North Sea weather this winter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just why are you flying in excess of the certification level of your emergency float system on the aircraft
The problem really is that it is not a limitation, and nowhere in the OMs nor in JAR-OPS does it state that one cannot fly when the sea state is greater than the certified level of flotation system. Unless OMs are watertight, so to speak, common sense will not always prevail. Holes will always be exploited by those more concerned with money than safety, and this includes the customers as well as management. The only thing likely to stop an operation will be when it is acknowledged that there is no rescue capabilty available, and this is not always completely apparent until a switched on captain raises the question.
Winds en route getting close to 70 knots (less rare these days) with drift angles of 25+ degrees. Wind strengths approaching this level warn me that everything is going to be less than pleasant.
snip
Lightning; increasingly frequent in this century.
snip
Weather which changes without warning at onshore destinations/alternates and could embarass us fuel-wise.
snip
snip
Lightning; increasingly frequent in this century.
snip
Weather which changes without warning at onshore destinations/alternates and could embarass us fuel-wise.
snip
The nightmare (hasn't yet happened to me) of not being able to shut down offshore in turbulent winds above 50 knots
I can't help but see these selected statements as GW alarmist nonsense. I distinctly remember considering anything under 20 knots to be a calm day in the Brent, and many a day we just continued from shuttles into a day long taxi service because the wind got up quickly to ~70 knots and we couldn't shut down. If we managed to get on the deck with the shuttles finished and the wind ~50-60 knots, we'd shut down in the lee of the hangar.
Non-forecast weather changes were quite common, and not worth worrying about. Just because it hasn't happened to you in the past 20 (?) years isn't a reason to join the alarmists' calls that 'we'll all be rooned'
Who is criminally negligent if an accident occurs in such circumstances?
The Captain? The Operator? The Customer?
The US FAR's have a regulation that says something about "Careless and Reckless operation of an aircraft...." and I am sure the Nanny State does as well.
How have the CAA enforced/interpeted their own regulations re such operations?
When does flying Public Transport over 10- 15 meter seas constitute "reckless" operation during public transport operation?
The Captain? The Operator? The Customer?
The US FAR's have a regulation that says something about "Careless and Reckless operation of an aircraft...." and I am sure the Nanny State does as well.
How have the CAA enforced/interpeted their own regulations re such operations?
When does flying Public Transport over 10- 15 meter seas constitute "reckless" operation during public transport operation?
John Eacott How dare you, Sir! The ultimate insult, implying that I'm a tree-hugger.
I'm a paid-up member of the GW = Bollocks Society. While GW might be "measurable" by some scientists with vested interests, I'll go to my grave comforted by the certainty that the activities of mankind have a negligible effect on climate.
Many top scientists have distanced themselves from the whole ridiculous GW gravy train.
But I'm also certain, having spent half my life in tropical parts and having enjoyed top quality lightning, that I have hankered for it after moving to this god-forsaken climate. Not that I would want to fly through active Cbs, you understand.
It is with some pleasure that I have witnessed the gradually increasing frequency of lightning in these latitudes. However I'm acutely aware that such assertions could give succour to the misguided and gullible GW faithful.
Yes, I do agree with other postings that we have things far more easy these days than when I started on the North Sea over 3 decades ago. The old "sticky bun" remains queen of the offshore skies and an excellent mistress to teach the underlying skills for this challenging environment.
I'm a paid-up member of the GW = Bollocks Society. While GW might be "measurable" by some scientists with vested interests, I'll go to my grave comforted by the certainty that the activities of mankind have a negligible effect on climate.
Many top scientists have distanced themselves from the whole ridiculous GW gravy train.
But I'm also certain, having spent half my life in tropical parts and having enjoyed top quality lightning, that I have hankered for it after moving to this god-forsaken climate. Not that I would want to fly through active Cbs, you understand.
It is with some pleasure that I have witnessed the gradually increasing frequency of lightning in these latitudes. However I'm acutely aware that such assertions could give succour to the misguided and gullible GW faithful.
Yes, I do agree with other postings that we have things far more easy these days than when I started on the North Sea over 3 decades ago. The old "sticky bun" remains queen of the offshore skies and an excellent mistress to teach the underlying skills for this challenging environment.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is criminally negligent if an accident occurs in such circumstances?
The Captain? The Operator? The Customer?
The US FAR's have a regulation that says something about "Careless and Reckless operation of an aircraft...." and I am sure the Nanny State does as well.
How have the CAA enforced/interpeted their own regulations re such operations?
When does flying Public Transport over 10- 15 meter seas jconstitute "reckless" operation during public transport operation?
The Captain? The Operator? The Customer?
The US FAR's have a regulation that says something about "Careless and Reckless operation of an aircraft...." and I am sure the Nanny State does as well.
How have the CAA enforced/interpeted their own regulations re such operations?
When does flying Public Transport over 10- 15 meter seas jconstitute "reckless" operation during public transport operation?
Is it reckless to fly with sea states higher than the certified sea state for the floats? SS6 being 4-6 metre waves.
- Risk assessment and mitigation. Firstly the risk of ditching is very low. The flotation certification is to provide at least 2 hours of flotation time after ditching. After that the flotation time is not guaranteed and not known. Sensible assessment is that it will not sink immediately. Mitigation - all pax and crew are HUET trained and current, are wearing survival suits with hoods, PLBs and rebreathers. (no rebreathers or STASS for crews yet)
Secondly - it is required here that rescue of 21 people must be possible by whatever means within 120 minutes of the accident being notified. In times of extreme weather the rig captain, rescue boat captain and SAR crew must assess whether this is possible or not. All have their weather limits, and once wave height is more than 4.5 metres the rescue boat cannot be used, so SAR Heli is used as the sole means. Once the wind is beyond their startup limits they will reposition onshore. The captain of the SAR crew must inform the customer and operations if they are not able to meet the 120 minute rescue time. Ops will then stop. The risk is therefore mitigated by the fact that all are trained to escape the aircraft in the event of it capsizing (worst case), and make it into the life rafts. They will then be picked up within 120 minutes which is within the survival time.
In times of extreme weather it is the responsibility of the Daily duty officer to carry out a risk assessment and discuss any additional risk with the customer. They then decide if they are happy to accept the increase in risk.
Legally everything is in order and there is a level of accepted risk - as there always is. We cannot eliminate all risk as you well know, otherwise we would not ever get airborne.
I am not saying I necessarily agree in full with the rationale. There are plenty of holes, and yes I know that the idea of everyone making it into the raft is not guaranteed, nor is the idea that the SAR helicopter will necessarily find everyone if they don't make it into the raft. However this is the reasonable rationale used and accepted risk taken in order to get the job done. Increased risk - yes, reckless - I think a not.
The question we often ask ourselves is what would the BOI conclude if there was an accident today? Who would be blamed? Would there be criminal liability? Was everything reasonably possible done to mitigate the risks involved? The last one being the one that will promote the greatest discussion.
I would draw attention however to JAR-OPS/IEM OPS 3.837 as to how this should be interpreted. It is very clear as to the use of liferafts, but not so clear as to the requirements of floats.
flotation and trim characteristics were evaluated in order to comply with the ditching requirements for certification (See IEM OPS 3.837(a)(2));
Last edited by Horror box; 13th Dec 2011 at 09:04. Reason: spelling
I'm a paid-up member of the GW = Bollocks Society. While GW might be "measurable" by some scientists with vested interests, I'll go to my grave comforted by the certainty that the activities of mankind have a negligible effect on climate
Many top scientists have distanced themselves from the whole ridiculous GW gravy train.
There is a difference between speculating whether one bad winter is part of a GW pattern (which wouldn't be very scientific); thinking human activity has no bearing on GW (amongst climate scientists; very much a minority view); and believing there isn't any such thing as GW (akin to believing the world is flat at this point).
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thickerpedia
Beautifully described, you are obviously un-aware of the diversions on the subject that happened on this fabled site. Suffice to say they can beg all they like for contributions to help their cause, as they are right now, but until they stop doctoring the information they'll have naught from me.
All of the worst recorded floods and droughts in this country happened in the second last century. Yea even during WWI was there drought pretty much everywhere in OZ and the rest of the allied world except Northern OZ who pulled the allies out of the pooh big time with the meatworks in Northern OZ. It was the only place in the world that war time steel was diverted, to get cattle to the works.
Now TET, even a thickie like me can work out that nearly all of the available met data would be from the last century, and we are only in year 12 of this one. So, even assuming you are right, what you have said would hardly be surprising.
And why not help fix all that inaccuracy on Wikipedia by contributing? Won't cost you a penny
One of the principle sources in the Thickerpedia synopsis is the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, itself a reflection of the available data and expert opinion. The conclusion is that not only is climate change real but that, with virtual certainty, it is caused by human activity.
Quite honestly, I have no interest in "believing" or "denying": but I do find the level of skepticism about majority scientific opinion very odd. What do people think they know better than the majority of climate scientists? Or have they been distracted by equal media coverage given to minority opinion and bad science?
And why not help fix all that inaccuracy on Wikipedia by contributing? Won't cost you a penny
One of the principle sources in the Thickerpedia synopsis is the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, itself a reflection of the available data and expert opinion. The conclusion is that not only is climate change real but that, with virtual certainty, it is caused by human activity.
Quite honestly, I have no interest in "believing" or "denying": but I do find the level of skepticism about majority scientific opinion very odd. What do people think they know better than the majority of climate scientists? Or have they been distracted by equal media coverage given to minority opinion and bad science?
Last edited by Torquetalk; 13th Dec 2011 at 11:39.
What do people think they know better than the majority of climate scientists?
Where I come from....Scientific Law requires theories be proveable and result in the predicted results upon testing. That is not the case for current theories on AGW.
It is not doubting....it is just being unconvinced by the very Laws of Science that have existed for a very great many years.
When the AGW crowd can fully explain the Sun's effect on Planet Earth...and do so in accordance with the existing Laws on Scientific proof....then....and only then shall I "believe" what they have to say.
The "Science" is anything but settled no matter how the AGW crowd try to spin it!
By the way....whatever was the latest on the great Fat Ass....something about worrying so much about his carbon footprint that he bought a multi-million dollar beach side Mansion in California after getting his ass booted out by the Missus? Think about being so concerned about AGW...and having a 30,000 US Dollar per year (mine was 117 USD last month...) electric bill for his Mansion in Tennessee. Yes....we really have to worry about AGW if the saviours of the Planet act as does Al Gore!
Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.
"If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules."
Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: "I think what you're seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely lost the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most effective opponent."
Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it."
"If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules."
Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: "I think what you're seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely lost the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most effective opponent."
Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it."
ah yes, Al Gore. now I'm afraid I have to agree with you completely.
But I'm sure the IPCC was no more persuaded one way or the other by Mr. Powerpoint than you or I.
When you say common sense SASless, perhaps you mean intuition or pattern recognition: such as spotting a phoney like Al Gore. But let's not forget that common sense also had it that the world was flat and the sun went around the earth: it was obvious and everyone knew it.
And science is not about proof, it is about confirmation or disconfirmation. You can prove something in law, but never in science. Good science tests theory by experiment to a degree of certainty, or it builds theory from observation; in turn putting it to the test. Laws of science are not real or permanent, they are the merely the best current explanation.
So in a world of competing information, who do you believe? The majority of climate scientists or the dissenting minority, some of whom conduct research sponsored by the coal and petroleum industries? That doesn't, necessarily mean it's biased research, or a biased interpretation of the results. But it makes you wonder if they are trying as hard as they should to disconfirm.
But I'm sure the IPCC was no more persuaded one way or the other by Mr. Powerpoint than you or I.
When you say common sense SASless, perhaps you mean intuition or pattern recognition: such as spotting a phoney like Al Gore. But let's not forget that common sense also had it that the world was flat and the sun went around the earth: it was obvious and everyone knew it.
And science is not about proof, it is about confirmation or disconfirmation. You can prove something in law, but never in science. Good science tests theory by experiment to a degree of certainty, or it builds theory from observation; in turn putting it to the test. Laws of science are not real or permanent, they are the merely the best current explanation.
So in a world of competing information, who do you believe? The majority of climate scientists or the dissenting minority, some of whom conduct research sponsored by the coal and petroleum industries? That doesn't, necessarily mean it's biased research, or a biased interpretation of the results. But it makes you wonder if they are trying as hard as they should to disconfirm.
Not for one second do I doubt that GW is probably happening now, for the manyeth time in our planet's history. I don't believe that human activities have much to do with it.
Repeated below is something previously shown on this forum and includes the views of world-class scientists. Nothing anyone can say to discredit them is going to change my scepticism.
Even without their views, my instinct is that climate change is going to happen without humans even existing. It was happening long before humans existed.
It seems the AGW circus is focusing attention away from the real issues that need to be addressed. (THE LINKS BELOW ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE.)
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2 ... te-change/
Some information I found quite interesting re wind generators.
http://www.slideshare.net/JohnDroz/ener ... esentation
A bit cynical but then some would call it being a realist.
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/2010/03/26 ... swindle-2/
And it appears even ex and current IPCC members are a little jaded with the whole political dog and pony show. It's becoming more and more evident that the emperor is strolling about with his dangly bits exposed.
New Zealand – Dr Vincent Gray (Physical Chemist) UN IPCC Expert Reviewer. He has been involved in every report of the IPCC. He is the author of over 100 scientific papers:
“The whole process is a swindle, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming. The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense.”
“No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. It should be obvious that they are ridiculous.”
“The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this is not so.”
Russia – Dr Yury Izrael, past UN IPCC Vice President, director of Global Climate and Ecology Institute, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“There is no proven link between human activity and global warming.”
“A Russian expedition that recently returned from the central Antarctic says that temperatures are now starting to decrease…. In ancient times the Earth had periods when maximum CO2 concentrations were 6,000 ppm (Carboniferous period). But life still goes on.”
USA – Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfield (Climate Scientist), Contributing Author to the UN IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric and Polar Processes at the University of Colorado.
“Without question, much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
“Only after we identify these factors and determine how they affect one another, can we begin to produce accurate models. And only then should we rely on those models to shape policy. Until that time, climate variability will remain controversial and uncertain.”
USA – Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University:
“In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth’s surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
UK – Dr Richard Courtney (Climate and Atmospheric Scientist) UN IPCC Expert Reviewer
“The case for anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) is getting weaker and weaker, not ‘stronger and stronger’ as many have claimed.”
“To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (man-made global warming) has been discovered. Recent global climate behaviour is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”
“….Scares of hypothetical ‘tipping points,’ run-away sea level rise, massively increased storms, floods, pestilence and drought are simply that, unjustified and unjustifiable scares.”
South Africa – Dr. Philip Lloyd, UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author, Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer, and author of more than 150 refereed publications.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”
Norway – Dr Tom Segalstad (Geologist & Geochemist) UN-PCC Expert Reviewer, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC:
“It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”
Japan – Dr Kiminori Itoh (Environmental Physical Chemist) Yokohama National University UN-IPCC expert reviewer
“Man-made warming is the worst scientific scandal in history.”
“When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
USA – Dr Richard Lindzen (Atmospheric Scientist) Professor at MIT UN-IPCC Lead Author
“The consensus was reached before the research had even begun.”
“It’s not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else…but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.”
“Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.”
Netherlands – Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm (Economist), UN IPCC expert reviewer, global warming author, and economist, a lecturer at the Netherlands Defence Academy, started out as a man-made global warming believer but later switched his view after conducting climate research.
“I started as an anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent sceptics…..After that, I changed my mind.”
“Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.”
USA – Dr John Christy – UN IPCC Lead Author – Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama, Huntsville (also Alabama State Climatologist) :
“Public discussion about ‘carbon policy’ or ‘reducing greenhouse gases’ centres around the need to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet even educated persons mostly have no comprehension that the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour.”
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol.”
“I don’t see a catastrophe developing from our emissions into the air of what should be correctly identified as ‘plant food.’”
“Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I’m identified as an IPCC Lead Author}. The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the “informational cascade”) is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the “ones who know” (from the Latin sciere, to know).”
“The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: ‘We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans.’
We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don’t have thermometers marked with ‘this much is human-caused’ and ‘this much is natural”.
So, I would have written this conclusion as “Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change.”
Dr Chris Landsea – World Hurricane & Storm Expert NOAA’s National Hurricane Center who served on the UN IPCC as both an author and a reviewer (resigned) and has published numerous peer-reviewed research papers:
“I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.”
“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
“The 1926-1935 period was worse for hurricanes than the past 10 years, and 1900-1905 was almost as bad.” There is no long-term up-trend in damages, after you adjust for societal changes.
It starts to give us a little bit of a clue about what the global warming impact on hurricanes may be. From that record, it suggests that there is no trend that can be linked to ocean temperature trends and global warming
USA – Dr. Robert E. Davis (Climatologist), UN IPCC contributor, Professor at University of Virginia, and past president of the Association of American Geographers.
“We keep hearing about historically warm years, warm decades, or warm centuries, uncharacteristically long or severe droughts, etc., for which mankind’s striving for a high quality of life is to blame…. But in reality, in most cases, we have a tragically short record of good observations.”
“Be wary of global warming psychics warning us of unprecedented climate shifts – in most cases, they are only unprecedented because of the short life span of most scientists.”
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, UN IPCC expert reviewer, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas writes:
“I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furore started after [NASA's James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the scientific literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false, they did not correlate with recorded human history.”
“Depending on the period in earth’s history that is chosen, the climate will either be warming or cooling. Choosing whether earth is warming or cooling is simply a matter of picking end points.”
Canada – Dr Madhav Khandekar UN IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer, a PhD meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modelling:
“As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters:”
“… an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of GHG-induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed. Since mid-1998, the earth’s mean temperature as a whole has not increased at all, despite billions of tonnes of human added CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere.”
“To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”
New Zealand – Dr Willem de Lange is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Waikato, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and chapter co-author specialising in coastal oceanography and wrote on 23 May 2009:
“I am a climate realist because the available evidence indicates that climate change is predominantly, if not entirely, natural. It occurs mostly in response to variations in solar heating of the oceans, and the consequences this has for the rest of the Earth’s climate system. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis [of] runaway catastrophic climate change due to human activities.”
“I was an invited reviewer for a chapter dealing with the economic impact of sea level rise on small island nations. In keeping with IPCC procedures, the chapter was written and reviewed in isolation from the rest of the report, and I had no input into the process after my review of the chapter draft. I was not asked if I supported the view expressed in my name, and my understanding at the time was that no evidence of a discernable human influence on global climate existed.”
“The IPCC Second Assessment Report assessed sea level rise by AD 2100 as being in the range 0.20-0.86 m, with a most likely value of 0.49 m (less than half the rate assumed for the economic analysis). Subsequent research has demonstrated that coral atolls and associated islands are likely to increase in elevation as sea level rises. Hence, the assumptions were invalid, and I was convinced that IPCC projections were unrealistic and exaggerated the problem.”
“The IPCC Assessment Report 4 report emphasises a single paper, which was not available when I conducted my review, which spliced the satellite data onto the tide gauge data to “find” acceleration in sea level rise over the period of satellite measurement. This is being used to imply that global sea level rise is accelerating due to global warming (now renamed Climate Change). The satellite data only covered the period of increasing sea level associated with decadal cycles, and the known discrepancy between satellite trends and tide gauge trends was not corrected for. This is poor science comparable to the splicing of proxy and instrument data in the infamous Hockey Stick graph, and the splicing of ice core and instrumental CO2 measurements to exaggerate the changes.”
USA Dr. Indur M Goklany, represented the U.S. at the IPCC and in negotiations leading to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
“Once one gets past the opaque verbiage of the SPM [IPCC summary for policymakers], it is clear that most of the negative impacts listed in the SPM are overstated, while the positive impacts are understated.”
Criticizing IPCC methodologies, he said, “Under such a methodology the mortality and morbidity rates from water related diseases in the U.S., for example, would be the same in 2000 as in 1900. But in fact, these rates have declined by 99% or more during the 20th century for disease such as typhoid, paratyphoid, dysentery, malaria, etc.”
Rough idea of the cyclical nature of things:
Pleistocene Ice Age 110.000 - 14.000Yrs years ago - very cold indeed
Bolling 14.700 - 13.900 warming up!
Older Dryas - 13.900 - 13.600 - cold
Allerod 13.600 - 12.900 warmer
Younger Dryas 12.900 - 11.600 Cold. Mammoths, mastodons wiped out
Holocene Warming 11.600 - 8,500 Hurrah! warm again
Egyptian cooling 8.500 - 8.000
Holocene warming returns 8.000 - 5.600
Akkadian Cooling 5.600 - 3.500
Minoan Warming 3.500 - 3.200
Bronze Age Cooling 3.200 - 2.500
Roman Warming 500BC - 535AD
Dark Ages 535 - 900AD
Medieval Warming 900AD - 1300AD
Little Ice Age 1300AD - 1850AD
Modern Warming 1850 -
Why is it that this time it's because of CO2 produced by mankind? There's a definite whiff of rodent in the air....
Food for thought.
Repeated below is something previously shown on this forum and includes the views of world-class scientists. Nothing anyone can say to discredit them is going to change my scepticism.
Even without their views, my instinct is that climate change is going to happen without humans even existing. It was happening long before humans existed.
It seems the AGW circus is focusing attention away from the real issues that need to be addressed. (THE LINKS BELOW ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE.)
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2 ... te-change/
Some information I found quite interesting re wind generators.
http://www.slideshare.net/JohnDroz/ener ... esentation
A bit cynical but then some would call it being a realist.
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/2010/03/26 ... swindle-2/
And it appears even ex and current IPCC members are a little jaded with the whole political dog and pony show. It's becoming more and more evident that the emperor is strolling about with his dangly bits exposed.
New Zealand – Dr Vincent Gray (Physical Chemist) UN IPCC Expert Reviewer. He has been involved in every report of the IPCC. He is the author of over 100 scientific papers:
“The whole process is a swindle, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming. The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense.”
“No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. It should be obvious that they are ridiculous.”
“The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this is not so.”
Russia – Dr Yury Izrael, past UN IPCC Vice President, director of Global Climate and Ecology Institute, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“There is no proven link between human activity and global warming.”
“A Russian expedition that recently returned from the central Antarctic says that temperatures are now starting to decrease…. In ancient times the Earth had periods when maximum CO2 concentrations were 6,000 ppm (Carboniferous period). But life still goes on.”
USA – Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfield (Climate Scientist), Contributing Author to the UN IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric and Polar Processes at the University of Colorado.
“Without question, much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
“Only after we identify these factors and determine how they affect one another, can we begin to produce accurate models. And only then should we rely on those models to shape policy. Until that time, climate variability will remain controversial and uncertain.”
USA – Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University:
“In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth’s surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
UK – Dr Richard Courtney (Climate and Atmospheric Scientist) UN IPCC Expert Reviewer
“The case for anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) is getting weaker and weaker, not ‘stronger and stronger’ as many have claimed.”
“To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (man-made global warming) has been discovered. Recent global climate behaviour is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”
“….Scares of hypothetical ‘tipping points,’ run-away sea level rise, massively increased storms, floods, pestilence and drought are simply that, unjustified and unjustifiable scares.”
South Africa – Dr. Philip Lloyd, UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author, Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer, and author of more than 150 refereed publications.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”
Norway – Dr Tom Segalstad (Geologist & Geochemist) UN-PCC Expert Reviewer, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC:
“It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”
Japan – Dr Kiminori Itoh (Environmental Physical Chemist) Yokohama National University UN-IPCC expert reviewer
“Man-made warming is the worst scientific scandal in history.”
“When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
USA – Dr Richard Lindzen (Atmospheric Scientist) Professor at MIT UN-IPCC Lead Author
“The consensus was reached before the research had even begun.”
“It’s not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else…but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.”
“Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.”
Netherlands – Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm (Economist), UN IPCC expert reviewer, global warming author, and economist, a lecturer at the Netherlands Defence Academy, started out as a man-made global warming believer but later switched his view after conducting climate research.
“I started as an anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent sceptics…..After that, I changed my mind.”
“Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.”
USA – Dr John Christy – UN IPCC Lead Author – Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama, Huntsville (also Alabama State Climatologist) :
“Public discussion about ‘carbon policy’ or ‘reducing greenhouse gases’ centres around the need to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet even educated persons mostly have no comprehension that the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour.”
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol.”
“I don’t see a catastrophe developing from our emissions into the air of what should be correctly identified as ‘plant food.’”
“Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I’m identified as an IPCC Lead Author}. The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the “informational cascade”) is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the “ones who know” (from the Latin sciere, to know).”
“The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: ‘We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans.’
We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don’t have thermometers marked with ‘this much is human-caused’ and ‘this much is natural”.
So, I would have written this conclusion as “Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change.”
Dr Chris Landsea – World Hurricane & Storm Expert NOAA’s National Hurricane Center who served on the UN IPCC as both an author and a reviewer (resigned) and has published numerous peer-reviewed research papers:
“I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.”
“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
“The 1926-1935 period was worse for hurricanes than the past 10 years, and 1900-1905 was almost as bad.” There is no long-term up-trend in damages, after you adjust for societal changes.
It starts to give us a little bit of a clue about what the global warming impact on hurricanes may be. From that record, it suggests that there is no trend that can be linked to ocean temperature trends and global warming
USA – Dr. Robert E. Davis (Climatologist), UN IPCC contributor, Professor at University of Virginia, and past president of the Association of American Geographers.
“We keep hearing about historically warm years, warm decades, or warm centuries, uncharacteristically long or severe droughts, etc., for which mankind’s striving for a high quality of life is to blame…. But in reality, in most cases, we have a tragically short record of good observations.”
“Be wary of global warming psychics warning us of unprecedented climate shifts – in most cases, they are only unprecedented because of the short life span of most scientists.”
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, UN IPCC expert reviewer, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas writes:
“I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furore started after [NASA's James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the scientific literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false, they did not correlate with recorded human history.”
“Depending on the period in earth’s history that is chosen, the climate will either be warming or cooling. Choosing whether earth is warming or cooling is simply a matter of picking end points.”
Canada – Dr Madhav Khandekar UN IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer, a PhD meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modelling:
“As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters:”
“… an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of GHG-induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed. Since mid-1998, the earth’s mean temperature as a whole has not increased at all, despite billions of tonnes of human added CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere.”
“To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”
New Zealand – Dr Willem de Lange is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Waikato, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and chapter co-author specialising in coastal oceanography and wrote on 23 May 2009:
“I am a climate realist because the available evidence indicates that climate change is predominantly, if not entirely, natural. It occurs mostly in response to variations in solar heating of the oceans, and the consequences this has for the rest of the Earth’s climate system. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis [of] runaway catastrophic climate change due to human activities.”
“I was an invited reviewer for a chapter dealing with the economic impact of sea level rise on small island nations. In keeping with IPCC procedures, the chapter was written and reviewed in isolation from the rest of the report, and I had no input into the process after my review of the chapter draft. I was not asked if I supported the view expressed in my name, and my understanding at the time was that no evidence of a discernable human influence on global climate existed.”
“The IPCC Second Assessment Report assessed sea level rise by AD 2100 as being in the range 0.20-0.86 m, with a most likely value of 0.49 m (less than half the rate assumed for the economic analysis). Subsequent research has demonstrated that coral atolls and associated islands are likely to increase in elevation as sea level rises. Hence, the assumptions were invalid, and I was convinced that IPCC projections were unrealistic and exaggerated the problem.”
“The IPCC Assessment Report 4 report emphasises a single paper, which was not available when I conducted my review, which spliced the satellite data onto the tide gauge data to “find” acceleration in sea level rise over the period of satellite measurement. This is being used to imply that global sea level rise is accelerating due to global warming (now renamed Climate Change). The satellite data only covered the period of increasing sea level associated with decadal cycles, and the known discrepancy between satellite trends and tide gauge trends was not corrected for. This is poor science comparable to the splicing of proxy and instrument data in the infamous Hockey Stick graph, and the splicing of ice core and instrumental CO2 measurements to exaggerate the changes.”
USA Dr. Indur M Goklany, represented the U.S. at the IPCC and in negotiations leading to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
“Once one gets past the opaque verbiage of the SPM [IPCC summary for policymakers], it is clear that most of the negative impacts listed in the SPM are overstated, while the positive impacts are understated.”
Criticizing IPCC methodologies, he said, “Under such a methodology the mortality and morbidity rates from water related diseases in the U.S., for example, would be the same in 2000 as in 1900. But in fact, these rates have declined by 99% or more during the 20th century for disease such as typhoid, paratyphoid, dysentery, malaria, etc.”
Rough idea of the cyclical nature of things:
Pleistocene Ice Age 110.000 - 14.000Yrs years ago - very cold indeed
Bolling 14.700 - 13.900 warming up!
Older Dryas - 13.900 - 13.600 - cold
Allerod 13.600 - 12.900 warmer
Younger Dryas 12.900 - 11.600 Cold. Mammoths, mastodons wiped out
Holocene Warming 11.600 - 8,500 Hurrah! warm again
Egyptian cooling 8.500 - 8.000
Holocene warming returns 8.000 - 5.600
Akkadian Cooling 5.600 - 3.500
Minoan Warming 3.500 - 3.200
Bronze Age Cooling 3.200 - 2.500
Roman Warming 500BC - 535AD
Dark Ages 535 - 900AD
Medieval Warming 900AD - 1300AD
Little Ice Age 1300AD - 1850AD
Modern Warming 1850 -
Why is it that this time it's because of CO2 produced by mankind? There's a definite whiff of rodent in the air....
Food for thought.
Last edited by Colibri49; 13th Dec 2011 at 16:54.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Wherever
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colibri 49,
You crack me up! That's twice this week you have caused me to reach for the box of tissues...to wipe off the tea that I have sprayed onto the computer screen. Don't retire just yet!
I'm off to set up the braai; no doubt the GW police will be along shortly
.
You crack me up! That's twice this week you have caused me to reach for the box of tissues...to wipe off the tea that I have sprayed onto the computer screen. Don't retire just yet!
I'm off to set up the braai; no doubt the GW police will be along shortly
.
Ah yes, those GW police...
Colibri, I consider myself well and truly spammed. If an argument was worth is weight in word processed charachters, you have made your case and won.
I'll spare you and pprune the same tactic because it doesn't mean anything (and isn't, in any case, my point of view). We have no way, as lay people, of assertaining the credability of what you have filled a large amount of space with. Finding a whole series of quotes from people who dissent sounds credible, but is it? It seems fair to assume that an equal and perhaps greater number could be found supporting the opposite case. And that would also mean nothing. The entire matter for lay people is impressionistic. BUT: The IPCC isn't exactly a fella who works at Walmart: It is the organisation which was tasked with reviewing the research and taking expert witness and drawing conclusions. Just because a few of the people it may have consulted didn't get their theories accepted, doesn't in itself undermine the credability of its findings. Why should it?
Of course, the people you quoted may have it right. But why the unfailing willingess to believe them?
For you, human influence in GW is a scam; on the basis of what I have heard, I see no reason to be so absolutely skeptical.
Colibri, I consider myself well and truly spammed. If an argument was worth is weight in word processed charachters, you have made your case and won.
I'll spare you and pprune the same tactic because it doesn't mean anything (and isn't, in any case, my point of view). We have no way, as lay people, of assertaining the credability of what you have filled a large amount of space with. Finding a whole series of quotes from people who dissent sounds credible, but is it? It seems fair to assume that an equal and perhaps greater number could be found supporting the opposite case. And that would also mean nothing. The entire matter for lay people is impressionistic. BUT: The IPCC isn't exactly a fella who works at Walmart: It is the organisation which was tasked with reviewing the research and taking expert witness and drawing conclusions. Just because a few of the people it may have consulted didn't get their theories accepted, doesn't in itself undermine the credability of its findings. Why should it?
Of course, the people you quoted may have it right. But why the unfailing willingess to believe them?
For you, human influence in GW is a scam; on the basis of what I have heard, I see no reason to be so absolutely skeptical.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing to see the subject of climate change discussed even on a rotorheads forum. And frankly sad to see some of the views being put forward.
Some brief nibbles of thought from an Earth Scientist and a pilot.
- Right, first off.....Global Warming is not a term used by scientists except in a very restricted sense. It is clearly biaised and laden with connotations. Climate Change is what we're talking about and vastly more accurate
- The Earth is indeed highly cyclical. The heart of this dicussion is the meaning of these cycles and what forcing on them occurs. This is not a straightforward or easily discernible question. Think Fourier Analysis on a massive scale.
- The debate in the mainstream media is not conducted with the same level of rationality as the same one in the science community: to put it clearly - whether global climate change is caused by increasing GHG will not be necessarily unquestionably proved even in our lifetime (although it is clearly a potentially very strong driver) and is almost not the point. The BIG question you want to be asking yourself is whether pumping the levels of CO2 we are into the atmosphere is something sensible to do. On that, there is universal agreement: It's not clever. See last note for further reading.
- As pilots, we deal with risk mitigation all the time. When we get airborne, we can never quite ascertain what will occur during a flight, even with 20,000 hours. We are not only dealing with a man-made device, but, more importantly, a natural system....the Earth's atmosphere. We act therefore on the risks and uncertainties, work with them and based on science, follow precautionary principles constantly.
- Why the veherment diatribe about this one Earth Science topic of Climate Change? Why not about Peak Oil Theory or any number of other issues that also affect your life (livelihoods...?) and yet people do not feel qualified to talk upon unless they work in the field. Would you let a non-commercial pilot tell you categorically how your hard-worn experience and judgement is lacking, that you don't know your business?
- Would you take one METAR and scale up a Form 415 off it? No, well, this is what asking oneself about whether individual climatic conditions in one region over even a few decades period is equivalent to. It may be representative of the bigger picture, it may be not. When you plan a flight, you start with the evidence from the 415 or even greater scale, not the other way around. This is how Earth Scientists of all varieties work: we start at the large scale and work in, decreasing our predictability as we go....until we can measure something, but then only know it has limited spatial relevence. Sound familiar?
- In summary, I'll ask simply whether you would consider such closed-book thinking is appropriate to the art (or the science) of flying? Well, it is also inappropriate for the study of Earth phenomenon. We will never have perfect understanding of either, so I would suggest we continue to practice risk management and a dose of humility as we continue on the ever-present learning curve.
- And if you want one reason why we should be doing something, go look for Bryan Lovell's (University of Cambridge, ex-BP oil hound, Pres of Geol Society) research on CO2 levels in the Paleogene and what happened when PPM levels hit the levels we are heading fast towards.....
(Apologies to all those who understand what I'm getting at....just needed to get that lot off my chest!)
BFA
Some brief nibbles of thought from an Earth Scientist and a pilot.
- Right, first off.....Global Warming is not a term used by scientists except in a very restricted sense. It is clearly biaised and laden with connotations. Climate Change is what we're talking about and vastly more accurate
- The Earth is indeed highly cyclical. The heart of this dicussion is the meaning of these cycles and what forcing on them occurs. This is not a straightforward or easily discernible question. Think Fourier Analysis on a massive scale.
- The debate in the mainstream media is not conducted with the same level of rationality as the same one in the science community: to put it clearly - whether global climate change is caused by increasing GHG will not be necessarily unquestionably proved even in our lifetime (although it is clearly a potentially very strong driver) and is almost not the point. The BIG question you want to be asking yourself is whether pumping the levels of CO2 we are into the atmosphere is something sensible to do. On that, there is universal agreement: It's not clever. See last note for further reading.
- As pilots, we deal with risk mitigation all the time. When we get airborne, we can never quite ascertain what will occur during a flight, even with 20,000 hours. We are not only dealing with a man-made device, but, more importantly, a natural system....the Earth's atmosphere. We act therefore on the risks and uncertainties, work with them and based on science, follow precautionary principles constantly.
- Why the veherment diatribe about this one Earth Science topic of Climate Change? Why not about Peak Oil Theory or any number of other issues that also affect your life (livelihoods...?) and yet people do not feel qualified to talk upon unless they work in the field. Would you let a non-commercial pilot tell you categorically how your hard-worn experience and judgement is lacking, that you don't know your business?
- Would you take one METAR and scale up a Form 415 off it? No, well, this is what asking oneself about whether individual climatic conditions in one region over even a few decades period is equivalent to. It may be representative of the bigger picture, it may be not. When you plan a flight, you start with the evidence from the 415 or even greater scale, not the other way around. This is how Earth Scientists of all varieties work: we start at the large scale and work in, decreasing our predictability as we go....until we can measure something, but then only know it has limited spatial relevence. Sound familiar?
- In summary, I'll ask simply whether you would consider such closed-book thinking is appropriate to the art (or the science) of flying? Well, it is also inappropriate for the study of Earth phenomenon. We will never have perfect understanding of either, so I would suggest we continue to practice risk management and a dose of humility as we continue on the ever-present learning curve.
- And if you want one reason why we should be doing something, go look for Bryan Lovell's (University of Cambridge, ex-BP oil hound, Pres of Geol Society) research on CO2 levels in the Paleogene and what happened when PPM levels hit the levels we are heading fast towards.....
(Apologies to all those who understand what I'm getting at....just needed to get that lot off my chest!)
BFA
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now TET, even a thickie like me can work out that nearly all of the available met data would be from the last century, and we are only in year 12 of this one. So, even assuming you are right, what you have said would hardly be surprising.
And why not help fix all that inaccuracy on Wikipedia by contributing? Won't cost you a penny
And why not help fix all that inaccuracy on Wikipedia by contributing? Won't cost you a penny
My beef about the mob of thickets was they had a senior editor come on line and delete a whole heap of the sceptic’s arguments after - and what used to be a general practice but now amended I believe- a reader came on free to air amending so called scientific papers. So sure, delete one side of the argument and it will be hard to be any other than thick about it.
In the links below you can see arguments backing up Sasless's comments, in 1. From Donna Laframboise, a tremendous Canadian scribe and;
2. A funny story from Tim Blair talking about our effing pollies and who is one of our great anti warm bloggers and a very funny scribe, as good as the British James Dellinpole I reckon. You might like to follow both on their anti AGW trails.
The third one is about the latest book from another famous and real scientist Ian Plimer and a pollie of whom you may have heard.
My point about the historical weather events is simple, they all happened inside our recorded history well before this big bad phoo-bear AGW, came on the scene.
Our chief warmest is Tim Flannery who despite his predictions of gloom - all our capital cities running out of water by 2012 etc, some of ‘em near got washed away last year - has bought himself a house on the seafront well below his predicted sea water rise.
Durban was a great success, the warmists are gloating and I agree. They have formed a bond so they say to force everyone to formalise an agreement about handling AGW in 2015 or 2020 or something. Their problem will be that like Flim Flam (above) all of the dire predictions will have been found as worthless by then and the whole process seen as a fraud.
But there is just one teensy weensy detail that you may have overlooked and Gore, Flim Flam and all the rest can shout doom and gloom all they like, but when it comes to changing datums, real datums that the world works with it aint quite as simple as idle rhetoric in the press by the noisy minority such as Gore.
The teensy detail to which I refer is the one which we use every time we fly, ISA. It would be a real root if it changed by several degrees just because Gore said it would and we all crashed because silly us are working on the old standard.
Answer this if you can, why hasn’t ICAO amended their temperature datums in line with AGW predictions?
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/12/13/over-the-top-climate-rhetoric/
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/at_least_he_didnt_cry/
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/warmies_schooled/
Chief Bottle Washer
SP.....this argument began with a direct connection to current North Sea Weather and perceptions it is changing over time. Yes, the discussion is about AGW/GW but it was prompted by allegation changing weather on the North Sea and its effect on flight operations (or the perception there of) was caused by AGW/GW.
Despite there being a whole thread devoted to the topic in general...as this bit of discussion is focused upon the relevance of that concept of climate to North Sea Flight Operations....and as we have accepted over the past that Rotorheads is that small part of the universe reserved to those of us who are involved in helicopter/vertical flight operations....then why would you want to move this thread to Jet Blast?
I would suggest this is a very correct place for the discussion extant for the above listefd reasons and that philosophically fits with the nature of other discussions we have had here.
What industry in the World is more attuned to changes in weather, weather reporting, water depths, sea states, and the like than Helicopter pilots. We operate in all areas of the World, many operate along shorelines, beaches, low lying maritime areas, the Arctic, even very close to both of the Earth's Poles. Over time would we not be in a position to consider actual, viewable manifestations of the dire warnings of the AGW/GW crowd.
Did that beach landing spot disappear from rising water...or was that merely an unusally high Tide? (for an example). Are the glaciers any different over the past few years? How much snow melt have we had in the Arctic regions we fly over as compared to prior years?
We have not heard any complaint as I recall. We did very recently have a couple of photographs in the "Views" thread of the same arctic area...one with Snow...and one without...so there have been contributions that should beg discussion but did not due to the "thread" it was placed in.
The AGW/CW debate and its potential to adversely affect our Industry...and pay packets....is certainly one the Helicopter Industry should be aware of and interested in.
One Man's Opinion!
Despite there being a whole thread devoted to the topic in general...as this bit of discussion is focused upon the relevance of that concept of climate to North Sea Flight Operations....and as we have accepted over the past that Rotorheads is that small part of the universe reserved to those of us who are involved in helicopter/vertical flight operations....then why would you want to move this thread to Jet Blast?
I would suggest this is a very correct place for the discussion extant for the above listefd reasons and that philosophically fits with the nature of other discussions we have had here.
What industry in the World is more attuned to changes in weather, weather reporting, water depths, sea states, and the like than Helicopter pilots. We operate in all areas of the World, many operate along shorelines, beaches, low lying maritime areas, the Arctic, even very close to both of the Earth's Poles. Over time would we not be in a position to consider actual, viewable manifestations of the dire warnings of the AGW/GW crowd.
Did that beach landing spot disappear from rising water...or was that merely an unusally high Tide? (for an example). Are the glaciers any different over the past few years? How much snow melt have we had in the Arctic regions we fly over as compared to prior years?
We have not heard any complaint as I recall. We did very recently have a couple of photographs in the "Views" thread of the same arctic area...one with Snow...and one without...so there have been contributions that should beg discussion but did not due to the "thread" it was placed in.
The AGW/CW debate and its potential to adversely affect our Industry...and pay packets....is certainly one the Helicopter Industry should be aware of and interested in.
One Man's Opinion!
current North Sea Weather and perceptions it is changing over time