Safe Speed Forums

that my cars C02 emissions cause Global Warming?

anyone have proof?

_________________
Welcome to the UK, the Land of "Selective Freedoms"

The powers that be have decided they don't have to prove it anymore. It's this attitude that has finally convinced me that there is no man-made global warming otherwise why stifle the debate.

http://www.ippr.org/members/download.asp?f=/ecomm/files/warm_words.pdf

Quote:
"Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is
our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the
argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that
individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’ described
earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact.
The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of
the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra
2006) – gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.
Where science is invoked, it now needs to be as ‘lay science’ – offering lay explanations for what is being
treated as a simple established scientific fact, just as the earth’s rotation or the water cycle are considered."

The only "warming effect" that I can see is from the hot air spouted by Politicians.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

Not one iota and nor does anyone else in the true scientific community who puts their integrity above 'research funding' cheques.

To quote a geologist mate of mine in Texas:-

"Taking every car off the road would be about as effective in stopping climate change as trying to stop a tornado from totalling your house by farting at it..."

Pithy, Texan language and utterly unassailable imagery from the same bloke who once noted to me "Did you notice that global warming took off when the Cold War ended..?".

I think he may have a point.

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

I've been saying that for months and months!!!

By burning fossil fuels, we are releasing into the air the carbon which had been stored underground since billions of years / Noah's flooding / when God made the world.

The carbon dioxide, amongst other gasses, reflects back heat radiation from the Earth which entered as light from the sun. This is a good thing, essential to life.

Unfortunately, like all things, too much is bad. Burning fossil fuels is adding to the Carbon Dioxide so more heat is being reflected back.

The question is therefore, what does your car burn?

It was proposed in one study I read that, if we were unable to move produce from place to place (by road, rail, sea, air, whatever - it all uses fossil fuels), more land would have to be deforested for farming and the CO2 balance would take even more damage as a result of this (since trees convert CO2 back to oxygen). The UK, for instance, is only the green and pleasant place that it is because we import so much produce from already-farmed land abroad. Third world countries, which lack an effective transport infrastructure, are the worst culprits for deforestation.

The CO2 balance of the atmosphere, and it's possible effects on the World's climate, is actually a very interesting subject, unfortunately oversimplified and distorted by politicians to meet their own ends.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

More likely oversimplified because the politicians are too simple-minded to understand it properly.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

The amount of CO2 production from transport is a tiny fraction of the total production of 'greenhouse gases'. A common response to this inconvenient truth is that even a tiny change can have a large impact on a chaotic system. Historical observations show that CO2 changes follow global temperature changes rather than lead them, indicating that CO2 changes are a consequence of global temperature change not a cause. CO2/carbon emissions are a total red herring.

Global climate change is natural and inevitable, there is no reliable evidence that mankind's activities are making any difference to it, no gounds to think that anything we do locally or on a national scale will affect the global climate, the suggestion that we in the UK should drastically reduce fossil fuel consumption to 'stop global warming' is absurd.

There are people who clearly want us to believe that global warming is something we have caused and need to fix, for their own reasons. Some because they think that the modern industrialised world is fundamentally wrong and we should go back to hugging trees, some because they want us to be worried about it so we don't object to being taxed until we squeak and stop asking awkward questions about what the government is doing to our country, and some who make a nice living researching the problem and will be out on their ear if they say there's no problem after all.

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)

OK, the lid must come off as I'm sick of this sheep-like acceptance of the drivel spouted by people in positions of authority who have no grasp of that which they are communicating. Read this carefully and do your best to see through the utter lies we are being taxed for...

SafeSpeed Molecular Thermodynamics Course 101:-

Substances react to excitation by electromagnetic radiation according to the complexity of their chemical bond structures, proportional also to the wavelength of the exciting radiation.
Very short wavelength radiation (smaller than the diameter of the molecule) will be diffracted, but otherwise unchanged, as it passes through the layer; wavelengths larger than this diameter will cause the molecule to oscillate at some harmonic, a product of the cosine of the bond angle (from the adjacent/hypontenuse ratio of the impinging radiation) and re-radiate a reflected energy into the direction it is impinged upon.
Ultra-violet radiation from the Sun passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the Earth's surface, which behaves as a fairly efficient black-body, re-radiating this absorbed energy in the infra-red band back out to space at a rate of 39% (the Earth's albedo is 0.39). Thus for each square metre, receiving about 1 kilo Joule of UV, 390 J is returned as IR into the atmosphere.
The bond-angle of carbon dioxide is 90 degrees and, being double covalent bonds, they have only a small oscillation angle of about 4 degrees, causing them to have a very poor 'reflective' quality to IR radiation (about 1.5%). Hydrogen bonds are singles and can produce many harmonics due to their flexibility, in excess of 45 degrees (only limited by electrostatic repulsion from the primary bonding nucleus).
These harmonics can be detected as absorption lines in the solar spectrum as observed at ground-level. CO2 produces about 5,000 lines in the infra-red, methane (CH4) produces about 130,000 lines with its 90 degree hyrogen bond angles and water, with 135 degree bond angles between the central oxygen and the two outer hydrogens produces over a million infra-red harmonics.
Thus it is that our governments have succeeded in taxing us for breathing out, rather than admitting that they have no control whatsoever over the 'Environment' as 99% of the gases causing 'climate change' are products of processes over which Man has no control...

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

MGBGT, Those two lines would have done for me

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Did you mean to say UV? I thought that portion is (mostly) ‘absorbed’ by the ozone, leaving ~1kW visible and IR at the surface (perpendicular to incident).

Out of interest, what happens to the energy ‘absorbed’ by the ozone layer?

Well it's either reflected away or the ozone layer is damn hot

_________________

Surely the sun causes global warming?

The earth must absorb more energy from it than we radiate into space, and given that energy can be neither created or destroyed, that increased energy is on the earth.

Making the assumption that the total energy being stored and converted by living things on the planet is increasing (by increased populations, increased farming etc) then that would seem to be a fair statement

_________________

I’m not sure that’s the whole story. Below is how I see all this, I don’t lay claim to fully understanding this so shoot me down if I’m wrong
(I know you all will anyway )

The planet surface receives energy (over time) directly from the sun (mostly straight through the atmosphere).
The energy radiating back out from the ground (black-body surface) is at a different wavelength so does not pass through the atmosphere so easily, hence presenting a ‘resistance’ path to this portion of outward energy flow. A gradient (potential difference) is required in order to get a net energy flow through a resistance. A greater potential difference is needed to pass an energy flow through a larger resistance. Therefore the surface will have to be hotter in order to radiate back out the net energy received (otherwise the surface would heat up anyway); the greater the resistance path (or the addition of resistance paths) the hotter the surface will be.

Am I wrong?

Bloody physics people O=C=O bond angle is 180 degrees it being a linear molecule.

Methane is a tetrahedron. Gives you a bond angle of 109.5 degrees

h-O-H is a sort of tetrahedron, because of the lone pairs around the oxygen, so the bond angle is about 105 dgrees.
People forget they are 3D

http://www.chem.ufl.edu/~myers/chm2045/shapes.htm

However the rest I agree with .
Double bonds require more energy to jiggle aroundthan single bonds do.
I remember from my degree, the easy way to mess up your IR specturm of your sample was to have water in it. The peaks are big and distinctive. But I can't remember the wavelengths.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

If I remember correcty it starts a free radical reaction. Breaking O3 into O2 and O, which would them react to form O3 again.

But CFC broke up in the upper atmosphere and the free radicals from ClCH3 took the oygen from the above free radical reaction therefore reducing the amount of onzone reformed.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Smeggy- From what I remember this is correct.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

See what I mean? the blind leading the sighted! The replies to my clumsy explanation show that we are not stupid.
The problem is that only a 'certain sort' go into politics (largely self-congratulatory opportunistic twats) who convince themselves that electoral victory equates to some moral and intellectual superiority over the 'unwashed masses'.

Ree.t, you are absolutely right about methane, my mistake, but the tetrahedral hydrogens can act as shock absorbers for each other, reducing the molecule's radiation profile. Water, in gaseous state, is better thought of as hydroxyl hydride due to its ion product. The number of combinations of hydrogen and oxygen isotopes, along with the partial ionisation states, give it a virtual continuous set of emission lines from microwave up to its dissolution energy in the mid UV.
Carbon dioxide has bond angles of 90 degrees from the centre of molecular symmetry, and thus the normal for greatest impinging excitation - bloody alchemist!

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...