Safe Speed Forums

Pollution is the release of harmful environmental contaminants. In this case, it is the quantity that is harmful. The chemical reaction that creates CO2, of course, is known as "fire"!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Could you slow down as well as calm down ?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Sorry; I'm bouncing up and down and waving my arm at teacher trying to attract her attention.

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

Shows about a ~16% increase from 1960 to present day. How much of that is man made?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Practically none. As the planet warms up so more CO2 is released into the atmosphere. The atmosphere is not warming the planet but the oceans are and they are releasing more CO2.

If I remember correctly the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour, you wanna try stopping that?

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

Don't laugh. Hydrogen-powered cars only emit water vapour. When Hydrogen cars come out, Governments will be looking for an excuse to hit their owners with lots of tax, and that may be the "line" they take.

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

Its all utter b0ll0cks!

It aligns too closely with the anti capitalist/anti globalisation/ban the bomb (remember them) movements.

Look at them all now........we must cut down on carbon emissions.....ok then lets go nuclear.......oh um well um! Idiots.

Its all emperor's new clothes stuff.

If there was sound science behind this (like them or not) do you honestly think it would still be a matter of 'public debate'? Of course not, if the governments really believed it then believe me something would be done.

Hm... if the 1960 figure was (mad scrolling back to wikipedia page) 0.0315, and it is increased (as you say) by 1.16, then it would be (hmm... more furious scribbling and jotting of notes) 0.0365, which is a little short of the actual figure, 0.038. So, the answer is > 1.2, or > 20%. But I said the 50’s, not the sixties.

So let's stop splitting hairs - can we agree that ~22% - 24% is right?

_________________
I stole this .sig

[MAXSARCASM] something would be done [/MAXSARCASM]

That’s probably the most destructive thought ever aired on this site. How could we believe that anything as ineffective as government could do anything decisive in the face of this, without being forced to? Unless they shake a leg, “government” will still be wringing it’s hands when London is 20 foot under!

_________________
I stole this .sig

HOW MUCH OF THAT IS MAN MADE?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I believe that any change in the total atmospheric water vapour in recent centuries is, unlike CO2, not a major threat to the climate.

If so, there will be no excuse to hit hydrogen car owners with lots of tax. Hydrogen cars can be capable of better performance that petrol ones, so the Jeremy Clownson brigade should be glad.

_________________
I stole this .sig

IT IS RUDE TO SHOUT. We'll come to that. First, can we agree that 25% is about right?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by approximately 110 µL/L or about 40%, most of it released since 1945. Unless you want to to strain credulity, it is fair to say that it is man made.

Now, knowing you as I do, I expect you'll go ahead, and strain credulity. Let it rip!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Oh, they can act when they choose to all right. Remember thier reaction to the fuel protest a few years back. Or the Miners' strike a few years before that.

But usually they will only choose to act when it is their power that is threatened.

Sorry must apologise these gases don't act like a greenhouse so I shouldn't be calling any of them greenhouse gases.

But water vapour is much more of a threat than CO2 but it is self regulating. As the planet warms up so it warms up the air which evaporates more moisture from the oceans (and CO2) which condense into clouds and cool the surface underneath which reduces the evaporation.

You are arguing about 20 to 25% of 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere. When the planet starts to cool down, as it is about to, then the CO2 will reduce.

We should all stop worrying about it and spend the money Kyoto is wasting on feeding the hungry millions.

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

I think the scale of the problem was missed there. The things you mention are very, very insignificant things in comparison.

Yet you have a point. Even such tiny, tiny events were difficult for the government to manage. Imagine how they would cope with something worse that 1000 tsunamis followed by 100 nuclear blasts. Yes, you have a point about how puny a single government really is.

_________________
I stole this .sig

No - we are arguing about 20 to 25% of 100% of the Earth's CO2 atmosphere. The other parts of the atmosphre, while important in other ways, are not important in the CO2 discussion. This discussion is about a fundamental shift in the carbon count that hasn't been seen in 1000's of years. If the scientist are even slightly right, we are talking disaster on a biblical scale.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Now a little while ago i posed the question " in the uk how many of the now pro nuclear lobby , were parading with placards against anything commected with nuclear energy"

In that time it was nuclear energy - today it is AGW - tomorrow as CE says , the emporer will( or may) have a new suit

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I accept that it's increased around 16% - by your own reference (why do you feel the need to exaggerate? And why do you feel it's necessary to use the words 'carbon dioxide' and 'pollution' in the same sentence? )
What's caused this increase? Nobody really knows. What was the rate of increase before the '50s? Again, nobody knows. How long is it coing to continue to increase? Nobody knows. Is it cyclical, ie will it start coming down again? Again, nobody knows. How much of the increase is down to man's activities? Nobody knows, but it's probably small.

The big point is, however, what's its relevance?
If you look at the physics involved, it's all but irrelevant. It's only relevant if you choose to believe the GCMs - which are little better than very sophisticated random number generators, and which have not been shown to accurately predict today's temperatures from known historical data. They do not produce repeatable results, they don't agree with each other, and they have not been validated. So much for 'science'.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

What evidence is there that the gulf stream is going to shut down, or even slow down, get smaller, whatever?
And what's going to cause such a cataclysmic event? Some whacky theory? I don't think so. Just about the only thing which would cause the gulf stream to stop is if the earth stopped rotating.
If you choose to believe every scare story that comes along, then why do you ignore those which tell us that there are more and more 'tropical' fish sightings in UK waters?

Better still, why not make an effort to learn about the physics associated with CO2 and infrared absorption? And, for good measure, study the laws of thermodynamics.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler