Bristol 'going green'

[Harvey1512]

Originally Posted by Clan

250 people a year die in Bristol due to the traffic pollution , official today ...

That figure has to be highly questionable. How can they identify that traffic pollution alone is the cause? Can they guarantee there were no other outside influences? People throw out these figures, money brought into the UK by the royal family, money brought to a city by an event, money lost if we leave the EU etc but the figures rarely stand up under scrutiny. Poor air quality will impact on people's lives and it may well contribute to certain deaths but 250 per year purely down to pollution, I'm not buying that.

[biggbn]

I only go on my eyes and ears and some areas, Dundee's seagate for one, are visually repugnant and genuinely smell of noxious fumes. Keep fossil fuel out, this goes away. Simple.

[Zebster]

Originally Posted by green van man

None so blind as those that will not see.

It's disappointing that you started with insults and therefore ruined the tone of any subsequent discussions. I'll therefore minimise my contributions to this thread.

Originally Posted by green van man

CO2 doesnot cause warming, it is a byproduct of warming and lags tempreture rise by 600 to 800 years

You really don't understand global warming do you? CO2 certainly DOES cause the sun's energy to be more effectively harnessed by the Earth and therefore cause it to become warmer (I'm a radiation physicist and so do understand the actual physical mechanisms for this). What seems to have confused you is how the oceans are involved? As the ocean temperature rises (due to human activity releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and causing some degree of warming) unfortunately the ocean becomes less able to absorb CO2 and therefore as the global temperature rises even more CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the ocean, causing a non-linear 'runaway' situation... this is key to the problem. In theory we could reverse this by ceasing to release CO2 into the atmosphere and the oceans would eventually take up CO2 as they cool, albeit following the 600-800 year lag you shoehorned into your post. However driving the described mechanism and resulting effect is largely in our hands, whether in a positive or negative direction.

Earlier I posted the Wikipedia article ''Scientific consensus on climate change'', it's pretty damning for those continuing to deny climate change... 'Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98% support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors'. Even more striking when you consider all the funding being poured in by oil companies and other vested interests wanting to continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere!

There really is no point in further discussion on the subject of CO2 and global warming. I find it ludicrous that there are still those who refuse to accept the facts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scie...climate_change

[green van man]

Originally Posted by Zebster

It's disappointing that you started with insults and therefore ruined the tone of any subsequent discussions. I'll therefore minimise my contributions to this thread.


You really don't understand global warming do you? CO2 certainly DOES cause the sun's energy to be more effectively harnessed by the Earth and therefore cause it to become warmer (I'm a radiation physicist and so do understand the actual physical mechanisms for this). What seems to have confused you is how the oceans are involved? As the ocean temperature rises (due to human activity releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and causing some degree of warming) unfortunately the ocean becomes less able to absorb CO2 and therefore as the global temperature rises even more CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the ocean, causing a non-linear 'runaway' situation... this is key to the problem. In theory we could reverse this by ceasing to release CO2 into the atmosphere and the oceans would eventually take up CO2 as they cool, albeit following the 600-800 year lag you shoehorned into your post. However driving the described mechanism and resulting effect is largely in our hands, whether in a positive or negative direction.

Earlier I posted the Wikipedia article ''Scientific consensus on climate change'', it's pretty damning for those continuing to deny climate change... 'Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98% support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors'. Even more striking when you consider all the funding being poured in by oil companies and other vested interests wanting to continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere!

There really is no point in further discussion on the subject of CO2 and global warming. I find it ludicrous that there are still those who refuse to accept the facts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scie...climate_change

But who's facts, and you accuse me of having a closed mind.

The 97% consensus, as I understand it from my researches, 3000 climate scientists were asked, a 100 replied, of those 100 97 said it was man made climate change. Concensus is not fact.

Again from my research. Historically the earth was 19oC warmer than present and sea levels were 17 feet higher. This is evidenced by fossilised beaches. At this time CO2 levels were very much higher than present, largly due to volcanic activity. As that volcanic activity subsided so the earth cooled and a cooling ocen absorbs more CO2 than a warm one as you say. Hence the 600 to 800 years lag

The action of the sun has far more effective than mankind ever can. According to reports I have read on the Web we are entering a solar minimum and will be begging for global warming in 20 or 30 years. Our current CO2 levels are largly due to the ending of the mini ice age of the medieval period.

Current forecasts that 4oC warming will be catastrophic are questionable as evidence proves historically the earth was as I have said 19oC warmer than at present and we are still here. Mankind is nothing if not adaptable. The earth has of course been much colder than at present, Scotland is still raising from the shedding of the weight of ice that compressed it 20,000 years ago. That ice age locked up so much water that it was possible to walk from Britain to Europe via Doggerland, now known as sea area Dogger bank.

Planets react on geological time, modern man has been around 30,000 ish years to think man is influencing the planet to any noticable degree is ludicrous. That man is making his home unpleasant is true, overpopulation, rapid use of finite resources etc are all factors in that. The planet however will care not and will carry on wether man is sat on it or not.

The runaway greenhouse effect may happen, but mankind is not going to stop it, prehaps thats how the historic tempretures got to +19oC.

I am not a radiation physicist, I'm an electrician, as such am able to test and report the condition of installations. This interpreting of information and results is a transferable skill. I have applied it to my researches on this matter and have come to very differing conclusions.

Paul.

Ps, it was not an insult but a statement of fact. Those that do not want to see will not see. As with everything do your own research and draw your own conclusions. This I have done and find myself at variance with the concensus as expressed by the mainstream media.

[Zebster]

Originally Posted by green van man

But who's facts, and you accuse me of having a closed mind...

The Wikipedia link I posted has many references, so the factual (peer reviewed) sources are easy to see (mostly as links).

I certainly never mentioned that you have a closed mind, although now that you mention it I suspect that your 'research' consists solely of searching for - and quoting - only the available data that backs up the climate change denial position that you originally started with.

You keep mentioning your research, so why not quote a few sources or references... hopefully you're not relying on the work of Professor Ian Plimer? Personally I'm happier to go with the 97%, rather than the 3%, particularly when the 3% produce studies which are widely discredited.

To help get the thread back on track, the situation in Bristol is obviously not related to CO2 emissions... Does anyone know whether it's NOx or particulate emissions which have caused them to discriminate against diesel vehicles? I don't understand why any Euro 6 compliant vehicle should be banned.

[tofufi]

Originally Posted by Zebster

.

To help get the thread back on track, the situation in Bristol is obviously not related to CO2 emissions... Does anyone know whether it's NOx or particulate emissions which have caused them to discriminate against diesel vehicles? I don't understand why any Euro 6 compliant vehicle should be banned.

I too find it astonishing how many people on here dispute man-made climate change. There seems a correlation between denial of experts on climate change and denial of other experts on important matters

I think Bristols problem is NOx:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/inews.c...s-900453%3famp

[Zebster]

Originally Posted by tofufi

I too find it astonishing how many people on here dispute man-made climate change. There seems a correlation between denial of experts on climate change and denial of other experts on important matters

I think Bristols problem is NOx:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/inews.c...s-900453%3famp

Thanks for the link. It probably hasn't helped that motor manufacturers have been lying about their NOx emissions, famously VAG but maybe also others? Plus all those who blank off their EGR flow for 'performance' reasons.

[Whippy]

Cut Co2, drive diesel. Simples.

[Whippy]

Originally Posted by Zebster

Thanks for the link. It probably hasn't helped that motor manufacturers have been lying about their NOx emissions, famously VAG but maybe also others? Plus all those who blank off their EGR flow for 'performance' reasons.

For the full effect you also need to delete the dpf, fit a 'fart cannon', install a wing on the bootlid and fit a full set of 'angel eyes'. It's a thing, honest.

[Zebster]

Originally Posted by Whippy

For the full effect you also need to delete the dpf, fit a 'fart cannon', install a wing on the bootlid and fit a full set of 'angel eyes'. It's a thing, honest.

So is 'rolling coal', apparently....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nxgz6rOI_c