Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Co2 emissions in the UK (and Europe) have reduced per new car sold by nearly a third since 2000.

By 2020 the Co2 will be driven down to nearly half of what it was only 20 years prior, nevermind the ****ing '60's for Gods sake.

http://www.smmt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/101924_SMMT-CO2-Report-FINAL-270415.pdf

 

Sorry mate I switched off when you started talking to TT about me like a sewing circle nag.

It was interesting informative debate until you started getting back to your old self.

 

You mean until I corrected you and pointed out that your facts were skewed?

Ok mate x

 

By 2020 the Co2 will be driven down to nearly half of what it was only 20 years prior

No it ****ing wont

let me bust AGW for you right now which makes that document null and void.

Now pay attention.
The IPCC state that nature's CO2 budget is in balance, as in Nature emits the same amount as it absorbed.
This means that all CO2 increases are man made.

Still with me, this means the IPCC say the rising CO2 is totally down to human emissions.

Now, from about 2002 onwards human emissions rose by 300%.
But., the rate of CO2 increase did not change at all.

These are empirical facts, actual measurements, emissions tripled and the CO2 rate of increase did not blink.

That means that emissions do not control the amount of atmospheric CO2 because x3 emissions will mean x3 rise in rate of CO2 increases.

We cannot control CO2 levels. We can cut our emissions and I even agree with that and have agreed with you on that matter, what I don't agree on, because of facts, is that humans are causing the CO2 increase because as I said x3 emissions should mean x3 rise in rate of CO2 increase meaning x5 or x6 rise in temp over 100 years.

Things is there has been no warming for 18 years either .

Did you mean car emissions and not CO2?

 

If I knocked at your door and said "give me money and let me tell you what to do, and I can control the weather" I would know what to expect as an answer to that.

Yet this is essentially what the IPCC are saying

 

I'm no expert but used plenty of Jack hammers etc and they need constant supply so I do struggle to see how if could power a car for a couple of hundred miles.

 

Waste of a rant, as you realised with your last sentence.

I posted an SMMT document so of course I was referring to cars as that's what we were ****ing talking about

By 2020 the Co2 emissions of new cars sold will be nearly half of what they were in 2000.

Which proves my original point, that the green legislation has driven the manufacturers to produce efficiencies that they wouldn't have managed in that timespan (if at all) if simply left to their own devices. Your US example further proves the point as their controls are far less draconian (California apart) and the results are far less impressive, barring the knock on from European cars hitting their market.

 

http://www.smmt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/101924_SMMT-CO2-Report-FINAL-270415.pdf

Had a Gander @Tobes at this, I agree. Emissions have been coming down, the point was we are still adding more to the atmosphere even if we reduce what we ad we still increase the amount in the air dont we, that's what I meant about increasing emissions. I didn't mean cars emit more.

Cars pollute less for sure, but ore and more cars going on the roads surely mitigate that, if one in ten people owned a car in india Africa and China, all emission reductions would be wiped out would they not due to the extra vehicles

Yes it's better anyways but not a solution if you believe CO2 is evil, which I dont

 

You put a 6ltr engine in a mini and watch the fuel consumption drop

 

pretty much, but you'd not just put a 6lt in, it takes too much juice. the mini would fly

 

Only if it had wings and the right aerodynamic properties

Dont just look at weight as an excuse for high fuel consumption....once you get that going it takes very little energy to keep it maintained at the speed

 

Oh sweet jesus, first of all I know **** all about cars.

Secondly, to even try say weight has nothing to do with fuel consumption is ****ing hilarious.

There is a reason Rockets only carry x amount of weight you know, the weight of the fuel is even a factor

Every kilo of weight requires x amount of energy to move it.

 

@donga darko

Bush snr was doing the bidding of his daddy and his mega rich powerful chums
How Prescott Bush recruited Richard Nixon, just if you are bothered like, there are other sources too.
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/54/54_36-37.pdf

"According to Nixon’s biography, his personal and political ties with the Bush family
go back to 1946, when Nixon claims he read an ad placed in an L.A. news paper by the Orange County Republican Party and a group of wealthy businessmen led by Prescott Bush, the father of George H.W. Bush"

 

Do you know the difference between rocket travel and car travel. Gravity is a killer in in space travel, you see how much further you could travel without having to fight gravity

 

@Bodanki

Do you even know anything about man made climate change subject or are you just dealing in beliefs here?

have you read the IPCC reports? I have read most of AR5 and all of AR4 and MANY individual papers.

Do ou understand how global average temp is obtained, do you know how many different data sets are available for global averate temps? and do you know how many show the warming that is claimed and the % of certainty in those claims? Do you know how much "adjusting they do to data sets in the US? Do you know how much of the temperature anomalies make up the alleged 1.4 degrees warming (.6 is adjistment to historical record making it cooler and highly uncertain estimates from recent years)

Take last year;s claim of the hottest ever, it was estimated, 5 data sets, 3 did not show the warming and 2 did, the amount of warming was 100ths of a degree, but the margin of errror is a few 10ths of a degree.

This means that the claim by NASA was in fact blatant nonsense as the supposed rise was an order of magnitude smaller than the acceptable margin of error.
It was a political statement.

When NASA's Gavid Schmidt was pressed on the matter he admitted that the claim was ONLY 38% certain, meaning 62% uncetain. Yeah that's fraud mate

Extreme weather? in 2007 the IPCC said we are 50% certain AGW is linked to extreme weather and climate, and in 2015 in AR5 that certainty is now 21%.

Never mind the fact that AGW theory has an inherent flaw that a child can see, just that the media do not scrutinise the IPCC.
If nature is in perfect balance it means any rise in CO2 is human causes according to the IPCC.

Then how come emissions trippled in the 2000s and the rate of increase of CO2 remained steadt.
That is not possible, because Co2 is resident in the atmosphere for years. So x3 increase in emissions will mean x3 increase in rate of Co2 increase, it should go up three times faster because the IPCC have already said nature aborbs what it emits, so nature didn't eat it according to AGW theory. The IPCC are currntly tripping over their lies.

Same with ocean acidification, the mathematics dictate water gets less acidic the warmer it gets as warm water holds less gas. Saying the oceans are warming and also sucking in Co2? (when they already claimed it was in perfect natural balance and here claim it is not at the same time .. to suit the Co2 increase story) is laughable and not something phsysics amnd water chemistry supports

They are literally tripping over web of lies now. It's so ****ing funny

 

When talikng about shifting weight and calculating fuel there is not much differnece, gravity is an issue for both and in the case of cars friction as cars are friction driven movement. You are caking about gravity now for some reason, cos your spiel was cack probably.

could you be a bit more obvious please

The point is weight, it takes very little fuel to put a small rocket into space and it takes a lot of feul to put a big rocket into space.
and a small car needs less fuel to move it compared to a big car, even the weight of the actual engine matters.

You tried to dispute that fact in your funny not so clever way

 

No, you talked about fuel consumption between a large and small car. I threw that out as a big engined mini would have a very low fuel consumption

For some reason you mentioned a rocket?

If you want to look at aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance....average speed, acceleration etc then lets look at that.

As you pointed out, you know **** all about cars......and physics

 

Thank god the footy is back this weekend

 

I hate having these kinds of debates on forums, I get writers cramp from typing.
Suffice to say the CO2 levels have not remained steady at all, and are the highest they have been in 15 million years.

I am not going to repeat everything that the top scientists in the world have said, so just read this..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Or this
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2007/05/22/201433/the-growth-rate-of-carbon-emissions-has-tripled/

Seriously, stop listening to idiots like John Coleman.

 

Who the **** is John Coleman
Read my post I read the IPCC reports and some of the papers, science lad, what the **** are you talking about

You miss the point lad, the issue is not the level of CO2, you just made a non argument.

The issues are
The forcing effect of CO2
What dictates CO2 levels.


Empirical data. CO2 increase rate vc temp increase rate vs Co2 increase rate.
Now given the IPCC say natural Co2 is perfectly in balance that means that extra CO2 will create a rise in Co2 rate increase, that is based on science mate.

please log in to view this image

As we can see hereat year 2000 the rate of increase of emissions has tripled yet the rate of atmospheric Co2 increase remains steady.

The mathematics that calculate the atmospheric CO2 vs emissions rise used by the climate scientists requires the increase in the rate of CO2 because IPCC models all predict a rise in the rate of Co2 increase if emissions go up,. This has been central to their doom saying.

Yet reality shows that emissions are not actually controlling temp or CO2 atmospheric content ppmv\yr(2)


So this is an argument, saying Co2 are the highest in million of years is not an argument.

Also look at 2910, CO2 goes up but temp goes down it happens again in the 40s

Also this shows a .6 where as the IPCC by making the past cooler have claimed we have seen a 1,4 increase which is nonsense.
Also, Emissions still are going up as is CO2 and temp has leveled off for 18 years.. hmmm?
Also do you actually beleive the mediaeval warming period never happened?