Extinction Rebellion are threatening to shut down Heathrow Airport with drones [Archive]

ProPax

31st May 2019, 14:06

It's not that there has been no previous disruption at British airports with drone issues after the Gatwick episode last December.

I think the authorities are going to act robustly over this. If they don't and there's further chaos, heads should roll.

And that's the problem with the British approach - heads should roll. And it leads to quick, "decisive" but utterly useless "action". When it happened at Gatwick, the government "decisively" responded with a larger exclusion zone, a decision much praised by the British pilots union leaders. But how exactly did it improve the situation or reduced the risks? The answer is - it didn't.

In sight of that "measure", I predict the likely course of action for Heathrow:

1. Criminalize the sales of drones.
2. "Combat the illegal practice of unlicensed drone sales".
3. "Allocate additional funds to combat the illegal practice of unlicensed drone sales".
4. Create the Illegal Drone Sales Monitoring Board which will have the authority to close the M4, except the bus lane.
5. Create the Parliamentary Committee on Illegal Drone Activity
6. Blame the Labour.
7. Nigel Farage And Boris Johnson will submit a motion to forbid immigration from the drone-producing countries.

The end result, however, will be "nought".

DaveReidUK

31st May 2019, 15:41

Irresponsible and downright dangerous.

Yes, irresponsible and, if Heathrow continued operations regardless (highly unlikely), then potentially dangerous.

Having said that, Heathrow's protestations that it takes climate change seriously

"We agree with the need to act on climate change, but that requires us to work together constructively - not commit serious criminal offences just as hard-working people prepare to spend a well-earned holiday with their family and friends."

would carry rather more weight if the airport wasn't simultaneously fudging the statistics that it publishes on the environmental performance of airlines at LHR, such that they are regularly awarded impossibly high "Fly Quiet & Green" (https://www.heathrowflyquietandgreen.com/2018-q4/) scores of around 40% more, on average, than their performance actually merits under Heathrow's own rules.

SamYeager

31st May 2019, 15:59

I just hope somebody is tracking down Extinction Rebellion's bank accounts and the main leader's assets so that they can be frozen and hopefully seized in the event they go ahead with these criminal and reckless actions.

Paul852

31st May 2019, 16:13

A third runway at Heathrow will not end humanityThis is true, and neither, in itself, will, for example, Australia generating most of its electricty from very dirty coal. And at my (and I suspect your) age, being selfish, we really don't need to care. But for people who hope still to be alive in 60 or 70 years time these things are very important. I get that. And I hope more of our generation will soon.

Meester proach

31st May 2019, 16:55

When do activists become terrorists ?
I’d view it exactly as if a foreign country tried to close down our infrastructure and take appropriate and decisive action .

Bergerie1

31st May 2019, 17:10

ProPax

31st May 2019, 17:14

This is true, and neither, in itself, will, for example, Australia generating most of its electricty from very dirty coal. And at my (and I suspect your) age, being selfish, we really don't need to care. But for people who hope still to be alive in 60 or 70 years time these things are very important. I get that. And I hope more of our generation will soon.

At your age you should probably remember the 70s hysteria about "global cooling". Remember all the fuss that our planet will succumb to the -273C that surrounds us in the outer space? The only difference now is that ideas get spread easier and farther on Internet.

ProPax

31st May 2019, 17:17

KiloB

31st May 2019, 17:19

When do activists become terrorists ?
I’d view it exactly as if a foreign country tried to close down our infrastructure and take appropriate and decisive action .

I couldn’t say it better myself. A protest is waving a Placard with your message. Impacting the lives of 100,000s just going about their daily lives is the use of force and should be treated as such.

The AvgasDinosaur

31st May 2019, 17:25

One has to be very careful of statistics, but, from what I read, the UK has reduced its carbon footprint by over 30% since 1990. These people would do better to praise the UK's record and direct their efforts towards China. But that would be futile, wouldn't it!
Why wouldn’t I be surprised to find that the whole rabble are funded by PRC and their fellow travellers. The Chinese have always thought long term and in many strands, why not try to undermine British industry or at least hamstring it, by tying our hands in environmental standards they have absolutely no intention whatsoever of implementing themselves.
Considered post not a rant!
Be lucky
David

Paul852

31st May 2019, 17:31

At your age you should probably remember the 70s hysteria about "global cooling". Remember all the fuss that our planet will succumb to the -273C that surrounds us in the outer space? The only difference now is that ideas get spread easier and farther on Internet.Only vaguely. But no, the difference now is progress in scientific understanding.

I believe in science. Do you?

PerPurumTonantes

31st May 2019, 17:40

A third runway at Heathrow will not end humanity
It's possible to love aviation and at the same time realise that we cannot continue expanding.

This is the problem:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x631/2535_203_co2_graph_021116_1280px_880264aec6f682b35baa7cc75a7 1a7f1ba5f4842.jpg
(source: NASA)

Aviation is fun, challenging, mind broadening, brings cultures together, etc. But most of it is non-essential. What do we need a third runway for? To free up 27L and R so more people can go to Thailand for 2 weeks?

It's pretty clear that we're facing a serious climate problem. We've known about this since the 70s and b***er all's been done really. Yes we've done a few things on power generation. But transport? All we've seen is more cars, more planes. So although I don't think shutting down Heathrow with drones is a good idea, you can see where they're coming from, because no other form of protest seems to be working.

Gove N.T.

31st May 2019, 18:00

Most pollution in the area comes from the junction of the M4 and M25 where more vehicles (generally trucks and vans (diesel of course)) transit in 15 -30 minutes than entire aircraft movements in a day. Most ramp vehicles at LHR produce either no or very little pollution.
Plans for tolls will be advanced in action soon I suspect
E.R's actions are supported by the British Labour party, - They deserve each other - Drongos the lot of them

ProPax

31st May 2019, 18:42

Only vaguely. But no, the difference now is progress in scientific understanding.

I believe in science. Do you?

I believe in science. But what I see now is that any scientist who opposes the "vox populi" gets ostrasized and loses any financing for his research. People who dare to say they don't believe in global warming are immediately ridiculed and attacked from all fronts. I want to see a scientific discussion on the issue, not witch hunting.

ProPax

31st May 2019, 18:45

(source: NASA)

Would you mind posting a link to a NASA page where this diagram was published? I may be wrong but I don't think NASA's interests scope paleoclimatology.

PerPurumTonantes

31st May 2019, 18:47

One has to be very careful of statistics, but, from what I read, the UK has reduced its carbon footprint by over 30% since 1990. These people would do better to praise the UK's record and direct their efforts towards China. But that would be futile, wouldn't it!

China makes pretty much everything from the laptop I'm typing on to the pushchair we just bought. Manufacturing all these things causes CO2. I bet most of China's CO2 emissions are due to manufacturing the stuff that you and I buy every day. That makes it our CO2. Kind of futile to point the finger at China.

PerPurumTonantes

31st May 2019, 18:49

Would you mind posting a link to a NASA page where this diagram was published? I may be wrong but I don't think NASA's interests scope paleoclimatology.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2535/satellite-data-confirm-annual-carbon-dioxide-minimum-above-400-ppm/

BluSdUp

31st May 2019, 18:59

The Ground holding and most importantly airborne inbound hold over London for Gatwick and particularly Heathrow today , if reduced by say 80% will make for LESS pollution.
This looks much like something Putin is supporting.
Pure terrorism.
Treat it like that.
Sincerely
Cpt B

TURIN

31st May 2019, 19:01

And meanwhile you're all happy for everyone to keep driving the human race to extinction?

As quoted by PropPax "nuff said".

Global aviation is responsible for between 3 and 6% of total CO2 emissions. Depending on who's stats you believe. The UK is responsible for a tiny fraction of that. ER could shut down the entire UK aviation sector and it would make not one jot of difference to the problem of climate change.

I find it strange that no one seems to be worried about commercial shipping. They don'y even have a plan to reduce their emissions never mind measure them.
Funny that.

I fully accept that we as a species need to reduce our pollution (of all types) but targeting the most efficient sector first seems idiotic. its the heavy industry and surface transport that needs sorting first.

ProPax

31st May 2019, 19:06

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2535/satellite-data-confirm-annual-carbon-dioxide-minimum-above-400-ppm/

This is what I read in the text of that article:

Each year during the Northern Hemisphere spring, the greening of the planet begins. Trees sprout their leaves, plants grow and vegetation takes hold north of the equator, where nearly 70 percent of Earth’s total land mass lies. As photosynthesis ramps up, plants breathe in carbon dioxide (CO2), and atmospheric levels of CO2 begin to drop. Then in fall and winter, when trees lose their leaves and foliage declines, CO2 levels begin to rise again. This up-and-down sequence creates an annual cycle of minimum and maximum levels of atmospheric CO2.

The problem I see with this explanation is that while 70% of land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere, the majority of foliage lies in South America. It's not called "the lungs of the planet" for nothing. And South American, African, and Asian jungle and rainforest is green year round. There is no "winter" or "summer" there. So at least that part is questionnable.

I also don't quite understand how National Aeronautic and Space Administration discovered the CO2 levels 500,000 years ago. They cite "Vostok ice core data" as the source, but Vostok station is located at the pole and at high elevation. The atmosphere above the Vostok station is stunningly different from what we breathe. How can that "data" be extrapolated to the entire planet?

This actually proves my point - if NASA wants financing, they must follow the "trends".

And the last but not the least, 95% of plants on our planet (C3 photosynthesis type) would thrive at 1000 ppm CO2. If the current level is 400, they are still not at the optimal. Adding another 300ppm would increase some plants growth up to 49%. So the current situation is actually beneficial for most of the plants.

ProPax

31st May 2019, 19:13

China makes pretty much everything from the laptop I'm typing on to the pushchair we just bought. Manufacturing all these things causes CO2. I bet most of China's CO2 emissions are due to manufacturing the stuff that you and I buy every day. That makes it our CO2. Kind of futile to point the finger at China.

China makes everything, that's the impression, right? Would I surprise you if I told you China only makes 8% of the world's goods. I was amazed by two thing when I learned this number. One, it's much lower than what I expected. And two, that's more than any other country. :-)

Planet Basher

31st May 2019, 19:14

There are some questions about the principals of this organisation and their funding.

https://youtu.be/536qN22jxak

ProPax

31st May 2019, 19:33

I find it strange that no one seems to be worried about commercial shipping. They don'y even have a plan to reduce their emissions never mind measure them.

Commercial shipping uses the most effective engines. They have efficiency in excess of 50% which makes them H-system compliant. They use turbocompounds to increase efficiency even further. Even the PAINT on modern ships reduces friction and thus emissions. And they do measure them. Every single project of every single ship has efficiency all over it.

I fully accept that we as a species need to reduce our pollution (of all types) but targeting the most efficient sector first seems idiotic. its the heavy industry and surface transport that needs sorting first.

Actually, commercial shipping is the most effective sector. Wartsila diesels have BSFC of 0.260 bs hp/hour. I wonder how it compares to GEx?

atpcliff

31st May 2019, 20:04

This is true, and neither, in itself, will, for example, Australia generating most of its electricty from very dirty coal. And at my (and I suspect your) age, being selfish, we really don't need to care. But for people who hope still to be alive in 60 or 70 years time these things are very important. I get that. And I hope more of our generation will soon.

All Christians, basically, believed in Past Lives, until the Roman Emperor called a meeting of Christian leadership to standardize Christian beliefs and dogma, around 400 AD. At that meeting, the decided to get rid of Past Lives/Reincarnation. I suspect it was because the wealthy/leadership wanted to accumulate wealth and act with no regard for future generations.

If we realized that we are coming back, we would be less likely to **** up Our Earth.

God Bless, and Namaste...

Lonewolf_50

31st May 2019, 20:05

Pure terrorism.
Treat it like that. IT's like the 1960's and 1970's all over again.
Red Army Faction, part (how many?)

But I'll offer a slightly different descriptive for these (censored)s:
Anarchists.

BluSdUp

31st May 2019, 20:24

Well, somewhat, and Putin are stocking this I bet.
Were did my AG3 go,,,
Crap, I handed it in at 40.

And ,Turin, by the way: Aviation accounts for 1.92% of global pollution , ie NOTHING.

20driver

31st May 2019, 20:35

It would be a interesting to see what global temperatures were during that timeline and if it the previous eposides of rising CO2 correlated with climate change.
20driver

edi_local

31st May 2019, 20:52

It's possible to love aviation and at the same time realise that we cannot continue expanding.

This is the problem:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x631/2535_203_co2_graph_021116_1280px_880264aec6f682b35baa7cc75a7 1a7f1ba5f4842.jpg
(source: NASA)

Aviation is fun, challenging, mind broadening, brings cultures together, etc. But most of it is non-essential. What do we need a third runway for? To free up 27L and R so more people can go to Thailand for 2 weeks?

It's pretty clear that we're facing a serious climate problem. We've known about this since the 70s and b***er all's been done really. Yes we've done a few things on power generation. But transport? All we've seen is more cars, more planes. So although I don't think shutting down Heathrow with drones is a good idea, you can see where they're coming from, because no other form of protest seems to be working.

Why is the talk always about limiting aviation? Why do we need to limit it when every new generation of planes is becoming cleaner? Why do people want to go backwards, place more restrictions on future generations and dictate what is essential? Rich countries have had the benefit of booming Aviation sectors for decades, now poorer countries are finally catching up and all of a sudden it's time to curtail aviation? Is there more to all of this that no one is admitting?

These ER lot seem very keen on us all doing as they say and living life by their rules. Quite a worrying path for people, especially younger people, to willingly want governments to go down. Shutting down LHR with drones will disrupt hundreds of thousands of Travelers who are flying for whatever reason. No one needs a reason to fly. That's the beauty of the industry. It can take you anywhere for any reason.

No one has the right to violently and deliberately disrupt people going about their daily lives peacefully. I suppose the thousands of LHR staff who's days will become chaotic as they are on the receiving end of torrents of abuse is vital to saving the planet too? How about the families kept apart by cancelled flights or the companies losing money as their workers and goods are stuck somewhere trying to get to London? Will ER repay them? Will ER man the ticket desks and take on the role of front line staff to stand and be shouted at and verbally assaulted while their mates fly some drones around?

The conversation should be about developing greener fuels and more efficient planes, not about dictating what's essential and how many people go to Thailand on holiday. To suggest we start to reverse the number of flights is admitting defeat and just giving up on trying to improve the industry, which has already become the easy target for people too blinkered to see that other industries need to be doing far more work and are getting away with doing b*gger all!

Chris2303

31st May 2019, 20:59

And that's the problem with the British approach - heads should roll. And it leads to quick, "decisive" but utterly useless "action". When it happened at Gatwick, the government "decisively" responded with a larger exclusion zone, a decision much praised by the British pilots union leaders. But how exactly did it improve the situation or reduced the risks? The answer is - it didn't.

In sight of that "measure", I predict the likely course of action for Heathrow:

1. Criminalize the sales of drones.
2. "Combat the illegal practice of unlicensed drone sales".
3. "Allocate additional funds to combat the illegal practice of unlicensed drone sales".
4. Create the Illegal Drone Sales Monitoring Board which will have the authority to close the M4, except the bus lane.
5. Create the Parliamentary Committee on Illegal Drone Activity
6. Blame the Labour.
7. Nigel Farage And Boris Johnson will submit a motion to forbid immigration from the drone-producing countries.

The end result, however, will be "nought".

You forgot
8. Daily Mail reveals that Corbyn had a meeting with (unnamed) communists regarding "under the table" supply of drones

wrench1

31st May 2019, 22:46

This is the problem:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x631/2535_203_co2_graph_021116_1280px_880264aec6f682b35baa7cc75a7 1a7f1ba5f4842.jpg
(source: NASA)

Why only pick on CO2?
It along with 3 other greenhouse gases, CO2 make up less than 10% of the problem. Why don't you among others never mention the biggest warming culprit in the atmosphere, waper vapor at 90%? Guess what "clean" fuels emit into the atmosphere?

And if CO2 is such a bad thing (i.e., plants can't live without it), how many tonnes of CO2 does the additional 6B inhabitants put out in a years time in the last 150 years? Theres more to the equation than reducing airline flights or the burning fossil fuels as more studies are released showing a different reasoning than what's been spewed since the 70s. Be careful what you wish for.

dr dre

31st May 2019, 23:51

Why don't you among others never mention the biggest warming culprit in the atmosphere, waper vapor at 90%?

Debunked:

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works (https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-basic.htm)

And if CO2 is such a bad thing (i.e., plants can't live without it), how many tonnes of CO2 does the additional 6B inhabitants put out in a years time in the last 150 years?

Debunked:

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone (https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm)

Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm)

Theres more to the equation than reducing airline flights or the burning fossil fuels as more studies are released showing a different reasoning than what's been spewed since the 70s. Be careful what you wish for.

Again, hate to sound like a broken record but...:

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? (https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm)

dr dre

1st Jun 2019, 00:12

I believe in science. But what I see now is that any scientist who opposes the "vox populi" gets ostrasized and loses any financing for his research.

Debunked:

Climate scientists could make far more money in other careers - most notably, working for the oil industry (https://skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-in-it-for-the-money.htm)

If Climate Scientists waned big money they could just become deniers and get paid off by groups like the Heartland Institute, bankrolled by Shell and Exxon Mobil.

People who dare to say they don't believe in global warming are immediately ridiculed and attacked from all fronts.

As they should. Not believing in human caused climate change in 2019 is akin to believing the earth is flat. There’s tonnes of scientific proof backing up these facts, and people who choose to believe quacks and fossil fuel lobbyists only have themselves to blame if they are being ridiculed:

Climate Science Denial Explained (https://skepticalscience.com/agw-denial-explained.html)

I want to see a scientific discussion on the issue, not witch hunting.

The scientific discussion has been had, and the conclusion has been overwhelmingly reached. I had previously thought the consensus was 97%. I was wrong. It’s more accurately 99.84%:

Consensus: 99.84% of Peer-Reviewed Articles Support the Idea of Global Warming (http://thecontributor.com/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-one-pie-chart)

By all means have a debate, but the topic is “what are the best measures to take to slow the rate of climate change” and “what role should Aviation play in the solution?”. The topic isn’t “is human induced climate change real?”. That was ended years ago.

There’s probably 0.16% of “scientists” who think the earth is flat, or chemtrails are real, or vaccines are a conspiracy to control the population. I guess we should hold a debate and legitimise their views as well, huh? /s

six string

1st Jun 2019, 04:52

for mere mortals like myself, we are limited to books, newspapers, online sites etc. they keep using the phrase, “since records have been kept.” as the foundation for all their conclusions. From my limited span of awareness, approximately 50 years of paying attention, I haven’t seen much myself. But from reading books totally unrelated to the subject, I do have a few questions. The dinosaurs were extinguished by a climate change, weren’t they? Even before then, there was a drastic climate change, wasn’t there? And in the forward of a book about the Spanish Armada, there was a sentence stating that that particular summer was one of the hottest ever known, but that was before proper records were kept, and that being one of the many reasons we don’t all speak Spanish. My books are packed up for moving, but I personally have purchased quite a few scientific tomes which state that this climate change we are seeing is much more complicated than what airplanes can affect. Are the papers wrong that say that livestock produces more CO2 than all transportation combined?

So few of us have the ability to really examine this subject independently. That’s why I can’t personally tell anyone they’re right or wrong, but don’t condemn us who are not convinced by the flavour of the month, year, decade looming disaster. We have seen too many falsehoods in papers, books and governments to be easily convinced.

yes, let’s try to reduce carbon pollution, but drones at an airport should be dealt with very harshly. Just think, Emma Thompson might be on one of those flights and her speech at the protest might be delayed!!!

PerPurumTonantes

1st Jun 2019, 05:49

At the end of the last ice age, temperatures were only 4 degrees lower, but Boston USA was buried under a mile of ice. 4 degrees higher than today, the Amazon will catch light.

If we want to keep the earth a nice place to live, we've got a very narrow temperature range. We're one degree up already and accelerating fast. Hence the reason why not only tree-huggers, but sensible people in engineering and aviation, are a bit concerned.

If this doesn't make you think, nothing will. (https://xkcd.com/1732/)

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/100x2000/earth_temperature_timeline_50_9bb83af2357246fc57c6ba36a55a8f 49f9869969.png
Earth temperature timeline (https://xkcd.com/1732/)

TheiC

1st Jun 2019, 06:07

No one has the right to violently and deliberately disrupt people going about their daily lives peacefully.

First, there’s no plan for any violence that I can see.

Second, those people are not going about their daily lives peacefully. They’re wrecking the planet. Waving banners hasn’t worked. As a professional aviator who has studied the science on this, I’m truly ashamed of my industry and its head-in-the-sand attitude.

crewmeal

1st Jun 2019, 06:24

If they couldn't find the owners/operators of one drone at Gatwick, how the hell are they going to find numerous drones at Heathrow?

Paul852

1st Jun 2019, 06:48

It seems to me that the most plausible operator of the drone at Gatwick was the company who subsequently, in very short order, sold many millions of dollars of "anti-drone" systems.

PerPurumTonantes

1st Jun 2019, 06:49

Just think, Emma Thompson might be on one of those flights and her speech at the protest might be delayed!!!

Emma Thompson. What a tool. Interestingly, what she did sums up everybody's attitude, which is "it's somebody else's problem".

Pax: "the plane was going anyway". USA government: "Look at China". China: "We're making your stuff, it's your carbon". Aviation industry: "Aviation is only 3.5% of global warming". Car driver: "One person flying to Brazil is the same as me driving for a year. Stop people flying to Brazil then I'll think about giving up my car". The boss of a coal power station: "We're only 0.05% of global warming and we provide 200 jobs".

Everyone has this amazing ability to justify why they shouldn't change their lives, it should be somebody else. But the only way to fix this is massive action, from everyone. Aviation included.

‘If everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little’ - David McKay

Gove N.T.

1st Jun 2019, 07:01

Paul852

1st Jun 2019, 07:47

If anyone thinks that daily life can be changed in these idiots timeline then they are as unrealistic as this mob of - (censored)The point is that within the lifetime of younger people now alive if mankind doesn't change its daily life quite dramatically then nature will force less welcome changes upon us anyway.

DaveReidUK

1st Jun 2019, 09:13

Check out the days of Trident, 727, 707 etc and see the exhaust and then compare with the 380, 787, 350 of today and tell me that the industry has its head in the sand, hasn't progressed.

To be fair, I don't think the industry is smugly patting itself on the back for being able to build aircraft that are quieter and cleaner than those of 50 years ago - that's hardly an ambitious target.

Anyway that's only half of the issue - as alluded to by previous posters, it's also a question of volume. Certainly noise and emissions per flight have reduced significantly over the years, but that's been offset by a roughly 30x increase in global RPKs over the same period.

Clearly, if aviation's net contribution (in absolute terms) to global emissons is not to increase, then either continuing improvements in technology have to at least keep pace with traffic growth and/or the latter has to be subject to constraints. It's not rocket science.

ShyTorque

1st Jun 2019, 10:42

Emma Thompson. What a tool. Interestingly, what she did sums up everybody's attitude, which is "it's somebody else's problem".

But she made a point that she often flies economy - they obviously turn the gas down for her seat.

And she plants lots of trees. So what? You should see how many weeds grow in my garden!

goeasy

1st Jun 2019, 11:24

They would be more believable if ER closed the M25/M4 interchange and stopped the unnecessary vehicle trips instead!

Planemike

1st Jun 2019, 11:47

well arrest them all and fine them £50k each, that'll stop them

What will happen if the individual concerned does not have £ 50K of cash available to pay the fine you propose??

A third runway at Heathrow will not end humanity

Very true but also true that humanity can probably manage without the third runway.....

. Originally Posted by Gove N.T. https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/622060-extinction-rebellion-threatening-shut-down-heathrow-airport-drones-3.html#post10484006)
If anyone thinks that daily life can be changed in these idiots timeline then they are as unrealistic as this mob of - (censored

Wonder why describe them as "idiots" ?? Ever thought they could be correct in what they say?

George Glass

1st Jun 2019, 13:10

Icanseeclearly

1st Jun 2019, 13:13

I think it will be a damp squib, there will be none of the touchy feely policing that happened in central London, skateboarding and dancing with protestors sanctioned by Sadiq Khan, the bye laws and responsibly for policing around Heathrow is out with his control.

when threatened with life imprisonment and / or a million pound fine (max sentence under law) backed up by police allowed to do their job and their “courage” Will soon melt away (who can forget the tears by the teenagers last time they tried it.)

the third runway will never happen anyway.

edi_local

1st Jun 2019, 13:27

First, there’s no plan for any violence that I can see.

Second, those people are not going about their daily lives peacefully. They’re wrecking the planet. Waving banners hasn’t worked. As a professional aviator who has studied the science on this, I’m truly ashamed of my industry and its head-in-the-sand attitude.

As we have seen with previous environmental protests things turn violent quickly. There were over 1000 arrests in London last month.

And I'm sorry but air travellers are going about Thier daily life peacefully. You should be more ashamed of those wishing to cause mass disruption to your industry by trying to force Thier way of life on innocent passengers. And innocent they lost certainly are. You don't expect to be loaded with guilt and accused of wrecking the planet when you need to fly somewhere. Do you know each passenger personally? Do you know the measures they take at home to reduce Thier carbon footprints? I fly often but I don't own a car and recycle, reuse and repair to the point of having OCD about it. I cycle, walk and limit my plastic use as much as possible, do I deserve to be accused of wrecking the planet? Will you personally tell people who miss funerals, family events or even important meetings that it's good they were delayed?

And say the banner wavers get Thier wish and UK air travel is curtailed. Who will employ those who lose their jobs? Who will compensate those who relied on air travel for Thier own personal or professional life? Will air travel curtailment solve the rivers of plastic in SE Asia or the coal factories turning the sky black in China?

wrench1

1st Jun 2019, 14:08

Debunked:...Again, hate to sound like a broken record but...:
And so do I. Without derailing this thread much more, I believe all points of view should remain heard, to include yours. But to me, "debunking" a point is more a emotional trait than a scientific trait. I prefer to stick with science.

Water Vapor: As of April 19th, NASA states:
"Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. [...] Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth's surface."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV)

CO2: While CO2 percentage wise is the 2nd largest greenhouse gas it pales in effect to methane and nitrous oxide, the 3rd and 4th greenhouse gases. Methane has up to 80 times the "global warming potential" than CO2 and N2O has about 25 times than CO2. Per NASA:
"Methane makes up just 0.00018 percent of the atmosphere, compared to 0.039 percent for carbon dioxide. (CO2 is roughly 200 times more abundant.) Yet scientists attribute about one-sixth of recent global warming to methane emissions; what methane lacks in volume it makes up for in potency."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/MethaneMatters
.
And since you chose not to "debunk" the natural increase in population as a direct link to climate change, allow me to provide this. A recent study of human climate effects in the 1500-1600s found that the loss of 50+ million indignant peoples in the Americas caused a .15 C decrease in global air temperatures and lead to the start of the Little Ice Age. I don't believe anybody was burning fossil fuels on a large scale back then. So the current hypothesis is if 50 million people created a .15 C temperature increase by simply existing, how much of the current .8 C increase in the last 150 years can be attributed to the 6 billion population increase in that same time frame? But we won't have to wait long as there are a number of scientific studies looking at that same question. Strange though, one doesn't see this side on mainstream media... Cheers!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379118307261

Paul852

1st Jun 2019, 14:59

Let’s assume ,without prejudice ,that all the hyperbole about climate change is true.
What is more intriguing is why anybody in the UK assumes that their hand wringing has any impact whatsoever in the rest of the world.
Memories of Empire?
Relevance deprivation syndrome?
The Guardian?
Decisions made in Beijing, Washington, New Delhi and Jakarta will shape the world, not those in London.
These protesters need to get out more.

Eh? This is a global movement amongst youngsters who will (hope to) live long enough for the consequences of continuing the way we have been to impact them substantially.

Here are the forthcoming events in Australia (since that's where you appear to be): https://ausrebellion.earth/events/
Here are the local groups in the US (scroll down): https://extinctionrebellion.us/
Here is the home of Extinction Rebellion in India: https://www.facebook.com/ExtinctionRebellionIndians/
In China any public expression of disquiet is stamped down very hard very fast (next Tuesday marks the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre), so it will take time.

Paul852

1st Jun 2019, 15:03

As we have seen with previous environmental protests things turn violent quickly. There were over 1000 arrests in London last month.As far as I can tell essentially none of these were for violence of any sort. Could you point me to any reputable news sources showing otherwise?

ProPax

1st Jun 2019, 15:10

Eh? This is a global movement amongst youngsters

Here are the forthcoming events in Australia (since that's where you appear to be): https://ausrebellion.earth/events/
Here are the local groups in the US (scroll down): https://extinctionrebellion.us/
Here is the home of Extinction Rebellion in India: https://www.facebook.com/ExtinctionRebellionIndians/
In China any public expression of disquiet is stamped down very hard very fast (next Tuesday marks the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre), so it will take time.

This "movement amongst youngsters" seems to be very well organized. I believe there are quite a few "oldsters" behind those youngsters and I'd really like to know what their plans are.

Cheltman

1st Jun 2019, 17:07

A couple of disconnected points.
1. Isnt Heathrow in the wrong place for expansion with a long approach over the city? Probabilities are always there
2. The aircraft manufacturers are coming to an interesting point in history. Today the target is the cheapest to operate, not the least impact on the environment. Designing a plane to fly not stop to australia is probably having more of an impact than designing one with a max range of half that and breaking the journey in two. Certainly the empty weight of that ultra long range plane will affect its performance if used on shorter sectors. Everyone seems to be adding structural weight to allow for more range. Am glad Airbus dismissed supersonics.. Its still a free market . At some point some change be it taxation on fuel or legislation will change things. I think the technical answers may exist but how you change an international market is beyond me.
3. I do not support the direct action of these people but I dont feel the issues are being progressed. What should these people do to make their concern heard?

Gove N.T.

1st Jun 2019, 17:22

c52

1st Jun 2019, 22:36

I imagine they are not wanting to shut down LHR so much as to get people talking. A proven way to get something on the national agenda is to cause disruption. You can't do it by a letter to the Times.

20driver

1st Jun 2019, 23:37

Re the temperature timeline posted above. There is about a 40 degree celsius difference in the average temperature between Helsinki and Singapore. Both cities provide a very high standard of living to their inhabitants. So humans can do quite nicely in a wide range of temperatures. Ask any Inuit.
As far as I know the mechanism that lead to the ice sheets is still unclear, neither temperature or CO2 explains it. It was the flooding behind the retreat of the ice sheet, The Laurentian Sea, that formed the geomorphology of New England and Eastern Canada. Interpreting that geomorphology provided my job. Al Gore highlighted in one of his original slides that the flooding was a warning of what would/could/might happen if we did not check climate change. After reviewing the other slides I came to the conclusion the man is the PT Barnum of our age and began to be very skeptical of the rest of the AGW movement. Everything else I have researched tells me that there is a gross oversimplification being sold of a very complex system we do not understand or control.
Most people are convinced that the relationship between climate and CO2 is analogous to the burner on your stove and the control knob. Simply not true and no evidence anywhere.
This article , referenced above, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379118307261, is really fascinating. Back when I tool up being an environmentalist the big concern was the next ice age! There was a lot of research, for the time, showing land use change in Canada and Australia, was behind climate change. How does land use affect water vapor? Any takers?
20driver

WingNut60

2nd Jun 2019, 00:16

.........
And since you chose not to "debunk" the natural increase in population as a direct link to climate change, allow me to provide this. A recent study of human climate effects in the 1500-1600s found that the loss of 50+ million indignant peoples in the Americas .....

I'll bet they were.

wrench1

2nd Jun 2019, 00:19

big concern was the next ice age!
And here I thought we were still in a Ice Age. :)

If there ever was a need for a "like" button on Pprune, your post would deserve it. :D

WingNut60

2nd Jun 2019, 00:57

............. After reviewing the other slides I came to the conclusion the man is the PT Barnum of our age and began to be very skeptical of the rest of the AGW movement. Everything else I have researched tells me that there is a gross oversimplification being sold of a very complex system we do not understand or control.
Most people are convinced that the relationship between climate and CO2 is analogous to the burner on your stove and the control knob. Simply not true and no evidence anywhere.
.....

Thanks 20Driver, my feelings exactly.

Do I deny climate change? Definitely not. Who can possibly argue that point?

Now, about cause and effect. A much more complex question.
Much too complex for me to get on my soapbox over. Sufficiently complex to give me a serious dose of the skeptics though, especially when the common case is being pushed by rattle snake handlers.
They seem to have won the day, for now.
Unfortunately I will not be here to see the science resolved. I just know that we're a long way from that point just now.

Consequences? I just don't see even the worst predictions resulting in the demise of mankind.
Even if the negative outcomes of the warming trend outweigh the positive (and there will be some of those also) the worst outcome that I can imagine would be a slowing in global population growth.
Now convince me that that is a bad thing.

c52

2nd Jun 2019, 06:29

It's a bad thing if you or your children and grandchildren die young because of it.

My bottom line is, if there is a 5% chance that the predictions are on average very roughly correct, and offered solutions are steps in a necessary direction, then we should take those steps. Where would you put your threshold for wanting to take action?

There's a chance of almost nil that a burglar will visit us one night, but we still lock the car and the house.

SuperSkymaster

2nd Jun 2019, 08:19

BluSdUp

2nd Jun 2019, 11:41

Are You all still on about global warming or not!?
This is a aviation forum not greenpeace.
I eat whale meat and burn ca 100 000kg of JetA1 on a good month.
And proud of it!
Now how are we going to get hold of these terrorist and what is the punishment going to be.
Remember a third Rwy in London will REDUCE emissions due massively reduced holding.

Seriously!!

Peter H

2nd Jun 2019, 12:42

Remember a third Rwy in London will REDUCE emissions due massively reduced holding.

Would reduce emissions - and not increase overall road congestion/deadlock - if the air traffic did not increase.

Now how would you manage to enforce that?

TURIN

2nd Jun 2019, 13:17

Commercial shipping uses the most effective engines. They have efficiency in excess of 50% which makes them H-system compliant. They use turbocompounds to increase efficiency even further. Even the PAINT on modern ships reduces friction and thus emissions. And they do measure them. Every single project of every single ship has efficiency all over it.

Actually, commercial shipping is the most effective sector. Wartsila diesels have BSFC of 0.260 bs hp/hour. I wonder how it compares to GEx?

Yes, very effective....at polluting the atmosphere.

Economist-Green Finance for Dirty Ships. (https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2017/03/11/green-finance-for-dirty-ships)

SHIPPING may seem like a clean form of transport. Carrying more than 90% of the world’s trade, ocean-going vessels produce just 3% of its greenhouse-gas emissions. But the industry is dirtier than that makes it sound. By burning heavy fuel oil, just 15 of the biggest ships emit more of the noxious oxides of nitrogen and sulphur than all the world’s cars put together. So it is no surprise that shipowners are being forced to clean up their act. But in an industry awash in overcapacity and debt, few have access to the finance they need to improve their vessels. Innovative thinking is trying to change that.

As for efficiency, here's a Wiki . Unfortunately, due to the very nature of the beasts, the comparison with your diesel isn't straight forward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust-specific_fuel_consumption

dr dre

3rd Jun 2019, 00:46

Are You all still on about global warming or not!?
This is a aviation forum not greenpeace.

Aviation relies totally on science and our dependency on the scientific knowledge of experts in aerodynamics, propulsion, meteorology, communications, engineering, human factors etc in order to safely fly.

Why should we totally trust those scientists but then blatantly ignore the warnings of other scientists who tell us climate change will have dire consequences if not acted upon now?

This isn’t just “tree huggers” from a politcial activist group like Greenpeace, it’s worldwide bodies of huge scientific clout like NASA, you know the National Aeronautics and Space Administration?

WingNut60

3rd Jun 2019, 02:15

It's a bad thing if you or your children and grandchildren die young because of it.
.

Maybe I need to read more of the claims, but I just can't force myself to do so.
Too much like watching soap operas for my befuddled mind.
I just can't get interested in the plot.

Would you mind, seriously, explaining to me how and why your grandchildren might die young because the mean global surface temperature has increased by, say, 4 deg. C?
I just don't see the link.

fltlt

3rd Jun 2019, 02:26

Yes, very effective....at polluting the atmosphere.

Economist-Green Finance for Dirty Ships. (https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2017/03/11/green-finance-for-dirty-ships)

Dirty little

As for efficiency, here's a Wiki . Unfortunately, due to the very nature of the beasts, the comparison with your diesel isn't straight forward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust-specific_fuel_consumption

Dirty little truth is a lot of the cargo ships burn used oil, yes, the stuff that comes from cars/trucks/industrial plants, cheap too.

when the pros that are supposed to know cannot agree on the effects of El Niño, then one has to question not only the message, but the messengers too.

Too much money to be made in regulating anything, when you see “the business case for Climate Change being touted, one tends to question the religious aspect of it all.

Look up Tom Stayer, one of the new high priests billionaires.

interesting to watch the propaganda machine at work, sliding articles, shows, especially children’s, school curriculum, we are terrifying a whole generation over an obsession about which we all know very, very little.

when politicians make asinine comments like ” we only have 12 years” and the younger folks take that as gospel and adjust their spending habits accordgly, that is fear mongering at its worst.

Regulate cow farts, seriously? but they burp more than fart, that’s the level of knowledge being bandied about as truth.

Now its the hand wringers turn:

fdr

3rd Jun 2019, 03:31

Dirty little truth is a lot of the cargo ships burn used oil, yes, the stuff that comes from cars/trucks/industrial plants, cheap too.

when the pros that are supposed to know cannot agree on the effects of El Niño, then one has to question not only the message, but the messengers too.

Too much money to be made in regulating anything, when you see “the business case for Climate Change being touted, one tends to question the religious aspect of it all.

Look up Tom Stayer, one of the new high priests billionaires.

interesting to watch the propaganda machine at work, sliding articles, shows, especially children’s, school curriculum, we are terrifying a whole generation over an obsession about which we all know very, very little.

when politicians make asinine comments like ” we only have 12 years” and the younger folks take that as gospel and adjust their spending habits accordgly, that is fear mongering at its worst.

Regulate cow farts, seriously? but they burp more than fart, that’s the level of knowledge being bandied about as truth.

Now its the hand wringers turn:

Whatever the source, the total rate is the issue. Quality of the emission or use is only a factor when there is a non linear or catalytic effect, as is the case with CFC's.*
Methane from cows became a misrepresented lightning rod following flippant comments from the new congress, and the underlying problem remains occupancy rates on the rock, the activtiy rate of said occupants, and the use of resources that occurs.*

Feel free to drive your 6.7 Hemi to walmart and McD's while you have the opportunity, however, at some point in time, the planet gets the last laugh, and those with any expectation of providing a suitable habitat for their grandchildren need to put on a game face and start dealing with the hard questions. Or keep on with denial and relax, it's a nice day, today...**

The underlying problem really is even if we had solid proof sufficient to shape an editorial from Fox News, then self interest and complacency remains until disaster strikes. The politicians are the supposed people who have the responsibility to assure the survival of their constituency, however they are apparently much more interested in maintenance of their own seat.

Global warming in the short term is not all bad news. Lots of stuff will benefit from the changes, such as insurers, once they redo their premiums, they will be more important than ever. We will have new diving spots on many islands in the pacific. More properties in Miami will be waterfront than are now. The building trades will delight in demand from recovery post hurricanes etc. Some crops will grow better, including cannabis I would imagine. Pelagic fish will not be so happy, Tuna will be a memory on the menu for Tekka Maki or Maguro, or Tuna Tataki. (we were heading that way already, so it already sucked to be born a tuna....).

The Nile delta, and the Arabian peninsula once was woodland/rainforest. We can expect that changes will occur, and as some places start growing new plants, others will become great adventure parks for off roading. Out with the Baja bugs, and enduros.

** * * * **
*
*
*

Gove N.T.

3rd Jun 2019, 06:52

What will happen if the individual concerned does not have £ 50K of cash available to pay the fine you propose??

Very true but also true that humanity can probably manage without the third runway.....

.

Wonder why describe them as "idiots" ?? Ever thought they could be correct in what they say?

anyone who believes they can achieve their goal of Zero carbon emissions by 2025 and doesn’t realise that this is utterly unachievable is living in a world of fantasy. It’s an idiotic demand so the folks that thought up this target must be idiots.

up_down_n_out

3rd Jun 2019, 10:46

This is the major issue of our time and that of the next few generations.

...Nuclear power has a component of total electrical supply but Chernobyl and Fukushima, 3 Mile, didn't add to the happy faces of risk analysts. Uranium supply is a finite resource, even though considered as some 2 hundred years of fuel stock available at present from known reserves and existing processing.

...they don't have the Chernobyl or Fukushima disaster plan in their "DNA". PBMR/GCR/MPBR type reactors are safe,.....

Climate change is occurring, and as the rock was once molten on the crusty bits we inhabit, that should not be a surprise. Anthropogenic causation is becoming more difficult to deny, and even without any facts being tabled, a simple .

Does anyone else want to come out with a pile of greeny bollox or hearsay on this thread?
The climate has always been changing and so what?
Nothing to do witha tiny trace gas at wait for it 0.04% - proven to be incapable of warming anything, never mind a large rocky entity covered with mostly water, and chock full of volcanoes.

Fact is it was considerably warmer in the MWP than today, as well as the 1st century AD.
CO2 is outgassed when water gets warmer, never drunk a flat warm coke ever folks?

Sea levels are not rising any faster, Artic ice is not melting, and no accurate thermometer records existed before 1900, at which point we were still emerging from a nasty famine inducing LIA.
Most of all the so called "data", the 99% consensus and the computer simulations are fakes to manipulate public opinion and secure even more funding for the scam.

COLD kills not warmth, as happened to both Napoleon and Hitler's army at the gates of Moscow.

Best way to be cured of the biggest scam in human history, as well as an antidote to little mentally ill Thunberg, and her unhinged opera singer mother, (who can see Co2, she claims), is to take a little dose of watts up with that dot com.

Enjoy your flight.
The biggest threat to you is gamma radiation on your flight, not CO2 (thanks to the weakening of the earth's magnetic field, 15% increase in cosmic radiation, solar minimum right now, and secondary particle spallation at FL 30-35)

KelvinD

3rd Jun 2019, 10:57

I posted on a much earlier post that the Vostock ice core samples have proved a definite link between global warming and CO2 levels. The problem is, the rise in CO2 levels FOLLOWS the rise in temperature by approx 250 years. Not the other way round! Now, there's odd, isn't it?

fdr

3rd Jun 2019, 12:28

Does anyone else want to come out with a pile of greeny bollox or hearsay on this thread?
The climate has always been changing and so what?
Nothing to do witha tiny trace gas at wait for it 0.04% - proven to be incapable of warming anything, never mind a large rocky entity covered with mostly water, and chock full of volcanoes. Fact is it was considerably warmer in the MWP than today, as well as the 1st century AD.
CO2 is outgassed when water gets warmer, never drunk a flat warm coke ever folks?
Sea levels are not rising any faster, Artic ice is not melting, and no accurate thermometer records existed before 1900, at which point we were still emerging from a nasty famine inducing LIA. Most of all the so called "data", the 99% consensus and the computer simulations are fakes to manipulate public opinion and secure even more funding for the scam. COLD kills not warmth, as happened to both Napoleon and Hitler's army at the gates of Moscow. Best way to be cured of the biggest scam in human history, as well as an antidote to little mentally ill Thunberg, and her unhinged opera singer mother, (who can see Co2, she claims), is to take a little dose of watts up with that dot com.

Enjoy your flight.
The biggest threat to you is gamma radiation on your flight, not CO2 (thanks to the weakening of the earth's magnetic field, 15% increase in cosmic radiation, solar minimum right now, and secondary particle spallation at FL 30-35)

UDnO; "global warming" is not the subject I commented on; global stress on resources is the intermediate problem. Long term the planet ends us as a brickette, doesn't matter what we do on fuel use. Beyond that, it gets dark. Take from that what you will. CO2 sequestered trace correlates to cosmic radiation more closely than any other source, according to NASA data analysed by the guys at Stamford, who amy or may not be right. Overall, we are experimenting with the carrying capacity of the planet, with technology that mainly relies on fossil fuels. EOE keeps delaying the Hibbert curve but it doesn't alter the fundamental fact that we are reliant on a finite resource.

The 21st century is going to be focused on the resource grab that is well underway by the Chinese under their current plans. The rest of the world has enabled China to be in that position and they are acting in most theatres actively tying up resources. As most conflicts result from resource grabs, and conflict has generally been pretty unkind to commercial operations other than reserve airlift, then this is a peripheral subject that should be of interest to anyone wanting to drive aluminium tubes around that don't have ordnance stuffed under their wings. Was ever thus.

CO2 levels do indeed lag temperature in greenland and antarctic core samples, and the correlations are pretty darn good. To that end, on the face of it, that would preclude CO2 as being the driver of change, however that is if the sequestration occurs in ice at the same rate as it does in the oceans. One good belch from Pinatubo put a sizeable change into the global temps ( -0.6C for 15 months) as well as the amount of SO2 emitted 20 million tons of SO2 in 1991's eruption. Volcanoes don't throw up much CO2... Pinatubo 0.05 Gt vs 2015 anthropogenic CO2 from fuel combustion of 32.3Gt/yr. The latter figure is pretty easy to get a ball park figure from the chemistry of combustion and the fuel used for the period, or is available from USGS.

You don't have to be a tree hugger to do mathematics, or to consider system processes. It does raise the question however as to why would anyone have disdain for efforts to ensure stability of their lifestyle, as in the end, being sustainable is a simple matter of practicality. Global resource exhaustion doesn't get Chapter 11 relief.

Charities have a mixed history of justification; they are in the end competing for funding from various areas which depends on the extent that they invoke response from the public. Many or even most of the campaigns are righteous, and worth the support, the activists achieve a level of counterpoint to the general institutions and that is needed more often than not to break moribund bureaucracy and self interest of corporations. They also overstep the mark on occasions, and indignant objection can be warranted. Society doesn't have a great track record on getting the balance right, the 20th century was the poster child for how poor the choices are handled, and at the rate we are going this century, we will be wistfully yearning for a return to the relative comfort of last century.

CO2 emission is not the problem, excessive depletion of resources is the event that will bring the tent down around our ears.

But there is always Trumps "clean coal", getting lots of people to scrub the black from chunks of carbon will help employment no end.

Civilisation can sort it's act out, but that takes more adult supervision than is evident at present, and it needs focus on the real issues not the hot button topics.

Sustainability of energy supplies, preserving high calorific content fuels where no alternatives are readily available.
Expanding GCR use promptly to maximise the use of nuclear fuels, and to reduce operational, storage, and proliferation risks.
Education and assistance to family units in all societies aiming to reduce poverty and thereby reduce population expansion through economic self interest.
Reinforcing biodiversity as a necessity for long term system health.
The tough one.... sorting out economic incentives to reduced population and economic activity. [beats me how to do that, no one that I am aware of has attempted to sort that out without a world war or genocide; it is possible that a reduction can be managed, Germany has had a negative population growth and coped with it, but they had a constant increase in total activity, that is the problem area].
Bring back R-2800's. Life isn't worth living without a radial engine around.

Other than that, it's miller time.

BluSdUp

3rd Jun 2019, 12:43

Sooo!
Some morons wants to torpedo me and my nice shiny Jet into London with drones and some of You think this is cool!
Fantastic!

Kennytheking

3rd Jun 2019, 13:09

The science behind climate change is well above my pay grade. What I do know is that these people must comply with the rule of law. Without laws we have chaos and anarchy. There are plenty of laws I don't agree with but I abide by them because that is how a civilised society works.

Perhaps ER should rather turn their attention to the polls and affect change that way.

fdr

3rd Jun 2019, 13:32

Sooo!
Some morons wants to torpedo me and my nice shiny Jet into London with drones and some of You think this is cool!
Fantastic!

BSU, the likelihood of you, a whale eater of renown, being harpooned by a DJI is pretty remote. I wouldn't lose too much sleep on it, and think of the war story you would get if you were to have a drone strike. The thing about drones is that they appear a nuisance, and they are if you are sunbathing topless, but some very smart people have spent a fair bit of time thinking things through, and it is an ill advised activity to zip around in restricted airspace with a quad copter. The defences are about a decade ahead of the drones at this time, befitting the potential headline risk that they pose. Now in other areas of the world, less interest may have been expended on the issue, but the public have some smart chaps protecting your shiny equipment on final. The less said about drone defence the better, it is a dark art, but it is active and has some rather prompt consequences to players.

Headlines of mayhem at Heathrow is healthy for the public anxiety, it helps fund the dark arts, and adds column inches to the tabloids and Fox.

Choppers are the high risk vehicles, not from malicious intent, just from incompetence and non compliance of the odd occasional drone drivers sharing the lower but higher fun levels.

willy wombat

3rd Jun 2019, 14:05

Wow. This is not the content I expected when I opened this thread. However, as has been acknowledged in some posts, above, climate change (or whatever you want to call it) is entirely driven by population growth. it doesn't matter whether you think the problem is more flying, more driving, more manufacturing, more meat eating, less forests etc etc this is all driven by population growth. So, only as and when ER, the Greens, the Sainted Emma T etc come out and campaign for people to have less children will I start to take them seriously and I will not, under any circumstances, be lectured on climate change by anyone with more than two children.

BluSdUp

3rd Jun 2019, 14:18

May I call You Franklin?
So the drones are taken care of. That is good, remind me to report back to You after the next NATO exercise in Norway.
Migratory birds it turns out.
Nuff said.
Yeh the war story after smashing a drone, absolutely on my list to do.
Been laser attacked and bird record is 10 seagulls in one go, but not much cred to be had.
Got to go, the sun is out, getting a tan!

Regards
Cpt B

Hot 'n' High

3rd Jun 2019, 16:25

Wow. ........ So, only as and when ER, the Greens, the Sainted Emma T etc come out and campaign for people to have less children will I start to take them seriously and I will not, under any circumstances, be lectured on climate change by anyone with more than two children.

Well said WW. Not had kids of my own so "doing my bit" to bring the world population down thereby reducing global warming. :ok:

Mind you, have inherited several step-kids along the way (I know, what a Wally I am), all of whom are quite happy to lecture us oldies on such "green" matters on a regular basis. One slight problem - the education system seems to not have included instruction (us oldies clearly have no idea whatsoever and are not allowed to make such suggestions on such matters it seems - learned that the hard way!) on the relationship between light switches being left on overnight and power wastage. I regularly find at least their bathroom light on at any time of the day or night along with a bedroom light. Fortunately, only one left living at home now - and we are all counting down the days, mark you!!!! :p

Best was when eldest last staged a visit "gracing us" with both her "presence" and "wisdom" as only a 25 yr old can. Went down in the morning to let the cat out (assuming it had been let in/left in overnight). Trogged down stairs to find, not only bathroom light left on overnight, but top landing/stairs light, hallway light, dining room light AND kitchen light - oh, and lounge light. Excuse from delightful eldest? "Well, you can't expect us to get safely up stairs in the dark!". :ugh: I did not even bother asking why they had simply not turned the lights off as they made their way upstairs - just as I do every night - though why all those lights were needed to "safely get upstairs" in the first place was beyond me anyway! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Some generations are just not worth discussing such matters with ...... besides, they are all to busy supporting the latest "Extinction Rebellion" or whatever the latest fad is to have time to do their bit! TBH, I just blame their Mother as they were all well into their teens when I "won" them ........ :E

"Rant mode set to "Off"" - H 'n' H heads off to calm down again! :rolleyes:

VFR Only Please

3rd Jun 2019, 19:19

(quotes trident3A): "It's possible to love aviation and at the same time realise that we cannot continue expanding."

Aviation is fun, challenging, mind broadening, brings cultures together, etc. But most of it is non-essential. What do we need a third runway for? To free up 27L and R so more people can go to Thailand for 2 weeks?

It's pretty clear that we're facing a serious climate problem. We've known about this since the 70s and b***er all's been done really. Yes we've done a few things on power generation. But transport? All we've seen is more cars, more planes. So although I don't think shutting down Heathrow with drones is a good idea, you can see where they're coming from, because no other form of protest seems to be working.

Homo Sapiens struggled for hundreds of thousands of years to gain a foothold -- two steps forward, one (or two) back -- almost dying out countless times, you can bet. Then along came the Industrial Revolution and BOOM. In my wee lifetime the world human population has Tripled.

Science now accepts the Anthropocene (the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment) as an actual geological era, i.e. if homo sapiens were to disappear tomorrow, a future geology-practising species could idenitify it. And guess what: it coincides with the "Anthropocene extinction", one of the most significant extinction events in the history of the Earth. Just coincidence? I think not. And the polar ice caps are melting like crazy and sea levels are rising in corresponding fashion. Coincidence? I think not.

Unbridled Growthism has painted us into quite a corner. But people, being people, are always big into Denial. Any ostrich hole will do. Personally I think it's too late in any case. But it's true, we're in uncharted waters. Nobody really knows how these things develop. No endeavour is as complex as climatology. So as good little Denialists we seize on that: "They throw figures around as if they knew what they were talking about!" Well, Nobody really knows. But then, anyone 20 years ago who had predicted the scale of polar ice melt we're seeing now would have been hooted down in similar fashion. The news on the ground is not good.

I don't blame these kids for raising hell. The third runway at LHR is a (no pun intended) concrete example of out-of-control Growthism. It's a symbol. I perfectly understand their anger and their unwillingness to allow "business as usual" to yet again pretend we can carry on this way.

up_down_n_out

3rd Jun 2019, 20:53

Then along came the Industrial Revolution and BOOM.

Science now accepts the Anthropocene (the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment) as an actual geological era,....
And the polar ice caps are melting like crazy and sea levels are rising in corresponding fashion. Coincidence? I think not.

But then, anyone 20 years ago who had predicted the scale of polar ice melt we're seeing now would have been hooted down in similar fashion..

You are happy to carry on repeating the same nauseating bollox ad infinitum???

The polar ice caps are NOT melting.
Antarctic now has record amounts of ice, which is why the MV Akademik Shokalskiy got stuck fast in it.

The north west passage was more easily open in the 1930s than it is today.
Sea levels are NOT rising. (no faster than the past 200yrs from well documented tidal records gauges).
US Hurricane activity is at a 30 year low, and the sky is not falling.
The earth has been COOLING for the last 18 years (an inconvenient fact called a "PAUSE"), but the cult of the warmist and their indoctrination of their kids knows no shame.

I love the first sentence.....along came the industrial revolution...BOOM, indeed it was.

YES,- coincident with the arrival of the CANNON, Bonaparte's wars, which shredded British forests, then the rapid arrival of high explosives, cordite and the evolution of the gun into the MACHINE GUN which caused mechanised mayhem and slaughter in the mud of Flanders.
Thanks to the same industrial processes the USA was able to produce the first GUN BASED atomic weapons, that wonderful industrial revolution made it possible to kill 10s of 1000s of Japanese in one FLASH.

They then got started on nuclear testing on such a vast industrial scale you can now DATE or trace fake wines if claimed pre 1945, by checking the amounts of radio caesium in the stuff.

It's wonderful to read the greeny bollox every time it comes out, because there's one proveable phenomenon, they haven't got the slightest clue WTF they are on about!

OldnGrounded

3rd Jun 2019, 21:50

The amount of (sometimes angry) denialism in this thread, by aviation professionals is disturbing. People here should really know better.

You are happy to carry on repeating the same nauseating bollox ad infinitum???

VFR, in the cited post, is "spouting" nothing but widely-understood fact. Not even widely-accepted theory, just fact.

The polar ice caps are NOT melting.

Oh, yes, indeed, they absolutely and inarguable are melting. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes with an easy Google search to make that clear to anyone willing to pay attention to reliable sources. Here are a few, quickly grabbed from a search for recent articles:

Melting Ice Caps are a National Security Risk (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-13/melting-ice-caps-are-a-national-security-crisis)

The Big Thaw (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/)

Arctic Sea Ice Decline (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline)

Antarctic now has record amounts of ice, which is why the MV Akademik Shokalskiy got stuck fast in it.

An incident in which a single vessel becomes ice-bound is utterly unrelated to the overall status of the ice of Antarctica, which is nothing like your claim.

Nearly 25% of West Antarctic Ice in Danger of Collapse (https://www.livescience.com/65524-antarctica-ice-unstable.html)

Seriously, it would be a good idea to do a bit of careful research and reassessment of your views on this subject before continuing to accuse others of "greeny bollux."

LehMehh

3rd Jun 2019, 22:01

You can shoot down drones with AK-47s and Barrett the 2.5 kilometer range sniper long rifle. Anti-aircraft guns will smash drones kilometers away. Look how Libya's Haftar's forces have easily acquired 1000's of Toyota jeeps with anti-aircraft guns. But people who are using drones near airports must be in jail for 10 years.

dr dre

3rd Jun 2019, 23:43

Sea levels are NOT rising. (no faster than the past 200yrs from well documented tidal records gauges).

To continue with the up_down_n_out nonsense debunking:

Wrong, Sea Levels are rising:

Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate. (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html)

US Hurricane activity is at a 30 year low, and the sky is not falling.

Global Warming and Hurricanes (https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/)

The earth has been COOLING for the last 18 years (an inconvenient fact called a "PAUSE"), but the cult of the warmist and their indoctrination of their kids knows no shame.

This is total nonsense. There is zero evidence of this. I don’t know which conspiracy site you’re getting that from but it’s totally wrong:

Global Temperature (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/)

There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal. (https://skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm)

It's wonderful to read the greeny bollox every time it comes out, because there's one proveable phenomenon, they haven't got the slightest clue WTF they are on about!

Every statement posted here by someone explaining the science on climate change is backed up by peer reviewed studies from prestigious universities or organisations like NASA or the NOAA. You haven’t even given a typical denier source like some poorly written website obviously funded by a fossil fuel company.

The amount of (sometimes angry) denialism in this thread, by aviation professionals is disturbing. People here should really know better.

Seriously, it would be a good idea to do a bit of careful research and reassessment of your views on this subject before continuing to accuse others of "greeny bollux."

It’s either down to:

People who are older and don’t think they’ll be affected by any real catastrophic effects of climate change when they occur.

Those financially well off who believe they’ll be unfairly taxed by any attempts to rectify climate change.

Those with investments in fossil fuel industries (at the moment aviation relies heavily on fossil fuels so it may explain the denialism from some here).

Or those who have a deep seated hatred of left wing politics and perceive environmentalism as leftism (even though the science in this is apolitical as you can get).

73qanda

4th Jun 2019, 02:21

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
Edited to add that the 2015 article is from the NASA website.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

Where does this NASA study fit in to the above arguments?
Edited to add that the 2015 article is from the NASA website.

20driver

4th Jun 2019, 02:28

To continue with the up_down_n_out nonsense debunking:

Wrong, Sea Levels are rising:

Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate. (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html)

Has been for the last 150 years - can you tell me where the impact of global warming is on this data?

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1926x1118/screen_shot_2019_06_03_at_8_13_37_pm_c7b871c9b8f6297fe6ddf84 1474f066e49ae1954.png

73qanda

4th Jun 2019, 02:40

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, totalpolar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg) show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.
Also, can anyone point out where the above article is incorrect? Which parts of the above article are incorrect and how do we know that?
I’m ready to be convinced that we are at the start of a ‘climate crisis’ but I do need to be convinced with some data that isn’t a projection from a model with millions of lines of code. So if someone can show me why the above article is incorrect I’d honestly appreciate it. Oldngrounded and dr dre?

Water pilot

4th Jun 2019, 02:40

You are happy to carry on repeating the same nauseating bollox ad infinitum???

The polar ice caps are NOT melting....
Antarctic now has record amounts of ice, which is why the MV Akademik Shokalskiy got stuck fast in it.

It's wonderful to read the greeny bollox every time it comes out, because there's one proveable phenomenon, they haven't got the slightest clue WTF they are on about!

You do realize that the record amount of ice in the ocean is actually a sign of a warming artic, as glaciers on land melt, they "calve" meaning that bits of them fall off into the ocean. The ice sheets "float" along meltwater underneath them. The average temperature of the Artic has risen five degrees since 1970. There is really no question that the ice caps are melting, if you wish you can claim that it is part of something other than climate change but if you think that there is more ice in the artic than 1970 you are perhaps the one who most resembles your last sentence.

73qanda

4th Jun 2019, 02:51

but if you think that there is more ice in the artic than 1970 you are perhaps the one who most resembles your last sentence.
Ok cool, that’s an opinion, but how do you explain the 2015 NASA study saying the opposite ( for Antarctica)?
I’m not trying to bait you, I honestly want to know, why did the NASA study find an increase in volume?

OldnGrounded

4th Jun 2019, 02:59

You do realize that the record amount of ice in the ocean is actually a sign of a warming artic . . .

A good point, but note that the poster was referring to an incident with the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy, which was trapped in Antarctic ice, five or so years ago. Of course the point you make applies equally to the ice down there:Antarctic Ship Rescue . . . (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140102-antarctica-ship-trapped-ice-rescue-akademik-shokalskiy-world-science/)

[. . .] But expedition leader Chris Turney said that the team's situation may have been in part due to warming oceans, which broke an iceberg into smaller pieces that the wind then swept against the ship, according to FoxNews.com.

Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, added by email that 'any comments about overall ice shrinking or increasing are absurd in this situation. . . .'

Emphasis added.

dr dre

4th Jun 2019, 03:07

Ok cool, that’s an opinion, but how do you explain the 2015 NASA study saying the opposite ( for Antarctica)?
I’m not trying to bait you, I honestly want to know, why did the NASA study find an increase in volume?

Debunked here:

Why this 2015 NASA study is beloved by climate change skeptics (https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/2015-nasa-study-antarctic-ice-climate-change-skeptic)

Basically, there were questions about the reliability of the methods of measurement used in that study which some scientists consider to be unreliable. And that the measurements were only conducted in one part of the continent.

Multiple subsequent studies conducted within the last 1-2 years, including ones by NASA, are showing a verified loss of ice in Antarctica.

You see questioning the way science is conducted amongst your colleagues, and then verifying conclusions with your own studies and having your colleagues review them again is called peer review for all you deniers out there.

And even the author of the 2015 study, NASA scientist Jay Zwally, is NOT a climate skeptic. He is in agreement with the IPCC conclusions and has said that his 2015 study is NOT to be used by deniers as evidence of a "warming hoax". These are his comments about the study:

"When our paper came out, I was very careful to emphasize that this is in no way contradictory to the findings of the IPCC report or conclusions that climate change is a serious problem that we need to do something about," he told Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-to-believe-in-antarctica-rsquo-s-great-ice-debate/).

He also seemed aware some people would weaponize the study for political purposes.

"I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don't have to worry as much as some people have been making out," he said. "It should not take away from the concern about climate warming."

OldnGrounded

4th Jun 2019, 03:07

. . .but how do you explain the 2015 NASA study saying the opposite ( for Antarctica)?I’m not trying to bait you, I honestly want to know, why did the NASA study find an increase in volume?

Lots of people have been asking that question. Here's is a good place to help start thinking about the answer:

Is Antarctica Gaining or Losing Ice? Nature May Have Just Settled The Debate (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/05/16/is-antarctica-gaining-or-losing-ice-nature-may-have-settled-the-debate/)

OldnGrounded

4th Jun 2019, 03:19

Also, can anyone point out where the above article is incorrect? Which parts of the above article are incorrect and how do we know that?

Well, for a start, you quoted this snippet: "In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean."
Contrast that with this, from NOAA, last September:

2018 Arctic sea ice minimum continues longer trend (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2018-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-continues-longer-trend)

Arctic sea ice has probably reached its annual minimum for 2018, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/arctic-sea-ice-2018-minimum-extent) (NSIDC). Sea ice extent dipped to 1.77 million square miles (4.59 million square kilometers) on September 19, and again on September 23. After that, ice extent began to rise, signaling an end to the summer melt season. The 2018 minimum was nowhere near the record-low extent of 1.31 million square miles (3.39 million square kilometers) recorded on September 17, 2012, but it was nowhere near the 1981–2010 average, either. It was tied with 2008 and 2010 for the sixth-lowest extent in the nearly 40-year satellite record. The 12 lowest Arctic sea ice minimums have all occurred in the last 12 years.

More (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2018-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-continues-longer-trend)

dr dre

4th Jun 2019, 03:19

Is Antarctica Gaining or Losing Ice? Nature May Have Just Settled The Debate (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/05/16/is-antarctica-gaining-or-losing-ice-nature-may-have-settled-the-debate/)

The pertinent point in the above article:

Zwally still stands by his 2015 study, but in an interview last week, he said nature has recently changed the equation. His team is crunching numbers from the past two years, looking at ice melting and snowfall rates in Antarctica. And they found something startling.

The melt rates in West Antarctica just increased significantly.

The chief scientist of that 2015 study is in agreement with the IPCC conclusion about climate change, is not a climate skeptic, has said his 2015 study is not to be used as evidence of a "warming hoax" and has conducted subsequent research stating that the rates of Antarctic melting are on the rise. This is why he has called climate change a "serious problem we need to do something about" like 99.84% of all other qualified scientists.

I've noticed that's a trend. Deniers, who go from claiming organisations like NASA are part of a "Globalist conspiracy" that create fake data to create a "warming hoax" to solidly latching onto the few studies published again by NASA that they believe confirms their beliefs, without a hint of irony that they believe the data from NASA confirming climate change is falsified. In addition to ignoring the study's authors who say their studies are NOT to be used for climate change denial

73qanda

4th Jun 2019, 03:54

dr dre

4th Jun 2019, 04:13

Perfect! That’s good information, ( minus the snippy comments at the end which add emotion and detract from the discussion), thank you very much, you’ve help me take one more step towards a position on this complex topic.

Well here's another snippy comment.

Couldn't you have done that research for yourself? It only took me a few seconds to google "2015 NASA antarctic study" and find the study and the author's analysis of the data. And relatively easy to filter out the denier's comments and find the actual scientific review of the study.

It's easy to go onto one of the denial sites and endlessly regurgitate their taking points ad nauseum without any critical thought, as so many have done on this forum. For those who are genuinely wanting to see how flimsy the arguments against the science are please look at this website, Skeptical Science (https://skepticalscience.com/). Hundred's of anti-science arguments clearly debunked.

After reading through a lot of scientific analysis and research lately I'm now convinced that anyone who claims they have researched the issue and still thinks that climate change is a hoax is on the same level as moon landing skeptics, chemtrailers and anti-vaxxers. However I'm convinced that despite all the scientific research I try to bring into this conversation there are those who will just point blank refuse to acknowledge the truth, be it for reasons of money, politics or pride.

KiloB

4th Jun 2019, 04:55

I’m still waiting for someone to create a glass tank with 0.004% CO2 and one with 0.003% CO2 and see how much hotter one gets than the other!

dr dre

4th Jun 2019, 05:13

I’m still waiting for someone to create a glass tank with 0.004% CO2 and one with 0.003% CO2 and see how much hotter one gets than the other!

Climate scientists won’t be creating that experiment because if you had a primary school understanding of science you would understand that theory is irrelevant to climate change:

An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence (https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm)

TehDehZeh

4th Jun 2019, 06:13

Why wouldn’t I be surprised to find that the whole rabble are funded by PRC and their fellow travellers. The Chinese have always thought long term and in many strands, why not try to undermine British industry or at least hamstring it, by tying our hands in environmental standards they have absolutely no intention whatsoever of implementing themselves.
Considered post not a rant!
Be lucky
David
Which British industry should China be worried about?

TehDehZeh

4th Jun 2019, 06:21

And if CO2 is such a bad thing (i.e., plants can't live without it), how many tonnes of CO2 does the additional 6B inhabitants put out in a years time in the last 150 years?
I think putting down 1 billion people is not a solution that will be considered nowadays. Sorry.

Gove N.T.

4th Jun 2019, 06:38

May I suggest that this topic has morphed into a climate change discussion and whilst relevant in some forums, might be parked elsewhere on this one.

Chris2303

4th Jun 2019, 06:45

May I suggest that this topic has morphed into a climate change discussion and whilst relevant in some forums, might be parked elsewhere on this one.

I was just going to say that this is probably the best example of thread drift ever.

VFR Only Please

4th Jun 2019, 12:02

iiThe polar ice caps are NOT melting.!

Well, free country and all that, Out. To paraphrase Will Rogers, I just know what I read in the scientific journals.
https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2019/06/03/loss-of-arctic-sea-ice-stokes-summer-heat-waves-in-southern-u-s/?fbclid=IwAR08DeHuP1rHFoJEZjyvtLxc02YW3AHTRo6WQED1HYj6QwYKb7 f2ULuqVow

I think dr dre makes a good point about "people who are older and don't think they'll be affected by any real catastrophic effects of climate change when they occur." I'm 64 and have a lifetime of peace and stability behind my lucky self. Even if the chickens come home to roost tomorrow, well, I've had my life. If I were 20 I can imagine feeling pretty bitter and subversive toward Business as Usual.

In response to 73quanda -- especially given his mention of NASA -- and his plea for up-to-date sources -- here's a link from something NASA has put up that I copied, like, 30 seconds ago: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Obviously you can't hope for all scientific data to agree all the time. That's what makes science so much FUN and why its wheels turn so slowly.

I live in the Alps. When I first moved to these parts almost 40 years ago, you could go to Mont Blanc and take a cog railway up to the enormous final stage of the glacier. There's a hotel up there built in 1880 (mark that year). From there it was a short jaunt down to the ice.
NOW you go up to the same place. They have put in a freaking cable-car since the ice-level has fallen so far. But then it kept on falling, so there's an endless succession of steel steps down to what's left of the glacier. Then you have to climb back up (only the fittest survive).
All that in 40 years. And they have painted every last one of those years on the bare rock just to drive the point home.
Do I need a PhD to notice this?

Let's all remember that climate is by definition a stable Trend, and can't be upset by inherently chaotic weather events, such as a bad winter.

As for Thread Drift, if global heating weren't the biggest challenge going, probably only a small minority (with whom I might sympathize) would oppose a third runway.
But it is. So you can't separate the two issues.

73qanda

4th Jun 2019, 12:24

Thanks VFR, much appreciated.

cwatters

4th Jun 2019, 14:50

I certainly don't condone the actions of this group but I think it is a mistake to build a third runway at Heathrow. I think a new airport in the Thames Estuary would be a better option given air pollution levels in London.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/02/ella-kissi-debrah-new-inquest-granted-into-air-pollution-death

Gove N.T.

5th Jun 2019, 17:51

LI certainly don't condone the actions of this group but I think it is a mistake to build a third runway at Heathrow. I think a new airport in the Thames Estuary would be a better option given air pollution levels in London.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/02/ella-kissi-debrah-new-inquest-granted-into-air-pollution-death
The south circular is the inner orbital major traffic route established for many more years than this poor little girl had lived. She lived 25metres from it. A barrister would argue that any responsible parent whose child suffered from a respiratory disease was negligent in remaining so close to a major traffic artery, hard to disagree
In the same circumstances I doubt there is a city in the world that complies with the pollution limits placed upon it

beardy

11th Jun 2019, 09:39

Follow the (climate deniers') money (just under a billion dollars each year):

a combination of both industry and conservative philanthropies that are funding this process, and what they did was they borrowed a great deal of the strategy and tactics that came out of the tobacco industry’s efforts to prevent action on the health impacts of smoking.

What you see is the tactics that this movement uses were developed and tested in the tobacco industry first, and now they’re being applied to the climate change movement, and in fact, some of the same people and some of the same organizations that were involved in the tobacco issue are also involved in climate change.

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/#zwApB2MDCT1zss9S.99
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/730x667/12_23_2013_funding_3b5e97f0d54d4f842b454bde8a4eae06f671c720. jpg

scr1

11th Jun 2019, 10:49

beardy

11th Jun 2019, 12:40

will the extinction protesters start blockading hospitals ????

I suppose it would depend on the circumstances. Life saving or cosmetic?

cwatters

11th Jun 2019, 17:40

I’m still waiting for someone to create a glass tank with 0.004% CO2 and one with 0.003% CO2 and see how much hotter one gets than the other!

Why do you think that would be good demonstration? If you wanted to compare two duvets you wouldn't measure the temperature of the duvet itself would you? Surely you would want to measure how warm a person under it gets? or the heat loss through the duvet?

You can block most of the IR light emitted by a person using a narrow stream of 100% pure C02. Video demo here..

https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/phy03.sci.ess.watcyc.co2/global-warming-carbon-dioxide-and-the-greenhouse-effect/#.XP_ZK-RwZoI

So what concentration of CO2 is needed in a 16km thick layer of air?

cwatters

11th Jun 2019, 17:59

cwatters

11th Jun 2019, 18:11

Apparently the co2 emissions from the gas used to sedate the patent in a 8 hour operation is the equivalent of driving 4206 miles
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/inverness/1768075/raigmore-anaesthetists-change-gas-saving-pollution-and-pounds/
will the extinction protesters start blockading hospitals ????

No. All they need do is send the article to their local hospital and encourage them to change the gas they use. Quote from that article...

Historically they, and the wider NHS, have used Desflurane, an agent 60 times more polluting per hour of anaesthesia then a similar gas, Sevoflurane.

apparently Sevoflurane is also cheaper.

the_stranger

11th Jun 2019, 19:47

No. All they need do is send the article to their local hospital and encourage them to change the gas they use. Quote from that article...

apparently Sevoflurane is also cheaper.
Fortunately, both climate nor costs(*) are the leading factors in deciding which anesthesiac to use.
Both gases are usable as anesthesia, but have some vastly different applications and results.

(*)Mostly

SARF

11th Jun 2019, 19:58

We need to stop starving plants. It’s so cruel. 1000 parts per mill will get us halfway there

Gove N.T.

12th Jun 2019, 05:53

Dear Moderator
please can we park this climate change thread in a more appropriate forum

Ian W

12th Jun 2019, 13:17

As I understand it CO2 is such a good absorber of IR that (even at pre industrialisation levels of C02) it only takes about 25 meters of the atmosphere to scatter most of the IR radiated by the earth (http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169 ). This means energy is only radiated into space from high up in the atmosphere, where the air and CO2 is thin enough.

Its been suggested that adding CO2 raises the effective height from which IR energy is radiated. Unfortunately the higher you go the colder it gets and IR radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature (T^4).

If less energy is radiated into space the temperature of the planet must increase until the energy lost from the earth once again matches that arriving from the sun.

Except that most energy radiated is carried past this theoretical effective height by convection. A significantly long way as those who have flown through the Intertropical convergence zone will attest - these are the convective Hadley cells at the equator. Even the tops of Cb in cold fronts in the temperate zone are well above the 'effective height' and these are the Ferrel cells. As the water in these clouds first condense and then freeze heat is released a long way above the altitudes at which CO2 is an issue,
You should also remember that the absorption of infrared by CO2 is logarithmic so each doubling of CO2 has half the effect of the previous. At 400ppm the absorption in the 3 narrow IR wavelength bands are almost saturated. Two of the bands are in any case overlapping with water vapor absorption.

Note:
* There is no correlation between CO2 and atmospheric temperature at geologic timescales where CO2 has been tens to hundred times higher concentrations in the atmosphere. The brief 20 year correlation in the last decades of the 20th century do not imply causation. See this spurious correlation
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x787/7_4953ee797c981ed8b0fe50bce82a1480bdda31b4.png

NONE of the forecasts made by climate scientists' models have been correct. Normally in science if the forecast made based on your hypothesis is falsified n the real world the hypothesis is abandoned.

cwatters

12th Jun 2019, 14:05

Note:
* There is no correlation between CO2 and atmospheric temperature at geologic timescales where CO2 has been tens to hundred times higher concentrations in the atmosphere.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Temperature-change-and-carbon-dioxide-change-measured-from-the-EPICA-Dome-C-ice-core-in-Antarctica-v2.jpg
Temperature change (light blue) and carbon dioxide change (dark blue) measured from the EPICA Dome C ice core in Antarctica (Jouzel et al. 2007 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/6080); Lüthi et al. 2008 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/6091)).

and yes there are times when temperature changes lead C02 changes. You can find an explanation for that here. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

WingNut60

12th Jun 2019, 14:48

Temperature change (light blue) and carbon dioxide change (dark blue)

I have some understanding of how the historical CO2 levels can be inferred from ice cores.
But can you explain the method or basis for inferring historical temperatures?

We're not using one as the basis for the other are we?

cwatters

12th Jun 2019, 17:21

I have some understanding of how the historical CO2 levels can be inferred from ice cores.
But can you explain the method or basis for inferring historical temperatures?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/

The measurement of the gas composition is direct: trapped in deep ice cores are tiny bubbles of ancient air, which we can extract and analyze using mass spectrometers.

Temperature, in contrast, is not measured directly, but is instead inferred from the isotopic composition of the water molecules released by melting the ice cores.

Continues..

In short... it takes more energy to evaporate heavier water molecules. So when it's warmer more heavy molecules are evaporated from the oceans and deposited as snow which is later compressed to ice. When it's colder fewer heavy molecules are evaporated and deposited in the snow.

arearadar70

12th Jun 2019, 17:52

You seem knowledgable 73 Qanda. Correct me if I am wrong but when I did physics at school 60years ago, I`m sure I was taught that floating ice displaces its own volume in the water containing it. If that ice melts, its volume decreases thus the water level drops. This is surely true of the Arctic (floating) but not the Antarctic (on bedrock). ?

Deltasierra010

12th Jun 2019, 18:40

ii

Well, free country and all that, Out. To paraphrase Will Rogers, I just know what I read in the scientific journals.
https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2019/06/03/loss-of-arctic-sea-ice-stokes-summer-heat-waves-in-southern-u-s/?fbclid=IwAR08DeHuP1rHFoJEZjyvtLxc02YW3AHTRo6WQED1HYj6QwYKb7 f2ULuqVow

I think dr dre makes a good point about "people who are older and don't think they'll be affected by any real catastrophic effects of climate change when they occur." I'm 64 and have a lifetime of peace and stability behind my lucky self. Even if the chickens come home to roost tomorrow, well, I've had my life. If I were 20 I can imagine feeling pretty bitter and subversive toward Business as Usual.

In response to 73quanda -- especially given his mention of NASA -- and his plea for up-to-date sources -- here's a link from something NASA has put up that I copied, like, 30 seconds ago: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Obviously you can't hope for all scientific data to agree all the time. That's what makes science so much FUN and why its wheels turn so slowly.

I live in the Alps. When I first moved to these parts almost 40 years ago, you could go to Mont Blanc and take a cog railway up to the enormous final stage of the glacier. There's a hotel up there built in 1880 (mark that year). From there it was a short jaunt down to the ice.
NOW you go up to the same place. They have put in a freaking cable-car since the ice-level has fallen so far. But then it kept on falling, so there's an endless succession of steel steps down to what's left of the glacier. Then you have to climb back up (only the fittest survive).
All that in 40 years. And they have painted every last one of those years on the bare rock just to drive the point home.
Do I need a PhD to notice this?

Let's all remember that climate is by definition a stable Trend, and can't be upset by inherently chaotic weather events, such as a bad winter.

As for Thread Drift, if global heating weren't the biggest challenge going, probably only a small minority (with whom I might sympathize) would oppose a third runway.
But it is. So you can't separate the two issues.

Just along the Alps at Jungfrau Joch there is a climate station that has recorded no glacier at all 2000 yrs ago, so they had a warm period then, which enabled Hannibal to get his Elephants across. I don’t think they had man made global warming then, climate change yes.

Ian W

12th Jun 2019, 20:22

[b]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Temperature-change-and-carbon-dioxide-change-measured-from-the-EPICA-Dome-C-ice-core-in-Antarctica-v2.jpg
Temperature change (light blue) and carbon dioxide change (dark blue) measured from the EPICA Dome C ice core in Antarctica (Jouzel et al. 2007 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/6080); Lüthi et al. 2008 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/6091)).

and yes there are times when temperature changes lead C02 changes. You can find an explanation for that here. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

The assumption being made is that CO2 is 'trapped' in bubbles in the ice. However, CO2 is extremely soluble in water as carbonic acid and will diffuse through the ice so the bubble contents are not a reliable metric. ( CO2 diffusion in polar ice (https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/CO2_diffusion_in_polar_ice_2008.pdf) ) There is also research that indicates that the bubbles may form when the cores are drilled and rapidly decompressed.

There are many temperature/CO2 graphics some that go back further and use multiple proxies such as plant stomata give a different picture, Such as:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/530x352/hxerl_14159f4e2555226a9908d94c5e2d29f16527ce98.png
You will note first that things have been a LOT warmer in the past and that there is a homeostasis mechanism that seems to stop any overheating. Note also that we are at the cold end of the Holocene which is an interglacial in an ice age. The Holocene optimum around 10,000 years ago, the Minoan optimum,the Roman Optimum, the Medieval Warm Period were all warmer than present and were successively colder optima.
To assist with the panic the Y axes of the published temperature graphs are wildly expanded to make even minor changes look extreme. The current temperature 'anomaly is approximately 0.35C (from UAH) which a met observer would round down to zero.

20driver

12th Jun 2019, 21:10

Ian W - very interesting graph. The geocraft website is an interesting trove. I did some time in Geology before I switched to engineering.
One thing I observe about the AGW debate is the remarkable absence of geo professionals (and statisticians, another serious omission) in the discussion. As they tend to have a long term view, the ones I know tend to be quite dismissive of the climate modelers and regard the idea of humans controlling climate as rather amusing if not just plain stupid.
Climate modelers are a very very small community who approve each others papers and grants. One modeler from U of T was on Charle Rose and said there are 20 credible climate modeling groups in the world. Think about it. Each of these groups is run by , or was started by a very smart person, as they are sure to let you know. You will not work there or get funded unless you agree with the boss. That is peer reviewed science 101, sorry that is the way it works. That was very clear in the climate gate emails.
That is a very small number of people to rely on to restructure the words economy. . As I told Dr Dre, look up Barry Marshall, Noble Prize 2005, for the value of "consensus".
When the American Physical Society set up a committee, run by Dr Stephen Koonin, to look at the "incontrovertible evidence of human AGW" they invited several physicists not involved in the global warming movement to participate. When the summary did not suit the politics, the statement was was changed to something more PC.
The IPCC was set up to advise governments on how to adapt to climate change, not to make an assessment of the science. One big problem I have with the IPCC is that the section authors are reviewing their own papers. The section members are chosen by governments, ie Al Gore. There is no real question of the underlying assumptions. Most people involved are going on faith that it is a problem and the models are correct.
I can still remember when I was growing up the big thing was the next ice age. There were serious proposals to sprinkle carbon black on the ice sheets to melt them.
Y2K anyone?
20driver

JLWSanDiego

12th Jun 2019, 23:37

Mods can we please find another location for this

DakLak

13th Jun 2019, 04:19

The Gatwick incident was illusory, a figment of someones imagination.

The 'authorities' brought in a plethora of anti-drone paraphernalia but they failed to detect anything.

The weakest link in airport operations is the use of VHF/AM communications which can be jammed with about $100 of equipment.

layman

13th Jun 2019, 05:32

20driver

Invoking Y2K destroys rather than supports your argument. A classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

rationalfunctions

13th Jun 2019, 06:20

NONE of the forecasts made by climate scientists' models have been correct
Source please, that's quite a statement

Gove N.T.

13th Jun 2019, 06:54

Mods can we please find another location for this
Agree. I know we don’t have to read the thread if we don’t want to but I’m sure there are better places for this discussion rather than a forum meant for things to do with flying airplanes

dr dre

13th Jun 2019, 07:32

I did some time in Geology before I switched to engineering.
One thing I observe about the AGW debate is the remarkable absence of geo professionals (and statisticians, another serious omission) in the discussion. As they tend to have a long term view, the ones I know tend to be quite dismissive of the climate modelers and regard the idea of humans controlling climate as rather amusing if not just plain stupid.

Funny, all these worldwide geology organisations are totally disagreeing with you:

The increase of CO2 in modern times, most likely due to humans burning fossil fuels (https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/glossary.html#FossilFuels), has led to an enhanced greenhouse effect (https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/glossary.html#GreenhouseEffect) which is increasing our planet’s average temperature.
As a result sea levels (https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/coastal.html) are rising, partly because ocean water is expanding as it warms, and partly because polar ice is melting. Climate change is already causing ecosystems to change.

British Geological Survey (https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/home.html)

In the run up to the UN Climate Change Conference COP 21 scheduled for December 2015, 24 of the UK's foremost academic institutions, including the Geological Society, have published a joint Climate Communiqué calling on governments to take immediate action to avert the serious risks posed by climate change.

The Geological Society (https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climatechange)

The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species.

The Geological Society of America (https://www.geosociety.org/gsa/positions/position10.aspx)

I'm just loving coming onto this thread and debunking skeptic's claims with linked information from credible scientific organisations. I agree, let's get this thread to Jet Blast so we can continue the fun.