UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[Tommy Cookers]

you have agreed that eg warmists and warmist scientists lie (because this is justified)

you are conflating two separate issues .....
whether there is significant adverse climate change and whether this is man-made
(the IPCC claims there is substantial natural warming)

regarding emissions the supposedly beneficial reductions in smoke and SO2 have presumably had a warming effect

are you saying if manmade CO2 falls to zero the climate will cool ?
are you saying the climate can be controlled by man in this way ?

[Just_a_fan]

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

People who don't want to change their way of life try to find ways to defend it even when the evidence suggests changes are needed.

[henry]

...

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

I considered nothing other than the numbers I give. My point is that a simple dismissal on the grounds that low concentrations are insignificant is unlikely to be right.

As you say, there is a lot of complexity. It is thought that the major contributor to the cooling effect was the SO2. As @Tommy Cookers points out this is a known coolant. It helps with cloud formation. Those clouds then contain sulphuric acid, which then falls as acid rain which inhibits plant growth which in turn reduces their ability to absorb CO2. So both a short term cooling and a longer term increase in CO2.

[Big Tea]

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

I considered nothing other than the numbers I give. My point is that a simple dismissal on the grounds that low concentrations are insignificant is unlikely to be right.

As you say, there is a lot of complexity. It is thought that the major contributor to the cooling effect was the SO2. As @Tommy Cookers points out this is a known coolant. It helps with cloud formation. Those clouds then contain sulphuric acid, which then falls as acid rain which inhibits plant growth which in turn reduces their ability to absorb CO2. So both a short term cooling and a longer term increase in CO2.

I think we don't even know what we don't know.

[henry]

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

I considered nothing other than the numbers I give. My point is that a simple dismissal on the grounds that low concentrations are insignificant is unlikely to be right.

As you say, there is a lot of complexity. It is thought that the major contributor to the cooling effect was the SO2. As @Tommy Cookers points out this is a known coolant. It helps with cloud formation. Those clouds then contain sulphuric acid, which then falls as acid rain which inhibits plant growth which in turn reduces their ability to absorb CO2. So both a short term cooling and a longer term increase in CO2.

I think we don't even know what we don't know.

Some people seem more certain than you and I.

The uncertainty makes me think that the approach suggested by @Just_a_fan the only sensable option.

[Dazed1]

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

People who don't want to change their way of life try to find ways to defend it even when the evidence suggests changes are needed.

So true. Try quoting world-wide gun-death statistics to Second Amendment Worshipers(no other word for it) here in the US.

[Tommy Cookers]

[quote="Dazed1"]
"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too.
The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is ‘normal’ for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period. The differences are called an ‘anomalies’ and they help scientists evaluate how temperature is changing over time.
A ‘positive’ anomaly means the temperature is warmer than the long-term average, a ‘negative’ anomaly means it’s cooler.
Daily anomalies are averaged together over a whole month. These are, in turn, used to work out temperature anomalies from season-to-season and year-to-year."[/quote]

this script that you have reproduced above is bunk
because they have changed most of the 'land and ocean stations' during even their quoted paltry 30 year period
ie most or many potential long-term comparisons have been destroyed
now there's only about half as many stations and of these current stations are only a fraction are the originals

Piers Corbyn said that the data set has been manipulated
apparent met site specialists have said some of the stations that are the current selection have been 'cherry-picked'
and they seem to keep on changing stations

btw I have never said that there won't be significant manmade global warming

[Zynerji]

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

People who don't want to change their way of life try to find ways to defend it even when the evidence suggests changes are needed.

So true. Try quoting world-wide gun-death statistics to Second Amendment Worshipers(no other word for it) here in the US.

Please don't bring Sedition into this...

[roon]

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

People who don't want to change their way of life try to find ways to defend it even when the evidence suggests changes are needed.

The evidence is irrelevant. People resent a detached, alien authority attempting to influence them. Whether that authority is composed of scientists, politicians, clergy, royalty, or a military, is irrelevant. You are talking about yourself as much as you are your debate opponent.

[Just_a_fan]

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

People who don't want to change their way of life try to find ways to defend it even when the evidence suggests changes are needed.

The evidence is irrelevant. People resent a detached, alien authority attempting to influence them. Whether that authority is composed of scientists, politicians, clergy, royalty, or a military, is irrelevant. You are talking about yourself as much as you are your debate opponent.

No. People have happily been influenced by all of those things for millennia. What people don't like is sudden change away from their current norms.

[roon]

People who don't want to change their way of life try to find ways to defend it even when the evidence suggests changes are needed.

The evidence is irrelevant. People resent a detached, alien authority attempting to influence them. Whether that authority is composed of scientists, politicians, clergy, royalty, or a military, is irrelevant. You are talking about yourself as much as you are your debate opponent.

No. People have happily been influenced by all of those things for millennia. What people don't like is sudden change away from their current norms.

I don't mean to make a point about 'those things,' but the context. The un-endeared authority regardless of shape can't 'happily influence.' You're right about rate of change, it is important.

[Andres125sx]

you have agreed that eg warmists and warmist scientists lie (because this is justified)

you are conflating two separate issues .....
whether there is significant adverse climate change and whether this is man-made
(the IPCC claims there is substantial natural warming)

regarding emissions the supposedly beneficial reductions in smoke and SO2 have presumably had a warming effect

are you saying if manmade CO2 falls to zero the climate will cool ?
are you saying the climate can be controlled by man in this way ?

Controlled? Well, I can start a catastrophic reaction on a nuclear reactor by pressing some buttons I shouldn´t press, but I wouldn´t say that´s controlling the reactor

But if you ask me if we can consciously or unconsciusly modify the atmosphere and climate.... period!!!

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featu ... /ozone.php

[TwanV]

Really? human induced climate change denial on F1Technical?

Skipping that pre-Renaissance debate, the problem is not the ban on hydrocarbon fueled cars in 2040, it is how we should generate and cleanly store clean electrical energy.To aim for such a goal like the UK has (similarly to what we have in the Netherlands) doesn't mean anything if there is no suitable technology solution to tackle the real issue behind the facade. To think that getting rid of the cars is going to rid us of CO2 emissions, that is such a denial its close to fraud.

Forget the cars governments, spend everything on battery research and ways to enable industry and shipping to transition to electrically enabled fuels.

[loner]

you guys could keep talking about climate change and going greener and its a must to ditch hydrocarbon-fuel in a very scientific way for too long however you will be OFF topic...
those who rule the planet with all their gigantic powers and all their control over countries by their puppet proxy presidents don't really care about the health of humans of earth LOOOL.. they have no good deeds no good roots.
they are just pushing their agenda the new and final chapter of their agenda .. gain more control over humans digitalizing life , virtual money , driverless cars , cameras everywhere .. converting humans into humanoid drones
check Estonia I.D CARD .. Singularity is here with cruel intentions.

[Big Tea]

As people realise that what we now call pollution is infarct wasted resource, they change practices to recover it or not have 'unused stuff' being blown int the air anyway. It may be the opposite of what many ( some correctly and some incorrectly ) would have you believe with crys of 'ban development of everything' I see the best solution as 'developing our way out of it'.

This will take some guidance and legislation though, and until Governments take advice of scientists who know what they are talking about, it is not likely to happen. As pointed out earlier here, whether forecasters will not know about climatology, and railway bridge engineers will not know about atmospheric absorption or reflection.
We need to stop arguing over what everyone agrees on then fight over what we do not.