbiting and Geostationary Satellites (1960 to present): Revolutionized NOAA’s ability to observe the earth, the atmosphere, the oceans, and space and to forecast natural phenomena.
•Tornado Detection and Warnings (1970s): Discovered that using Doppler radar to peer into storms allows meteorologists to more confidently forecast tornados.
•Warming of the World Ocean (2000-2001): Documented for the first time an increase in heat content of the world ocean for the 40-year period between 1955 and 1998.
All of these tool have been invented since then.
Only 10% were predicting cooling in the 1970's:
So the consensus has risen from 62% to 97%
Think of the countless numbers of scientific discoveries since the 1960's that the climate scientists now have to support their theory. People used slide rules before the 1970's. Weather satellites had not been invented. For example, NOAA’s most momentous breakthrough achievements since then:
•Climate Model (late 1960s): Enabled scientists to understand for the first time how the ocean and atmosphere interacted with each other to influence climate.
•Coronagraph in Space (1995): Enabled improved forecasting of threats to electronic communications on Earth from coronal mass ejections on the Sun.
•ECOPATH Modeling (1983): Revolutionized scientists’ ability to accurately identify ecological relationships to understand complex marine ecosystems.
•Global Positioning System (1990s): Allowed NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey to develop revolutionary methods of positioning and surveying.
•Hydrographic Surveying Methods (throughout the 20th century): Enabled NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey to improve surveying efficiency in coastal waters by several different methods, most recently multibeam sonar starting in the 1970s.
•Large Marine Ecosystems (mid-1980s): Advanced the concept of understanding how best to manage large ocean areas for sustained biological productivity.
•Ozone Hole (late 1980s): Theorized and confirmed that man-made chlorine and bromine compounds were causing stratospheric ozone depletion.
•Polar-orbiting and Geostationary Satellites (1960 to present): Revolutionized NOAA’s ability to observe the earth, the atmosphere, the oceans, and space and to forecast natural phenomena.
•Tornado Detection and Warnings (1970s): Discovered that using Doppler radar to peer into storms allows meteorologists to more confidently forecast tornados.
•Warming of the World Ocean (2000-2001): Documented for the first time an increase in heat content of the world ocean for the 40-year period between 1955 and 1998.
All of these tool have been invented since then.
racookpe1978
Nuclear
BIMR said:
Thought you might want to find out where that 97% figure came from.....
13,500 letters were sent to a "science" organization.
3,500 were returned answering 5 questions. (A large number actually!)
We ahve never been told what the other three questions were, nor how many people answered them, nor what the percentages were of each answer. Evidently, the "scientists" controlling th e97% didn't like those resulst.
We do know that the only two questions that were allowed/released were:
Has the earth warmed?
Are humans responsible for some part of that warming?
Now, of those 3,500 answering the two questions that were admitted, the "scientists" ranked all replies by number of papers written.
They then threw out everybody who wasn't on a "government payroll" or working at a government institution.
They now had 77 replies.
And, 75 out of 77 government-paid "scientists" did admit that
(1) The earth has warmed in recent years
(2) Mankind is responsible for some part of that warming.
And I totally agree with them.
Further, 100% of government-paid "scientists" and bureaucrats funding those "scientists" do also admit that 1.3 trillion in new carbon and energy taxes would do a great deal of good to the world's governments.
Do you "really" want to bring up any more 97% quotes?
The rest is propaganda. In the UK alone, 24,000 seniors and the poor were killed in 2012-2013 winter season as "excess deaths" by the UK government policies requiring the artificial high gas and fuel prices demanded by your precious "global warming" assumptions and propaganda. In 2013-2014, 34,000 excess deaths were caused by "fuel deprivation" ... And THAT in a "civilized" country able to count deaths due to cold and high fuel prices.
there has been 0.0 rise in global temperatures measured since 1996. An 18 year period of NO "global warming" at all. Despite a 10% increase in CO2 levels. "IF" there were global warming, its benefits are huge. It's problems? None. At the 95% confidence level.
Thanks, but that is not where the 97% came from:
"Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the scientist self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. Many papers captured in our literature search simply investigated an issue related to climate change without taking a position on its cause."
"Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the scientist self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. Many papers captured in our literature search simply investigated an issue related to climate change without taking a position on its cause."
-
1
- #25
You showed a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature over the last 400k years. Have you thought about the chicken and egg argument in that sense? Did the warming of the earth cause the CO2 increase or vice versa?
I am totally playing devil's advocate here. And I'm doing it on purpose. If you look at that data are you going to tell me that the temperature and CO2 fluctuations were driven by humans? I highly doubt that was the case 300k years ago. So blame humans all you want. However I think that we need concrete evidence (No the research done to date is not concrete evidence because as I said earlier we only have research from such a miniscule portion of the earth's life) before we can blame it totally on human impact.
Are we partially responsible? sure. Wholly responsible? Not likely. Climate change enthusiasts come across like Jehovah's witnesses when they try to cram this stuff down our throats.
I am totally playing devil's advocate here. And I'm doing it on purpose. If you look at that data are you going to tell me that the temperature and CO2 fluctuations were driven by humans? I highly doubt that was the case 300k years ago. So blame humans all you want. However I think that we need concrete evidence (No the research done to date is not concrete evidence because as I said earlier we only have research from such a miniscule portion of the earth's life) before we can blame it totally on human impact.
Are we partially responsible? sure. Wholly responsible? Not likely. Climate change enthusiasts come across like Jehovah's witnesses when they try to cram this stuff down our throats.
-
1
- #26
I had no horse in this race, so it did not hurt my feelings either way it went. I have only been responding to off the wall spurious posts.
If you look at the chart above, notice that the carbon dioxide never goes above 300 in the last 400,000 years. Carbon dioxide is now 400 and climbing. The last time there was this much carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. That is the answer to your chicken and the egg argument.
Climate change deniers are the ones who come across like Jehovah's witnesses, Adventists, or even creationists.
For example, Jehovah's witnesses repeatedly prophesize that the world is coming to an end. It doesn't, yet they still believe.
Adventists had their Great Disappointment in 1844 when the world did not end, yet they still believe.
Edwin Hubble showed that the recessional velocity of a galaxy increases with its distance from the earth, that the universe is expanding, and proved that the universe was created with the Big Bang. There is substantial evidence that the Earth and the other bodies of the Solar System are 4.5-4.6 billion years old. God is "not a magician with a magic wand", Pope Francis said in a trenchant speech backing science against creationism and intelligent design theories. Yet the creationists believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
There is a difference between a fact and a belief. The debate about global warming went on for 50 years, so nothing was crammed down anyones throat. Now, a consensus has been reached among the scientific community. That does not mean there is a consensus among politicians, other groups, etc. that are less informed.
If you look at the chart above, notice that the carbon dioxide never goes above 300 in the last 400,000 years. Carbon dioxide is now 400 and climbing. The last time there was this much carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. That is the answer to your chicken and the egg argument.
Climate change deniers are the ones who come across like Jehovah's witnesses, Adventists, or even creationists.
For example, Jehovah's witnesses repeatedly prophesize that the world is coming to an end. It doesn't, yet they still believe.
Adventists had their Great Disappointment in 1844 when the world did not end, yet they still believe.
Edwin Hubble showed that the recessional velocity of a galaxy increases with its distance from the earth, that the universe is expanding, and proved that the universe was created with the Big Bang. There is substantial evidence that the Earth and the other bodies of the Solar System are 4.5-4.6 billion years old. God is "not a magician with a magic wand", Pope Francis said in a trenchant speech backing science against creationism and intelligent design theories. Yet the creationists believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
There is a difference between a fact and a belief. The debate about global warming went on for 50 years, so nothing was crammed down anyones throat. Now, a consensus has been reached among the scientific community. That does not mean there is a consensus among politicians, other groups, etc. that are less informed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
