UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[strad]

You said the low concentration levels of CO2 in the atmosphere meant it could be ignored. But you agree that the much smaller levels of another gas have a dramatic effect. So the concentration level isn’t a suitable metric for discounting CO2.

Where did I say that.
When discussing the volcanos it was the dust that caused cooling not any gas.

[strad]

Or we could just, you know, keep doing the same old same old and telling ourselves it'll all be ok.

Or we could listen to real scientists and not a bunch of proven liar politicos.
A little honest research goes a long ways.
The warmists haven't gotten anything right yet and have falsified the findings.
On the side of the so called deniers are literally thousands of actual peer reviewed papers by climatologist and scientists that actually follow the scientific method.
I have read books from both sides and made up my mind. Have you done any real digging or only accepted what people like theIU.P.C.C. and Al Gore and other alarmists and politicians have said? One of their biggest lies is that there is consensus by all the scientists. It really boil down to just a handful, something like 77 really.
Check out a few books from the other side.

[roon]

Check out a few books from the other side.

Such as?

[strad]

I didn't start this thread thinking it would turn into some big argument. I figured it might get people thinking but it appears it's just the believers unwilling to look at any opposing view.
I'm not a scientist but after climate gate I know who I'm more inclined to listen to.
If you can find them try reading the e-mails they wrote. They were actually dumb enough to admit their fallacies in e-mails they never thought would see the light of day. They admitted lying and falsifying data to reach the answer they wanted out here.
I'll leave you with this:
The I.P.C.C. chief admitted that they, the I.P.C.C., were an arm of world governments and serves at their beck and call.
"We are an inter governmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we should do and if they decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different products we would be at their beck and call "

[strad]

Well you could start with The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change by Marc Morano,
or Inconvenient Facts by Brian Holsopple or the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism by Christopher C. Horner or ClimateGate by Brian Sussman. I'd start with the first and skip to the last.

[roon]

Thanks, strad. Will check those out. I've never found global warming/climate change/AGW particularly compelling as an environmental cause. Oil spills, toxic fumes, and vehicle tailpipe emissions remain enough enough for me to consider revising hydrocarbon infrastructure. I hope the continued backlash against AGW doesn't diminish more tangible causes like deforestation and species loss, in the belief that human activity x7.5 billion has no impact upon Earth's thin veneer of air, water, and biomass.

[henry]

You said the low concentration levels of CO2 in the atmosphere meant it could be ignored. But you agree that the much smaller levels of another gas have a dramatic effect. So the concentration level isn’t a suitable metric for discounting CO2.

Where did I say that.
When discussing the volcanos it was the dust that caused cooling not any gas.

You said it here:

None of it is based on good science and that has been shown repeatedly.
Many of the top people studying this have now decided there is warming but it's caused by excess water vapor in the atmosphere. I'm far more willing to believe that than that CO2 is evil.
CoO2 even now is considered a trace gas in the makeup of the atmosphere.04%
Nitrogen — 78 percent
• Oxygen — 21 percent
• Argon — 0.93 percent
• Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent
• Trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton and hydrogen, as well as water vapor
.04% is not heating the earth... there is just not enough.

As for ash causing the cooling, it does for a short while, but it’s heavy and soon precipitates out.

Here’s an article from Scientific American

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -affect-w/

The relevant passage is

Initially, scientists believed that it was volcanoes' stratospheric ash clouds that had the dominant effect on global temperatures. The 1982 eruption of El Chichn in Mexico, however, altered that view. Only two years earlier, the major Mt. St. Helens eruption had lowered global temperatures by about 0.1 degree C. The much smaller eruption of El Chichn, in contrast, had three to five times the global cooling effect worldwide. Despite its smaller ash cloud, El Chichn emitted more than 40 times the volume of sulfur-rich gases produced by Mt. St. Helens, which revealed that the formation of atmospheric sulfur aerosols has a more substantial effect on global temperatures than simply the volume of ash produced during an eruption. Sulfate aerosols appear to take several years to settle out of the atmosphere, which is one of the reasons their effects are so widespread and long lasting.

There is no doubt some interesting reasoning in the books you cite but I doubt that they would suggest that CO2 can just be ignored. It is, after all, part of the reason the earth is habitable, along with Ms Goldilocks contribution.

[Tommy Cookers]

fact - our planet's atmosphere is close to saturation of greenhousing-by-CO2

it seems this is the 'stable' (non-divergent) condition - bumping along either at or near saturation
only for the last 3 million years we have Ice Ages (ie we're in one now)

we might leave our traditional fuel and start using up permafrost methane sources - lest warming releases it unburnt
every time we look we see far more natural and manmade release of methane (than we assumed focussing on CO2)
peat is a huge store of carbon and would-be methane
there's a lot of deep-ocean methane solid and release from this may increase - better to use the stuff as fuel
those nice new hydropower lakes in warm climates also produce lots of methane and CO2

[Andres125sx]

actually humankind doesn't know what is the correct state of the Antarctic ozone 'layer'

Exactly, we don´t know, but we know some gases we´ve been using are harmful for it.

Should we continue using something we know is harmful up to the point we can evaluate if it´s affected the atmosphere?

Or since we´re talking about something extremelly serious if we´re actually modifying the atmosphere we should be more cautious and stop doing what we know is harmful?

What would you think is the more sensible approach?

but eg even when land transport has become all EV we have decarbonised only a fraction of our energy

Correct, that´s the reason we´re also trying to increase renewabele energies, get rid of old oil boilers used for home heating, close carbon plants when they can be substitued by renewables, etc.

Nobody has ever said EV are enough to solve the problem, they´re just one of the several things we must change

[Big Tea]

Thanks, strad. Will check those out. I've never found global warming/climate change/AGW particularly compelling as an environmental cause. Oil spills, toxic fumes, and vehicle tailpipe emissions remain enough enough for me to consider revising hydrocarbon infrastructure. I hope the continued backlash against AGW doesn't diminish more tangible causes like deforestation and species loss, in the belief that human activity x7.5 billion has no impact upon Earth's thin veneer of air, water, and biomass.

There are also several items on TED talks but TBH I cannot think of any titles off hand.

[Just_a_fan]

we might leave our traditional fuel and start using up permafrost methane sources - lest warming releases it unburnt
every time we look we see far more natural and manmade release of methane (than we assumed focussing on CO2)
peat is a huge store of carbon and would-be methane
there's a lot of deep-ocean methane solid and release from this may increase - better to use the stuff as fuel
those nice new hydropower lakes in warm climates also produce lots of methane and CO2

There is something to be said for this - if it's released, the methane will be something like 100 (20 year) / 28 (100 year) times as effective as a greenhouse gas when compared to CO2. Better to burn it and turn it in to CO2. We'd have released that CO2 anyway from burning dinosaurs so we'd actually be better off. Of course, atmospheric methane is on the increase anyway - all of that animal protein we in the west (mostly) demand is having a demand.

Here's a thought - would you rather lose your petrol/diesel car or your steak for dinner? That might be the sort of compromises we have to make in future...cattle are big methane producers. In the little old UK, we have a couple of million dairy cows and a fair fewer number of beef cattle. That's a lot of methane. Strangely, it seems that dairy cows make twice as much methane as beef cattle. I wonder if that's a diet thing?

Complicated game this, isn't it?

[Tommy Cookers]

grass-fed or not there's now low-methane feed coming in
though it's not long ago we were told the ants and/or termites were the big methane villains

Drax is of course offering an CO2-removal capability (power from burning wood pellets - extracting CO2 from the flue gas)

[Big Tea]

we might leave our traditional fuel and start using up permafrost methane sources - lest warming releases it unburnt
every time we look we see far more natural and manmade release of methane (than we assumed focussing on CO2)
peat is a huge store of carbon and would-be methane
there's a lot of deep-ocean methane solid and release from this may increase - better to use the stuff as fuel
those nice new hydropower lakes in warm climates also produce lots of methane and CO2

There is something to be said for this - if it's released, the methane will be something like 100 (20 year) / 28 (100 year) times as effective as a greenhouse gas when compared to CO2. Better to burn it and turn it in to CO2. We'd have released that CO2 anyway from burning dinosaurs so we'd actually be better off. Of course, atmospheric methane is on the increase anyway - all of that animal protein we in the west (mostly) demand is having a demand.

Here's a thought - would you rather lose your petrol/diesel car or your steak for dinner? That might be the sort of compromises we have to make in future...cattle are big methane producers. In the little old UK, we have a couple of million dairy cows and a fair fewer number of beef cattle. That's a lot of methane. Strangely, it seems that dairy cows make twice as much methane as beef cattle. I wonder if that's a diet thing?

Complicated game this, isn't it?

Do they live twice as long maybe...

[strad]

But you agree that the much smaller levels of another gas have a dramatic effect.

No,no, no all I did was point out it, CO2 is part of trace elements in the atmosphere. I didn't say that any of those others were responsible either. Actually none of the so called green house gases are responsible.
That brings up how they keep moving the goalposts. First it was greenhouse effect, then it was global warming, then it was climate change. Now it's heads they win, tails we lose.
Whatever event happens they claim they predicted it and it's caused by climate change.
If it snows, it's climate change, if it doesn't snow it's climate change. If there are tornados it's climate change, no tornados? climate change.
They have predicted increased hurricanes because of climate change and when it was shown that we have had record low numbers of hurricanes making landfall they said that was because of climate change. Heads they win tails we lose. They have predicted climate change to affect everything. An increase in prostitution ...really.. an increase in prostitution??? An increase in earthquakes? Seriously? Whatever happens it's climate change and they predicted it.

[strad]

Hahahaha
Methane....The warmists said the Norwegian moose was dying off because of climate change and when it was shown not to be true they said the Norwegian moose farting so much it was causing climate change.
heads they win, tails we lose.