"Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician"

[TexasTiger 13,016]

For what it's worth, I'll be 53 in May. And no, I don't recall a UN panel of the world's leading climate scientists reaching a consensus agreement regarding any "ice age" fears in the 1970's as has happened with the IPCC & warming.

My point is simply that the precautions being proposed to combat global warming are good, smart long-range goals anyway. We'd all be better off in a greener, more efficient, less oil dependent world. So why not start working seriously in that direction rather than arguing over which scientist/politician says what? The benefits are obviously regardless of what happens climate-wise (or which political faction happens to suggest them).

[Also, Tigerheat, catalytic converters were added to reduce unburned hydrocarbon emissions that were the major source of smog in our cities. I don't recall anyone saying they were to prevent "global cooling". And while smog continues to be a problem in some areas, imagine how much worse it would be wwithout the catalytic converters.]

You not recalling it being said doesn't mean it wasn't so I clearly recall being taught specifically in science classes that catalytic converters were designed to halt the growing threat of climate cooling and the next Ice Age.

Maybe your memory is faulty, or your school's science department was. Here's an interview with the EPA Director who first required the catalytic converter and his reasoning behind it. It was about pollution, but not global cooling. You haven't posted anything that supports your point:

http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/train/08.htm

Good try. My memory is quite good. My schools' science departments were definitely faulty...this global cooling nonsense was a standard part of the curriculum in elementary and middle school in the 70's. I read the tiny discussion of catalytic converters that was embedded in that interview....it didn't contain much info at all. It basically said, "While I was EPA administrator we mandated catalytic converters to save the environment." I also can't help but notice that you didn't respond at all to the stuff I posted about the particulates.

Well, I know you didn't provide a source that supported your assertion. What point were you trying to make with all that "stuff"?

[TigerHeat 9]

For what it's worth, I'll be 53 in May. And no, I don't recall a UN panel of the world's leading climate scientists reaching a consensus agreement regarding any "ice age" fears in the 1970's as has happened with the IPCC & warming.

My point is simply that the precautions being proposed to combat global warming are good, smart long-range goals anyway. We'd all be better off in a greener, more efficient, less oil dependent world. So why not start working seriously in that direction rather than arguing over which scientist/politician says what? The benefits are obviously regardless of what happens climate-wise (or which political faction happens to suggest them).

[Also, Tigerheat, catalytic converters were added to reduce unburned hydrocarbon emissions that were the major source of smog in our cities. I don't recall anyone saying they were to prevent "global cooling". And while smog continues to be a problem in some areas, imagine how much worse it would be wwithout the catalytic converters.]

You not recalling it being said doesn't mean it wasn't so I clearly recall being taught specifically in science classes that catalytic converters were designed to halt the growing threat of climate cooling and the next Ice Age.

Maybe your memory is faulty, or your school's science department was. Here's an interview with the EPA Director who first required the catalytic converter and his reasoning behind it. It was about pollution, but not global cooling. You haven't posted anything that supports your point:

http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/train/08.htm

Good try. My memory is quite good. My schools' science departments were definitely faulty...this global cooling nonsense was a standard part of the curriculum in elementary and middle school in the 70's. I read the tiny discussion of catalytic converters that was embedded in that interview....it didn't contain much info at all. It basically said, "While I was EPA administrator we mandated catalytic converters to save the environment." I also can't help but notice that you didn't respond at all to the stuff I posted about the particulates.

Well, I know you didn't provide a source that supported your assertion. What point were you trying to make with all that "stuff"?

TT, you don't read well, do you? There are two clear references to where I obtained that info. The text makes it clear that global cooling was supposed to come from particulates from pre-catalytic converter car emmissions.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

For what it's worth, I'll be 53 in May. And no, I don't recall a UN panel of the world's leading climate scientists reaching a consensus agreement regarding any "ice age" fears in the 1970's as has happened with the IPCC & warming.

My point is simply that the precautions being proposed to combat global warming are good, smart long-range goals anyway. We'd all be better off in a greener, more efficient, less oil dependent world. So why not start working seriously in that direction rather than arguing over which scientist/politician says what? The benefits are obviously regardless of what happens climate-wise (or which political faction happens to suggest them).

[Also, Tigerheat, catalytic converters were added to reduce unburned hydrocarbon emissions that were the major source of smog in our cities. I don't recall anyone saying they were to prevent "global cooling". And while smog continues to be a problem in some areas, imagine how much worse it would be wwithout the catalytic converters.]

You not recalling it being said doesn't mean it wasn't so I clearly recall being taught specifically in science classes that catalytic converters were designed to halt the growing threat of climate cooling and the next Ice Age.

Maybe your memory is faulty, or your school's science department was. Here's an interview with the EPA Director who first required the catalytic converter and his reasoning behind it. It was about pollution, but not global cooling. You haven't posted anything that supports your point:

http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/train/08.htm

Good try. My memory is quite good. My schools' science departments were definitely faulty...this global cooling nonsense was a standard part of the curriculum in elementary and middle school in the 70's. I read the tiny discussion of catalytic converters that was embedded in that interview....it didn't contain much info at all. It basically said, "While I was EPA administrator we mandated catalytic converters to save the environment." I also can't help but notice that you didn't respond at all to the stuff I posted about the particulates.

Well, I know you didn't provide a source that supported your assertion. What point were you trying to make with all that "stuff"?

TT, you don't read well, do you? There are two clear references to where I obtained that info. The text makes it clear that global cooling was supposed to come from particulates from pre-catalytic converter car emmissions.

Then help a brother out...what did you post that directly confirms this unequivocal statement:

Don't forget....we had to add catalytic converters to stop the acceleration of the looming Global Cooling disaster.

Folks can find a one-page 1975 magazine article and a few other things in the MSM about global warming, but the real issue at the time was clean air.

http://www.eponline.com/Stevens/EPPub.nsf/...1b?OpenDocument

http://www.ametsoc.org/sloan/cleanair/index.html

[quietfan 233]

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter1.htm

A long article, but the key points:

...

The main emissions of a car engine are:

Nitrogen gas (N2) - Air is 78-percent nitrogen gas, and most of this passes right through the car engine.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) - This is one product of combustion. The carbon in the fuel bonds with the oxygen in the air.

Water vapor (H2O) - This is another product of combustion. The hydrogen in the fuel bonds with the oxygen in the air.

These emissions are mostly benign (although carbon dioxide emissions are believed to contribute to global warming). But because the combustion process is never perfect, some smaller amounts of more harmful emissions are also produced in car engines:

Carbon monoxide (CO) - a poisonous gas that is colorless and odorless

Hydrocarbons or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) - produced mostly from unburned fuel that evaporates. Sunlight breaks these down to form oxidants, which react with oxides of nitrogen to cause ground level ozone (O3), a major component of smog.

Nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2, together called NOx) - contributes to smog and acid rain, and also causes irritation to human mucus membranes

These are the three main regulated emissions, and also the ones that catalytic converters are designed to reduce.

...

Most modern cars are equipped with three-way catalytic converters. "Three-way" refers to the three regulated emissions it helps to reduce -- carbon monoxide, VOCs and NOx molecules. The converter uses two different types of catalysts, a reduction catalyst and an oxidation catalyst.

...

The Reduction Catalyst

The reduction catalyst is the first stage of the catalytic converter. It uses platinum and rhodium to help reduce the NOx emissions. When an NO or NO2 molecule contacts the catalyst, the catalyst rips the nitrogen atom out of the molecule and holds on to it, freeing the oxygen in the form of O2. The nitrogen atoms bond with other nitrogen atoms that are also stuck to the catalyst, forming N2. For example:

2NO => N2 + O2 or 2NO2 => N2 + 2O2

The Oxidization Catalyst

The oxidation catalyst is the second stage of the catalytic converter. It reduces the unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide by burning (oxidizing) them over a platinum and palladium catalyst. This catalyst aids the reaction of the CO and hydrocarbons with the remaining oxygen in the exhaust gas. For example:

2CO + O2 => 2CO2

..no mention of particulates or "global cooling"...