Just found the above chart backing up what I have been saying for years.
Global warming is a wholly natural event, if humanity disappeared tonight, global warming would still happen.
the hubris is comical
Indeed yours is.
Anyone that has worked with data will realise how much fudging goes on, throwing stuff out one doesnt like and making adjustments/guesses/assumptions here and there. the idea that "we know" the temp of the planet and can go back thousands of years to a fraction of a degree seems like fantasy.
like even to take a simple example, would anyone bet their house that they know the temp at Dublin Airport (weather station) to a fraction of a degree going back 100 years? no human error, no tech/measurement changes over 100 years, no heat island effect with buildings/wind etc. and logically only one pin prick is measured not a continuous area of the whole region at all heights and thats only one measuring point.
The way CO2 is now demonised is shocking.
Many people seem to have forgotten what they learnt as 12-year-olds in school about photosynthesis, and now think CO2 is a pollutant and evil, rather than being the gas of life.
In the distant past CO2 levels went to a dangerous low of 180 ppm. Below 150 ppm photosynthesis is severely compromised and life on earth would be in danger.
The pre-industrial level of 280 ppm was fairly paltry and the current 420 ppm is more beneficial to life on Earth.
You are right, it isnt 2% or 4%, it's more, but ehy dont you provide a link to where you get your info. When I go to Galway, there is plenty traffic trying to get through the city and more trying to find a way around it, so it is a lot more. And why don't you tell us what the waste is that you are on about is. To me, the waste is vehicles trying to get through the city, spending time spewing exhaust into the air from vehicles that have business in the city and from vehicles that have no business in the city except to get to the other side.
FFS, you're still going on about the colossal waste that is the Galway Ring Road?
Ok then, remind us all what percentage of Galway's traffic is through traffic?
I'll give you a hint - it's not 2% and it's not 4%
Well if Florida went under tomorrow that would reduce the federal pension bill by a good chunk.
I thought I was approaching a hill, but it turned out to be the garbage mountain outside Tampa.
"Replaced by local traffic who now consider that route now quicker" you claim. First of all, is that not the idea of a bypass, to keep the only traffic in a town to be the local traffic by allowing the non-local traffic to go around allowing the local traffic to move more freely and go about their business within the town instead of being stuck behind non-local traffic that had no reason to be there in the first place, except to get through the town.
Secondly, I've yet to see that happen in Ennis or Limerick. In fact even if you look at Shoog's example of Carrick-on-Shannon, where he omitted to mention there is a bypass road around the town on the N4, he made the same claim I made about Limerick, that rush hour was the only time there was congestion, and in Limerick's case even that is nowhere near as bad as it was in the pre tunnel days, same for Ennis.
Now, the only reason I can see for people not using the bypasses are the tolls. Even the motorway they are planning from Cork to Limerick is going to be tolled, but we need the people to use these bypasses, not avoid them so they move their vehicles at the optimal rate to reduce emissions, not avoid them. That goes for all types of vehicle, ICE, Hybrid and EV alike. But the subject of tolls is a different debate.
A US study detailing potential damage due to sealevel rise. Ireland should do similar.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/looming-deadlines-coastal-resilience
It's the take of the founding president of Greenpeace, who is a biologist. Patrick Moore, who quit Greenpeace because the loons hijacked the boat and rejected reason and science.
Since leaving Greenpeace in 1986, Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism".
CO2 is the source of all the Oxygen animals and insects breathe. The reason there is 20% O2 in the atmosphere and only 0.04% CO2 is because plants over time have taken all that C and put it to good use, while getting rid of the useless O2. O2 is plant excrement.
CO2 is present in the atmosphere in absolutely tiny quantities - 0.04%. It's almost a trace gas. Without sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere for plants to conduct photosynthesis there would be no life on Earth. It's far more important there be CO2 in the atmosphere than oxygen in terms of there being life on Earth. You can take away all the oxygen and all the animals and insects die, but the plants would live on, but take away all the CO2 and all life dies.
The planet used to have vastly more atmospheric CO2 than it does today, and contrary to the runaway global warming bollocks being pushed by climate alarmists, the planet did not catastrophically overheat and become venus when there was 5000 ppm - 0.5% - of CO2 in the atmosphere. Our current ~492 ppm of CO2 is extremely low historically, even though the climate alarmists claim it's too high.
Over time, plants have hoovered up most of the CO2 and spat out O2 in the process. All that C has been sequesterd in rocks hydroCARBON deposits, methane hydrates and other carbon sinks. The plants nearly gorged themselves to extinction, consuming almost all of their food supply. Luckilly bacteria exist and have saved their arses by digesting dead plants and releasing some CO2 back into the air.
There is barely enough CO2 in the atmosphere to allow plants to live! During the previous interglacial period to the one we are living in, the CO2 levels reached such catastrophically low levels that at higher altitudes, where the amount of CO2 dropped due to general thinning of the atmosphere, all the plant life died.
And the poster who you are deriding, is correct - the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are causing a surge in plant growth, which I am very glad to see. NASA have tracked and measured this general greening due to higher CO2 levels and slight warming:
Definstely a bit of "Global Warming" here in Ireland for the last couple of days, and long may it last 🌞
I'll read your links, but as I said the only traffic induced onto bypasses is what have been taken out of the bypassed areas.
And it will be replaced by local traffic or those who consider that route now quicker. There is a reason traffic in Dublin is as bad as ever, including huge numbers of through traffic, despite a three lane ringroad motorway existing.
Traffic volumes are not inelastic.
This is not a stone cold argument against the ringroad. But it won't reduce emissions so there is no point arguing for it from that perspective.
I would include all bypasses in it . I travel both roads regularly. In fact I have travelled the M20/N20 for over 30 years and the only increase I see in volume of traffic is basically in line with the country's population growth. What I have also seen is how much more freely it moves for every one, when what does not need to be in a town or city, is not stuck in towns and cities, but you should see what happens when you get to Charleville when going Southbound and just after New Two Pot House going Northbound.
I'll read your links, but as I said the only traffic induced onto bypasses is what have been taken out of the bypassed areas. For instance, the old N18 between Shannon and Ennis is now classed as a regional road, the R458. and with the exception of the local traffic, there is nothing on it. So where is all that traffic? It is all on the M18 travelling from point A to B, for whatever reason. But if the motorway was not there, that traffic would still need to get from point A to B, whatever the reason, but they would need to travel through every town and village on the route and be burning fuel while waiting in those town and villages.
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
https://www.planetizen.com/definition/induced-demand#:~:text=The%20theory%20of%20induced%20demand,added%20lanes%20have%20reduced%20congestion.
https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/induced_traffic_and_induced_demand_lee.pdf
The extra vehicles would not "be there anyway". This is a very well understood phenomenon.
There are cases where it is nonetheless worthwhile (I would include the M20 and potentially the Galway bypass in that) but it absolutely, categorically will not reduce emissions.
And where does this traffic come from but from the roads and towns that have been bypassed. There is no extra traffic. Those vehicles would be there any way spewing exhaust fumes, stopped in a town. Only difference is instead of being stuck in towns idling, they are getting closer to their destination on a bypass.
I don't know what they were doing, but I'll use my own expertise over theirs..
well, that's an interesting take on climate change.
The CO2 emissions from cars is a good thing. It helps to green the planet which is to be welcomed.
Higher CO2 levels also make plants (at least C3 ones) more drought tolerant, thus reducing desertification in drier areas.
Provide a link to their text asserting your claim.
I think you have completely misunderstood their calculation. Individual fuel consumption will likely fall, but as with all road building the overall level of traffic will increase.
Do you have a link to their statement or calculations?
So the Galway CC were lying when they calculated that fuel consumption would increase if the bypass was built.
Forgive me if I take their expertise over your hunches.
Sorryy to disappoint you, but it is very true. Your MPG rises if you can keep a contant speed in top gear. You can not do that in urban areas, where even in the clearest of towns, you still have traffic lights and pedestrian crossings and various other reasons to stop and start. As I have said to others just look at your own car and do the maths. I have. My Job over the last 31 years has. The simple fact of the matter is a vehicle travelling at constant speed in top gear is when it is at it's most efficient. In the majority of unbypassed towns in Ireland, such as Athy in Kildare or Charleville in Cork, or Galway city, you would be lucky to get out of 3rd gear even at the quietest times.
The only way for the traffic in towns and cities can increase MPG is to get ghe traffic that does not need to be there out, which is the traffic that is only passing through, and for that you need a bypass.
By the way, you omitted to mention in your example of Carrick-on-Shannon that the N4 bypasses it, and you are claiming its streets are clear. I wonder why that is and how Carrick-on-Shannon would be traffic-wise if not for the bypass road.
Any claims that stop start traffic is more efficient than a bypass are just fantasy.
But so is religion.
it's not quite 9am on a saturday and the roads are quiet in dublin.
the time google maps (which is based on real time info) is calculating to drive from DCU to UCD, is 27 minutes; and that's less than 12km, so it's an average of 26km/h. on roads which are 90% either 50 to 60km/h; only a small section is 30km/h
you were talking about cars driving through towns and cities at 50km/h; as i stated, that's not possible.
for the rest of the day traffic is moving slowly at a relatively constant speed.
uh, traffic lights? junctions?
The reality is that only in Rush hour is city traffic in constant start stop, for the rest of the day traffic is moving slowly at a relatively constant speed.
Also bypasses are far from immune to start stop traffic jams at rush hour
it's acceleration and deceleration where cars are at their least efficient. stopping and starting is death to fuel efficiency; the differences in economy between a steady speed of 50km/h vs 100km/h pale compared to stop start traffic.
it's only when the engine is shut off when a car is stopped that it's using 'less' fuel than one doing 70.
there's a reason my car displays at litres consumed per 100km when moving, and litres per hour while stationary.
when stopped, the litres per 100km is infinite!
Only when a vehicle is stopped will it not be using less fuel than it does cruising at 70mph on a bypass. Slow moving vehicles simply use less fuel than fast moving vehicles.
The premise here been promoted is that bypasses save fuel - the evidence simply doesn't support this claim.
I am in favour of some bypasses for entirely other reasons but it's in no way an environmentally based reason to build bypasses.
This whole tangent is a complete red herring to a discussion of global warming and only started as yet another excuse to bash green politicians. It's frankly pathetic.
There's no way in hell a vehicle will average 30mph through a town, except in very unusual circumstances. That'd presume no stopping or slowing, driving permanently at the speed limit.
Certainly not a town big enough to be bypassed, which was the context.
The principles I outlined are universally applicable. What you are trying to convince us of goes against everything that has been analysed by experts in this field. You want us to believe that only bypasses can save energy which is simply untrue.
Only one example out of thoussnds of Irish towns. Sorry, but with a population of under 5000,I'm afraid that it is an exception to the rule. The majority unbypassed towns and cities are a complete nightmare to get through.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f6ec3b6ae14cc6cd4a0e3a3374e0ef7b.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9efeee005435db3e1a98682e2225c2e5.svg)
