Perhaps aviation biggest challenge....

[Mach1.]

Im surprised that I have not seen discussion on the obivous challenge that is ahead of aviation. While global environment challenges seem very real and science backed - the aviation industry is still talking about growing over the coming decades. New markets, new routes, more planes and pilots - yet at the same time scientists almost all say our only hope is to cut drastically on emissions.

Are we talking about this fact yet - or is it just too uncomfortable?

your thoughts....

ps: Im an airline pilot - love my job - hope generations to come can too

[Longhitter]

Journo by any chance?

[Chris2303]

Journalists and "consultants" who believe that they are the ultimate authority when something goes wrong

[bill fly]

I don’t think people in the industry are too concerned at a daily level. Even the futurists are working on a Mach5 project requiring very thirsty propulsion.
A few percent gain here and there keeps the punters happy.
Realistically a full aircraft presently uses less fuel than would be used if each passenger drove his car the same distance solo. That gets forgotten in the climate debate.

[DaveReidUK]

Realistically a full aircraft presently uses less fuel than would be used if each passenger drove his car the same distance solo.

Realistically, that's not setting the bar very high ...

[Australopithecus]

The climate “debate” is being argued by anti-vaxing flat-earthers. It's hard to make predictions,especially about the future*, but:
It doesn’t take much imagination to see a day when private aviation, pleasure motor boating, needless journeys and any heavy carbon footprint activity will become both heavily taxed and socially unacceptable.

I can also imagine heavy tarrifs levied by many countries against others seen to be non compliant with whatever crisis accord is ruling the day, because by the time there is any global consensus actual action will be critical.**

*Yogi Berra

**Spare me the idiot rebuttals.

[Auxtank]

With aviation accounting for about 2% of all global emissions and road transport for 74% - our biggest challenge is to inform and educate.

[Australopithecus]

With aviation accounting for about 2% of all global emissions and road transport for 74% - our biggest challenge is to inform and educate.

Not exactly. For all transportation, aviation is 12%, road 74%

In our house, we have reduced our road emissions to the minimum, generate all of our net electricity and try to source as much local food as possible. It barely makes a difference.

[CargoOne]

Stop listening CEO speeches to the public... There is no concern about emissions on daily basis anywhere in airline industry. Related things are however important: less fuel burn means less money spent. Less fuel burn means less payments for emission quotas (Europe). Those two are measured in real money, taken care of, and subsequently environment benefits from it. Next question?

[A and C]

When I started in this business I would load 10900 KG of fuel on to a HS Trident to fly 160 pax from LHR to GLA or EDI.

Now I put a that sort of fuel load on a B737-800 to fly 189 pax LGW to CFU.

I think that marks the gains in efficiency the industry has made and will continue to make.

[TSR2]

What type of aircraft is a B373-800 ?

[Alan Baker]

What type of aircraft is a B373-800 ?

New name for the MAX?!

[sooty655]

I think the biggest challenge facing aviation and every other "climate-destroying" industry and activity is that the "tree-huggers" can't see anything other than a "ban it" approach. The eventual solution will undoubtedly have to come from an engineering source, using technology to remove the carbon we have poured into the atmosphere over the last 250 years.
There has been some very promising progress on possible techniques in Canada recently, and Cambridge University have set up a dedicated department looking at possibilities, but the activists still think that stopping everything now is a viable position, and that is taking a lot of attention (and resources) away from a realistic approach to the problem.
There will undoubtedly have to be elimination of the worst polluters - burning lignite to produce electricity to charge electric cars makes absolutely no sense at all - but for many human activities the ultimate solution will probably be to find ways to effectively remove the pollution post-event rather than to stop the activity completely.

[Speedywheels]

Im surprised that I have not seen discussion on the obivous challenge that is ahead of aviation. While global environment challenges seem very real and science backed - the aviation industry is still talking about growing over the coming decades. New markets, new routes, more planes and pilots - yet at the same time scientists almost all say our only hope is to cut drastically on emissions.

Are we talking about this fact yet - or is it just too uncomfortable?

your thoughts....


Yes, there are lots of activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, converting traditional mechanical, hydraulic and pneumatic systems with electrical alternatives. Electric brakes and thrust reversers are just two examples of the work being done, reducing weight and eradicating the use of corrosive, inflammable fluids. The 'More Electric Aircraft' brings its own challenges with increased voltage and power levels which has to be managed through the aircraft wiring. Higher dependency on insulation materials and the continual need to reduce weight is a real focus for the R&D teams at Airbus, Boeing, etc. I'm working on some of these challenges today and great steps are already being taken to meet these growing needs. I'm not employed by Safran but here's a short article that shows their commitment to these initiatives.

https://www.safran-electrical-power.com/media/20150408_more-electric-aircraft-power-future

[Ian W]

Realistically, that's not setting the bar very high ...


If you must worry about CO2 rather than fuel cost.
Take aircraft type, normal fuel burn for flight, divide by number of miles flown, divide by number of revenue pax. Most modern twins will return better than 120mpg per revenue passenger.
No infrastructure is needed to be built and maintained between departure and destination - no rails or tarmac
Other 'incidentals'
Cost of passenger time traveling is also reduced.
Some journeys are only practicable by air.

[sunnybunny]

Some journeys are only practicable by air.

But as they used to say, is your journey really neccessary? e.g. stag weekends to las vegas as some work colleagues recently did?

[73qanda]

The eventual solution will undoubtedly have to come from an engineering source, using technology to remove the carbon we have poured into the atmosphere over the last 250 years.
I agree that solutions to climate change issues will come from engineering and science but why would we need to
remove the carbon we have poured into the atmosphere over the last 250 years ?
I’m all for cleaning up our act a bit but not sure why CO2 has such a bad name.
Can anyone explain with a bit of data ?
Cheers

[Pilot DAR]

It doesn’t take much imagination to see a day when private aviation, pleasure motor boating, needless journeys and any heavy carbon footprint activity will become both heavily taxed and socially unacceptable.

Yes, and this will have unintended consequences. When I learned to fly (I think back around when A & C was filling up a Trident) there were basically two types of pilots applying to fly for the airlines: Former military pilots, and pilots emerging from "private aviation". The ex Military pilots were very well trained, and used to flying within a regimented system. The private pilots had a more self directed learning path, in more simple planes, as generally they had funded their training and experience themselves. Now we have those paths, plus the more formalized career training path, which really does not include much "private" flying. Fewer hours, less total experience, training directed at the airline role only. Perhaps more similar to the military training environment than than private path.

The "private" path has one difference to the military or career path training, being a lot more self directed, with the pilot making more of their own decisions (particularly go - no go), and solo flying - perhaps in a modest "experience builder" plane. I have seen that pilots who emerge from the self directed path, and have flown a lot of solo, are confident decision makers. The airline passengers of the future would like to be flown by pilots who are well motivated, and confident decision makers. That's not to speak less well of military or career path pilots, we need a mixture of all types of pilots.

As private flying becomes more costly, and less socially welcome, the opportunity will be lost for new pilots to fly hundreds of hours of personal experience building, and solo decision making. Airliners will be flown (or watched form the pilot's seat) by pilots who have passed the training to the minimum requirements, and perhaps had little opportunity to make solo piloting decisions, and carry out the outcome of their decisions.

I hope that the career path training ramps up to produce very experienced entry level airline pilots, 'cause they won't be coming from the "private" path so much in the future.....

[homonculus]

It is refreshing to see some science being applied to the issue as opposed to believing that school children egged on by pushy parents are the world experts

Aviation is 4% of UK CO2 production, and 2% globally. Both aviation and shipping have applied science to reduce pollution per unit cargo mile, but volumes have increased. Banning transportation will not solve anything.

The biggest issues are:

The big polluters. China produces 100 times the CO2 that the UK does and has increased by 17% ie one other country has increased CO2 production by 17 times the total UK CO2.

Developing countries particularly Poland and Indonesia who are churning out coal, building coal fired power stations and refuse to come to the table

Corruption, which has led to deforestation especially in South America and mass poverty in sub saharan Africa. The latter perpetuates wood burning for fuel and prevents eg hydroelectric development in the DRC

The west IMHO needs to address these ongoing issues and promote technology such as carbon capture to sell / give to to developing countries.

[beardy]

I’m all for cleaning up our act a bit but not sure why CO2 has such a bad name.
Can anyone explain with a bit of data ?
Just in case you have been off-planet for the last 100 years or so:
Greenhouse gasses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas)
It was an established module on my engineering course over 40 years ago

[Rated De]

The question is for the industry what will replace hydrocarbon fuel?

Whilst the present emissions are only 3% by mid century, aviation will account for approximately 30%.
With forecast growth in ASK at 5% per annum the CO2 net emission cap is loaded with assumptions of questionable robustness. For aviation to be carbon neutral from 2020, efficiency gains will need to be found every year at rates that largely map the improvements in jet engine technology since the 1960's. Further, embedded in the assumptions are gains best described as "Rumsfeldian", unknown-unknowns: As yet undetermined efficiency gains will continue to be invented. Whilst substitute fuel sources are big on media and technically feasible, they are not commercially viable,
By way of an example, Bio Fuel technically works, the problem remains the scale of agricultural land needed to support 1/3 of the requirements in a country like the USA, would result in reduced food production of major cereal crops..

By way of contrast, the maritime industry already taxes sulfur levels, is transitioning away from fossil fuels and will by 2075, be completely free of hydrocarbon based fuel. The aviation industry has no such viable alternative.
It is possible that the industry becomes a much larger emitter both in gross terms and in percentage derived from aviation, than even the optimistic forecasts suggest.

IFF the world decides that 'CO2 emitters are a problem', then the airline's industry as a collective may face a public relations problem, which could arguably mutate into something more concerning: a reduction in available air transport options.


This is neither in defence of, nor rebuttal of climate change.

[bzh]

Bio fuel will take over as cost is lowered and black oil cost increased, the Arizona desert will be covered by Algae farms, Pacific salt water pumped on way and biofuel the other...

https://www.flysfo.com/media/press-releases/sfo-announces-landmark-agreement-use-sustainable-aviation-fuels

[.Scott]

I agree that solutions to climate change issues will come from engineering and science but why would we need to?
I’m all for cleaning up our act a bit but not sure why CO2 has such a bad name.
Can anyone explain with a bit of data ?
Cheers
The long answer is all those IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change https://www.ipcc.ch/ ) studies that examine climate change and its causes very, very extensively.
I certainly haven't read all of those studies and reports. But I have read enough to get a good picture.

1) Global warming is a fact. In Physics, something is considered "discovered" if without it, the likelihood of the experimental results it at least 5 standard deviations away from normal. The evidence for global warming goes way beyond that criteria.

2) To go much further, we need a climate model. And we have many of these - none are fully convincing. But there is one sure thing that can be said: CO2 is a major factor. You can create models that include changes in water content, solar effects, contrails, etc - but if you don't include CO2 in your model, your model will not work.

3) You will often hear statements such as: "If we don't keep CO2 levels down, we will loose 1 million species over the next century." In most cases, they are based on good arguments and are good likelihoods. But there are a few problems with these statements.
They suggest that if we do control CO2 the bad result will not happen - in most cases, that's just false. In other cases, it is pushing the models well beyond their predictive powers. For example, even if we miraculously brought CO2 level back to what they were in 1900, that might not be enough to end climate change. Agriculture pumps huge amounts of water into the air and water is a far more potent green house gas - though one that is not persistent.
They also suggest that what we would need to do to avoid or reduce the consequence would be worth it. In the extinction example, they don't mention that that would leave 2.5 million species. I think most people would be happy with 2.5 million species in exchange for job security.

[Rated De]

Airlines at SFO currently use over 1 billion gallons of jet fuel annually. If sustainable aviation fuel suppliers are able to increase global supply from the current 5 million gallons per year to 500 million gallons per year,

Technically feasible yes.A long way to commercially viable. Unfortunately, that is a press release, noting a 'study'.

To produce sufficient bio-fuel for 10% of US airline ASK would require an area the size of Florida.

[CargoOne]

Technically feasible yes.A long way to commercially viable. Unfortunately, that is a press release, noting a 'study'.

To produce sufficient bio-fuel for 10% of US airline ASK would require an area the size of Florida.

bio fuel doesnt come for free. It takes large territories to grow thus reducing space available for the food-related agriculture and as far as I remember the process is producing co2 too... it is like Tesla - it doesnt make the world greener it is rather shifting pollutions to a different territories.

[TeachMe]

I'm sorry everyone, but I find the extent of climate change deniers and minimizers on this forum to beyond belief. Human caused global warming due in part to CO2 emissions is science fact. The more CO2 the more the warming. period - accept it!

HOWEVER - there are many many questions also:
- How much warming for how much CO2 (we have models, but models have uncertainty)
- What will be the exact effect of how much warming on different parts of the earth
- What is the true cost of that warming (both monetary - for example building coastal defenses - and non-monetary - for example how much is a forest worth?)
- To what extent do contrails reduce warming?

I believe the environmental movement has done a disservice to society by fear mongering and doomsday scenarios.To me their hard line is part of the reason for the push-back against needed changes. Pushing an environmental agenda others with a big stick is wrong. Maybe many here have a hard time accepting climate change due to legitimate career fears?

There are changes aviation can make. Bio-fuels from algae ponds in the Sahara is one interesting option among many. If people were to work together there would be no threat to aviation from the need to reduce CO2 emissions. To me it is hard to work together when many in the environmental movement are so hard line and unwilling to understand the social costs of their demands. People need good stable jobs and many in the environmental movement project a position that they care more for a single tree or owl than the children of those who earn a living in CO2 producing industries.

The real problem is not the science of climate change or the ability for tech to find solutions, the real problem is people can not compromise to a solution that works for everyone.

TME

[John Boeman]

The long answer is all those IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change https://www.ipcc.ch/ ) studies that examine climate change and its causes very, very extensively.

May I suggest that as well as studying the writings of the IPCC you take a look over what the NIPCC produces....
Climate Change Reconsidered ? Climate Change Reconsidered (http://climatechangereconsidered.org/)

[Lonewolf_50]

I agree that solutions to climate change issues will come from engineering and science but why would we need to Yes, which politicians pay lip service to but rarely understand. I’m all for cleaning up our act a bit but not sure why CO2 has such a bad name.
Can anyone explain with a bit of data ?
Cheers The "Back of a post card" version is: the rate at which CO2 is generated is believed to be (or is shown to be) higher than the rate at which CO2 can be absorbed and/or used by various plants.
The aggregate amount is an annual gain, which over time (see boiling a frog) begins to change the entire blanket of mixed gases that is our atmosphere.

Why rate (or mass flow rate) is important: did you ever try to drink from a fire hose rather than sipping from a glass?

[Mk 1]

NIPCC - backed by the Heartland Institute - a far Right wing think tank. Their original campaign was to try and discredit the health effects of secondhand cigarette smoke. Can they be relied upon to give an unbiassed opinion? errr....No.

[neville_nobody]

Why is it that issues such as climate change along with human rights always seem to always attack countries that are doing something about it or don't really have much of a problem, yet countries that actually have a real problem get off scott free?

I can't believe that people are seriously suggesting that world aviation has some sort of a pollution problem but are too weak to do anything about China. Either Global Warming is real and you do something about China or it isn't and you keep quiet. It's that simple. It is the height of stupidity to suggest that the Western Countries have this massive pollution problem, and should inflict harm on their economies and way of life, whilst China charges on like it's 1875.

If there is really global warming then you need to go after the real issues, not just try and attempt to destroy democratic free societies.

[John Boeman]

NIPCC - backed by the Heartland Institute - a far Right wing think tank

Yep, sorry but that is the standard closed-mind answer. Just like those people in favour of the UK remaining in the EU label Nigel Farage a racist etc etc. Name-calling. It’s tiresome. I am only interested in facts. Either the many thousands of scientists and climate experts that contribute to the NIPCC position are correct or they are wrong. I doubt they are a collection of ‘hard right’ backers.
For me, what they say is far more in line with the evidence.
Cite me some predictions by Al Gore and his ilk that have come to pass.

(And whatever about people you and others choose to label as far right, I am far more concerned about the people described as far left and what their ideas will do to this planet and the people still living on it in the not too distant future - despite the fact that I will not be around. I must be crazy to let it bother me, but it does.)

[msjh]

I honestly believe that we are at a tipping point and that within the next decade we will see significant behavioural changes. Two examples:

- the car-maker, Tesla, is now building more electric cars than all other manufacturers combined: it's expected to make 500,000 vehicles (https://insideevs.com/news/342928/tesla-to-hit-annualized-production-rate-of-500000-by-end-of-2019/) this year. People are prepared to pay a premium to "go green" (in the UK, the entry model Tesla costs almost $50,000)
- Simultaneously, there is a growing movement to veganism: for example, the number of vegans in the UK has grown sevenfold (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/vegans-uk-rise-popularity-plant-based-diets-veganism-figures-survey-compare-the-market-a8286471.html) in the last three years.

Severe weather is becoming more severe and more frequent. At present there is a lot of power production we cannot do without: wind and solar are unreliable and we still need electrical power, say, in the evenings when Mr Sun has gone to bed.

However, much air travel is unnecessary. It may lead to enjoyable holidays, for example, but those hardly figure in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs). Actually, I'd suggest that much business travel is not needed, either. In almost 40 years in business, I'd guess that a good half of the intercontinental business trips in my industry weren't vital. I'd guess that there's an even chance that by the time Heathrow's third runway is built, it will be surplus to needs.

Now, you might well say that it's China [or insert the country you like least here] that is the big polluter. Well, just as today reputable companies make sure your shoes aren't made by eight year olds working 12 hour days, it's going to be more common that products will include a charge related to the carbon (or water) footprint, which will encourage cleaner power.

This may all seem apocolyptic and you may well ask who the hell am I to judge? I spent almost 40 years as SLF and I love a good steak. I have just returned to the UK from a family holiday in Africa. But I see things changing, especially as regards climate, and the younger generation are in the forefront.

[ph-sbe]

I'm just surprised that no company is working on a safe method to use hydrogen as a fuel source for jet engines. Nothing but water as emissions.

With only water vapor as emissions, it will also be easier to mix in the chemtrails. Fewer harmful emissions and better population control. Win-win!

[jantar99]

I'm just surprised that no company is working on a safe method to use hydrogen as a fuel source for jet engines. Nothing but water as emissions.

With only water vapor as emissions, it will also be easier to mix in the chemtrails. Fewer harmful emissions and better population control. Win-win!

Energy density per kg and per litre are important in aviation.

[kkbuk]

Liquid hydrogen has major storage and handling problems, namely the weight of any container vessel and the low, low temperatures encountered.

[bill fly]

Realistically, that's not setting the bar very high ...

No it’s not but there are an awful lot of single occupant cars in the roads - realistically...

[Chronus]

A good subject for discussion, a big hand to MACH1 for kicking the ball into play.
The challenge faced by aviation is just another part of the biggest challenge facing the human specie. That is Nature v Humans. We have since the year dot, tried to conquer the forces of nature. There have been many occasions where Nature has shown its strength in defeating us. Will we manage to destroy the planet. No I don`t think so. It will destroy us. Before it does so, it will first impoverish us, then humiliate us. How will it begin. It will begin by us starting scrapping over the ever diminishing resources, over arable and habitable land. Over energy and its sources.
Our concerns over the loss of the comforts of aviation is of little consequence. Whatever we do requires a process of conversion in order to produce energy. Our own bodily survival requires it. The whole equation reduces to one of how much we need to take from Nature to sustain ourselves whilst maintaining a balance between the two. That means no waste. So difficult to achieve, almost impossible I`d say. Forget the aeroplane and the motor car, just for a moment, just think of that noisy little lawn mower that will soon be out every weekend beltching out smoke. What is it for, just to cut the grass on our perfect lawns and make them the envy of our friends and neighbours and appease her indoors. For those who might say go electric, I`d say how did that electricity got to my socket. If the answer to that was, solar/wind/tide/nuclear, I`d say how were all those machines and all the parahanelia that goes with them got there and ended up squirting that juice of energy at my socket. I don`t know how many sockets there are in my house, I`ve never counted them, but at any given time there are so many things plugged into them. Kettles, phones, washing machines, driers, dish washers, fridges, freezers, clocks, TV`s, computers, vac cleaners, battery chargers, printers, tooth brushes, light bulbs, radios, hifi`s, drills, saws, oh yes, my swizz espersso coffee maker. At the push of a button the whole world is right there at my finger tips and I don`t have to move a muscle, only those little ones for the tips of two fingers at worse. That is not so much different these days when one is sitting in the pilot`s seat of a modern jet liner, don`t you agree. Except perhaps I have more buttons to play with at home.

[AAKEE]

I looked at the OP only two posts...

[Auxtank]

I don't see why so many people have such a problem accepting and understanding that as a species we're simply not capable of sufficient intelligence/ self-control to live in harmony with our environment.

I must draw on AI to make my point - far more succinctly than I am able to do;

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Like the dinosaur, you've had your time here, now it's our time, our World."
Agent Smith, The Matrix.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/320x240/fhmy4ud_4406fe8a1179eba88a4ae6f5ab6a6353f13249f7.png

Bring it on - says I - can't do any worse and will probably do significantly better. (As long as Arnie doesn't show up)

Joking aside I highly recommend Max Tegmark's excellent book "Life 3.0 - Being Human In The Age Of Artificial Intelligence"; an insightful and highly intelligent thesis as to how we go about developing the next inheritors of the husbandry of the planet Earth. (And he's no crank; NASA, MIT, Oxford, best mates with Stephen Hawking, etc)

[good egg]

I'm just surprised that no company is working on a safe method to use hydrogen as a fuel source for jet engines. Nothing but water as emissions.

With only water vapor as emissions, it will also be easier to mix in the chemtrails. Fewer harmful emissions and better population control. Win-win!

Sadly, I believe, water vapour released at aircraft cruising levels also contributes to global warming/climate change...

(google it, honestly)

[ph-sbe]

Energy density per kg and per litre are important in aviation.

Which, according to https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/MichelleFung.shtml and https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/EvelynGofman.shtml is better for hydrogen.

Storage and safety are legitimate concerns, which is why I mentioned "working on a safe way" :)

The effect of water emissions at high altitude are not so great in terms of contrails, that is indeed what some studies have suggested. However, the water formed by hydrogen combustion might just freeze and fall to the ground. I'm not saying that this is happening, I'm saying that it would be worth studying.

[RobertP]

The long answer is all those IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies that examine climate change and its causes very, very extensively.
I certainly haven't read all of those studies and reports. But I have read enough to get a good picture.

1) Global warming is a fact. In Physics, something is considered "discovered" if without it, the likelihood of the experimental results it at least 5 standard deviations away from normal. The evidence for global warming goes way beyond that criteria.

2) To go much further, we need a climate model. And we have many of these - none are fully convincing. But there is one sure thing that can be said: CO2 is a major factor. You can create models that include changes in water content, solar effects, contrails, etc - but if you don't include CO2 in your model, your model will not work.

3) You will often hear statements such as: "If we don't keep CO2 levels down, we will loose 1 million species over the next century." In most cases, they are based on good arguments and are good likelihoods. But there are a few problems with these statements.
They suggest that if we do control CO2 the bad result will not happen - in most cases, that's just false. In other cases, it is pushing the models well beyond their predictive powers. For example, even if we miraculously brought CO2 level back to what they were in 1900, that might not be enough to end climate change. Agriculture pumps huge amounts of water into the air and water is a far more potent green house gas - though one that is not persistent.
They also suggest that what we would need to do to avoid or reduce the consequence would be worth it. In the extinction example, they don't mention that that would leave 2.5 million species. I think most people would be happy with 2.5 million species in exchange for job security.

it all depends if humans are one of the extinct species. The planet does not care. Human activity caused by too many humans is the real problem, every other “solution” is just noise avoiding the root issue. Finite resources, infinite expectations, result, extinctions.
in my lifetime, to date, the human species has doubled. Btw I have no progeny.

[cappt]

Bio fuel will take over as cost is lowered and black oil cost increased, the Arizona desert will be covered by Algae farms, Pacific salt water pumped on way and biofuel the other...

https://www.flysfo.com/media/press-releases/sfo-announces-landmark-agreement-use-sustainable-aviation-fuels

What right do we have to cover the Arizona desert with algae farms? Must every piece of dirt be developed? I suggest covering the LA basin with algae farms if that's where you want bio fuel.

[cappt]

I looked at the OP only two posts...

Some lazy journo doing their "research".

[Auxtank]

Some lazy journo doing their "research".

Who cares - it's triggered a good debate.

"From small acorns are mighty oaks grown" and all that...

[Mach1.]

Some lazy journo doing their "research".
you could not be more wrong - airline captain with huge interest in tackling this issue.

I dont post often. But have not seen any professional discussion about this - so here is my 2nd post. But its not about me

[Rated De]

bio fuel doesnt come for free. It takes large territories to grow thus reducing space available for the food-related agriculture and as far as I remember the process is producing co2 too... it is like Tesla - it doesnt make the world greener it is rather shifting pollutions to a different territories.



Precisely.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Tesla has tapped in to that part of the human psyche that comforts people thinking they aren't part of the problem.

Until base load electricity is generated from renewable energy sources, then plugging a 'green car' into the electric grid is just shifting the pollution to somewhere else. That somewhere else is often a power plant using fossil fuel.

Bio-fuel does exactly the same thing for the aviation industry. It provides comfort.
The marketing PR release say Airline X bought 30,000,000 gallons of Bio-fuel. Sounds impressive, yet in a few weeks that huge amount of fuel is gone. For the remainder of the year billions more gallons of jet fuel are fueling the aircraft.
The industry does not have a viable alternative. Assuming continued efficiency advances into perpetuity is fanciful.
Other purported 'alternatives' come at huge opportunity cost and that is ignored in favour of the 'technology will fix it'

IFF, the world focuses more attention of big emitters, then the airline industry may face a problem that PR won't fix; declining demand and additional cost pressure.


As Emma Thompson found out recently, saying one thing but doing another does get noticed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6993173/Actress-Emma-Thompson-spotted-carbon-spewing-BA-plane-jetting-New-York.html

[TehDehZeh]

I think it is hilarious that very basic and well understood physics, like the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by gas molecules, can be dismissed as wrong by people whose life depends daily on far more complicated physics, like the interaction of gas molecules at high densities and velocities.

[73qanda]

But this isn’t a very basic and well understood issue we are discussing. There is consensus, and it would be an interesting personality type to happily swim against the tide of scientific opinion at this stage, but climate change is not at all basic and not at all well understood. Why? Because we can’t go into a Lab and reproduce experiments ( too many variables) and instead have to rely on models that in a decade will no doubt be considered crude.
The wiggle room for conjecture and argument is what makes this something we debate. If it was straight forward science ( like scattering of electromagnetic radiation by gas molecules) there would be no debate in mainstream society.

[dr dre]

But this isn’t a very basic and well understood issue we are discussing. There is consensus, and it would be an interesting personality type to happily swim against the tide of scientific opinion at this stage, but climate change is not at all basic and not at all well understood.

Really? Here’s a list of 200 worldwide bodies that hold it to be a fact that human caused climate change exists (almost every credible scientific organisation on earth):

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations (http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html)

When I looked at lists of scientists who deny human caused climate change I found no serious bodies prepared to deny it, scientists in other fields apart from climate science, a lot linked to the mining and oil industries and a lot connected to far right politics. And very few overall at that.

97% of scientific papers published recently find human caused climate change to be real. For the remaining 3% they were excluded because, like any good piece of science, their conclusions and methods were found, on peer review, to be flawed or contain significant errors. There’s no debate amongst the credible scientific community, only amongst special interests with agendas:

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed (https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/)

[TehDehZeh]

If it was straight forward science ( like scattering of electromagnetic radiation by gas molecules) there would be no debate in mainstream society.

1. The mechanism behind green house gases literally is exactly that, and it is straight forward to show it experimentally.
2. What is difficult to model is precisely where what will happen as a result, but the thermodynamics are unforgiving in that somewhere something must happen to accommodate the excess energy.

[73qanda]

Dr Dre, I don’t think you understood the intent of my post ( maybe my fault).
I’ll try again when I get to the hotel but I wasn’t saying that there isn’t consensus, I was saying it isn’t basic, and it isn’t well understood. It is in fact incredibly complex with many many variables each having an effect on each other. ( as I’m sure you’re aware).
If someone agrees that there is man made climate change it doesn’t mean they understand man made climate change, or that it is basic. I was trying to make the point that because you can’t repeat an experiment in a Lab 500 times and say “ see.....global temperatures are going to rise by 2.3 degrees in the next 50 years” , we have a debate in society about whether or not climate change is as big a problem as most are saying it is. The only reason we can’t predict the future climate with certainty is because of the incredible complexity of the interactions that go to make it up. It isn’t basic and it isn’t well understood.
TehDehZeh
1. The mechanism behind green house gases literally is exactly that, and it is straight forward to show it experimentally.I agree but the debate around climate change is much more complex than that due to the large number of variables. A good example of this is when people ( quite legitimately) ask why we are under such time pressure to limit CO2 emissions when they have been many times higher in the earths long history without accompanying high temperatures. This can be explained of course but only through estimates of solar radiation emission from the same time periods....complex, not well understood. Not able to be proven. Would you agree?

[TehDehZeh]

I would say that, to the contrary, precisely because it is very hard to forecast just how nature will dump the excess energy on us, it is vital to keep the amount of excess energy low.

[dr dre]

we have a debate in society about whether or not climate change is as big a problem as most are saying it is. The only reason we can’t predict the future climate with certainty is because of the incredible complexity of the interactions that go to make it up. It isn’t basic and it isn’t well understood.

Well I don’t for one second claim to know more than the vast majority of climate scientists in the world (unlike most deniers). But when all of the world’s pre-eminent scientific bodies are saying it is essential we, as a planet, act quickly and decisively to stop what is happening I think it’s time governments started listening and acting on their recommendations.

I don’t know whether Aviation has a big part to play (although new technologies with electric propulsion and fuel reduction are interesting) and I certainly don’t know what the exact solutions to the problems are but it’s now increasingly clear something must be done.

[beardy]

If the IPCC is correct then the consequences of inaction are horrendous, potentially catastrophic and fatal for our species. If the IPCC is wrong, but we still take their recommendations the consequences are survivable, but society will change.

Are you a gambling man? (rhetorical)

[bill fly]

What right do we have to cover the Arizona desert with algae farms? Must every piece of dirt be developed? I suggest covering the LA basin with algae farms if that's where you want bio fuel.

That is typical of many folk - whatever solution is found to make clean energy they will object to it.

Nuclear - dangerous and “no waste in my back yard”
Wind - looks bad and kills birds
Sun- looks bad and diverts sun’s warmth from nature
Hydro - takes natural land and habitat and causes stress to rock structures
Plant solutions - not here
etc.

Often these are the same environmentalists who object to traditional fuels and methods.

Only solution is to give up the rat race and go bush...

[BehindBlueEyes]

What these tree huggers, and those that naively want is to return to the era of the horse and cart, seem to forget is there are many very poor countries whose only source of income is tourism. By drastically reducing air travel, you cut these people off at the knees and create another crisis. Without travellers dollars, many nations with poor economies will inevitably resort to more nefarious or polluting means to raise income.

[dr dre]

If the IPCC is correct then the consequences of inaction are horrendous, potentially catastrophic and fatal for our species. If the IPCC is wrong, but we still take their recommendations the consequences are survivable, but society will change.


That sort of reminds me of this:


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/500x333/f16c6ee5_f744_4fc4_99e7_334ade059bb6_458f4a4d8db32a807a588f1 87f4ced8866be58ef.jpeg

[beardy]

Without travellers dollars, many nations with poor economies will inevitably resort to more nefarious or polluting means to raise income.

That assumption may or may not be true, there is no proof. You are using it to justify your opinion, since it may not be true your opinion may not be true.

[dr dre]

What these tree huggers, and those that naively want is to return to the era of the horse and cart, seem to forget is there are many very poor countries whose only source of income is tourism. By drastically reducing air travel, you cut these people off at the knees and create another crisis. Without travellers dollars, many nations with poor economies will inevitably resort to more nefarious or polluting means to raise income.

That’s quite a strawman. No one except extremists are calling for a ban on air travel.

What can be done is for more research and development in electric propulsion, alternative fuels, more aerodynamic airframes, fuel reduction methods, more efficient flight paths, less holding, etc.

Isn’t that something to aim for?

[Rated De]

That’s quite a strawman. No one except extremists are calling for a ban on air travel.

What can be done is for more research and development in electric propulsion, alternative fuels, more aerodynamic airframes, fuel reduction methods, more efficient flight paths, less holding, etc.

Isn’t that something to aim for?

It is an admirable endeavour, however the industry to date has actually done little other than grudgingly agree to an ETS that doesn't start for another eight years. In that period net emissions are supposed to be neutral, while 'technological advances' of unknown origin, as yet defined benefit are somehow to materailise and ensure the net emissions actually don't rise with the forecast growth in ASK.

[Uplinker]

When the CFC crisis was recognised and the damage to the ozone layer realised, CFCs were banned and alternatives found. As a result, the ozone layer is slowly recovering.

So why not ban CO2 production? Well, obviously because we are currently too dependant on fossil fuels. But are ‘we’ being pro-active enough about alternate forms of energy? We could have had wind farms in the 1960’s - there is nothing particularly technological about a wind turbine driving an electrical generator, and think of all the coal that could have been saved.
Is enough being done in nuclear fusion research?
Hydrogen production and distribution?
Solar cell research - efficiencies are very poor at the moment.
Tidal stream generation?
Housing insulation and energy efficiency. It is possible to build extremely energy efficient housing, and modern regulations are addressing this, but more could be done. Heat pumps instead of gas/oil powered heating systems. We could ban fossil fuel home heating for all new builds.


People need to have realistic alternatives before they can change their behaviour. Why are electric cars so expensive? They have no clutch, no gearbox, no exhaust system, no catalytic convertors, no exhaust filters, no engine cooling system, no oil system - they just have a battery and a motor. They should be way cheaper than the fossil fuel equivalent. .

Why are modern cars having more and more energy using, heavy electric motors fitted to open and close doors and windows? The driver’s window does not need to be electric. Doors do not need to be electrically operated.

Why are most buses still Diesel powered? Most could be electric, with a brief top-up charge at each stop to keep them going around their route

[The AvgasDinosaur]

Electric cars now. Electric aircraft to come?
What on earth are we going to do with all those toxic batteries when the current ‘green’ cars reach the end of their serviceable life ?
Just curious
Be lucky
David

[Uplinker]

Hydrogen fuelled aircraft are probably more likely.
Batteries will get properly recycled.

[msjh]

Electric cars now. Electric aircraft to come?
What on earth are we going to do with all those toxic batteries when the current ‘green’ cars reach the end of their serviceable life ?
Just curious
Be lucky
David
answer: recycle them. Easier and cheaper than mining the raw materials.

[clark y]

There is just too many of us. I find it interesting that the state of the human population and the demands it puts on our one and only home is very rarely discussed. No one wants to touch the subject. As whether climate change is man made or not is a mute point. It will always change, the rate and degree will also vary. In the past, our ancestors had the opportunity to migrate. Why? It was because the population was minimal and the space and resources were available.

[DaveReidUK]

When the CFC crisis was recognised and the damage to the ozone layer realised, CFCs were banned and alternatives found. As a result, the ozone layer is slowly recovering.

Though somewhat more slowly than might have been hoped or expected: China factories releasing thousands of tonnes of illegal CFC gases, study finds (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/23/china-factories-releasing-thousands-of-tonnes-of-illegal-cfc-gases-study-finds)

[SARF]

Tesla’s share price may be an indication that the electric cars time has not quite arrived. Maybe another twenty years or so ..
also statements like veganism has increased seven fold, whilst possibly true are , a tad misleading, if the number has gone from say 100k to 700k. It’s an irrelevant amount of people. Tho the direction of travel is of course valid.
Don’t forget to factor in the people who say they are vegan but enjoy a burger on the quiet, so knock 50% off the total ..
A bit like people who say they will vote Lib Dem or green then tick the brexit party box in the privacy of the booth ..

‘’Nuclear is the only real option if you want to produce a huge constant baseload of co2 friendly Leccy. Maybe dam up the Bristol Channel if you can get over the wildlife changes that will happen ..

I think that pollution, litter and destruction of natural environments are bigger problems than co2 at the moment.
Nuclear solves a lot of these. By condensing the pollution from power generation into much smaller amounts of highly toxic crap. There is no escaping it.. making the leccy required for the next century will involved making a crap by product. You can either spread it out over the whole planet or bury it somewhere handy. Like er. Scotland ��

[dr dre]

As whether climate change is man made or not is a mute point. It will always change, the rate and degree will also vary.

The point that every scientific body on earth is making is that it’s that the current rate of change is concerning and critical. Best way to see it is this very long timeline chart explaining the rate of change of temperatures over 20’000 years. Scroll all the way to the bottom and you’ll see why scientists are alarmed:

If This Timeline Doesn't Convince You Climate Change Is Real, Nothing Will (https://www.popsci.com/xkcd-earth-average-temperature-timeline)

In the past, our ancestors had the opportunity to migrate. Why? It was because the population was minimal and the space and resources were available.

Some scientists like Stephen Hawking have called for terra forming other planets. Could it be considered a long term (2100) goal?

[Uplinker]

Tesla’s share price may be an indication that the electric cars time has not quite arrived. Maybe another twenty years or so ..

20 years??? The technology (and the vehicles) exist today. It/they simply need to be made more avaialble



‘’Nuclear is the only real option if you want to produce a huge constant baseload of co2 friendly Leccy.

We will indeed need a source of climate friendly electricity to power our electric transportation. Notice I stated nuclear fusion, not fission. There is a big difference.

Maybe dam up the Bristol Channel if you can get over the wildlife changes that will happen ..

I said tidal stream , not tidal barrage. Tidal stream would be turbines underwater out in the sea, and does not require any dam or barrage. The tide happens four times a day, and is predictable years into the future, so you could schedule the operation of other power sources for the periods of slack tide.


I think that pollution, litter and destruction of natural environments are bigger problems than co2 at the moment.
Nuclear solves a lot of these. By condensing the pollution from power generation into much smaller amounts of highly toxic crap. There is no escaping it.. making the leccy required for the next century will involved making a crap by product...........��

I agree that pollution and habitat destruction need to be addressed. Habitat destruction might be contributing to climate change, by removing massive CO2 sinks in the form of forests and jungles.

Have a look at nuclear fusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

[.Scott]

May I suggest that as well as studying the writings of the IPCC you take a look over what the NIPCC produces....
Climate Change Reconsidered ? Climate Change Reconsidered (http://climatechangereconsidered.org/)
I have just read through some of that material. As I said in my previous post, none of the current climate models are fully convincing. This was true in 2011 when the NIPCC did their last overall climate assessment and it remains true to this date.
But the NIPCC is using this to toss out all climate models and any revelations that can be gleaned from the attempts to model the climate. The key revelation, as I said before, is that you cannot make a climate model that works without including human-generated (anthropogenic) CO2 as part of your model. None of the other factors have enough influence - and many of those other factors are pulling in the wrong direction (cooling rather than a net warming).

On the other hand, the NIPCC is very strong on a couple of the other points I made - that it may not be worth the economic expense to avoid some of the consequences - and that none of the measures proposed to "fix" climate change will reliably (or in many cases "likely") do that.

[beardy]

it may not be worth the economic expense to avoid some of the consequences

A very neo-liberal attitude that puts a cash price to value. "It all makes perfect sense, expressed in dollars and cents, pounds shillings and pence" Roger Waters some years ago

[PerPurumTonantes]

No it’s not but there are an awful lot of single occupant cars in the roads - realistically...
But realistically, they're not driving to Thailand.

Some aviation is necessary but I'd say most of the trips I've taken, long and short haul, have been luxuries. It wouldn't have killed me to miss that wedding in Boston or that party in KL. So it's not a case of car vs plane CO2. In a lot of cases, we just don't need to go at all.

Sure that's a bit less exciting but I'd like to keep this planet habitable if poss. Don't fancy Musk's option of moving to Mars thanks.

[Airbubba]

As Woody Allen put it in his 1979 'Speech to the Graduates':

More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/08/10/archives/my-speech-to-the-graduates.html (https://www.nytimes.com/1979/08/10/archives/my-speech-to-the-graduates.html)

[beardy]

Nietzsche was under the impression that only by facing and embracing despair and hopelessness could man find a way to overcome. Choosing comfort avoided facing problems and finding answers. He abhorred Nihilism.

[CargoOne]

[QUOTE=PerPurumTonantes;10477979

Some aviation is necessary but I'd say most of the trips I've taken, long and short haul, have been luxuries. It wouldn't have killed me to miss that wedding in Boston or that party in KL. So it's not a case of car vs plane CO2. In a lot of cases, we just don't need to go at all.
[/QUOTE]

Me thinks that saving the world at the cost of non-essential travel ban probably not worth it - let’s keep it as is and we will see. I will start to believe all those climate models the day when a weather forecast for 14 days will become reliable (=never?)

[kkbuk]

Tesla’s share price may be an indication that the electric cars time has not quite arrived. Maybe another twenty years or so ..
also statements like veganism has increased seven fold, whilst possibly true are , a tad misleading, if the number has gone from say 100k to 700k. It’s an irrelevant amount of people. Tho the direction of travel is of course valid.
Don’t forget to factor in the people who say they are vegan but enjoy a burger on the quiet, so knock 50% off the total ..
A bit like people who say they will vote Lib Dem or green then tick the brexit party box in the privacy of the booth ..

‘’Nuclear is the only real option if you want to produce a huge constant baseload of co2 friendly Leccy. Maybe dam up the Bristol Channel if you can get over the wildlife changes that will happen ..

I think that pollution, litter and destruction of natural environments are bigger problems than co2 at the moment.
Nuclear solves a lot of these. By condensing the pollution from power generation into much smaller amounts of highly toxic crap. There is no escaping it.. making the leccy required for the next century will involved making a crap by product. You can either spread it out over the whole planet or bury it somewhere handy. Like er. Scotland ��
or the Lake District, perhaps Cornwall.

[old,not bold]

Realistically a full aircraft presently uses less fuel than would be used if each passenger drove his car the same distance solo.




Sorry, catching up on an old post...

Realistically, an utterly fatuous statistic, if that's what it is. Each passenger is only travelling by air because the aircraft is available to the desired destination (possibly desired only because it's available). On long-haul there is no realistic alternative so he or she would stay at home if air transport is not possible. On short haul, he or she would probably find a better public transport alternative than the car if the journey were really necessary, or otherwise stay at home. Even if every passenger elected to use a car instead of going by air, the number of cars used is unlikely to be the same as the number of passengers, so the arithmetic is fatally flawed in any event.

I'm all for making a case for air transport vs other forms of transport, but nonsensical claims don't help.

[Chronus]

I wonder if there are old timers left who follow this forum. By old timers I mean those who plied their trade high up above the Northern Arctic routes. What would they now see below them, would there not be a remarkable change in the scenery below for them to gaze in sorrowful contemplation. That is of course clouds permitting. More and more of which seem to be rising in our skies with every season, inexorably merging into one, of floods and tempests.

[dr dre]

On the other hand, the NIPCC is very strong on a couple of the other points I made - that it may not be worth the economic expense to avoid some of the consequences -

All studies by actual scientific bodies (as shown in previous posts the NIPCC are a bunch of quacks funded by conservative political lobbyists) will tell you that not doing anything about climate change will cause even greater financial damage in the future.

When you think of farmers with failing crops, coastal cities subject to flooding, mass migrant caused by swamping if low lying areas etc transferring to renewable energy sources now is much cheaper

[xorrox]

There is just too many of us. I find it interesting that the state of the human population and the demands it puts on our one and only home is very rarely discussed. No one wants to touch the subject. As whether climate change is man made or not is a mute point. It will always change, the rate and degree will also vary. In the past, our ancestors had the opportunity to migrate. Why? It was because the population was minimal and the space and resources were available.

Totally agree: population growth is the elephant in the room that no one is talking about. We should have stopped at between 3 and 4 billion people. We can reduce each person's individual footprint all we can but if the world population just keeps rising it won't do any good. If we don't come up with a plan to stop and reverse this growth back to a sustainable level, pollution, disease, starvation and war will do it for us.

[73qanda]

How we talk about climate change is rapidly shifting as the ramifications of unchecked carbon pollution become ever clearer. The Guardian sped that shift along last week, when it updated its style guide to encourage reporters to refer to climate change as a “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” and using “global heating” in lieu of global warming.



The outlet (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment) is a leading voice on climate coverage, meaning the move is more than symbolic. The new language could have lasting impacts on readers and how they perceive climate change, and inspire others to make similar shifts in how they talk about climate change. And with a million species at risk of extinction (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/05/everything-is-******-major-new-extinction-report-finds) and a decade of rising carbon emissions turning up the broiler on the plane (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/10/we-have-a-decade-to-prevent-a-total-climate-disaster), describing our situation as “crisis” feels inspired. At the same time, the Guardian’s word choice has the potential to alienate some readers, further locking in gridlock.


The above is about a week old. I wonder if the emotive and choreographed language surrounding this subject is having an adverse effect on the mental health of our teenagers. Immature and irresponsible but I guess it sells newspapers.

[flynerd]

As the level of atmospheric CO2 rises, we are witnessing more cloud, and greater storms.

This produces more precipitation, which plant life loves.

More plant growth will lead to plants converting more CO2 to C (retained) and O2 (released)

At some stage, there will be equilibrium, but it may take a million years or so

More CO2 = more atmospheric moisture = more precipitation = more plant growth = less CO2

To understand recursion, first you need to understand recursion.

[beardy]

As the level of atmospheric CO2 rises, we are witnessing more cloud, and greater storms.

This produces more precipitation, which plant life loves.

More plant growth will lead to plants converting more CO2 to C (retained) and O2 (released)

At some stage, there will be equilibrium, but it may take a million years or so

More CO2 = more atmospheric moisture = more precipitation = more plant growth = less CO2

To understand recursion, first you need to understand recursion.
You make a complex system sound simple. It isn't.

[hunterboy]

At the risk of stating the obvious, it seems to me that the global warming/climate change arguments seem to focus more on saving the planet, when I think they should be emphasising that we need to be saving ourselves. At the end of the day, the planet will adapt and survive, maybe over several million year period, and I’m sure some life will still exist; it just may not be us.
If you’re one of those people that believe the planet will do better without mankind on it, then I guess it is a win-win.
Alternatively, If you were an impartial bystander observing the process, I suppose it would be a difficult decision to decide whether to support the survival of mankind whilst killing off millions of other species, or just let us go extinct and keep the other species alive.

[beardy]

At the risk of stating the obvious, it seems to me that the global warming/climate change arguments seem to focus more on saving the planet, when I think they should be emphasising that we need to be saving ourselves. At the end of the day, the planet will adapt and survive, maybe over several million year period, and I’m sure some life will still exist; it just may not be us.
If you’re one of those people that believe the planet will do better without mankind on it, then I guess it is a win-win.
Alternatively, If you were an impartial bystander observing the process, I suppose it would be a difficult decision to decide whether to support the survival of mankind whilst killing off millions of other species, or just let us go extinct and keep the other species alive.
If we burn down the house with us in it we lose the house and our lives. If we burn down the house and run outside we have no house to live in.
It's better not to burn down the house in the first place.

[His dudeness]

f we burn down the house with us in it we lose the house and our lives. If we burn down the house and run outside we have no house to live in.
It's better not to burn down the house in the first place.

Allright, you had your populistic outburst. Now to a practical matter:

what ist THE solution ?

We are about to crack the 8 billion humans line soon. As we are a species that has very unique needs (as heating etcetc) we will ALWAYS use some "stuff". The break-even is directly depending on how much, that we probably can agree on. Now, who is to use these resources ? Is it our Kids or all Kids ? What do we do with those who won´t play fair then ? Use resources to make em ? And how will you sustain "the change" here (say Europe) when we won´t be communting, manufacturing, working any more ? The issue at hand for me is not change - by all means lets change, we always had to, as did and does the climate - but please in a intelligent way. Hamburg in Germany just announced that they are proud to be the city with the highest percentage in electric cars in Germany, that they love that change and that this is the way to go.
The very next report was, that Hamburg obtains 94% of its electricity from coal. As much as I love irony, thats not funny anymore if you look at your electricity bill, which our government has driven artificially through the roof for their announced "Energiewende" (change of direction in energy). To stick to your house analogy, they are building the roof before even thinking about the fundaments....

Even if "we", say, for the sake of argument Europe, are going to ZERO emission, the developing countries will nullify this in no time. What have WE won then ?

[CargoOne]

That assumption may or may not be true, there is no proof. You are using it to justify your opinion, since it may not be true your opinion may not be true.

Countries (or territories) which will suffer a devastating set back in economy if the leisure air travel will not be available: all kind of islands (Maldives, Seychelles, Mauritius, Hawaii, Fiji, Caribbean, Malta, Cyprus, Greek islands, Bali, Madeira etc); locations too far from major customer base like Thailand, Turkey, Tanzania, Emirates, Egypt, Florida, Vegas. Even relatively not-so-far-away places like Spain and Portugal will no be able to cope without air travel.

[DrCuffe]

The EU did a project on hydrogen powered aircraft, which reported in 2003. Advances in materials science may make this more of a runner as we go forward. A hydrogen powered aircraft would, in principle, have 0 carbon emissions.
There is a lot of work going on on carbon sequestration, and removing CO2 from the exhaust stream is viable for some applications, such as large power plants. The kit is heavy, and not cheap to do.
I cant see carbon capture at source from aircraft working, due to weight problems, and some for want of a better word, thermodynamic considerations.
Solar powered static capture from the atmosphere machines are available, we call them trees. The political will and the space to deploy them are problematic.

[beardy]

what ist THE solution ?

There is no single answer to that, the atmosphere is too complex (in a mathematical sense) a system, as is our behaviour. The response is to alter our behaviour and expectations of ever increasing luxury from the over dependance on energy, particularly from combustion. Technology will help a lot, but will not be enough without behavioural change. The scale of the problem is enormous and without the actions those who can and are willing to change those who are more resistant to change (developing countries?) will not do so.

The example of the house was a simple analogy for those who are hard of understanding.

FYI my first degree was in energy production and fuel technologies.

[73qanda]

The only way we change is when we become motivated to change. We could be motivated sufficiently by a cost savings ( new technology) or by fear for our lives....not much else.
Can anyone think of something else that would motivate the majority of human kind to change their behaviours?
I can’t.
With that in mind we should be pouring a fair bit of money into R&D because Joe Bloggs won’t fear for his life until the waves are crashing at his door and it’s 48 degrees in the shade.

[beardy]

Can anyone think of something else that would motivate the majority of human kind to change their behaviours?
Knowledge and understanding could help

[Rated De]

At the risk of stating the obvious, it seems to me that the global warming/climate change arguments seem to focus more on saving the planet, when I think they should be emphasising that we need to be saving ourselves. At the end of the day, the planet will adapt and survive, maybe over several million year period, and I’m sure some life will still exist; it just may not be us.
If you’re one of those people that believe the planet will do better without mankind on it, then I guess it is a win-win.
Alternatively, If you were an impartial bystander observing the process, I suppose it would be a difficult decision to decide whether to support the survival of mankind whilst killing off millions of other species, or just let us go extinct and keep the other species alive.

The planet would do just fine without us

[His dudeness]

There is no single answer to that, the atmosphere is too complex (in a mathematical sense) a system, as is our behaviour.

I know that, although I hold no degree and I´m just an electrician and pilot.

If I look at the current discussion and climate of discussion, then on could think there is ONE solution. The cohorts that are at the forefront of the discussion right now (at least here in Germany) are commonly not the people I would give the task of planning a childrens birthday party (at least if I like said kid). An 16. old autistic girl seems to be the new Einstein right now and anyone daring to just try to ask a few questions about this is shouted down.

[His dudeness]

The planet would do just fine without us

It would, no doubt.

So, who volonteers for the flying suicide squad ?

[73qanda]

Knowledge and understanding could help
I honestly don’t know about that. My sense is that without a direct threat to our wallets or our near-future wellbeing the majority won’t change behaviour. Happy to be proven wrong though.

[flynerd]

You make a complex system sound simple. It isn't.

Yes, it is a complex issue, but can you tell us, whether equilibrium might occur in 100 years, or in 100 Billion years.

I do acknowledge that we, as a human race, should not continue releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at current rates. But ultimately, there will be a balance point where nature takes over again.

[His dudeness]

I honestly don’t know about that. My sense is that without a direct threat to our wallets or our near-future wellbeing the majority won’t change behaviour. Happy to be proven wrong though.

You´re probably wright. But then, how do i change in a MEANINGFUL way if I´m a single mother of two working a job that just gets me through the month if I´m lucky ?

Go to their wallets and you`re directly making people starve.

Over here, a lot of people are in this situation and even if you´re way better off (as I´m right now) the purely financial challenges aren´t easy... and if I have to face em, fine. But NOT as long as billions of other folks will continue as is. The by far largest emitters are still exempt or have left the C02 deal and will take every drop of oil and burn it too.

[paul_v1]

The one little burp by Mt. Etna has already put more than 10,000 times the co2 into the atmosphere than mankind has in our ENTIRE time on earth but dont worry a scam is in the works to tax you your minuscule footprint.

Research :
https://bit.ly/30JtaIu

Video with some Facts:
https://bit.ly/2EqCN4X

[beardy]

Yes, it is a complex issue, but can you tell us, whether equilibrium might occur in 100 years, or in 100 Billion years.

I do acknowledge that we, as a human race, should not continue releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at current rates. But ultimately, there will be a balance point where nature takes over again.
There has never been equilibrium in the past, if there were we would still be in it, why should there be in the future?

[SMT Member]

Aviation's biggest challenge is it's an easy target, having embraced a position of guilt and vain attempts to buy lenience by way of opaque carbon off-set plans.

What this industry really needs, is for someone to go on the offensive and direct the public attention towards far larger polluter in the transport industry, and here I'm thinking of the global fleet of cargo carrying vessels burning heavy bunker oil. The container fleet of the largest such carrier, Maersk Line, emits more pollution than the total of all private cars in the world. Try to let that sink in for a minute, and realise that's also more than the combined emissions of the global airline industry.

Without being an engineer, let alone of the naval persuasion, it does not seem beyond the realm of possibility, that large cargo carrying vessels ditch their diesels in favour of electric propulsion driven by a bank of batteries in the bottom of the vessels, charged by natural gas driven lean turbines and a large solar array fitted on the top deck.

[msjh]

The one little burp by Mt. Etna has already put more than 10,000 times the co2 into the atmosphere than mankind has in our ENTIRE time on earth but dont worry a scam is in the works to tax you your minuscule footprint.

Research :
https://bit.ly/30JtaIu

Video with some Facts:
https://bit.ly/2EqCN4X

No it hasn't.

When evaluating such claims, Snopes is your friend. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/volcano-carbon-emissions/

[dr dre]

No it hasn't.

When evaluating such claims, Snopes is your friend. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/volcano-carbon-emissions/

It's frightening how climate change deniers aways post videos from crazy Youtube channels with a few hundred views that look like they were filmed in the host's bedroom, like the video link posted by the denier above. I half expected more videos on that channel to tell us that vaccines are dangerous, chemtrails are real and the moon landing was a hoax.

It's also baffling how deniers blatantly ignore actual scientific bodies which debunk the "Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans" lie like the actual experts on volcanoes, the US Geological Survey (https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html)

[Ian W]

Just some science for those that are interested.
The Earth is currently in an ice-age and we are in the Holocene interglacial (warm ) period in that ice age. You will note from the diagram below that over geologic timescales there is no causal relationship between levels of CO2 and the global temperatures. Indeed on all timescales atmospheric CO2 levels lag temperature changes, indicating that when the seas are warmer they out-gas CO2 and when it is colder more CO2 dissolves in the oceans. You should also note that there is a level of 'homeostasis' in geologic time showing that temperatures tend to stop their rise and not 'run away'.. This is almost certainly due to the hydrologic cycle.

You should also note that the Holocene was much warmer 10,000 years ago than it is now at the Holocene Climatic Optimum, it was also warmer at the Minoan Climate optimum, 1400 years or so later at the Roman Optimum and 1400 years or so later at the Medieval Warm Period. Despite the recent warming out of the Litttle Ice Age we are at the cold end of the Holocene Interglacial


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1188x849/co2_geologic_time_da6da023e4b85705ea8a8ec04527aee0f45b9045.p ng
CO2 vs Temperatures over geologic timescales

The amount of energy in the tropical cyclones (including hurricanes) can be measured precisely these days here is a graphic from Ryan Maue. As the text says - despite the mainstream media claims the number and strength of tropical cyclones is not increasing.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1614x1174/ace_e843b7618218d2609488d7132f3a6c869d6ae0b6.png
Accumulated Cyclone Energy last few decades

Finally many of the graphs shown have their Y-axis hugely distorted so changes of hundredths of a degree C seem huge. This is spurious accuracy as the comparator periods a hundred years ago did not have the sensors we have today. There were almost no sensors in the Southern Indian Ocean or in the South Pacific and continents such as Africa had very few yet the figures showing changes from past guessed temperatures are to hundredths of a degree. The graphics are themselves misleading by vastly increasing the scale of the Y axis making hundredth of degree changes look extreme. So the graphic below takes the NASA GISS dataset and displays the temperatures as if they were shown on a row of red alcohol thermometers. Does it seem that there are changes to panic about?

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/962x544/giss_alcohol_thermometer_06d79d8802cf20975f3407b17577f399396 dd08b.png
Show temperatures on red alcohol thermometers

For the technical averaging an intensive variable like atmospheric temperature is a nonsense. You can average the figures of course and do it to as many places of decimals as you wish in the same way you can average the phone numbers in the London Phone book to several places of decimals but an average phone number is equally meaningless.

The correct metric for assessing the 'retention of heat energy' in the atmosphere is Kilojoules per Kilogram as the enthalpy of the atmosphere varies dependent on relative humidity. You should ask why Climate 'scientists' are using the incorrect measure for atmospheric energy content. The answer is similar to why they expand the Y-Axis on their graphs.

[dr dre]

Just some science for those that are interested.

here is a graphic from Ryan Maue.


Unfortunately your "scientist" is a denier who doesn't work for an actual reputable scientific organisation, but actually works for a conservative political lobby group funded by the Koch brothers, well known climate change deniers. He's also been caught faking data in an attempt to disprove climate change. If you're going to pass quackery off as science you're going to have to do better than that...

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/major-climate-change-denial-think-tank-admits-using-false-data/

[Ian W]

Unfortunately your "scientist" is a denier who doesn't work for an actual reputable scientific organisation, but actually works for a conservative political lobby group funded by the Koch brothers, well known climate change deniers. He's also been caught faking data in an attempt to disprove climate change. If you're going to pass quackery off as science you're going to have to do better than that...

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/major-climate-change-denial-think-tank-admits-using-false-data/

But his figures are correct.
Just do a hurricane count even including the fish storms that in the past wouldn't be seen or reported as they were in mid-ocean.

[dr dre]

But his figures are correct.


Are they? Have they been peer reviewed by multiple reputable scientific organisations?

Here's actual peer reviewed and referenced science on the subject:

Hurricanes and Global Warming – Is There a Connection? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/)

[Ian W]

Are they? Have they been peer reviewed by multiple reputable scientific organisations?

Here's actual peer reviewed and referenced science on the subject:

Hurricanes and Global Warming – Is There a Connection? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/)

You obviously have no understanding of 'peer'/pal review
and yes they are reducing

[DaveReidUK]

The graphics are themselves misleading by vastly increasing the scale of the Y axis making hundredth of degree changes look extreme.

Given that a temperature rise of only a handful of degrees is generally considered to be disastrous, that seems an eminently sensible thing to do. :ugh:

I suppose we should be grateful that climate change deniers don't plot temperatures on a Kelvin scale so that we can barely detect any variances at all. :O

[73qanda]

It is misleading to me the way any CO2 graphic displayed in the media only ever goes back far enough to make the current level of around 430 look disastrous compared to the oscillations around the 200 mark for the last 800,000years or so.
It is much more informative if the graph goes back enough to see that CO2 levels have been significantly higher than they are today in the earths history. There is clearly a desire to create alarm rather than present the facts as they are, and that in turn creates mistrust.

[beardy]

It is misleading to me the way any CO2 graphic displayed in the media only ever goes back far enough to make the current level of around 430 look disastrous compared to the oscillations around the 200 mark for the last 800,000years or so.
It is much more informative if the graph goes back enough to see that CO2 levels have been significantly higher than they are today in the earths history. There is clearly a desire to create alarm rather than present the facts as they are, and that in turn creates mistrust.
I concur. But would add that the temperatures and ecological environment in previous times were very different from current ones. Neither we nor our foodstuffs would have flourished in some previous epochs. Maybe the emphasis on the current period is merited.

[TehDehZeh]

It is misleading to me the way any CO2 graphic displayed in the media only ever goes back far enough to make the current level of around 430 look disastrous compared to the oscillations around the 200 mark for the last 800,000years or so.
It is much more informative if the graph goes back enough to see that CO2 levels have been significantly higher than they are today in the earths history. There is clearly a desire to create alarm rather than present the facts as they are, and that in turn creates mistrust.
I think you will find that periods with significantly higher or lower CO2 levels have featured vastly different flora and fauna. The changes from one to the other are usually associated with mass extinction of species. Considering a timeframe longer than the history of homo sapiens does not really seem outrageous to me.

[beardy]

It is misleading to me the way any CO2 graphic displayed in the media only ever goes back far enough to make the current level of around 430 look disastrous compared to the oscillations around the 200 mark for the last 800,000years or so.
It is much more informative if the graph goes back enough to see that CO2 levels have been significantly higher than they are today in the earths history. There is clearly a desire to create alarm rather than present the facts as they are, and that in turn creates mistrust.

Perhaps a graphic of climate against time, marking out those 'sweet spots' when we could thrive? Perhaps then it would better show that to deliberately choose (as we now do) to act in a way which will move us out of one of those rare 'sweet spots' is not a good idea.

[hunterboy]

Maybe it is time to hand over the stewardship of the planet to another species? Would they do a better job than us? After all, the dinosaurs probably thought they were top of the food chain until they weren’t. And they had managed to last for 180 odd Million years.
I agree with several of the above posters that talked about the cyclical nature of these events, and can’t help thinking mass extinctions are part of that cycle. I just hope we get our act together and make sure we don’t go the way of the dinosaurs.

[John Boeman]

dr dre, after posting:

It's frightening how climate change deniers aways post videos from crazy Youtube channels with a few hundred views that look like they were filmed in the host's bedroom,

hopefully you would find the following link less frigtening. And if watching the whole clip is not too unbearable for you, feel free to explain any denigration you may feel like making of this great man and his qualifications and I can come up with many more equally factual clips with extremely well qualified people speaking.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UFHX526NPbE

[73qanda]

I think you will find that periods with significantly higher or lower CO2 levels have featured vastly different flora and fauna. I imagine you’re right. I know that when they grow my tomatoes they bump the CO2 levels up to around 1000 to get a good crop.
The changes from one to the other are usually associated with mass extinction of species.
That would be big news. Do we have some examples?
Neither we nor our foodstuffs would have flourished in some previous epochs.
Can you explain what would have prevented us flourishing ? The cold or the heat? The CO2 ?
I still think we should present the facts and not try to display data to tie in with a specific line of thinking.

[msjh]

But his figures are correct.
Just do a hurricane count even including the fish storms that in the past wouldn't be seen or reported as they were in mid-ocean.

Some reports written in simple English with supporting data here on Pacific (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_hurricane#List_of_seasons) storms and Atlantic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane_season) storms published in Wikipedia (and hence cross-referenced to scientific journals). The conclusion is inescapable: storms are increasing markedly in frequency and destructiveness.

[beardy]

The Earth has experienced five mass extinctions before the one we are living through now, each so complete a slate-wiping of the evolutionary record it functioned as a resetting of the planetary clock, and many climate scientists will tell you they are the best analog for the ecological future we are diving headlong into. Unless you are a teenager, you probably read in your high-school textbooks that these extinctions were the result of asteroids. In fact, all but the one that killed the dinosaurs were caused by climate change produced by greenhouse gas. The most notorious was 252 million years ago; it began when carbon warmed the planet by five degrees, accelerated when that warming triggered the release of methane in the Arctic, and ended with 97 percent of all life on Earth dead.

From When Will Climate Change Make the Earth Too Hot For Humans? (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans-annotated.html?gtm=top) which is annotated for source material

Whilst there were impacts on the earth, it was the change of climate that the impacts produced that caused the extinctions.

Climate-change skeptics point out that the planet has warmed and cooled many times before, but the climate window that has allowed for human life is very narrow, even by the standards of planetary history. At 11 or 12 degrees of warming, more than half the world’s population, as distributed today, would die of direct heat.

Climates differ and plants vary, but the basic rule for staple cereal crops grown at optimal temperature is that for every degree of warming, yields decline by 10 percent. Some estimates run as high as 15 or even 17 percent. Which means that if the planet is five degrees warmer at the end of the century, we may have as many as 50 percent more people to feed and 50 percent less grain to give them. And proteins are worse: It takes 16 calories of grain to produce just a single calorie of hamburger meat

[petit plateau]

Without being an engineer, let alone of the naval persuasion, it does not seem beyond the realm of possibility, that large cargo carrying vessels ditch their diesels in favour of electric propulsion driven by a bank of batteries in the bottom of the vessels, charged by natural gas driven lean turbines and a large solar array fitted on the top deck.

When I see folks hereabouts proudly stating that they are not an engineer, and then confidently explaining how things are "possible" I tend to pull out my calculator.

A typical large container vessel (say the Maersk EEE vessels) is approx 60m wide x 400m long. Even if every bit of the deck were given up to solar ( = 24,000 m2) and even if the sun were directly overhead, and if very high quality 22% efficiency solar cells were used yielding 0.22kW/m2, then such a vessel would only generate 5.4MW. In contrast the Maersk EEE class uses 60MW of main propulsion to achieve its max speed of 25kts, but at about 18kts which is its optimum designed 'slow steaming speed' it is using approx half that, i.e. 30MW.

So at midday in peak sunshine, such a ship carpeted in solar, would only be able to generate about 1/6 of the power it actually needs. Please pull out a calculator yourself before saying that it can use batteries to make up the difference. First figure out the distance between ports, then the required battery size, then the available ship size, then the batery fraction as a % of the ship volume/mass fraction ........... (it is not so different than the Breuget range equation in a different environment).

Bottom line is: Short sea can reasonably go to battery & electrical systems, fed by shoreside renewable generation. Deep sea for large vessels at 18kts cannot. It is not a given in a fully-renewables world that the relatively meagre amounts of liquid fuels would be preferentially burnt in aircraft. It is not beyond consideration that they might be preferentially burnt in deep sea shipping over those routes that cannot be economically substituted by either local manufacture, or by trans-continental (renewables-fed) freight rail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maersk_Triple_E-class_container_ship
https://www.sunpowercorp.co.uk/products/maxeon-solar-panels

[TehDehZeh]

That would be big news. Do we have some examples?
You will find mass extinctions events on more or less every boundary between geological periods (these are after all pretty much defined by the type of fossils dominantly found). Often the transition is also marked by drastic changes in the Earth's climate and/or atmosphere. Generally speaking, climate, atmosphere, surface geology and living matter are closely coupled, so disturbing one of these will necessarily lead to changes in the others. Depending on magnitude the system might return to the previous status quo, or settle for an entirely different equilibrium.

The famous two degree target is essentially to be understood as a perturbation that is small enough to be safe. That does not mean that birds will fall out of the sky once we are at three degrees, rather it means we might be converted from pilots to passengers at that point.

Obviously this is not really your or my problem, because neither of us will live long enough, it is only a problem for the generations to come..

[John Boeman]

Also dr dre (and Mk 1), I will happily (and humbly) stand and be counted beside people like these:

https://vimeo.com/212423042

and this man,

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/31472-un-ipcc-scientist-blows-whistle-on-un-climate-lies

(yes, published by more far right wingers so obviously any facts in here automatically don’t count....I guess).

And yes, I have read this:
https://skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html

and plenty more on that and likeminded websites. It makes me want to weep for the future of millenials when I think (not too often, I do have a life, even if I am getting to the latter end of it), of the multiple billions spent by governments around the world every year ‘fighting’ climate change!

Imagine all the good that could have been done with that money. Building power stations in Africa for a start and then the children could have light to study with at night and their parents have electric stoves to cook food on instead of burning dried cow dung, paid for by working in the factories that could now be set up, producing basic necessities at first and then as the newly better educated workforce grows up, progressing to more sophisicated products. (Never mind just bringing clean water to everyone there).
This for every impoverished people around the world. And then they could get on with living a dignified and happier life in this world instead of only trying to survive miserably in it until they get to wherever their particular promised land is.

Yes, I know, I am just an old fool who thinks way too simplisticly about these things. I am all for a cleaner environment. I hate waste of any kind. But I do not believe in keeping the rest of the world impoverished while we in the developed one live ‘high on the hog’ and waste incredible, vast amounts of money on crazy, vanity renewable energy products etc that never pay for themselves and only serve to make the rich richer.

All based on unproven premises delivered by fantastically well funded (at vast taxpayer expense), lobby groups and individuals of every variety imaginable that are driven on by money grabbing politicians, delighted for the opportunity to invent new taxes every year to ‘save us from climate change’......

And so yes, from where I stand climate change ‘alarmists’ are suffering from (or for sound financial reasons are willingly and knowingly going along with) this obscenely well funded mass hysteria and have proven that they are immune to facts and the evidence in front of their noses.

And as they have the backing of the majority of those said moneygr.. sorry, noble, trustworty and wise people we refer to as politicians, I have no doubt that it is highly unlikely that I will live long enough to see an end to this madness.

If you have read this far and and you share dr dre and Mk 1’s amazement that dinosaurs like me still exist, feel free to ignore the aberration that we obviously are.

(“97% of climate scientists agree...” - don’t make me laugh, absolute bunkum!)

[msjh]

If you don't agree that climate change is occurring

You need to somehow show that that extreme weather isn't getting more extreme and more frequent.
You need to prove that CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not have a greenhouse effect or that they aren't increasing.
You need to explain why governments should somehow conspire to promote the idea of climate change and why the oil and coal companies, who make tens of billions in profits each year aren't simply saying "Hold on, here's the real science".

Science isn't binary: it's a matter of probabilities. The overwhelming probability is that climate change is happening; that it's happening faster than it has done in recorded history; that greenhouse gases are the overwhelmingly greatest contributor.

[Chronus]

The only way we change is when we become motivated to change. We could be motivated sufficiently by a cost savings ( new technology) or by fear for our lives....not much else.
Can anyone think of something else that would motivate the majority of human kind to change their behaviours?
I can’t.
With that in mind we should be pouring a fair bit of money into R&D because Joe Bloggs won’t fear for his life until the waves are crashing at his door and it’s 48 degrees in the shade.

Yes, I can think of an answer to this question.
Worldwide famine. When there is no food in our bellies, what do we think about. Many examples of its consequences, one that is close to the flavour of our forum, aviation, is the Andes Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 crash .
Nothing less than the ultimate disaster of complete lack of food is capable of changing our behaviour.

[John Boeman]

msjh, thanks for not asking for anything too complicated requiring formula and calculation from me - my engineering days are a long way behind me now..


Quote:

“You need to somehow show that that extreme weather isn't getting more extreme and more frequent.”


https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/despite-what-youve-heard-global-warming-isnt-making-weather-more-extreme/


https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/10/23/new-report-shows-uk-weather-is-not-getting-more-extreme/


Yes, I know that there are a lot more articles saying that it is. I refer you back to my earlier comments about the incredibly well tax-payer funded worldwide ‘climate change’ industry....

Remember, no-one I know is arguing that climate is not changing. It always has and always will. I just find it incredible that so many people are so set on giving away billions to those that are already the richest for what will almost certainly be zero, and probably a negative return.


Quote:

“You need to prove that CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not have a greenhouse effect or that they aren't increasing.”

Why?

I prefer to believe what an expert such as the physicist Professor Williiam Happer has to say on the beneficial effects of an increase in CO2. If you have not heard him speak as he has many times on the subject, you should search and listen to what he has to say. It could just put your mind more at ease.

And as Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, and a former NASA scientist has said in the past,
“The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ — in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…”

The important word there is ‘significant’.

He also said:
“The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis about our climate which says it has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.”

And who in the UK has forgotten the mind-blowingly stupid fiasco of the UK converting coal-fired power stations to burn wood pellets shipped in from the US, in order to meet EU carbon targets...... (You couldn’t make it up....)


Quote:

“You need to explain why governments should somehow conspire to promote the idea of climate change and why the oil and coal companies, who make tens of billions in profits each year aren't simply saying "Hold on, here's the real science".”


That’s easy. Money.

We know why the oil and coal companies do not shout out the facts too loudly. The ‘alarmists’ scream and shout that they are just lying so they can continue to make their billions. (By the way ‘their billions’ are just a shadow beside the trillions made by governments taxing their product.)

And I have no doubt that they have worked out that most of us will keep driving our fossil fuelled cars for the forseeable future and in the meantime it is much easier to keep a low profile and just use their billions to get in on the money making climate change scam in any way they can.

There are thousands of highly qualified scientists and real climate experts around the world with absolutely nothing to gain, and plenty to lose, who have been desperately trying to get the verifiable facts out to the world for years now. But they are shouted down and drowned out by the worldwide juggernaut that is the ‘Climate Change Industry’ which has grown from nothing and out of pretty much nothing, in a relatively short period of time.

(The Washington Times ran an article in 2015 about the $1.5 trillion ‘global climate change industry’. In 2015!

This was made up of an industry with “9 segments and 38 sub-segments”.

I mean, just think about the climate change ‘consulting’ market alone.

(I am sure there are plenty of more recent facts and figures avaiable but I do not want to give this any more of my Sat eve.)

Then we have carbon-trading. You know, that gas of life that has been demonised by the green lobby. Our friend Mr Gore has done very nicely out of that particular scam while being a major producer of the stuff himself. (Again, you couldn’t make it up...)

And you need to ask the question above....?

[laxman]

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth. It is the wet dream of globalists seeking to transfer wealth from the 1st World to the rest.

In the last century the planet has warmed 0.9 degrees C. Not a big deal.

Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas, less than 1% of the atmosphere

The hysteria was created by a few scientists, like Michael Mann of Penn State University, who "created" a computer model to project what increases in carbon dioxide would have on temperatures around the world. His models used amplifier, called the "Feedback Loop", much like the feedback effect one gets when you move a microphone too close to its loudspeaker, a complete fabrication, which made the resultant increases in temperatures seem much more dire. It was all made up... and used by cynical politicians like Al Gore, to enrich themselves, and by others to demand fixes like the "New Green Deal", which cedes every increasing power and authority to government.

1/7 of the plant life on the planet is due to the increase in CO2.

Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Prof. Lindzen of MIT, Raul Alegre of France, are just a few of more notable climate experts who have said AGW is the biggest scientific hoax ever perpetuated on the world.

The very real threat is the fact that the sun has gone into a period of relative inactivity, which will cause significant cooling world wide.

Or as Willie Soon said, "Its the Sun Stupid!"

[beardy]

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth. It is the wet dream of globalists seeking to transfer wealth from the 1st World to the rest.

In the last century the planet has warmed 0.9 degrees C. Not a big deal.

Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas, less than 1% of the atmosphere

The hysteria was created by a few scientists, like Michael Mann of Penn State University, who "created" a computer model to project what increases in carbon dioxide would have on temperatures around the world. His models used amplifier, called the "Feedback Loop", much like the feedback effect one gets when you move a microphone too close to its loudspeaker, a complete fabrication, which made the resultant increases in temperatures seem much more dire. It was all made up... and used by cynical politicians like Al Gore, to enrich themselves, and by others to demand fixes like the "New Green Deal", which cedes every increasing power and authority to government.

1/7 of the plant life on the planet is due to the increase in CO2.

Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Prof. Lindzen of MIT, Raul Alegre of France, are just a few of more notable climate experts who have said AGW is the biggest scientific hoax ever perpetuated on the world.

The very real threat is the fact that the sun has gone into a period of relative inactivity, which will cause significant cooling world wide.

Or as Willie Soon said, "Its the Sun Stupid!"
Thanks I haven't laughed so much for so long. Oddly I think you believe it 😁

[layman]

John Boeman
Just picking up on one of your points. Perhaps you should re-think who you ‘believe’ in their commentary on climate science. Professor William Harper is a physicist, not a climate scientist so probably has as much credibility in this field as a journalist commenting on aviation.
You probably won’t ‘believe’ this article but it provides a brief debunking of Professor Happer’s erroneous claims
https://skepticalscience.com/even-princeton-makes-mistakes.html

[dr dre]

(“97% of climate scientists agree...” - don’t make me laugh, absolute bunkum!)


John Boeman, you’ve written a lot of words, but those are the most egregious.

Multiple peer reviewed studies published in reputable scientific journals have backed up the 97% figure. Here’s NASA’s take on the subject:

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)

(but hey, I guess they faked the moon landing so they’re experts at hoaxing the public right?)

Yes, I know you can point to a handful of deniers with supposed authority to back up your claims, but you fail to mention things like supposed expert William Happer is an optical physicist with no formal education in climate science, or Leslie Woodcock writes for conspiracy theorist claptrap site Breitbart, or Nils-Axel Mörner’s (again a geologist not a climate scientist) work has been debunked multiple times by actual climate scientists, or Patrick Moore (again, a biologist not a climate scientist) is paid by the fossil fuel industry.

You’ll accuse me of playing the man, not the ball. I don’t need to, the ball has been played many times already by the tens of thousands of actual Climate scientists and reputable worldwide scientific organisations who have spent decades studying in this specific field and whom all lead to the same conclusion.

And so yes, from where I stand climate change ‘alarmists’ are suffering from (or for sound financial reasons are willingly and knowingly going along with) this obscenely well funded mass hysteria and have proven that they are immune to facts and the evidence in front of their noses.


If you don’t have any substance left you can just claim that tens of thousands of climate scientists working in multiple organisations in most countries around the world are all in a massive worldwide conspiracy to, well, I’m not sure what benefit they would get by making a climate change hoax? Like I said in a post previously, if it’s all just a hoax and we create all these renewable energies and technologies that are more sustainable and waste free is that such an evil thing?

If you have read this far and and you share dr dre and Mk 1’s amazement that dinosaurs like me still exist, feel free to ignore the aberration that we obviously are


This is like having self proclaimed “experts” flight sim users and airport photographers who will not accept any alternatives on their theory that airline pilots are deliberately spreading chemtrails. Now just imagine those people managing to infiltrate high positions in government, business and the media (which climate deniers have) and you’ll see why actual climate scientists are concerned at where the world is headed.

It does give me hope that the current popular fight against climate change is being led by the youth, their leader being 16 years of age. They will be the ones who will have to deal with this problem in 2075. Why so far in the future? That’s when they will be the same age as the current US President. You can see why they are greatly concerned.

[Bankstown Boy]

You need to somehow show that that extreme weather isn't getting more extreme and more frequent.


The following is all from the last IPCC report (I assume that is an acceptable source of information for the zealots)
- “there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.”
- “low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods.”
- “streamflow trends since 1950 are non-statistically significant in most of the world’s largest rivers.”

Despite their own evidence, the authors of the report then go on to say that extreme weather has already increased. In the real world, this is called lying or fraud.

The problem with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is that you need to show the Catastrophic part, otherwise it's a little like a fart in crowded elevator; a little embarrassing, a little annoying, but ultimately forgettable and of no real consequence.

All of the CAGW alarm is based on the word "if". A very power word is if, but if we are going to rent our hair shirts, then I would prefer proof, not wet dreams. There is no evidence to date of the C part of CAGW. There are projections, predictions, fears & hopes but nothing that stands alone as proof. Even the IPCC is not silly enough to go there (except of course with the discredited, by their own attached report, summary for policy makers sections).

[paul_v1]

Thanks I haven't laughed so much for so long. Oddly I think you believe it 😁


Do a proper research, talk with professionals from universities and cross check what you hear.

Study study and study some more to draw your OWN conclusions about the “issue” and you’ll see that CO2 isn’t what they want it to look like.

Don’t be like the chemtrail/flat earth people. Do ask around.

[dr dre]

then I would prefer proof, not wet dreams

The only problem is you types will only accept proof once you see the crops failing, the seas rising and flooding coastal cities, previously habitable areas becoming uninhabitable, wildfire season starting in winter instead of summer (whoops, that is happening right now (https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-17/drought-bushfire-seasons-starting-earlier-lasting-longer/10132570?pfmredir=sm)). And then you’ll probably just say it was unavoidable anyway.

Do something about it now to prevent it (or more accurately now just dampen the effects) and because it wasn’t as bad as what was forecast you’ll claim that the money spent was a total waste. Sort of like the year 2000 “Millenium Bug” scare when skeptics pointed out afterwards, despite forecasts of disaster, that nothing bad happened therefore the money spent was a total waste, completely disregarding the fact that the billions spent on updating software prior to the event prevented much of the forecasted computer failures.

Like I said in my previous post I’m glad the popular fight (the knowledge fight has already been won by the overwhelming bulk of the science world) is now being led by the youth. 16 year olds who will have to deal with these issues in 2075 when they are the same age as the current US President, and long after almost all climate deniers have long since departed.

[Bankstown Boy]

The only problems is you types
... have no proof, merely empty scary sounding scenarios prefaced with the word if.

It's your lot's theory, give us some proof.

[JustinHeywood]

.... if we are going to rent our hair shirts, then I would prefer proof, not wet dreams. There is no evidence to date of the C part of CAGW. There are projections, predictions, fears & hopes but nothing that stands alone as proof.

I’m as conservative as they come. But if the experts are predicting catastrophe, or even the possibility of it, we are stupid to ignore it and arrogant to deny it.

Science is messy; there is almost always incomplete data, uncertainty, anomalies and disagreement. That’s why those of us who aren’t climate scientists go with the scientific consensus. To do otherwise is to assume you know enough to go with a minority opinion.

You can’t Google your way into being a climate scientist. But you can Google your way into having just enough understanding to bolster your own prejudices.

[dr dre]

It's your lot's theory, give us some proof.

Start reading champ:

https://skepticalscience.com/

Oh and if you didn’t read my post before:

Drought, wind and heat: Bushfire season is starting earlier and lasting longer (https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-17/drought-bushfire-seasons-starting-earlier-lasting-longer/10132570?pfmredir=sm)

[Bankstown Boy]

Start reading champ:

https://skepticalscience.com/

Oh and if you didn’t read my post before:

Drought, wind and heat: Bushfire season is starting earlier and lasting longer (https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-17/drought-bushfire-seasons-starting-earlier-lasting-longer/10132570?pfmredir=sm)

I've read all of that and a lot more besides "champ".

Do have anything factual?

[John Boeman]

layman,
I view your ‘skepticalscience’ website the way you probably (and dr dre definitely) view the ouput of the NIPCC. I think we are wasting each others time here. All the information is out there. I chose to believe the unfunded underdogs, based on the evidence they present and the evidence in front on my eyes, combined with some common sense.

The only reason I have come into this discussion, with my ‘egregious’ (give me a break dre!) contribution was because it looked extremely one sided to me (a bit like watching the BBC dealing with Brexit...).

So dr dre,
you have written a lot of words yourself which from my point of view I will only label as misinformed.

The mythical 97% figure so beloved of politicians and the misinformed has been utterly debunked many times over. Multiple peer reviews in scientific journals my ass. Most people nowadays are aware of these peers who love to massage each others egos and keep the money rolling in. Stop kidding yourself, you are certainly not kidding the informed.

I am not going to get into a point by point pissing contest with you right now (and probably not in future either, chasing lost causes is too depressing and a waste of time) but I am interested to hear your description and criticism of Patrick Moore and the video I linked earlier.

Please do tell us why HE doesn’t know what he is talking about.

[73qanda]

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/962x544/3e78715b_b597_4bef_aa19_2497584215a0_a870f76fd7c1f03fde1f788 407ebc1b67345f729.png
Can anyone explain to me why the above graphic shouldn’t be referenced or is somehow unreliable?
Genuine question.
PS Thanks to all contributors to this thread regardless of which position you hold. I am finding it useful.

[dr dre]

So dr dre,
you have written a lot of words yourself which from my point of view I will only label as misinformed.
The mythical 97% figure so beloved of politicians and the misinformed has been utterly debunked many times over. Multiple peer reviews in scientific journals my ass.

Heres the difference. I’m posting links with peer reviewed studies from reputable scientific organisations (like NASA) whereas you’re claiming the 97% figure has debunked without posting any evidence to back it up. I’ll post it again just to help you:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Please do tell us why HE doesn’t know what he is talking about.


He doesn’t know what he’s talking about because (like you) he isn’t considered legitimate for many reasons (lack of expertise in the field, obvious connections to fossil fuel companies) by the climate science community.

Here’s some actual climate scientists debunking his claims. There were a lot more but I couldn’t be bothered posting them all:

https://skepticalscience.com/moore-2012.html

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/apr/16/ask-the-real-experts-about-ocean-acidification-not-climate-science-deniers

Patrick Moore vs. Patrick Moore on Climate Change | PolluterWatch (http://polluterwatch.org/blog/patrick-moore-versus-patrick-moore-scientist-climate-change-greenpeace)

He may have been involved with Greenpeace decades ago but it’s obvious he’s sold out his beliefs and his trailing to be a paid stooge for the fossil fuel industry. Some people will say anything as long as you pay them the money.

The problem is deniers think there is a legitimate debate between legitimate scientists. There isn’t. Here’s a mathematically accurate representation of the debate:

Climate Change Debate:

[73qanda]

Well , if those of us following and contributing to this thread refrain from using terms that invoke emotion ( tree huggers, deniers, zealots, you types etc etc) and explain to each other what they think has happened, will happen, and why they think that, we might get a bit closer to developing a realistic understanding.
We essentially have two teams, the ‘ All our grandchildren are going to die’ team and the ‘ this is all just hysteria’ team.
I’d be surprised if the actual reality wasn’t hidden somewhere in between.
Now......can anyone tell me why the graphic above with the thermometer reading depiction shouldn’t be used when assessing temperatures for that particular area and time span?

[Loose rivets]

I'm old. I'm shutting my mind to the world's problems. Almost.

This program really grabbed me. 129 billion tonnes of water in the world's atmosphere. Well, it all started from doing tests on one cloud. The tonnage of a CB. Sheesh, no wonder they gave me the sh . . . ivers.

But one thing was astonishing. The surface temperature of the oceans. A big player. The particulate matter in the atmosphere - it's complicated and works in reverse when the particles are fine.

I really am starting to believe in Gyre. You know what I mean. Perhaps she can communicate with the sun and tell it to throttle back a bit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p026yzxz

[Pilot DAR]

I can't assert why the climate is changing, but I assert that it appears to be. In addition to my clients, who research the climate for a living, and telling me they have documented change, I simply see the change myself! I have watched the weather as a GA pilot for more than 40 years, and the last two years have been noticeably different weather than from years prior. patterns I came to expect are no longer there. Patterns we were not used to, are more common, and repeating. Forecasters describing a "once in a hundred year weather event" for the second time in the same year, where we'd never had one in memory before that.

I see the change, and I read reports. As my work is responsible for some of the climate change measurement, when I see the results of the measurements, I know that they're true. Maybe this is just a very long period cycle in the weather, and not attributable to mankind, but so far, for all the pollution we throw into the atmosphere, I believe those who say climate change is at least in part due to mankind. I pay more attention to what I expel into the atmosphere than I did five years ago.

Do I think that mankind will succumb to climate change? I do not. But, I'm imaging a different world for my great grandkids, than I know from my lifetime. It may not be as nice. For those who live very close to sea level, I imagine them having to move. My work measures arctic and antarctic ocean ice thickness - and in the last 12 years I've been approving that research equipment in the airplanes, there has been measurable sea ice reduction - that's indicative of land ice pack reduction too, and sea level is going to increase. How much? Not mine to speculate. But some places I have visited cannot withstand much without a dramatic change to their society!

As I said to my charge, while I mentored her flying a 180HP PA-18, "enjoy this now, because when you're my age, burning gas like this to go 85 MPH will just not be tolerated by society!". So as we price out polluting, including light airplanes, what will the pilots of the future fly in to build their experience? The techies will build super simulators, and self flying planes, so our sim trained pilots just sit in the seat, in case the red light flashes, then try to apply skills they only ever learned in the sim, and hope that they don't really have to actually fly the plane to safety. So not only will my great grandkids live in a different world, but they'll travel in it differently too - probably not near as much as we do now, nor with so well trained and experienced pilots!

[dr dre]

So as we price out polluting, including light airplanes, what will the pilots of the future fly in to build their experience?

Here’s one alternative:

The Truth About Electric Planes

And before the naysayers chip in, yes it has limited range and there are some considerations with charging, so it’s not perfect yet, but the technology will be improved and become more efficient and user friendly over time as more R&D is done in the field.

It’s like witnessing the first flight of the Wright Flyer in 1903 and exclaiming “pfft, a fabric and wire contraption that can’t even travel 100m, as if people will cross oceans in that one day, might as well give up and stick with coal burning ships!”

[TehDehZeh]

Now......can anyone tell me why the graphic above with the thermometer reading depiction shouldn’t be used when assessing temperatures for that particular area and time span?
It does not matter how the data is presented - any sane person will perform analysis on the raw data and not in the graph.
This happens to be a rather poor choice of scale , considering 99% of the real estate of the graph doesn't contain any information, but one could think of even worse ways to plot this.

It is a bit like Boeing publishing a graph of how many souls were safely transported on their planes per year in percent (a quantity close to 100% for any year) on a scale starting a 0%. The MAX deaths are in that figure, just not so trivial to see as if you plotted the deaths directly, or zoomed into the region between 99,9 and 100%..
​

[Rated De]

The oldest records are only in hundreds of years, the planet's age billions.
Therefore, change has likely been the constant.
However, changing weather patterns aside, other industries are actively transitioning away from hydrocarbon based fuel.

Perhaps, focusing on the declining availability of a non-renewable resource is the actual challenge.

To this point, the aviation industry has no ETS in place; it doesn't start for 8 more years.
Its strategy relies on assumptions of dubious robustness.
Yet, most strikingly, is the industry has no plan, timeline or cohesive strategy to get the industry away from the current fuel source.

Motherhood statements on bio-fuel undermine the technical and practical complexity. Battery technology is but a wish and laminar flow flying wings would require a rather lot of fossil fuel to be expended building an entirely new infrastructure.

Climate change or not, what viable alternative is there?

[msjh]

Well , if those of us following and contributing to this thread refrain from using terms that invoke emotion ( tree huggers, deniers, zealots, you types etc etc) and explain to each other what they think has happened, will happen, and why they think that, we might get a bit closer to developing a realistic understanding.
We essentially have two teams, the ‘ All our grandchildren are going to die’ team and the ‘ this is all just hysteria’ team.
I’d be surprised if the actual reality wasn’t hidden somewhere in between.
Now......can anyone tell me why the graphic above with the thermometer reading depiction shouldn’t be used when assessing temperatures for that particular area and time span?


In general, people are less tolerant of views that disagree with their own nowadays (1). I suspect that the Internet plays a large part in that and it's easier to be rude in a forum than face to face (1). I would prefer it if we could be more courteous.

The problem with the graph you quoted is that, by choosing a fairly arbitrary large scale, it minimises changes in temperature. As someone noted earlier, why not choose a Kelvin scale? The temperatures that matter are the ones at which we can reasonably live, and -40º is certainly outside that range!

(1) Yes, these are just my opinions but I think they are true. No, I do not have any corroborating evidence.

[JustinHeywood]

In what other branch of science do so many amateurs challenge the scientific consensus, based on selective Googling? Evolution? Nup. Quantum Theory? No way. The Big Bang? Waaay too complicated.

But apparently climate science isn’t that hard!

[oneeyed]

And still nobody is talking of shipping (marine)........

[CargoOne]

To this point, the aviation industry has no ETS in place; it doesn't start for 8 more year

Excuse me but ETS is in place for a number of years for all European Union operators. How does it helps anyone including global climate change remains a mystery as effectively it is just yet another tax.

[73qanda]

It does not matter how the data is presented - any sane person will perform analysis on the raw data and not in the graph.
It matters greatly how the data is presented for the vast majority of the population. What % of the public do you think performs analysis on the raw data? I would guess at less than 1%. You’re suggesting that most of the population is not sane.
The problem with the graph you quoted is that, by choosing a fairly arbitrary large scale, it minimises changes in temperature
But that argument works both ways. By choosing a short scale, graphs exaggerate the changes in temperature.

[petit plateau]

And still nobody is talking of shipping (marine)........

Actually we did

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/621792-perhaps-aviation-biggest-challenge-6.html#post10478744

:)

[TehDehZeh]

What % of the public do you think performs analysis on the raw data? I would guess at less than 1%.
Exactly. There is no need for Joe Public to do this, because there are people who do this full time. They are called scientists. If you think they are doing their job wrong, you will need to do what they do, look at the data. If you think they are doing their job right, you can skip this step and work with their results.

Neither of these routes requires anyone to produce a useless graph such as the one we are talking about.

[msjh]

The problem with the graph you quoted is that, by choosing a fairly arbitrary large scale, it minimises changes in temperature

But that argument works both ways. By choosing a short scale, graphs exaggerate the changes in temperature.
You missed out the second part of that paragraph where I said what matters is the temperatures in which we live matter, not -40ºC, at which virtually no-one will survive.

[Rated De]

Excuse me but ETS is in place for a number of years for all European Union operators. How does it helps anyone including global climate change remains a mystery as effectively it is just yet another tax.






The ETS in operation in the EU is only applied for flights within the European union. International operators are exempt. The industry body ICAO,to which reference was directed in the original post has no blanket program. Its program commences in 2027, with a bunch of fanciful assumptions the basis for carbon neutral 'growth' until then. The ICAO ETS which commences operation in 2027 only covers international operation. Member states will be welcome to capture their own domestic emissions (around 40%) of all aviation emissions as the deem appropriate.

And still nobody is talking of shipping (marine)........

The International Maritime Organisation has been referenced in this discussion several times. Not only are the IMO actively curbing emissions they will have eliminated hydrocarbon fuel by 2075.

The aviation industry has no such intention, it appears that consumption of hydrocarbon based fuel is their intent.

[John Boeman]

Ok dr dre,

I know I am fighting an unwinnable battle here. The resources lined up behind you, whose very existence depends on destroying their ‘opponents’ using whatever methods necessary means that only time will have a chance of exposing whatever is the truth.

One of those ‘methods’ is to attack from all angles and denigrate and destroy anybody who does not agree with their position.

Can I also point out that you tend to lose us people that you only refer to with the derogatory tag ‘deniers’, (I know, in weak moments I have referred to ‘alarmists’ a couple of times), the moment you refer to someone as being a “paid stooge for the fossil fuel industry”.

If such people exist, people who actually give speeches contrary to what they believe in regard to this issue and receive money from the ‘fossil fuel industry’ for doing so, then I believe their number is an immeasurably tiny fraction when stood beside the vast army being paid around the world to create and inflate any reason to sustain the behemoth that the ‘climate change industry’ now is.
(And may I again refer to to Al Gore...)


A great example from earlier days was the BBC’s silencing of David Bellamy. I am afraid listening to the sainted David Attenborough now only reminds me of what was done to David Bellamy.

Thank you very much for your reply regarding Dr. Patrick Moore and in particular the link ‘Patrick Moore vs. Patrick Moore on Climate Change’.

Reading that felt like I was watching a synopsis of my own thought progression on climate change through the years. I one hundred per cent agree with the man regarding nuclear energy. Of course location of the power plants will always be a problem. We are all NIMBYs when it comes to those. But surely the latest designs do offer the one efficient, relatively low cost way to ensure a plentiful reliable supply of energy in the future?

With regard to his contrarian statements, I see a man like Keynes who changes his mind when the facts change. What do you do?

However your attempt to dismiss him with the statements: “He doesn’t know what he’s talking about because (like you) he isn’t considered legitimate for many reasons (lack of expertise in the field, obvious connections to fossil fuel companies) by the climate science community.” and “He may have been involved with Greenpeace decades ago but it’s obvious he’s sold out his beliefs and his trailing to be a paid stooge for the fossil fuel industry” (sic), is classic!


His story - feel free to point out any lies he is telling:

Patrick Moore: Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide? | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) (http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/)


This is a man who Greenpeace themselves acknowledged on their website as a founder member back in the day (he was one of the guys in the dinghy sheltering the whales from the Russian whalers for gawdsake!).

An archived Greenpeace webpage:

https://web.archive.org/web/20051216000251/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/history/founders


But he has now been written out of that position and Greenpeace have written and contributed to dozens of articles denigrating his contribution ever since. Nice!

Even Google got in on the act..

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/google-removes-patrick-moores-information-as-founder-of-greenpeace-after-calling-global-warming-a-scam.1473676/


Admittedly it may have had something to do with his views on what Greenpeace has morphed into:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRlYHF9Bqps


Why I Left Greenpeace ? Dr. Patrick Moore (http://ecosense.me/2017/01/17/issues-68/)


He is not alone in his views about the current Greenpeace (to give just one tiny example):

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/03/dr-patrick-moore-was-right-greenpeace-is-full-of-****/


So frankly, I guess I should thank you for providing a perfect example of how the Climate Change Industry deals with naysayers. I am just grateful that despite their best efforts, there are still brave people willing to stand up against the onslaught coming their way whenever they try to point out and discuss facts.

I will just say again something I think we can all agree on.

The climate is changing.

If you ask a man to find a trend and tell him his livelihood depends on it, he will find a that trend, somewhere, somehow.


I will do my best to bow out here now.

I know I am literally wasting my time.......

[Odins Raven]

I’m a big believer in looking after the environment but I’m not quite sure that the general population of earth will suddenly reduce the amount of flying they do based on their love for nature.

The reason I say this, is that about 15 years ago the developed world was making a massive fuss about American-style SUV fuel guzzlers and how they were the enemy of the future of the earth. Fast forward a few years and here we are with all developed countries’ populations driving expensive oversized luxury SUVs despite us all apparently despising them.

I predict aviation will be no different.

[Chronus]

Air transport operates within the earths atmosphere. Extreme wx events are showing a dramatic increase over the last twenty to thirty years. There could well come a time when such wx conditions would make it very difficult and unsafe to operate within the bands of the atmosphere which can support flight by aircraft of our times. It is not just convective wx that may be a problem. Increase in volcanic activity and its combined effects of spread due to strong convective atmosphere and jet stream activity that would be a major issue when such conditions become permanently established as the norm rather than the exception.
Here is the link to articles on the subject of extreme wx:

https://nca2 014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/extreme-weather#intro-section-2

Richard Branson and his Virgin Galactic may perhaps be the answer to the future of aviation.

[John Boeman]

I forgot to include, regarding the bunkum 97% con-census:
The ?97% Con-sensus? ? Use Due Diligence on? Climate (http://www.use-due-diligence-on-climate.org/home/climate-change/the-97-con-sensus/)


Chronus, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over anything produced by the NCA (or the IPCC).

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/12/extreme-fraud-in-the-national-climate-assessment-part-1/

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/12/fraud-in-the-national-climate-assessment-part-2/

[beardy]

. Always have a look on what the motives and benefits are.

That is an often used tactic in discussions. It is a precursor to 'ad hominem' and is most frequently used when there is a breakdown of logic. Normally and perhaps not in this case it signifies ratcheting up of rhetoric to mask a loss of reason. Facts are usually more useful but are less persuasive than encouraging tribalism.

[RobertP]

Totally agree: population growth is the elephant in the room that no one is talking about. We should have stopped at between 3 and 4 billion people. We can reduce each person's individual footprint all we can but if the world population just keeps rising it won't do any good. If we don't come up with a plan to stop and reverse this growth back to a sustainable level, pollution, disease, starvation and war will do it for us.
First post, spot on ! You are absolutely correct.

[groundbum]

What happens when cheap mass oil runs out, in 50 or 60 years? Trains and cars can go electric, ships can use sails and electric, but what's the answer for planes? Knowing how long it takes to get revolutionary new technology into commercial everyday service, I'd have thought there would be some good alternatives to oil surfacing from Rolls/P&W etc by now,..

But yes the big problem is over population and over consumption.

G

[Torquelink]

No one except extremists are calling for a ban on air travel

At present but, from the rather selfish perspective of someone who has spent a lifetime in this industry: an industry which supports either directly or indirectly millions of jobs around the world, I agree with the thread-starter's contention that this is indeed the biggest challenge facing us. If the chattering classes begin to regard flying in the same way as, say, smoking or not driving with seat belts were / are regarded, the repercussions for all of us in this business could be swift and painful. A drop of just a few percentage points in passenger air travel will push a number of airlines into immediate bankruptcy throwing thousands out of work and, if the trend continued, the industry would become all but financially unviable. So who would care? Well, everybody - including the chattering classes - should care and, as others have suggested, it's high time the industry started putting its arguments forward. Some suggestions:

Aviation is already pouring billions into reducing its carbon foot print: aircraft and engine manufacturers are pushing the boundaries of science to reduce fuel burn and emissions (for cost reasons too of course, but interests coincide . . )
There are thousands of research projects into the electrification of air transport flying but the technology isn't there . . .yet
Air transport and, arguably, sea transport, are really the only industries using fossil fuels that, for the foreseeable future, cannot use anything else. EVERYTHING else: road, rail, industry, lighting, heating could, theoretically be powered by non-polluting means - so that's where the emphasis should be
Civil air transport generates significant prosperity across the world: including for nations with little but tourism to sustain them
Civil air transport is a huge contributor to the maintenance of world peace and the prevention of conflict: the more the peoples of the world meet and get to know each other, the less likely they are to want to kill each other (well, mostly)


And finally, if you are to reduce flying, how will it be done: most likely through taxation with the consequence that only the self-indulgent chatters will still be able to go for long weekends in Tuscany while the hoi polloi won't be able to afford their annual two weeks in the sun.

Everyone in this industry should start getting messages like these out there before it's all too late.

[CargoOne]

Air transport and, arguably, sea transport, are really the only industries using fossil fuels that, for the foreseeable future, cannot use anything else.

Wideroe (Norway) has set up the goal to become 100% electric by 2030. Avinor (Norwegan airports operator) wants all domestic flights to become 100% electric by 2040. What are these vikings know which we don't?

[MENELAUS]

Hydro electricity

[Bergerie1]

It also provides 'just-in-time' delivery of a wide range of components for many industries which rely on this.

[Jetthrust]

The more I have read about climate change, the more the scam is obvious. After 30 years, we still don’t know if doubling the level of CO2 produces a 1 deg increase in temp, or 5 deg. It makes a huge difference. We don’t know if sea levels have risen by 1mm per year, or 3. If you don’t know that info, how can you determine it’s caused by humans? You cannot show a climate model with and without the effects of man give the sea level rise happening now, because you don’t even know what that is....

Climate models are incapable of predicting the temperature pause that has occurred over about the last 20 years in the troposphere. They are incapable of predicting the ocean temperature oscillations - they have to be an input into the model. Have a look at the global warming policy foundation.

The science is so far from settled, it’s at a very basic level.

[Torquelink]

Wideroe (Norway) has set up the goal to become 100% electric by 2030. Avinor (Norwegan airports operator) wants all domestic flights to become 100% electric by 2040. What are these vikings know which we don't?

My point is that the air transport aircraft will rely on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future except for small regional types. Wideroe has a number of Dash 8 turboprops and it is conceivable but unlikely that these could be replaced by electric-powered types by 2030. There are numerous current projects for electrically-powered small commuter-type aircraft of up to 12 seats plus projects to modify the smaller Dash 8s to take electric power and I'm sure that that's what Wideroe intend to do - very short sectors with batteries regularly topped up with abundant hydro-electric power. However, they recently became the launch operator of the Embraer E190-E2 - a 114 pax jet which will be in service with them well beyond 2030 which kind of acknowledges the fact that larger electrically-powered aircraft aren't there yet.

[msjh]

The more I have read about climate change, the more the scam is obvious. After 30 years, we still don’t know if doubling the level of CO2 produces a 1 deg increase in temp, or 5 deg. It makes a huge difference. We don’t know if sea levels have risen by 1mm per year, or 3. If you don’t know that info, how can you determine it’s caused by humans? You cannot show a climate model with and without the effects of man give the sea level rise happening now, because you don’t even know what that is....

Climate models are incapable of predicting the temperature pause that has occurred over about the last 20 years in the troposphere. They are incapable of predicting the ocean temperature oscillations - they have to be an input into the model. Have a look at the global warming policy foundation.

The science is so far from settled, it’s at a very basic level.
Science is a matter of probabilities rather than 100% certainty. So when scientists say they "know" something, they are saying "it is extremely likely".

Scientists know climate change is happening. They know there is a general trend towards warmer temperatures. They know that various greenhouse gases increase temperatures and that the prevalence of these in the atmosphere is increasing.

Now, climate change models are extraordinarily complex. The only way to make such a model 100% correct is to build another Earth, so that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. The lack of such a model doesn't make today's models wrong: it just makes them less certain. If anyone wishes to deride them, they need to come up with a better model that fits the facts and is logical.

There is no reasonable doubt that man-made climate change is is occurring and that, left unchecked, it will have catastrophic consequences for humanity.

Furthermore, there is a lot that most people can do to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Eat less meat. Walk instead of using a car for short journeys. When you drive, drive economically. Buy a fuel-efficient car, or an electric one. Where feasible, buy locally produced goods.

And, yes, take fewer plane trips.

[DaveReidUK]

Widerøe has indeed stated that its under-50-seat fleet will be all-electric by 2030. That clearly excludes the E2s and (if they are still in service by then) the Q400s.

[foxmoth]

Not exactly. For all transportation, aviation is 12%, road 74%

In our house, we have reduced our road emissions to the minimum, generate all of our net electricity and try to source as much local food as possible. It barely makes a difference.
Just you doing it barely makes a difference, it is the others that do the same that makes a difference - a bit like litter, if 10 people drop a bit of litter there is a problem, if 5 pick it up instead, problem solved, where you can be part of the solution not the problem!

[dr dre]

After 30 years, we still don’t know if doubling the level of CO2 produces a 1 deg increase in temp, or 5 deg.

Explained here:

Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?) (https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm)

We don’t know if sea levels have risen by 1mm per year, or 3.
Yes we do:

SEA LEVEL RISE (https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise)


Climate models are incapable of predicting the temperature pause that has occurred over about the last 20 years in the troposphere.

Until scientists realised that was totally incorrect:

Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998 (https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998)

Have a look at the global warming policy foundation.

A deniers group run by an exercise coach bankrolled by fossil fuel companies? Choose a better source:

Two secret funders of Nigel Lawson’s climate sceptic organisation revealed (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/02/nigel-lawson-climate-sceptic-organisation-funders)

I’ll take my facts from these 200 internationally recognised scientific bodies:

The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action: (http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html)


The science is so far from settled, it’s at a very basic level.

Science is rarely “settled”. That’s a good thing for research and application of the scientific method. But the basic facts on climate changed are well known and accepted by all credible scientific bodies (climate change is happening, is caused mostly by humans and will have serious effects on society in coming decades if changes are not made to our planet):

Is the science settled? (https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/Climate-change-QA/Science)

[Maoraigh1]

Climate change deniers. Climate change believers. Is there a place for climate change discussers?
Is what we are doing going to have any effect if big manufacturing countries do nothing?
​​​​​​​Should we be planning for survival in the new climate?

[Longtimer]

Climate change deniers. Climate change believers. Is there a place for climate change discussers?
Is what we are doing going to have any effect if big manufacturing countries do nothing?
​​​​​​​Should we be planning for survival in the new climate?

1. Lots of talk re electric aircraft to help solve the problem but according to recent information commercial Marine traffic produces much more pollution than commercial aviation worldwide, yet no talk of electric ships or even going back to wind driven. Go Figure.
However the "Real" culprit seems to be overpopulation of the planet by humans, so I would bet that unless there is a huge reduction in that regard (war, pestilence etc) we are hooped.

[HarryMann]

I concur. But would add that the temperatures and ecological environment in previous times were very different from current ones. Neither we nor our foodstuffs would have flourished in some previous epochs. Maybe the emphasis on the current period is merited.
Beardy makes a good point.
we have to restrict ourselves to periods in history when mamnals and particularly humans have developed.
indeed, we know the planet won't just explode, what climate changers claim is simply that life as we know it and in many locations it exists won't be possible.
others maintain that the climate may well 'trip' and jump toba new stable state considerably altered from the last few thousand years

[cooperplace]

Wideroe (Norway) has set up the goal to become 100% electric by 2030. Avinor (Norwegan airports operator) wants all domestic flights to become 100% electric by 2040. What are these vikings know which we don't?

Maybe that's the marketing dept talking?

[Mk 1]

Ok dr dre,

I know I am fighting an unwinnable battle here. The resources lined up behind you, whose very existence depends on destroying their ‘opponents’ using whatever methods necessary means that only time will have a chance of exposing whatever is the truth.


How about science - are we allowed to use science to support the argument that anthropomorphic climate change is real?

[Torquelink]

This sums up pretty well why electric aircraft are not going to work for the mainstream anytime soon:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/31/bjorns-corner-electric-aircraft-the-first-fall-on-the-hype-curve/

[petit plateau]

On high density overland routes of up to 1000-km (maybe 800-km) high speed rail is the biggest challenge to aviation. That is the way that Europe and China are going, and I've done 1000-km by high speed rail in China when the plane was a no-show, and it was notable that the train was full. Why do you think the aviation (and automotive) industry works so hard behind-the-scenes to keep high speed rail out of the USA. The bad news for pilots is that railways don't use them. The good news for the planet is that trains can run off renewables. (https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=7457 )

There is another way to do long haul high speed transport, namely exo-atmospheric. See Space X (https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-wants-starship-spaceliners/) for various ways of using the BFR which seems to be economic in ranges of about 4000-km to 10-15000-km. That's methane/lox so better for the planet than kerosene (though many questions remain on the general matter of emissions effects) , and there may be carbon-neutral ways of producing the methane. The bad news for pilots is that there are none. The bad news for passengers is that origin/landing points will likely either need a handy coast, or a big empty desert, due to noise/risk issues, but given that most of humanity lives in the littoral that's not such a drag.

For very short range intermittent GA one can see electric aviation taking a fair nibble. I don't think it will be much more than a nibble due to physical realities, but I fully expect most of the next generation of pilots will get their PPL on electric trainers.

So as a direction of travel for an industry I'd be cautious about extrapolating the growth of the last 50-years forwards another 50-years. Put all the above together, add in increased automation leading to single pilot flying (or no-pilot-onboard flying), and add a carbon tax that curtails trivial travel, and you can see limits out there on the horizon. It is not difficult to conceive a future in which the role of 'traditional' commercial aviation is 1000 - 2000km only, and especially on the thin routes. For the richer people.

[CargoOne]

Hopefully this forum will be alive by 2030 so we can all laugh about 2019 electrical airplanes projects. And dont forget in order to keep Norway clean, the batteries need to be produced and utilised in China, Bangladesh or Burundi so we can report our success in making the planet better (for Norwegians)

[dr dre]

How about science - are we allowed to use science to support the argument that anthropomorphic climate change is real?

I think you mean anthropogenic, “anthropomorphic” is for cartoon animals that act like humans.

And yes you’re allowed to use science, by scientists like NASA, not quacks funded by oil companies making videos in their bedrooms.

[unexplained blip]

The future of the aviation industry does not rest with pilots, it rest with those holding the capital that funds new aircraft programs and new procurement and leasing programs for new aircraft fleets. In the main, those capital holders and their influencers/masters have no doubt about climate change occurring and being human induced. Seek out statements by parties such as BlackRock if your doubt this, That viable alternatives to hydrocarbons for aviation are few and far between and this is also largely uncontested, as is also the value of tourism and other aviation-oriented trade. The industry needs to be pushing for the rapid de-carbonisation of the stuff that is easier to address, so that aviation has "carbon headroom" to keep operating and delivering service and value. Arguing against climate change, or downplaying it, is not the long game for aviation. Even climate scientists like to fly, if somehow it can be made to fit into a sensible carbon budget. Much more delay, and arguing abut simple physics and meteorology, and we face tradeoffs and stark decisions that we really shouldn't have had to face.

[John Boeman]

And yes you’re allowed to use science, by scientists like NASA, not quacks funded by oil companies making videos in their bedrooms.



dr dre, so glad to hear you trust NASA scientists, or do you only distrust the word of those of them whose continued employment does not depend on ‘toeing the party line’?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EhW-B2udhQw




https://www.therightclimatestuff.com


And so, onto the ‘fossil-fuel funded shills’, the NIPCC:

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/)) on the issue of global warming.

Yep, definitely sounds like a bunch of ‘quacks funded by oil companies making videos in their bedrooms’.

About the NIPCC ? Climate Change Reconsidered (http://climatechangereconsidered.org/about-the-nipcc/)



Despite what you like to intimate, in order to denigrate me or anyone else who questions the climate change religion, I don’t claim to know a damn thing about climate change.

Instead I simply look at as many facts as I can cope with and I look at as much past and current evidence as I can.
​​​​​​​From those, I believe there is a massive con being perpetrated.

I put my trust in the people above and the aforementioned.

[20driver]

Really? Here’s a list of 200 worldwide bodies that hold it to be a fact that human caused climate change exists (almost every credible scientific organisation on earth):

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations (http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html)

When I looked at lists of scientists who deny human caused climate change I found no serious bodies prepared to deny it, scientists in other fields apart from climate science, a lot linked to the mining and oil industries and a lot connected to far right politics. And very few overall at that.

97% of scientific papers published recently find human caused climate change to be real. For the remaining 3% they were excluded because, like any good piece of science, their conclusions and methods were found, on peer review, to be flawed or contain significant errors. There’s no debate amongst the credible scientific community, only amongst special interests with agendas:

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed (https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/)


I would not put too much value on the so called consensus. Ask Barry Marshall!

[brak]

And so, onto the ‘fossil-fuel funded shills’, the NIPCC:


Yep, definitely sounds like a bunch of ‘quacks funded by oil companies making videos in their bedrooms’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongovernmental_International_Panel_on_Climate_Change_(NIPCC )

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is a climate change denial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial) advocacy organisation set up by S. Fred Singer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer)'s Science & Environmental Policy Project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%26_Environmental_Policy_Project), and later supported by the Heartland Institute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute) lobbying group, in opposition to the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change) (IPCC) on the issue of global warming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongovernmental_International_Panel_on_Climate_Change_(NIPCC )#cite_note-Lever-Tracy2010-1)

The NIPCC presents itself as an "international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming". Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are predisposed to dispute that climate change (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change) is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions), NIPCC claims to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the IPCC.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongovernmental_International_Panel_on_Climate_Change_(NIPCC )#cite_note-2) The scientific validity of the claims made by the NIPCC report have been heavily criticized,[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongovernmental_International_Panel_on_Climate_Change_(NIPCC )#cite_note-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongovernmental_International_Panel_on_Climate_Change_(NIPCC )#cite_note-4) as has the methodology of their reports and the lack of expertise of many of their authors.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongovernmental_International_Panel_on_Climate_Change_(NIPCC )#cite_note-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongovernmental_International_Panel_on_Climate_Change_(NIPCC )#cite_note-6)

[John Boeman]

How many times are we going to have to read:-
“The scientific validity of the claims made by the NIPCC report have been heavily criticized,[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongovernmental_International_Panel_on_Climate_Change_(NIPCC )#cite_note-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongovernmental_International_Panel_on_Climate_Change_(NIPCC )#cite_note-4) as has the methodology of their reports and the lack of expertise of many of their authors.”

No kidding! WE KNOW!

The funny thing is that the people who have been utterly conned into believing that spending massive amounts of money (and making the rich vastly richer) will make a measurable difference to climate change, just do not get it.

it is governments and politicians that are doing this. So listing your government funded sources and ‘proofs’ is just counter-productive.

ANYBODY that says one sentence pointing out the lack of validity in any of the horror and scare stories published by the GOVERNMENT FUNDED IPCC or any one of the other, probably hundreds of thousands of businesses involved in the ‘WAR’ against climate-CHANGE,
can expect to see there name tarnished and vilified from a multitude of directions!

The NIPCC, they have no chance.....

However, here are comments on the book that people like the distinguished climate scientists Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., and S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.have produced: (Btw, I haven’t checked but doubtless there has something wrong found with the mental state of each of those and they been banished somewhere in the meantime..)

‘Climate Change Reconsidered’ is simply the most comprehensive documentation of the case against climate alarmism ever produced. Basing policy on the scientifically incomplete and internally inconsistent reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is no longer controversial – Climate Change Reconsidered shows that it is absolutely foolhardy, and anyone doing so is risking humiliation. It is a must-read for anyone who is accountable to the public, and it needs to be taken very, very seriously.
— Patrick J. Michaels, Director
Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute

[T]here are several chapters in the NIPCC report that are substantially more thorough and comprehensive than the IPCC treatment, including 5 (Solar variability and climate cycles), 7 (Biological effects of carbon dioxide enrichment), 8 (Species extinction) and 9 (Human health effects). Further, the NIPCC’s regional approach to analyzing extreme events and historical and paleo records of temperature, rainfall, streamflow, glaciers, sea ice, and sea-level rise is commendable and frankly more informative than the global analyses provided by the IPCC.
— Dr. Judith Curry, professor and chair School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Georgia Institute of Technology

NIPCC’s CCR-II report should open the eyes of world leaders who have fallen prey to the scandalous climate dictates by the IPCC. People are already suffering the consequences of sub-prime financial instruments. Let them not suffer more from IPCC’s sub-prime climate science and models. That is the stark message of the NIPCC’s CCR-II report.
— M.I. Bhat, formerly professor and head Department of Geology and Geophysics University of Kashmir, India

Climate Change Reconsidered is a comprehensive, authoritative, and definitive reply to the IPCC reports.
— Dr. Gerrit van der Lingen Christchurch, New Zealand

Now I fully appreciate that anything backed the ‘The Heartland Institute’ sends the ‘manmade climate change’ brigade running in the other direction shouting ‘fossil-fuel backed charlatans’ but me, I read the bloody book. (It’s not a big one!).
Couldn’t find anything in it that gave me a problem.

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus

This book and others can be found in here:
About the NIPCC ? Climate Change Reconsidered (http://climatechangereconsidered.org/about-the-nipcc/)

[beardy]

. it is governments and politicians that are doing this. So listing your government funded sources and ‘proofs’ is just counter-productive.


That sounds suspiciously like a global conspiracy.

[John Boeman]

Dang it! I meant to say ‘I wonder how long it will take for this to be dismissed as a ‘global conspiracy’. It occurred to me as I wrote that phrase so I certainly cannot blame you for thinking of it! ! Although it does make you sound as though you possibly believe that all of our goverments decisions are made for the good of the health of their populations - you know, so they will live longer and collect their state pensions for longer...... Yeah, right!

A ‘(insert your own word here)’ conspiracy, a phrase so beloved by those hiding behind confusion. This ‘conspiracy’ is hiding ‘in plain sght’ and it is certainly global!

[John Boeman]

Another very enlightened individual, imho.:

Dr Bjorn Lomberg

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-professor-who-claims-the-global-warming-fight-is-too-expensive/article24950894/

An interesting article from him on the cost of ‘the war on climate’:

https://nypost.com/2018/08/26/how-the-war-on-climate-change-slams-the-worlds-poor/


And the almost immediate standard rebuttal and denigration from an ‘interested party’:

Bjorn Lomborg?s lukewarmer misinformation about climate change and poverty - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment (http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/bjorn-lomborgs-lukewarmer-misinformation-about-climate-change-and-poverty/)

It was obviously reported in ‘The Australian’ as well, so it’s editor had to be included in the attack:

“A new article in ‘The Australian’ exposes once again the hypocrisy of the newspaper’s editor, John Lehmann, and the shameless myth-making about climate change carried out by Dr Bjorn Lomborg.”

?The Australian? promotes Bjorn Lomborg?s lukewarmer propaganda - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment (http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-australian-promotes-bjorn-lomborgs-lukewarmer-propaganda/)

Here’s that same ‘shameless’ charlatan giving a Ted talk way back in 2005(?) I believe, using a relatively small number of dollars as an eg. and askinging the question - “Given $50 billion to spend, which would you solve first, AIDS or global warming?”

https://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/up-next

This is him speaking more recently. I guess it is slightly problematical (for those that need to slander him), that he is not actually a denier.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HhWQ1uAwoPI

[beardy]

Dang it! I meant to say ‘I wonder how long it will take for this to be dismissed as a ‘global conspiracy’. It occurred to me as I wrote that phrase so I certainly cannot blame you for thinking of it! ! Although it does make you sound as though you possibly believe that all of our goverments decisions are made for the good of the health of their populations - you know, so they will live longer and collect their state pensions for longer...... Yeah, right!

A ‘(insert your own word here)’ conspiracy, a phrase so beloved by those hiding behind confusion. This ‘conspiracy’ is hiding ‘in plain sght’ and it is certainly global!
So it is a (global) conspiracy?
Against whom?

[John Boeman]

Try reading that again beardy. I’m not calling it a conspiracy. Hence the ‘ ‘ when I typed the word.
I am saying that those people inventing new ways to tax us to make themselves and their friends rich would love for comfortably off people (like you?) to shout ‘Aw jeez, here we go, another conspiracy theory!’

In other words, it’s a great distraction.

Try ignoring it and actually watch and read the links and find something in there to fault.

The ‘ball not the man’ beardy.....

(Unless of course you are an ‘at war’ environmentalist, then I would expect nothing less!)

[beardy]

Thank you for reminding me of the science. It was part of my degree course more than 40 years ago. The 'ball' has been kicked around a lot since then. I still remain convinced that to misconstrue collected evidence which supports scientific theory is to willfully misguide not just oneself but to drag others into continuing what is demonstrably reckless behaviour.
I realise and understand that change is difficult, but it is vital. Sustainable behaviour is not difficult, but it does mean sacrificing some luxuries.

[John Boeman]

Not sure where I reminded you of the science and it wasn’t ‘part of my degree course’ 43 years ago.

Can I assume that like most people of a certain mindset, you just refuse to go through the detail in the links I have posted?

If you have, please, tell me where they are going wrong...

[dr dre]

Another very enlightened individual, imho.:

Dr Bjorn Lomberg

A politcial lecturer with no science training. Not a denier but thinks climate change is a minor problem now and money should be spent elsewhere, whereas most scientists say it will be catastrophic in a few generations if we don’t act now.

As you’ve been constantly throughout this thread saying climate change science is a fake hoax Bjorn Lomberg’s unqualified opinion doesn’t even really back up yours, now does he?

And for your info in recent years it looks like even he wants research into renewable energy increased and a reduction in fossil fuel subsidies, which most deniers will oppose (from his wiki):

Lomborg's approach evolved in directions more compatible with action to restrain climate change. In April 2015 he gained further attention when he issued a call for all subsidies to be removed from fossil fuels on the basis that "a disproportionate share of the subsidies goes to the middle class and the rich"...making fossil fuel so "inexpensive that consumption increases, thus exacerbating global warming". In publications such as the Wall Street Journal he argued that the most productive use of resources would be a massive increase in funding for research to make renewable energy economically competitive with fossil fuels.

[beardy]

This is an article concerning the consensus of the scientific credibility of the NIPCC and its publication:

Fossil fuel funded report denies the expert global warming consensusThe infamous Heartland Institute has distributed to elected officials a nonsense, non-science report full of denial



245 (x-gu://showcomments)
John Abraham (x-gu://list/https://mobile.guardianapis.com/lists/tag/profile/john-abraham)
Published:11:00 Mon 22 February 2016
Follow John Abraham (x-gu://follow/profile/john-abraham)We all know about the various organizations that fund or support the climate-change denial industry. Perhaps the best known is the Heartland Institute (x-gu://item/mobile.guardianapis.com/uk/items/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder), which actually puts on climate “conferences” and publishes materials that appear at first glance to be scientifically sound. We who work and follow the climate change science and public discussions know enough to be skeptical about anything produced by groups like the Heartland Institute – their veneer of scientific credibility is very thin.


On the other hand, perhaps the intended audience isn’t scientists are even people who closely follow the science. Perhaps their intended audience is legislators, teachers, and others who have influence over society?

With this as a backdrop, I received a copy of a humorous report from an elected official in the USA. The report was entitled “Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming,” published by Heartland. Since elected officials have too much going on to do a thorough debunking, I looked into this report to see what substance was there.
As a scientist, when I read any manuscript I ask a number of questions. Who wrote it and what is their expertise in the field? When statements and conclusions are made, what is the evidence? How do these conclusions fit into prior work in the field? Is the new study confirming prior work or in conflict with it? If there is conflict, why?

The authors of this manuscript are Craig Idso, the late Robert Carter, and Fred Singer. These three are not exactly (or even nearly) a trio of reputable climate scientists. According to a literature search performed using the search engine SCOPUS, neither Idso nor Singer published a credible paper on global climate change or its implications in years.

One way to measure the authors’ impact is by counting how many people have read and cited their work. For both of these authors, the number of people who have cited them is shockingly low. To put their impact in perspective, a scientist like Kevin Trenberth (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/) receives three times more citations each year than the combined citations of Singer and Idso in their entire careers. So, having these guys be lead author on a climate change document is a bit like hiring retired scientists or op-ed writers to do your research.


But just because they are not active and reputable scientists, could they be correct? Sure, they could be. So let’s look at the content.

The central theme of this manuscript is an attack against the expert consensus on human-caused global warming (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm). The consensus refers to the very strong and repeatable measure of what scientists think about climate change. What do the best scientists say?

It turns out multiple groups have measured the consensus (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm). The measurements have been done many different ways, all leading to the same conclusion – the consensus is strong. Not only is the consensus strong, contrarian scientists are less talented than those in the consensus. They publish less on the subject, and peer review has found (x-gu://item/mobile.guardianapis.com/uk/items/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers) the work of most high-profile contrarians to be faulty. (x-gu://item/mobile.guardianapis.com/uk/items/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/11/climate-change-research-quality-imbalance) So, on the one hand, you have approximately 97% of the best scientists in agreement, and on the other hand, you have about 3% of the less-talented scientists in dissent.

Dr. Naomi Oreskes conducted the first major study (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full) that looked at consensus more than a decade ago. Dr. Oreskes examined the abstracts of hundreds of papers and found that they strongly confirmed the human influence on climate. In fact, she found no papers that dissented. The Heartland publication falsely calls Dr. Oreskes a “non-scientist.” In fact her scientific impact measured by citations is approximately four times that of the combination of Idso and Singer. Instead, they try to refute her with references to think-tank non-reviewed publications and websites.

Peter Doran and Margaret Zimmerman performed the second major consensus study (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/full) in 2009. This was the first peer-reviewed study that quantified that 97% agreement among climate scientists. The authors accessed a large database of Earth scientists and created a secure polling system to ask about their level of agreement.


The authors broke the scientists into groups based on whether climate change was their field of study and whether they published a majority of their papers in that field. Approximately 10% of the respondents were in the most expert category. There were a series of questions for the respondents and a very strong consensus that temperatures had increased and humans were the cause. The Heartland Institute falsely claimed that the survey was only two questions, and their sole reference used to rebut the paper was an article in the National Post.

William Anderegg and his colleagues completed the third major measure of consensus (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract) in 2010. They created a database of the most prominent climate scientists by searching the scientific literature for papers and citations. They found that only 2% of the experts were unconvinced on the extent of human impact. Importantly, the contrarian scientists were found to publish less and publish less impactful studies – simply put, the best scientists agreed.


How does the Heartland document counter this study? They claimed that the mainstream scientists are “hyper productive.” They even accuse these scientists by saying “It is unlikely these scientists actually participated in most of the experiments or research contain in the articles bearing their name.” Next, they point out that the contrarians tend to be older and retired. I wouldn’t disagree with either of their conclusions. The 97% of scientists that agree are more productive and younger than those who disagree. The references that the Heartland uses to support its conclusions are from its own website, from the Wall Street Journal, and other non-scientific outlets. Not very convincing.


The Heartland document finally attacks the 2013 study by John Cook and colleagues (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta;jsessionid=5B2EF3309CEE1F4B317230C6B9C12000.c2.iopscien ce.cld.iop.org)of the scientific literature. The authors examined over 12,000 abstracts and found that among those taking a position, less than 3% rejected or minimized human-induced climate change. Among the abstracts that gave a position, 97% were in agreement. Just like before, in response to this the Heartland document cites no peer-reviewed scientific sources — just think-tank literature, websites, and blog posts.

What was surprising was that the Heartland report actually cited a consensus in favor of their viewpoint. The article “Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming” was published in 2014. The authors found a strong correlation of expertise with recognition that humans are a cause of climate change. For instance, for scientists who have published more than 10 papers on the topic, there is a 90% consensus that human influences dominate.


I could go on, but you get the point. What we see is that it doesn’t matter how you measure the consensus. Whether you ask the scientists, whether you read the papers, or whether you trawl the literature in other ways. The results are reinforcing, which why we know there is such a strong consensus.

While I won’t spend too much time on the scientifically incorrect or misleading statements in the Heartland report, I will mention a few. In chapter 4, they claim that a doubling of carbon dioxide would result in approximately 1°C warming. They neglected to remind the readers that we have nearly already reached that and we are nowhere near doubling of carbon dioxide yet. The report claims that meteorological observations are consistent with a climate sensitivity of 1°C but they provide no support for this assertion and in fact, the research does not support this.


The report falsely claims that climate models assume all the warming since the industrial revolution is from carbon dioxide. Climate models include many factors in addition to carbon dioxide. The report also falsely claims that models do not attempt to simulate internal climate oscillations. They claim that thawing of permafrost is not likely to emit dangerous methane, which will add to the warming, but they give no evidence to support their claim.


This is what happens when you have a fossil fuel-funded political organization parade a document as a scientific publication. You get nonsense and non-science. This is why we should be skeptical of anything published by an advocacy organization such as Heartland. Fortunately, we are used to their nonsense.

[msjh]

For those still trying to deny that the climate is being significantly changed by human beings, have a look at this entertaining video of the comedian, Dara O'Briain.

https://youtu.be/uDYba0m6ztE

I'd suggest the climate change deniers are "toothyologists" and should be put in the bag.