UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

Breaking news, useful data or technical highlights or vehicles that are not meant to race. You can post commercial vehicle news or developments here.
Please post topics on racing variants in "other racing categories".
Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

Post

Zynerji wrote:
30 Jun 2018, 18:31
Just_a_fan wrote:
30 Jun 2018, 15:08
Go look up tidal acceleration of planets etc. The tidal effect between the Sun and Earth results in a reduction of the Earth's spinning angular momentum and a transfer of that energy to the planet's orbital angular momentum. An increase in orbital angular momentum means the planet "speeds up" and so occupies an increasingly distant orbit. The effect is ridiculously slow, of course, hence why we are moving away from the Sun at about 3m in half a million years.

Suffice to say, the Earth is not "falling down the Sun's gravity well".
Sounds like magic. Just like the rest of climate change.

BTW: what happens when the earth runs out of "spinning angular momentum" from this tidal process? That right, it falls down the drain. Unless a second magic spell is cast to suspend conservation of energy laws...
It's nothing to do with climate change. No "falling down the drain". It's orbital mechanics. Keplar, Newton et al derived the laws involved. It all predates the current post-fact age, of which you appear to be an apostle, by some significant time.

If you can't be bothered to educate yourself then that's your loss. Please don't, however, go around spouting rubbish instead.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

Post

henry wrote:
30 Jun 2018, 21:27


And you really do need to read some stuff on Solar tide effect which actually adds angular momentum to the earth , albeit relatively small. This rather gainsays your plumbing analogy.
You're wasting your time. He's an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

User avatar
Zynerji
110
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 16:14

Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

Post

I still haven't seen any math, just punditry. I've proven several times on this forum that you can change my mind. I'm wondering why I'm now being called defective and suffering from a syndrome...

Other than more magic, can you explain why the equator is now deserts instead of the rainforests that were there before? Seems like the closest place on earth to the sun is verifiably hotter.

User avatar
Big Tea
99
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 20:57

Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

Post

Not coming down one side or the other, but just read this.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... y-decaying

It seems about the most sensible of those (quite a few ) I have looked at (I am still not claiming its right)
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

User avatar
Zynerji
110
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 16:14

Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

Post

Big Tea wrote:
01 Jul 2018, 00:20
Not coming down one side or the other, but just read this.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... y-decaying

It seems about the most sensible of those (quite a few ) I have looked at (I am still not claiming its right)
It's something. I appreciate it, at least it points out the scale of some effects.

Thank you.

My main skepticism comes from the fact that tens of billions have been spent to "prove" man made global warming, so trillions can be extracted in carbon taxes.

Any time I see money of that magnitude in scientific studies, I require an awful lot more hard, mathematical proof. Not Google searches...

I've posted this question on Neil Degrasse Tysons feed as I know he's pro-warming. I'm hoping he takes the time to mathematically debunk what I consider the most obvious cause of warming, and that is leaving the Goldilocks Zone. Earth is measured to be at the edge of it, so Occam has me skeptical.

User avatar
strad
117
Joined: 02 Jan 2010, 01:57

Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

Post

Haven't you noticed that when the warmists predictions failed they conveniently became climate change and that they now blame any weather event on climate change instead.
More snow? Climate change. Hotter temps? climate change. Then they said it was local global warming causing changes in the weather. One of their hot shots even claimed all the snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was gonna melt from global warming, then when it didn't decided it was local climate change.
They can't predict the weather next week but they want you to believe they can predict weather 20 years out. :lol:
It's all about money. Their predictions have all failed but that doesn't stop them from making more. In papers from climategate they admit they have to make up claims that will scare people, and they have.
None of it is based on good science and that has been shown repeatedly.
Many of the top people studying this have now decided there is warming but it's caused by excess water vapor in the atmosphere. I'm far more willing to believe that than that CO2 is evil.
CoO2 even now is considered a trace gas in the makeup of the atmosphere.04%
Nitrogen — 78 percent
• Oxygen — 21 percent
• Argon — 0.93 percent
• Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent
• Trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton and hydrogen, as well as water vapor
.04% is not heating the earth... there is just not enough.
There is a strong case for the change in surface plants changing the water vapor over a given area affecting the weather in that area. Think of the many more acres of farmland today in some areas as opposed to in years past.
That and different types of plants. Irrigated corn or wheat vs prairie grass.
The earths surface temps are far more complex than a tad more CO2 can affect it.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

Post

Zynerji wrote:
01 Jul 2018, 00:07
I still haven't seen any math, just punditry. I've proven several times on this forum that you can change my mind. I'm wondering why I'm now being called defective and suffering from a syndrome...

Other than more magic, can you explain why the equator is now deserts instead of the rainforests that were there before? Seems like the closest place on earth to the sun is verifiably hotter.
I think you'll find that the equator is mostly not deserts at all. It's mostly lush and green. But that is probably classed as just punditry too, isn't it?

The great desert region of north Africa - the Sahara - is thought to have formed as a result of plate tectonics several million years ago, as the Africa continent moved up in to the European continent.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

Post

strad wrote:
01 Jul 2018, 02:10

CoO2 even now is considered a trace gas in the makeup of the atmosphere.04%
Nitrogen — 78 percent
• Oxygen — 21 percent
• Argon — 0.93 percent
• Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent
• Trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton and hydrogen, as well as water vapor
.04% is not heating the earth... there is just not enough.
CO2 has the annoying habit of not being transparent to the "short wave" radiation coming in and the "long wave" radiation going out. The bulk gases are. That's just one of those little coincidences of nature - and a coincidence that allows life as we know it now to exist, ironically. It's why it is called "a greenhouse gas" because it behaves similarly to a greenhouse (although glass is "one way" allowing in but not letting out.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

User avatar
henry
324
Joined: 23 Feb 2004, 20:49
Location: England

Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

Post

strad wrote:
01 Jul 2018, 02:10
...

CoO2 even now is considered a trace gas in the makeup of the atmosphere.04%
Nitrogen — 78 percent
• Oxygen — 21 percent
• Argon — 0.93 percent
• Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent
• Trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton and hydrogen, as well as water vapor
.04% is not heating the earth... there is just not enough.
There is a strong case for the change in surface plants changing the water vapor over a given area affecting the weather in that area. Think of the many more acres of farmland today in some areas as opposed to in years past.
That and different types of plants. Irrigated corn or wheat vs prairie grass.
The earths surface temps are far more complex than a tad more CO2 can affect it.
In round numbers the earth’s atmosphere weighs 5E18 kg. In 1991 an eruption of Mt Pinatubo put 10E12 kg of magma and 20E9 kg of SO2 into the atmosphere.

This is a 0.00020004% change and 0.005% of the comparable amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

According to your assertion this would have been a long way from being sufficient to have an effect on the earth’s temperature.

Strangely the global temperature went down 0.5°C for a couple of years.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
642
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 16:55

Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

Post

yes much of the equatorial region has 'rain forest' type climate
most of our NOx is natural (made by lightning) and from this belt
the Sahara was like this about 30000 years ago - remember most middle latitudes were covered in ice

our atmosphere is of course not composed of dry air
water vapour is about 30000 ppm of the atmosphere and so does about 95% of the normal greenhousing
CO2 has roughly the same greenhousing potential as water vapour ie historical 400 ppm gives 4% of normal greenhousing

conventionally warming increases water vapour so increased cloud cover reduces incoming energy and cancels warming
but warmism says that increasing CO2 from roughly historical 400 ppm to upcoming 500 pm etc is catastrophic
to do this it says increased water vapour and so cloud doesn't cancel warming

tbf warming of course increases atmospheric methane - and methane has a very high greenhousing potential

regarding SO2 - we emit less now due to increased FGD - flue gas desulphurisation
SO2 has a very powerful cloud-forming effect - so reducing SO2 has presumably contributed to warming
millions of public money has been spent studying use of SO2 as a climate-cooling agent
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on 01 Jul 2018, 11:54, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Big Tea
99
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 20:57

Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

Post

henry wrote:
01 Jul 2018, 11:12
strad wrote:
01 Jul 2018, 02:10
...

CoO2 even now is considered a trace gas in the makeup of the atmosphere.04%
Nitrogen — 78 percent
• Oxygen — 21 percent
• Argon — 0.93 percent
• Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent
• Trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton and hydrogen, as well as water vapor
.04% is not heating the earth... there is just not enough.
There is a strong case for the change in surface plants changing the water vapor over a given area affecting the weather in that area. Think of the many more acres of farmland today in some areas as opposed to in years past.
That and different types of plants. Irrigated corn or wheat vs prairie grass.
The earths surface temps are far more complex than a tad more CO2 can affect it.
In round numbers the earth’s atmosphere weighs 5E18 kg. In 1991 an eruption of Mt Pinatubo put 10E12 kg of magma and 20E9 kg of SO2 into the atmosphere.

This is a 0.00020004% change and 0.005% of the comparable amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

According to your assertion this would have been a long way from being sufficient to have an effect on the earth’s temperature.

Strangely the global temperature went down 0.5°C for a couple of years.
Is the shading effect of the ash in the upper atmosphere considered there?
If there is a lot of particles and water vapour in the upper atmosphere the sunlight is reflected or absorbed and re-radiated directly without having effect on surface temp.

Not disagreeing with you, just asking if it was considered as so much so often is not.
There is also the effect on sea vegetation killed off, ocean current deflected etc, we do not even know which questions to ask and which to ignore
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: 13 Aug 2013, 10:15
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

Post

Zynerji wrote:
30 Jun 2018, 14:10
Andres125sx wrote:
30 Jun 2018, 12:17
Zynerji wrote:
30 Jun 2018, 05:38


EV's are recharged by what? More fossil fuels.

Not to mention the catastrophic effects of lithium mining. Great for the environment... :roll:
You know burning fossil fuels is just one and the oldest way to produce electricity, but there are some others like solar, wind or hydropower plants, don´t you?
I do. I also understand that those aren't helping much. New nuclear, even LFTR would be better.
That depends on where are you looking at, it may be a very significant percentage

https://renewablesnow.com/news/renewabl ... 17-596136/

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: 13 Aug 2013, 10:15
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

Post

Zynerji wrote:
30 Jun 2018, 18:31
Just_a_fan wrote:
30 Jun 2018, 15:08
Go look up tidal acceleration of planets etc. The tidal effect between the Sun and Earth results in a reduction of the Earth's spinning angular momentum and a transfer of that energy to the planet's orbital angular momentum. An increase in orbital angular momentum means the planet "speeds up" and so occupies an increasingly distant orbit. The effect is ridiculously slow, of course, hence why we are moving away from the Sun at about 3m in half a million years.

Suffice to say, the Earth is not "falling down the Sun's gravity well".
Sounds like magic. Just like the rest of climate change.

BTW: what happens when the earth runs out of "spinning angular momentum" from this tidal process? That right, it falls down the drain. Unless a second magic spell is cast to suspend conservation of energy laws...
Magic is the word most used when someone does not understand science. It´s been like this for the whole humankind existence

Anycase your reply does imply orbits are a perfect balance, when they´re not, actually most orbits distance are increasing or decreasing, for example Earth-Moon distance isn´t constant either

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

Post

Planets orbit the Sun in elliptical orbits. Kepler worked this out around 1609.

Interestingly, the Earth is closer to the Sun during the northern hemisphere's (the bit the USA is in, for those that struggle with facts) winter - something which many people assume would be the other way round. The difference between the Earth's closest (perihelion) and furthest (aphelion)orbital points is about 3,110,000 miles - or about 390 Earth diameters.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: 13 Aug 2013, 10:15
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

Post

Zynerji wrote:
01 Jul 2018, 00:27
Big Tea wrote:
01 Jul 2018, 00:20
Not coming down one side or the other, but just read this.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... y-decaying

It seems about the most sensible of those (quite a few ) I have looked at (I am still not claiming its right)
It's something. I appreciate it, at least it points out the scale of some effects.

Thank you.

My main skepticism comes from the fact that tens of billions have been spent to "prove" man made global warming, so trillions can be extracted in carbon taxes.

Any time I see money of that magnitude in scientific studies, I require an awful lot more hard, mathematical proof. Not Google searches...

I've posted this question on Neil Degrasse Tysons feed as I know he's pro-warming. I'm hoping he takes the time to mathematically debunk what I consider the most obvious cause of warming, and that is leaving the Goldilocks Zone. Earth is measured to be at the edge of it, so Occam has me skeptical.
The most obvious?

Earth surface temperature is dictated by solar radiation and how much of this is absorbed by atmosphere, wich is mainly dependant on the angle that radiation get throught the atmosphere. Here in Europe for example summer is the hottest season because radiation goes throught atmosphere almost perpendicular, even when july is the month when the sun and earth are at their farest distance

https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/math10.html

The shortest distance is in January, wich is winter in Europe as radiation goes through atmosphere at a much lower angle, wich means sun radiation is going through the atmosphere for much longer, being reduced much further, despite that´s the point where sun is at it´s closest point to earth.


Given atmosphere is dictating Earth temperature, you don´t need to be a genius to realice any change in atmosphere will have a dramatic effect on planet temperature. People usually simplify things to CO2, but it´s not that easy. For example O3 have a dramatic effect too.


Add to that we don´t fully understand everything about planet balance, atmosphere, atmosphere circulation, etc. and sincerely, IMHO we humans keep doing same mistake since middle ages, assuming if we can´t explain it perfectly it must be irrelevant or false and should be ignored #-o


We know atmosphere is basic on planet balance. We know our emissions (not only Co2 but all of them) are affecting atmosphere. And we know there´s an unusually quick climate change in last decades.

Are we humans really ignorant/arrogant enough to ignore these facts and continue same trend? The reply is obvious to me, yes we are ](*,)