bigrich
|
| posted on 30/10/07 at 09:15 AM |
|
|
i have always thought that the need for cats was driven by government spin, as has been said they increase co2 emmissions and fuel consumption by the
conversion that takes place in them and the fuelling requirements they need to work correctly.
pretty sure the leanburn technology that was about at the same time would have saved more fuel and lessened emmissions.
.JPG)
A pint for the gent and a white wine/fruit based drink for the lady. Those are the rules
|
|
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 30/10/07 at 09:43 AM |
|
|
i wonder how long it will be before they start targeting fizzy drinks companies, just think of all that lovely CO2 thats released when you open a
bottle! 
its all lies, aimed at increasing taxes eventually (fuel tax, road tax, bin collections, air travel tax...)
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 30/10/07 at 09:52 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
500 years ago, the Thames froze over regularly. A 1000 years ago, it was so warm in this country wine grapes were a very common crop.
No. The Thames never froze regularly. Even if it did, the fact that it doesn't now means that it must be warmer, right? Grapes were not a
common crop in the UK 1000 years ago. The climate didn't change that frequently. Data shows it has been stable for the last few thousand years
save for one really cold spell when the thames did freeze and the last 150 years or so. What CET data shows is that since 1988 the temperature has
risen steadily and quite differently to the previous 300 years. It is quite evident that the climate is changing. The only possible dibate is why,
not if.
Between 1400 and the nineteenth century there were a total of 23 documented winters in which the Thames froze over at London (or 25 if you include
"more or less frozen over" years which are shown in parentheses): 1408, 1435, 1506, 1514, 1537, 1565, 1595, 1608, 1621, 1635, 1649, 1655,
1663, 1666, 1677, 1684, 1695, 1709, 1716, 1740, (1768), 1776, (1785), 1795 and 1814.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost_fair
fairly regular i'd say.
it goes on to say about climates growing milder around 1814, in the throws of the industrial revolution i think (?) but i doubt the fuel being burned
then would be enough to make a difference.
I think the changes in temperature are normal changes for the planet.
anyone remember 'El Nino' a few years back? extreme weather patterns, its all a cycle, we're back to that again, give it 7 years and
everything will be back to normal
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 30/10/07 at 12:10 PM |
|
|
Well, maybe the cat isn't such a good idea. I'm sure they'll work around it. Just as you did when SVA came in.
My own thinking has been that although we are building cars, we can only drive one at a time, usually only in good weather, and a small, light 7 copy
won't burn a lot or fuel most of the time.
|
|
|
nathanharris1987
|
| posted on 30/10/07 at 10:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
if you don't believe the climate is changing, you've heard we're still coming out of the ice age / the world is flat / cows emit
more CO2 than humans then ....
im not saying the world isnt warming up what im saying is that humans have a relatively small part to play. and anyway, just because the scientists
put it in print doesnt mean that their assumptions are right either.
Dangle_kt... nuclear energy isnt much more environmentally friendly than coal fired stations. The energy transfer is by far the most efficient, but
when you take into consideration the labour intensive processes that it takes to extract uranium ore and the lifetime of activites that happen after a
nuclear station is decomissioned, it aint really worth it.
It will be interesting however to see whats happening on the nuclear fusion front as thats recently been given the go ahead hasnt it?
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 31/10/07 at 12:18 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
No. The Thames never froze regularly. Even if it did
No - even if it did.
What kind of argument is that.
Rather than rereading Weismans book in an evening, I thought I'd google, and came up with this:
"River Thames Frost Fairs
The worst cold spells in Britain occurred between 1550 and 1750. The climate during this time was known as the Little Ice Age, when winters were so
cold that the Thames froze over each year. It was not uncommon for the freeze to last over three months, as in the case of the winters of 1683 - 1684
and 1715 - 1716.
The first recorded Frost Fair was held on the frozen river Thames in London in 1608. It had tents, sideshows, food stalls and even included ice
bowling!
The Thames had frozen over several times before 1608. In the 16th century, Henry VIII is said to have traveled all the way from central London to
Greenwich by sleigh along the river during the winter of 1536 and Elizabeth I took walks on the ice during the winter of 1564.
From http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/london/thames.htm
I'd sugest that human population, not just it's activities are a major factor. Eg page 271 of said book:
"Worldwide, every four days the human population rises by 1 million."
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
That's a lot of co2
The average adult at rest inhales and exhales something like 7 or 8 liters (about one-fourth of a cubic foot) of air per minute. That totals something
like 11,000 liters of air (388 cubic feet) in a day.
The air that is inhaled is about 20-percent oxygen, and the air that is exhaled is about 15-percent oxygen, so about 5-percent of the volume of air is
consumed in each breath and converted to carbon dioxide.
http://www.answerbag.co.uk/q_view/314680
Like I said, I'm not going to reread a book for the sake of a dispute, but if you'd like to come up with a reference that says wine grapes
weren't a major crop, then do so, rather than just saying so.
Simon
[Edited on 31/10/07 by Simon]
[Edited on 31/10/07 by Simon]
|
|
|
|
