Bristol clean air diesel ban plan approved

mark61 said:
RV2MAX said:
The annoying thing is that CO2 output is an irrelevance , as will be shown in future !
Click to expand...
Probably best to leave facts out of the debate.
:)
Click to expand...
It seems at best naive - at worst disingenuous - to conclude that a multi-faceted, complex system such as World climate is chiefly driven by the tiny fraction of anthropogenic contribution to a single factor. Humanity produces only about 3% of world-wide CO2 and only about 0.3% of total greenhouse gasses. The Milankovic cycles have a greater effect on global temperature. Although these cycles have a long period, there have been several pre-industrial rapid warmings (Dansgaard–Oeschger events) that at least one theory attributes to combination of the Milankovic cycles producing tipping points -- with the latest ocurring just before the industrial revolution. Notwithstanding that, there is some debate as to whether world CO2 concentration lags or leads global temperature change, with the balance seeming to suggest that CO2 concentration is the dependant variable. That is, it is highly likely that the current global warming produces the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 rather than the other way around. Whatever, coincidence doesn't establish causality. Global warming is happening, but it likely isn't due to human activity and alarmists would be better served trying to encourage steps to mitigate the effects of global warming rather than making Canute-like attempts to stop it! JMHO
 
GeoffL said:
It seems at best naive - at worst disingenuous - to conclude that a multi-faceted, complex system such as World climate is chiefly driven by the tiny fraction of anthropogenic contribution to a single factor. Humanity produces only about 3% of world-wide CO2 and only about 0.3% of total greenhouse gasses. The Milankovic cycles have a greater effect on global temperature. Although these cycles have a long period, there have been several pre-industrial rapid warmings (Dansgaard–Oeschger events) that at least one theory attributes to combination of the Milankovic cycles producing tipping points -- with the latest ocurring just before the industrial revolution. Notwithstanding that, there is some debate as to whether world CO2 concentration lags or leads global temperature change, with the balance seeming to suggest that CO2 concentration is the dependant variable. That is, it is highly likely that the current global warming produces the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 rather than the other way around. Whatever, coincidence doesn't establish causality. Global warming is happening, but it likely isn't due to human activity and alarmists would be better served trying to encourage steps to mitigate the effects of global warming rather than making Canute-like attempts to stop it! JMHO
Click to expand...

I presume you mean Milankovitch Cycles, these are well know by all the climate change scientists and have been mapped out for decades, they don't account for the latest events.
The same with CO2 levels, these have been mapped out going back for millennia, since the industrial revolution they have sharply risen.
 
colinmd said:
I presume you mean Milankovitch Cycles, these are well know by all the climate change scientists and have been mapped out for decades, they don't account for the latest events.
The same with CO2 levels, these have been mapped out going back for millennia, since the industrial revolution they have sharply risen.
Click to expand...
In his native language, it's "Milanković" -- there are two ways of translating his name to English. The Milankovic cycles (MC), as mapped out by the IPCC et al. don't account for the 33 sharp changes in climate during the last ice age and the holocene (Dansgaard–Oeschger events and Bond events -- and all but one prior to industrialisation) either. They are all "MC plus other factors" and at least one theory has that MC combination takes the climate to a tipping point. Solubility of CO2 in water is inversely proportional to temperature. So as sea water temperature increases, CO2 is released. i.e. changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration are driven by temperature fluctuations rather than temperature being driven by changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Temperatures have risen sharply since the industrial revolution for the same reason they rose sharply in the other 32 events, which were all prior to industrialisation. Thus the current global warming event is unlikely to be due to anthropogenic factors.
 
GeoffL said:
In his native language, it's "Milanković" -- there are two ways of translating his name to English. The Milankovic cycles (MC), as mapped out by the IPCC et al. don't account for the 33 sharp changes in climate during the last ice age and the holocene (Dansgaard–Oeschger events and Bond events -- and all but one prior to industrialisation) either. They are all "MC plus other factors" and at least one theory has that MC combination takes the climate to a tipping point. Solubility of CO2 in water is inversely proportional to temperature. So as sea water temperature increases, CO2 is released. i.e. changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration are driven by temperature fluctuations rather than temperature being driven by changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Temperatures have risen sharply since the industrial revolution for the same reason they rose sharply in the other 32 events, which were all prior to industrialisation. Thus the current global warming event is unlikely to be due to anthropogenic factors.
Click to expand...

First you wish to quote MC's, then when it's pointed out this is taken into calcs you dismiss MC's.
 
colinmd said:
First you wish to quote MC's, then when it's pointed out this is taken into calcs you dismiss MC's.
Click to expand...
Try reading what I wrote again. I didn't dismiss MCs; I wrote, "MCs plus other factors". MCs are the primary driving factor. However, the periodicity of each of the MCs is way too long for MCs alone to be the only cause. MCs combine to take the climate to a tipping point, at which point other factors start to have more and more influence. For example, as the ice sheets recede, albedo becomes less effective and more solar radiation is absorbed. As the temperature increases, more CO2 is liberated from the oceans. This, and other feedback factors, lead to a Dansgaard–Oeschger / Bond event, which is characterised by rapid global warming. All but one of these events ocurred prior to industrialisation and so industrialisation could not have been the cause of those events.
 
trevskoda said:
Fact is more people die in farming with related problems than in citys,seems to be of the radar for the save the planet folk,maybe they will stop us eating next.
Click to expand...

Trev it’s reckoned that 40,000 people die from air pollution every year in the U.K.
How they come to that figure, who knows. But even much less than that die it’s to high a figure.
 
I never understand how the death rates due to a particular factor are calculated. Take smoking, how do you attribute the deaths solely to having a fag. What about air pollution, diet, pollution in the workplace. The old adage about statistics comes to mind.
 
antiquesam said:
I never understand how the death rates due to a particular factor are calculated. Take smoking, how do you attribute the deaths solely to having a fag. What about air pollution, diet, pollution in the workplace. The old adage about statistics comes to mind.
Click to expand...

I agree Sam, just giving the official figure for the U.K.
Although it’s a fact that what comes out of a diesel can be lethal, how do they come up with this figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top