OnionTerror Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Let battle commence! My personal thoughts is that the amout of crap we are pumping into the air certainy doesn't not help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 I voted neither. As an HPC OT bloke I do not waste much. I still like engines though, and I reckon 8 cylinders is just about right! But exporting all your tat production to Beijing is not progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 I voted cobblers. Scientists can study Earth’s climate as far back as 800,000 years by drilling core samples from deep underneath the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. Detailed information on air temperature and CO2 levels is trapped in these specimens. Current polar records show an intimate connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature in the natural world. In essence, when one goes up, the other one follows. There is, however, still a degree of uncertainty about which came first—a spike in temperature or CO2. Until now, the most comprehensive records to date on a major change in Earth’s climate came from the EPICA Dome C ice core on the Antarctic Plateau. The data, covering the end of the last ice age, between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, show that CO2 levels could have lagged behind rising global temperatures by as much as 1,400 years. “The idea that there was a lag of CO2 behind temperature is something climate change skeptics pick on,” says Edward Brook of Oregon State University’s College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences. “They say, ‘How could CO2 levels affect global temperature when you are telling me the temperature changed first?’” Source :- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/ It get's hot, plants grow better and produce more CO2. Amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 I voted cobblers. Source :- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/ It get's hot, plants grow better and produce more CO2. Amazing. Why would plants produce co2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 I voted cobblers. Source :- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/ It get's hot, plants grow better and produce more CO2. Amazing. “They say, ‘How could CO2 levels affect global temperature when you are telling me the temperature changed first?’” Brooke is clearly highlighting the lack of understanding or the deliberate obfuscation by skeptics Solar input increases, Earth warms, CO2 rises, Earth warms more, ocean life changes, CO2 rises, Earth warms more. Solar input decreases, Earth cools, CO2 falls, Earth cools more, ocean life changes, CO2 falls, Earth cools more, Solar input increases, CO2 rises, rinse and repeat. Then, CO2 rises, Earth warms, ocean life changes, but it's different this time, now what, see ? Groan, Why did I engage ? For my own sanity I'm putting this thread out of bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Well :( Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 If you vote for BREXIT it will be the end of the world! Global warming same scare mongering crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 I have gone from Cobblers to Neither. The world has been warming anyway since the mini ice age but we're hastening that process by our actions and that's a bad thing; gradual change is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Why would plants produce co2? Steady on there, I hear Swampy is Trump's scientific advisor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 I voted neither. As an HPC OT bloke I do not waste much. I still like engines though, and I reckon 8 cylinders is just about right! But exporting all your tat production to Beijing is not progress. just wait till combustion engines get replaced by turbines! halfrauds will not be happy bunnies..so much less to go wrong! thought this was cool though,take a look at this....apparently it does about 8000 miles to the gallon! https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi_vaiJ0vLOAhXrDMAKHRhCDMIQtwIIMDAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DyT9XhQp-d0o&usg=AFQjCNGZbbux27zne6Quh0uyX_-ee3p2AQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 That's been tried, Jay Leno was driving James May around in his turbine car from the 60s on his history of cars programme. It was similar to a normal engine in performance, a little bit worse but that's because it was a new idea and standard engines have been endlessly refined. It didn't gave any obvious advantages that I could see bar the novelty value of being able to run it on a range of volatile fuels including perfume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 I must say I have been rather disappointed at the scientific coverage over the past few years. You would think there were no other pollutants than carbon dioxide. The Government thought so, as they generally do not posess science qualifications. And Volkswagen seemed to think so too. So they cheated. . What happened to the black footprint printed on every packet? That "drowning" rabbit advert was pulled pretty quickly. All very silly. Anyway without any silly Government intervention, we all now have LED lighting, and flat TVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 The climate has always been changing.....why, we were under water once, the ice age...but people are not helping matters by the things they are doing to their world.... globally our only home is not being respected it is being used and abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionTerror Posted September 3, 2016 Author Share Posted September 3, 2016 I must say I have been rather disappointed at the scientific coverage over the past few years. You would think there were no other pollutants than carbon dioxide. The Government thought so, as they generally do not posess science qualifications. And Volkswagen seemed to think so too. So they cheated. . What happened to the black footprint printed on every packet? That "drowning" rabbit advert was pulled pretty quickly. All very silly. Anyway without any silly Government intervention, we all now have LED lighting, and flat TVs. California are attempting to legislate against excessive cow farts... http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/california-cow-fart-regulation-approved-by-lawmakers-1579429 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 California are attempting to legislate against excessive cow farts... http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/california-cow-fart-regulation-approved-by-lawmakers-1579429 That is very silly, but California is the silliest of the states. Methane might be more of a problem than CO2, but's always been there. In a time before God invented people, there must have been millions of tons of farting meat, whether ants or dinosaurs. I really don't see what senators can do about bovine flatulence. Let's hope they have their Canute moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionTerror Posted September 3, 2016 Author Share Posted September 3, 2016 That is very silly, but California is the silliest of the states. Methane might be more of a problem than CO2, but's always been there. In a time before God invented people, there must have been millions of tons of farting meat, whether ants or dinosaurs. I really don't see what senators can do about bovine flatulence. Let's hope they have their Canute moment. Farmers can adjust the feed, to reduce methane... https://www.sciencenews.org/article/getting-creative-cut-methane-cows http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/cattle-feed-additive-will-cut-methane-emissions-by-30/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CunningPlan Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 I blame the Pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Farmers can adjust the feed, to reduce methane... https://www.sciencenews.org/article/getting-creative-cut-methane-cows http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/cattle-feed-additive-will-cut-methane-emissions-by-30/ Cattle eat grass! I think putting some unpronouceable chemical in their dinner might have some unconsidered side effects. In fact I don't think this is wise. Just let them eat grass. They like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 There is much money to be make from fixing something....taxes, fines, penalties, new innovation... But like drugs, very difficult to make all people or groups of people conform to what they will do for greed, gain and exploitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 I must say I have been rather disappointed at the scientific coverage over the past few years. You would think there were no other pollutants than carbon dioxide. The Government thought so, as they generally do not posess science qualifications. And Volkswagen seemed to think so too. So they cheated. . What happened to the black footprint printed on every packet? That "drowning" rabbit advert was pulled pretty quickly. All very silly. Anyway without any silly Government intervention, we all now have LED lighting, and flat TVs. I never understood the push for diesel even from a climate change perspective as whatever savings arising from Co2 emissions are cancelled out by NoX emissions. NoX group gases are much more potent global warming gases than Co2. Climate change aside Diesel Particulate Matter is the 21st Century Asbestos - said that on here years ago before DPM was formally classified as a Carcinogen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Now it's microbeads: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37263087 P They are probably not a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Cattle eat grass! I think putting some unpronouceable chemical in their dinner might have some unconsidered side effects. In fact I don't think this is wise. Just let them eat grass. They like it. Its not chemicals - its good old natural Bacteria. It's a matter of switching from fermenting bacteria (CH4 producers) to Respiring Bacteria (Co2 producers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Cattle eat grass! I think putting some unpronouceable chemical in their dinner might have some unconsidered side effects. In fact I don't think this is wise. Just let them eat grass. They like it. 'Cattle eat grass' A naive view of modern industrial agriculture! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 I never understood the push for diesel even from a climate change perspective as whatever savings arising from Co2 emissions are cancelled out by NoX emissions. NoX group gases are much more potent global warming gases than Co2. Climate change aside Diesel Particulate Matter is the 21st Century Asbestos - said that on here years ago before DPM was formally classified as a Carcinogen. Possibly! I've never had a Diesel car. Friend of mine is actually an environment biologist, and doesn't want one either. He was saying this 20 years ago. I have no idea whether Nox does global warming, but it's not good to breathe. Also the soot particles might be dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Now it's microbeads: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37263087 P Good. A friend of mine, an Oceanographer advises me that these nasties are appalling for marine ecosystems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 'Cattle eat grass' A naive view of modern industrial agriculture! Sadly you are right! They eat something called cow cake. What's the harm in chemicalling up? You won't get an "organic" certificate I guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.