|
Wait until you see what could be coming from the EUSSR.
"The German newspaper Bild reported on a study commissioned by the EU Commission. The study is to form the basis for which limits are to be deduced for the new Euro 7 standard. Apparently, the authors of the study came to the conclusion that significantly stricter exhaust emission regulations than those in the currently valid Euro 6 standard were necessary to achieve climate targets*. As yet, nothing has yet been decided.
Nevertheless, the German industry association VDA is sounding the alarm – not just about the limit values themselves, but also about the way in which they are tested. The study says that limit values should not only be maintained on average throughout the test but also in the peaks. “The Commission wants to stipulate that in the future a vehicle must remain virtually emission-free in every driving situation – be it with a trailer on a mountain or in slow city traffic,” says Müller. “That is technically impossible and everyone knows that.”
*Climate - Calculations and forecasts spewed out by computers working to the accuracy of the square root of the diameter of a gnat's knacker, but input with fraudulently edited, smoothed, statistically corrected temperature data.
"We have to get rid of the medieval warm period"
Why?
Because it makes anthropogenic runaway global warming/climate change theory look what it is - a scam.
Edited by focussed on 17/12/2020 at 22:36
|
|
Well no. It isnt
But I'm a bit puzzled by the article (at least as reported above)
It seems to be confusing/conflating emissions, as in CO, NOx, and HC, which are primarily a health concern, (though NOx does have an indirect climate effect) with emissions, as in CO2, which is the main climate changing gas.
There is no way an IC engine can be free of CO2 emissions in any driving situation, unless it is fitted with gas scrubbing gear to remove the CO2, which AFAIK has never been seriously proposed.
The best that can be done is to reduce CO2 emissions through higher fuel economy.
Edited by edlithgow on 18/12/2020 at 01:18
|
|
Have a read of this:-
“99.9 percent of the Earth’s surface heat capacity is in the oceans and less than 0.1 percent is in the atmosphere. Further, CO2 is only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. It beggars belief that a trace gas (CO2), in an atmosphere that itself contains only a trace amount of the total thermal energy on the surface of the Earth, can control the climate of the Earth. This is not the tail wagging the dog, this is a flea on the tail of the dog wagging the dog.”
From - andymaypetrophysicist.com/climate-catastrophe-scie.../
(That's retired petro physicist)
My two pennyworth:-
Huge resources are being devoted to chasing the CO2/Carbon myth because it's a massive money spinner.
On the other hand, doing something about pollution of all types, chemicals, herbicides, pesticides, plastics, microplastics etc etc is not a priority as it's not a money spinner - it's at a huge cost.
Guess where the resources are being concentrated!
Edited by focussed on 18/12/2020 at 08:41
|
|
It's irrelevant that the atmosphere is only 0.1% of the earth's heat capacity. The atmosphere acts as a blanket to prevent heat escaping to space. CO2 is known to be a better blanket than nitrogen and oxygen which make up most of the atmosphere, and the proportion of CO2 has been monitored for over 100 years and has always risen during that time. The blanket is becoming more effective and global temperature is rising.
We can argue about the causes of that, but I suggest that large-scale burning of fossil fuel during that time is not a coincidence. Incidentally CH4 (methane) is a better blanket than CO2, so unburnt hydrocarbon from engines may not be unimportant - at least they don't last long before being oxidised to more CO2 ....
|
|
|
|
Hmm...petro physicist, eh?
Someone once said (in the context of nuclear apologists) that it was quite hard to get someone to see the bleedin' obvious if their salary (ok retired. pension) depended on them not seeing it.
Tempting to apply that here, but climate change isn't really bleedin' obvious, though its becoming more so.
|
Hmm...petro physicist, eh?
Someone once said (in the context of nuclear apologists) that it was quite hard to get someone to see the bleedin' obvious if their salary (ok retired. pension) depended on them not seeing it.
Tempting to apply that here, but climate change isn't really bleedin' obvious, though its becoming more so.
So you are going to take at face value the results of a scientist or scientists who is/are government funded and the government stands to make squillions in tax if the scientists comes up with the answer they are looking for?
The fraudulent altering of the data is widely publicised and the proof is available on many scientific websites.
|
|
Weather changes everyday.
The weather statistics that are looked at date back say 150-200 years. The changes we have seen in the last 40/50 years may be just a blip - even changes in the last 200 years may be a blip as the climate changes over hundreds of thousands of years and in between it varies as much with the sun's activity as anything else.
10,000 years ago, a blink of an eye in geological time , my house plot was under 1 mile+ of ice. It has certainly warmed in that time BUT industrialisation and burning coal, gas & oil has only happened in the last 150/200 years - Nature changed the other 9,800 years all on it's own.
That's my rant - I need to go - I am off to clean out the ashes & fill the boiler with coal.
|
That's my rant - I need to go - I am off to clean out the ashes & fill the boiler with coal.
Not sure what the essence of your rant is. If I read it correctly, it sounds like 'I don't think it's our fault so a little bit won't matter - and even if it is, it'll see my time out'. Much later - Oh bl***y h*ll, it probably was our fault but it's too late now ... ?
I prefer the precautionary approach. You can't dismiss possibilities just on the grounds that climate has been changing for millions of years.
|
|
Its great to think that humans can try to keep the status quo of the Earth that has been evolving for millions and millions of years. Dream on!
|
Its great to think that humans can try to keep the status quo of the Earth that has been evolving for millions and millions of years.
So there are two possibilities: [a] the impact of humans is insignificant and cannot possibly influence the way the Earth is evolving; [b] there are now 10 billion of us turning fossil fuels back into CO2, which may well cause changes.
If [a], nothing we can do will make a difference; if [b], perhaps we should think a bit more carefully about the future, if we want that to be reasonably comfortable.
The fossil fuels we burn took many millions of years to accumulate, from the results of photosynthesis and fossilisation. We have simply been recovering solar energy stored underground. Geological processes are unimaginably slow on a human scale, yet atmospheric CO2 has increased dramatically in just 200 years. I don't accept that is part of 'normal' global evolution.
Global warming deniers simply don't see why they should accept any blame for what is happening. Simple as that. (Trump wouldn't, either ...)
|
|
Whatever us humans do, it's a safe bet that the earth will eventually return to an ice-free state, in which the scientists tell us it has been during over 80% of its existence. It is currently abnormally cold, which is why I usually wear clothes. Apparently the Arctic has been icy for only a mere 2 million years.
|
Whatever us humans do, it's a safe bet that the earth will eventually return to an ice-free state, in which the scientists tell us it has been during over 80% of its existence. It is currently abnormally cold, which is why I usually wear clothes. Apparently the Arctic has been icy for only a mere 2 million years.
Well the earth has a molten core which has been slowly cooling over the past 4.5 billion years .. and th sun is likely to die in teh next few billion years , so the earth will become an ice ball.(unless the sun goes supernova in which case there is unlikely to be an earth left.
|
|
<< Well the earth has a molten core which has been slowly cooling over the past 4.5 billion years .. and th sun is likely to die in teh next few billion years , so the earth will become an ice ball.(unless the sun goes supernova in which case there is unlikely to be an earth left. >>
Well yes - but we are concentrating on this century, not the next million years, which will be of academic interest only.
|
Its great to think that humans can try to keep the status quo of the Earth that has been evolving for millions and millions of years. Dream on!
No one is trying to keep it the same - just wanting to stop the surge caused by human influence.
Also no scientist will tell you that the climate does not change and evolve naturally - they know it does.
|
|
Also no scientist will tell you that the climate does not change and evolve naturally - they know it does.
So why do they keep insinuating its our fault the climate has changed so dramatically, when it does so much more damage on its own.
as a car company boss has said, electric cars are not the answer to the problem only the cause of more problems, as pollution will get worse generating the electricity and will cause power cuts due to the speed EVs will be introduced
|
Also no scientist will tell you that the climate does not change and evolve naturally - they know it does.
So why do they keep insinuating its our fault the climate has changed so dramatically, when it does so much more damage on its own.
as a car company boss has said, electric cars are not the answer to the problem only the cause of more problems, as pollution will get worse generating the electricity and will cause power cuts due to the speed EVs will be introduced
They keep telling us that climate change is our fault as it is our fault - stop pretending that is isn't or that it is some natural thing as it is not.
Generating electric without causing extra pollution is very easy - see wind/solar/hydro/geothermal/nuclear and more - no need to have power cuts.
|
|
stop pretending that is isn't or that it is some natural thing as it is not.
Who`s pretending, I didn`t say its not our fault, just questioning the reasons behind why they say its our fault and how we know, there are so many reasons for global warming, and plenty of arrogance in one cause, us.
|
|
To put some perspective into the dubious junk climate science we are subjected to currently, as a point of reference, pre-industrial CO2 levels were around 280 parts per million (ppm) and today, we stand at 410ppm.
The most distant period in time for which we have estimated CO2 levels is around 500 million years ago. At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm.
The average temperature wasn’t much more than 10 degrees C above today’s, and those of you who have heard of the runaway hothouse Earth scenario may wonder why it didn’t happen then.
|
The most distant period in time for which we have estimated CO2 levels is around 500 million years ago. At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm.
The average temperature wasn’t much more than 10 degrees C above today’s, and those of you who have heard of the runaway hothouse Earth scenario may wonder why it didn’t happen then.
It's funny you seem to give more credence to guesstimates of conditions millions of years ago which no-one was around to measure, than to much more recent conditions, which you imply may be just Fake News. Humbug.
|
To put some perspective into the dubious junk climate science we are subjected to currently, as a point of reference, pre-industrial CO2 levels were around 280 parts per million (ppm) and today, we stand at 410ppm.
The most distant period in time for which we have estimated CO2 levels is around 500 million years ago. At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm.
The average temperature wasn’t much more than 10 degrees C above today’s, and those of you who have heard of the runaway hothouse Earth scenario may wonder why it didn’t happen then.
It helps if you provide a reference for the assertion in bold above
Never mind I will:
"Concentrations of CO
2 in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 parts per million (ppm, on a molar basis) during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.[2] Reconstructed temperature records for the last 420 million years indicate that atmospheric CO
2 concentrations peaked at ~2000 ppm during the Devonian (∼400 Myrs ago) period, and again in the Triassic (220–200 Myrs ago) period. Global annual mean CO
2 concentration has increased by more than 45% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years up to the mid-18th century[2] to 415 ppm as of May 2019.[3][4] The present concentration is the highest for 14 million years.[5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_...#
|
stop pretending that is isn't or that it is some natural thing as it is not.
Who`s pretending, I didn`t say its not our fault, just questioning the reasons behind why they say its our fault and how we know, there are so many reasons for global warming, and plenty of arrogance in one cause, us.
No one is saying that humans are the only cause for climate change though...easy enough to find facts for the parts that humnas have changed though.
|
So why do they keep insinuating its our fault the climate has changed so dramatically, when it does so much more damage on its own.
You've lost me there - what do the last few words refer to ?
|
So why do they keep insinuating its our fault the climate has changed so dramatically, when it does so much more damage on its own.
You've lost me there - what do the last few words refer to ?
I suppose he means the dying out and replacement of species during large temperature fluctuations, destruction and creation of land over millions of years.
That was my take on it anyway, though I'm sure you would like him to explain it for himself!
|
So why do they keep insinuating its our fault the climate has changed so dramatically, when it does so much more damage on its own.
You've lost me there - what do the last few words refer to ?
when it does so much more damage on its own. Sorry should have been the Earth does so much more damage on its own
Comment I made about electricity supply which Alan disputed was a comment made by the Toyota boss who said (I know he didn`t refer to UK) and his comments are on You tube and in a US paper.
said the volume of EVs in such a short time is going to cause power cuts in Japanese cities most power generation there is by coal and with the added power consumption required is going to make pollution worse not better
Similar comments about charging EVs have been made in UK and mentioned the transition to EVs should be slower to account for the massive change around and use Hybrids for a while longer till we get better charging systems in place
whether all this makes any difference to pollution is anyone's guess but at least we will have cleaner cars
|
So why do they keep insinuating its our fault the climate has changed so dramatically, when it does so much more damage on its own.
You've lost me there - what do the last few words refer to ?
when it does so much more damage on its own. Sorry should have been the Earth does so much more damage on its own
Comment I made about electricity supply which Alan disputed was a comment made by the Toyota boss who said (I know he didn`t refer to UK) and his comments are on You tube and in a US paper.
said the volume of EVs in such a short time is going to cause power cuts in Japanese cities most power generation there is by coal and with the added power consumption required is going to make pollution worse not better
Similar comments about charging EVs have been made in UK and mentioned the transition to EVs should be slower to account for the massive change around and use Hybrids for a while longer till we get better charging systems in place
whether all this makes any difference to pollution is anyone's guess but at least we will have cleaner cars
And in the UK the situation is very different. 30% to 50 % of our energy is from renewables - depends on seasonality. And we have lots of gasfired plants which can fire up quickly
And do not forget m 50% of all UK electricity generated at night is unusable at present. Smart Meters and off peak charging will reduce demand at peak times...
|
|
How wonderful - 50% of UK's power is supplied by renewables - on one day at one particular time perhaps?
The true average figure is down in the 30% to 35% region.
And you mentioned seasonality, when you should have termed it "intermittency" the fact that renewable power from wind and solar only turns up when the wind blows and the sun shines and not necessarily when it is required to meet demand, which is also unpredictable.
There is no practical way yet of storing this unwanted energy in the quantities required.
Google for "Denmark has a problem with wind power" for an example.
The only renewable that can meet on-demand power is hydro, but only if the source of water is assured.
Tidal is predictable but uncooperative (look up tide tables)
The only cost effective, cheap to run, low carbon source of electrical power is nuclear power.
A single uranium fuel pellet (about the size of a fingertip) contains as much energy as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1 short ton of coal, or 149 gallons of oil, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.
.
|
|
How wonderful - 50% of UK's power is supplied by renewables - on one day at one particular time perhaps?
The true average figure is down in the 30% to 35% region.
Yes I keep reading what some posters actually say about renewables but cannot say I believe it, due to some Electric companies saying they need more wind farms and solar arrays and nuclear
think we need a lot more power in this country and certainly do not believe we have enough power to charge so many electric vehicles at once
and so no one thinks I mean all motors on charge at once, no, thats not what I mean, but there is bound to be thousands on charge at once wherever we are in the country.
when EVs take off we will need a lot of power and calculations are often very far out of reality but we`ll see, its not going to be long before we find out..
|
Large multinational companies usually place their server farms in areas that have the cheapest electricity and this means coal powered.
So unless there is a change of direction on their behalf there is little hope of major change.
We now find ourself with relying on peak electricity from the continent to back up our green energy when the conditions ain't favourable but they are now considering withdrawing this option so we will be back to diesel generation to top up !
What a situation we find ourselves in .
Friends in Fort William loath the wind generators as it tends to distract from tourism which is the only industry they have !
|
And you mentioned seasonality, when you should have termed it "intermittency" the fact that renewable power from wind and solar only turns up when the wind blows and the sun shines and not necessarily when it is required to meet demand, which is also unpredictable.
Don't be fooled into believing that turbines need real 'wind' to generate power. Those near us are working most of the time, and seem to need little more than a gentle breeze. At other times they are idle when there is more than that, so must be surplus to requirements. Also global warming seems to be making for a windier climate, perhaps windier than we really need ?
|
How wonderful - 50% of UK's power is supplied by renewables - on one day at one particular time perhaps?
The true average figure is down in the 30% to 35% region.
I said "30% to 50 % of our energy is from renewables "
If you have to misrepresent what I said to make your point, I feel sorry for you.
|
How wonderful - 50% of UK's power is supplied by renewables - on one day at one particular time perhaps?
The true average figure is down in the 30% to 35% region.
I said "30% to 50 % of our energy is from renewables "
If you have to misrepresent what I said to make your point, I feel sorry for you.
I don't know what it is with some people - it should be seen a good thing that renewables are taking a much larger chunk of the electrciity market all the time but people just like to moan and whinge all the time despite some great improvements in what is happening.
|
How wonderful - 50% of UK's power is supplied by renewables - on one day at one particular time perhaps?
The true average figure is down in the 30% to 35% region.
I said "30% to 50 % of our energy is from renewables "
If you have to misrepresent what I said to make your point, I feel sorry for you.
I don't know what it is with some people - it should be seen a good thing that renewables are taking a much larger chunk of the electrciity market all the time but people just like to moan and whinge all the time despite some great improvements in what is happening.
In terms of moaning and whinging remember the the phrase "pot calling kettle black"
Edited by galileo on 22/12/2020 at 13:38
|
How wonderful - 50% of UK's power is supplied by renewables - on one day at one particular time perhaps?
The true average figure is down in the 30% to 35% region.
I said "30% to 50 % of our energy is from renewables "
If you have to misrepresent what I said to make your point, I feel sorry for you.
I don't know what it is with some people - it should be seen a good thing that renewables are taking a much larger chunk of the electrciity market all the time but people just like to moan and whinge all the time despite some great improvements in what is happening.
In terms of moaning and whinging remember the the phrase "pot calling kettle black"
If you care to point some out to me I'll be happy review it for you.
|
|
I don't know what it is with some people - it should be seen a good thing that renewables are taking a much larger chunk of the electrciity market all the time but people just like to moan and whinge all the time despite some great improvements in what is happening.
Since when is pointing out potential problems with Electicity generation whinging, not sure everyone would like to see solar panels everywhere and wind turbines in everyones gardens just to keep an EV going, could easily happen if we cannot generate enough in time
|
Since when is pointing out potential problems with Electicity generation whinging, not sure everyone would like to see solar panels everywhere and wind turbines in everyones gardens just to keep an EV going, could easily happen if we cannot generate enough in time
I'd love to see more solar panels and win turbines - we want to be able to generate more electric from renewables and we can do so. Yay!
|
How wonderful - 50% of UK's power is supplied by renewables - on one day at one particular time perhaps?
The true average figure is down in the 30% to 35% region.
I said "30% to 50 % of our energy is from renewables "
If you have to misrepresent what I said to make your point, I feel sorry for you.
I don't know what it is with some people - it should be seen a good thing that renewables are taking a much larger chunk of the electrciity market all the time but people just like to moan and whinge all the time despite some great improvements in what is happening.
In terms of moaning and whinging remember the the phrase "pot calling kettle black"
If you care to point some out to me I'll be happy review it for you.
I have yet to read a completely positive, upbeat and happy comment from you on any topic, I look forward to reading one and will then gladly withdraw my remark above.
|
How wonderful - 50% of UK's power is supplied by renewables - on one day at one particular time perhaps?
The true average figure is down in the 30% to 35% region.
I said "30% to 50 % of our energy is from renewables "
If you have to misrepresent what I said to make your point, I feel sorry for you.
I don't know what it is with some people - it should be seen a good thing that renewables are taking a much larger chunk of the electrciity market all the time but people just like to moan and whinge all the time despite some great improvements in what is happening.
In terms of moaning and whinging remember the the phrase "pot calling kettle black"
If you care to point some out to me I'll be happy review it for you.
I have yet to read a completely positive, upbeat and happy comment from you on any topic, I look forward to reading one and will then gladly withdraw my remark above.
I am delighted that there is so much renewable energy being used now - it is awesome :-)
|
How wonderful - 50% of UK's power is supplied by renewables - on one day at one particular time perhaps?
The true average figure is down in the 30% to 35% region.
I said "30% to 50 % of our energy is from renewables "
If you have to misrepresent what I said to make your point, I feel sorry for you.
I don't know what it is with some people - it should be seen a good thing that renewables are taking a much larger chunk of the electrciity market all the time but people just like to moan and whinge all the time despite some great improvements in what is happening.
In terms of moaning and whinging remember the the phrase "pot calling kettle black"
If you care to point some out to me I'll be happy review it for you.
I have yet to read a completely positive, upbeat and happy comment from you on any topic, I look forward to reading one and will then gladly withdraw my remark above.
I am delighted that there is so much renewable energy being used now - it is awesome :-)
Alan, I'm delighted that you are in such a good mood, especially in this festive season.
It is nice to have cheerful news. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
|
season.
It is nice to have cheerful news. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
And to you - enjoy Christmas and the New Year - let's hope it's a good one.
|
Tidal is predictable but uncooperative (look up tide tables)
Can you explain this?
|
Tidal is predictable but uncooperative (look up tide tables)
Can you explain this?
I think it means that the peaks and troughs in tidal flow (two per day) continually move round the clock, as well as depending on where you are on the coast. Also there are spring and neap tides with different range. But at least it is all pretty predictable.
Edited by Andrew-T on 22/12/2020 at 18:08
|
Tidal is predictable but uncooperative (look up tide tables)
Can you explain this?
Tides are predicted astronomically. The times and heights of high tides and low tides are regulated by the phases of the moon, which do not necessarily cooperate with the requirements of electricity generation.
|
|
|
|
|
