Global Warming - split from the A380 thread

[DingerX]

BarryT: you are right that the passenger profile will change, and the A380 was built around this changing profile. New markets in Asia will drive up the total number of PAX flying. Hub-to-Hub traffic will skyrocket, while population pressures limit the physical expansion of those hubs. Landing slots will be increasingly valuable, and airlines will see great value in a huge longhaul to accommodate all that traffic.

That's the situation as it was figured to be around 2000. Unfortunately, a few things have changed:

A) oil has gotten very expensive. Sometime in the service life of the A380, the world will achieve peak oil production. As we've seen repeatedly, even a slight restriction in supply causes huge price increases. That's enough to put doubt on the sustainability of explosive growth in the Asian market.

B) With Global Warming and its human cause no longer an issue of scientific debate, companies have to confront the possibility of restrictions on hydrocarbons, especially on burning them at altitude.

Whether you agree with them, these are threats that any company's long-term strategy has to account for. And to those threats, the A380 looks like a dinosaur.

[aviate1138]

Part A...Sometime in the service life of the A380, the world will achieve peak oil production. As we've seen repeatedly, even a slight restriction in supply causes huge price increases. That's enough to put doubt on the sustainability of explosive growth in the Asian market.
B) With Global Warming and its human cause no longer an issue of scientific debate, companies have to confront the possibility of restrictions on hydrocarbons, especially on burning them at altitude.

Aviate 1138 muses....
PART of A It isn't peak oil production [which won't happen for many decades anyway] it's the refinery situation, or lack of any standby ones. Where are the New Refineries???? None being built. That is what controls prices. Ask yourself why Oil Companies don't build new refineries or increase capacity on existing ones? Could it be that by doing so, oil prices would drop?
PART B Climate Change is what is happening - Global Warming is what Politicians and Scientists looking for massive grants keep suggesting.
We had the warmest July in the UK since 1911. Where were the Gas Guzzling cars and aircraft carrying millions of passengers and making contrails that apparently cause 'Global Warming' in 1911? BTW the UK produces less than 2% of World CO2 and getting less daily. You will find many Top Drawer Scientist do not agree with Kyoto, Global Warming or any such ideas. A number of Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists vehemently oppose so called 'Global Warming' :)
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=13830&ch=biztech
Aviate 1138

[Dr Dave]

Aviate1138

If a year is a long time in politics, two years is a long time in climate science. The comments made in that paper in 2004 have now been effectively refuted, and indeed a committee set up by the US Congress (who lets face it are not great fans of the global warming hypothesis) reported earlier this year that the warming trend is genuine.

It is true that a few scientists don't believe in global warming, but the vast majority do. Many (including myself) have changed their minds in the last two years as the evidence has stacked up. Earlier this year I asked one of the UK's leading climate scientists / modellers what in his view was the chance that the current observed warming was not due, at least in part, to anthropogenic influences. His answer was 1%.

Regarding the summer temperatures - no, indeed a hot summer in 2006 does not indicate global warming. But the following list of the ten warmest years on record is rather more compelling (numbers are the difference in degrees C above long term avaerage global temperature):
1998: 0.57
2005: 0.48
2003: 0.46
2002: 0.46
2004: 0.44
2001: 0.41
1997: 0.40
1995: 0.36
1999: 0.33
1990: 0.30
2000: 0.28

Current prediction is the temperature 2006 will be 0.45 degrees C, i.e. 6th on the list.

Finally, as a scientist working in environmental science please let me dispel once and for all one myth that keeps being peddled around. This is:
"Climate Change is what is happening - Global Warming is what Politicians and Scientists looking for massive grants keep suggesting"

It is far easier to get grants if you are willing to peddle the line that climate chnage is not happening, than it is to get funding if you believe that it is. The global warming hypothesis is not some great conspiracy dreamt up by scientists, it is the sad reality of the research that we do. Sorry!

I consider myself a "top-draw" scientist (I was made full professor in one of the top natural science departments in the UK at the age of 37) - I just can't see a scientifically-credible alternative expalanations to the observations (including my own idependent datasets) that are pouring out around the world.

Finally, take a look at the following graph, which shows long term temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Amazing coincidence, right?

http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/images/charts/vostok-ice-core.jpg

Dr (Prof) Dave

[False Capture]

Excellent post Dr. Dave.

When you inspect the graphs, there seems little doubt about the correlation between the CO2 concentation and temperature change. However, can you tell us why there's a cyclic rhythm taking place every 100 000 years or so?

Are we simply approaching one of these natural (cyclic) peaks when it comes to climate change?

[aviate1138]

Aviate1138
If a year is a long time in politics, two years is a long time in climate science. The comments made in that paper in 2004 have now been effectively refuted.... Dr (Prof) Dave
Aviate 1138 says,
Dr [Prof] Dave,
Although the url below is not from a Scientific Journal, it is an article by another Prof.,Richard Lindzen. Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
His article make interesting reading to me, a non academic, who is not convinced by biased Scientific 'Observations' and senstaional Press babblings. Remember many scientists said Man would never fly, travel faster than 20 mph and go to the Moon and proved it with learned papers.
Check out Prof Lindzen's observations....
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Interesting to me anyway. :)
Aviate 1138 NLAMN [No Letters After My Name]

[Dr Dave]

Thanks for the kind words. Taking the above two posts in order:

1. The graphs - yep, they are fascinating and complex. The c.100,000 year cyclicity is caused by cyclicity in the orbit of the Earth around the sun. There are three known such cycles, which alter the distribution of radiation reaching the Earths atmosphere. This cyclicity is responsible for the ice-ages.

However, the pattern is even more complex because you will see that Earth cools slowly, but warms rapidly - i.e. we slowly descend into an ice age, but come out of it quickly. Why should this be? The answer is not fully established but may be linked to carbon dioxide. However a couple of years ago the late, great and sadly missed British scientist Nick Shackleton demonstrated that carbon dixide changes occur before temperature. So, the theory is that changes in orbit leads to changes in biological productivity, and this drives the pattern of change that results. Of course, this scenario is bad news for us...

Incidentally, if you look carefully at the graph in the top right corner you will see an indication of where atmospheric co2 is now...

Regarding the article - yes, it is excellent. There is much that I aghree with there, including the central point that anthropogenic global warming is unproven, and that there is a political band wagon in operation that can be very dangerous indeed. The moves by green groups in the European parliament to apply arbitrary taxation to airline travel is such an example of an ill-judged and misconceived political reaction to the science.

As a young scientist I was told that in order to deal with multiple scenarios all of which fit the available data, one should apply the so-called "Occam's razor", which is that the simplest explanation that fits all the available facts is usually the right one. I suspect that you apply the same logic when, for example, you have a multiple systems failure in the cockpit. For a long time the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis failed the razor - i.e. there were other explanations that appeared to fit better. But, in recent years, as the climate data, the models, the experiments, etc have improved, it now passes the test (with flying colours). The other scenarios require such complexity, and so many assumptions, that they just don't pass muster.

Needless to say that doesn't mean that the theory be proven wrong in the fullness of time, but theres not much evidence of that happening at the moment.

[kansasw]

You will find many Top Drawer Scientist do not agree with Kyoto, Global Warming or any such ideas. A number of Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists vehemently oppose so called 'Global Warming' :)
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=13830&ch=biztech
Aviate 1138
Aviate you do not appear to have read the article you cite. I offer the following quote from it "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do)..."
There may be discrepancies with the hockey-stick mathematics, or they may have been resolved as others profess. In either case, your argument appears to be that because of alleged discrepancies in the hockey-stick calculation, the whole notion of human/fossil fuel contribution to global warming is out the window. Your logic there is, well, unconvincing to put it mildly.

I suggest that you are grasping at a thin straw to support what you would like to believe, and disregarding the preponderance of agreed fact and legitimate scientific opinion.

Your assertions are contravened, not supported, by your own evidence.

[aviate1138]

Aviate you do not appear to have read the article you cite. I offer the following quote from it "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do)..."
There may be discrepancies with the hockey-stick mathematics, or they may have been resolved as others profess. In either case, your argument appears to be that because of alleged discrepancies in the hockey-stick calculation, the whole notion of human/fossil fuel contribution to global warming is out the window. Your logic there is, well, unconvincing to put it mildly.
I suggest that you are grasping at a thin straw to support what you would like to believe, and disregarding the preponderance of agreed fact and legitimate scientific opinion.
Your assertions are contravened, not supported, by your own evidence.
So you believe the 'Hockey Stick' is accurate?
Try my later post.....
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Aviate 1138

[kansasw]

So you believe the 'Hockey Stick' is accurate?


Aviate, I am a technician, not a scientist. I do not claim competence to judge the "hockey stick." I suspect it is a highly technical issue subject to competent judgement by scientists, and to revision as better information develops. That is the way science works.

I think the hockey stick is but one measure of the global warming issues we are discussing. If the hockey stick program is right it may support some structures of global warming, in particular anthropogenic ones. If the hockey stick program is wrong it does not add to the structures and may tend to negate some of them, but at best it is only one of the pieces of the puzzle.

Directly to your question, "So you believe the 'Hockey Stick' is accurate," to be honest I do not know. I hope the people with competence will sort it out, or maybe by some accounts they already have.

Do you have the expertise to judge accuracy of the hockey stick? I think you have stated that you are a layman in this arena, as am I.

Try my later post.....
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Aviate 1138[/QUOTE]

Thanks, I have read this twice. It appears to be commentary from a legitimat scientist (unlike your previous citation), an atmospheric scientist at MIT, so I have to take it seriously. It also appears to be laced with political/personal judgements and to contain little hard information, and is written for the Wall Street Journal which has its own well-known biases, so I have to wonder how much prejudice underlies the expression. I am not discounting what the guy says, but wondering how much weight to give it. Yes I have my own prejudices, and scientists are entitled to theirs too.

My kid will be entering the Woods Hole/MIT PhD program in oceanography this month. I'll try to let you know any gossip.

[kansasw]

Aviate 1138 muses....
A number of Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists vehemently oppose so called 'Global Warming' :)
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=13830&ch=biztech
Aviate 1138
Oh yes aviate, I forgot to ask: What is the number of MIT scientists who vehemently oppose so called 'Global Warming"?
I think it might be, uhhhh, one? zero?
Are you spinning?
Can you name any?
Prooners, I regret the thread drift from 380 issues, but this guy jerked my chain and I hope I can help him recogize the error of his thought processes, if any.

[aviate1138]

Oh yes aviate, I forgot to ask: What is the number of MIT scientists who vehemently oppose so called 'Global Warming"?
I think it might be, uhhhh, one? zero?
Can you name any?
.... this guy jerked my chain and I hope I can help him recogize the error of his thought processes, if any.
Aviate 1138
One is enough when it is Richard Lindzen.
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
I regard Prof. Lindzen the way Winston Churchill regarded Prof. R V Jones during WW2, a brilliant scientist who, frankly, saved the British during the 1939-45 war, not just the 1941-45 bit, by analyzing scientific facts, applying Occam's Razor to find solutions and not blindly following the herd.
Anyway as you say, we should get back to the magnificent A380 Airbus....:)
Aviate 1138

[DingerX]

Alright, outside of a single MIT Professor, who also consults for oil companies at $2500/day, where's the rest of the "body of scientists"? The supply/demand situation for scientists who deny global warming is so good at the moment, that I'm tempted to become one myself.

But to try to right the derailing of the thread, my point wasn't that "Global Warming" or "Peak Oil" are states of reality that exist. If you're running a company, far more important than the physical reality of these concepts is their relation to your corporation (and Ockham would deny the existence or importance of such a relationship, but that's a different story).
Whether you believe global warming is a problem, when you're making long-term strategy, you have to take into account the forces that shape the market; social and political forces are among the biggest. So, certainly, you'll want to pay Lindzen or one of his students to write up some "objective analyses" that you can then pump through the news outlets. But you'll also need to take into account the very real possibility that high fuel prices, low fuel availability and government restrictions on hydrocarbons are going to change the face of air travel.

To put it another way, the existence of people like Lindzen is proof of what I'm saying: in this case, the environment doesn't matter, but rather the reaction of the world's regulating bodies to it.

Or you can reason that you'll be on the other side of those thunderheads in 2 minutes.

[aviate1138]

To put it another way, the existence of people like Lindzen is proof of what I'm saying: in this case, the environment doesn't matter, but rather the reaction of the world's regulating bodies to it.
Or you can reason that you'll be on the other side of those thunderheads in 2 minutes.
Aviate 1138 thinks....
We now have 24 hour 'Breaking News' worldwide. No Cold War scenarios, a few skirmishes, religious hatred [same for the last 3000+ years] and a scientific eye that sees almost everything in minute detail. Media has pages to fill. Good news doesn't sell papers.
Human Nature abhors a mental vacuum. Religion fills it for some. Global Warming does it for others. Not me. AFAIAC Carbon Claptrap is about as viable as the South Sea Bubble, Fools Gold and Dutch Tulips were viable centuries ago.
There were 3 times more hurricanes between 1940 and 1950 than the last decade. It was warmer in 1200 than now. Vikings colonised Greenland because it was - green! Icelandic Vikings grew barley in the 1100's and it can't be grown now! Too cold.
No one has included all the variables and accurately modelled our climate because it is too complex.
Kyoto panic is based on a projected .6ºC rise in the next 50 years. All that Carbon Cash will be thrown down the drain when it could be used to fund clean water production, cheap medicine, etc.
Wine was produced in Cumbria UK in 1200. It can't be done now because it isn't warm enough. By 1235 there was a mini Ice Age starting.
Media, blinded by the 'Breaking News 24/7' syndrome and Disaster Movies and TV series that people believe are real, have a lot to answer for IMHO.
Now 'Global Warming' either melts glaciers or builds them, causes droughts or floods, heats or freezes, I could go on but won't because you can't explain every weather change as carbon induced global warming.
In February 1963 I drove in the middle of the River Thames near Windsor in my Mini Cooper S for a mile or two and returned. The ice was so thick we had 450 people on the ice and barbequed lamb and pork. Learned scientists predicted a 'New Ice Age' They produced evidence to support it.
What's new? There never was and never will be a stable climate on this world of ours.
Aviate 1138

[DingerX]

sorry, it's clear from the response and the moderation that the point I was trying to make is lost.

Airlines, clearly, do not make long-term strategic decisions, and any suggestion that they do is clearly non-airline-transport material.

[kansasw]

Aviate 1138
One is enough when it is Richard Lindzen.
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
I regard Prof. Lindzen the way Winston Churchill regarded Prof. R V Jones during WW2, a brilliant scientist who, frankly, saved the British during the 1939-45 war, not just the 1941-45 bit, by analyzing scientific facts, applying Occam's Razor to find solutions and not blindly following the herd.
Anyway as you say, we should get back to the magnificent A380 Airbus....:)
Aviate 1138
Well hey, the Airbus is surely important and interesting, but so is global warming. Possibly moreso.
I do not think, of course, that scientific conclusions are to be settled by voting. One may be right and many may be wrong. That said, it is unclear to me how the view of a single scientist ("One is enough") whose conclusions are in line with yours overpowers the conclusions of the vast majority. Of actual scientists that is, I am not regarding journalists, talk-show comics, folks with axes to grind, corporations and their flackies and flunkies, and the like.
I am not a scientist. I am susceptible to prejudice and false points of view, as are scientists. I hope to maintain an open mind and stay subject to correction, always. I think debate and dialogue (and diplomacy and negotiation, but that's spilling over into another arena) are always preferable to dogmatism and bullheadedness. Debate and dialogue have their place in scientific controversy. I do not hope to convince you of my viewpoint or anything you do not want to listen to. I do recognize that the fuss over anthropogenic global warming may be mistaken.
However I do not believe it is mistaken. All that I see persuades me that the real science strongly favors anthropogenic factors as a major contributor to the (unargued by you as far as I know) current warming trend.
The views of a single scientist in opposition to many of equal expertise cannot persuade me, but again I maintain an open mind. Fees of $2500 per day from oil companies (as alleged elsewhere in the thread) for favorable testimony, for me throw into doubt the validity of that single scientist's conclusions. Not negate, but throw into doubt. I do not mean to suggest that he is saying what he is being paid to say; rather that his conclusions may be slanted in a certain direction. As are mine on occasion--if I have a client with a certain need, I will naturally take their side within bounds of ethics and honesty. So does any lawyer. So will you, I presume.
I think this issue is bigger than the A380. I hope you are not bored with my essay.

Can you name any others with actual scientific credentials and similar stature, who discount anthropogenic contributions to global warming?

[aviate1138]

Says in part.....Well hey, the Airbus is surely important and interesting, but so is global warming. Possibly moreso.
I do not think, of course, that scientific conclusions are to be settled by voting. One may be right and many may be wrong. That said, it is unclear to me how the view of a single scientist ("One is enough") whose conclusions are in line with yours overpowers the conclusions of the vast majority. Of actual scientists that is, I am not regarding journalists, talk-show comics, folks with axes to grind, corporations and their flackies and flunkies, and the like.
Can you name any others with actual scientific credentials and similar stature, who discount anthropogenic contributions to global warming?
Aviate 1138 says.....
Look at just one group of many......
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605&rfp=dta
In that one url there are 60 qualified academics who discount global warming hysteria and can supply as much validated evidence to backup their views as the 'Global Warmers' can in opposition [without the hysteria and hype that predicts future catastrophe].
BTW Saying any Scientist who differs from the majority view is in the pay of Oil Companies, Big Business, etc is akin to smearing anyone a 'Commy' years ago. Did it not occur to you that all the Green factions will still be screaming 'Global Warming - give us funds...' even when the next Mini Ice Age is upon us! Carbon Claptrap is all smoke and mirrors.
Many centuries ago a scientist or two dared to suggest the Earth was not the centre of the Universe, the majority however, believed the Earth was the centre of the Universe. How stupid does that seem now?
Aviate 1138

[kansasw]

Aviate 1138 says.....
Look at just one group of many......
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605&rfp=dta

Well I'm not to go very far with the "my experts can beat up your experts" game, only far enough to suggest http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html. Many of the 60 in your own link are named there and their affiliations published.

[aviate1138]

Well I'm not to go very far with the "my experts can beat up your experts" game, only far enough to suggest http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html. Many of the 60 in your own link are named there and their affiliations published.


Congratulations kansasw!

Your 'experts' have attempted to rubbish anyone who 'dares' to disagree. The Academic world is full of such people.

Aviate 1138

[Chimbu chuckles]

Ummm Prof Dave:confused:

Your list of summer 'above average' temperatures shows a downward trend indicating that summers are getting cooler?

1998: 0.57
2005: 0.48
2003: 0.46
2002: 0.46
2004: 0.44
2001: 0.41
1997: 0.40
1995: 0.36
1999: 0.33
1990: 0.30
2000: 0.28

aviate1138:ok::ok: :ok:

Anthropogenic warming is a crock of ****e:ok:

Go here http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm and breath in some fresh air on Global Warming.

This is one of my favorites from the above website;

http://mclean.ch/climate/models.htm

And my favorite quote from that article on climate modelling

3. Comments about Scenarios used in Modelling

Stephen H. Schneider, a leading climate change advocate, said in an interview for Discover Magazine in 1989..."On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." [my emphasis added]

[aviate1138]

Ummm Prof Dave:confused:
Your list of summer 'above average' temperatures shows a downward trend indicating that summers are getting cooler?
aviate1138:ok::ok: :ok:
Anthropogenic warming is a crock of ****e:ok:

Chimbu chickles - :ok: - absolutely spot on!!!!
It amuses me/saddens me mainly, to hear our Chief Scientific Adviser, David King, who is without doubt a Major Pratt, talking of average 11+ºC rise by 2050. The man should be fired and replaced with a real qualified, lateral thinking Scientist.
There are more of us sceptics out there and growing in number daily.
The Greenpeace, 'Friends' of the Earth types are just greedy fundraisers hoping to hoodwink the general public. Not anyone that gets their ear bent by yours truly! :) Let's clone the late and very much missed Prof RV Jones and ignore the Doom laden Merchants and their wild predictions.
UK based.
Aviate 1138

[LD Max]

Chimbu chickles - :ok: - absolutely spot on!!!!
It amuses me/saddens me mainly, to hear our Chief Scientific Adviser, David King, who is without doubt a Major Pratt

... not to mention the two Pratts who both missed the fact that the descending scale of summer temperatures were not in chronological order! :rolleyes:

[aviate1138]

... not to mention the two Pratts who both missed the fact that the descending scale of summer temperatures were not in chronological order! :rolleyes:
Interesting that the hottest year was 1998 and subsequent years with more CO2 being produced resulted in cooler Summers?
Too many variables, too much political hype, not enough commonsense.
Occam's Razor should rule.
Aviate 1138

[Chimbu chuckles]

Yup...Mea culpa...but my point remains...take a good tour around that website and have a read...it's not one persons opinion but gathered data from many sources.