I think info on tons of polution caused by cars would be harder to get. 200 power plants(guess) vs 150million cars (guess).
plus you never know witch cars are runnning when.
Go Astros!!! <snicker> Home of the least breathable air in the U.S. (if you believe the local advertising).
FYI… there is no need to cut down on CO2 emissions.
I posted this a while back in a somewhat related thread, and thought it appropriate to repost it here. I’ve made a few changes to make it more relevant to this thread.
I wouldn’t worry much about CO2 concentration increases (or decreases to “fix” the “problem”). In regards to increases in CO2 concentration causing added warming of our climate, we are at a point where further concentration increases will not cause significant temperature increases. Picture a Cartesian graph (x/y coordinate system) of a logarithmic function. Just imagine the shape… numbers are not important. The graph spikes up sharply at first, and then flattens off at the “top”. (It may help to draw this) Now transplant that graph shape onto a coordinate system where the X-axis is labeled “Greenhouse Gas Concentration”, and the Y-axis is labeled “Atmospheric Temperature Due to Greenhouse Gas”, and the near vertical part of the curve intersects the origin. This represents how your typical greenhouse gas affects the Earth’s atmospheric temperature. When there is none of it, it obviously has no effect on the atmospheric temperature. Adding just a little will have a sizable effect on temperature (small increase in X value causes a large increase in Y value). Adding a little more gas will have a smaller temperature effect per unit of concentration than the initial introduction of the gas. Adding more gas will have a smaller temperature effect still. Eventually, near the “top” of the graph (where the plot line is near horizontal), adding huge amounts of the gas will have an insignificant effect on atmospheric temperature increase (huge increase in X value causes almost no increase in Y value). With specific regards to the greenhouse gas CO2, we are currently at the “top” of the graph. Dumping gobs (technical term) more CO2 into the atmosphere will have very little effect on our atmospheric temperature.
Simplified, but the greenhouse effect works like this… The sun warms the Earth during the day. The heat (infrared radiation) is given off by the earth. The heat tries to radiate out into space, which would normally keep the Earth very cold at night. The greenhouse gasses are able to absorb the heat. They then re-emit the heat in a random direction. The heat could be sent packing off into space, or it could be sent back to Earth. It could even be sent toward another greenhouse molecule, which would absorb the heat, and later re-emit it in a random direction. The net result is that some of the heat eventually escapes to space, and some stays in the atmosphere until the Sun warms us up again the next day.
If you are worried about global warming, there are greenhouse gasses that are in the earlier phase of the graph, where small concentration increases will cause noticeable atmospheric warming. Methane (natural gas) is one. If it is burned properly (as is seen at many refineries as stack flares), it is converted into your standard combustion products (CO2 and H2O), and there’s nothing to worry about (although most methane in the atmosphere is the result of rotting organic matter, and is not burned). Water vapor is also in the “early” phase of the graph, but it has a quick acting natural sink (rain). CFC’s are in the “early” part of the graph, but amount to a very small fraction of the gasses responsible for the greenhouse effect. It may sound as if I am trying to discount the effects of some of these “early” phase gasses, so to be fair, the CFC’s and the methane are much more potent than CO2 at creating the greenhouse effect. IIRC, the methane can cause an atmospheric temperature increase (molecule for molecule) 23X greater than CO2. Also, IIRC, depending on the CFC, they can cause over 100X greater atmospheric temperature increases when compared to CO2.
Steve-o Houston is the concrete jungle. Concrete absorbs heat. Cutting down trees and replacing them with buildings and the associated parking lots would increase the temp here. It is quite a bit cooler outside of town due to more shade trees than concrete.
Sorry, I didn’t mention the concrete factor before.
I did really enjoy reading your reply, even though it doesn’t mention the concrete factor.