Thus if both works are valid then one would surmise that Greenhouse gas is causing global warming (not solar activity) but that because of a negative effect from cloud cover, it might not be as progressive/great a build up of warming as some have feared.

A new one, dismissing any effect of the sun. Enjoy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

DOES MASS TRANSIT SAVE ENERGY ?
by David S.Lawyer mailto:dave@lafn.org More articles by D. Lawyer
1996 (Revised 2003, 2006) Shows that the increase in energy efficiency of the automobile after 1970 and the decline of mass transit efficiency has resulted in mass transit being little more energy efficient than the auto. Furthermore, the additional travel engendered by new mass transit systems tends to result in further increased energy consumption. Compares the technologies of the auto to both bus and rail and explains efficiency in terms of the vehicle’s resistance to motion. Previous title: “Why Mass Transit Wastes Energy”.
1. Copyright
2. Introduction
3. From 25 Years Ago to Today
4. Bus vs. Auto
5. Rail Transit
6. Ridership
7. Errors in Statistics
8. Conclusion
9. References & Notes

* 9.1 US Government Abbreviations
* 9.2 Mass Transportation Energy References
* 9.3 Automobile Occupancy
* 9.4 Auto BTU/PM Split between Urban and Rural
* 9.5 Bus Miles/Gallon

1. Copyright

Copyright 2003 by David S. Lawyer. Feel free to make copies but commercial use of it is prohibited. For example, you can’t (except to an insignificant degree) combine it with advertising on the Internet. Please let me know of any errors or suggestions for improvement.
2. Introduction

The author is an ardent environmentalist and is even more opposed to the automobile than mass transit. The purpose of this article is to inform the public why mass transit, as currently implemented and utilized, unfortunately doesn’t save energy.

Ever since the energy crisis of the early 1970′s, the myth that mass transit saves energy and reduces pollution has been widespread. Tens of billions of dollars of public funds have been spent (and mostly wasted) on subsidizing mass transit. An objective appraisal shows that mass transit today is little (if any) better than the automobile as far as energy use and pollution are concerned…………

READ THE WHOLE THING:

http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/does_mt_saveE.html

http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm

A Comparison of energy consumption of
Cars, Transit Buses Rail and air

Based on Table 2.10 from:
The Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 25 – 2006 ,
a publication prepared for the U.S. department of energy
by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Energy consumption of car-bus-air compared

Table 2.10 lists energy consumption of various modes of passenger travel. It shows that modern, efficinet, cars use less energy than rail, transit bus or commercial air. Here are the numbers from table 2.10 and below (btu is British Thermal Units and is a measure of energy):

mode

btu/passenger mile
Car, hybrid 1,326 (Honda Insight-see below)
Van Pool 1,401 (National average)
Car, efficient 2,488 (2006 KIA Rio-see below)
Commuter rail 2,751
Amtrak 2,935 Amtrak
Light & heavy rail tranist 3,228 Light rail & heavy rail tranist
Car, average 3,549 (National average)
Commerical air 3,587 (see note in link)
TriMet bus 3,792 (Data directly from TriMet)
Transit bus 4,160 (National average)

The car number is an average based on the average current fleet and an average number of passengers. More efficient cars are readily available, for instance the $10,770, 2006 KIA Rio is listed at 32 MPG city. This is 3906 btu/vehicle-mile, or 2488 btu per passenger-mile usning 1.57 passengers per vehicle, only 60% as much energy as a transit bus.

For Portland where we drive alone more, the passengers per vehicle is about 1.3, so the following apply:
With an average of 1.3 passengers, the 2006 KIA Rio becomes 3004 btu per passenger mile which is 26% less energy than Trimet busses per passenger mile. The Honda Insight at 60 MPG city is 2083 btu per vehicle mile (1602 per passenger-mile@1.3passengers), uses less then one-half the energy of a Trimet bus. At two passengers it consumes only 1042 btu per passenger mile – less than 1/3 that of a Trimet bus.

Do high density cities have lower transit energy consumption than the average?

No. See Figure 2.2.

Why do people think that transit buses save energy?

Because they did in 1970, but over the years, buses became less efficient and cars more efficient. See table 2.11.

What about using Europe as a model, they all take transit don’t they?

Figure 3.1 shows vehicles per 1000 people from 1940 to present. It also shows European vehicles per 1000 at two points in time, 1994 and 2004. Viewing the chart, the U.S. has about 750 vehicles per 1000 people while Europe has about 560, or about 75% as many. Interestingly, Europeans have about 75% as much income as we do. They also pay a lot more for fuel.

Conclusion

The most practical way to reduce transport energy consumption is to encourage people to switch to small cars.

It will save more energy than transit and is more likely to succeed in actually reducing energy consumption.

PDF of this page set

Evironmental warnings have been likened to fire alarms. Much rather the fire alarm went off and it was a false alarm than to not have a fire alarm at all.

Here’s Paul
…..however it is one of the goals in my life to make sure that the arrogance of others doesn’t leave this world in a place of such disrepair that my kids won’t want to live in it.

and here’s a somewhat more famous namesake:

“I’m scared, I have a 14 year old daughter whom I love very much. I know a lot of young people, and their world is being destroyed. My world is being destroyed. I’m 37 and I’d kind of like to live to be 67 in a reasonably pleasant world, and not die in some kind of holocaust in the next decade.”
- Paul Ehrlich, Look (1970)

Wish granted!

it is a scientific debate hijacked by the right to protect corporate interests

Protecting corporate interests? If environmentalists changed the playing field so that it was in businesses best interests to improve and protect the environment then you would see change. Businesses have fiduciary duty to their share holders to make money, in the USA atleast if companies spent money unprofitably and unnecessarily then the could be sued. If you think that this is a right wing conspiracy and name call accordingly then it is equally fair for right wingers to call “greens” names too.

The solution to that is to make them [poor countries] rich

This is a nice idea in principle. However the earth (as a whole) is not currently managing it’s resources efficiently and renewably enough to maintain first world standards for all of the third world population. If China alone was to achieve first world status for it’s people, the increase drain on the earths resources would be equivalent to a doubling of the earths population. This is because first world people consume so much more than third world people do. This is not to say we can’t achieve better living standards across the world but we cannot wholesale adopt our current firstworld standards to everyone. Something has to bend whether it be our standards or the quality of the earth.

I cannot recommend enough Collapse by Jared Diamond. He eloquently treads the line between environmentalists and big business and has real solutions to the problems. No name calling, witch hunts or protest rallies.

To put it another way, since “the average winter time temperature” does not need to “become equal to the average summertime temperature” for irreversible changes in the earth’s climate to occur, your question is no more than an irrelevant provocation. It is fatuous.

Paul … I too have spent a lot of time living in Vancouver, and I agree their public transport system is a night and day comparison to anything in New Zealand. But, too be fair, my experience has been that it’s a night and day comparison with any other mid-sized global city’s. Certainly, if Auckland had a public transport system that was as integrated and effective as Vancouver’s then many of Auckland’s traffic woes would fall away. But I really don’t think it’d make any difference to our environmental position. Visual pollution sure. Quality of life too. But you’d just be exchanging emissions from cars for emissions from more & larger buses, trains & ferries.

Actually, Paul had only (cough) used the words arrogant and arrogance 7 times by the time buggerlugs said he’d used them 20 times, so the total is nowhere near 26. But 7 times was probably too many, even given the provocative tone of the climate change deniers.

Your question about when will “the average winter time temperature become equal to the average summertime temperature” is so inane and bereft of even a fundamental understanding of the science involved that one can only assume that it is a deliberate attempt to again derail what finished up last night as a fairly civil and constructive debate. I hope Paul treats your disingenuousness with the contempt it deserves and ignores you completely.