What is your helicopter carbon footprint? [Archive]

JimBall

3rd Oct 2007, 09:55

From the latest Register of Members' Interests:

To facilitate my travel in my capacity as Leader of the Opposition since December 2005 I have received helicopter and private plane travel from the following:
JCB Research Ltd
Jonathan Green, a retired businessman from London
Lord Harris
Harris Ventures Ltd
Michael Spencer
JC Bamford Excavators Ltd
Community Security Trust, a charity
Henry Lawson, of Henfield Lodge Aviation Ltd, Henfield
Mr Andrew Cook, through William Cook Holdings, Sheffield
(The details of the travel provided have been provided to the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.)
24 August 2006, upgrade from Business Class to First Class on a British Airways flight from Johannesburg Airport to London Heathrow. (Registered 30 August 2006)
27 September 2006, helicopter flight from London to Brecqhou, and return, to meet with Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, provided by Aidan Barclay of Ellerman Investments Limited, London. (Registered 20 October 2006)
26 October 2006, private flight from Farnborough, to Belfast, Manchester and return to Farnborough, provided by Mr John Hoerner, of Chipping Norton. (Registered 16 November 2006)
Gift of an oil painting of myself from Sir Jack Harvie CBE. (Registered 10 January 2007)
4 January 2007, return flight from Oxford to Shobdon, near Hereford, for myself, my wife and my daughter, provided by Richard Smith, of HR Smith Group of Companies, Leominster, Herefordshire. (Registered 29 January 2007)

(HR Smith: "Since its formation in 1965, the H.R.Smith Group of Companies has opened up a whole new horizon of advanced technology through the development of a wide range of specialist materials and equipment.

Designed to revolutionise the efficiency of military and civil airborne and land communications, navigation and special functions, H.R.Smith Group expertise leads the world in material and product superiority across a wide spectrum of activities.

The Group also has a distinguished international reputation for high performance advanced thermoplastic structures, microwave antennas and components as well as test instrumentation.")

26 March 2007, private plane from Edinburgh to Blackpool, provided by Mr Michael Peagram, of Oxford. (Registered 13 April 2007)
Two tickets to the FA Cup Final at Wembley Stadium on 19 May 2007, provided by The Football Association. (Registered 6 June 2007)
29 June 2007, helicopter from Battersea, London, to Leeds Bradford Airport and return, provided by Mr Tim James on behalf of Kensington & Chelsea Aviation Ltd, Guildford. (Registered 10 July 2007)

tacr2man

3rd Oct 2007, 10:10

I think the causal question of climate change needs to be put in the same basket as religion. There are a lot of believers but not a lot of solid proof in either direction . Each to their own , as its a personal experience journey on both. Zealotry looks like its going to be a bringer of unhappiness in both. IMHO

whoateallthepies

3rd Oct 2007, 12:39

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public…and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
- Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

"The Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming that preceded it from 950 to 1300 AD stand out in every temperature record as the major weather events of the last 1,000 years, and they're a hefty problem for global warming advocates. If the world was warmer in 1200 AD than today, and far colder in the year 1400, why would we blame current temperatures trends on auto exhausts?"
- Dennis Avery, Center for Global Food Issues

http://i.1asphost.com/whoateallthepies/pie.jpg

Lost Again

3rd Oct 2007, 14:25

Assuming that methane gas is considered to be a major green house gas can I assume that if I give up F--ting my flying will have a neutral carbon foot print ?

If so how much less would I need to degas if if fly a Gazelle than say an R22.

Seriously now - climate change is a problem and will be taken more seriously by all when it is seen to be tackled in less of a tax raising type way.

regards

Richard

Rotorbee

3rd Oct 2007, 15:10

Interesting read, that thread. Full of kind of conspiracy theories and statements from other people that know, because they have titles which sound very good. It remindes me about the "Nasa was never on the moon" discussion. It is just too boring to reply to all those theories that are around, why it global warming is not true. Look at the last post. Arguing with a time frame of just a few hundred years looks good, but lacks credibility. Look at data about the last 400'000 years and the picture changes. And I could get on and on...
There are a lot of pretty strange experts out there and we as humans have the tendency to believe what is written and what we like to hear.
As pilots we are in the public view the bad boys, but that is not the result of the global warming research. It is a result of how the public sees us through the eyes of those who report things about us. If you want to do something good about our community, stop denying global warming, but look for arguments that show that helicopters are not the reason why I get one heck of a warm summer next year :).
Nick Lappos arguments are a pretty good start and I am sure, we could come up with quite a bunch of arguments. And BTW, there is no endless supply of JetA, therefore it is always a good thing not to wast it. It is like "don't play with your food" that your mother told you so many times.
It is about time, we accept the fact, that it is possible, that there will be a global warming. If not, all the better. But if it happens as predicted by the vast majority of the experts, then it is about time to do something. Even if I think, that having a bit more sun and less rain would not hurt me to much here.
What most of the people don't get, is that there is a certain PROBABILITY, that certain things will happen. And on every new modell calculation, that probability gets closer to 1. Today, there is no modell calculation, that predicts no global warming with a higher probability then global warming. And the tendency is going towards a higher probablity of global warming.
And no you can rip appart all the models and argue with the channel 4 "experts". I don't care. The future will show, who was right. But that will not help the helicopter community.
:E

FairWeatherFlyer

3rd Oct 2007, 22:20

That being said, the actual carbon cost for the van vs the helo is not just covered by the vehicles, as that lame web site describes. The van needs a road, and that road needs a grader, paving trucks and an entire infrastructure of police patrol, tax guys, repair crews, fencing, gasoline stations and such muck to keep it operating. These all add measurably to the "carbon toll" of that van, but are counted as zip.

It's a good point, the point being that the calculations are complex, more so when taking into account shared resources like the ones you cite.

I think the best example of this recently was when it turned out flower miles were too simple as a measure of energy use:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6356383.stm

I hope over time goods and services will move to being dual-priced, both in money and energy terms with similar accounting audits. Consumers can then make more of an educated choice. And aviation is just another service, there's nothing unique about it bar some of the international tax agreements.

Bottom line: In 2050 when there are expected to be 9 billion people on this planet and many of them wish to share the living standard (equate that to energy use) of those reading this forum, even if you choose the convenient belief that co2 risk is small, do you want to gamble the only planet you have?

rotorrookie

4th Oct 2007, 02:52

Crab! are u born in southern usa??? well at least u got the same view and many americans, including thoose at the white house..... But from my experince in my "backyard" at 65N 22W I must disagree with you.
Yours philosophy and others who share it with you always though remind me of this Dennis Leary song: I think it says it all http://youtube.com/watch?v=MNzZzsvOClc

MLH

4th Oct 2007, 02:57

Never mind the fact that the Martian polar caps are shrinking also. Back in the mid 70's the so called "experts" were touting global cooling.

whoateallthepies

4th Oct 2007, 09:22

I personally called the head of the US climate labs in Colorado
Nick
No vested interest there then?
It seems that the "man made" global warming advocates shout louder than the "natural phenomenon" advocates.
http://i.1asphost.com/whoateallthepies/pie.jpg

[email protected]

4th Oct 2007, 16:06

Rotorrookie - that's the way mate, don't bother with reasoned debate - just go straight for personal insults...tw@t:ugh:

Nobody said the climate wasn't changing (stasis isn't an option)......it's just the cause that is unclear.

Lama Bear

4th Oct 2007, 17:21

While Nick is an expert on Sikorsky helicopters he is no expert on

"Of the approx 1,000 peer reviewed scientific publications that discuss climate change in the last decade, zero, zip, nada have embraced your point of view. All, every one, the entire bunch have stated that we are changing our climate. Of course, a few non-scientist White House lawyers agree with Crab, so there ARE two points of view."

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

NickLappos

4th Oct 2007, 18:47

Lama,
You, too, can be sucked in by the neocon prattle.

Note that "at least one element" of disagreement is not the same as refuting. If an article discussing global warming states ten items, and another sites that one as doubtful, it makes your list (I say "your list" because if you are silly enough to post it, so its yours.) That article you dragged up is designed to make you actually think you now know something. Look up the hudson "institute" to see how much credibility it brings.

I restate, no peer reviewed article written in the last 10 years doubts that we are changing our climate, and that the effects are bad. None, zip, nada.

Real climate scientists shake their heads when folks like you drag simpleton articles like that around. And they cry a bit when you believe oil company lawyers instead of experts.

Perhaps we should have a lawyer overhaul your transmission!

Lama Bear

4th Oct 2007, 19:31

Nick

Where do you get this "I restate, no peer reviewed article written in the last 10 years doubts that we are changing our climate, and that the effects are bad. None, zip, nada" fact. Did you review them? Who are you quoting? What is your source?

Here is one small voice in disagreement....

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2007/06/18/0706180285.php

and another...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

You want to shoot the messenger. The Hudson Institute has been around a long time. Should I give you some links to George Sorro's ties to the Global Warming herd?

Climate Change and Global Warming are not synonymous. One is a natural recurring event and one is man caused. Is this the new religion?

Rotorbee

5th Oct 2007, 07:38

... they don't want to hear it.
As I said, people tend to believe, what they like to believe. The same problem as with the creationists ... no argument ever will convince them. You can prove them wrong a million times, no chance, that they ever believe you. Even if god himself would tell them, they would not recognise him.
Same here. They don't like the fact and therefore they close their eyes.
Now looking at the Hudson Institute:
Mission
"Hudson Institute is a non-partisan policy research organization dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security, prosperity, and freedom. We challenge conventional thinking and help manage strategic transitions to the future through interdisciplinary and collaborative studies in defense, international relations, economics, culture, science, technology, and law. Through publications, conferences and policy recommendations, we seek to guide global leaders in government and business." (Their words)
THAT sounds like a religion. That institute is made for lobbying. One look at the homepage and you see written all over it "We know better then anybody." And with Donald Rumsfeld as the most prominent person who has something positive to say about the founder, gives away on which side they are.
Nobody with a real independent approach would ever formulate their mission like this.
But it sounds good.
Now if somebody wants really to be somebody who does not to believe in everything that scientists say, it does not mean that one has to believe the opposite of it. Science is a game of theory and counter theory. But not a game of religious believes and none believe. It is to accept somebody’s theory and the facts he delivers until it is PROVEN wrong. That goes for both sides.
And now the question, why the heck would it be so bad to save co2? Because somebody makes money with it? Who cares? New technology and new jobs for helicopter like flying out to the wind farms? And if the helicopter industry would be the first to be carbon neutral? Even better. Gives us a huge boost in the public opinion ... and we need that.
But some people don't like to save co2 because they would have to change their life ... but it would be a healthier life for sure.
And if you don't want more taxes, do something now, because taxes are made when people don't change. Interesting example from Switzerland. There is a law that 75% of all PET-bottles must be recycled or there would be a refund on every bottle. Once the Swiss collected less then 75% and got a warning from the government. There is still no refund on bottles because they got the message. It works.

NickLappos

5th Oct 2007, 11:37

Rotorbee,
You are right, and this could go on forever. For instance, lama sites a professor who can't get published as a source for perr-reviewed science. No win situation.

The funny thing is that I KNOW what science goes into the steel in the teeth of Lama's transmission - it was my business for 3 decades - and that is less sure than the evidence of global warming!
People must think that if there is any doubt as to the complete story, then there is no story. Such a shame, especially when the only real doubters are those who have something to lose (isn't that the case!)

When we shift to nuclear and hydrogen based fuels (as we must, or perish) then the carbon fuels - Oil and Coal - will become relics, and their stock will be mud. No wonder why they hire lawyers to argue against scientists!

Rotorbee

5th Oct 2007, 12:31

When it is about science and what people believe, we always fight an uphill battle.
And between those who have the most to loose, some even see this as a chance.
The CEO of Total (French oil company) lately said in an interview, that it is much better to sell less oil for a higher price then a lot of oil for dumping prices. That ist why Total and other oil companies invest in new "green" technologies.
Saying this, I know, that this is a simplified view, but economically it does make a lot more sense to use resources as efficient as possible. At least economists can show that quite clearly and the science of economics is one of the worst regarding proving anything.
Therefore, if you invest today to make your company co2 neutral, the chance that this is a good investment ist greater then 0.5. Does that sound good for your pockets? That is probably the only way to convince people. More money in their pocket makes them happy.
The funny thing is that I KNOW what science goes into the steel in the teeth of Lama's transmission - it was my business for 3 decades - and that is less sure than the evidence of global warming!
Yes, this is funny and should make people think. I had a similar experience lately with the clapper of a bell (the ding dong thing, not the chop chop) and its crystalline structure. Not a lot is know about its behaviour. But we all know bells and can talk about it. But we do not have a clue about how a bell really feels. It is more an exchange of common knowledge that does not help us to gain more knowledge. The same is true with that discussion here. An exchange of "have you heard <insert name here> the global warming expert". And those who are the loudest, are most often heard. That reminds me of an old saying. If you are sure that you are right, argue, if you are not right, shout. Instead I would prefer real arguments and not public opinions. A discussion on how to present our industry to the public regarding global warming could be very interesting. What happens here is just boring.
And by the way, the sun is on its lowest point in its activity cycle. If anybody thinks that the sun was the reason for last years hottest summer ...

Non-PC Plod

5th Oct 2007, 13:30

Why would this all be a massive conspiracy to get us to pay more taxes? Governments dont tax us for their own entertainment, they tax us either to pay for public services, or to change behaviour Thats why cigarettes are 3 or 4 times the price they were when I used to smoke, thats why there is a congestion charge in London. Educating the public that smoking and heavy traffic are bad things achieves nothing. Nobody will change until it hurts financially enough not to do so.:ugh:

topendtorque

5th Oct 2007, 13:31

I must find an article that my brother sent me on this testing subject of coal fired / world use by date/ nuclear fired / power plants.
He gets to travel world wide into all of the biggest and latest and bestest nuclear plants.

He reckons velcro sweat band around the head coupled to seat head rest is the best way to sleep.

However in the meantime, I do remember someone telling me about a Bell 47 / G5 that was seen going through Mt Isa many moon ago with, - TWO - BIG BLACK FEET- portrayed on the underside belly panel.????

They reckon the young driver had no idea why - some talk about the pilot it was going to was nicknamed "FOOT".

Does that count to this footprint thread?? Anyone else heard about this "FOOT" bloke ????:}
tet

whoateallthepies

6th Oct 2007, 04:24

Rotorbee
Didn't you read the linked article at the top of page 2?

"I have come across no rigorous proof that wasteful human pollution has caused any significant climate change."
Dr Martin Keeley
Geologist, and a Visiting Professor at University College London

Strikes me that you are the one who has the wide-eyed zealotry and can't accept dissenting voices.

http://i.1asphost.com/whoateallthepies/pie.jpg

RVDT

6th Oct 2007, 07:15

tet,

Yeh I know FOOT but it would be a lot of moons ago!

Graviman

6th Oct 2007, 08:41

My biggest gripe when it comes to CO2 release (whether or not you figure it is causing the observed climate change) is automotive aerodynamics.

Before my current job i was in the auto industry, being involved in various aspects of development for many vehicles. It never ceases to amaze me how unimportant aerodynamics was considered next to styling. The body guys did all they could to keep weight down, while meeting NCAP crash specs. The engines guys did their level best to minimise BSFC fuel burn. There was even some work done on hybrids. Aerodynamics was only ever given a cursory once over.

Citroen produced a car many years ago with a Cd of 0.19 - hence the name DS19. For comparison the proverbial brick has a Cd of 1.0, and a helicopter fuselage has a Cd of ~0.1. If CO2 is a major concern why am i driving a car which is wasting twice as much fuel as it could be churning up the air? There are many many more cars than helicopters...

Rant over.

Comment about nuclear powerd helicopters was tongue in cheek, but it was once seriously considered for very long range bombers... :uhoh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft

NickLappos

6th Oct 2007, 16:59

The way this Global Warming issue has been politicized is just as much fun as the origins of the "Patriot Act" the "Mushroom Cloud," and the "Death Tax". The way to get uninformed folks to carry your intellectually bankrupt argument is to cover the issue with a bumper sticker or sound bite and then just keep repeating the lies. Let the linguistics obscure the truth, such as stripping patient's abilities to get proper coverage from their HMO's by calling the law the "Patient's Rights Act".

The very unsettling way thie climate issue has been controlled shows that Orwell's 1984 was not far off ("...the Ministry of Peace is concerned with War, the Ministry of Truth is concerned with Lies..."), the lazy press can be manipulated by officials who have no integrity, as long as they simply believe there are always "two sides" to every issue.

Read this article, it is one of several that show what a political campaign can look like when well done:

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11074-us-climate-scientists-pressured-on-climate-change.html

We in the helicopter industry can and will work out how to do our very important jobs and meet the coming new environmental laws.

Either that, or we must buy tropical beachfront in Alaska.

Lama Bear

6th Oct 2007, 17:41

You're trying to tell me that the evil Ministry of Truth has effectively shut down debate on Climate Change??? The Lord High Guru of Global Warming is going to receive the Nobel Peace prize, of all things, next week for his seriously flawed documentary. The Climate Change believers get plenty of press. It is the skeptics that are not covered in the press. Questioning Global Warming is akin to attacking one's religion.

Your link is rather dated. Try this one in the same magazine.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/10/are-we-overreacting-to-climate-change.html

I'm still waiting for your source on ....

"Of the approx 1,000 peer reviewed scientific publications that discuss climate change in the last decade, zero, zip, nada have embraced your point of view. All, every one, the entire bunch have stated that we are changing our climate."

NickLappos

6th Oct 2007, 18:26

Lama, I am laughing! The guy you hang your hat on is not even a scientist, he is a Business Professor!

Here is a Google Scholar search under "anthropogenic climate change". What is Google Scholar, you ask:

What is Google Scholar?
Google Scholar provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature. Google Scholar helps you identify the most relevant research across the world of scholarly research.
Here are the 60,900 hits that discuss how we are changing our climate.:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=anthropogenic+climate+change+&btnG=Search

Lama,
One report in particular was specifically about the "disagreement" that you think exists.
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref9)). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

.....Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Lama Bear

6th Oct 2007, 18:42

Nick,

I am disapointed that you have taken this discussion to a personal level. I really expected better.

I wish you well.

NickLappos

6th Oct 2007, 18:54

Lama, you are right, I deleted the snide cheap shots. Just please dont post business professors as proof of climate issues, please!
Nick

Matthew Parsons

6th Oct 2007, 19:28

The connection to helicopters is becoming more vague with every post, but the discussion is interesting.

I think that deep within most reasonable people, you will find that they all agree that the net effect of carbon emissions is not a good thing, although perhaps some may think it is not a bad thing either.

By looking for evidence that it is bad, we are waiting for an unacceptable result. We could put known carcinogens into school lunches, and observe cancer rates amongst the students and former students for 20 years, and conclude that (within statistical accuracies) the data doesn't support removing the carcinogens. This is what is happening with the carbon emissions. We are looking for hard evidence that ill effects are occuring, but that hard evidence is going to be when we find ourselves with an unrecoverable atmosphere. I don't want that to happen.

Instead, we should acknowledge that the current evidence may not be 100% convincing, but take action on it anyway and see if we can cause a trend towards improving the atmosphere. If we see improvement (even improvement at a higher derivative), then that will greatly support the current evidence.

Any steps we can take to reduce the emissions make sense. At this point, taking every possible step will have too much impact on our way of life, but there are savings that could be had almost everywhere that have little impact. I.e. don't go with a low emission vehicle that is 3 times too big for your needs, go with a low emission vehicle that is the right size. Works for helicopters too.

Matthew Parsons.

Rotorbee

7th Oct 2007, 09:20

@whoateallthepies
Ahem ... did you BTW look at the vita of Dr Martin Keeley?
I would say, he is:
1. A geologist and not a meteorologist
2. An Oil Exploration Consultant

He could have the tendency not to be very neutral, regarding his clientele.

There we have the next case, where a title makes you believe everything a person says.
You should read "Kleider machen Leute" or "Der Hauptmann von Köpenick".
... and not believe everything people tell you, just because you like, what they say.

Bravo73

7th Oct 2007, 10:02

Good find, Rotorbee.

Here is Martin Keeley's homepage:

www.martinkeeley.net (http://www.martinkeeley.net)

And his CV/Resume:

http://www.martinkeeley.net/index_files/Page629.htm

:eek:

whoateallthepies

7th Oct 2007, 10:46

Rotorbee
Wow! Now there's a bloke with a "vested interest". I must stop trusting the BBC to present impartial information. (Should have learned that years ago!). So I'll officially remove him from my list of sceptics (or skeptics for friends across the pond.)

BUT there are still many others who disagree with the consensus on man-made global warming. I do listen to both sides but still wait for the definitive proof of CO2s effect on natural global warming.
http://i.1asphost.com/whoateallthepies/pie.jpg

zorab64

7th Oct 2007, 13:53

I'm amazed, certainly at the start of this thread, that so many "professional" people have such a selfish attitude towards polluting their environment. Surely, anyone who believes that what humans have been burning since the industrial revolution has had NO effect on the atmosphere, must be living in cloud-cuckoo land?

Nick L (as usual), non-pc plod & others put valid points and there can surely be no doubt that, whilst climate change has been cyclical over many milennia, what appears to be happening now will (due to there being 6bn people on this planet) affect many more in a shorter time scale - certainly if we don't all take steps to mitigate our impact on the world. It is behoven upon everybody, and most especially in the developed nations, to be responsible with their use of resources - there has to be a balance between living (and s*d everyone else) and living sustainably.

Some months ago, I attended an event where my family's carbon footprint was calculated (11 tonnes per year - quite a lot lower than the average) but I subsequently calculated that the machine I fly has a footprint of nearer 800 tonnes! Difficult to rationalise the two until I resolve the fact that it's a necessary service we provide (& my job), and I ensure that I operate only where/when necessary and don't waste time=fuel=carbon on inefficient flying around in circles!:ok:

None of this addresses the problems of peak oil (where demand outstrips supply available) - which many in the oil industry reckon is already here, and that if the developed nations don't make significant efforts to converge with the developing ones, we're going to come to some almightly oil crunch sooner, rather than later. Whether anyone's flying helicopters at all in 20 years time will be the question - although I won't care, I'll have retired to a ground pump heated, solar-power enhanced, windmill . . . nearly said water-mill, but they'll probably all be underwater! :eek:

Rotorbee

7th Oct 2007, 15:14

@whoateallthepies
I saw that one coming. But since you are in Oman and we probably talking about the guys that pay your lifestyle.... you will be excused.
I am tired of arguing with you, because you bring always the same arguments... "<enter name here> has said" and I point always out, that you should stop believing what you like to believe. Do you really think I like the thougt that there could be a global warming? Acctually I would be more then happy to have a warmer climate where I live.
But we should change roles and then you would probably understand what I mean. Take my side and I take your side and then you'll see. And believe me, I am better prepared to argue against that global warming myth, than you.
@zora64
That is the argument that is always lost. The timescale. You are right. The problem we face is how fast the change will come.

zorab64

7th Oct 2007, 16:10

rotorbee - I can't say I really mind about the timescale, it's the people who think this whole discussion has nothing to do with man, and that therefore they don't have any responsibility to change anything about the way they live their lives, for the consideration of the future of the planet, that I have problems with!

The chances are that most of us posting here will be dead by the time any serious changes to the environment start to affect humans in large numbers, but I believe that the Mad Max films may not prove to have been far off the mark - it's not if but when! :(

NickLappos

7th Oct 2007, 16:44

zora and rotorbee,
You are right, the story is being written, and future generations will measure what we did and when. Our children are hostage to our malfeasance. The future will look at the words that George Bush and his cronies spout, and they will say, "How could they be so blind?"

The solution is not awful, but it is massive. Carbon is the problem, and uranium and hydrogen are the solutions. Cutting now is hard, because our economic system depends on energy, but replacement must start immediately. If cheap nuclear (not nucular, as the blind say it) were put on line quickly, and coal and oil plants equipped with CO2 scrubbers, and milage standards were imposed across the world, a big dent would be made.

It is not hard, the cost is less than we spend for explosives and armor plate world wide, (the US Navy has more reactors at sea than there are nuclear power plants!) but the effort must start.

Unfortunately, without adult leadership we are screwed. With no asteroid looming closer, and with no tidal wave coming, with no big noise photo opportunities, the start will never really come. Dolts of all sizes and shapes (like those on this forum who think the issue is still in doubt, because they didn't bother to read http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)) continue to slow the process.

The fools who say it isn't happening, fueled by oil money and right wing political pablum give us the same warm comfort that Mom gave us as she pulled the covers over our heads and said, "Don't worry, everything is all right."

slowrotor

7th Oct 2007, 17:48

Nick,
The solution is nuclear.
But the global warming activists are not about to endorse nuclear since they are the same group that killed nuclear 30 years ago.

How can CO2 be scrubbed? I don't understand how coal can be burned into a gas that is perhaps a thousand times the volume of the coal and then stored. Is this possible?

[email protected]

7th Oct 2007, 18:46

Nick, if you really believe the information you post links to (which by implication means you agree with their links and evidence) then you should be campaigning across the USA for people to sell their cars and travel by bicycle. One of the sources claims the US is 18 times more polluting in terms of CO2 from vehicles than Africa...what do you drive? Don't tax the airlines, tax the motorists, your duty on fuel is a tiny amount of what Europe pays, you have the biggest cars with the biggest engines.

The US had to be dragged kicking and screaming into Kyoto and promptly negotiated all sorts of get-out clauses and invented carbon-offset trading.

I agree nuclear is the way forward but, as has already been said, the Greens don't like it and the 'Global warming' bandawagon has given them a huge stick to beat people with - they have the power and nothing will convince them about nuclear energy.

The main problem with the 'evidence' of global warming is that the scientific articles are full of phrases like 'modelling sugests', 'CO2 levels might rise', 'The earth temperature may rise by 3 degC', 'Sea levels may increase' and 'analysis of the data suggests'.

The best computer modelling suggests that it might rain next week in England, or Ireland or possibly France and no-one claims to understand the complexity of the global sea currents so how can you put so much faith in some number-crunching (garbage in, garbage out) to come out with the answer - 'the earth's getting hotter and it was the humans wot dunnit guv'

NickLappos

7th Oct 2007, 19:14

crab,
The US pollutes more in direct emissions because the US uses more energy to run its high lifestyle, the lifestyle that Asia and Africa are working hard to assume.

The indirect emissions are perhaps even more damning, because the release of CO2 from chopped down trees is almost as much a problem as are the direct emissions, and the loss of carbon fixing from those trees makes the "pollution" from rural, third world countries perhaps as bad as the big bad US. Furthermore, the release of methane from thawing tundra (a mode unrealized when the models were constructed) appears to be accelerating the problem.

All that being said, I must attack your illogical point "if you believe..." because this is not a religious festival, and your or my belief has nothing to do with the data. The Oil Pressure Caution Light is flickering on the Earth's Caution panel, and we have 928 technical papers by climate scientists who say it is, (and not one opposed) but Crab who says it is about models, and Lama who says it is the Scientist Mafia. I hear fiddling........

You can put your head in the sand and believe that these are nothing but discussions, and that "models" are what we are discussing. You can also find someone who is more to blame than you, so that means you must do nothing! You can also take a vote of the "beliefs" of those who you hang around with, and if the majority think it is no problem, than the data must be adjusted to suit. Let's vote on Gravity, too, while we are at it. The results will be as meaningful.

One of the great problems with aerospace safety is to get the user to see the net safety implications of his actions. Build stronger engines while we hit the dirt with CFIT is an example. This is the same. The data is there, but the ability of we collective fools to decide it isn't data, and that there is a nice word-pattern that makes it go away fuels our dreams.

eagle 86

8th Oct 2007, 02:55

I have resisted the temptation to join this discussion because I simply do not believe that it is mankind and his life style that is totally responsible for climate change (are we talking good or bad CC?) and I know my attitude inflames a lot of people. But a couple of points:
I have some good friends who are desperately trying to convince me that mankind is stuffing the world. Yes, one of them drives a hybrid car - but the same is happy to leave lights on day and night and same same for the airconditioning. They burn wood fires when an extra jumper would do. The clothes dryer is used when God's own is blazing down outside. Computors, yes plural, run day and night even when the operator is overseas for three months! Should they read this I apologise for using them as an example of a large majority of the activists who are big on rhetoric but short on actual action,
The West loves the lifestyle and the emerging nations want and will have it!, and,
in my part of the world the Greenies will have no part of nuclear power.
GAGS
E86

Phil77

8th Oct 2007, 04:33

Is there a chance to boil it back down from the big picture to our small (helicopter-) world for a second?

I have a honest question to all of our engineers and testpilots.

Maybe naive but here I go:
Does anybody suspect if there are any alternative ideas deep, deep in the drawers of GE, Rolls Royce, P&W e.g. how not to burn 100 gal of Jet A an hour and still call it "superior technology"?
I mean people suspecting car manufacturers of having plans for a 65 mpg (3 l/100km) car that is as powerfull as a Porsche 911 (a little exaggerated, ok ;))? ...and they are not using it because the Oil lobby is protecting their business?

Beeing 31 and having quite a few years to retirement, I'm just curious if there is a better plan than buying a hybrid family van for the ride to the airport, only to burn more than the payload of the aforementioned vehicle just during one day of work?

(anticipating the smartass answer: "buy a porsche!")

[email protected]

8th Oct 2007, 05:24

Nick, the credibility of your argument would hold more weight if you were not doing what you accuse me of doing - if this isn't blaming others for polluting more than the US then what is?

Quote' The indirect emissions are perhaps even more damning, because the release of CO2 from chopped down trees is almost as much a problem as are the direct emissions, and the loss of carbon fixing from those trees makes the "pollution" from rural, third world countries perhaps as bad as the big bad US. Furthermore, the release of methane from thawing tundra (a mode unrealized when the models were constructed) appears to be accelerating the problem.' Unquote...just how much of that timber is destined for the US market?

And your justification is, Quote' The US pollutes more in direct emissions because the US uses more energy to run its high lifestyle, the lifestyle that Asia and Africa are working hard to assume.' Unquote........so it's the other guys fault again for wanting to be like you.

Get your own house in order before you start preaching. You want to be world leaders then lead from the front.

Aviation does have more to fear from the anti CO2 lobby because alternative technology doesn't appear to exist, whereas the carmakers are pushing electric/hybrid/hydrogen powerplants strongly - a more efficient jet engine isn't going to sway the greenies.

Graviman

8th Oct 2007, 09:15

Phil, for helicopters the problem boils down to three areas:
1. Fuel source.
2. Engine.
3. Aerodynamics.

For 1, i am not as convinced as others about hydrogen. The main reason is that it has lousy energy volume density (even as a liquid), although good energy mass density. Consider that the mighty Saturn V used liq H2/O2 combustion in it's 2nd and 3rd stages (J2 engines), but good old kerosine for the heavy lift 1st stage (F1 engine). CO2 + H2O + Energy can be converted into liquid hydrocarbons, but it will take some investment to develope the chemical engineering required. It is doable.

Where the energy comes from is the key. We get 1.4kW of power for every square meter from sunlight, so there is a start. Water turbines in the gulfstream look a more practical way for UK to capture this energy. Ultimately our power hungry civilisation will use fusion, which will be with us in 3 or 4 decades. Fusion is already here, for ~1min burst, but it takes time to commercialise these things.

For 2, the ultimate solution will be solid state energy conversion. There are some very interesting technologies using quantum mechanics to convert combustion directly into electrical power. They will probably work their way through the space industry first while they mature. Timescale probably similar to fusion, mostly due to market resistance. In the interim Rolls is doing a lot of materials research to push engines above 40% efficiency.

For 3, as Nick comments the heli industry (should that be helo? i've never been sure) will continue to improve their product with resulting benefits. I will be interested to see a Sikorsky of 2040, it may be suprisingly different...

NickLappos

8th Oct 2007, 17:32

Crab said, " Get your own house in order before you start preaching. You want to be world leaders then lead from the front."

Considering the official US position re: Global Warming, we are guilty as charged. That doesn't mean every American agrees with the stated policy!

Rotorbee

8th Oct 2007, 18:10

Now it is the crabs turn again (why do I think about garlic and olive oil?)... will there be something sensible what we can acctualy discuss, or another excuse for continuing playing with toys like cars?
I don't think either, that hydrogen is the way to go, nor nuclear power. The later because storing the very dangerous waste for 10’000 years is just a bit silly and there is no endless supply of uranium either. Apart from that, the energy content is just great.
We must replace the fossil fuel power stations with something, this is clear. I think the idea of a huge high tension network all over <enter continent here>, is one important part in the big picture. By connecting wind, solar and hydraulic power stations (or anything else that does not pollute), we could produce the electrical power where the wind blows or the sun shines and use the surplus to pump water up in the reservoirs to store the energy for peek times.
Methanol would be the next piece in the puzzle, but only when we are able to produce it from the whole plants and not only from the grains.
Fusion is just too far into the future to count on it.

[email protected]

8th Oct 2007, 18:24

Nick, if there is not a groundswell of public opposition to your Govt's position, is it because this 'overwhelming evidence' just isn't that overwhelming?

If sea levels really are rising, why isn't the Eastern seaboard of the US underwater by now. If there really are going to be more 'extreme weather events', where are they because all the stuff we are getting at the moment is the same stuff as we have had for 100s of years.

Without some precise forecasts and some real proof that the climate really is changing and not just following a natural cycle, your countrymen are unlikely to trade in their Chevy's for Prius' and abandon that high lifestyle of theirs for something more modest and environmentally friendly. You guys voted him in:)twice:}

Over here the politicians are falling over themselves to win votes on the environmental issues and taxing the poor people who have to drive to work is the latest fad. Unfortunately, the CO2 emissions data that is now used to determine how polluting your car is and therefore how much vehicle tax you pay is inaccurate and misleading - the methodology is explained by Andrew English in Saturday's Telegraph motoring section.

The only reasons politicians are interested in global warming is winning votes and raising taxes.

Climate change is the new religion amongst the scientific community and evryone wants to be the Pope.

NickLappos

8th Oct 2007, 19:44

Crab,
Every word in your last post indicates that you haven't read anything about global warming written by a climate scientist, yet you have amazingly strong understanding of the REAL issue! I have a good dentist who overhauls transmissions. Want his number?

Regarding political action for global warming, after the next election in the US, I think we will find a new awakening of non-political science, with climate, space and stem cell research all funded and active, as they should be.

Until then, we do have a good business professor who agrees with your science opinions. And a Dentist/transmission expert!

Flying Lawyer

8th Oct 2007, 23:41

Rotorbee says: And those who are the loudest, are most often heard.
I can't comment on what's happening in the rest of the world but, in the UK, that's a fair description of the 'green' lobby who'd have us believe the end of the world is nigh. Unfortunately, those who dare to challenge the basis of their claims, or even express scepticism, are given relatively little exposure because the media has jumped on the environmentlist bandwagon.

and That reminds me of an old saying. If you are sure that you are right, argue, if you are not right, shout.
Applying that adage to this thread, it's interesting to observe which side has been doing the most shouting. And which side has been the most intolerant of those who dare to disagree with, or even be sceptical of, the other side's claims.

Unfortunately, in the UK, the government has jumped on the currently popular environmental bandwagon as a means of raising more tax revenue. Not for the purpose of raising more revenue, of course, but in the interests of the environment. Believe that if you will. :rolleyes:

Am I concerned about the future? Yes.
I'm very concerned that we're going to pay even more tax in the guise of concern for the environment.
I'm very concerned about the practical consequences of the leaders of all the major UK political parties trying to outdo each other in pursuit of the 'green' vote. (I try to take comfort in the fact that they actively pursued the 'pink' vote not long ago, so I can only hope we'll have a respite when a bandwagon of a different hue eventually rolls along.)
I'm very concerned that some powerful politicians want Britain to lead the world in environmental issues. The thought that they might succeed in their aspiration worries me. I'd be relieved (delighted, even) if we were somewhere amongst the last wagons. Politicians are extremely adept at talking a lot about doing a lot whilst actually doing little or nothing - when it suits them. This is an area where I'd welcome seeing those skills put to good use so that we delay inconvenience and interference in our freedom of choice for as long as possible.

Aviation is one of the prime targets of the environmentalist lobby in the UK. It's an easy target. So let's make life more difficult for one of the few successful industries we have left. What a clever idea. :rolleyes:
I accept entirely that the aviation manufacturing industry has to prepare for the future and, just as important, must be seen to be doing so.
In the meantime, the aviation industry as a whole should be embarking upon a massive PR exercise to defend itself against the attack, including correcting the false impression created by the green activists that aviation is a major contributor to global warming/climate change. And including using every devious trick in the spin doctors handbook, which reminds me of another old saying - by a good friend of mine: 'If you're in a fair fight, you didn't plan it properly.'
(Actually, not so old a saying. When did you first say it Nick? :) )

Do I care about the environment in the sense that word is used in discussions of this sort?
Yes, in theory; no, in practice.
ie Do I do anything/not do something out of concern for the future of the environment? No.
Those who claim to be so concerned are often shocked by that - until asked what they do. eg Do they forego a foreign holiday by air, walk/cycle/take the train instead of driving, actively minimise their leisure use of fossil fuels etc? The most the overwhelming majority come up with is having a recycling bin.
I'm not sure how long that freedom of choice will last. Throughout the history of mankind, zealots have forced their views on those they fail to persuade. Always for the 'greater good', of course.
That reminds me of another old saying. 'If you are sure you'll persuade, argue. If you're not sure, use force.'

PS. I'm all for other people choosing to use their cars less. ;)

FL

ShyTorque

8th Oct 2007, 23:56

PS. I'm all for other people choosing to use their cars less.

Mmm. So am I, especially my boss - it keeps me in a job.

[email protected]

9th Oct 2007, 08:44

Nick, I read this

http://www.royalsociety.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

Does this meet your criteria?

Now these guys don't agree with my opinion but, in an effort to rebuff the arguments of skeptics like me, they offer no hard scientific proof to link climate change to man made emissons.

They cannot explain why there was no warming between 1945 and 1976, or how the lower atmosphere isn't warming in sympathy with the surface; they also state that sunspot activity has been exceptional for the last 70 years compare to the last 11,000 yet ignore it as a factor because it doesn't fit in with the 'modelling'.

The best they can come up with is that man made emissions of greenhouse gases are 'Probably' the cause of climate change

- well Carlsberg claim that their lager is Probably the best in the world but it most certainly ain't:)

The Hustler

9th Oct 2007, 09:32

A couple of things here leap out at me - the first is that we are relying on statistics for all this. I seem to recall there was a great saying about statistics . . .

Secondly, Graviman raised a good point with his comment about the aerodynamic efficiency of our cars. All the really great auerodynamic cars were built a while ago now - the DS19, the Mako Shark, Subaru SVX etc. Now we have less fuel-efficient bodies (less aerodynamic and also getting heavier).
One example is in the British Touring Car Championship - one team use the Honda Accord last year, and have moved to Honda's new Civic for this year which is less aerodynamic. So they had to get more power from the engine to make it as competitive.

The big problem I have with this thing about renewable energy, though, is that it isn't (renewable that is - on a macro or micro scale). There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
We put up wind farms to convert wind energy into electricity. This is taking energy out of our weather system. They also have a massive carbon footprint during manufacture and installation (new roads/cabling etc). The big ones in remote places can take up to 20 years to pay back their 'cost', and they are only supposed to last 25. AND why, when I pass the farms in the UK do I invariably see about a third of them not turning and generating? They'll take longer to pay off if they don't actually use the things.

Solar panels convert the sun's energy. This is energy that would normally go into the solid objects, warming them and enabling them to release this energy back into the air and warming it up after a cold night. This process also creates thermals which defines how our weather system changes.

Wave farms take enrgy out of our seas, potentially changing the natural currents. If you want to see massive localised climate change, try moving the Gulf stream away from Scotland - we might finally be able to get some decent skiing.

Once we add loads of wind farms and solar panels, all sorts of havoc could be unleashed in the weather systems of our plant.

Of course, this is only extrapolating from previously observed phenomena - but that's what everyone else is doing, right?

Rotorbee

9th Oct 2007, 12:34

I am silly enough to argue with Flying Lawyer, because I will probably lose. It is his profession to argue, not mine and it is his language, not mine. But I will answer some of his questions.
Applying that adage to this thread, it's interesting to observe which side has been doing the most shouting. And which side has been the most intolerant of those who dare to disagree with, or even be sceptical of, the other side's claims.
I give you a clue, that was in the first answer:
The greatest scam is the idea that you can buy your way out of polluting - carbon offsetting, what a load of bolleaux.
I would say, those who deny the global warming or do not understand the carbon offsetting system.
Now we can point with the finger to somebody who was the first to use bad language. Does that help, no. But it answers your question.
And another question you certainly want me to answer, even if you don't say so:
I don't have a car. My wife has one, which I am allowed to use once in a while. I never understood helicopter pilots who have cars as toys? Cars are so boring. I'd rather go flying.
I take the bike to drive to work. Cheap way to keep me healthy.
Our average garbage weight for the whole family is 2 kg per week. The rest is recycled. Probably hard to beat.
Whenever possible I take the train, because I am lacy and don't like to drive.
I would take the plane for travelling, because it is just a bit difficult to take the train to the US and boats make me seasick. Get real.
Our house does not produce any co2, even the electricity comes from co2 free sources.
For somebody normal, I think I do pretty well.
... and I go easy on the onions and beans.
My point all along the whole discussion was, that those who deny the global warming wholeheartly - the channel 4 experts -, often don't really have a clue, what they are talking about and that the helicopter industry should get their stuff together and be the first industry to be carbon neutral. Is that a bad idea? We could even make some money on the way.
And you are concerned about your law maker’s nadanadanada...
Aviation is one of the prime targets of the environmentalist lobby in the UK. It's an easy target. So let's make life more difficult for one of the few successful industries we have left. What a clever idea.
You know, that you can not win this fight, you can only last the pain longer, if you want to keep the status quo. I think, it would be way better to be offensive in showing that the helicopter industry cares, does something about it. I am sure, we could do better then the "greens" in showing facts and figures.
I accept, that you are more interested in the future of your purse, then a global future. Don't have kids then.

[email protected]

9th Oct 2007, 13:59

Rotorbee - there is nothing magical about carbon offestting or carbon trading as it was termed in Kyoto - it allows those who wish to continue to pollute to salve their consciences by buying or trading other countries 'rights' to pollute. It's a bit like using other peoples duty free allowances because they don't drink and smoke.

Carbon offsetting has gained popularity because a green minded individual can still fly around the world as long as he has planted enough trees to offset the CO2.

Given that the IPCC claims that even if CO2 emissions were halved tomorrow, the climate would still keep on warming, offsetting is just a way of pretending not to make the situation worse.

I fully agree that everyone should recycle and use less electricity (what is your CO2 free source and what CO2 was used to create the machinery to convert the source into electricity?), it's just good housekeeping to look after the planet and it's natural resources.

Hustler - I like that, good post:)

NickLappos

9th Oct 2007, 16:03

Crab and Flying Lawyer,

This dialog is a good one, but it has the aura of the beginnings of a nightmare for those of us who have truly read several of the more erudite scientific papers on the subject (remember that of the all the papers written by climate scientists, none disagree).

While the story has been stolen by those who falsely claim that there is "scientific disagreement" and by those who say that "only computer models" predict the problem, the inexorable warming has started, with unprecedented CO2 levels, worldwide temperatures and vast worldwide melting evident. Martin Frobisher would leap for joy in the new ability to sail across the Arctic Ocean!

Crab and Lawyer, I truly wonder what more is needed to convince us that action is needed?

Rotorbee

9th Oct 2007, 16:05

@crab
You certainly do not understand the idea. It is a bit more complicated then you claim. Unfortunately due to lobbying and stupid law makers, the system was perverted and the trading of certificates came to a standstill this year.
The system could save quite a bit co2 emission, but that is what happens when people do not understand the idea.

How cunningly you ask for the production our heating equipment. The problem of the chain of production for equipment has been discussed thousands of times before and you can prove that we should include the production of the hospital where I was born to my co2 emissions. That is not the accepted method. Therefore I leave this to your fantasy.

But what you don't get, that I do not stand for or against the global warming discussion. I stand for a helicopter industry that has a good public reputation and reacts and does something. The public opinion will come after us, if we are not faster. Denying global warming, spells disaster. Got it now?

If you do not believe in global warming ... you will in 20 years. I don't care if YOU believe in it, but I care about helicopters and this industry.

[email protected]

9th Oct 2007, 18:18

Nick and rotorbee - since you are so much better informed and enlightened on all these matters then why don't you educate us by explaining properly?

Does your intellectual superiority mean that we cannot possibly comprehend your information sources and would never understand the significance of your irrefutable proof straight from the mouths of the climate change scientists?

We can all see that the climate is changing - that's not rocket science.

The number of people in the world is increasing and they all want to keep warm/cool, eat and breathe, have jobs and raise families. Their countries have economies to run and industrialisation is an essential part of developing economies.

If the link between the 2 is so concrete then what, short of genocide, do you suggest is done about it.

Short of shutting down the US and China for a few years, all the wailing of impending doom isn't going to reduce the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere if indeed this is the cause of the climate change.

NickLappos

9th Oct 2007, 18:28

crab,

You didn't answer the question - what precisely does it take to convince you that humans are causing climate change?

[email protected]

10th Oct 2007, 05:26

The data would help a lot Nick - measurements of exactly how much the sea levels have risen and where, exactly how much the temperautre has risen and where; lots of articles refer to this information but none include it specifically, it is usually a generalised 'sea levels have risen' which is then used to fuel a prognosis of what would hapeen if sea levels continue to rise.

Then a realistic removal of all the other possible causes including sunspot activity, nuclear testing, volcanic activity; these are often brushed aside as an inconvenience.

It isn't just me you have to convince, there's a whole world of people out there who, by your assertion, need to change their lifestyle - some much more than others.

whoateallthepies

10th Oct 2007, 06:14

Rotorbee
You really don't read what others write do you?

and not believe everything people tell you, just because you like, what they say.
and I point always out, that you should stop believing what you like to believe.

My dear fellow, I have said that I do listen to both sides but wait for the definitive proof, much like Crab.

You also boldly state
And believe me, I am better prepared to argue against that global warming myth, than you.

a) You don't know me or my knowledge of this matter.
b) I don't believe global warming is a myth, only the extent of man's involvement is questionable. But if you had properly read the posts instead of launching off on one, you would understand that.
c) I hope your deep knowledge of CO2 is better than your grasp of English!

Flying Lawyer states the case so well, I will now let this rest. I am sure you will come ranting back with something though. It's a free forum, go ahead!
http://i.1asphost.com/whoateallthepies/pie.jpg

Rotorbee

10th Oct 2007, 07:25

@crab
There is something, what you probably will like: If we do something about co2 emissions, it is absolutely mandatory, that our economy takes advantage of it. Shutting down China and the US is not an option. Any employment lost in the oil industry must be offset by new employment opportunities in other sectors, for example. If our economy collapses due to crazy new "green" laws, everything would be lost. We in the developed countries must be able to make money from the stop of the climate change. Otherwise, no change will ever happen. Therefore it is absolutely necessary, that we build and sell cars. Because we have to replace the old dirty cars with new cleaner cars as fast as possible and scrap the old ones. We just have to force the car builders to make better cars. Ok, that is a very simplified version of it, but I think you get the point.
Don't lower your lifestyle, just change it, buy a new car, new bike, new house. As in everything in life, we have to invest, if we want a change.

@whoateallthepies
Hey, don't get personnel; since English is not my mother tongue and it is one hell of a difficult language, I do what I can. That may lead to misunderstandings.
It is really sad, if you drop out now, because I had such a good idea, how to answer your last post.
I wish you many happy landings.

nimby

10th Oct 2007, 10:10

I have found it amusing and saddening to read this thread.

For my part, I believe that man is making a significant contribution towards climate change.

I base this belief on 3 things:

(1) I have personally met and discussed the topic with UK Met Office staff. These scientific civil servants are extremely intelligent, well educated and neutral. They set the research agenda, not the politicians, and they are as happy to prove each other wrong as they are to prove each other right. These normally innate people were passionately trying to persuade anyone who would listen that we are part of the problem, that we only have a few years to turn this around and that it can be turned around.

(2) I subscribe to a 'think tank' which has been weighing up the direct evidence/arguments and by and large we think the evidence is in line with what the Hadley Research Centre has been saying. We also, by and large, think Stern has a point when he treats the whole thing as an opportunity (as well as a threat). People who slag off China should first update themselves (Asia never does things the western way) and then look at where China and the Tiger economies are getting their technology improvements.

(3) I sort of get there through simple engineering knowledge: The atmosphere is thin, has little heat capacity and is easily affected by greenhouse gases. Of course digging out and burning megatonnes of carbon, buried over millions of years, is going to have an effect. I note Nick's normally considered completely trustworthy on engineering, particularly safety issues and issues of complex systems ... yet many have completely ignored his long track record on this one.

Given that I bought the 'evidence', I then looked at the consequences and thought about what could be done. Man may not be the dominant force and there may be frustration of our efforts from other natural effects.

I'D STILL RATHER ARRIVE AT THE SCENE OF THE CRASH WITH THE BRAKES FULL ON - I'VE GOT KIDS ON BOARD!!!

I feel better now. I'm off for a lie down now

Ever yours
Nimby

(Helicopters are really useful, but not always needed. Let's just be careful we can justify what we do to our grandchildren)

Rotorbee

10th Oct 2007, 12:25

@nimby
I congratulate you for your post. Brilliant.

As requested some sources:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/infothek/kipp-prozesse

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/infothek/sieben-kernaussagen-zum-klimawandel

http://www.awi.de/de/aktuelles_und_presse/ausgewaehlte_themen/klimawandel/ipcc_bericht_2007/

http://www.proclim.ch/products/ch2050/PDF_E/Summary_2050.pdf

http://fm.proclim.ch/FMPro?-db=news.fp5&-format=news/newsdetail.html&-lay=web&-sortfield=NewsDatum&-sortorder=descend&OneMonth=yes&flag=proclim&-max=2147483647&-recid=33098&-find=

http://www.proclim.ch/products/heatwave03/heatwave03_bericht.html

Interesting:
http://climateprediction.net/

eagle 86

11th Oct 2007, 02:10

What a lot of people here and elsewhere fail to get a grip on is that, like the example of my friends (see previous post), there is a lot of rhetoric BUT no will for real change amongst the vast majority of the world's population, particularly from the emerging nations. There are, and will be too many people on the earth.
The Green amongst will not accept nuclear power, it is they that are actually preventing the real start of change.
Unless Draconian measures are accepted and introduced by the world's population, then, what you've got is the best that you can expect. I've never seen anywhere that mankind has any right to this world for ever. We are witnessing the beginning of the end of mankind as we know it - get used to this idea!
GAGS
E86

whoateallthepies

11th Oct 2007, 04:49

I don't have a car. My wife has one, which I am allowed to use once in a while. :ok:
http://i.1asphost.com/whoateallthepies/pie.jpg

Rotorbee

12th Oct 2007, 10:32

I just wanted to be the first to tell you ...
Al Gore, U.N. Panel win Nobel Peace Prize
Former vice president and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change awarded for raising awareness of global warming.
Ups ....:E

whoateallthepies

12th Oct 2007, 12:41

From the Daily Mail

The Government has offered to re-write the guidance for schools showing pupils Al Gore's climate-change documentary An Inconvenient Truth.
The move is a dramatic response to a High Court action brought by father-of-two Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor and a member of political group the New Party.

Mr Dimmock says the former US vice-president's Oscar-winning film is unfit for schools because it is politically partisan and contains serious scientific inaccuracies, as well as "sentimental mush".

His lawyers have accused the Government and New Labour 'Thought Police' of backing the film as a way of 'brainwashing' pupils on global warming.
John Day, of Malletts Solicitors, today described the offer to re-write the guidance as 'a U-turn', but said it did not go far enough.
He said 'no amount of turgid guidance' could change the fact that the film was unfit for consumption in the classroom.

High Court judge Mr Justice Burton, who conducted a three-day hearing, has yet to give a final decision on whether or not the film should be banned totally from the classroom.

Link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=485246&in_page_id=1770

http://i.1asphost.com/whoateallthepies/pie.jpg

Bravo73

12th Oct 2007, 13:15

Blimey, waatp. Now you're using the Daily Mail as the source material to support your argument. :sad:

You must really be clutching at straws... :E

Rotorbee

12th Oct 2007, 13:19

.... and it took him more then two hours to find it ...;)

[email protected]

12th Oct 2007, 13:22

Rotorbee - makes almost as much sense as a guy who invents Dynamite and Nitroglycerine putting his name to a peace prize in the first place:)

Rotorbee

12th Oct 2007, 13:51

@crab ... that was strange. I have seen a different version of your last post 10 minutes ago. I sounded like you did not know where the Nobel Prize comes from.
Alfred Nobel did not invent nitro-glycerine. He invented a save way to detonate it and later a save way to store it - Dynamite. Nitro-glycerine was way to instable for military use and very often there where terrible accidents with that stuff in mines and tunnels. His interest was to find a safe way to handle it.
Nobel hated war but made a lot of money during the Krim war with Ballistit. Probably to offset this, he created the Nobel prizes. I would say this is a normal human reaction.
BTW ... do crabs get very dangerous when cornered?

Bravo73

12th Oct 2007, 13:54

@crab ... that was strange. I have seen a different version of your last post 10 minutes ago.

Ahhh, the power of the 'quick edit'... :E

whoateallthepies

12th Oct 2007, 15:22

Bravo 73 and Rotorbee
It's widely reported, I could have used any number of sources.
What a grown-up pair you are, aren't you. Again not being able to accept that what disagrees with your view of the world is acceptable.
I wait for some sniggering, schoolboy remark to reply.
http://i.1asphost.com/whoateallthepies/pie.jpg

Bravo73

12th Oct 2007, 16:03

Bravo 73 Again not being able to accept that what disagrees with your view of the world is acceptable.
http://i.1asphost.com/whoateallthepies/pie.jpg

Hmmm, check the thread again, waatp. I'm not sure if I've even volunteered my 'view of the world' re global warming/climate change/call it what you want.

I've just expressed my surprise a couple of times at your choice of material that you use to substantiate your argument.

Your beef lies with Rotorbee, I'm afraid.

whoateallthepies

12th Oct 2007, 18:10

Bravo 73
Thanks for that. I think you know that I could have sourced any number of publications including the Guardian. My mistake of course, to make that assumption but I understand there is a touch of "Devil's Advocate" about your post me Old.
BTW the Guardian link is http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange

As for Rotorbee, I note he hasn't replied yet despite getting his knickers in a twist over my 2 hours away from the computer. Maybe his wife has allowed him to have the car and he's out burning CO2? :hmm:
http://i.1asphost.com/whoateallthepies/pie.jpg

Bravo73

12th Oct 2007, 18:22

I understand there is a touch of "Devil's Advocate" about your post me Old.
http://i.1asphost.com/whoateallthepies/pie.jpg

Ahhh, now that I can't deny! :E

[email protected]

13th Oct 2007, 05:57

Rotorbee - yes, shock horror, I posted on impulse and then checked my facts because I was convinced I had made an error. Shame you global warmers can't do the same:)

If by normal human reaction you mean 'do something bad for the world to make money and then try to redress the balance by throwing some of that money at it' then I think you sum up most of the Governments in the world and many of the large businesses.

Crabs, dangerous? Only when I'm flying:)

NickLappos

13th Oct 2007, 09:52

The award of the Nobel Prize for a Global Warming advocate sends a strong message on where the Nobel Committee stands on the debate. Giving it to Al Gore was a calculated slap on the face for the Bush administration, the folks who taught lawyers how to edit scientific papers.

Any comments from the "head in the sand" crowd?

[email protected]

13th Oct 2007, 14:34

They just don't like Bush and his administration - they're not exactly alone there.

The prize is, I suggest, more for the raising of awareness of climate issues than a copper-bottomed validation of Al's scientific credentials.

Graviman

13th Oct 2007, 16:18

(2) I subscribe to a 'think tank' which has been weighing up the direct evidence/arguments and by and large we think the evidence is in line with what the Hadley Research Centre has been saying...
Nimby, i'm interested in learning more about this. Is there any way to summarise the findings? As I understand it the main concern is an eigenmode in the O=C=O molecule absorbing near visible infrared. Presumably this slows down heat flow, forcing a higher temperature. Are there any alleviative measures possible in addition to streamlining ground vehicles?

eagle 86

13th Oct 2007, 22:23

Can any of the supporters of the theory of climate change tell me exactly what is in store for us and how soon is it going to occur? If one of the results is the death of millions, nay, billions of humans then I see this as a good thing. There is one fact - the earth cannot support the future predicted population growth regardless of what action any government body takes.
GAGS
E86

nimby

14th Oct 2007, 22:52

Eagle

I refer you to pages iv for cause and v for effect. The data is all fully referenced in the main report (which I'm sure you can find on your own)

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/4/3/Executive_Summary.pdf

Nimby

eagle 86

15th Oct 2007, 00:52

Maybe Dr William Gray should be "googled" and his comments read or is he the lone dissenting voice that obviously can't be believed?
GAGS
E86

Rotorbee

15th Oct 2007, 09:10

@whoateallthepies and crab
Sorry that I did not come up with a good reply, I thought we got over it and the thread finally died.
I am going to read the fourth ICPP report first (or a least part of it). That will take quite a while and after that we will see. Unfortunately some of it will be published in 2008. You are free to make any jokes about my carbon footprint; I really like a good laugh.

How does a crab move the pedals? And which pair of feet are they using?

FairWeatherFlyer

15th Oct 2007, 10:20

If one of the results is the death of millions, nay, billions of humans then I see this as a good thing.

The problem from your point of view is that some of them may want to move into your 'backyard' first.

Maybe Dr William Gray should be "googled" and his comments read or is he the lone dissenting voice that obviously can't be believed?

The issue here is not dissension, although perhaps the degree of dissension is important when a non-expert tries to gauge what is likely to happen. This is a risk issue - the risk that the humans are cooking their planet. Given that commerical aviation is largely about calculating and balancing risk this should not be a hard topic for this audience to grasp.

nimby

15th Oct 2007, 10:48

Maybe Dr William Gray should be "googled" and his comments read or is he the lone dissenting voice that obviously can't be believed?
Well, Eagle - I did exactly what you said ... and the ninth entry on the Google.co.uk search was this "Spinwatch" entry ...
http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/3676/9/
which, if you look, shows that:
A new study by the Center for Media and Democracy says Americans are still being shown corporate public relations videos disguised as news reports on newscasts across the country. In April, the Center identified 77 stations using Video News Releases in their newscasts. The findings led to an investigation by the FCC. A follow-up study has found 10 of those stations are still airing VNRs today for a total of 46 stations in 22 states.
If you have a look at the "rush transcript" of the example given, there is good old Dr William Gray pointing out that he can't prove it's global warming increasing the hurricane frequency from just 20 years of satellite data. (Let's ignore whether you ever could - it's irrelevant).
The point is that TCS (the people who generated the Video News Release) was owned by the Republican lobbyist, DCI Group. TCS was also the recipient of a $95,000 grant from the oil giant ExxonMobil for, quote, "climate change support." yet this was NEVER revealed by the broadcasters, who pass it off as news.
:=
Nimby

Senior Pilot

15th Oct 2007, 10:59

Gentlemen (and others.....),

I've allowed a great deal of licence regarding thread drift on this topic: it's now time to get back to the issue of helicopter carbon footprint, please :ok:

Senior Pilot

nimby

15th Oct 2007, 11:52

Any of you that want to know where your business stands should contact www.carbontrust.co.uk . It's one of those simple truths that saving the planet usually means saving money as well.

With respect to a helicopter's Carbon Footprint - sadly those donkeys know how to drink! :eek:

For every 1,000 litres of Kerosene you put in you will produce 2.52 tonnes of CO2 - enough said :ooh:

(see http://www.resurgence.org/carboncalculator/ for a nice, simple tool which covers many fuels).

... as Cyclic said back on the 1st ...

Better get planting some trees there boys!
:D

eagle 86

16th Oct 2007, 02:51

FWF,
The head of the Australian Federal Police stated some weeks back that migration based on survival needs poses a far greater threat to Oz and the rest of the Western world than, in his opinion, does terrorism. I am well aware of the many permutations and combinations - I wonder how many others are!
GAGS
E86

The Hustler

13th Nov 2007, 18:25

For every 1,000 litres of Kerosene you put in you will produce 2.52 tonnes of CO2
I never understood how consuming something that weighs approximately 1 tonne can generate 2.5 tonnes of waste product AS WELL AS energy.

Unless they are counting all the emissions used in the process of refining and transporting the fuel, in which case I would like to see if they are distributing the emissions costbetween all the products the refineries produce (petrol, fuel oil etc).

It's the same sort of confusing figure I've seen of "On a round trip from New York to London (...) a Boeing 747 spews out about 440 tons of carbon dioxide". If we assume it's a 747-300, then the 12,000km round-trip matches the plane's range, which means it uses all of it's fuel capacity of approx 200 tonnes of fuel.

If we carry on generating mass at this rate, surely global warming is the least of our troubles. If the mass of the Earth increses we'll pull the moon down onto us . . .

Does anyone have the breakdown of how these figures are calculated? I've yet to see anything that quashes my natural scepticism.

Efirmovich

13th Nov 2007, 20:36

Worked out my CF yesterday with on a Green website....

60tonne ! seems the average is 10t !! Makes you proud !!! :E

E.

FairWeatherFlyer

13th Nov 2007, 22:29

Does anyone have the breakdown of how these figures are calculated? I've yet to see anything that quashes my natural scepticism.

To take the simplest example, if you have a lone atom of carbon it has a mass of 12. If you fully combust it in air you end up with carbon dioxide, which has mass 12+16*2 - this is likely to be the essence of the apparent magnification.
There's no net change in mass, the air got 'lighter' when its oxygen was stolen. Jet A1 will be a mix of hydrocarbons so they will have taken a representative mix and performed a similar calculation.

On the quantitative side, one needs to be careful with the the metrics, carbon vs carbon dioxide, and as all aviators know mass vs volume. (There is another factor that i forgot; other gases with a greenhouse effect. I cannot recollect an example, but it's possible that for convenience of a single metric, these gases may be converted into an equivalent CO2 amount.)

Newsnight on BBC2 had a good running report on lower carbon lifestyles in the form of Justin Rowlatt and his family's investigation into reducing their environmental impact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4741392.stm

Here's his blog, generally very interesting reading and he has some genuine experts go through some of the thornier issues (if you feel the need to comment on the first issue, i'd suggest confining it to his blog comments not here):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/ethical_man_justin_rowlatt/

Tailspin Tommy

14th Nov 2007, 12:57

Careful lads. If we talk about this carbon footprint stuff to much relative to helicopters, the next step is testing pilots for their daily constitution output and chalk that into the total number. Next thing you know we'll be taxed for that as well.

bradporter34

20th Nov 2007, 17:45

FairWeatherFlyer

11th Dec 2007, 14:49

I don't feel quite as bad about my carbon footprints now that I heard British Airlines fly their birds from NY to London Empty sometimes! Talk about leaving a carbon footprint! The amount of carbon one flight puts into the atmosphere is equivilent to running 300 cars cross country multiple times.

Presumably you are a promoter/user of car/journey sharing schemes and always drive at max PAX?

On earlier aspects of this thread, for those interesting in the macro view, someone's done a bit of maths on uk population's total consumption:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/10/carbonemissions.climatechange

Graviman

15th Dec 2007, 11:46

FairWeatherFlyer,

One of my pet gripes is that the auto industry treats aerodynamics as a styling inconvenience. Would i chose an otherwise similar car with 1/2 the Cd - yes. I suspect most others are the same. Apart from some pretty poor attempts at city cars no one has really made any effort to produce a tandem seating car with aerodynamics optimised for high speed commuting.

Lets do a simple calc: A K21 glider seats 2 in comfort, and will glide at 50KIAS (25.7m/s) at 34:1 lift:drag. It weighs 365kg, so lets allow 2 pilots and lots of "baggage", to bring the all up weight to 565kg. This means it requires a "power" of

25.7m/s x 565kg x 9.806m/s^2 / 34 = 4.188 kW or 5.61 BHP

My little diesel VW tops out it's little 64SHP (47.7kW) engine at Vh ( ;) ) cruising of 100mph. So at Vy ( ;) ) of 50KTS or 57.5mph requires

64HP x (57.5mph / 100mph)^3 = 12.2 BHP

It requires ~2 times the power to do the same job! It does not suffer induced drag from any wings, which any aerodynamicist will tell you well outweigh the fuselage drag. Basically the stylist did most of the aerodynamic calculations with a blunt crayon!

You can see why i get annoyed when the guage reads bingo... :hmm:

Edit to say:
Thanks for the correction, D3 - one of my "Doh!" moments. :rolleyes:
Fortunately the calc still shows my point.
If every car had half the Cd, which is a realistic target, then you could have a serious impact on the CO2 produced by the transport sector.

delta3

15th Dec 2007, 14:43

Check your math,

I think it should be power 3 and not power 1/3. The result is also not intuitive: you don't need 53 BHP to drive 50!!

So the difference with the glider will be less...

Using power 3 will also be too optimistic for scaling down to zero, some lower harmonics will come into play (linear frictions etc)

Cheers, d3

topendtorque

16th Dec 2007, 12:26

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200712/r212073_815909.jpg
The MS Beaufort and its SkySail

Source:Supplied, www.skysails.infoPublished:Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:50 AEDT
The coastal vessel MS Beaufort flies its SkySails kite propulsion system in an undated photograph. The SkySails system purports to be able to lower a ship's annual average fuel costs by between 10 and 35 per cent

another concept?

DennisK

16th Dec 2007, 22:07

Ah Global warming ... climate change.

How I'd like to believe everyone, but one can't help being suspicious of any authority that makes money by touting theory after theory.

I haven't been able to read all the scientific papers out there, but as an ex graduating Geologist, actually a Geomorphologist, I tend to look around me, and reflect on known facts.

In Geological terms, as has been mentioned on this thread, our planet is presently in its fourth interglacial period ... ie things will be warming for the next few thousand years until we turn the corner and the fifth cold cycle returns.

Not so long ago, the English channel was frozen over, but it melted long before any humans were around to crank up their gas guzzling cars, or began pumping oil from the middle east.

The coal that was mined in Nottingham, Wales and Kent, was laid down in the carboniferous period and originated when the area we now inhabit was a tropical jungle, certainly a good tad warmer than even the worst forecasts for this part of the globe suggest, so on that basis one might feel that in the longer term, temperatures have been getting lower.

We all know about the frost fairs that were held on the Thames in the 1600s, something not seen since, and once again there has been little carbon emission from the eighteenth and nineteenth century Londoners.

Neither have I heard anything from the experts about the sea of plankton that can be seen from space and which contribute some 25% to the oxygen content of the atmosphere.

Indeed, I have to say that I take the view that only a creature as conceited as man could really believe he can have any significant effect on the natural temperature cycle that has been taking place on this planet for the past four or five billion years.

Nevertheless, as has been said here ... it can't do any of harm if we make efforts to reduce our pollution simply on the basis I like the area where I live to look clean and tidy.

Best wishes to all heli men.

Dennis Kenyon.

A.Agincourt

16th Dec 2007, 22:40

Dennis, I agree entirely.

Best Wishes

AndrewTaylor

17th Dec 2007, 17:15

I wonder how concerned the Chinese are about their "Carbon Footprints"........ Britain is just a little blob on the globe, and what sticks in my throat it this "politically correct" society we live in...... its been summed up by so many of your comments......those three magical letters "TAX". I smoke, a run a 5ltr engine car, I have a R44 Copter, and like a gallon of vodka now and again so yes, I WANT TO pay more green taxes....... coz I don't pay my share as it is!!!!!!!....... "my arse" is all this green crap, and I think alot of you agree.

Didn't I read a few weeks ago in Sunday Times that the ozone hole is closing up...... explain that one you greenite boffins?

I liken all this political "green issue" crap to the crusade of super rich pop-stars (like Bono and co.,) who started all this xmas "feed the world" sh*t 25 years ago.........has it made the slightest difference to the plight of the starving, and dying in Africa............?????????? NOOOOOOO!!!!!!! But it makes the Pop-Stars look so "superior and caring". And thats why the Politicians are all jumping on the "Green" Band-Waggon!!!!

I rest my case.

AndrewTaylor

AirScrew

17th Dec 2007, 18:32

AT.

Do you ave a link to that Ozone/ST article??

Gaseous

17th Dec 2007, 23:07

Feels bloody cold out there tonight. In my opinion Lancashire could benefit from quite a bit of global warming.:E

K48

18th Dec 2007, 09:51

I have done some research on this and yes we still are below a 3000 year average temperature. A dip in temp was caused by volcanic activity (Krakatoa) that caused the mini ice age (Thames ice skating era) from which we are recovering now... What I also found was that an essential part of the CO2 heating model is not matching reality. If CO2 is causing the temp rise, then average temperature rises at the surface, should be matched in the lower troposphere where CO2 hangs out... (please correct me if I am wrong)Apparently this is not happening in reality. So I am not sure I believe the model as presented.... how exactly is CO2 warming us...? and to what proportion compared to reflective cloud cover/vapour content levels/sunshine. Considering night/day and seasonal temperature fluctuation.. I suggest the SUN is the essential factor... Especially when you consider the following:
The earth has gone through huge temperature cycle changes without CO2 as a cause/effect. Plus the earth cooled/froze once CO2 levels were high... many times before.. so something else must have caused that... it's certainly reversable...
E.g what process put all those hydrocarbons underground in the first place?

I agree reducing pollution/litter is a nice/safer idea.. but not to the detriment of human economic and social stability. That is not safe for us... it's like stopping breathing to save oxygen.....
And dont forget... it was only in the late 1970s that we all thought the globe was going to freeze....

The way I see it... man has always made the mistake of thinking he is at the centre of things... no change now...My analogy is.. We are trying to forecast what the lay of the land is like at the other end of England by looking at a grain of sand on our local beach.........

But... having said all that.. you can understand the political motivation to reduce usage globally, considering there is a finite supply of oil..... the oil era will come to an end sometime.

Agaricus bisporus

18th Dec 2007, 15:28

If you avoid stepping in piles of coal dust you won't have a carbon footprint.

Next fatuous buzzword please?

FairWeatherFlyer

23rd Dec 2007, 17:04

"my arse" is all this green crap, and I think alot of you agree.

It's a convenient viewpoint, the one that a human cannot have an impact on a large planet. I would agree that a single human cannot, the point that is often (erm, repeatedly) missed is there are 6 billion of us with reliable projections of further increases.

The particular taxation issue referred to is VERY easy to solve - write to your MP/government representative and ask for all environement targeted taxes to be implemented as 'revenue neutral'. Some politicians are starting to understand this is required to deflect the cynicism but not all of them.

As for the pseudo-experts, please STFU if all you can cite is the european ice ages. I have a friend who has a phd in met, works in a related research dept. and he knows that he's not informed enough on this issue to make any definitive comments. Moral of the story, know your limits, both N1/Tq/TOT and elsewhere :)

Cyclic Hotline

23rd Dec 2007, 22:34

What exactly is "revenue neutral" when its at home?

I am opposed to any further taxation of any kind to feed fat politicians and civil servants in order to live the super-annuated lifestyle they demand.

Your friend may be right considering himself to be unable to make any kind of determination regarding this issue, but this hasn't stopped Fatty Gore, a "concensus of scientists", various politicians, all kinds of whackos, an entire political movement and the UN to hop on the bandwagon.

No wonder that independently thinking individuals take exception to having this bollocks rammed down their throats.

zorab64

27th Dec 2007, 12:07

Whether we believe global warming theories or not, it is in everyone's interest to be more prudent with the use of the Earths resources. It is accepted by the major players in the Oil Industry that we are already past "Peak Oil" - here's just one random result of a google search which brings up many articles with the same basic message:- Peak Oil: Life After the Oil Crash (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/)

The separate FACT that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is the highest it's ever been in the history of the planet, and no-one knows how this will affect the world, makes more interesting food for thought.
"Not giving a damn" might be an option but the following song from Flanders & Swan (popular enterainers in late '50s) would sum up this attitude succinctly:

Oh, Ostrich consider how the world we know
Is trembling on the brink.
Have you heard the news, may I hear your views,
Will you tell me what you think.
The Ostrich lifted its head from the sand,
About an inch or so;
'You will please excuse, but disturbing news
I have no wish to know.'
(Chorus)
Peek-a-Boo, I can't see you,
Everything must be grand.
Boo-ka-Pee, they can't see me,
As long as I've got me head in the sand.
Peek-a-Boo, it may be true,
There's something in what you've said,
But we've got enough troubles in everyday life,
I just bury me head.

Then I noticed suddenly where we were,
I saw what time it was.
Make haste, I said, It'll be too late,
We must leave this place because....
He stuffed his wingtips into his ears;
He would not hear me speak,
And back in the soft Saharan sand
He plunged his yellow beak.
Oooh, Peek-a-Boo, I just . . . .etc
....
I just bury me.... (BOOM)

From a sheltered oasis a mile away
I observed that dreadful scene.
And a single plume came floating down
Where my Ostrich friend had been.
Because he could not bear the sound
Of these words I had left unsaid;
'Here in this nuclear testing ground
Is no place to bury your head!' :eek:

FairWeatherFlyer

11th Feb 2008, 12:28

Some further reading to engross all the 'independently thinking individuals' out there. The (fairly obvious) consequences of shifts to some non-fossil fuels (including some comments on nitrous oxide, page 3, which can be fun but is also a greenhouse has with a high carbon equivalent factor) :

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/agrofuels_fuelling_or_fool.pdf

from here,

http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/biodiversity/news/biofuels.html

Cyclic Hotline

12th Feb 2008, 04:54

Sorry, I really can't take your advice to "STFU", must be awful when people don't accept all this bollocks without questioning it.

The FOE paper is full of circular references to all the previously published FOE opinion. Hardly an independent source of "facts"?

I do like the concept of getting my fuel from a different source, but I do need fuel for my lifestyle and livelihood, so until you come up with with a viable alternative, the whole discussion is really quite pointless. That is perhaps my biggest argument against the political bandwagon that is currently the backbone for change. Full of doom, but short on options.

The future absolutely lies in a different technology, but unfortunately that viable technology is some way out in the distance.

Ironically, one of my closest friends is a leader in the biofuel industry, I'm sure he'll be more interested than me in reading the FOE propaganda - now that this is deemed equally bad, or even worse then the options. Problem is, I like the places and people where these crops originate, better than some of the current regular fuel sources!

Oh well, back to the nuclear age? :}

FairWeatherFlyer

24th Feb 2008, 10:16

Sorry, I really can't take your advice to "STFU"

(Re-)read the post, it was a request and it was based on comments around London's H4 heliroute gaining a hard surface. Drawing wide ranging consequences (based on no cited, reviewed research, consensus or otherwise) is akin to deciding the next ice age has occurred when your garden's bird bath unusually freezes over.

On the subject of 'a bit of cold' and 'can the humans affect the planet' (note can not did), I think this is one of the most curious pieces of recent research:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4755328.stm

the FOE propaganda - now that this is deemed equally bad (re: biofuels)

Not equally, it's simply a matter of doing the accounting from a carbon (equivalence) point of view and if that makes sense, then considering the any other environmental and economic (i.e. 'agflation') issues. Government needs to be careful about distortions that cause with subsidies, but it's interesting that FOE do support some level of ROCs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewables_Obligation_Certificates) for biomass co-firing so they are not universally against anything, afaik.

I do like the concept of getting my fuel from a different source, but I do need fuel for my lifestyle and livelihood, so until you come up with with a viable alternative, the whole discussion is really quite pointless.

I think this is another example of how the aviation industry keeps missing the point. The problem, if one acknowledges there is one, is about the sum of all activities. Aviation is simply one business that has a high dependency on liquid fuels - it really is that simple (ignoring contrails which may turn out to be an important tweaking factor). Other industries have their own poor stories on energy efficiency and waste that simply aren't discussed in the mainstream.

There are plenty of easy areas where an individual consumer can reduce their energy consumption. I certainly have no idea how I would make an independent decision about car replacement to a more fuel efficient model. For some issues this is more easily calculable, for example domestic lightbulb replacement with CFLs. One organisation's view of the maths:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/solutions/energy_efficiency/lightbulbs-q-and-a

MLH

25th Feb 2008, 15:58

A dose of reality in the midst of global warming religious fervor:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

FairWeatherFlyer

30th May 2008, 09:29

Other industries have their own poor stories on energy efficiency and waste that simply aren't discussed in the mainstream.

The Economist has rumbled one of them:

The internet could become as ungreen as aviation. A self-serving solution beckons

Computing's environmental cost | Buy our stuff, save the planet | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11412495)

More data, more disagreement on counting/accounting:

BBC NEWS | Technology | 'Carbon cost' of Google revealed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7823387.stm)

aviate1138

30th May 2008, 12:33

Seeing as Mankind adds but 3.5% to Mother Nature's annual total and aircraft are a miniscule fraction of that, even if all rotaries were grounded not one Greenie could tell the difference.

Carbon Claptrap Trading is a FRAUD perpetrated by the Lefties/Greenies/Greedies [like Al Gore, who's Carbon Footprint is bigger than Jack of the Beanstalk's Giant].

PS CO2 is .035% of atmospheric gases and Martian CO2 is 20 times our level and yet Mars' average temperature is -70ºC!

FairWeatherFlyer

15th Sep 2008, 11:13

After that thorough evaluation of emissions trading, back to efficiency, diesel is back in fashion and the EC120 gets a mention:

Diesel-powered flight | Whirlybirds go green | Economist.com (http://www.economist.com/science/tm/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11779859)

ROTOR on line - A publication of Eurocopter - Clean Sky (http://www.eurocopter.com/w1/jrotor/76/cleansky.html)

Graviman

15th Sep 2008, 11:46

This BBC series is well worth watching:

BBC | Topics | Climate Change (http://www.bbc.co.uk/topics/climate_change)

Dr Iain Stewert presents a well informed and impartial overview of the debate.

Episode I
BBC - BBC Two Programmes - Earth: The Climate Wars, The Battle Begins (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00dhlgl)

Episode II
BBC - BBC Two Programmes - Earth: The Climate Wars, Fightback (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00dm7d5)

The planet is hotter than any time in history: undisputed fact.

CO2 is higher than at any time in history: undisputed fact.

The model of CO2 --> Global warming is now the subject of debate.

Frankly, i'd be terrified if i thought that every caution light in a helicopter was disputed the way CO2 has been on this thread.
You either play it safe or accept that in Russian Roulette you will eventually loose... :hmm:

rotorspin

15th Feb 2009, 10:50

Thanks to some help from other members of this forum (JT!) I purchased my Jetranger in October last year and loving every minute of it.

Last night one of my mates said "ahhh so your one of those who fly the things polluting the planet!", I went to reply then realised I didn't know how green our piston and turbines are??? So I said "get back to you on that!"

Any stats out there to show how much C02 we chuck into the sky compared to the same journey by car? Would be good to see Piston vs Turbine as well?

Not expecting to, but would love to prove him wrong!

:)

GoodGrief

15th Feb 2009, 12:13

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html)

Powerful Documentary Trounces Man-Made Warming Hoax (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm)

Schumi - Red Baron

15th Feb 2009, 12:14

In September 2006 Dutch Environment Secretary Van Geel was called on by the Socialist Party to answer parliamentary questions on the inter-urban helicopter service that Helinet and Connexxion wish to operate. Question no. 3 concerned the environmental performance of helicopter transport compared with more conventional modes. CE Delft was called on by the environment ministry to assist in answering the question: How do emissions from helicopter transport compare with those of other forms of transport like car, train and aircraft on a trip from Amsterdam to Brussels?

The question was addressed from the perspective of a business traveller going from Amsterdam to Brussels, i.e. considering the means of transport currently available to such travellers. For each of these, ranges were estimated for CO2 and NOx emissions. These depend on the following factors:

fuel conversion efficiency;
detour factor;
upstream and downstream transport links.The conclusions were as follows:

Helicopter emissions exceed those of other modes of transport.
Compared with the journey by diesel car, emissions are about a factor 3 to 5 higher. There is less difference compared with air travel, but more compared with rail.
Occupancy levels are a significant factor, particularly when it comes to smaller vehicles like cars and helicopters.

The translated version from dutch to english (the graphs are missing which can be seen in original report, url below)

Translated version of http://www.ce.nl/pdf/06_4375_51.pdf (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ce.nl%2Fpdf%2F06_4375_51.pdf&sl=nl&tl=en&history_state0=)=

The original version

http://www.ce.nl/pdf/06_4375_51.pdf

61 Lafite

15th Feb 2009, 12:24

I have had similar conversations in the past.

Sadly, the answer that "I would like to offer them my personal thanks for reducing their emissions so that I can make compensating increases" is the best way to manage it.

If it goes any further, then a simple statement that as far as it's concerned I don't really give a sh*t is the only way to end a largely unwinnable position

Lafite

FairWeatherFlyer

15th Feb 2009, 13:29

Any stats out there to show how much C02 we chuck into the sky compared to the same journey by car?

That's a trivial calculation, at least in terms of fuel, distances and PAX. The thread is entitled 'how green are we' which is a rather more encompassing question than a pure C02 one. On just the CO2 emissions front, should a portion of the engineer's job related emissions be included for your maintenance?

And if your friend has an electric car, try working out how 'green' the electricity is that fuels it. That's a surprisingly difficult task given how the UK market is rigged and questions of additionality,

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/green_electricity_tariffs_2004.pdf

If you to use some distraction in the debate, tell him/her you only bought it because the previous owner flew it a lot and you're flying it a lot less :rolleyes:

(A small chap who looks like a reject from a 70s cop show commented on a BBC2 documentary earlier this evening that the a380 is more fuel efficient than a car per person - clearly time to upgrade your B206! Oh, and Tesco are selling own-brand/GE CFL bulbs of many types for 88p if you buy three.)

rotorspin

15th Feb 2009, 13:56

Thanks all

I am going to go with a "who will be poor sod who has to hover over and winch polar bears when they are balancing on a 2m piece of ice? Not you Mr Plank"

Damn, those stats aren't good reading! Wish I never asked.....:rolleyes:

A.Agincourt

15th Feb 2009, 16:41

hover over and winch polar bears when they are balancing on a 2m piece of ice? Not you Mr Plank"

Don't worry about the Polar Bear, the Sabre Tooth Tiger went for the same reasons that the Polar Bear will irrespective of the ice cap.

Damn, those stats aren't good reading!

Perhaps not but there is a school of thought that specifies global warming first started when man started farming and chopping trees for wood. It makes no difference, there is little you or I can do about it - or the whole race within 10 lifetimes - that will change the course mother nature takes us. We certainly cannot reverse anything and nor do we have the knowledge or intellectual ability to grasp the whole issue in its entirety. So don't you fret just fly safely.

Best Wishes

ramen noodles

15th Feb 2009, 16:50

Total green is the only way to settle it - the cost for a mile of road (2M?) is almost all enegry and people cost - tarmac, machines, steel for the machines, etc. - this balances against the greater fuel flow of the helo, and I would bet on the lesser flown routes, the helo wins. Furthermore, building a bridge to an oil rig is really an environmental disaster>

The relative green-ness of a helo is quite nice, thank you. And a helo is lot more fun than a bull dozer is to drive.

Backward Blade

15th Feb 2009, 18:12

How Green am I?...At 16-20 gallons for a Raven 2, 25-30 for a 206, 120 litres for a 120 and 175 litres for FXII/B2...I would think the answer to that would be "not very bloody much!:}" But then again try and find a cheaper way of moving bags, moving a drill, mountain rescue, or save yourself time getting across a city. I'll drive a Hybrid if I have to but leave my chopper alone!

FairWeatherFlyer

26th Feb 2009, 00:12

We are witnessing the beginning of the end of mankind as we know it - get used to this idea!

This sounds like the spirit from the 1940s!

or the whole race within 10 lifetimes - that will change the course mother nature takes us.

Even at the Alfie end of the spectrum, 10 lifetimes is highly likely to deliver commerically viable nuclear fusion. The issue is dealing with the economic consequences of the interm and it looks like not everyone wants to board Disaster Area's spaceship,

Climate bill needed to 'save our planet,' says Obama - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/02/25/25climatewire-emissions-bill-needed-to-save-our-planet--oba-9849.html)

yoobeedo

26th Feb 2009, 06:05

Looking at a pretty certificate, framed and proudly mounted in a position of maximum visual impact (Toilet door). A carbon neutral B206 costs 312 native trees.:confused:

John R81

26th Feb 2009, 12:16

(Sensing a profitable opportunity here....)

I can salve your guilt by planting a tree for you to offset your carbon emissions. I can send you annual photo, and an estimate of your tree's mass (and hence carbon captured).

Guilt-free flying.

If you fly more often, you can buy two trees!!!

Any takers??????

SASless

26th Feb 2009, 12:34

Ramen,

Have you ever driven a Bull Dozer?

I got to operate a CAT D-10R one time.....second in size only to their D-11R...and it is a real hoot!

More importantly....the seat was really comfy, heated, cab was sound insulated and air-conditioned....unlike any helicopter made yet!

Funny thing about the "Greeners" of this world....not one of them admits to the oil platforms collateral benefit of being fish habitats. The fish love them! It is the "Greeners" that hate them.

FairWeatherFlyer

22nd Oct 2009, 13:38

If you fly more often, you can buy two trees!!!

How do we know you aren't planting these anyway :suspect:? For the unaware, this is issue is termed additionality. I like the idea of the photography, others also address the issue of verification/auditing:

Making woodland carbon your next step with the Woodland Trust's carbon offset scheme. (http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/support-us/carbon/Pages/reduce.aspx)

Good recent programme on Radio 4 about aviation - Costing the Earth: Guilt-Free Flying
- mainly about high altitude travel. Includes a bit of celebrity and a possible return to the old:

BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - Costing the Earth, Guilt-Free Flying (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00n80vl)

And interested piece on charcoal (Biochar - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar)) making a possible comeback:

Economist.com (http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=14302001)

topendtorque

6th Nov 2009, 10:53

I don't know about the end of the world, but the schemers for Copenhagen are plotting the end of the western economies, - BIG TIME-.

It's not the first time, back in the seventies and often since ,.7 of GDP was mooted as a donation to third worlders from the great democracies.
Anyone thinks those sorts of donations will make third worlders self relaint is quite frankly - jerking themself.

Luckily for the US of A they had a clear thinking President who signed NUTHIN' at KYOTO or since. IF they now sign at copenhagen they can therefore set their own rules.

WE are not so lucky, we did have a clear thinker, non signer head of state, replaced with a 'friend to everyone' head of state who has since signed which means that if WE sign at Copehagen then WE will have to endure the fine print from Kyoto.

Meaning that agriculture will be finished here. No more mustering. That should make Frank happy, I say with forked tongue to all of those gurus who said that Frank never wanted his machines to go mustering in the first place??
Well you guys, gurus, suck eggs, three or four hundred machines out of work, no more spare parts, no more new machines, no more dollars from good ol OZ into Franks pocket. Tough Eh?

Quite frankly i am scared absolutely witless by the discussions that are going on in the lead up to Copehagen. I would much rather face an EOL predicted by a lunatic as passenger and switch caretaker, at any time, in very tough terrain.
I know that I and anyone else that has been around me for awhile including pretty much most of this networks clientele, would make the best of it under the circumstances.

We will not have the opportunity under Copenhagen rules to sort ourselves at all, freefall will continue without collective input.

Reading of the www.breakfastpolitics.com (http://www.breakfastpolitics.com/) may enlighten those who want to, to see just how frightened many of our top columnists are also.
Andrew bolt makes good reading as do many others.

Yes perhaps we should go much more nuclear, and for Dave Jacksons sake I must copy some photograps, when I have the time to, of some great bolts that are now used to bolt down the heads on the steam generators of nuclear power stations. they may be very useful in his futuristic designs.

In the meantime if all of the servicing helicopters for the big conference were grounded during the Copenhagen talks it may serve as a small reminder just how we all have to live together.

The ice cap is not melting, the polar bears are not dying and scaring kids in British schools is just dead wrong.
cheers tet

eagle 86

7th Nov 2009, 12:23

Who gives a sh1t - I can assure you that the Western World has bigger problems on it's hands outside of global warming or climate change or what ever else the trendy, lefty side can dream up. The end of the Western World will occur within the next 100 years unless we take a very serious look at ourselves.
GAGS
E86

topendtorque

8th Nov 2009, 11:34

Who gives a sh1t -

With using only a miniscule of the normal rotary pilot’s usual superb observation powers, actually there is an ever increasing number, as, of course you would have seen.

the Western World has bigger problems on it's hands outside of global warming or climate change

Yes it does, and errrr, that is the point exactly, thank you for reiterating it. This Copenhagen deal is something that needs to be killed stone motherless dead before we all run out of money by gift to the third world to DEAL with these “other” issues, and more specifically, retain financial capacity to be able to deal with these “other” issues. Who will remain to fly the freedom flag???

Specifically, and using the same observation, you may have seen a press release from the British ministry of Health, about 14 months back that detailed that the issue of people gluttoning themselves with trans-fats was the worst dilemma that Britain faced, worse even and I quote, “than the global warming crisis”.

Sorry Cags, my point is that it could appear that we are led by a person whose gullibility (possibly only for a self serving world stage appointment euphoric role) is pointedly being exploited by those in Copenhagen to be there as, “a friend of the chair”, another quote.
If, Australia delivers a signing of .7% of GDP, that is seven billion per year that our economy has to cough up or be fined large portions if we don’t????

It is not .7% of the surplus that we used to enjoy and be lavishly treated with under the responsible Costello treasury leadership which was around 7billion PA. I won’t bother to talk about the current recurring deficits.

Where is the money to come from for R & D, HEMS, rides up and down the muddy Yarra, the military, fire fighting, schools, medicine, and the list is long. Forget the super subs - another vote catching dream, -the camel shooting - more gullible votes, disease, and quarantine controls- let’s not go there.

For you sake and if I may indulge just a little more of the hospitality of the mods I’ll insert a quote from another letter, based on science that crossed my desk recently.

Oh, and no I don’t live anywhere near Toorak, so I certainly ain't a trendy, or a lefty. They are mostly now in the greenie movement, you will also have observed I am sure, now that “the wall“ has been torn down and they were flushed out.

"AS global warming hysteria rises to a crescendo ahead of the Liberal Party meeting this weekend I would like to add just two words: ‘Henry’s Law’ for those who have forgotten more chemistry than they were ever taught. Wikipedia relates: “In chemistry, Henry’s law is one of the gas laws, formulated by William Henry in 1803.”

It states: “At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas dissolved in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid – an equivalent way of stating the law is that the solubility of a gas in a liquid at a particular temperature is proportional to the pressure of that gas above the liquid.”

The science fact is that the atmospheric level of CO2 is always in balance with the sea temperature as postulated by William Henry two centuries ago. It does not matter how much CO2 is pumped into the air, it will always find an equilibrium concentration as a function of the sea temperature
In other words, if the sea temperature rises, so will the atmospheric concentration of CO2 – regardless of whether any extra CO2 has been produced on Earth. Similarly the CO2 concentration in air will fall when the sea temperature falls – regardless of the amount of CO2 produced on earth.
This happens because CO2 entering the sea forms into the aqueous, then bicarbonate and then carbonate radicals. To come back from the bicarbonate state the sea temperature would have to rise above 50 deg C and to about 700 deg C for the carbonate to disassociate. This leaves only the aqueous component of CO2 in the sea available for re-release to the atmosphere. This component’s concentration is solely dependent on sea temperature and the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2.

It is therefore fair to say that CO2 is very, very, very, soluble in sea water. The last two ‘verys’ form into a one-way street capturing CO2 forever and a day – a bottomless pit if you like. The sea will never get super saturated with CO2, because the bicarbonate and carbonate ions have myriad end uses in the oceans most of which end up as calcium carbonate or free carbon. Of all the problems facing this world CO2 is not one of them.

I am surprised from all the discussion held on this subject no one I have come across has focused on the solubility aspects of CO2. This is completely fundamental to the whole global warming debate’. – Name withheld.

Hopefully one day we will meet and you will be able to thank me for giving you the lift under the ear that I think you need right now to help progress this nation for our descendants, or wilt and leave it the mess that the Copenhagen talk fest could deliver.
cheers tet

zhishengji751

8th Nov 2009, 12:37

Agree with you TET.. there is a lot of money to be made and lost through 'climate change'.

You would have seen recently that:
The Victorian branch of the United Firefighters Union is also calling for a “global warming allowance” for the city’s 1600 firefighters, “in recognition of the increased work and risk to firefighters as a result of global warming”.

A good talk on this by Lord Monckton (aside from his sense of humour)

4zOXmJ4jd-8&NR=1

(didn't see it linked before)

eagle 86

9th Nov 2009, 00:15

TET,
My first line did not refer to your post. I think, if I follow your train, we are in entire agreement on the subject. Monckton indicates that Copenhagen is the first step towards a world government which will eventually dictate policy, particulary concerning distribution of wealth, to subservient national governments.
GAGS
E86

Helilog56

9th Nov 2009, 04:55

Carbon footprint.......aaahahahahha !!!
Lets see....1 crane (S64E) in a 60 minute cyle burns 2,000 ltrs. of fuel, and we will rip approx. 400,000 lbs of timber off the hill !!!! Plus our crew trucks, loaders, processors, and loading trucks.......I love our carbon footprint.....aaahahahaha !!!

FairWeatherFlyer

9th Nov 2009, 09:37

Lets see....1 crane (S64E) in a 60 minute cyle burns 2,000 ltrs. of fuel, and we will rip approx. 400,000 lbs of timber off the hill !!!! Plus our crew trucks, loaders, processors, and loading trucks.......I love our carbon footprint...

This touches again on the ambiguity of the thread - individual impact vs impact from the industries that employ individuals but ultimately serve the same individuals.

If you love it so much, you would presumably take a more leisurely approach to your lifting? I imagine Adam Smith's invisible hand would shoo you away giving you the opportunity to work elsewhere if you did this?

You could exercise your maths skills a bit more and work out the CDE per cubic metre of sustainable (?) lumber including the harvesting + processing + transport to the (range of) end customers. The price mechanism already contains strong elements of this calculation. It would be interesting to see how much it differs from other forms of agriculture, many of which will be significant users of fertilizer and pesticides.

topendtorque

9th Nov 2009, 10:55

Monckton, yes I must say I enjoyed him far more than Professor Garnault.

He is the one who reckons that we should be farming Kangaroos. Now many of us have tried to muster kangaroos with varying degrees of failure, but he didn’t have any clues or suggestions as to how we might be able to commercially operate the animals in a herd structure such as we do with bovines, what a dill.

Neither did he touch on just what the major beef countries of the world such as USA, Argentina, Brazil and China, I think in that order of ascendency from 123million to about 178m head, compared to our lousy 27m, were going to do with their cows farts. And, none of those countries have any Kangaroos to turn to!

Murdoch at the moment is also making interesting reading, very interesting reading.
Cheers tet

eagle 86

9th Nov 2009, 21:27

Garnault is simply an economist and they, at the best of times, are the most disconnected people. Monckton at least has a scientific background.
GAGS
E86

Lama Bear

7th Dec 2009, 03:11

How is that "consensus" working out for you true believers? Climategate, a tempest in a teapot or the tip of the iceberg so to speak?

I am truly interested in what the true believers think.

Pajamas Media Fast Facts About Climategate (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fast-facts-about-climategate/)

DennisK

8th Dec 2009, 20:15

What saddens me about the daft lot currently plotting away in Copenhagen is their refusal to consider what is observable around them. As a graduate ex Geomorphologist, I won't trot out any of a few hundred technical facts, but why don't these guys ask themselves why ... just ten thousand years ago, you could walk from England to France on the ice sheet. Not too many artificial C02 producers around then.

Rising sea levels? Then take a drive down to Devon. Ask yourself why the river valleys are 'drowned' something that started around a million years ago as the land sank.

Sure the water level is rising in the Thames Estuary ... About one tenth of an inch a year due to the land sinking as it has done since the ice left. Ask the manager of the Thames Barrier.

Yes - the climate is changing. It would be hard to believe if it remained static and there's nothing in nature that I can think of that does that. We're currently in the fourth 'integlacial' period and heading for some warmth which should please the inhabitants of Scandinavia!

Heaven help our pockets once these 'consensus' guys get their way and as I've noted on this subject before, only a creature as conceited as man could really believe he can change the nature of this planet. Yes surely let us clean up our act and reduce our polution but not because we're warming up the atmosphere.

And hey ... soon the Vikings will be able to resume the agricultural lifestyle they once enjoyed in Greenland!

Mandatory reading .... Global Warming. ISBN 978-1-59698-501-8 by Chris Horner.

Chill out all.

Dennis K

Sebastian-PGP

8th Dec 2009, 20:37

If a scientist tried to tell you the right way to trim your helicopter during an autorotation or how to lower the collective to shoot an approach while you were flying along...wouldn't you rather he keep his opinions to himself and point out that he was out of his depth?

Scientists probably have the same reaction to non-scientists pontificating about their body of work.

Bet ya don't do your own brain surgery either.

Lama Bear

8th Dec 2009, 21:20

Sebastian

Would you take the word of a "scientist" that had been caught red-handed, manipulating data, hiding data and excluding dissent? That sounds more like a High Priest not a scientist to me.

Sebastian-PGP

8th Dec 2009, 21:38

No, I'd take the word of the thousands of other scientists in the field who largely agree AGW is reality. I'd certainly side with them over the likes of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

tu154

8th Dec 2009, 22:22

Well, scientists are not priests, many are in the employ of various organisations with entrenched views on certain subjects, and are as predisposed as the rest of the general population to political views/theories etc. (Mind you, even priests are not infallible these days). :}

I'm not a convert on the whole climate change as a result of human activity theory. I'll give you that the temperature is warming, I'll give you that sea levels are rising, but I'm not convinced that it's as a result of human activity, and I'm not convinced that it's provable at the minute!! I also resent the propaganda campaign that lines me up with the right wing Fox infotainment channel for having this view. The case has not been made that global warming is as a result of human activity, as far as I'm concerned (and I'm a fairly lefty sort of bloke).

What we appear to have now, is a sort of eco religion belief thing going on, maybe replacing the demise in traditional religions? A belief has been postulated, the good and righteous have rowed in behind it, so it must be true. The evil henchmen of the world oppose it (Hannity and other clowns) so reinforcing the position of the good and right.

That being said, the resources we have available are finite and I do believe conservation of these resources is the way to go, including reducing pollutants, because it's 'the right thing to do'. Pissing away everything you have is not a prudent way to manage anything, even if you believe you have unlimited reserves and they are yours to do with as you please.

As an aside, to my shame, in Ireland we have 'The Greens' in Government, and anyone in an different country I would caution you against voting for them in your next election. In a country like Ireland, we have an extremely limited impact on the global climate, however once we had this lot in power, they were intent on implementing various vanity policies to demonstrate how big their weenies were in the green world. There is no point in crippling your own economy and imposing punitive 'carbon' taxes on your own population, when we are a minor player in the global pollution stakes and the action is pointless other than causing hardship to your population (and bigging yourself up in the green world, yo!). :=

In the meantime, I will continue to drive my diesel car (more economical, easier to recycle and containing less precious metals than a Prius), recycle my various household bits and bobs, compost my food waste etc... :ok:

s1lverback

8th Dec 2009, 22:46

Well Said Dennis & tu154

Unfortunately this sort of sensible thinking doesn't fit well with our leaders and their evil overt taxation plans designed to pay for the next jolly...sorry summit...at the evangelical church of climate change:}

Religion was a means of controlling the masses and this is no different, given most people are sheep (especially 'free-thinking' students who express their individuality by jointly conforming to a set of beliefs - which are only convenient when you are a student)...I wonder if it will be as popular as the Jedi Religion....

On the subject of science, modelling can produce whatever results you want it to and invariably continued funding usually depends on satisfying an objective or pre-requisite point of view. It is far easier to review, validate and conform than question results, challenge methodology or provide an alternate point of view.

Blue Skies,
D

grumpytroll

8th Dec 2009, 23:53

Big gas guzzling car, private jet, huge mansion, gigantic personal carbon footprint. By God you have just described the Nobel Prize winner for hypocrisy Al "I'm gonna make a billion on this Shi*" Gore. Not to mention all the other hypocrits who falsified the information and are currently gliding in their limos after departing their private jets at the Copenhagen summit. Want to know what the real problem is: we have to many scientists in the world. They are all trying to justify their existence and the only way they can do it is to forget any scientfic studies and just agree with the guy who hands out the grants. If they do that they will keep the cushy job and all the health care and retirement bennies that come with it. If you want to know who is really destroying the planet, it is the so called scientists who march in lock step. No balls to contradict the false info. My helicopters carbon footprint? who cares. We'll just charge the customers more for the same service and pass the cost on to the nations rich. Cheers

Sebastian-PGP

9th Dec 2009, 01:36

We have a lot of problems, but too many scientists aren't among them. If anything, the problem we have in the west is nobody really pursues the physical sciences anymore...go to the grad depts at major institutions and see how many students from the ME and Asia are found compared to native westerners. We're falling behind the Chinese in a big hurry re: engineering and physical sciences.

Tu, I'm with you on conservation (I make my own diesel fuel from veggie oil, and would love to find an aviation application)--if we drove more efficient vehicles, we wouldn't have to worry nearly as much about what the Saddam Husseins of the world were up to. But if you need further convincing, I suggest you start here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/) and consider the nuts and bolts of the science behind GHGs as climate forcings (and you'll note nothing in the CRU illegally obtained emails really impacts any of the basic premises in any substantial way, even if we were to assume the worst...and in context the emails people are wailing about don't really mean what they think they mean). The science is largely incontrovertible upon even a cursory examination, and even if we hoist out on their petards the two or three scientists referenced in the ILLEGALLY hacked emails and CRU's entire database, the conclusions aren't effected substantially (the NASA GISSTEMP data sets largely corroborate their findings)...the IPCC conclusions are, from a scientific point of view, utterly sound. Those objecting typically have a political motive somewhat akin to "well, I don't want to have to change any of my behaviors in any substantive way".

I do like pulling up at a stoplight in my F350 4x4 Powerstroke diesel running on veggie fuel and seeing smug looks from the weenie in the Prius; little does he know I'm far more carbon neutral than he is.

Lama Bear

9th Dec 2009, 01:59

Sebastian...

Since you obviously didn't have either the time or inclination to examine my link, I will waste the bandwidth and post it for you. The "science" is far from settled. This is not about one or two rogue scientists but it addresses the foundations of the scientific debate. Follow the money.

What It’s About
On the night of November 19, a compressed file containing 1,073 emails and almost 3,600 other files mysteriously appeared on a download site in Siberia. These emails and files had somehow been taken from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/) in the UK. This became known as Climategate.
The CRU and its director, Dr. Phil Jones (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/pjones/), are important because the CRU is a central point for data collection, storage, and analysis of climate data. And Dr. Jones is one of the lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/) (IPCC) AR4 (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html) report, which is the basis for much of the current political drive for CO2 limits.
The theory IPCC favors for climate change is that human-caused CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm beyond what would naturally happen.
The Climategate files held many embarrassing revelations. They appear to show collusion (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-warminggate-what-does-it-mean/) on the part of many of the top names in climate science:

to subvert peer review and prevent publication of papers that didn’t completely agree with the favored theory;
to manipulate data, and the analysis of data, to make the best case for the favored theory;
to avoid releasing their data under the Freedom of Information laws in the U.S. and UK. About the Science

The consensus is not scientific as much as it is political.
What we find out from the emails is that Jones and a number of others were using underhanded manipulations to suppress scientific publications (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-violating-the-social-contract-of-science/) that disagreed with the CO2-caused AGW theory. There is no scientific consensus if all the science isn’t being considered.

There’s a difference (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pielke-sr-climategate-emails-just-a-small-sample-of-a-broad-issue-pjm-exclusive/) between “global warming,” “anthropogenic (caused by humans) global warming,” and “anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2.”

The Climategate files don’t call global warming into question, but they make some of the science of anthropogenic global warming more suspect, and they make it clear that “forcings” other than CO2 have not been fairly considered.

There has clearly been significant warming in the last 400 years — since the “Little Ice Age”. That’s how we know it was the Little Ice Age.

There is good reason to believe (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pielke-sr-climategate-emails-just-a-small-sample-of-a-broad-issue-pjm-exclusive/) that humans may be accounting for some warming — and some cooling, for that matter. But we don’t know how much.
The case for all or most of the warming being due to CO2 was not as unquestionable as it was presented to be, and from the Climategate files we know that even that case was being slanted significantly.
There is more than one “smoking gun” email (see here (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt), here (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt), here (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=296&filename=1047390562.txt), here (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt), here (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=339&filename=1057941657.txt), and more)

… but the program (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-computer-codes-are-the-real-story/) codes (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447) are much more significant than the emails

… and the program codes will be yielding new surprises for a while to come.
About the Politics

Science invariably has politics involved. That’s because science is invariably done by people.
The key to science is “trust but verify”: you trust the science because you are assured you can verify it if necessary. The Climategate files show the CRU clique wanted to be trusted, but didn’t want to be verified.
The science was being used politically long before we think it was.
About the Finances:

“Global warming” was a big source of grants (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html) and funding.

“Global warming scientists” got to go to all the best conferences. (Tahiti? Gstaad?)

Ultimately, there are billions of dollars (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?_r=1&dbk) to be made off of “global warming.”
For More Information
If you wish to learn more about Climategate, please see our coverage at PJTV (http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=browse-events&event-type-id=10&event-id=1913&event-context-theme-id=1&c=10&s=coverage&r=true&p=1&t=overview).
Charlie Martin is a Colorado computer scientist and freelance writer. He holds an MS in Computer Science from Duke University, where he spent six years with the National Biomedical Simulation Resource, Duke University Medical Center. Find him at Charles R Martin : (http://chasrmartin.com), and on his blog at Explorations (http://explorations.chasrmartin.com).

Sebastian-PGP

9th Dec 2009, 02:24

Seeing as you haven't the inclination to read what the actual scientists have to say (or you'd realize that none of that claptrap jives with the IPCC), why would I want to read any of that politically motivated nonsense?

If you know anything about science, you know that there's no such thing as "settled" science. Science isn't a binary, yes or no, black or white, proposition, and your entire premise thusly fails.

We know things with varying degrees of certainty. What we know know is akin to knowing that being morbidly obese probably has a good chance of negatively effecting your wellbeing as you age. If your doctor tells you there's a 90% chance being 400lbs will shorten your lifespan, you don't wait around for the other 10% to come in. You act in a mode of self preservation.

In any event, upon any close examination,

to subvert peer review and prevent publication of papers that didn’t completely agree with the favored theory;
to manipulate data, and the analysis of data, to make the best case for the favored theory;
to avoid releasing their data under the Freedom of Information laws in the U.S. and UK.
This is a gross misrepresentation. The paper in question was rejected because the science was poor, so poor that in fact the original publisher resigned and admitted it wasn't worthy of publication. There is no evidence of untoward manipulation of data, that argument is based on a gross misrepresentation of what's meant by the word "trick" in a scientific context (ie, the "trick" you learned for doing derivatives and integrals in calculus, assuming you got past algebra...hence your reference to "smoking gun" emails is utter rubbish when viewed within a scientific consensus...the word "trick" refers to a handy and easily repeatable way to understand how to account for a series of data points that initially seems to pose a problem), and the FOIA issue was merely a function of excessive and spurious requests from NON SCIENTISTS looking to tie them up and obstruct their work. What's more, they were requesting data that wasn't CRU's to give.

Try reading what actual scientists have to say instead of the nonsense offered by McIntyre and Watts.

In any event, your premise is amongst other failures guilty of the "well Phil Jones did something that appears untoward therefore we can call into question the AGW hypothesis" fallacy.

Rubbish.

AGW is the accepted explicitly by the following:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences... in either one or both of these documents: PDF (http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf), PDF (http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619).
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/) (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html) (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html) (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm)(SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html)(EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135) (RS)
American Geophysical Union (http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html) (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html) (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html) (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html)(AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html) (CMOS)Sorry bud, if it's them vs. your anonymous linking to politically motivated blogs...it's just no contest for the rational individual. But I'll offer a chance at redemption: consider the basic nuts and bolts of the CO2 problem (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/), and point me at anything in those ILLEGALLY HACKED emails that calls into question any of the basic premise that increasing CO2 concentrations will have a negative effect.

For that matter...while we're talking hacked emails...imagine the goodies we'd find if the skeptic denialist Inboxes were hacked. Hilarity would ensue.

Sebastian-PGP

9th Dec 2009, 02:37

All that said...I do have to ask...what the hey does any of this have to do with being a helipilot?

Lama Bear

9th Dec 2009, 05:08

All your nice links are before the boyz in East Anglia were exposed. They have totally perverted the concept of peer review. They are living in an echo chamber, barring any dissent or access to their raw data.

If you don't think the grandiose carbon schemes being hatched in Copenhagen will not affect the world economy and helicopters specifically you are not paying attention.

Obama's stated goals....

WASHINGTON — Potentially one of the most far-reaching elements in the budget blueprint is the call to combat global warming by adopting a so-called "cap and trade" system for reducing carbon emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities. Overall, the plan would cut emissions 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

If he is going to restrict these users then he will have to restrict all other users. This reduction will have severe affect on EMS, ENG, law enforcement, tour and other recreational uses of helicopters. We are not the most efficient users of petroleum products. I do not see alternate sources of fuel for helicopter flights that will either be declared non essential or too expensive to operate. Remember, we are all going to have to give up a piece of the pie?

For your reading enjoyment from someone much better at reporting...

From The Sunday Times
November 29, 2009
The great climate change science scandal
Leaked emails have revealed the unwillingness of climate change scientists to engage in a proper debate with the sceptics who doubt global warming
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

The storm began with just four cryptic words. “A miracle has happened,” announced a contributor to Climate Audit, a website devoted to criticising the science of climate change.

“RC” said nothing more — but included a web link that took anyone who clicked on it to another site, Real Climate.

There, on the morning of November 17, they found a treasure trove: a thousand or so emails sent or received by Professor Phil Jones, director of the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.

Jones is a key player in the science of climate change. His department’s databases on global temperature changes and its measurements have been crucial in building the case for global warming.

What those emails suggested, however, was that Jones and some colleagues may have become so convinced of their case that they crossed the line from objective research into active campaigning.

In one, Jones boasted of using statistical “tricks” to obliterate apparent declines in global temperature. In another he advocated deleting data rather than handing them to climate sceptics. And in a third he proposed organised boycotts of journals that had the temerity to publish papers that undermined the message.

It was a powerful and controversial mix — far too powerful for some. Real Climate is a website designed for scientists who share Jones’s belief in man-made climate change. Within hours the file had been stripped from the site.

Several hours later, however, it reappeared — this time on an obscure Russian server. Soon it had been copied to a host of other servers, first in Saudi Arabia and Turkey and then Europe and America.

What’s more, the anonymous poster was determined not to be stymied again. He or she posted comments on climate-sceptic blogs, detailing a dozen of the best emails and offering web links to the rest. Jones’s statistical tricks were now public property.

Steve McIntyre, a prominent climate sceptic, was amazed. “Words failed me,” he said. Another, Patrick Michaels, declared: “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.”

Inevitably, the affair became nicknamed Climategate. For the scientists, campaigners and politicians trying to rouse the world to action on climate change the revelations could hardly have come at a worse time. Next month global leaders will assemble in Copenhagen to seek limits on carbon emissions. The last thing they need is renewed doubts about the validity of the science.

The scandal has also had a huge personal and professional impact on the scientists. “These have been the worst few days of my professional life,” said Jones. He had to call on the police for protection after receiving anonymous phone calls and personal threats.

Why should a few emails sent to and from a single research scientist at a middle-ranking university have so much impact? And most importantly, what does it tell us about the quality of the research underlying the science of climate change?

THE hacking scandal is not an isolated event. Instead it is the latest round of a long-running battle over climate science that goes back to 1990.

That was when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the group of scientists that advises governments worldwide — published its first set of reports warning that the Earth faced deadly danger from climate change. A centrepiece of that report was a set of data showing how the temperature of the northern hemisphere was rising rapidly.

The problem was that the same figures showed that it had all happened before. The so-called medieval warm period of about 1,000 years ago saw Britain covered in vineyards and Viking farmers tending cows in Greenland. For any good scientist this raised a big question: was the recent warming linked to humans burning fossil fuels or was it part of a natural cycle?

The researchers set to work and in 1999 a group led by Professor Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, came up with new numbers showing that the medieval warm period was not so important after all.

Some bits of the Atlantic may have been warm for a while, but the records suggested that the Pacific had been rather chilly over the same period — so on average there was little change.

Plotted out, Mann’s data turned into the famous “hockey stick” graph. It showed northern hemisphere temperatures as staying flat for hundreds of years and then rising steeply from 1900 until now. The implication was that this rise would continue, with potentially deadly consequences for humanity.

That vision of continents being hit by droughts and floods while the Arctic melts away has turned a scientific debate into a highly emotional and political one. The language used by “warmists” and sceptics alike has become increasingly polarised.

George Monbiot, widely respected as a writer on green issues, has branded doubters “climate deniers”, a phrase uncomfortably close to holocaust denial. Sceptics, particularly in America, have suggested that scientists who believe in climate change are part of a global left-wing conspiracy to divert billions of dollars into green technology.

A more cogent criticism is that there has been a reluctance to acknowledge dissent on the question of climate science. Al Gore, the former US vice-president turned green campaigner, has described the climate debate as “settled”. Yet the science, say critics, has not been tested to the limit. This is why the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia is so significant.

Its researchers have built up records of how temperatures have changed over thousands of years. Perhaps the most important is the land and sea temperature record for the world since the mid-19th century. This is the database that shows the “unequivocal” rise of 0.8C over the last 157 years on which Mann’s hockey stick and much else in climate science depend.

Some critics believe that the unit’s findings need to be treated with more caution, because all the published data have been “corrected” — meaning they have been altered to compensate for possible anomalies in the way they were taken. Such changes are normal; what’s controversial is how they are done. This is compounded by the unwillingness of the unit to release the original raw data.

David Holland, an engineer from Northampton, is one of a number of sceptics who believe the unit has got this process wrong. When he submitted a request for the figures under freedom of information laws he was refused because it was “not in the public interest”.

Others who made similar requests were turned down because they were not academics, among them McIntyre, a Canadian who runs the Climate Audit website.

A genuine academic, Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada, also tried. He said: “I was rejected for an entirely different reason. The [unit] told me they had obtained the data under confidentiality agreements and so could not supply them. This was odd because they had already supplied some of them to other academics, but only those who support the idea of climate change.”

IT was against this background that the emails were leaked last week, reinforcing suspicions that scientific objectivity has been sacrificed. There is unease even among researchers who strongly support the idea that humans are changing the climate. Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said: “Over the last decade there has been a very political battle between the climate sceptics and activist scientists.

“It seems to me that the scientists have lost touch with what they were up to. They saw themselves as in a battle with the sceptics rather than advancing scientific knowledge.”

Professor Mike Hulme, a fellow researcher of Jones at the University of East Anglia and author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change, said: “The attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organisation within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.”

There could, however, be another reason why the unit rejected requests to see its data.

This weekend it emerged that the unit has thrown away much of the data. Tucked away on its website is this statement: “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites ... We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

If true, it is extraordinary. It means that the data on which a large part of the world’s understanding of climate change is based can never be revisited or checked. Pielke said: “Can this be serious? It is now impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. [The unit] is basically saying, ‘Trust us’.”

WHERE does this leave the climate debate? While the overwhelming belief of scientists is that the world is getting warmer and that humanity is responsible, sceptical voices are increasing.

Lord Lawson, the Tory former chancellor, announced last week the creation of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank, to “bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant”.

Lawson said: “Climate change is not being properly debated because all the political parties are on the same side, and there is an intolerance towards anybody who wants to debate it. It has turned climate change from being a political issue into a secular religion.”

The public are understandably confused. A recent poll showed that 41% accept as scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made, while 32% believe the link is unproven and 15% said the world is not warming.

This weekend many of Jones’s colleagues were standing by him. Tim Lenton, professor of earth system science at UEA, said: “We wouldn’t have anything like the understanding of climate change that we do were it not for the work of Phil Jones and his colleagues. They have spent decades putting together the historical temperature record and it is good work.”

The problem is that, after the past week, both sceptics and the public will require even more convincing of that.

P1DRIVER

9th Dec 2009, 10:44

I couldn,t care what my carbon foot print is as long as there is one for the TOTAL TIME of the flight.

PS. 2 cars as well (1 -V8 4.0L and 1 -V6 3.8L.)

:O

Sold my Motorbike last year, only 600 cc but surely that must have helped !!!!

s1lverback

9th Dec 2009, 12:01

I am not paid to fly and purely fly for fun.

I'll fly as often as I can afford, because I can see the future of GA (not commercial but private) as short - through taxation & over-regulation under many guises.

It frustrates me that my costs increase while services decrease and I am pretty sure that the net effect of Copenhagen / Carbon Trading, etc., will be increased taxes for 'Ordinary Joes', with little or no evidencial proof over time that our 'positive actions' have had any retarding effect - the result will be '...we must do more!'...pay more tax...no result again...do even more...pay more tax...no result again...etc.

Minor rant over.

As to carbon footprint, I turn my lights off (not landing light) and the heating down, plan my routes (road and air) efficiently and walk to the pub.

topendtorque

9th Dec 2009, 13:18

Monckton at least has a scientific background.

In fact I think he is a mathematician by trade.

Lama, I am with you big time, let me demonstrate.

Sebastian, you are right “opinion” is the crunch word, but did you just work out whose “opinion” that these few megalomaniacs are taking to this convention? Yours and mine and everyone else’s too, even without asking for them.
But wait there’s more; they are also going to take what is in your pocket as well. That is what is going to impact on whether you wish to be a helicopter pilot for fun or pleasure, that is about to end.

But, the yanks have the luxury of having notsigned at Kyoto; they can set their own rules re agriculture and a host of other things IF they sign at Copenhagen, IF their SENATE also signs off on the big BO’s gospel AFTER he returns from the country of the prolific hookers.

That is as per the US of A constitution, unlike ours where we get to wear whatever our little B.O. shadow, the ruddy one signs. Possibly it is the same for Mr. Brown’s disciples, I don’t know?

BTW, climate gate, on Google? For a few days it popped up with a heap of auto cues. Then for a while you had to drive it further, Why?

Well, just have a guess at who happens to be also a director of Google? You are dead right, Mr. Bore his-self. Co-incidence?

With regard to thwarted information, just check out this link below. Talk about mango madness, or people up there going troppo, I thought it had all to do with the mango season.

]http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-across-australia-wheres-the-warming/ (http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-across-australia-wheres-the-warming/)

Me I am scared witless by this 35,000 people convention, where they are just sooooo organised that they had just seven people to sign everyone in?

What we need now is a splash of ‘Darwin’ to bring everyone back to reality.

Have a nice day.
tet

topendtorque

12th Dec 2009, 11:07

How are you doing there Sebastian, come up for air yet?
Here is a bit more of Mathemetician Monckton for you to chew on.

It's stuff that all helicopter pilots would of course have been well aware of when they did their first met studies way back when, Naturally.:cool:

But first a quote or two, apologies from here, it arived on the email today from a neighbour.

"Any Classically-trained mind would at once dismiss these and many similar illogicalities as unworthy to be used as foundations for any valid conclusion. (Lord M)

And any half sane bushie with an ounce of common sense. (Peasant S)"

Now enjoy the latest.

Answer to an environmental campaigner | The SPPI Blog (http://sppiblog.org/news/answer-to-an-environmental-campaigner#more-83)

Cheers tet

FairWeatherFlyer

16th Dec 2009, 07:34

All that said...I do have to ask...what the hey does any of this have to do with being a helipilot?

Everything in the sense that aviation at the smaller end is not very adept at defending its position in the economy and is the frequent target of attacks from an often hypocritical consumer. And nothing if you take a wholistic view, apart from that dependency on liquid/carbon based fuels.

I'm not sure if this is available outside the UK, but there's an item on Newsnight tonight where Justin Rowlatt (AKA Ethical Man) discusses climate change with a few skeptics. I think it'll end up at the entertainment end of the infotainment scale but i'm curious about James May as he's both a pilot and ends up fronting science-related programmes:

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm)

Bit of late breaking news, Johnny Ball (childhood science hero!) booed off stage,

Johnny Ball booed by atheists over climate change denial - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6825502/Johnny-Ball-booed-by-atheists-over-climate-change-denial.html)

topendtorque

17th Dec 2009, 12:04

There won't be no heli-pilots for much anything, especially there will be no tourism work if our ruddy one and a few other bleeding hearts get their way.

After they throw many billions of dollars from the working economies into the non working economies, there just won't be much heli-flying at all except for finding oil reserves. If you can't work that out then you haven't even started on adiabatic lapse rates have you?

Talk about mis-information around the place, I see where someone was slagging off at the british crown prince, who professes to wear a very green suit.
According to the slagger, he spat out 6.4 tonnes of CO2 on his way to address the copehagen conference in an air force royal flight aircraft.

Now I don't know what sort of jet he was cruising over there in, but I'll bet a sixpence to a can of coke that it spat out heaps more than 6400 kg's of CO2. Probably more like 6400 kg's of fuel - at least. now lets see times 16 isn't it????

If all of the ghoulish ETS freaks have their way, then when this ets bubble bursts it gonna make Fannie Mae and the recent meltdown look like kindergarten.

I see where one Indian company is suggesting the closing down of a very big steel works that it owns in Britian. 1700 jobs. why?

Well, it can attract a subsidy of 1.2 billion dollars to locate the factory in India because the poor souls in India are still a developing country, right. Now how long have India been developing? I ask you, a damm site longer than OZ or the Kiwis for sure.

And what happens? 1700 poms out of work, 1.2 billion given to some Indian company, 2000 or more Indians employed and NOT ONE OUNCE LESS OF CO2 PUT INTO THE atmosphere. i better stop there, do your bit sunshine and help control this madness.
cheers tet

wallsend

18th Dec 2009, 09:59

Bought "Times Higher Education" date 10 Dec because of an article on this debate. Here's the link-

Times Higher Education - Beyond debate? (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409454)

Or you can look on their website - the article is now archived, I found it by searching under "polar Bears"!

Just to add to the debate really.

topendtorque

18th Dec 2009, 11:20

thanks wallsend.
i went to save it and found that mrs tet has already saved it here.

another little book written in the same vein is 'The climate caper' by Garth W Parltridge, published by connor court. ISBN978-1-921421-25-9.

Paltridge is an atmospheric physicist and chief research scientist with our CSIRO, before becoming director of the institute of antartic and Southern ocean studies. A fellow of the OZ academy of sciences, an honourory research fellow of the tasmaninan uni and a visiting fellow of the ANU. However he is best known for his work on atmospheric radiation and the theoretical basis of climate.
Only 120 pages, an easy airplane ride read. He delves not so much into either side of the debate but remains neutral in this work and talks about how and why the debate has been progressed by various parties.

You'll see the same sort of analysis in many areas.

lets say heart disease.

Just because you take some sort of medication there is some sort of study around that says that you have a 33% better chance of staying alive.

what they don't say is that the "study", whether or not it's peer reviewed correctly, actually only indicated a drop of one percent of death rate from 98 to 97 %.
work it out for yourself.

That's the argument mostly behind statin usage for example.

They also will completely overlook another study that will predict that you will have up to a 2% higher chance (er that's up from 97 to 98% for the realists)of dying from cancer or especially stroke if you take the same medicine within the same timeframe. very easy logic.

Me I'd rather retain the integrity of my cellular structure in my cranium arterial network and stay away from statins. Just my viewpoint
cheers tet

ps by the time you read the climate caper, we might all be reaching for a book on survival capers, not written by albore.

pps, I fogot to mention, but I suppose that you would have seen it already that Lord Monckton was knocked over and knocked out by some thug of dumbass danish copper when he was refused entry into the convention. He was in company with one of our senators.
Senator Fielding of south oz who has been a saviour in the climate debate, trying to retain some common sense. Himself a scientist and his main advisor is one Professor Ian Plimer, who also makes very good reading.

minigundiplomat

18th Dec 2009, 12:41

At 20 Kgs of JetA1 a minute, Im guessing the only thing green about our choppers is the paintjob.

topendtorque

19th Dec 2009, 11:28

If I may indulge the generosity of the mods one last time on this subject here is some comedy to go to sleep with.

Luv it just absolutely luv it, this dude's blog has gone from about the worlds 150th largest to the 33rd or so. All on the back of his reporting of the ETS /AGW debate.

Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/)

the best link in this site is quite aways down todays bit, and is the excellent British jorno Gerald Warner in this piece.

Copenhagen climate summit: 'most important paper in the world' is a glorified UN press release – Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100020279/copenhagen-climate-summit-most-important-paper-in-the-world-is-a-glorified-un-press-release/)

all good so far, another six months or so to expose the scammers.

I guess just a few short years ago there were sceptics who believd that the earth was not flat. look at it now, going round and round.and still snowing like crazy in the northern climes. Oh well, there you go.
tet

FairWeatherFlyer

22nd Dec 2010, 14:28

Brian Cox gave the Huw Wheldon Memorial Lecture this year and covered some of the issues you can observed in this thread about communication of complex science (and risks) to the general public.

Professor Cox addressed key issues facing news, current affairs and factual broadcasting. He discussed how documentary filmmakers should deal with complex scientific details, given that science on TV must be emotionally and intellectually engaging, as well as entertaining and informative, but above all correct. The lecture tackled the question of how news and current affairs should deal with "controversial areas" such as climate change, vaccination policy and cultural and religious issues, where the scientific consensus contradicts the views of a significant minority or even a majority of viewers.

Royal Television Society - Events - Lectures - Wheldon Lecture - (http://www.rts.org.uk/Events_det.asp?art_id=8396&sec_id=3171)

The lecture is available in pieces on youtube,

YouTube - Brian Cox Lecture - Science: A Challenge to TV Orthodoxy (1/3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrdK4hWffo)

---

Latest costs and developments in the world of fission,

Mini nuclear reactors: Thinking small | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/17647651)

Energy and climate change: Clean and green, for a price | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/17679633)

And the tricky art of calculating the emissions for the whole system, not just the daily operation,

Nuclear energy: assessing the emissions : article : Nature Reports Climate Change (http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/full/climate.2008.99.html)

http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf

FairWeatherFlyer

1st Jul 2012, 22:11

Looks like Father Christmas will be ordering himself a float kit:

Global warming: The vanishing north | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21556921)

mhale71

2nd Jul 2012, 06:05

In fact I think he is a mathematician by trade.

Actually i think it was journalism that was his only formal qualification.. no science background.. although he claims to have been Margaret thatchers science adviser and to have written articles for peer reviewed scientific journals... both untrue if i recall correctly..

Flying Binghi

2nd Jul 2012, 08:17

.

Old thread this one - started 2007

Interesting to see how the thread changes from the 'settled science' of 2007 thru to climategate..:cool:

.

FairWeatherFlyer

2nd Jul 2012, 22:41

3.7 billion GBP

Savills and Carbon Trust join forces to boost energy efficiency for commercial property occupiers - Carbon Trust (http://www.carbontrust.com/about-us/press/2012/06/savills-and-carbon-trust-join-forces-to-boost-energy-efficiency-for-commercial-property-occupiers)

I work for a company where one of the recent radical ideas was to turn the lights off when no one was there. I think this is something rather obvious and something that any parent can appreciate, but for some reason we weren't uniform in our application of this.

FairWeatherFlyer

18th Mar 2019, 11:42

For anyone with a spare afternoon on 3rd April 2019 in London: Royal Meteorological Society: The Pliocene: The Last Time Earth had >400 ppm of Atmospheric CO2 (https://www.rmets.org/event/pliocene-last-time-earth-had-400-ppm-atmospheric-co2)The Pliocene: The Last Time Earth had >400 ppm of Atmospheric CO2The last time carbon dioxide was so plentiful in our planet's atmosphere was in the Pliocene era, around 3 million years ago. Life on Earth was dominated by giant mammals; humans and chimps had shared their last common ancestor. Although the sun's force was about the same, the sea levels were 15 metres higher and Arctic summer temperatures were 14 degrees higher than the present day.

Come to this meeting to hear about the climatic conditions in the Pliocene, how we know this, and what it tells us about our modern climate. If the effects of human-induced climate change are slow to act, or a tipping point is yet to be reached, what does the science tell us to expect?

SASless

18th Mar 2019, 12:57

Hey....why bother! We were told by a brand new member of the House of Representatives here in the USA that if we don't do away with airplanes, the automobile, HVAC systems....etc.....here in the United States.....the World as we know will end in Twelve Years.

I suppose she was too young to remember when a former Vice President of the United States gave us Ten Years to live....twnety years ago!

Some background prompting my Sarcasm.

https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-climate-change-world-will-end-12-years-un-report-1300873

FairWeatherFlyer

18th Mar 2019, 14:19

I don't follow US politics closely, I'm sure there's a lot going on there that the rest of the world can learn from. If this was around October 2018 then it's probably a reference to the IPCC: SR1.5 - Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 C (https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/)

The 2019 backdrop to all of this is something that surprises me, school children are now protesting about Climage Change: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/03/youth-climate-strike-kids-save-the-world/.

I found a few more interesting events in London:

UCL: Low-carbon aviation: how far can we go? – UCL Energy Seminar (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/energy/events/2019/apr/low-carbon-aviation-how-far-can-we-go-ucl-energy-seminar) (2nd April 2019)
Imperial College: Aircraft electric propulsion: volting into the air (http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/eventssummary/event_27-2-2019-17-6-48) (4th April 2019)

It's interesting to see that hybrid designs are being looked at beyond road vehicles (Toyota Prius are very common over here):

Rolls-Royce Paul Stein, Chief Technology Officer on the E-Fan-X programme
RAeS: Proceedings: Greener by Design 2018 - Impact of Electric and Hybrid Propulsion in Aviation (https://www.aerosociety.com/news/proceedings-greener-by-design-2018-impact-of-electric-and-hybrid-propulsion-in-aviation/)

Ascend Charlie

19th Mar 2019, 04:02

school children are now protesting about Climage Change

Yeah, right...

So, tell the teacher to turn off the aircon in the classroom, walk to school instead of riding 2km in Mum's huge 4WD, take a cut lunch instead of eating Macca's methane-producing beef, turn off your IPhone, iPad, wireless headphones, Gameboys, supercomputers running web-linked games and go outside to play cricket. No? Then STFU.

Evil Twin

19th Mar 2019, 06:54

And who revs up these children? The limp wristed, hand wringing left wingers that are their teachers. What are they doing about jet travel and all the APU's that are running at every domestic and international airport the world over? Nothing! that's what!. The earth is still coming out of an ice age that only ended around 30,000 years ago. Global warming or climate change as it's now known is about finding a new way to tax people to pay for the promises that bought their votes.

FairWeatherFlyer

9th Mar 2020, 16:18

It's 2020. It's interesting to note that one school child has become rather prominent in spreading the word of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to the masses and politicians. I don't know if anyone's done the study but I've got an idea what would come out if one sampled the population and looked at viewpoint and certainity of viewpoint on climate change by (life remaining, gender, education level).

Nature has also thrown one of its rare but inevitable googlies at us which may have far more effect in the short term on lowering consumption than the inaction from complacent populations and governments. I'm not sure if any of us can accurately predict the effect it'll have over 2020. Ironically, it may help save Flybe!

I forget who it is was but there was a woman on Radio 4 recently who pointed out indirectly that aviation industry does not generally respond (as in explain the whole issue) to the carbon issue well. As she, I and Ascend Charlie have pointed out, it's not about one aspect but every aspect of our lives that can be reviewed from a carbon point of view.

I don't know who "rev'ed them up" but two of my friend's children are now almost vegetarian/vegan based on climate change (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/11/15/how-much-would-giving-up-meat-help-the-environment) due to the desire for a more protein efficient diet, cf "Veganuary (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/01/29/interest-in-veganism-is-surging)". The parents are certainly not "left wingers" and I'd wager both children are brighter than the average PPRuNer.

SASless

9th Mar 2020, 16:47

AC deserves......:ok::ok:!

As does the Evil Twin!

The 2019 backdrop to all of this is something that surprises me, school children are now protesting about Climage Change:

Brain washing by Leftists in the Educational System you reckon?

Sir Korsky

9th Mar 2020, 16:50

I heard of one rich guy recently, who was ' carbon shamed ' into leaving his copter in the barn. So he decided to take his Tesla instead. Being a well known and moderately unpopular chap, he was recognized and harassed at an intersection. He's now flying again.

FairWeatherFlyer

9th Mar 2020, 17:03

I'd not heard of carbon shaming. I suppose the serious aspect of that is attitudes do change over time particularly between different generations. Actually one thing that's really surprised me is the speed and size of the backlash against polymers and the fast reaction by some Firms to this. If you were paying attention at school then it was pretty obvious than man had created something with a few nifty catalysts that simply didn't exist in nature and was highly problematic for disposal and recycling.

Now, If I could hire a fat-shamer to follow me around that would be a useful service for a healthier lifestyle with a bit less consumption...

Spunk

9th Mar 2020, 20:55

My personal experience with regard to the latest “Friday for future” demos.

1. Good for business as we got to fly for the news media on all three occasions
2. The amount of participants in those demos decreased dramatically (70.000 in September 2019, 55.000 in November 2019, 20.000 in February 2020 (even though Greta was on scene and a local band was performing for free)And to be honest, to me it looked more like 3.000 on that last occasion.
3. ilegal drone operated by FFF in a no-fly zone on at least one occasion
4. During our scenic flights the following day I had at least one kid on board proudly announcing to the rest of us that it had been “down there to demonstrate” the preceding day. :D

I fly helicopters for a living and look down on several container ships (the big ones), at least 2-3 cruise ships per day, one of the most sophisticated but also the least efficient coal-fired powerplant in Europe (district heating not being used), the oldest active coal-fired powerplant in my home country and down on a street closed to my Diesel car (Euro 5) not complying with the latest European emission standard.

So you better don’t get me into a discussion on carbon footprint.

Bell_ringer

10th Mar 2020, 05:16

Just let an avocado-munching, soya milk drinking, bunny-hugger tell me not to fly.
They will get a carbon footprint on their a$$.

Hilico

10th Mar 2020, 06:51

I always eat a vegan chocolate coconut bar with lunch when I’m flying - entirely offsets two hours of emissions from an R-44.

[email protected]

10th Mar 2020, 07:28

Without CO2 and water vapour in the atmosphere to absorb and reflect a great deal of the harmful incoming solar radiation, the earth would be uninhabitable - and the supporters of the myth of anthropogenic climate change (the planet has been warming and cooling for millennia all by itself) want to reduce all 'greenhouse gases'.

A greenhouse works by restricting cooling convective airflow, not by magnifying the effect of radiation.

aa777888

10th Mar 2020, 11:19

Total world energy consumption is a little over 100,000 terawatt-hours per year, only a small fraction of which is waste heat into the environment. The Sun delivers over 20,000 times as much energy to the planet as that, all directly into the environment.

You need to go talk to the Sun, because us humans are just a pimple on the ass of climate change.

Bell_ringer

10th Mar 2020, 11:37

FairWeatherFlyer

10th Mar 2020, 12:12

Bell_ringer Are you saying I can't just make my mind up on this by reading a few posts by my favourite forum friends who have no relevant research experience and hand out cast-iron guarantees ranging between problem 1) doesn't exist, 2) isn't man made, 3) can't be addressed by any action? Ok, I'll have to go rummage through my favourite tabloid newspapers...

[email protected]

10th Mar 2020, 12:49

You all need to go read some actual science behind the problem, which has long since been proven across the various climate disciplines.
The effect of humans on the environment as a whole isn’t a matter of opinion.
The ultimate solution is fewer humans, which a few trips to Italy should cure. :E
Done the science reading rather than just believing the self-licking lollipop that is the IPCC.

Start with the idea about a greenhouse and explain how a greenhouse with only 0.04% of its glass being present can retransmit enough heat to cause an 'effect' inside itself.
Then explain the science behind how 0.04% of the atmosphere is keeping the earth warm.
Look at the data regarding historic variations in temperature and CO2 levels and you will find that the temperature leads the CO2 and not the other way round.

We are polluting the planet and the climate is changing but carbon trading as a means of changing anything is a big con.

Bell_ringer

10th Mar 2020, 13:44

Carbon trading is complete rubbish, helps nothing.

I can see you have the whole greenhouse metaphor sussed and I have little interest in trying to convince deniers and sceptics, who will not be around to experience the real consequences (not that you aren't already), that their facebook groups and think tanks are incorrect.
I prefer listening to the likes of NASA and respected proffesionals that backup their work with evidence based science and not opinion.

Besides, you are conflating different concepts to suit an incorrect perspective.
Cover a greenhouse with thin glass that represents 0.04% of the entire contents and it is no less effective at warming.
Most greenhouses don't have a much higher ratio of glass to volume regardless.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
They also have a kiddie version for those that are scientifically challenged. :}

Ironically, when the gulf stream slowly shifts, the UK will get much, much colder.
If it hasn't sunk by then.

SASless

10th Mar 2020, 14:37

It would appear inviting Helicopter Pilots to a Global Warming Seminar might be fraught with peril for the Advocate attempting to recruit more believers.

Elmer Gantry's last Revival would not compare to how that would turn out!

[email protected]

10th Mar 2020, 15:01

Cover a greenhouse with thin glass that represents 0.04% of the entire contents and it is no less effective at warming.
Most greenhouses don't have a much higher ratio of glass to volume regardless.Because a greenhouse prevents convective cooling, it doesn't magically heat up the inside by retransmitting radiation.

The problem with the NASA agreed 'greenhouse gas' theory that we keep getting rammed down our throats is this - Quote from their website ‘In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect’

Tyndall was a mountaineer who was searching for a reason why the earth maintained a pretty constant temperature and identified water vapour ( approx. 4%) of the atmosphere to be the main reason that the earth avoided the extremes of temperature seen on bodies such as the moon without an atmosphere. Are we going to try and reduce that 'greenhouse gas'? - the one which is over 100 times more prevalent than CO2?

Arrhenius incorrectly used Fouriers explanation that the atmosphere behaves like a glasshouse because it allows the light rays from the sun in but contains the dark rays from the earth. Fourier never mentioned glasshouses or hothouses and went on to say that for the atmosphere to behave like a hotbox – referring to the experimental apparatus of de Saussure (1779) – it would have to solidify whilst retaining its optical qualities.

I don't dispute the change in climate but how do you explain the variations over many hundreds and thousands of years - look at the temperature in 12-1300 AD for example (industrialisation?????) it was only a tiny bit colder than what we are currently experiencing. Then the mini-ice age in 1500AD from which we are gradually recovering.

Time to open your eyes and ask questions of the science rather than blindly accepting it.

Bell_ringer

10th Mar 2020, 15:04

Indeed.
Humans are a strange bunch.
Mention climate change and no one wants to be vaguely inconvenienced.

Have a cruise ship passenger cough on one and they are happy to lock themselves away for weeks, wrapped in clingwrap, bumping feet as a greeting, hogging toilet paper (why?!?!) and dried pasta, treating China town like Chernoble and breathing through an old sock..
:}

ShyTorque

10th Mar 2020, 15:14

Yeah, right...

So, tell the teacher to turn off the aircon in the classroom, walk to school instead of riding 2km in Mum's huge 4WD, take a cut lunch instead of eating Macca's methane-producing beef, turn off your IPhone, iPad, wireless headphones, Gameboys, supercomputers running web-linked games and go outside to play cricket. No? Then STFU.

While you’re at it, tell ‘em there will be no more plastic toys at Christmas. Back to just the wooden ones and an orange, bah humbug!

[email protected]

10th Mar 2020, 15:16

And don't forget that its not that long ago the scientists were forecasting another ice ageFrom 1958 to 1978 the average global temperature dropped some 0.25[1]C while human emission of CO2 from fossil fuels tripled. This CO2 emission did not contribute to global warming over that period – eliciting suggestions of a coming ice age. Data from 1910 to 1940 indicate a similar increase in temperature as for 1970 to 2000 despite fossil fuel production at that time being around ﬁve times lower than it is today! In 1929, the production of fossil fuels was 1.17 gigatons of carbon per year. Following the stock market crash and the depression, human production decreased to 0.88 gigatons per year – a 30% drop. Yet during that same period both atmospheric CO2 and temperature continued to rise at around the same rate as before and in 1934 the ‘dust bowl’ began when US temperatures climbed higher than they have been since.

Bell_ringer

10th Mar 2020, 15:22

Because a greenhouse prevents convective cooling, it doesn't magically heat up the inside by retransmitting radiation.

The air inside is warmed by the sun in the usual manner but is kept inside by the glass barrier, preventing it mixing with outside air which cools.
A very thin glass layer permits this, if science permitted, you could use an impossibly thin piece of glass for the same effect.
CO2 and other byproducts form a similarly thin barrier in the atmosphere preventing some of the heat being radiated outwards.
Most of this additional heat is absorbed by the oceans as is some of the excess CO2 which changes the ph.
The sea can only absorb so much, which is why ice levels/depth are relevant.
This subtle affect is what is driving the now (regular) extreme weather events.

We have detailed recordings from different studies of ice, land and tree cores that shows the varitations of CO2 over quite some time almost all of the increases attributed to industrialisation in modern times.
Very few sceptics deny the relevance of CO2 or the increase thereof, they usually just dispute the cause.
regardless, what do we have to lose by being more efficient, greener and kinder to the environment?
You don't have to go Uber-vegan and start wearing a hemp flightsuit.
Worst case is your grandkids get to breathe clean air and not have their downstairs turning into a swimming pool twice a year.

Fortunately it's all just one big hoax so nothing to see here, move along. :uhoh:

roscoe1

10th Mar 2020, 16:59

Sohttps://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/408x333/co2emissions_1932c3c5c4632f9b0c895cd85907215ed0d09e74.jpgThi s is from the British Geological Society web site. Sure their are deviations from this curve and the average temperature curves due to the buffering of oceans for dissolved gasses and as a thermal sink. That does have its limits. Do any of you sceptics who don't believe humans are contributing to global warming have an explanation for this ( please, other than that thousands of scientists and their data points are lying for some totally unknown compelling conspiracy). If you are unfamiliar with the term "industrial revolution" this may not mean much to you. Even deniers understand that the over production of greenhouse gasses, not to mention other forms of industrial pollution is not good ( the way we farm is a huge one) so why not do what little we can to tone it down? Too bad our collective memories seem to last for about a generation and a half. Of course, the heart of the problem that nobody really talks about is population growth and the reasons behind why nobody thinks that is their problem.

aa777888

10th Mar 2020, 19:53

Do any of you sceptics who don't believe humans are contributing to global warming have an explanation for this.Yes. It means we burned a lot of stuff. It does not, however, show what effects, if any, burning all that stuff has had on the climate. It's like saying how much fuel the helicopter used, but not how far it went on that fuel. Try some stat's that matter.

The planet has been this warm many times before with no human inputs to the climate. Similarly it has been a lot colder. To blame all of climate change on only human activities defies logic.

claudia

10th Mar 2020, 20:23

aa well said.
claudia

[email protected]

10th Mar 2020, 20:26

The air inside is warmed by the sun in the usual manner but is kept inside by the glass barrier, preventing it mixing with outside air which cools.
A very thin glass layer permits this, if science permitted, you could use an impossibly thin piece of glass for the same effect.
CO2 and other byproducts form a similarly thin barrier in the atmosphere preventing some of the heat being radiated outwards.

So the greenhouse analogy doesn't work with the earth since convective mixing is exactly how heat transfers across the atmosphere.

Now if you said water vapour was responsible for trapping heat when it makes vast layers of reflective cloud then you might have an argument but your CO2 molecules are arranged in a random fashion not in neat layers or a shield or a blanket.

Lets minimise water vapour - we could all stop breathing, that would help but it would be inconvenient.

The oceans contain far more CO2 than the atmosphere and when the temperature of the water rises, more is given off into the atmosphere but the temperature rise is the driver for the CO2 release, not the other way round.

As I have said, I have no argument that we are polluting the planet - of that there is no doubt - but that pollution is a very minimal part of the climate change and the greenhouse argument simply does not hold water - it's a simple argument that seems sort of sensible if you don't look too deeply which is why politicians like it.

aa777888 -:ok:

Roscoe1 - if there is direct correlation between fossil fuel burning and atmospheric temperature, why was the earth less than a degree warmer than it is now in 1200 - 1300AD?

roscoe1

10th Mar 2020, 20:47

So, I'm open to other explanations. Perhaps you can give me other reasons besides " it's been this warm before", which isnt really a reason to begin with. The folks who insist that we are not the primary cause of this round of planetary warming should check out NASA's website where even with the US current administration it spells it out quite clearly. Pay particular attention to the CO2 level versus total solar radiation graph. It really isn't worth discussing because nobody ever really examines the evidence and none of us are capable of developing our own accurate statistics, so nobody changes their mind on issues like this. It's just that the hard science is ignored by one group that makes this debateable. In all honesty, can you point to any climate studies that were put together by reputable universities, or government agencies, that were peer reviewed and published in actual scientific journals? What possible gain is there for the huge percentage of geochemical climate experts to push what you consider to be bogus science. Has there ever been scientific quackery before? Of course there has but on a scale like this? Pehaps it is vaccines that are really causing warming.

SASless

10th Mar 2020, 21:39

When NASA or any other "expert" can show me a mathematical model that fully explains every nuance and detail of the behavior of the Sun and its every effect upon the Earth then perhaps I might listen to this AGW baloney.

Folks....the Human Species has a very long way to go before it can claim with any credibility to accurate understand the Universe we live in.

I look out the window and cannot tell you what the weather shall be tomorrow morning when I hope to be able to go out in the boat to go fishing on the Ocean.

So....you AGW Cultists give up trying to convince me you got it all figured out.

roscoe1

10th Mar 2020, 22:06

Understanding Planet Earth is not the same as understanding the universe. We've been studying the oceans and atmosphere for centuries. We put measurement probes adrift in both media. We use remote sensing from space to make incredibly accurate and precise measurements. We can even do regression analysis that lets you plug in as many variables as you wish into the mathmatical model you dismiss because you haven't seen it, that results in numerical proof of the weight each factor carries to get us where we are. The sad part is you want it in a trifold brochure that has bold face bullet points that somehow you think you would understand ( I know I wouldn't) to appear before you say ah ha. The models are, in fact, out there and that is wy 95% of climate experts believe we are pushing this phenomenon. You try to diminish expertise by putting it in quotes. I guess you don't believe in expertise either. Once again, how am I part of a cult and what is my motivation? I know the oil companies and coal industry have a powerful reason to get folks to believe we aren't the cause of global warming. I guess there is also this big university and government agency cult thing, kind of like the deep state, eh.

[email protected]

10th Mar 2020, 22:38

Understanding Planet Earth is not the same as understanding the universe. We've been studying the oceans and atmosphere for centuries. We put measurement probes adrift in both media. and we still know less about the sea bed than we do about the surface of the moon. Where is the data about the heat being added to the oceans by the undersea volcanoes and geysers? Our earth's crust is a series of unstable plates floating on molten rock - where are all the measurements about how the earth is heated from within?

The IPCC only allows science it approves of and is on message to be published - you can peer review as much as you like but if the data and studies you review are flawed or skewed then you won't get a true result.

The issue of past temperature variations is exactly the point - how can you claim to know what is happening now if you can't explain what happened in the past?

[email protected]

10th Mar 2020, 22:55

The greenhouse gas argument allows governments to tax more and show how green they are by pushing eco-friendly alternatives - the push to electric cars is a classic, let's rape the earth of rare minerals to make more batteries that we can't re-cycle and forget we have to generate the electricity to put in the batteries in the first place.

All the while the hydrogen fuel cell is sidelined because it isn't fashionable.

Pretending we can cool the planet by going vegan and taking less holidays is the height of futility and is a result of those with other agendas jumping on the AGW bandwagon.

roscoe1

10th Mar 2020, 23:11

Ok, you are just flat out wrong if you think we know more about the moon than we do the sea floor. Just because you say that doesn't make it plausable. If the undersea volcanos were heating up the oceans there would be warmer water at depth. The fact is that surface waters warming is accelerating and deep water warming has remained constant. Heat budgets for the oceans are out there published and with what we know about ocean mixing it is true that surface waters are rising at rates not explained by heat exchange from depth.

SASless

11th Mar 2020, 00:04

Roscoe,

The Sun and the Earth are bound together thus to understand the either one must understand the other.

The Earth's Seas are a pretty big and complex bit of water and life forms.

Are you going to try to tell us that Man has these Oceans all figured out....we don't even know what we don't know about the extent of life forms in the oceans.

We probably know more about the surface of the Moon than we do the bottom of the deepest parts of the Earth's Seas.

After all we can ponder the Moon....like last night for instance as it shined so bright and clear.

It is cloudy today and I KNOW the Moon is still out there because of the Tide Levels in front of my house....that can only be estimated because of the Wind Effect from water being pushed or pulled from the Bay. Uneven heating of the Earth causes the Wind....right?

How you you measure that effect?

You just keep thinking Man has it all figured out....see how that works for you.

By the way....where is Al Gore....off enjoying his Millions from Carbon Offsets or something?

I hope he invested well as if he is still ticking.....so is the Earth despite his dire forecasts in the past when he gave us...what was it ....Ten or Twelve Years?

roscoe1

11th Mar 2020, 00:43

Nobody said we know all.
Most of the oceans are not the "deepest parts". I might mention I have an MSc. Degree in biological oceanography. I've been on scientific cruises on Canadian CG CGS Hudson multiple times in the North Atlantic. We know a heck of a lot about pelagic life in the oceans, especially in those zones that receieve sunlight. I came to helicopters late in life.

Moon, convective heating, tides, yeah we know a lot about that too. We do a pretty good job of weather forecasting in my book. No earth science is as exact as you are insisting it be.

Where is Al Gore? He has written 4 books since 2006, has an active Facebook page and heads the Climate Reality Project. At his age of 72 I could only hope to be as activist and active. He isn't in your world because you didn't look for him.

10 or 12 years....what is that about and where did it come from? There were climate experts warning us to what is likley to happen 40 years ago. You can't deny the melting ice caps at rates way beyond what people 10 or 12 years ago thought we'd see.

Enjoy the moonlight, it'll be there for thousands of years but the beach front property won't be where it is now.

aa777888

11th Mar 2020, 00:55

Don't forget to follow the money, folks. Only politically acceptable research gets money, both public and private. And it's the media that decides what's politically acceptable, not scientists. Not a minor consideration. You'll note we are going through the same sh*t right now in a more acute way with COVID 19, which promises to kill merely a tithe of what H1N1 accounted for in its first year, but where was the media then?

For those who are more conspiratorial you can peel however many layers off that as you wish, but on the surface that's all it takes.

roscoe1

11th Mar 2020, 01:19

Sad, you assume nobody has a soul or a conscience to go with it. When I was in the sciences I was as apolitical as could be. The science led me to what was worthy.
So now we have woven in the Corona virus outbreak. What you didn't say is that we now have BOTH the run of the mill flu, which basically disappears every spring ( not that that helps the poor folks who die from it every year) AND a new virus that we know next to nothing about in terms of epidimiology because we've not seen it in humans before. Sure, the press shapes what most folks think but we really do not know how this will play out. I say better safe than sorry.

aa777888

11th Mar 2020, 01:43

I am making no assumptions. I live, breath and work in that exact environment, although not in the bio or eco-sciences area specifically. I have colleagues that sell their very souls every single day for a dollar.

blackdog7

11th Mar 2020, 03:20

Well said Roscoe 1 - This thread shows that dinosaurs still do roam the earth!

roscoe1

11th Mar 2020, 03:35

Thanks Blackdog. Roscoe was actually a much beloved black dog I had a couple of dogs ago. I kind of consider myself a dinosaur in some regards ( I have no Facebook account) but I am not foolish enough to think that that giant meteors don't exist that might hit the earth.

Old Dogs

11th Mar 2020, 05:37

But.....what if all the world's scientific community is right, and we armchair experts are wrong? By the time anyone can prove that we are frying because of our 3 litre cars rather than sunspots, it just might be too late to do anything about it!
So, those who can ignore Kyoto and the advice of the best-informed on the subject can admire the emperor's new clothes and carry on looking after number one until a possibly? reversible situation has become irredeemable and we are all screwed.
Rant nearly over - I just think its supremely arrogant for people with massive cars, business jets or a hugely polluting economy to think that its perfectly OK to crack on, because its in their personal (short-term) interest to let someone else save the world. Before I invite a massive slagging-off from everyone else, I will just say that 99% of my flying has been in the service of the public, and the fuel I have burned was (mostly) justified.
Thats the blue touch-paper lit, now just getting my flak jacket & helmet on, and crouching under my desk.....incoming!!:uhoh:

I TOTALLY agree.

Autonomous Collectiv

11th Mar 2020, 06:20

I just think its supremely arrogant for people with massive cars, business jets What, like Al Gore?

[email protected]

11th Mar 2020, 09:17

Roscoe1 - I respect your scientific credentials and I'm sure you know a great deal more about the sea than me.

But you will probably have seen the data from the Vostok ice cores which shows the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature - the increase in temperature leads the increase in CO2 by a significant period - can you explain that with the IPCC paradigm?

Equally the IPCC can't explain the mini ice age in the 1500's which followed the mediaeval warm period in the 1200s because there is no correlation between CO2 and global temperatures in the same ice cores they rely on so much.

As I mentioned earlier, the expert scientists were all agreeing in the 60s that we were headed for another ice age - where are they now?

All the scientific data supports the change in climate but the AGW link is a modern construct that doesn't compare with historical evidence.

skadi

11th Mar 2020, 09:45

.... why was the earth less than a degree warmer than it is now in 1200 - 1300AD?

The mediaevel warm period affected only parts of the earth like the northatlantic region. Other parts were colder, so the average temperature. In the last years the average temperature of the whole planet has risen!
Thats a difference!

skadi

Bell_ringer

11th Mar 2020, 10:00

Crab, almost all the climate myths and mythinformation is rooted in selective use of facts.
There is a good scientific site that debunks all of the favourites and then some.
Go browse and you will find answers to most, if not all, misconceptions.
Wrt your CO2/temp question https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=25

Bravo73

11th Mar 2020, 10:01

Erm, isn't this sort of discussion best had in Jet Blast? I can't see how the last few posts relate directly to helicopters.

What next? Discussions about whether the Earth is flat or if the Moon landings actually happened? :ugh:

Bell_ringer

11th Mar 2020, 10:06

What next? Discussions about whether the Earth is flat

If the earth isn't flat, how can you land a helicopter on it? :}

Ascend Charlie

11th Mar 2020, 10:12

if the Moon landings actually happened?

Well, how could you land on the moon, you'd have to turn upside down, and you would fall back to earth.

SASless

11th Mar 2020, 13:22

What I find amusing is the perceived fear that my big ol' smelly diesel four wheel drive pickup's exhaust contents is going to end human life and completely destroy the Earth.

Even if by some miracle all human life becomes extinct.....I firmly believe the Blue Orb shall go right on ticking right up to the instant the Sun goes dark and dead.

Either way....it matters not to me in what time I have left....as either of the options is so far down the road that it does not matter.

I believe in conservation and taking care of the environment as we all should.

That being said....I do not see destroying the Western Nations collective economies as being the right path to salvation.

roscoe1

11th Mar 2020, 17:33

SASless,
I don't think that individually, your big diesel truck makes much of a difference. I don't think the EV that I drive and charge with the help of PV panels on my roof makes a dent either. It is, however, an issue of scale. The millions and millions of diesels do make an impact as does the slow but steady slide toward EVs. Before you say " "but what is the impact of making and disposing of those batteries and PV cells etc"., I understand that there is a price to be paid. In the long run, based on what I've read on both sides I think moving away from fossile fuels is good for all of us and that environmental harm and health issues will diminish as they did with reduction in smoking. Same with the use of plastics. Do I deny your right to drive a big truck? Certainly not. Will I try to convince people that unless you really need a large vehicle ( and you may need yours, I know not) that there are advantages to driving more efficient ones? Absolutely.

I have no idea if human life may become extinct. If we do it may be for reasons unrelated to what we drive. If, for example the native pollinators and cultivated bees are struggling to survive or actually are reduced to being ineffective at filling their niech it may be a bigger blow than greenhouse gas pollution. How many people will say "gee, we didn't see that coming" despite 20 years of warnings by bee keepers and ecologists.

If it matters not to you, well than there we are aren't we? I recently had the opportunity to visit Tokyo and yes I flew on a big smelly 787. The fascinating thing I noticed after a week of walking and subway rides was that in Japan or at least Tokyo, people seem to understand and accept that you do certain things for the common good much more so than in the US. I'm not so much considering this on the local scale where efforts for community well being are more noticeable in the US. I'm speaking of national scale. It made me take a hard look at how we handle homelessness, mental illness, healthcare and simple day to day interactions. I am not without fault in being selfish but I try to be aware and look at the bigger picture when I can.

In closing, i will say that the biggest problem we may have is our feeling of exceptionalism. Is the "Western Nations collective" ( what ever that is)really the best ever? If you want to wave the big foam rubber number one finger, I say have at it. Most of our issues revolve around thinking our tribe is better than your tribe. Over and out.