Is it the death knell for the combustion engine?

Fisherman

Full Member
Posts
3,557
Likes
7,043
Not from Wikipedia please that is notoriously wrong about so many subjects its unreal.

From Wikipedia :LOL::LOL::ROFLMAO:

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
1,758
Likes
1,687
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??
Great post
Really good to hear some good solid facts for a change
 

Fisherman

Full Member
Posts
3,557
Likes
7,043
The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist
Andrew Freedman
By Andrew Freedman


  • Published: May 3rd, 2013
The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.

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
G
lobal CO2 Levels Set to Pass 400 ppm Milestone
In the Curve: Monitoring Rising Carbon Emissions
 

izwozral

Full Member
Posts
10,736
Likes
16,861
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.
 

mark61

Full Member
Posts
4,369
Likes
4,118
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? 😂 :p
 

Fisherman

Full Member
Posts
3,557
Likes
7,043
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.
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.
 

trevskoda

Full Member
Posts
19,608
Likes
20,413
MInisters say it was made in 7 days and we all know they are correct. (y) ;)
Strange thing is there were not always 7 days in a week or weeks for that mater,only light and dark,cold and warm.
 

Minisorella

Full Member
Posts
3,490
Likes
6,158
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.
 

Fisherman

Full Member
Posts
3,557
Likes
7,043
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 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.
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
10,736
Likes
16,861
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.
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.
 

channa

Full Member
Posts
12,134
Likes
18,464
Like others in my mind the jury is out, but I would certainly err on the side of caution.

President trump has already been dismissed as some lunatic which overall maybe true,but when he wouldn’t sign the Paris accord , it was one sided reporting.in that he wasn’t bothered and sticking two fingers up at the world.

The USA is addressing climate change but are approaching the matter from a diffent angle. At Paris one of the major topics was animal flatulance causing global warming and subsequently there has been a big shift to move away from meat as part of our diet

What Trump actually did rather than put a significant industry at risk was concentrate on the feed namely grazing grass. There is a significant attempt in the Us to genetically modify the grass that they graze thus protecting an industry and the thousand of jobs.. that is what happened but rare you read reports

Of course genetic modification of food stuffs is controversial but in essence no different to other vegetation where the yield is maximised.

So which ever side you bat ,all is not what it seems
 

Fisherman

Full Member
Posts
3,557
Likes
7,043
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.
Please don't what exactly.?

There is no difficulty whatsoever in determining that CO2, methane, and water vapour create Global warming. They have been doing so for billions of years.
if you don’t agree with that you are not in touch with reality.
What is up for debate is not that CO2 has effects on our climate, what are up for debate is to what extent it will effect our climate, and at what levels, and who or what is responsible.

No science is perfect, but that is no reason to simply dismiss what scientists say on any given subject. But comparing an astronomical theory such as how planetesimals
form into larger bodies with global warming is completely misleading. One being theoretical and the other being factual. CO2 does affect our climate, fact. planetesimals may have formed into larger bodies by colliding, was merely a theory or educated guess.

But if you are 100% sure that global warming is a farce, put out by scientists who don’t know what they are talking about because they get things wrong sometimes, so be it.
 

Fazerloz

Full Member
Posts
5,189
Likes
7,646
Is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change actually the "Ministry of Science" from Orwell's 1984.

 

colinmd

Full Member
Posts
2,299
Likes
1,925
Is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change actually the "Ministry of Science" from Orwell's 1984.

From Wiki.
The IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself. Rather, it assesses published literature, including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.[9] However, the IPCC can be said to stimulate research in climate science. Chapters of IPCC reports often close with sections on limitations and knowledge or research gaps, and the announcement of an IPCC special report can catalyse research activity in that area.
 

Fisherman

Full Member
Posts
3,557
Likes
7,043
Like others in my mind the jury is out, but I would certainly err on the side of caution.

President trump has already been dismissed as some lunatic which overall maybe true,but when he wouldn’t sign the Paris accord , it was one sided reporting.in that he wasn’t bothered and sticking two fingers up at the world.

The USA is addressing climate change but are approaching the matter from a diffent angle. At Paris one of the major topics was animal flatulance causing global warming and subsequently there has been a big shift to move away from meat as part of our diet

What Trump actually did rather than put a significant industry at risk was concentrate on the feed namely grazing grass. There is a significant attempt in the Us to genetically modify the grass that they graze thus protecting an industry and the thousand of jobs.. that is what happened but rare you read reports

Of course genetic modification of food stuffs is controversial but in essence no different to other vegetation where the yield is maximised.

So which ever side you bat ,all is not what it seems
Me to Andrew the jury is out.
I only hope the jury get it right, because if they don’t the consequences will be awful.
I have a simple theory about Trump, if he says black I say white.
 

izwozral

Full Member
Posts
10,736
Likes
16,861
Please don't what exactly.?

There is no difficulty whatsoever in determining that CO2, methane, and water vapour create Global warming. They have been doing so for billions of years.
if you don’t agree with that you are not in touch with reality.
What is up for debate is not that CO2 has effects on our climate, what are up for debate is to what extent it will effect our climate, and at what levels, and who or what is responsible.

No science is perfect, but that is no reason to simply dismiss what scientists say on any given subject. But comparing an astronomical theory such as how planetesimals
form into larger bodies with global warming is completely misleading. One being theoretical and the other being factual. CO2 does affect our climate, fact. planetesimals may have formed into larger bodies by colliding, was merely a theory or educated guess.

But if you are 100% sure that global warming is a farce, put out by scientists who don’t know what they are talking about because they get things wrong sometimes, so be it.
No, I don't think global warming is a farce, it has been happening throughout millennia. It is the fear mongering that is a farce.
Watch the clips that Fazerloz has posted, they pretty much mirror my thoughts on global warming - and they explain my thoughts on it far better than I can!

Extinction Rebellion and that Scandi school kid Grotty Thumbscrew, or whatever her name is, are manna from heaven for the governments that wish to further control our everyday lives.

If you feel impending doom is upon us then I feel sorry for you, I really do.
 

Fisherman

Full Member
Posts
3,557
Likes
7,043
No, I don't think global warming is a farce, it has been happening throughout millennia. It is the fear mongering that is a farce.
Watch the clips that Fazerloz has posted, they pretty much mirror my thoughts on global warming - and they explain my thoughts on it far better than I can!

Extinction Rebellion and that Scandi school kid Grotty Thumbscrew, or whatever her name is, are manna from heaven for the governments that wish to further control our everyday lives.

If you feel impending doom is upon us then I feel sorry for you, I really do.
Sorry but please show me where I stated impending doom is upon us, or that I am even 100% behind the argument for global warming.
As for feeling sorry for me, how patronising is that.
I have no time for extinction rebellion, and as for the kid who should get on with her education, well least said the better.
My opinion is open minded, but I do tend to think that scientists MAY be right.
But what I am not prepared to do is simply ignore warnings coming from many corners.
Because if the scientists are right, and you are wrong.
 

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Top