Climate Change and YSSY crosswinds?
Too true. Have a conversation with any credible expert at any science organisation or school in this country.
Theyre considered experts because they are repeating what actual climate scientists say.
The climate change argument is more about economics than emergency. From modelling and forecasting to changing the way money can be made from one business model to a new business model. There is a reason a sizable part of the population is sceptical.
Never have, just directing you to where credible scientists have published their findings so you can read them yourself.
No, it’s about the science of how human activity is changing the global climate. The money argument is seperate. Read some of the links I’ve posted to the research conducted by credible scientific organisations and get back to me.
The climate change argument is more about economics than emergency. From modelling and forecasting to changing the way money can be made from one business model to a new business model. There is a reason a sizable part of the population is sceptical.
You can make that argument. But it is a fact that the prevailing westerlies have been stronger and more frequent this year in YSSY and that has necessitated the use of R25 more often, slowing the flow rate. Any discussion around that fact and how to mitigate it (increased use of 16/34 in crosswinds, curfew dispensations, speeding up building the second airport) got very quickly drowned out by the usual “it’s all a hoax” deniers who appear on any thread where the words climate change are mentioned.
But it is a fact that the prevailing westerlies have been stronger and more frequent this year in YSSY and that has necessitated the use of R25 more often, slowing the flow rate.
If you go back to the first post on this thread I made I pointed out that AD himself in the article posted doesn’t specifically provide a quote to link the increased westerlies to climate change, yet the headlines shouted that he did. As the thread went along it brought out the typical “it’s all a hoax” deniers so I simply posted links to scientific evidence from organisations like NASA to counter those statements.
This is from the SBS website:
hardly a right wing conspiracy station. So is SBS lying, deliberately distorting the truth to fit in with their climate change emergency agenda? You cannot have it both ways in claiming its the right wing media outlets doing a beat up and claiming that all the other media outlets are just quoting the scientists. Your words:
.
This is why people are sceptical. There is no consistency in your argument other than, the sky is falling. Like I have stated before, people of a certain age group have heard it all before about the imminent end of life as we know it. So let me make a couple of assumptions. You were born late 80's, grew up in the 90's and learnt to fly in the noughties (I am assuming you are a pilot, if you are not then I acknowledge that I am wasting my time). You missed the hysteria over acid rain Y2K and were aware of Sept 11 on the periphery. It is not your fault that this is the first "global crisis" that you are aware of as an adult but don't go around calling people morons because they don't share your point of view.
Qantas executive says flight delays caused by climate change
Or just pro “saying what the scientists say”.
This is why people are sceptical. There is no consistency in your argument other than, the sky is falling. Like I have stated before, people of a certain age group have heard it all before about the imminent end of life as we know it. So let me make a couple of assumptions. You were born late 80's, grew up in the 90's and learnt to fly in the noughties (I am assuming you are a pilot, if you are not then I acknowledge that I am wasting my time). You missed the hysteria over acid rain Y2K and were aware of Sept 11 on the periphery. It is not your fault that this is the first "global crisis" that you are aware of as an adult but don't go around calling people morons because they don't share your point of view.
Thanks AC I forgot about the hole in the ozone layer. No TT I am only talking about my experience, an experience which resonates with a lot of people I talk to, but an experience which shapes my view of the hysteria that surrounds the climate emergency narrative. If I was to state that my viewpoint is the only one that matters and that all other viewpoints are postulated by morons and deniers then you would have a valid point.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the hapless, Andrew David hoped has been achieved: A throw away line to non curious journalists is accepted as the reason for declining OTP.
OTP is keenly watched as he benefits handsomely from it (not that he has any impact at all).
It might well be that crewing issues, maintenance related cancellations or any other myriad of management induced stupidity from Fort Fumble are actually responsible for the OTP decline.
Andrew David spends endless days bumbling around Fort Fumble looking for the famed scapegoat.
Climate change will do...
OTP is keenly watched as he benefits handsomely from it (not that he has any impact at all).
It might well be that crewing issues, maintenance related cancellations or any other myriad of management induced stupidity from Fort Fumble are actually responsible for the OTP decline.
Andrew David spends endless days bumbling around Fort Fumble looking for the famed scapegoat.
Climate change will do...
Join Date: May 2018
Location: South of the North pole
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please provide links to verified studies (not blog posts) for your claims:
“MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING which was completely debunked”
“claiming its MAN MADE is a touch much dont you think”
Here’s some studies and info for you to read:
The 97% consensus on global warming
The Causes of Climate Change
Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming
You cant because it does not exist. Where did the 97% figure come from, plucked out of thin air no doubt. When you can produce the actual studies that have proven this you can claim it to be true, until then it is just wild guessing...
Remember the claim of all of this is the climate is changing due to 'MAN MADE' activities, not natural cycles occuring which nobody disagrees with.
All those scientists that claim man has changed the climate have merely put forward their theories but not one has definitively proven anything!!
I’m more referring to the over 12,000 peer reviewed studies that confirm the fact that climate change is caused by humans:
frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming.
Join Date: May 2018
Location: South of the North pole
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2018
Location: South of the North pole
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can make that argument. But it is a fact that the prevailing westerlies have been stronger and more frequent this year in YSSY and that has necessitated the use of R25 more often, slowing the flow rate. Any discussion around that fact and how to mitigate it (increased use of 16/34 in crosswinds, curfew dispensations, speeding up building the second airport) got very quickly drowned out by the usual “it’s all a hoax” deniers who appear on any thread where the words climate change are mentioned.
You wonder why most of us think it is a HOAX, accept for all the LEFTIES as usual!!
Look at EXTINCTION REBELLION or whatever they are called, if you take those people seriously you need your head read!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? Definitely.
It can be proven in a back yard experiment that increased CO2 in air retains more re-radiated heat than air. As can be proven, methane and water vapour.
It can be proven that global CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased significantly (and almost linearly) since they started measuring it in the 1950’s in Hawaii.
It can be proven that humans have been the cause of a massive increase in CO2 emissions (and methane) in recent times through the enormous consumption of fossil fuels, deforestation and farming.
You actually don’t need to be a climate scientist to understand the above. Where it gets difficult is working out whether the above will have sufficient impact on the climate to be of major concern.
If the scientists say “yes” then we need to act. How much do we need to change our ways, and how much are we prepared to pay? That’s when economics gets involved and thats where it gets political.
It is affecting the climate, that is beyond reasonable doubt. What to do and how quickly? That’s politics, and that’s when the people with money to make in the short term don’t want to know about it. And one of those people owns at least half the media in this country. And that affects politics.
Last edited by Derfred; 26th Nov 2019 at 09:36.
You cant because it does not exist. Where did the 97% figure come from, plucked out of thin air no doubt.
All those scientists that claim man has changed the climate have merely put forward their theories but not one has definitively proven anything!!
Lowy Institue Poll this year:
Climate Change
As you can see from the first graph 61% of Australians believe climate change is a significant threat and should be addressed with the highest concern, 28% believe Climate change is a real problem but can be addressed over time and only 10% believe climate change has not been proven.
That 89% who believe climate change is real, 10% who don’t.
So do you need me to explain what the word “most” as in “most of us think it’s a hoax” really means?
As in "most of the people in my Golf Club..."
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Atmospheric CO2 since measurements started in 1958:
Fossil fuel consumption:
Now, whilst the above two charts don’t “prove” anything, the correlation is sufficient to be worthy of further research, maybe?
But we are pilots, right?
You know, like if I plotted my mixture levels against cylinder head temperature, and saw a correlation, I might conclude that cylinder head temperatures might have something to do with my mixture levels.
But if the Bolt Report says that anyone suggesting that mixture levels have anything to do with CHT is a socialist tree-hugging drug-addict on welfare full of leftist scientific crap, then...
Fossil fuel consumption:
Now, whilst the above two charts don’t “prove” anything, the correlation is sufficient to be worthy of further research, maybe?
But we are pilots, right?
You know, like if I plotted my mixture levels against cylinder head temperature, and saw a correlation, I might conclude that cylinder head temperatures might have something to do with my mixture levels.
But if the Bolt Report says that anyone suggesting that mixture levels have anything to do with CHT is a socialist tree-hugging drug-addict on welfare full of leftist scientific crap, then...