|
Now, from what I can tell, the situation with diesel vehicles is not so much about the impact on how the climate is changing, but the situaiton with exhaust emmissions and the possible (probabable) detrimental impact on people's health. This is a very different debate, but equally as worthy to have.
Its both, the CO2 output from exhausts is meant to be causing global warming, the particulates from diesel/petrol exhausts is causing health problems, especially in cities, though no one acounted for tyre dust and brake dust yet, though it was mildly mentioned a few weeks ago on the news
Nothing we can do about nature though, it is inclined to do what it likes!
|
|
|
The debate about "climate change" is riddled with half truths, false comments, false statistics and more. There is no doubt the climate is changing, it's a natural climate evolution,
'the climate is changing ...' Climate is always changing, but slowly as a rule. Most years now we seem to get 'the warmest this decade' or some such, and there seems little doubt that storms and rainfall are becoming more intense and frequent.
'it's a natural climate evolution' (whatever that means?). There is no point refusing to accept that atmospheric CO2 is rising - it's been monitored for 150 years or more. The deniers don't accept that human activity is responsible. I don't see how that could be proved by experiment (which is why the deniers continue), but the increasing combustion of carbon fuels must be a pretty certain culprit. The only reasons to deny are to shrug off any blame, and to continue burning without worry.
By the time people decide that must be the cause, things will likely have gone too far. But then hasn't that always been the way?
|
The debate about "climate change" is riddled with half truths, false comments, false statistics and more. There is no doubt the climate is changing, it's a natural climate evolution,
'the climate is changing ...' Climate is always changing, but slowly as a rule. Most years now we seem to get 'the warmest this decade' or some such, and there seems little doubt that storms and rainfall are becoming more intense and frequent.
'it's a natural climate evolution' (whatever that means?). There is no point refusing to accept that atmospheric CO2 is rising - it's been monitored for 150 years or more. The deniers don't accept that human activity is responsible. I don't see how that could be proved by experiment (which is why the deniers continue), but the increasing combustion of carbon fuels must be a pretty certain culprit. The only reasons to deny are to shrug off any blame, and to continue burning without worry.
By the time people decide that must be the cause, things will likely have gone too far. But then hasn't that always been the way?
According to research the same thing has been occuring every 12000 years across a 50 to 150 year span each time, then goes back to normal, which could be the reason why some do not think its our fault
someone mentioned the icelandic volcano which may possibly erupt this year, if it does its going to throw out a lot more gases/dust than we could do over a few years depending how bad the eruption is
But the debate goes on and will continue, which is a good thing, and in the meantime research and development will gradually replace our fuels with renewables untill such times they find something else to find wrong with our lifestyles. around we go again
|
|
|
There is no point refusing to accept that atmospheric CO2 is rising - it's been monitored for 150 years or more. The deniers don't accept that human activity is responsible. I don't see how that could be proved by experiment (which is why the deniers continue), but the increasing combustion of carbon fuels must be a pretty certain culprit. The only reasons to deny are to shrug off any blame, and to continue burning without worry.
If anyone bothers to watch the documentary that I referred to, they will see just how small a percentage of CO2 is due to man. It states that the earths volcanoes produce more than all the man made CO2.
|
Every car should have a windmill on the roof, the faster you go the more power you generate, simple!!
Far more efficient than an ugly wind farm on a windless day.
|
Every car should have a windmill on the roof, the faster you go the more power you generate, simple!! Far more efficient than an ugly wind farm on a windless day.
You've just invented the first perpetual-motion machine - congratulations!
|
|
|
|
|
Quite a wide range of opinions here but I've got to say I have resevations about all this, Im not saying its all rubbish more the case has is not strong enough.
The US were one of the last countries to go along with the global waming thing, maybe about ten years ago, when a senior polititan stood on a stage making a famous speech with a giant graph behind him showing global temperatures and atmospheric CO2, the graph was everywhere at the time, it went back millions of years. I've got a problem with that, if you look at the graph carefully temprature and CO2 track each other but its the temprature that leads and the CO2 follows not the other way round. It shows temprature goes up then 25 years later CO2 has cought up. I have asked someone to explain this many times with no result.
The way things work now gives me reservations about the impartiality of the scientific comunity, If you get a million pound reserch grant to prove global warming then thats exactly what you are inclined to do. If man made global warming was disproved tomorrow in an absolute unquestionable way how many reserchers would be out of work next week?. How many pieces of scientific advice put forward as fact have later been reversed. Its not that scientists tell lies, far from it, its more the reserch was not comprehensive enough, failed to recognise other factors or just came to the wrong conclusion. A good example is next week when the World Health Organisation tells us petrol cars are worse for our health than diesel cars! What will we do now?
Edited by Stanb Sevento on 12/03/2017 at 08:19
|
Quite a wide range of opinions here but I've got to say I have resevations about all this, Im not saying its all rubbish more the case has is not strong enough.
The US were one of the last countries to go along with the global waming thing, maybe about ten years ago, when a senior polititan stood on a stage making a famous speech with a giant graph behind him showing global temperatures and atmospheric CO2, the graph was everywhere at the time, it went back millions of years. I've got a problem with that, if you look at the graph carefully temprature and CO2 track each other but its the temprature that leads and the CO2 follows not the other way round. It shows temprature goes up then 25 years later CO2 has cought up. I have asked someone to explain this many times with no result.
The way things work now gives me reservations about the impartiality of the scientific comunity, If you get a million pound reserch grant to prove global warming then thats exactly what you are inclined to do. If man made global warming was disproved tomorrow in an absolute unquestionable way how many reserchers would be out of work next week?. How many pieces of scientific advice put forward as fact have later been reversed. Its not that scientists tell lies, far from it, its more the reserch was not comprehensive enough, failed to recognise other factors or just came to the wrong conclusion. A good example is next week when the World Health Organisation tells us petrol cars are worse for our health than diesel cars! What will we do now?
IMO the only research that really makes any sense to me, and is fact, is the research in antartica where they drilled into the ice, the samples they drilled proved what was in the air,ie, dust particles as well as air trapped in bubbles at that time all related to certain recorded incidents for that time.
But I think exhaust regulations should only be tightened up when alternative transport is viable, not push regulation when their is not other transport available, that just doesnt make sense.
pushing limits does not always make alternatives any quicker, and could cause mistakes we do not need that may cost lives, so imo by all means clean exhausts up but do not rush alternatives untill they are right!
|
pushing limits does not always make alternatives any quicker, and could cause mistakes we do not need that may cost lives, so imo by all means clean exhausts up but do not rush alternatives untill they are right!
I'm all for clean air in cities, it kills thousands of people each year in the UK.
If we got rid of every car in the UK would it make any real difference to the global CO2 ? Not a chance!
|
|
|
|
<< IMO the only research that really makes any sense to me, and is fact, is the research in antartica where they drilled into the ice, the samples they drilled proved what was in the air,ie, dust particles as well as air trapped in bubbles at that time all related to certain recorded incidents for that time. >>
Why is this 'fact' and the rest not, by implication? Why have the gases trapped in antarctic ice somehow remained unchanged for centuries, while we are asked to believe (in other threads) that nitrogen and oxygen permeate tyre walls (or even alloy wheels) at different rates over months ?
Carry on pick-n-mixing to your heart's content.
Edited by Andrew-T on 12/03/2017 at 09:39
|
|
Carry on pick-n-mixing to your heart's content
well that is my perogative, and if you remember I did say its like religion- more questions than answers, I just gave my opinion, if you dont like it, it matters not
I`m not trying to persuade anyone whats right or wrong as I do not know
Dont forget this world is full of questions and very few answers:)
interesting to hear peoples opinions though dont you think
|
well that is my perogative, and if you remember I did say its like religion-
Interesting phrase, this global warming/climate change/environmental hysteria seems to have become the new religion.
|
well that is my perogative, and if you remember I did say its like religion-
Interesting phrase, this global warming/climate change/environmental hysteria seems to have become the new religion.
Its become an obsession with some that I think is getting rather worrying, as some are not listening and have only one view regardless of what others think.
about cows Avant mentioned
www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/c...l
|
|
|
|
|
I've got a problem with that, if you look at the graph carefully temprature and CO2 track each other but its the temprature that leads and the CO2 follows not the other way round. It shows temprature goes up then 25 years later CO2 has cought up. I have asked someone to explain this many times with no result.
If you watch the documentary I refererred to, they explain it in a very plausible way.
|
I've got a problem with that, if you look at the graph carefully temprature and CO2 track each other but its the temprature that leads and the CO2 follows not the other way round. It shows temprature goes up then 25 years later CO2 has cought up. I have asked someone to explain this many times with no result.
If you watch the documentary I refererred to, they explain it in a very plausible way.
I watched a similar program years ago which said the Sun was in control of our global weather, personally I would rather believe that than certain people shouting its our fault,good program!
|
|
|
|
Watched the film Wackyracer, thanks for pointing it out. It backs up a lot of what I thought and gives a lot more information. My 25 years thing was a bit understated - oops.
So what do you think, was Margaret Thatcher wrong and Donald Trump right !!! Scary or what.
|
|
Scary or what
whats so scary about it, its a fact of life,if some wish to make it scary then let them get on with it, as far as I can see we need to make exhausts cleaner for our own health, electric will come soon enough, untill they start on tyre dust and brake dust that is damaging the oceans
|
|
" whats so scary about it" Whats scary is Margaret Thatcher set out to close all the coal mines and Donald Trump is going to re-open coal mines and it looks as if its the Trump thats right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
<< If man-made global warming was disproved tomorrow in an absolute unquestionable way .. >>
This thread proves (unscientifically) that that hypothesis is impossible .. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
<< If anyone bothers to watch the documentary that I referred to, they will see just how small a percentage of CO2 is due to man. It states that the earths volcanoes produce more than all the man made CO2. >>
Over geological time that is unquestionably true. But accepting that global CO2 has risen by about 50% over 150 years, you must be suggesting that volcanoes have become that much more active?
Atmospheric CO2 is added to in various ways (burning carbon being one) and reduced by plants photosynthesising it and excreting oxygen. If that didn't happen we have a real problem. So there is a balance which has relatively recently been disturbed - not least by chopping down lots of trees without replanting.
But of course everyone believes what they want to. Some extreme cases even say the experimenters are idiots, or political pawns, if their results are really uncomfortable.
|
<< If anyone bothers to watch the documentary that I referred to, they will see just how small a percentage of CO2 is due to man. It states that the earths volcanoes produce more than all the man made CO2. >>
Over geological time that is unquestionably true. But accepting that global CO2 has risen by about 50% over 150 years, you must be suggesting that volcanoes have become that much more active?
I used the volcanoes as an example of how little CO2 is man made. I'm not suggesting anything about volcanoes activity having changed.
Atmospheric CO2 is added to in various ways (burning carbon being one) and reduced by plants photosynthesising it and excreting oxygen. If that didn't happen we have a real problem. So there is a balance which has relatively recently been disturbed - not least by chopping down lots of trees without replanting.
Animals and bacteria produce about 150 gigatonnes of CO2 each year compared to 6.5 gigatonnes from humans. there are other larger sources too, if you are really interested watch the documentary but, I doubt you will because you have already decided that man made CO2 is the problem.
But of course everyone believes what they want to. Some extreme cases even say the experimenters are idiots, or political pawns, if their results are really uncomfortable.
I believe the professors in the documentary, they are the ones that are doing the research and studying their findings. Who do you believe ? Al Gore?
Edited by Wackyracer on 12/03/2017 at 10:07
|
I believe the professors in the documentary, they are the ones that are doing the research and studying their findings. Who do you believe ? Al Gore?
You belive the ones that match what you think, Most proffesors/scients do belive that man made climate change is real - why do you not belive them?
|
I believe the professors in the documentary, they are the ones that are doing the research and studying their findings. Who do you believe ? Al Gore?
You belive the ones that match what you think, Most proffesors/scients do belive that man made climate change is real - why do you not belive them?
If they were right, I'd have been living in the ice age for the last 17 years according to what they told us in 1970.
As I sit here looking out the window at green grass on a mildly warm day, I'd say they were wrong.
|
I believe the professors in the documentary, they are the ones that are doing the research and studying their findings. Who do you believe ? Al Gore?
You belive the ones that match what you think, Most proffesors/scients do belive that man made climate change is real - why do you not belive them?
If they were right, I'd have been living in the ice age for the last 17 years according to what they told us in 1970.
As I sit here looking out the window at green grass on a mildly warm day, I'd say they were wrong.
Are you going to back that up with some facts or just give an anecdote from the past? Was the gernaeral concensous that there was goingt to be an ice age? Or just a few people saying it?
|
|
|
|
|
<< Animals and bacteria produce about 150 gigatonnes of CO2 each year compared to 6.5 gigatonnes from humans. there are other larger sources too, if you are really interested watch the documentary but, I doubt you will because you have already decided that man made CO2 is the problem. >>
I have never said that 'man-made CO2 is the problem', but I will certainly say that it is part of the problem. So far you have not commented on why global CO2 should have increased by 50% over 150 years, except to blame volcanoes. I suggest that humans have caused much of that by (a) digging up a lot of coal and oil and burning it, and (b) reducing forests which convert CO2 back to oxygen - which we need to breathe, but also to burn the coal and oil.
While it is not possible to convince every sceptic that mankind is at least partially responsible, it is even more difficult to prove that we aren't. Therefore it is prudent at least to admit the possibility, instead of grasping at any passing straw as an excuse to place the blame on something bigger.
|
<< Animals and bacteria produce about 150 gigatonnes of CO2 each year compared to 6.5 gigatonnes from humans. there are other larger sources too, if you are really interested watch the documentary but, I doubt you will because you have already decided that man made CO2 is the problem. >>
I have never said that 'man-made CO2 is the problem', but I will certainly say that it is part of the problem. So far you have not commented on why global CO2 should have increased by 50% over 150 years, except to blame volcanoes.
I never blamed volcanoes, what I said was volcanoes produce more CO2 than mankind. The answer for the majority of the CO2 is in the documentary.
|
|
<< I never blamed volcanoes, what I said was volcanoes produce more CO2 than mankind. The answer for the majority of the CO2 is in the documentary. >>
Before watching the 'documentary' you recommended, I looked at Wikipedia's review of it, which states that after Channel-4 showed it, one of the things that was corrected or deleted was this statement about volcanoes. If I am to watch the film, maybe you should consult Wikipedia as well ?
That report also gives the global CO2 concentration derived from the antarctic ice samples, which as you will know covers many millennia. It never peaks above 250ppm. We are now above 400ppm, so something different has happened in recent history. No wonder they had to think again about the daft volcano idea.
|
Why is this 'fact' and the rest not, by implication? Why have the gases trapped in antarctic ice somehow remained unchanged for centuries, while we are asked to believe (in other threads) that nitrogen and oxygen permeate tyre walls (or even alloy wheels) at different rates over months ?
Carry on pick-n-mixing to your heart's content.
That report also gives the global CO2 concentration derived from the antarctic ice samples, which as you will know covers many millennia. It never peaks above 250ppm. We are now above 400ppm, so something different has happened in recent history. No wonder they had to think again about the daft volcano idea.
There seems to be some conflict between these 2 posts of yours. So which is it? Are the gases trapped in antartic ice an accurate or inaccurate measure of CO2 ? In the first post there is some hint that maybe some gases could have escaped the ice (I assume that is your reference about car wheels and tyres).
|
|
<< Are the gases trapped in antartic ice an accurate or inaccurate measure of CO2 ? In the first post there is some hint that maybe some gases could have escaped the ice (I assume that is your reference about car wheels and tyres). >>
That is irrelevant to my argument, as I am not trying to use antarctic CO2 data to show that present-day levels are not serious. The data shows strong fluctuations. If we assume that the CO2 levels in the core samples have remained unchanged since they were formed, today's levels well exceed them all. Maybe as the peaks are all much the same height, little CO2 has been lost over time. I don't think anyone really knows - again, it's hard to determine experimentally. But if we can believe that gases permeate rubber and metal alloy in months, maybe we should suspect something similar with (probably porous) ice ?
|
<< Are the gases trapped in antartic ice an accurate or inaccurate measure of CO2 ? In the first post there is some hint that maybe some gases could have escaped the ice (I assume that is your reference about car wheels and tyres). >>
That is irrelevant to my argument, as I am not trying to use antarctic CO2 data to show that present-day levels are not serious.
You compared todays 400ppm to the ice samples 250ppm, so you must have thought it relevant on your previous post?
The data shows strong fluctuations. If we assume that the CO2 levels in the core samples have remained unchanged since they were formed, today's levels well exceed them all. Maybe as the peaks are all much the same height, little CO2 has been lost over time.
Or maybe the same amount of CO2 was lost from each sample? We simply do not know. which makes it pointless to say 400ppm is higher than it was before. How do we know? or are we now going to say that the 250ppm figures of ice samples is correct because that reinforces that there has been an increase of CO2 ?
I don't think anyone really knows - again, it's hard to determine experimentally. But if we can believe that gases permeate rubber and metal alloy in months, maybe we should suspect something similar with (probably porous) ice ?
Agreed.
|
|
<< You compared todays 400ppm to the ice samples 250ppm, so you must have thought it relevant on your previous post? >>
No I didn't. I compared today's 400ppm with the 250ppm of 150 years ago, which I suggest is a much more meaningful comparison as we needn't worry about whether the ice samples have lost anything.
I think we have done this topic to death and we don't seem to be converging on any solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
