On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:22:14 +0100
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/04/18 10:17, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:13:23 +0100
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/04/18 10:01, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:49:06 +0100
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/04/18 11:31, wrote:
Thats true, but these days its CO2 emissions matter and diesels emit less
CO2 than petrols for a given amount of power generated. Quite why is
something
a chemist would have to answer. You'd think given that diesel fuel has a
higher percentage carbon content than petrol it would be the other way
around.

Well of course actually NoX emissons and particulates are far far more
dangerous than CO2.

In the short term yes, but NOx disappears from the atmosphere in a few
hours
to a few days and particulates settle into the ground. If all traffic
stopped
and factories and power stations shut down then the air over britain would
be
pristine within days.

Whoosh.

So what 'harm' does CO2 do then?

Learn some basic physics then get back to us.


Oh dear. The basic physics says that CO2 has almost no effect on
climate. But a great effect on plant life.

Which part of "CO2 is an infrared absorber" is confusing you? That is a fact,
and its not up for debate.

You have fallen for the 'feedback' con haven't you?

Translation: I don't understand the concept of positive feedback therefore
I'll pretend it doesn't exist.

No one really knows what the effect will be long term, but if you put more
energy into a system there WILL be an effect.

Go and learn some basic physics.

Thanks, but I did a degree in chemistry so I have a pretty good idea of it.
What are your qualifications?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

You're always going to get people who pick and choose the data to suit their
arguments and looking at the comments section there it seems like the usual
know-nothing baboons are believing them. I'll go with the 90% majority
consensus but you believe what you like.