Instructables

Increase Miles Per Gallon Instantly

Picture of Increase Miles Per Gallon Instantly
Many people drive and unless you are one of the "lucky" few who uses coal to heat up the boiler on your 1923 Stanley Steam car than you probably use petroleum distillate, better known as gasoline or diesel.
Unfortunately burning these fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, around 6 pounds of it per gallon of fuel. Try to stay with me as I go through the math, 25G fuel tank * 6lbs per gallon= Erratic weather patterns and an unhappy enviroment (and 150lbs of CO2)

We can help the Earth out if use this fuel efficiently. There is a way to drive to increase your MPGs drastically. How drastically? I have personally gotten a Ford Excursion to go from 8-9 MPG City to 19-23 MPG City. That's almost a 300% improvement! There are no modifications needed to your vehicle, BUT a vacuum guage is a helpful learning tool, plus they look cool and give the impression that you know what your doing and we can all use that.

Disclaimer: I don't take any responsibility to any harm done to yourself or your vehicle. I have done and performed the following operations daily. They are safe.
 
Remove these adsRemove these ads by Signing Up

Step 1: Essentials

For this to work you'll need a few things:
Vehicle with an operational engine
Vacuum Gauge (Highly recommended)
Willingness to learn (this is no problem with the instructables crowd)

This method works for Electronic Fuel Injected and Carburetor engines. Also with Automatic and Standard transmissions.

spin4986 months ago
Interesting, I installed a vacuum gage way back in the 70's during the gas crisis. All for them, but I hadn't seen one in years so I thought the gauge manufacturers had given up on them.
bigern713 years ago
shifting into neutral is also bad for automatic transmission it can damage drive gears causing problems earlier
Is it? I've been shifting into neutral on my automatic transmission for a while now with no ill effects, but I'll stop if there's sufficient evidence to support your claim.

Do you have anything besides anecdotal evidence to share? If so, that's something that would add a lot to this discussion. If not, that's okay too.
Doesn't really matter there is evidence or not.on if its bad for the gears- if your aim is to save gas then you DON'T shift to neutral while coasting in an automatic. The reason is that most cars idle at a lower speed while in gear than they do out of gear. Next time you are sitting with your car parked look at the rev counter and watch it drop when you put it into gear. For that reason you are using more gas in neutral as opposed to in gear.
The_Tom 13blue1 year ago
well that's because it's under load when its in gear. The computer on many cars will actually accommodate for that and give it more gas to maintain rpms(so it won't stall out), And........ It always matters if there is evidence or not. Always....
Well, I have some evidence to share regarding this discussion that you should be aware of. Three months ago, my Honda Automatic Transmission died along a highway in the middle of nowhere as luck would have it.
Since owning the car for 80K miles, I have been putting it in neutral when going downhill on steep hills in order to save money on gas.
I figured that I could save some gas money and get higher MPG if I shifted my Automatic into neutral, and coasted downhill, and then shifted back into gear when I reached the bottom of the hill.
Needless to say, after doing this for 6 years or so, my transmission started to smoke and slip out of gear, and then it quickly and unexpectedly died in the middle of no where, to my shock and surprise!
Coasting downhill in neutral and then shifting back into gear destroyed my Torque converter, and so the entire transmission had to be replaced.
Take it from someone who knows better now- NEVER take your car out of gear for any reason. NEVER coast downhill to try to save money, because you won't.
In a silly attempt to save a few dollars on gas, I ended up spending a whopping $3500 dollars on a new transmission.
Spending $3500 dollars to save $10 doesn't make any sense, so take it from me- don't do it. Keep your transmission in gear at all times no matter what.
it can damage the flywheel because no matter what it won't stop spinning and unlike a manual you can't clutch to seperate it from tranny before shifting back
and can hit weaken the flywheel I personally haven't had a prob but just to forworn you
jlanglie2 years ago
Also, modern cars with automatic transmission will typically just not allow you to shift into reverse if you're moving above a certain speed. close to 10mph in my experience. if you try it'll just kick into neutral and kill the car.
woodvale0354 years ago
does this work only for petrol cars or would it work on diesels also.
i would like to get the mpg up on my nissan x-trail turbo diesel.
thanks.
p.s how easy is it to fit vacuum gauges.
Putzer (author)  woodvale0354 years ago
It works with diesels, but I'm unsure as far as vacuum gauge installation difficulty is on diesels.  You might also want to look into waste oil as fuel.
shags16 years ago
I can't seem to find a vacuum gauge on the internet at any of the auto parts sites. Are they ever called something else?
My 1976 Monte Carlo 350ci V8 had one of these in the dash (Econominder) that was as big as the speedometer, no tachometer but a 5in vacuum gauge right there just to let you know exactly how much fuel you are wasting...also one of the first years to have full emissions control (at least in that model).

I found a pic of the monster. http://www.montemania.com/images/nosgenuinegmparts/Cluster%20fuel%20econ%2075-77.jpg
avneelak shags15 years ago
its called a boost gauge....for nowadays or in professional terms as the next listing.....a pressure/vacuum gauge
intake manifold pressure/vacume gauge
JacobAziza5 years ago
Most automatics have a button you must depress to shift to reverse or park, but not neutral. As long as you don't press it, you don't have to worry about shifting into reverse accidentally. In order to maximize fuel saving, SHUT THE ENGINE at long stop lights. It is a common myth that it takes more fuel to start than you save by not idling. This used to be true in large carburated engines. Almost all modern vehicles are fuel injected. If you will be stopped more than about 30 seconds, you will save gas by having the engine off (the exact time may be less or more depending on the vehicle)
dvt5 years ago
please excuse my ignorance but where do you connect the pressure gauge. what actual pressure are we testing. how the hell did this instructable get hijacked by pro/anti environmentalist fanatics i scanned these comments and even saw a reference to 9/11 what the what the
trickshot115 years ago
only thing is about the shifting into neutral...doing this does not save gas it actually is worse than leaving it in drive(at least in newer cars 2000 and newer)
Reason is that as your car coasts in drive the computer turns off the fuel system and continues to run the car(climate control, alt, especially the power steering, ect.) using the forward motion of the car. if you switch into neutral then the car is still using gas to power these things. and as most people who know about mpg saving strategies know that if you idle for more then 10 seconds then its usually more efficient to turn your car off...well imagine either coasting using no gas for 10 seconds or coasting using whatever amount of gas needed for idle!
Rishnai5 years ago
Once, back in the '70s, met a mechanic who had a GTO he'd modded for racing, but he had it as his daily driver, too, so he used a vacuum guage to keep an eye on his fuel consumption. He usually got around 20 mpg in the city that way, too, which really blew me away.
yddolb6 years ago
I know I am coming a bit late to the fray, but I felt I needed to put my two cents in. First Putzer if you were interested in global warming and doing something about it why are you driving the biggest suv on the road? The H# are urban assault vehicles and are in a different class. I was around in the 1970's and I remember the bull about the coming ice age. The "facts" that they were using seamed a little off so I started doing my research then. If you really want the truth do not believe the bull that all these so called scientist are writing up. The scientific method in this world has gone to the dogs. Every paper that has been released in the last 35 years has a slant to it. The are all trying to prove there own agenda and have omitted some detail or created some false data so there theory sounds more plausible and they get more funding. I am not going to sit here and regurgitate my facts and figures instead I encourage you to take my lead look at the raw data and come to your own conclusions. As an comparison I leave you with my conclusions. The Global cooling of the 1970's was caused but the high amount of particulates, Remember acid rain, and smog. All this trash in the atmosphere acted like a reflector and less sunlight arrived on the surface of the planet. The temperatures of course started to drop and we would have been in for an ice age if it was not for the catalytic converter, and all the tree hugers causing such a stink about the acid rain killing the forests and streams and the lung association bring up air quality problems it would be snowing in Florida. Well modern science removed all the smoke from the factories, cars power plants. But the CO can not bee seen and our skys are just as blue with it. Yes CO is a green house gas but so is methane. Now with less smoke in the air more sunlight is coming in to warm us up. Now we produce more CO than in the 1970's by many factors. Now the sun is warming up. Now the frozen tundra is releasing more methane into the atmosphere than every before. (Methane is a 20 times stronger green house gas than CO) The scientists are saying 150 to 100 years before we really have to worry about global warming. Sorry folks in the next 10 to 20 years you will see major flooding on coastal cities. Katerina is going to be ranked as a windy day, compared to what is coming. Do not look for the hottest day look for the most hot days in a row. Look for fewer days to go skiing. Well I think you get the point.
10 or 20 yrs. hehe. You must be listening to Al Gore. Katrina wasn't the worst storm we've had just worst placed. Since records there have been many like her just depends on where it hits. Human made global warming I don't believe since the data says earth was warming before humans had cars etc, then cooled now warming yada yada normal earth cycle for you doom and gloomies out there. Sorry.
Just watch the coast line. It doesn't matter if you believe the cause the fact is the ocean are rising and with fresh water. The ocean currents are stopping and in some cases already reversed. Check out sciencedaily.com. Also the core of what happens on this site fundamentally sharing of science. So I would hope for open consideration of the facts from a well informed intelligent community such as this. I have side with the majority of the scientist from so many different disciplines saying the same thing. Science currently feeds us clothes us and moves us around. I feel credit is due. Also with something this big it's not really worth the risk. Yes, it may break between 10 to 20 years. But the ride between that many of will be around for and it will not be pleasant. Example, I know there have been droughts before but in Georgia they are discussing rolling blackouts on water. I think other then the coast line a cool experiment would be to watch the desert bands north and south of the equator. Watch them move or expand. This is the type of thing we should see with the atmospheric soup stir being changed. But I digress. Cause aside, the evidence of a climate shift is irrefutable. In a world dependent on air conditioning this is a concern. As far as gloom, sare infinitely creative to our credit and curse. I believe with the proper motivation our potential is unlimited. Thus we should be able to to survive and fix just about anything. Remember, humanity was almost wiped out once due to a super volcano. Human populas was reduced to but a faction just a few genetic family groups. This is way we are all such close mitochondrial cousins. "Read the research" Something along the lines 27th cousins now some odd thousands of years later. So brothers and sisters I rest case P.s if we don't die because we messed up the environment we still have asteroids and other planet killers to watch out for so cheer up it's not the worst thing that could happen. But cockroachs and twinkies will survive.
You are incorrect. Where you getting your data? Al's book. Matter of fact, Antartica has the most Ice it's had in 30 yrs according to new report. I believe in caring for environment but not farcing me to pay stupid carbon footprint crap and tell me we are ruining the earth when it's running it's course. We are much cleaner now, and I'm for that even though it's raised the cost of everything we buy so high getting hard to afford things. China on the other hand does nothing and keeps low prices. That's why we buy from them. So, we need to take care of environment more calmly and conservatively and stop crying doom and gloom. sciencedaily has agenda just like most of the scientist out there. I can point you to just as many sites and scientist who disagree with the global warming scare as you can who do. The oceans are not raising enough to alarm anyone. It's normal course. Stop scaring people into paying more for things and eventually paying for carbon footprint. Heck wackos want us to limit kids because of it. Give me a break. Try reading on the other side for a while and see if it doesn't calm folks down a little. If all people do is watch CNN which you may not but way too many do and get their negative slant on everything then they are bound to be scared to death and do anything to save the planet. ooooo
As I said check out sciencedaily.com for the most cutting if not bleeding edge data on just about everything from the most powerful lasers in the world to hour to nano tech and climatology. Oh an the reason china has economic leverage is 1. They were not participating in the money market till recently. They set the value of their own currency. Stating they did not have the infrastructure to support modern banking like the rest of the world 2. All of our textiles are produce in China cause it's cheap. I hung out with a chemist that specialize in emulsions and chemicals that protect cloth from stains etc, I asked how business was in the states as I have traveled a great deal and seen many a textile manufacturing town shutdown in the states. He stated his company and competitors do not waste there time on the US market. There is no business. So the Corp America sees a production cost savings. China makes our cloth. US car manufactures sell cars that would not pass emissions in the states to China because of their laxed laws. They maintain laxed environmental laws because they are catching up technologically to the rest off the world in a lot of ways. So it's cheaper to burn coal. In fact the majority of home stoves burn compressed coal brickets still for cooking. Science Daily pulls it's data word for word from the world scientific community. Follow the articles sources sometime to labs, colleges and intelligentsia of the world. If you are polite you can talk to them directly through email. I am sure that if all the scientist that advocate environmentalism are profiteering that you will be able to out one of them. Though I find it hard to imagine of all the fields a person of that intelligence could go in to make money that they would choose the environment. In fact most people investing in environmentally sound technology are just spending money knowing they won't see a profit off it any time soon. Remember as with you it is not a popular subject. If you recollect though he eventually got compensation the NASA scientist that spoke publicly about global warming was fire for it. It's worth a little time to talk to some of these people. But if your mind is made up and closed to the idea all together then I hope you are right. Conservation still is a good idea. I commend anyone trying to better our world and how we live in it.
Even from the anti-realist point of view that dictates consensual reality without the consideration of facts. There are to many smart people that say we have a problem.
Al Gore is one of those self promoters that do not really care about the environment only how they can make money with the fear of it. He spouts allot of numbers but most of it is bull. I am not going to argue with any one about "who or what" is causing global warming. All I am saying is that it is happing and the human race is about to see how small we really are. The only people that do not believe that global warming is happing are the promoters of oil and other people that would lose money if it is true The reverse is also true. Most of the promoters of global warming have something to gain from it. Me, I have nothing to gain from warming or cooling. I have no grant money at stake or any stock in Exxon. I am just in search of the truth. Careful about where your data is coming from. Much of it has been tweaked to support some ones agenda. There are also many errors in the data. The biggest is that the measuring devices have changed over the years. They are much more accurate today. In the past some of the temperature measuring devices were placed in direct sunlight which cause the temperature to be much hight than the actual air temperature. The people that want to dismiss global warming would just ignore this issue. Believe what you want but in the next few years you find your self in a refugee camp you can not say you were not warned.
jesus h christ, why aren't there more people like you? good point about 9/11 in your other post; i bought a fucking 5 dollar chocolate bar because it had no price tag, and i was trying to make truffles in a hurry, and it was packaged in cardboard...i was duped -_- anyhoo, i don't think humans caused global warming, i personally think it has to do with SOLAR warming. hell, there were ice ages since the formation of earth, there were ice ages during the time of cavemen, but it wasn't caused by humans; do you think ugga-ugga-oo the caveman drove a friggin hummer? i don't see any traces... but don't get me wrong, i'm not some macho gas hog that calls mpg savers and recyclers faggots or homos, actually, i'm all for recycling and saving gas and other cool ideas like that. having said that, i do NOT like clipped haired, mean faced, eco-dikes that ram it down my throat and force me to recycle 5 times a day like a drug taking muslim, or trying to protest "peeeeaaaaaccceeefully", as it will only earn me a taser blast or bean bag shotgun bruise when the piggies, oops! i mean cops, break up the fiasco. same as you, i've nothing to gain or lose from this affair. to me, life is all about, well, life, liberty, and the pursuit of justice, truth, and a family. well, i'm outta here.. Arrivederci!
Thanks for the response. Next time try and respond with less hate. Thank you.
Less hate. Everytime someone doesn't agree they are haters? Whatever.
Putzer (author)  yddolb6 years ago
Woa, I never said I own an Excursion I just said I experimented driving one and I used global warming as an intro this instructable is really about how to get good mpgs and save $, the earth is a big place and whether or not you want to take care of YOUR home is up to you but remember the earth isn't going anywhere, it is humans that are going to be gone. That's my two cents.
yddolb Putzer6 years ago
It is easy to save gas with a gas guzzler. The hard part is to convince people that all automobiles are a big waist of energy. Do you realize that in 10 hours or running an average 200hp car produces enough energy to power your entire home for a month? Yes I am calculating the full 200HP, but the way people drive one peddle is always smashed to the floor.
So do you walk everywhere?
Sehn6 years ago
I would like to first say that I do agree that gas dependency is a bad thing. I am all in favor of using something else for energy. However, most people just think that Al Gore is a saviour and that the war on global warming is pure black and white, with everyone good behind it and everyone bad denying it. Its not that simple. Al Gore's movie is so full of holes and fallacies that the only logical conclusion one can come to is that he is seeking political gain (or some other interest is using his name for political gain). You need to understand that global warming has become http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/130307doanything.htmthe new 9/11, an new excuse to do anything. The negative effects of the fight against global warming don't get any attention because the people who know its a lie wont tell you and you (people who believe in man made global warming) don't ever consider that something bad might come from restricting C02.

Many of you are probably too young to remember that back in the 1970s global cooling was "the biggest threat to mankind". BBC ran documentaries and Lowell Ponte in 1976 even wrote " It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,". Sound familiar?

If you were serious about fighting global warming you would go vegan (I've been vegan for 6 years, its not hard). Unless you are vegan, you are a total hypocrite. Cattle farming is the number 1 cause of deforestation. Forests eat C02 remember? Plus, the livestock industry creates more C02 than all human activity combined (as does plant decay, oceans and volcanoes). How about we all stop wasting our time and billions of dollars (where do you think those billions are going? Here is a hint, into someones pocket) on "fighting" global warming, when even the by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's own numbers, the most we could possibly do would be to cut the c02 increase by a single digit %. Forests are being destroyed so that you can eat hamburgers. How about we do something about that? I don't think you even need a UN panel to tell you that: Forests=Good, Deforestation=Bad.

Many of the models used to study global warming are based on NASA's temperature data. NASA recently (and silently) corrected its data after someone found a Y2K bug. Turns out, the warmest year on record wasn't 1998 but 1934 and 1921 takes 3rd place. And if you look at the icecore samples that gore lied about, you will see that C02 raises hundreds of years after the global temp rises. And if you study botany you will learn that plants benefit from high c02 levels. Do you think SUVs are causing the ice caps on mars and the moons of Saturn to melt?
Putzer (author)  Sehn6 years ago
I'm pretty sure the mars and saturn satellites ran on diesel hence the melting ice caps. Good point , though, and remember 70% of our oxygen comes from phytoplankton in the ocean, so take care of it.
lol
slim_jim Sehn6 years ago
Gee. No axe to grind, eh? I certainly remember the 70s, and the global cooling thing was a hoax. Here's the wiki: "'THIS HYPOTHESIS NEVER HAD SIGNIFICANT SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s." Al Gore lied, huh? Might want to check your facts before you call people liars.
Sehn
I noticed you updated your post, SHAME YOU DIDN'T CORRECT ALL THE ERRORS, UNTRUTHS AND FALLACIES. But then that would have seriously crippled your flimsy arguments!

If you must make posts on a scientific subject, then you should at least take care to get your facts right!

I note that while making a lot of WILD AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS, you offer NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE. PrisonPlanet is a biased POLITICAL RANT that PROMULGATES HALF TRUTHS, LIES AND MISINFORMATION. It is not a credible source of evidence for anything, except that there are some outrageous liars!

You have been clearly unable to fault my original answering post, (using science and facts).

Example
Quote
Al Gore's movie is so full of holes and fallacies..,
End quote

My challenge to you is: since you have claimed Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is so full of holes and fallacies, then you should SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIM and LIST EACH ONE and describe why you think it is a hole or a fallacy.

Failure to do so will show your claims are mere SMEARS AND HOT AIR, meaning that you were being less than truthful!
I could have corrected all my "errors". And I could have cited all my sources. And I could have 'taken the care to get all my facts right'. But then again, this is an instructables forum and non of you people have the power to do anything for or against global warming. So who cares? I don't care if you believe in global warming or not. Everyone gets offended when you critisize their religion, and I guess those that subscribe to the man made global warming religion are no different. Go figure...
Sehn
Your claims are fallacious, FALSE and WORTHLESS!

Fallacy
GW=Religion
Religion is a belief in an invisible god based upon an old book.

Climate change is not a religion, but a NASTY RUMOUR put about scientists who have OBSERVED the warming and scientifically PROVEN (unequivocally) by the acquisition of evidence, that the world is warming. The world is warming faster than any time seen in the paleoclimatic record.
Too much evidence to list! A quick search of Science Daily will provide much.

Scientists have also shown that:
CO2 and other gases are known to be infra-red active. This can be seen from satellites.
The isotopic ratio of fossil carbon is different from that of biogenic carbon.
The increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2 is growing in-line with anthropogenic emissions.
The origin of the excess CO2 is fossil-fuel emissions as demonstrated by the changing isotopic ratio of atmospheric carbon.
The increase in world temperatures can be explained almost entirely from the increase in atmospheric GHGs, of which, the most important is CO2.
The solar hypothesis, is still far from proven and at best its influence is likely to be small.
The evidence suggests that the probability of Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW is 90% or better.
Climate models (based upon the physical behaviour of the various components) confirm the above observations.
All of this is published in ISI peer-reviewed journals.

Of the scientists who deny AGW, most if not all have been in receipt of fossil-fuel sourced funds. Much of that originating from ExxonMobil. These scientists are primarily publishing their so-called science in the Wall Street Journal, NewsWeek and Energy & Environment.
Strangely, these scientists offer very little science.

All of this is readily confirmed: just google for it!

The scientific consensus is overwhelming and is important because of the overwhelming evidence!

Strangely, you claim that you have evidence to support your views, but you FEEL YOU HAVE TO KEEP IT SECRET.

One can only conclude the reason YOU CHOOSE TO WITHHOLD YOUR SO-CALLED EVIDENCE is because EITHER IT DOESN'T EXIST, or IT WOULDN'T STAND-UP TO SCRUTINY!

If you must believe the GW Bush book of science, dont foist it on everybody as if it's fact!
hehe, you almost said fellatio... but in all seriousness, think of the story in rainbow six (excellent novel, by the way =)): there's a bunch of whacked out scientists that try to kill off humanity with a virus mutation, and are doing it "for the planet"...okay, the story is a leeetle stretched in places of the book, but what if people actually tried to do that??? global warming has, in fact, become the new 9/11, where anybody, anywhere, can say and do anything and when the shit hits the fan, they hold up mama nature as a shield. will it come to that? probably not. can it possibly happen? yes. will we do something about it? no, because we mill around and follow the guy in front of us, like sheep being led to the slaughterhouse, whether it's waiting at the door of walmart for little old rambo wannabe to check your reciept (like the east german stazi did.. Papers, please?), or when you're watching t.v, and a botox injected reporter turns global warming/cooling/immolating/pooping into a korean drama to line their pockets and please themselves and the news channel, without using porno beforehand.
Wake up america!

Arrivederci!
Sehn
Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth” was pretty accurate. Yes there were some minor errors, but no exaggeration. This is another lie spread by those with a political agenda.
For a climatologist's view see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299
-
Your claim quote
The negative effects of the fight against global warming don't get any attention because the people who know its a lie wont tell you and you (people who believe in man made global warming) don't ever consider that something bad might come from restricting C02.
End quote
This is untrue on a number of levels.
Global Warming GW is not a religion, it is nasty rumour being put about by thousands of scientists who have observed that the climate is changing. It is an observed fact!
There is NOBODY who KNOWS GW is a lie! There maybe some people who CLAIM that it's a lie, but most, if not all of these are being funded by ExxonMobil and others to spread disinformation about the science of climate change.
-
Scientific institutions that state climate change is happening and is man-made.

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
-
There can be no doubt that stopping the availability of cheap energy are likely to have adverse effects upon our civilization. But in-part this due to the fact that ExxonMobil and the Bush Administration have encouraged lower fuel efficiencies in recent years. Whereas fuel efficiencies could be much higher.

Cheap energy has discouraged the development of low-energy technologies and renewable resources.
-
This was a scare caused by journalistic hype.
The 1970s global cooling was never part of a scientific consensus, in-fact the scientific understanding of climate was in its infancy. Comparing current scientific consensus and scientific understanding of climate with the state of the science and the hype about ice-ages of those times is much like likening chalk and cheese. To do so is incorrect and wholly misleading.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
-
Misleading claim
quote
the livestock industry creates more C02 than all human activity combined (as does plant decay, oceans and volcanoes).
End quote
These claims are completely wrong like the majority of your post, but I can't be bothered to debunk every bit of this rbubsih!
The IPCC state:
Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions increased from an average of 6.4 [6.0 to 6.8]5 GtC (23.5 [22.0 to 25.0] GtCO2) per year in the 1990s to 7.2 [6.9 to 7.5] GtC (26.4 [25.3 to 27.5] GtCO2) per year in 2000–2005 (2004 and 2005 data are interim estimates).
Carbon dioxide emissions associated with land-use change are estimated to be 1.6 [0.5 to 2.7] GtC (5.9 [1.8 to 9.9] GtCO2) per year over the 1990s, although these estimates have a large uncertainty.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

From this you can see that agriculture, which includes Livestock production is a fraction of the fossil-fuel carbon! Since the IPCC report only offers figures from the 1990s for both, the ratio of fossil carbon (or CO2) to Agricultural is 2.3:1, ranging from 12:1 to 2.5:1. Which is the reverse of your claim!
-
As for your claims that
quote
NASA recently (and silently) corrected its data after someone found a Y2K bug.
End quote
This is one small fact with a number of incorrect & misleading statements. While NASA made a correction when Stephen McIntyre identified a minor but real discontinuity in continental US surface station data, (average of + 0.15 Deg C), it was announced on the appropriate web page. While the error occurred in 2000, it was not Y2K related. This minor correction ONLY affects US surface weather station temperature data since 2000. It does not affect non-US temperature or satellite data or the overall temperature trends.

Your assertions about the warmest years and reordering of warmest years ONLY relates to the US, not world temperatures!

Actually, Gore told the truth about the ice-cores. While it's true that CO2 rises after temperatures increase, it is misleading to claim this disproves CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that it does not cause warming. That liberated CO2 causes further warming, which releases further CO2. Such a cycle last around 5000 years.
The greenhouse effect makes the earth much warmer than it would otherwise be which is good. However, by us greatly increasing atmospheric CO2 and adding to it daily in ever increasing amounts, we have triggered an enhanced greenhouse effect, which could be very bad. The CO2 we have added will continue to warm the planet (even if we stopped completely today!) for ~4200 years!

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
Caillon et al., 2003
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

As for your comment about other planets, I suggest you read some science, there are a number of mechanisms other than solar effects to explain observations seen on SOME of the other planets.


You appear to have been obtaining your information from highly unreliable sources, like PrisonPlanet!
Other highly unreliable & misleading sources are Michael Crichton's State of Fear – which has scientific pretences, but is entirely fictional – even the footnotes, which feature real individuals, but the science is flawed despite Crichton's misleading claims.
Carbon Dioxide, Global Warming, and Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”
http://math.nist.gov/~BRust/pubs/Interface2005/PrePrint.pdf
Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion II: Return of the Science
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76

Michael Crichton and Global Warming
The Brookings Institution, David B. Sandalow, Environment Scholar, Foreign Policy Studies
http://www.brookings.edu/printme.wbs?page=/crichtoncritique

Michael Crichton’s “Scientific Method” - James Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf

Checking Crichton's footnotes
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes

Channel Four's TV so-called documentary - The Great Global Warming Swindle viewers were swindled, they were lied to about the science, by the scientists and the programme makers. One of the scientists involved – Carl Wunsch was misled about the nature of the programme and his statements selectively edited to mislead the viewer.
There are numerous TGGWS debunkings, but try these:
For an interesting interview with Martin Durkin revealing his deceit.
http://www.desmogblog.com/video-abc-australias-tony-jones-dissects-debunks-martin-durkin
alternatively
http://www.desmogblog.com/jones-dissects-durkin
For an extensive debunking of TGGWS, try:
http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/globalwarmingswindle/
http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warming_Swindle.pdf
http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/

You might find it worth consulting the work of independent climatologists about the climate!
Examples are the IPCC, www.realclimate.org, www.skepticalscience.com

You would be well advised to seek climate information from people who are not paid by the fossil-fuel industry to lie, dissemble and deceive the public about the effects of burning fossil-fuels on the climate and environment!

As a start, I suggest that statements concerning climate change, CO2 emissions and similar subjects by any person featured in the following documents should be regarded as unreliable and treated with a great deal of scepticism. See Table 2 & 3 & Endnote 95.
Select ExxonMobil-Funded Organizations Providing Disinformation on Global Warming. See Table 1. Note: This is not a complete list!
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Big coal using industry pays climate scientist to deny man-made climate change
http://www.realclimate.org/irea_letterJul06.pdf
See www.Exxonsectrets.org (GreenPeace) on ExxonMobil's disinformation campaign.
Pro

Get More Out of Instructables

Already have an Account?

close

PDF Downloads
As a Pro member, you will gain access to download any Instructable in the PDF format. You also have the ability to customize your PDF download.

Upgrade to Pro today!