Is it the death knell for the combustion engine?
- Thread starter izwozral
- Start date
Owlhouse
Full Member
- Posts
- 94
- Likes
- 142
Correct - Co2 is 0.04%. I misplaced the decimal point.
trevskoda
Full Member
- Posts
- 39,989
- Likes
- 56,016
They will insure you of the road with price and very high rd tax.
Fisherman
Full Member
- Posts
- 11,769
- Likes
- 34,503
Sorry but currently we have 412 parts per million a rise of 48% since the start of the industrial revolution. Scientists have shown that if this increases to 800 ppm then that would result in a rise of 5c in global temperature. This would be disastrous. Levels of just 5% are lethal to life. You have to appreciate how fragile life is.
Small rises in temperature produced by tiny ppm of CO2 could prove catastrophic for life on our planet.
davef
Full Member
- Posts
- 179
- Likes
- 363
Levels of "5% CO2 being lethal to life" equates to 50,000 ppm - as we are currently at approx 400 ppm thats not something anyone has to worry about !
It has been calculated that if all known reserves of fossil fuels were instantly burnt it would would nowhere near double current levels - and 800 ppm is not unhealthy to humans but very good for plant life, and would have no or insignificant effect on temperature.
The warmist theory of greenhouse effect has it that CO2 warms by absorbing a tiny frequency band of the infra red spectrum - when levels have reached 200 ppm it has absorbed 90% of all that frequency and it takes ever more increases of the CO2 to absorb the remaining 10% - on a logarithmic scale. So after 200 ppm it has very little effect. The climate alarmists then suggest that this tiny increase in temperature causes a slight increase in water vaporisation with water vapour being by far the major greenhouse gas this would cause a further temperature increase in an escalating positive feedback loop. Which is obviously nonsense, as a positive feedback loop would mean the whole system is totally unstable - which long term stable conditions show is not the case......
AGW is just a scam that has transferred staggering amounts of money from the general public to the very rich and allowed nearly all manufacturing to move to
the far east and China where working and environmental conditions are so much lower so allowing the multinationals to make ever more profit.
Getting back to the change to EVs - its now found that tyres and brake wear cause 1000 x the amount of particulates than engines, so changing to electric wont make much difference to that. In fact a recent German study found the exhaust from euro 6 diesels was lower in particulates than the contaminated city air it was ingesting i.e. it was cleaning the air via the dpf.
As usual the government is making is making a mountain out of a molehill - it is like they are deliberately destroying our industrial base and way of life, ending freedoms and ever more tightly controlling us. Could it be they are following Agenda 21 to move everyone into cities, turn the countryside into re-wilded wilderness and it then envisioned a much lower population....... caronavirus??
caledonia
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,776
- Likes
- 13,548
Well said that man
Robmac
Full Member
- Posts
- 44,620
- Likes
- 81,793
Great thread folks and some interesting facts and figures from both sides.
So much so that I am no longer sure on which side I stand any more. Certainly some food for thought from davef which I wouldn't have known about.
I shall follow with interest.
So much so that I am no longer sure on which side I stand any more. Certainly some food for thought from davef which I wouldn't have known about.
I shall follow with interest.
Fisherman
Full Member
- Posts
- 11,769
- Likes
- 34,503
I was not suggesting that we will ever see levels of 5% CO2 in our atmosphere. I was merely pointing out that such a small level of CO2 would prove fatal.
Also long before such dramatic increase in CO2 would have occurred I doubt if many would be here to witness it.
You really fail to understand just how fragile life is, and how seemingly tiny increases in CO2 levels with only slight increases in temperature can have dramatic effects. Global warming has always been with us, without it the whole planet would be covered in ice at an average temperature of minus 19c. Prior to the industrial revolution the mean temperature was 12.5c currently its 14c due to rising CO2 levels. If we carry on as we are by 2100 levels will reach around 800 ppm. That will equate to a mean temp of 17-18c. This rise in temperature will in part be due to a rise in water vapour due to an increase of evaporation from the sea. As well as the rise in temperature this rise in water vapour will dramatically change our weather patterns, crating arid parts and areas of the planet with much increased precipitation. Also sea levels will have risen and the incidence of hurricanes and their severity will have substantially increased.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The greenhouse effect occurs when certain gases in the Earth's atmosphere (the air around the Earth) trap infrared radiation. This makes the planet become warmer, similar to the way it makes a greenhouse become warmer.
The greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse gases; the most important greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are: water vapor, carbon dioxide(CO2), and methane. When there is more greenhouse gas in the air, the air holds more heat. This is why more greenhouse gases cause climate change and global warming.
The greenhouse effect is natural. It is important for life on Earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average temperature would be around -18 or -19 degrees Celsius (0 or 1 degree Fahrenheit). Earth would be locked in an ice age. Because of the greenhouse effect, the Earth's actual average temperature is 14 degrees Celsius (57 degrees Fahrenheit).
The problem is that recently, the greenhouse effect has become stronger. This is because humans have been using large amounts of fossil fuels, which release carbon dioxide when they are burned. Since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it has caused the planet to warm over the past 150 years.
About 10,000 years ago, before people started burning large amounts of fossil fuels, there was 260 to 280 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, but now there is over 400 ppm. Most scientists say that having 350 ppm or less is safe for the environment and that species on the planet can adapt to this level. Higher levels can make severe problems for animal and marine life that are already being seen today, such as ocean acidification.
The greenhouse effect was first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824. Mars, Venus and other planets with atmospheres also have greenhouse effects. The effect on Venus is especially strong because Venus has so much CO2. This is why Venus is hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is closer to the sun. The first person to predict that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels (and other combustion processes) could cause global warming was Svante Arrhenius.
Fazerloz
Full Member
- Posts
- 8,184
- Likes
- 15,116
Not from Wikipedia please that is notoriously wrong about so many subjects its unreal.
From Wikipedia
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.
From Wikipedia
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.
Fisherman
Full Member
- Posts
- 11,769
- Likes
- 34,503
Not from Wikipedia please that is notoriously wrong about so many subjects its unreal.
From Wikipedia
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.
So we are now ignoring wiki, the UN, most countries in the world, most scientists worldwide on here. Please tell us what part you don’t agree with. And if you don’t agree with them, why don’t you go on to wiki and change them. Let’s see how long your changes last.
But if you don’t trust, the UN, WIKI, most scientists,and most governments worldwide.
https://www.gsi.ie/en-ie/geoscience...e/Pages/Causes-and-the-greenhouse-effect.aspx
All wiki stated was that the more CO2 in the atmosphere the greater the effect of global warming.
You are siding with Donald Trump
Last edited:
Martin P
Full Member
- Posts
- 2,126
- Likes
- 2,465
Great post
Really good to hear some good solid facts for a change
Fisherman
Full Member
- Posts
- 11,769
- Likes
- 34,503
The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist
By Andrew Freedman
As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million — climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now.
According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere, although it is more likely to take a couple more years until it stays above that threshold, according to Ralph Keeling, a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.
CO2 levels are far higher now than they have been for anytime during the past 800,000 years.
Click image to enlarge. Credit: Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Keeling is the son of Charles David Keeling, who began the CO2 observations at Mauna Loa in 1958 and for whom the iconic “Keeling Curve” is named.
Carbon dioxide is the most important long-lived global warming gas, and once it is emitted by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, a single CO2 molecule can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Global CO2 emissions reached a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes in 2012, up 2.6 percent from 2011. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases warm the planet by absorbing the sun’s energy and preventing heat from escaping back into space.
The news that CO2 is near 400 ppm for the first time highlights a question that scientists have been investigating using a variety of methods: when was the last time that CO2 levels were this high, and what was the climate like back then?
There is no single, agreed-upon answer to those questions as studies show a wide date range from between 800,000 to 15 million years ago. The most direct evidence comes from tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped in the vast ice sheets of Antarctica. By drilling for ice cores and analyzing the air bubbles, scientists have found that, at no point during at least the past 800,000 years have atmospheric CO2 levels been as high as they are now.
That means that in the entire history of human civilization, CO2 levels have never been this high.
The Keeling Curve, showing CO2 concentrations increasing to near 400 ppm in 2013.
Credit: NOAA.
Other research, though, shows that you have to go back much farther in time, well beyond 800,000 years ago, to find an instance where CO2 was sustained at 400 ppm or greater.
For a 2009 study, published in the journal Science, scientists analyzed shells in deep sea sediments to estimate past CO2 levels, and found that CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now for at least the past 10 to 15 million years, during the Miocene epoch.
“This was a time when global temperatures were substantially warmer than today, and there was very little ice around anywhere on the planet. And so sea level was considerably higher — around 100 feet higher — than it is today,” said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann, in an email conversation. “It is for this reason that some climate scientists, like James Hansen, have argued that even current-day CO2 levels are too high. There is the possibility that we’ve already breached the threshold of truly dangerous human influence on our climate and planet.”
Sea levels are increasing today in response to the warming climate, as ice sheets melt and seas expand due to rising temperatures. Scientists are projecting up to 3 feet or more of global sea level rise by 2100, which would put some coastal cities in peril.
While there have been past periods in Earth's history when temperatures were warmer than they are now, the rate of change that is currently taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past, and therefore it will likely be more difficult to adapt to.
A 2011 study in the journal Paleoceanography found that atmospheric CO2 levels may have been comparable to today’s as recently as sometime between 2 and 4.6 million years ago, during the Pliocene epoch, which saw the arrival of Homo habilis, a possible ancestor of modern homo sapiens, and when herds of giant, elephant-like Mastadons roamed North America. Modern human civilization didn’t arrive on the scene until the Holocene Epoch, which began 12,000 years ago.
Regardless of which estimate is correct, it is clear that CO2 levels are now higher than they have ever been in mankind’s history. With global CO2 emissions continuing on an upward trajectory that is likely to put CO2 concentrations above 450 ppm or higher, it is extremely unlikely that the steadily rising shape of the Keeling Curve is going to change anytime soon.
“There's an esthetic to the curve that's beautiful science and troubling reality,” Keeling said. “I'd very much like to see the curve change from going steadily upward to flattening out.”
Related Content
CO2 Emissions Expected to Rise Significantly By 2030
Global Carbon Emissions Hit Record High
Global CO2 Levels Set to Pass 400 ppm Milestone
In the Curve: Monitoring Rising Carbon Emissions
By Andrew Freedman
- Published: May 3rd, 2013
As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million — climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now.
According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere, although it is more likely to take a couple more years until it stays above that threshold, according to Ralph Keeling, a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.
CO2 levels are far higher now than they have been for anytime during the past 800,000 years.
Click image to enlarge. Credit: Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Keeling is the son of Charles David Keeling, who began the CO2 observations at Mauna Loa in 1958 and for whom the iconic “Keeling Curve” is named.
Carbon dioxide is the most important long-lived global warming gas, and once it is emitted by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, a single CO2 molecule can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Global CO2 emissions reached a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes in 2012, up 2.6 percent from 2011. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases warm the planet by absorbing the sun’s energy and preventing heat from escaping back into space.
The news that CO2 is near 400 ppm for the first time highlights a question that scientists have been investigating using a variety of methods: when was the last time that CO2 levels were this high, and what was the climate like back then?
There is no single, agreed-upon answer to those questions as studies show a wide date range from between 800,000 to 15 million years ago. The most direct evidence comes from tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped in the vast ice sheets of Antarctica. By drilling for ice cores and analyzing the air bubbles, scientists have found that, at no point during at least the past 800,000 years have atmospheric CO2 levels been as high as they are now.
That means that in the entire history of human civilization, CO2 levels have never been this high.
The Keeling Curve, showing CO2 concentrations increasing to near 400 ppm in 2013.
Credit: NOAA.
Other research, though, shows that you have to go back much farther in time, well beyond 800,000 years ago, to find an instance where CO2 was sustained at 400 ppm or greater.
For a 2009 study, published in the journal Science, scientists analyzed shells in deep sea sediments to estimate past CO2 levels, and found that CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now for at least the past 10 to 15 million years, during the Miocene epoch.
“This was a time when global temperatures were substantially warmer than today, and there was very little ice around anywhere on the planet. And so sea level was considerably higher — around 100 feet higher — than it is today,” said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann, in an email conversation. “It is for this reason that some climate scientists, like James Hansen, have argued that even current-day CO2 levels are too high. There is the possibility that we’ve already breached the threshold of truly dangerous human influence on our climate and planet.”
Sea levels are increasing today in response to the warming climate, as ice sheets melt and seas expand due to rising temperatures. Scientists are projecting up to 3 feet or more of global sea level rise by 2100, which would put some coastal cities in peril.
While there have been past periods in Earth's history when temperatures were warmer than they are now, the rate of change that is currently taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past, and therefore it will likely be more difficult to adapt to.
A 2011 study in the journal Paleoceanography found that atmospheric CO2 levels may have been comparable to today’s as recently as sometime between 2 and 4.6 million years ago, during the Pliocene epoch, which saw the arrival of Homo habilis, a possible ancestor of modern homo sapiens, and when herds of giant, elephant-like Mastadons roamed North America. Modern human civilization didn’t arrive on the scene until the Holocene Epoch, which began 12,000 years ago.
Regardless of which estimate is correct, it is clear that CO2 levels are now higher than they have ever been in mankind’s history. With global CO2 emissions continuing on an upward trajectory that is likely to put CO2 concentrations above 450 ppm or higher, it is extremely unlikely that the steadily rising shape of the Keeling Curve is going to change anytime soon.
“There's an esthetic to the curve that's beautiful science and troubling reality,” Keeling said. “I'd very much like to see the curve change from going steadily upward to flattening out.”
Related Content
CO2 Emissions Expected to Rise Significantly By 2030
Global Carbon Emissions Hit Record High
Global CO2 Levels Set to Pass 400 ppm Milestone
In the Curve: Monitoring Rising Carbon Emissions
izwozral
Full Member
- Posts
- 16,968
- Likes
- 38,373
Scientist were convinced, beyond a shadow of doubt, that planets were formed by high impact collisions, where huge lumps of rock collided with such force that they fused together. Now, researchers believe that planets were formed by gently coming together forming clusters of rock. The new evidence is based on
the New Horizon spacecraft that mapped the 22 mile Arrokoth rock object that is circling Neptune.
I am still waiting for the new ice age that was promised in the 1960's.
Just goes to prove that scientific evidence isn't always correct.
the New Horizon spacecraft that mapped the 22 mile Arrokoth rock object that is circling Neptune.
I am still waiting for the new ice age that was promised in the 1960's.
Just goes to prove that scientific evidence isn't always correct.
mark61
Full Member
- Posts
- 8,740
- Likes
- 17,357
One has to wonder what kind of obnoxious polluting vehicles Homo habilis were driving around in to get CO2 levels equal to what we have today. They were only little, lived to late 20’s and I doubt there was 7 billion + of them. Good grief, the greedy buggers must have all been in proper gas guzzlers. I mean, it must have been down to them, wasn't it? 
Fisherman
Full Member
- Posts
- 11,769
- Likes
- 34,503
Sorry but astronomers were divided over the issue for decades.
Many could not equate how objects travelling at thousands mph in zero gravity could possibly join together after smashing into each other.
Astronomy is not a perfect science. It is based amongst things on theories put forward by scientists struggling with the time scales, distances, and the remoteness of the evidence required to substantiate their theories. There are no such difficulties in forming factual evidence on global warming.
IE for years the Big Bang theory was countered by a tiny minority of astronomers including the famous British astronomer Fred Hoyle with the steady state theory. But in recent years the steady state theory has gained more prominence.
Only 10 years ago after much debate and theory finally the presence of a super massive black hole was discovered at the centre of our galaxy and its generally accepted now that all galaxies have at their centre super massive black holes, providing the gravity which binds galaxies together. But for over a hundred years this was subject to much debate. I could go on, but the morale is, don’t compare measurable science which can be analysed here, with what are no more than theories formed by amongst other things a learned balance of probabilities.
Scientists accept that increased CO2 equates to a rise in temperature, what’s up for debate is just what level of change higher levels will induce.
Minisorella
Full Member
- Posts
- 2,798
- Likes
- 5,015
We see and hear everywhere in the media etc that the proportion of scientists who agree with the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) - ie climate change being caused by humans - is 97%. If you actually look at the studies (generally based on a varying numbers of published scientific papers) you will always see something along these lines (the actual figures vary over the studies but aren't relevant to the point I want to make):
34% (ish) of authors endorse AGW
64% of authors take no position on AGW
2% reject AGW
They conclude that, of the authors who took a position on AGW, (ie those who endorse or reject) 97% agree that humans are causing global warming.
The figures vary a lot over the years with the rejection percentage staying about the same but the endorse/no position percentages changing over time, with endorsements slowly rising. However, the 97% (ish) percent figure seems fairly stable throughout all the studies and is therefore the one that people quote. This is always based on those who took a position and ignores those who didn't. The latter shows that, irrespective of the exact figures in any given study, there remains a considerable percentage of scientists who obviously feel the jury is still out. Bear in mind also that some of the studies are based on tiny samples, sometimes as low as 529 papers, whereas the largest sample to date was 11,944 published papers out of a possible number well in the 100,000s.
Damn statistics eh? Is it really surprising that so many people can't wholeheartedly embrace climate change being man-made? Even if the entire population of the world agreed on that one fact, it still doesn't really solve anything does it? If it's true (and I agree that we should probably err on the side of caution!) then we need to be offered solutions - practical, affordable and effective solutions - which just aren't happening. If it's not true, then the planet will slowly cycle through another '-age' and those entities who adapt and survive will start afresh.
34% (ish) of authors endorse AGW
64% of authors take no position on AGW
2% reject AGW
They conclude that, of the authors who took a position on AGW, (ie those who endorse or reject) 97% agree that humans are causing global warming.
The figures vary a lot over the years with the rejection percentage staying about the same but the endorse/no position percentages changing over time, with endorsements slowly rising. However, the 97% (ish) percent figure seems fairly stable throughout all the studies and is therefore the one that people quote. This is always based on those who took a position and ignores those who didn't. The latter shows that, irrespective of the exact figures in any given study, there remains a considerable percentage of scientists who obviously feel the jury is still out. Bear in mind also that some of the studies are based on tiny samples, sometimes as low as 529 papers, whereas the largest sample to date was 11,944 published papers out of a possible number well in the 100,000s.
Damn statistics eh? Is it really surprising that so many people can't wholeheartedly embrace climate change being man-made? Even if the entire population of the world agreed on that one fact, it still doesn't really solve anything does it? If it's true (and I agree that we should probably err on the side of caution!) then we need to be offered solutions - practical, affordable and effective solutions - which just aren't happening. If it's not true, then the planet will slowly cycle through another '-age' and those entities who adapt and survive will start afresh.
Fisherman
Full Member
- Posts
- 11,769
- Likes
- 34,503
My attitude is not entirely one sided here. I am not 100% convinced either.
But on the balance of probabilities and my basic understanding of the greenhouse effect, and taking into consideration many things weather related that are happening I think there is every reason to believe that mankind is affecting our planet. This is due to many factors, burning fossil fuels, being only one of many.
But as I have said before if scientists are correct and we do nothing then the last thing we will be concerned with is electric vehicles. The consequences of ignoring the warnings may be to great to ignore.
izwozral
Full Member
- Posts
- 16,968
- Likes
- 38,373
There are no such difficulties in forming factual evidence on global warming. I think some may disagree with that.
Astronomy is not a perfect science. Nor the science around global warming, otherwise all scientist would agree.
I could go on. Please don't.