Discussion:
UK to ban fossil fuel vehicles sales from 2035
Add Reply
Dechucka
2020-02-05 18:53:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Probably not totally practical in Aus with current technology and our
distances but a great idea. WOW look what can happen when there is
consensus on science in a Parliament while we have Jim "I'm not relying
on evidence' for climate change:" Molan in power

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123
A ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be
brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if the UK
wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon by 2050.
news18
2020-02-06 02:53:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Probably not totally practical in Aus with current technology and our
distances but a great idea. WOW look what can happen when there is
consensus on science in a Parliament while we have Jim "I'm not relying
on evidence' for climate change:" Molan in power
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123 A ban on selling
new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be brought forward
from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if the UK
wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon by 2050.
I am afraid Brexit Boris might just stop that as soon as the UK finally
parts ways with the EU end of this year. As he intends convert his
country to unconditional Trumpism both economically and politically (and
assuming with high certainty that Trump will win the next election) eco-
friendly politics might take a severe hit just like it did in the US.
On the other hand as we see how fast battery and electric-vehicles
technology evolves and how vehicle manufacturers actually plan to
abandon the internal combustion engine purely on economic reasons I do
see an end of the gas-guzzlers rapidly approaching even in OZ.
Yep, scotty from marketing wants to turn our precious water into hydrogen
FMurtz
2020-02-07 00:16:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Probably not totally practical in Aus with current technology and our
distances but a great idea. WOW look what can happen when there is
consensus on science in a Parliament while we have Jim "I'm not relying
on evidence' for climate change:" Molan in power
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123 A ban on selling
new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be brought forward
from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if the UK
wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon by 2050.
I am afraid Brexit Boris might just stop that as soon as the UK finally
parts ways with the EU end of this year. As he intends convert his
country to unconditional Trumpism both economically and politically (and
assuming with high certainty that Trump will win the next election) eco-
friendly politics might take a severe hit just like it did in the US.
On the other hand as we see how fast battery and electric-vehicles
technology evolves and how vehicle manufacturers actually plan to
abandon the internal combustion engine purely on economic reasons I do
see an end of the gas-guzzlers rapidly approaching even in OZ.
Yep, scotty from marketing wants to turn our precious water into hydrogen
Which does not remove water
Dechucka
2020-02-07 00:59:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Post by Dechucka
Probably not totally practical in Aus with current technology and our
distances but a great idea. WOW look what can happen when there is
consensus on science in a Parliament while we have Jim "I'm not relying
on evidence' for climate change:" Molan in power
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123 A ban on selling
new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be brought forward
from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if the UK
wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon by 2050.
I am afraid Brexit Boris might just stop that as soon as the UK finally
parts ways with the EU end of this year. As he intends convert his
country to unconditional Trumpism both economically and politically (and
assuming with high certainty that Trump will win the next election) eco-
friendly politics might take a severe hit just like it did in the US.
On the other hand as we see how fast battery and electric-vehicles
technology evolves and how vehicle manufacturers actually plan to
abandon the internal combustion engine purely on economic reasons I do
see an end of the gas-guzzlers rapidly approaching even in OZ.
Yep, scotty from marketing wants to turn our precious water into hydrogen
Which does not remove water
Does from the source but not from the water cycle
news18
2020-02-07 13:35:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Yep, scotty from marketing wants to turn our precious water into hydrogen
Which does not remove water
Where TF do you think they get the hydrogen from?
Ördög
2020-02-07 21:55:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
FMurtz
Post by FMurtz
Which does not remove water
Where TF do you think they get the hydrogen from?
Could the source be FMurtz's and the LNP's urine and flatulence?
--
Ördög
Welcome to real Hell on Earth! :)
That is when Lieberals and Countrymorons running the show.
They rain down on you *at your expense* hate, greed, bullying, nepotism
and plutocracy!
FMurtz
2020-02-08 03:20:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by news18
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Yep, scotty from marketing wants to turn our precious water into hydrogen
Which does not remove water
Where TF do you think they get the hydrogen from?
It does not remove water, study your science If water was removed from
the total we would end up with none.
Dechucka
2020-02-08 03:26:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Yep, scotty from marketing wants to turn our precious water into hydrogen
Which does not remove water
Where TF do you think they get the hydrogen from?
It does not remove water, study your science If water was removed from
the total we would end up with none.
Unless you are planning to use desalinated ocean water you will be using
the water that we currently use domestically, for farming, for industry
and the environment. Desalination takes heaps of energy and increases
local ocean salinity.
FMurtz
2020-02-08 12:52:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Yep, scotty from marketing wants to turn our precious water into hydrogen
Which does not remove water
Where TF do you think they get the hydrogen from?
It does not remove water, study your science If water was removed from
the total we would end up with none.
Unless you are planning to use desalinated ocean water you will be using
the water that we currently use domestically, for farming, for industry
and the environment. Desalination takes heaps of energy and increases
local ocean salinity.
Not planning anything, just making statement of fact.
Dechucka
2020-02-08 20:41:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FMurtz
Post by Dechucka
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Yep, scotty from marketing wants to turn our precious water into hydrogen
Which does not remove water
Where TF do you think they get the hydrogen from?
It does not remove water, study your science If water was removed
from the total we would end up with none.
Unless you are planning to use desalinated ocean water you will be
using the water that we currently use domestically, for farming, for
industry and the environment. Desalination takes heaps of energy and
increases local ocean salinity.
Not planning anything, just making statement of fact.
Of course it locally removes water.
FMurtz
2020-02-10 03:47:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by FMurtz
Post by Dechucka
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Yep, scotty from marketing wants to turn our precious water into hydrogen
Which does not remove water
Where TF do you think they get the hydrogen from?
It does not remove water, study your science If water was removed
from the total we would end up with none.
Unless you are planning to use desalinated ocean water you will be
using the water that we currently use domestically, for farming, for
industry and the environment. Desalination takes heaps of energy and
increases local ocean salinity.
Not planning anything, just making statement of fact.
Of course it locally removes water.
Did not say it did not.
Dechucka
2020-02-10 03:53:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FMurtz
Post by Dechucka
Post by FMurtz
Post by Dechucka
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Yep, scotty from marketing wants to turn our precious water into hydrogen
Which does not remove water
Where TF do you think they get the hydrogen from?
It does not remove water, study your science If water was removed
from the total we would end up with none.
Unless you are planning to use desalinated ocean water you will be
using the water that we currently use domestically, for farming, for
industry and the environment. Desalination takes heaps of energy and
increases local ocean salinity.
Not planning anything, just making statement of fact.
Of course it locally removes water.
Did not say it did not.
So that is a stupid idea in the country of drought and flooding rains.
Ned Latham
2020-02-10 05:26:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by FMurtz
Post by Dechucka
Post by FMurtz
Post by Dechucka
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Yep, scotty from marketing wants to turn our precious
water into hydrogen
Which does not remove water
Where TF do you think they get the hydrogen from?
It does not remove water, study your science If water was
removed from the total we would end up with none.
Unless you are planning to use desalinated ocean water you
will be using the water that we currently use domestically,
for farming, for industry and the environment. Desalination
takes heaps of energy and increases local ocean salinity.
Not planning anything, just making statement of fact.
Of course it locally removes water.
Did not say it did not.
So that is a stupid idea in the country of drought and flooding rains.
Wrong again, Dopey.
FMurtz
2020-02-10 11:03:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by FMurtz
Post by Dechucka
Post by FMurtz
Post by Dechucka
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Post by FMurtz
Post by news18
Yep, scotty from marketing wants to turn our precious water into hydrogen
Which does not remove water
Where TF do you think they get the hydrogen from?
It does not remove water, study your science If water was removed
from the total we would end up with none.
Unless you are planning to use desalinated ocean water you will be
using the water that we currently use domestically, for farming,
for industry and the environment. Desalination takes heaps of
energy and increases local ocean salinity.
Not planning anything, just making statement of fact.
Of course it locally removes water.
Did not say it did not.
So that is a stupid idea in the country of drought and flooding rains.
Go back to the original where a poster posted something plainly wrong.
Fran
2020-02-06 03:00:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Probably not totally practical in Aus with current technology and our
distances but a great idea.
Have a look at the Hyundai Kona. It can get from Canberra to Melbourne
on a one hour charge at one of the charging stations along the way. (I
know that as friends do that trip regularly in their electric Kona).
Since we'd be stopping at least once for at least one hour if we were
driving that distance, then I think that is probably extremely practical
for the vast majority of Australians.

WOW look what can happen when there is
Post by Dechucka
consensus on science in a Parliament while we have Jim "I'm not relying
on evidence' for climate change:" Molan in power
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123
A ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be
brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if the UK
wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon by 2050.
Yep.
Dechucka
2020-02-06 07:18:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Probably not totally practical in Aus with current technology and our
distances but a great idea.
Have a look at the Hyundai Kona.  It can get from Canberra to Melbourne
on a one hour charge at one of the charging stations along the way. (I
know that as friends do that trip regularly in their electric Kona).
Since we'd be stopping at least once for at least one hour if we were
driving that distance, then I think that is probably extremely practical
for the vast majority of Australians.
True and things will get better with improved technology
WOW look what can happen when there is
Post by Dechucka
consensus on science in a Parliament while we have Jim "I'm not
relying on evidence' for climate change:" Molan in power
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123
A ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be
brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government
plans. The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if
the UK wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon
by 2050.
Yep.
Arindam Banerjee
2020-02-06 11:25:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Probably not totally practical in Aus with current technology and our
distances but a great idea. WOW look what can happen when there is
consensus on science in a Parliament while we have Jim "I'm not relying
on evidence' for climate change:" Molan in power
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123
A ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be
brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if the UK
wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon by 2050.
Don't see what is the point of stopping CO2 on the ground. The huge bushfires produced lots of CO2 did they not. So what? CO2 is a heavy gas. It does not rise up. It sinks down to the ground, mixes with water to form H2CO3 and with Calcium salts around limestone in copious quantities. The CO2 that is problematic comes from burning jet engine fuel at 10000m, something which never happened before in such a sustained, increasing manner. It is the jet engine exhausts that are creating climate change. I have been saying this for years, and now Attenborough is repeating this insight.

It is good that electric cars take off, but batteries are far more environmentally unfriendly than petrol or diesel engines. What is required is hydrogen cars with fuel cells. That will be the best. One needs the hydrogen economy to take off, and that it can with the invention of the HTN.

www.htnresearch.com

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Harry McNolty
2020-02-06 12:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Don't see
obviously
Post by Arindam Banerjee
It is good that electric cars take off, but batteries are far more
environmentally unfriendly than petrol or diesel engines.
Busted!

"Are Electric Cars Worse For The Environment? Myth Busted"

Post by Arindam Banerjee
What is
required is hydrogen cars with fuel cells. That will be the best. One
needs the hydrogen economy to take off, and that it can with the
invention of the HTN.
Errrrr

"The Truth about Hydrogen"

Dechucka
2020-02-06 19:17:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Harry McNolty
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Don't see
obviously
Post by Arindam Banerjee
It is good that electric cars take off, but batteries are far more
environmentally unfriendly than petrol or diesel engines.
Busted!
"Are Electric Cars Worse For The Environment? Myth Busted"
http://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM
Youboob? WOW
Arindam Banerjee
2020-02-07 02:35:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Harry McNolty
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Don't see
obviously
Post by Arindam Banerjee
It is good that electric cars take off, but batteries are far more
environmentally unfriendly than petrol or diesel engines.
Busted!
"Are Electric Cars Worse For The Environment? Myth Busted"
http://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM
No one can deny that electric cars contain batteries and batteries contain polluting chemicals.
When they run on supercapacitors and fuel cells and hydrogen then they can be better than oil driven cars.
Post by Harry McNolty
Post by Arindam Banerjee
What is
required is hydrogen cars with fuel cells. That will be the best. One
needs the hydrogen economy to take off, and that it can with the
invention of the HTN.
The HTN is the best way or rather the only way to get unlimited green energy for all time.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Post by Harry McNolty
Errrrr
"The Truth about Hydrogen"
http://youtu.be/f7MzFfuNOtY
Dechucka
2020-02-06 19:16:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Probably not totally practical in Aus with current technology and our
distances but a great idea. WOW look what can happen when there is
consensus on science in a Parliament while we have Jim "I'm not relying
on evidence' for climate change:" Molan in power
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123
A ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be
brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if the UK
wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon by 2050.
Don't see what is the point of stopping CO2 on the ground. The huge bushfires produced lots of CO2 did they not. So > what? CO2 is a heavy gas. It does not rise up. It sinks down to the ground,
Wow, if that was the case we'd all suffocate. The atmosphere is not
stratified into gas layers by mass ( a rather general statement but true
enough).
mixes with water to form H2CO3 and with Calcium salts around limestone in copious quantities.
It is washed out of the atmosphere formimh H2CO3 hence ocean axidification

The CO2 that is >problematic comes from burning jet engine fuel at
10000m, something which never happened before in such a sustained,
increasing manner. It is the jet engine exhausts that are creating
climate change. I have been saying this for >years, and now
Attenborough is repeating this insight.

He isn't saying that is the only cause
It is good that electric cars take off, but batteries are far more environmentally unfriendly than petrol or diesel engines. What is required is hydrogen cars with fuel cells. That will be the best. One needs the hydrogen economy to take off, and that it can with the invention of the HTN.
www.htnresearch.com
This would be great if working with a light,volatile small molecule can
be fully sorted
Arindam Banerjee
2020-02-07 03:20:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Probably not totally practical in Aus with current technology and our
distances but a great idea. WOW look what can happen when there is
consensus on science in a Parliament while we have Jim "I'm not relying
on evidence' for climate change:" Molan in power
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123
A ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be
brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if the UK
wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon by 2050.
Don't see what is the point of stopping CO2 on the ground. The huge bushfires produced lots of CO2 did they not. So > what? CO2 is a heavy gas. It does not rise up. It sinks down to the ground,
Wow, if that was the case we'd all suffocate. The atmosphere is not
stratified into gas layers by mass ( a rather general statement but true
enough).
We do suffocate when there is CO2 accumulation. There are Death Valleys littered with animal skeletons.

In Turkey our tour guide showed us caves with of pseudo religious signifance. There would be
devotees sitting at a low level and the priests at a higher level.
The caves were naturally full of CO2 at the lower level. Those at the bottom got affected.
If they recovered, that would be a miracle.

Bottom line us that CO2 being a heavy gas must find the lowest level in air. Winds can toss it around above ground up to some level but sooner or later it gets absorbed by plants and water.

And yes we do suffocate at ground level when they burn coal or wood, just look at the air in Kolkata and some Chinese cities. Pollution is a fact. However when it is all spread out by winds, the effect is delocalised.

In other words CO2 ground emissions are at worst a local problem.

There us no need for blanket bans in in the name of global warming.

But it does make sense in a perverse way for rich nations to keep poor nations poor, so all these lies and hypocrisies. Poor nations being poor supply goods and services cheaply so the middlemen make fat profits. A good, sane energy policy would rectify the economic imbalances.

And guess whom that would hurt!
Post by Dechucka
mixes with water to form H2CO3 and with Calcium salts around limestone in copious quantities.
It is washed out of the atmosphere formimh H2CO3 hence ocean axidification
The CO2 that is >problematic comes from burning jet engine fuel at
10000m, something which never happened before in such a sustained,
increasing manner. It is the jet engine exhausts that are creating
climate change. I have been saying this for >years, and now
Attenborough is repeating this insight.
He isn't saying that is the only cause
It is good that electric cars take off, but batteries are far more environmentally unfriendly than petrol or diesel engines. What is required is hydrogen cars with fuel cells. That will be the best. One needs the hydrogen economy to take off, and that it can with the invention of the HTN.
www.htnresearch.com
This would be great if working with a light,volatile small molecule can
be fully sorted
Dechucka
2020-02-07 03:43:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Probably not totally practical in Aus with current technology and our
distances but a great idea. WOW look what can happen when there is
consensus on science in a Parliament while we have Jim "I'm not relying
on evidence' for climate change:" Molan in power
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123
A ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be
brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if the UK
wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon by 2050.
Don't see what is the point of stopping CO2 on the ground. The huge bushfires produced lots of CO2 did they not. So > what? CO2 is a heavy gas. It does not rise up. It sinks down to the ground,
Wow, if that was the case we'd all suffocate. The atmosphere is not
stratified into gas layers by mass ( a rather general statement but true
enough).
We do suffocate when there is CO2 accumulation.
I'm not dead so CO2 is not accumulating on the ground
Post by Arindam Banerjee
There are Death Valleys littered with animal skeletons.
From CO2 asphyxiation? Where and was ths atmospheric CO2?
Post by Arindam Banerjee
In Turkey our tour guide showed us caves with of pseudo religious signifance. There would be
devotees sitting at a low level and the priests at a higher level.
The caves were naturally full of CO2 at the lower level. Those at the bottom got affected.
If they recovered, that would be a miracle.
Bottom line us that CO2 being a heavy gas must find the lowest level in air.
Except for Brownian motion and the sun.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Winds can toss it around above ground up to some level but sooner or later it gets absorbed by plants and water.
The levels of CO2 and other GHGs are rising in the atmosphere how does
that happen with your theory?
Post by Arindam Banerjee
And yes we do suffocate at ground level when they burn coal or wood, just look at the air in Kolkata and some Chinese cities. Pollution is a fact. However when it is all spread out by winds, the effect is delocalised.
Nothing to do with CO2 rather to do with pollution, it is the
particulate matter you can see not CO2
Post by Arindam Banerjee
In other words CO2 ground emissions are at worst a local problem.
There us no need for blanket bans in in the name of global warming.
Yes there is if you understood the science of GHGs, the science was
shown in 1820 or 1859 depending on your favorite scientist.

snip
Arindam Banerjee
2020-02-07 04:57:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Probably not totally practical in Aus with current technology and our
distances but a great idea. WOW look what can happen when there is
consensus on science in a Parliament while we have Jim "I'm not relying
on evidence' for climate change:" Molan in power
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123
A ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be
brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if the UK
wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon by 2050.
Don't see what is the point of stopping CO2 on the ground. The huge bushfires produced lots of CO2 did they not. So > what? CO2 is a heavy gas. It does not rise up. It sinks down to the ground,
Wow, if that was the case we'd all suffocate. The atmosphere is not
stratified into gas layers by mass ( a rather general statement but true
enough).
We do suffocate when there is CO2 accumulation.
I'm not dead so CO2 is not accumulating on the ground
You are not dead because you are not trapped in some hole filling up or filled up with CO2.
All the bushfires created CO2 which did not rise up to the stratoshpere, to cause even more global warming.
They sank to the ground, suffocating native animals to death. Then they got dissipated by winds, absorbed by plants and seas.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Arindam Banerjee
There are Death Valleys littered with animal skeletons.
From CO2 asphyxiation? Where and was ths atmospheric CO2?
Yes. In California. or at least that was what we were taught in school in the Chemistry class. CO2 is a heavy gas. It is roughly 44/31 times heavier than air. Thus it sinks in still air much as a dense plastic or wood will sink in water. Or glycerine.

On the other hand it is not as heavy as SO2 which sinks down faster. It is heavier than methane which is lighter than air (16/31) so it rises up and is a bad greenhouse gas.

Methane is more of a problem than CO2 what with so many cows farting. One of my colleagues at RMIT was working on this issue, about tracking methane emissions from cattle.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Arindam Banerjee
In Turkey our tour guide showed us caves with of pseudo religious signifance. There would be
devotees sitting at a low level and the priests at a higher level.
The caves were naturally full of CO2 at the lower level. Those at the bottom got affected.
If they recovered, that would be a miracle.
Bottom line us that CO2 being a heavy gas must find the lowest level in air.
Except for Brownian motion and the sun.
The Sun makes everything move by providing radiant energy.. Yes the Sun will cause winds which will make CO2 move around. But the net result is that CO2 produced on the ground will not make it to 10000m.
There the CO2 is from jet engine exhausts.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Winds can toss it around above ground up to some level but sooner or later it gets absorbed by plants and water.
The levels of CO2 and other GHGs are rising in the atmosphere how does
that happen with your theory?
Post by Arindam Banerjee
And yes we do suffocate at ground level when they burn coal or wood, just look at the air in Kolkata and some Chinese cities. Pollution is a fact. However when it is all spread out by winds, the effect is delocalised.
Nothing to do with CO2 rather to do with pollution, it is the
particulate matter you can see not CO2
Post by Arindam Banerjee
In other words CO2 ground emissions are at worst a local problem.
There us no need for blanket bans in in the name of global warming.
Yes there is if you understood the science of GHGs, the science was
shown in 1820 or 1859 depending on your favorite scientist.
snip
Dechucka
2020-02-07 05:43:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dechucka
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Probably not totally practical in Aus with current technology and our
distances but a great idea. WOW look what can happen when there is
consensus on science in a Parliament while we have Jim "I'm not relying
on evidence' for climate change:" Molan in power
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123
A ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be
brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if the UK
wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon by 2050.
Don't see what is the point of stopping CO2 on the ground. The huge bushfires produced lots of CO2 did they not. So > what? CO2 is a heavy gas. It does not rise up. It sinks down to the ground,
Wow, if that was the case we'd all suffocate. The atmosphere is not
stratified into gas layers by mass ( a rather general statement but true
enough).
We do suffocate when there is CO2 accumulation.
I'm not dead so CO2 is not accumulating on the ground
You are not dead because you are not trapped in some hole filling up or filled up with CO2.
Having done a lot of caving in my time CO2 does not fill up all the
holes in the ground.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
All the bushfires created CO2 which did not rise up to the stratoshpere, to cause even more global warming.
They sank to the ground, suffocating native animals to death. Then they got dissipated by winds, absorbed by plants and seas.
Of course the CO2 from the bush-fires adds to the CO2 load in the
troposphere
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dechucka
Post by Arindam Banerjee
There are Death Valleys littered with animal skeletons.
From CO2 asphyxiation? Where and was ths atmospheric CO2?
Yes. In California. or at least that was what we were taught in school in the Chemistry class. CO2 is a heavy gas. .It is roughly 44/31 times heavier than air. Thus it sinks in still air much as a dense plastic or wood will sink in water. Or glycerine.
Even in a container air will not stratify into it's individual
components because of Brownian motion and the second law of
thermodynamics, entropy. Maybe at absolute zero but who knows
The composition of the troposphere is fairly consistent and as it mixes
with the stratosphere the CO2 moves up, the effect of ozone depleting
chemicals which are heavier than CO2 show that this occurs.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
On the other hand it is not as heavy as SO2 which sinks down faster. It is heavier than methane which is lighter than air (16/31) so it rises up and is a bad greenhouse gas.
Methane is more of a problem than CO2 what with so many cows farting.
Actually the main problem is belching as they ruminants. Yep CO2 is not
the worse GHG but is the most common that we pump out.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
One of my colleagues at RMIT was working on this issue, about tracking methane emissions from cattle.
A lot of work is being done on supplements for cattle to stop the
methane belches.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dechucka
Post by Arindam Banerjee
In Turkey our tour guide showed us caves with of pseudo religious signifance. There would be
devotees sitting at a low level and the priests at a higher level.
The caves were naturally full of CO2 at the lower level. Those at the bottom got affected.
If they recovered, that would be a miracle.
Bottom line us that CO2 being a heavy gas must find the lowest level in air.
Except for Brownian motion and the sun.
The Sun makes everything move by providing radiant energy.. Yes the Sun will cause winds which will make CO2 move > > around. But the net result is that CO2 produced on the ground will not make it to 10000m.
Love to see any evidence for this claim. The composition of the
troposphere is fairly consistent and is higher than 10000m depending
latitude and seasons.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
There the CO2 is from jet engine exhausts.
Yep they do put CO2 into the stratosphere but that is not only where
stratospheric CO2 comes from.

snip
Ördög
2020-02-07 06:56:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It was written by Dechucka:

/snip the loon's confused view of chemistry, meteorology, etc...etc...etc/
Post by Dechucka
Having done a lot of caving in my time CO2 does not fill up all the
holes in the ground.
Caves with multiple entrances usually do ventilate well (like chimney),
so CO2 pooling is not an issue. Caves with single entrances, specially
the vertical ones can have some serious safety issues with high
concentration of CO2 in the lower reaches of the cave. (see for instance
Bungonia, Borenore and Wellington caves).
However the cause has nothing to do with some sort of sinking of the
atmospheric CO2 due to its molecular weight but rather the CO2 emission
in an enclosed space by plant life in and above the caves (tree roots for
instance), some rotting organic material washed into the cave and the
limestone itself under pressure. The CO2 concentration in such caves can
be directly related to the time of the year when the vegetation is
growing the fastest.
Ergo, review your summer caving plans for Bungania very carefully unless
you want to end up with a horrible headache, vomiting and worse during
and after the trip.

BTW the poster you are responding to have claimed not so long ago, just
before I've plonked him that he has invented some sort of perpetual
motion machine. That fact alone already speaks volumes about his crazy
pseudo science...
--
Ördög, without any apologies !!!
Dechucka
2020-02-07 07:51:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ördög
/snip the loon's confused view of chemistry, meteorology, etc...etc...etc/
Post by Dechucka
Having done a lot of caving in my time CO2 does not fill up all the
holes in the ground.
Caves with multiple entrances usually do ventilate well (like chimney),
so CO2 pooling is not an issue. Caves with single entrances, specially
the vertical ones can have some serious safety issues with high
concentration of CO2 in the lower reaches of the cave. (see for instance
Bungonia, Borenore and Wellington caves).
Some of the cave in Bungonia certainly do have bad air from my memory of
caving there last century.
.
Post by Ördög
However the cause has nothing to do with some sort of sinking of the
atmospheric CO2 due to its molecular weight but rather the CO2 emission
in an enclosed space by plant life in and above the caves (tree roots for
instance), some rotting organic material washed into the cave and the
limestone itself under pressure. The CO2 concentration in such caves can
be directly related to the time of the year when the vegetation is
growing the fastest.
Ergo, review your summer caving plans for Bungania very carefully unless
you want to end up with a horrible headache, vomiting and worse during
and after the trip.
Yep
Post by Ördög
BTW the poster you are responding to have claimed not so long ago, just
before I've plonked him that he has invented some sort of perpetual
motion machine. That fact alone already speaks volumes about his crazy
pseudo science...
Cool another pez
Arindam Banerjee
2020-02-07 12:01:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dechucka
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Probably not totally practical in Aus with current technology and our
distances but a great idea. WOW look what can happen when there is
consensus on science in a Parliament while we have Jim "I'm not relying
on evidence' for climate change:" Molan in power
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123
A ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be
brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if the UK
wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon by 2050.
Don't see what is the point of stopping CO2 on the ground. The huge bushfires produced lots of CO2 did they not. So > what? CO2 is a heavy gas. It does not rise up. It sinks down to the ground,
Wow, if that was the case we'd all suffocate. The atmosphere is not
stratified into gas layers by mass ( a rather general statement but true
enough).
We do suffocate when there is CO2 accumulation.
I'm not dead so CO2 is not accumulating on the ground
You are not dead because you are not trapped in some hole filling up or filled up with CO2.
Having done a lot of caving in my time CO2 does not fill up all the
holes in the ground.
Obviously when there is ventilation the CO2 is forced out. When there is none, like the infamous Black Hole of Calcutta, you suffocate and die.
As for holes in the ground, does the word "canary " ring a bell? Or Davy safety lamp, the miner's friend?
Post by Dechucka
Post by Arindam Banerjee
All the bushfires created CO2 which did not rise up to the stratoshpere, to cause even more global warming.
They sank to the ground, suffocating native animals to death. Then they got dissipated by winds, absorbed by plants and seas.
Of course the CO2 from the bush-fires adds to the CO2 load in the
troposphere
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dechucka
Post by Arindam Banerjee
There are Death Valleys littered with animal skeletons.
From CO2 asphyxiation? Where and was ths atmospheric CO2?
Yes. In California. or at least that was what we were taught in school in the Chemistry class. CO2 is a heavy gas. .It is roughly 44/31 times heavier than air. Thus it sinks in still air much as a dense plastic or wood will sink in water. Or glycerine.
Even in a container air will not stratify into it's individual
components because of Brownian motion and the second law of
thermodynamics, entropy. Maybe at absolute zero but who knows
The composition of the troposphere is fairly consistent and as it mixes
with the stratosphere the CO2 moves up, the effect of ozone depleting
chemicals which are heavier than CO2 show that this occurs.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
On the other hand it is not as heavy as SO2 which sinks down faster. It is heavier than methane which is lighter than air (16/31) so it rises up and is a bad greenhouse gas.
Methane is more of a problem than CO2 what with so many cows farting.
Actually the main problem is belching as they ruminants. Yep CO2 is not
the worse GHG but is the most common that we pump out.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
One of my colleagues at RMIT was working on this issue, about tracking methane emissions from cattle.
A lot of work is being done on supplements for cattle to stop the
methane belches.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dechucka
Post by Arindam Banerjee
In Turkey our tour guide showed us caves with of pseudo religious signifance. There would be
devotees sitting at a low level and the priests at a higher level.
The caves were naturally full of CO2 at the lower level. Those at the bottom got affected.
If they recovered, that would be a miracle.
Bottom line us that CO2 being a heavy gas must find the lowest level in air.
Except for Brownian motion and the sun.
The Sun makes everything move by providing radiant energy.. Yes the Sun will cause winds which will make CO2 move > > around. But the net result is that CO2 produced on the ground will not make it to 10000m.
Love to see any evidence for this claim. The composition of the
troposphere is fairly consistent and is higher than 10000m depending
latitude and seasons.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
There the CO2 is from jet engine exhausts.
Yep they do put CO2 into the stratosphere but that is not only where
stratospheric CO2 comes from.
snip
Dechucka
2020-02-07 19:13:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dechucka
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dechucka
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Probably not totally practical in Aus with current technology and our
distances but a great idea. WOW look what can happen when there is
consensus on science in a Parliament while we have Jim "I'm not relying
on evidence' for climate change:" Molan in power
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123
A ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be
brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if the UK
wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon by 2050.
Don't see what is the point of stopping CO2 on the ground. The huge bushfires produced lots of CO2 did they not. So > what? CO2 is a heavy gas. It does not rise up. It sinks down to the ground,
Wow, if that was the case we'd all suffocate. The atmosphere is not
stratified into gas layers by mass ( a rather general statement but true
enough).
We do suffocate when there is CO2 accumulation.
I'm not dead so CO2 is not accumulating on the ground
You are not dead because you are not trapped in some hole filling up or filled up with CO2.
Having done a lot of caving in my time CO2 does not fill up all the
holes in the ground.
Obviously when there is ventilation the CO2 is forced out. When there is none, like the infamous Black Hole of Calcutta, you suffocate and die.
As for holes in the ground, does the word "canary " ring a bell? Or Davy safety lamp, the miner's friend?
Not caused by sinking CO2

snip all the info that couldn't be answered
Loading...