Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Strider886
Joined: 3/28/2006
Msg: 11
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environmentPage 4 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
I say here, what I say to those annoying greenpeace (students) people in Stafford town centre...

"Its ok you gave me one of those leaflets and made me sign that petition last week".

But seriously...

One single Boeing 747 passenger plane produces more harmful emissions in ONE take off and landing that ANY private passenger vehicle produces in an entire lifetime! fact...
(average car's life 8-10 years, but designed to last 4)

I own two cars, one is a 2000cc family saloon which does around 30 mpg, the other is a 1680cc high performance race prepared MK2 Ford Escort which does no more than 9 mpg.

I've got the performance, i pay enough for it in insurance, so im gonna use it all.

If fuel prices continue to go up, i'll simply move elsewhere in europe where the government isnt using car/emmisions/environment as an excuse to charge 300% tax on petrol.

All that said, i do have issues with 4x4's... they have no performance, drink gallons of fuel, tear up the roads at the same rate as the tyre's, park in 2 spaces and block the roads outside schools during rush hour.

Sorry if this all comes across a bit "strong", im just being realistic.
 felis48
Joined: 5/21/2005
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 5/1/2006 8:19:14 AM
I have gottten one to many duiis and now i have to walk so that isnt hurting the invirnment and i get my excersise lol.I am not saying that i am proud of what i have done i am just having a sence of humer about it.Life goes on.
 felis48
Joined: 5/21/2005
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 8/17/2009 9:07:47 AM
I try to walk as much as I can because I feel any vehicle no matter what kind of fuel runs it. is bad.
 electric-gypsy
Joined: 10/23/2007
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 8/17/2009 9:10:37 AM
I don't own a car so that's my contribution! I've got two legs, a bike and a travelcard lol
 felis48
Joined: 5/21/2005
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 8/17/2009 9:16:22 AM
Ride a horse save a cowboy
 Warrencraig
Joined: 8/30/2008
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 8/18/2009 6:29:22 PM
car emissions are the least of our worries when you consider the rubbish pumped into the atmosphere all over the globe. The effect us citizens in the UK can make is miniscule in the big scheme of things.

Even if the whole of europe and the US gave up cars, its still p*ssing into the wind when compared to the emissions from industry, planes and the fact most second world and third world countrys belch out what they want and wont listen to us.

What next for the eco people, tax fat people as they produce more CO2 ??
 Warrencraig
Joined: 8/30/2008
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 8/20/2009 5:27:25 PM
7rainbows, your ideas are all very well if we can get most of the world to do it.

And there lies the flaw.

wether we like it or not, we have to let most of these countrys work it out for themselves as us "high and mighty" westerners telling them to stop polluting usually gets the political equivilent of a "f*ck off" as in thier leaders eyes, we caused massive pollution so who are we to lecture them.

And then theres america.........
 Strider886
Joined: 3/28/2006
Msg: 47
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 6/7/2010 4:42:51 AM

I've taken steps to save on petrol on my motorbike. Has anyone else done anything to cut down on dangerous emissions to help the environment.

How else can we help ????????


Yeah if we blocked up all the volcano's and destroyed all the algae is the sea we'd cut annual greenhouse gas emissions by 98%!!!

Maybe we could drain all the algae, bunch it altogether and chuck into the volcano's! 2 birds one stone!
 Strider886
Joined: 3/28/2006
Msg: 48
view profile
History
Car emissions & the environment
Posted: 6/7/2010 5:01:38 AM

Besides if anything broke the planet it was all the nuclear
testing in the sixties and two world wars


The biggest nuclear related effect on the environment was when the Chernobyl plants reactor number 4 went into meltdown in 1986.... And look what that did, the plant still ran up until 2002 and now it's a tourist attraction with guided tours!
 TheGoob
Joined: 5/21/2010
Msg: 56
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 6/8/2010 1:56:44 PM
Here's my problem with all this "Reduce your carbon emissions" malarkey.

So what if you don't use your car, use less electricity, gas and what not. There's a natural effect on earth that causes a lot of "carbon dioxide".

Volcanic Eruptions...

No matter how much we can reduce, a natural event like a volcanic eruption can throw up 50 years worth of CO2 within an hour! What are we going to do!? Plus the volcanoes with the world's largest wine cork!? lol

Anyway, Carbon Dioxide is a natural gas, trees and plankton feed off it, if people want to "Reduce their carbon footprint", grow a freaking tree!

Rant over...
 n0odles
Joined: 10/21/2009
Msg: 57
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 6/8/2010 2:39:53 PM
Not to be the harbinger of doom or anything but there'll be an extra 2-3 billion people on this earth over the next 40 years, car manufacturers will develop their alternative technologies but its all a drop in the ocean really. Fewer natural resources, climate change, rising sea levels, disease, famine, economic instability and war will take their inevitable toll.

Have a nice day all
 TheGoob
Joined: 5/21/2010
Msg: 58
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 6/8/2010 3:25:24 PM

Not to be the harbinger of doom or anything but there'll be an extra 2-3 billion people on this earth over the next 40 years, car manufacturers will develop their alternative technologies but its all a drop in the ocean really. Fewer natural resources, climate change, rising sea levels, disease, famine, economic instability and war will take their inevitable toll.

Have a nice day all

Most correct, Cars don't kill planets, people do...
 Strider886
Joined: 3/28/2006
Msg: 67
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 6/18/2010 4:46:13 AM

Has anyone ever driven behind a bus?
And they want us to leave our cars at home and travel on those


Ah well.. you see they probably dr0ve a bus very carefully on empty roads and determined that they're much "greener" than cars.

In truth, far too many bus drivers thrash the tits off those buses and in traffic with all the stop/start, they're probably extremely crap on the old fuel consumption figures too.
 Strider886
Joined: 3/28/2006
Msg: 75
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 6/20/2010 6:22:06 AM


Yeah I have!!!
spewing out all that black shit over my beautiful mashina!!!

I am the kinda driver who deliberatly doesnt give way to bus drivers who want to pull out of a bus stop!


It's not the smoke that makes me not let them out, it's the fact you just can't see past them, they swerve around cyclists at the last minute without indicating and if your not careful you'll end up with that cyclist splatted over your car......
Same applies to many of the big 4x4's and vans too, they want out of a junction? well im afraid they can "go forth and multiply"!
 badge73
Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 81
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 10/21/2011 12:13:04 PM
unleaded petrol has now changed, it now contains 10 percent ethanol which weakens the fuel content down, i believe in line with e.u guidelines and in the name of the sandal wearing hippies.

people might thing great .... until the realise you now do less miles per gallon!! so costing you more and the government gets more revenue as well as the oil companies.

plus not many know that the ethanol can rot the fuel system especially if the vehicle is left standing over a couple of months and actually goes off!! i only found out about it as it actually rotted my fuel tank liner in my bike, and quite scary when you find out going down the motorway at a decent speed only to lose power.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 82
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 10/21/2011 1:03:35 PM
I'll be totally honest NO

I woldnt rule out considering it in the future but that would be purely to do with cost, and nothing else as I really dont buy into the man made global warming nonsense in the slightest

I do think the planet is very gradually warming, but that considering we are still in he process of emerging from the last mini iceage (mini freeze) as well as the sun reaching the zenith of its output over the next few years I would be quite surprised if there wasnt some warming

And as the planet has been a LOT hotter than its likely to be in the next 200 years at previous points in history then I cant exactly see how its supposed to be such a doom and gloom apocalyptic thing either as we will have long exhausted fossil fuels before we have gotten anywhere near the temperatures that have occured in previous natural warm spells in the planets history before man was even an issue

So I see it as nothing more than a cash cow than more than enough gullible people are dumb enough to believe, and that has more than enough scientists wanting to make a name for themselves and a small fortune in funding from it to provide endless theories on how we are all going to die

But I'm also old enough to remember the 80s when the same figures was being used to justify increasing fuel tax due to CO3 causing an instant ice age too

So using politically motivated psuedo science to tax people till it hurts is far from a new concept
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 83
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 10/21/2011 1:08:21 PM
As for fuel economy, theres several patents for old style carbeurettors that heat the fuel into a gas before injecting it that got far higher fuel economy than any high pressure fuel injection system, as theyre still spraying particles of liquid much of which doesnt even ignite and is just passed out in the exhaust gas

Ford showcased a version of the vapour injected type carb at a national car show retro fitted to one of their standard models at the time and got something like 210 miles on a gallon of fuel

So I really cant get overly excited about 50 and 60 miles per gallon really
 try1more
Joined: 12/16/2007
Msg: 84
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 10/22/2011 1:11:35 AM
as far as the government is concerned it's all revenue.
diesel used to be cheaper than petrol until it became popular then it went up, so if lpg became too popular it too would go up.
if you can switch to something that saves you lots of money esp if it's high tax, then whatever you switch to will soon be high tax to make up the shortfall.
meantime the conversions create money movement plus jobs, all of which means tax is collected and unemployment is not being paid out.
can anyone tell me what the amount of co2 being produced by cars is?
and how does that compare with the co2 that used to be produced by burning fossil fuels which used to power/heat just about everything in the past?
homes, trains, power stations, factories etc.
there are many coal seams on fire worldwide some have been burning for hundreds of years is it impossible to put the fires out?
why have they never been mentioned when talking about the co2 causing global warming?
do farmers need a permit to burn fields? or maybe that doesn't cause co2 :-)
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 88
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 10/22/2011 4:53:09 AM
Sousmarine, I thnk you need to check your facts mate

All of mans entire CO2 emissions even at current levels is only about 3% of the atmospheres CO2 and thats based on Pro AGW scientists estimates which can hardly be assumed to be free of "tweaking" in their favour

And ALL the CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 400 parts per million, so thats 0.000.04% of the entire atmosphere

Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas by far and doesnt come out of cars, but is mostly produced by nature yet theres no money spent on killing termites or replacing decidious trees with evergreens as none of those pay taxes

And the worst, most impactive greenhouse gas of all, the one that is the highest in terms of impact and quantity is,,,,,,,, water vapour, clouds which as well as having the ability to keep heat inside the atmosphere can also bounce it out into space and act as a cooling or warmng GHG

Thing is though, we are still actually having pretty cool temperatures atm, ones that are as much as 15-20 degrees lower than other periods in the planets history as its been emerging from cold periods. So the basic natural cycles of the planet itself before man even existed indicate this isnt "hot" by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it "man made"

Climate science is more a case of climate religion, and has a very loose relationship to any real form of science

Infact nasas satelite imagery and the USCHN figures dont even show "rapid" increases in climate and the former is the source the IPCC actually uses, but after adding "modifications" to data already modified by GISS they do manage to make it show warming trends. How surprising that after people who earn their living from peddling this nonsense "ammend" the figures they miraculously seem to show what they want them do, what a coincidence THAT is

As for the "thousands of scientists" look at the lists of names that are actually ON the IPCC association list, many arent "scientists" at all, the numbers are made up of everyone who reads the papers (literally) including office staff, journalists, government officials etc etc. But a lot of the actual "scientists" who initially contributed have requested their names were removed due to the edited version of the IPCC reports not reflecting the actual data collected nor valid conclusions made on that data

So its not "10.000" scientists at all, just 10.000 people most of whom rely on the global warming myth for their paycheck every month, and the amount of "actual" scientists who think its a load of scaremongering nonsense appears to be at least a similar number if not more

So if "how many scientists" believe in something is any indication of truth then its at best a stalemate, main difference being that the climate deniers DONT make their living out of doing that, the Pro AGW crowd however do
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 91
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 10/22/2011 5:20:07 PM
Actually its "assumed" it happens over centuries, by "some" people

Animals have been found frozen whilst in the process of eating tropical plants which suggests that the planet has undergone sudden freezes and other discoveries have suggested rapid increases in temperature causing huge increases in sealevel rather than tiny incremental changes too

And youre not actually serious about the last paragraph are you?

What youre actually saying there is that climatologists have altered the raw data in a NEW way, and have come up with a more believable set of ammended figures because the earlier sets of manipulated figures that predicted noticeable increases by 2010 didnt match with the actual figures recorded when 2010 actually rolled around

Ammended hypothesis, guesswork and modelling of a system thats barely understood is hardly "science"

Dont get me wrong, I DO believe the planet is warming. We arent fully out of the last cold period, so it would HAVE to be. And the sun is currently approaching its maximum output which will be reached over the next 10 years or so, which would also mean the planet HAS to be warming up seeing as its the main source of our heat to begin with

Warming which is already known to cause huge amounts of CO2 to be releasd from the sea, so even increasing CO2 levels arent exactly surprising either. But what it also causes is more water vapour which is the most significant greenhouse gas of all, and which can equally cause cooling as well as warming depending on density, colour and volume

Infact too much cloud cover and you risk a similar effect to a nuclear winter as high percentages of light are bounced back into space without entering the lower atmosphere and warming the ground

And as CO2 is actually heavier than air anyway it tends to be in far higher quantities at ground level than in the higher atmosphere which is where greenhouse gases do the most harm.

So nah, I dont have a problem with the idea that the planet is still incrementally warming. Just with the claim that its being caused by man, and specifically by CO2. As the (alleged) 25% increase in CO2 as its not something we could acurately measure till relatively recently, and also didnt actually have any reason to monitor hasnt been matched with an equally sudden rise in temperatures in the slightest except for in densely populated rural areas which is already known to be from the urban heat island effect anyway, not climate changes. Which is why surrounding towns often have no increase, marginal increases or in some cases dips in average temperature even though they share the same "climate"

As for not adapting, firstly nobody, and I mean NOBODY can explain why the dinosaurs died out, however we have had CO2 levels much higher (several 100% higher) than we have now. Yet theres still countless animals that have remained unchanged throughout and plants too. And as CO2 levels spike massively in any warm spell chances are mankind has also lived through times with huge amounts of CO2 without all dying out

Thing there though, is it would actually be an absolute doddle to conduct experiments with CO2 at 0.001% of the mixture of air and find out how "lethal" it would be, it shouldnt be theorised conjecture at all should it?

Infact if it was that lethal anyone living in cities like tokyo, newyork and london would all be dead already as their air has a very dense concentration of CO2 due to the amount of traffic, infact many US cities have a near permanent fog, and miraculously arent dropping like flies

Never thought that was a bit strange by any chance? Seeing as its been claimed many times that we "wouldnt" be able to adapt to even a tiny change in concentration, yet millions of people in the most crowded cities on earth breath in concentrations that we would need several thousand years of curent pollution levels to achieve globally without all dropping dead?

How unbelievable......literally
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 94
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 10/23/2011 3:53:22 PM

Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director
Robert Rohde, Lead Scientist

Both physicists

David Brillinger, Statistical Scientist
Judith Curry, Climatologist
Don Groom, Physicist
Robert Jacobsen, Professor of Physics
Saul Perlmutter, Professor of Physics
Arthur Rosenfeld, Professor of Physics, Former California Energy Commissioner
Charlotte Wickham, Statistical Scientist
Jonathan Wurtele, Professor of Physics

No mike they were physicists they had one climatologist with them to help them understand technical matters





Richard Muller

Specialises in earth sciences, particulates, extinction patterns and ice ages
as well as dabbling in solar physics too

Robert Rohde (in his own words)

I am the founder of this site. I am also a PhD student at UC Berkeley in the
Physics Department. My undergraduate training was in physics and mathematics,
so naturally I would go to graduate school in physics; however, I soon discovered that
I found greater personal enjoyment in the Earth sciences and climate change. Hence, despite
my affiliation, most of my actual research efforts and interests have directed towards
applying physical understanding to those fields of study

Don Groom

Another particle physicist and earth sciences physicist



Infact a better question is why WOULDNT they be physicists?


The effects of particulates in the atmosphere overlaps in several areas with aspects of
particle physics to begin with

Climate sciences is an area featuring many scientists listed as "physicists"


And infact if you look at the list of scientists who are the "concensus" claimed by the IPCC you will
see that huge numbers of them are also physicists

This link actually quotes some of the 1000 or so origional IPCC "concensus" of scientists who have since
asked to be removed from the list of supporting voices and/or have spoken out about what a sham the IPCC
actually is

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

You will notice many many "physicists" in the list of quotes


Physicists also feature heavily in the modelling aspects of climatology, as well as data and statistical
analysis


Infact what exactly is "Earth sciences"?

Heres the definition

"Earth science is the scientific study of our planet, the Earth. It encompasses all sciences which focus on the Earth, and uses
physics, geology, geography, meteorology, mathematics, chemistry and biology"

Did you notice the word "physics" in there?

Earth sciences encorporates pretty much the entire scope of climatology, and both earth sciences and climatology employs a huge amount of various disciplines of physics

Infact lets not stop there, ever heard of "Enviromental physics"? Another multiple disciplined specialisation that involves "physicists" working on enviromental and climate research (climatology)


Although it should also be noted that one of the areas of criticism for the IPCC is that they have a tendency to not include many solar physicists in their research


Their first paper and collective claims only actually featured input from one solar physicist infact, who was already known to be a pro AGW supporter

But as the IPCC quite clearly and frequently claims that the sun itself plays no significant role in the warming or cooling of the planet thats hardly surprising I guess


So still kind of struggling to see why the appearance of "physicists" is such a big deal or surprise? Enviromental modelling is something that relies very heavily on physicists to create the interactions between various aspects in the models and define how they theorise things would be likely to interact

Its "physics" basically

Even the atmosphere and climate are actually governed by the laws of physics you realise?

Sorry if that was a bit of a shock, but kind of obvious really
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 95
view profile
History
Petrol emissions & the environment
Posted: 10/23/2011 4:09:23 PM
Also, lets look at peoples pedigree here too

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/10/12_nobel.shtml

Berkeley is hardly "anti AGW, but is also one of the contributors to the funding of this research

And as I think I said elsewhere, the Koch Brothers are expanding their ethanol production arm, so theyre hardly what could be claimed as purely "anti AGW" either, as they make money either way, and probably more money the longer disputes continue

As for the IPCC "concensus"

The IPCC stated itself that only 20% of the names listed had any experience or expertise in the fields of climate science or earth sciences. Practically ANYONE including office staff, and reporters actually features on the list of scientists. All you had to do was to agree to read the document and your name was added as "supporting" it

Heres just one of the countless quotes from the 1000 or more people listed as supporting it who have railed against it

"“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.” -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory"

And another

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith...My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia's CSIRO's (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research."


Those and the other 900+ ACTUAL scientists have disagreed in practically every aspect of what the IPCC claims, the way they manipulate their data, the enviromental drivers they routinely choose to ignore in their modelling

And theyre far from unknowledgable quacks with no expertise in the field either

Infact descent could equal or perhaps even outweigh concensus. But thats hardly going to be advertised via the media really even if it were the case
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  >