Climate Change and YSSY crosswinds?
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr Dre, you keep quoting the sceptical science website. That site is run by a climate alarmist by the name of John Cook, a Brisbane based cartoonist. Even the name “Skeptical science” is fraudulent, it is anything but.
If you are relying on this website for information you won’t get a balanced view of the debate.
You need to dig a little deeper.
If you are relying on this website for information you won’t get a balanced view of the debate.
You need to dig a little deeper.
Some of us are willing to accept the infinitesimally small chance that the handful of scientists that the Murdoch press can dig up with the help of funding from the Minerals Council of Australia and the BCA may be on the right side of history.
Nobody seems to have been able to articulate who the beneficiaries of the UN conspiracy would be. Pauline Hanson has suggested that scientists want more money for research funding. Surely, if that were the case they’d be better off requesting funding for research the incumbent government believes in given that so much is federally funded. It’s not like said scientists couldn’t find something else to invest there’ time in that were politically aligned with Scomo.
I can can certainly see why some of us living in western democracies are blind to the immediate ill effects of climate change and let’s be clear, none of us, myself included are without blame but that too is irrelevant to whether or not there is objective cause for concern. If the bulk of scientists are right and I believe that they are then you will also recognise that the problem of global warming passes a tipping point beyond which reversal become impractical.
I dont want want to change my lifestyle anymore than the next man woman or child but I need to look my kids in the eye and say that I took all reasonable steps to listen to those wiser than me and take heed of their concerns. The cost is significant but the loss of personal integrity is also pretty significant too.
Oh yeah, it just occurred to me that the last line I wrote looks suspiciously like virtue signalling, yep, that’s probably right. It would be a good thing if we all made an effort to be seen to be doing the right thing and actually doing the right thing too.
Last edited by Willie Nelson; 28th Nov 2019 at 00:43.
I don't have a dog in this fight, however I am suspicious of the whole climate change agenda as the current solutions seem to be more about breaking economies than actually fixing anything. That said regardless of the validity of the science, if this starts catching on there will be no Aviation industry at all, which means we all will be out of a job and society will have a much lower standard of living than it once had. High Speed Trains and Bio Fuel are certainly not the solution.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/cons...12-p539xr.html
The most reliable way to do this is to take it into your own hands, and install solar panels to your roof, he says. A five-kilowatt rooftop solar power system (which will cost around $5000) can save about six tonnes of carbon emissions from coal power every year – about enough to offset four people flying to Europe and back.Professor Blakers says that not only will this pay for the carbon cost but it might cover some of the airfare too, thanks to savings on your power bill or tariffs from feeding excess energy back into the grid.He says getting fossil fuel out of aviation has to happen eventually, however it is going to be one of the last things on the road to a carbon-free economy because of the difficulties with biofuels."Offsets are the only way forward to greatly reduce aircraft emissions for the next 10 to 20 years, until technology catches up," he says.In the meantime, he says technology is available today for us to get out of coal-generated electricity, gas-powered heating and petrol-run cars, which together account for 50 per cent of our emissions.If you can't invest in clean energy projects directly and aren't happy with your airline's scheme, organisations including Atmosfair, based in Germany, and the British group Climate Care calculate the climate impact of your flight and accept donations that support projects including wind farms, hydro power schemes and solar energy.
But what are the alternatives?
Professor Steffen says an enormous amount of the world's air travel today could actually be done by high-speed rail, and the rest could be operated with biofuels, which desperately needs research funding.These alternative jet fuels, made from sources such as crops, can reduce emissions by up to 80 per cent but currently cost almost twice the price as standard jet fuel. Biofuels makes up 0.01 per cent of the global industry's fuel use today.British Airways, for example, is working on a plan to make jet biofuel from commercial waste, and expects to spend $US500 million ($740 million) developing viable biofuels over the next 20 years. Qantas is spending $50 million over the next 10 years trying to kickstart a local biofuel industry."It is these sorts of projects that are much more important than planting trees," says Professor Steffen.Will we ever fly carbon-free?
As well as using biofuels, one solution to truly green flying is to power flight with batteries charged from renewable sources.Several companies are working on battery-powered aircraft, ranging from four- or five-person "air taxis" promoted by the likes of Uber to small aircraft such as Airbus' hybrid E-Fan X, which could operate on many of the world's domestic short-haul routes.Air New Zealand is looking at ways to convert its fleet of small turbo-prop planes used on domestic routes to electric or hybrid engines, while Norway plans for all domestic flights to be on electric aircraft by 2040.However, 80 per cent of aviation's CO2 emissions come from flights of more than 1500 kilometres, according to the International Air Transport Association, which no electric aircraft in development could fly.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/cons...12-p539xr.html
Anna Harvey has accepted that she might never see New Caledonia's coral reefs or many of the other destinations on her travel "bucket list".But the 29-year-old from Sydney does not regret joining a small and growing number of global citizens who have decided to stop flying – for holidays or any other reason – because of air travel's contribution to climate change.For Harvey, the turning point came about a year ago with the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report on global warming of 1.5 degrees, which detailed the drastic reduction in emissions required to avert the most damaging effects of a hotter planet.Mark Carter, a semi-retired graphic designer from Melbourne, hasn't flown internationally for 12 years, and says he won't again."In that sense, it’s a sacrifice but I just can’t get the uncompromised science out of my head that really we’re in this emergency," says Carter, who has also founded the group Flight Free Australia.A global backlash against air travel has emerged over the past year, particularly in Europe, where flygskam – Swedish for "flight shame" – has taken hold and seen people avoid flying where possible.
Airlines say they're doing everything they can to reduce their impact on the environment but some people remain convinced that flying less, or not at all, is the only reasonable response.So just how bad is flying for the environment? What's being done about it? And is it possible to fly "carbon neutral" or is that, as one expert says, just a furphy?
What effect does flying have on the environment?
Aviation contributes about 2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions but that will double or possibly triple by 2050 as flying becomes an option for a growing middle class in Asia, according to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the United Nation's aviation body.In Australia, domestic flights (which is all that is counted in the goverment's National Greenhouse Accounts) made up 1.6 per cent of our total emissions in 2017. However, when international flights are included, emissions increase to represent 3.8 per cent of Australia's total.While that's a significant number, it comes in well behind our biggest polluters – electricity and heat production (32 per cent of the total), road transport (14 per cent), and methane produced by farm animals (8.7 per cent), according to the 2017 National Greenhouse Accounts.
One person flying economy class return from Sydney to London via Singapore will produce 1.74 tonnes of CO2, according to the ICAO. That represents 8 per cent of Australia's per capita emissions in the year to March 2019 (21.4 tonnes per person).Having a spacious business-class cabin makes a plane far less fuel-efficient on a per-passenger basis. Because of that, flying business class doubles your carbon footprint for that journey, according to ICAO.On top of carbon emissions, scientists are paying more attention to contrails – the white streaks of water vapor that freeze around exhaust fumes and trail behind planes as they fly through the sky. Researchers from the German Aerospace Center have concluded that contrails can trap heat in the atmosphere, and could have a bigger impact on global warming than the carbon aviation produces.
What are the airlines doing about it?
The world's major airlines have pledged to stop growing their net carbon emissions from next year and, by 2050, to have cut the industry's net emissions to half its 2005 level.Qantas became the world's second airline to go beyond this target in early November, joining British Airways, Aer Lingus and Iberia (which are all owned by the same company) in promising to hit zero net emissions by 2050.
Airlines say they will reach these targets by flying newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft. Improving fuel efficiency means that per-passenger emissions on every flight have already halved since 1990.They also hope to develop jet fuel derived from non-petroleum sources, called biofuel, which can be up to 80 per cent less polluting than regular fuel. The balance of their carbon emissions will be "offset".What does carbon offsetting actually mean?
When you tick the "fly carbon neutral" box while booking a ticket, you agree to make a donation on top of the price of your fare – from a couple of dollars on a Melbourne-to-Sydney flight, up to about $50 on a return trip to London – that goes to environmental projects designed to mitigate the carbon impact of your journey. As of November, Qantas is matching this donation dollar for dollar.Those certified projects work by either pulling carbon out of the atmosphere – by planting trees for example, which suck up carbon as they grow – or by preventing more carbon from being released.The carbon "credit" is meant to balance out the carbon emitted from your flight so that you, theoretically, fly "carbon neutral".Qantas' current offsetting projects include restoring wetlands and rainforest in far north Queensland, conserving Tasmanian forest that might otherwise be logged, and funding work in the North Kimberley that reduces the chance of wildfires, which spew large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The airline also buys "carbon credits" from solar, wind and biogas projects.
Schemes by Virgin and its budget arm, Tigerair, include protecting Tasmanian forest and preventing wild fires in Arnhem Land.Virgin passengers paid to offset 27,406 tonnes of CO2 in 2018 through its offsetting scheme – or 0.74 per cent of its 3.6 million tonnes of net emissions, according to its National Carbon Offset Standard disclosure.Qantas passengers paid to offset 133,242 tonnes of carbon through its schemes in 2018, or about 1.1 per cent of the airline's net emissions. With its dollar-for-dollar matching, the scheme will effectively double in size.
Are all offset projects good for the planet?
The merits of offsetting schemes are debated by scientists.Professor Will Steffen, a researcher at the Australian National University and a Climate Council councillor, says that one of the most common methods of offsetting – growing or preserving trees – is scientifically flawed, and the promise you are flying carbon natural by funding these schemes is a "furphy".“I would say that they’re worse than [doing] nothing because it takes some of the heat off the real problem," he says.The problem, Professor Steffen says, is that trees grown in the ground or protected today are part of the "active" carbon cycle – they absorb carbon when they grow, and that returns to the atmosphere if they fall down and decay, or are burnt.
Airlines say they're doing everything they can to reduce their impact on the environment but some people remain convinced that flying less, or not at all, is the only reasonable response.So just how bad is flying for the environment? What's being done about it? And is it possible to fly "carbon neutral" or is that, as one expert says, just a furphy?
What effect does flying have on the environment?
Aviation contributes about 2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions but that will double or possibly triple by 2050 as flying becomes an option for a growing middle class in Asia, according to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the United Nation's aviation body.In Australia, domestic flights (which is all that is counted in the goverment's National Greenhouse Accounts) made up 1.6 per cent of our total emissions in 2017. However, when international flights are included, emissions increase to represent 3.8 per cent of Australia's total.While that's a significant number, it comes in well behind our biggest polluters – electricity and heat production (32 per cent of the total), road transport (14 per cent), and methane produced by farm animals (8.7 per cent), according to the 2017 National Greenhouse Accounts.
One person flying economy class return from Sydney to London via Singapore will produce 1.74 tonnes of CO2, according to the ICAO. That represents 8 per cent of Australia's per capita emissions in the year to March 2019 (21.4 tonnes per person).Having a spacious business-class cabin makes a plane far less fuel-efficient on a per-passenger basis. Because of that, flying business class doubles your carbon footprint for that journey, according to ICAO.On top of carbon emissions, scientists are paying more attention to contrails – the white streaks of water vapor that freeze around exhaust fumes and trail behind planes as they fly through the sky. Researchers from the German Aerospace Center have concluded that contrails can trap heat in the atmosphere, and could have a bigger impact on global warming than the carbon aviation produces.
What are the airlines doing about it?
The world's major airlines have pledged to stop growing their net carbon emissions from next year and, by 2050, to have cut the industry's net emissions to half its 2005 level.Qantas became the world's second airline to go beyond this target in early November, joining British Airways, Aer Lingus and Iberia (which are all owned by the same company) in promising to hit zero net emissions by 2050.
Airlines say they will reach these targets by flying newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft. Improving fuel efficiency means that per-passenger emissions on every flight have already halved since 1990.They also hope to develop jet fuel derived from non-petroleum sources, called biofuel, which can be up to 80 per cent less polluting than regular fuel. The balance of their carbon emissions will be "offset".What does carbon offsetting actually mean?
When you tick the "fly carbon neutral" box while booking a ticket, you agree to make a donation on top of the price of your fare – from a couple of dollars on a Melbourne-to-Sydney flight, up to about $50 on a return trip to London – that goes to environmental projects designed to mitigate the carbon impact of your journey. As of November, Qantas is matching this donation dollar for dollar.Those certified projects work by either pulling carbon out of the atmosphere – by planting trees for example, which suck up carbon as they grow – or by preventing more carbon from being released.The carbon "credit" is meant to balance out the carbon emitted from your flight so that you, theoretically, fly "carbon neutral".Qantas' current offsetting projects include restoring wetlands and rainforest in far north Queensland, conserving Tasmanian forest that might otherwise be logged, and funding work in the North Kimberley that reduces the chance of wildfires, which spew large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The airline also buys "carbon credits" from solar, wind and biogas projects.
Schemes by Virgin and its budget arm, Tigerair, include protecting Tasmanian forest and preventing wild fires in Arnhem Land.Virgin passengers paid to offset 27,406 tonnes of CO2 in 2018 through its offsetting scheme – or 0.74 per cent of its 3.6 million tonnes of net emissions, according to its National Carbon Offset Standard disclosure.Qantas passengers paid to offset 133,242 tonnes of carbon through its schemes in 2018, or about 1.1 per cent of the airline's net emissions. With its dollar-for-dollar matching, the scheme will effectively double in size.
Are all offset projects good for the planet?
The merits of offsetting schemes are debated by scientists.Professor Will Steffen, a researcher at the Australian National University and a Climate Council councillor, says that one of the most common methods of offsetting – growing or preserving trees – is scientifically flawed, and the promise you are flying carbon natural by funding these schemes is a "furphy".“I would say that they’re worse than [doing] nothing because it takes some of the heat off the real problem," he says.The problem, Professor Steffen says, is that trees grown in the ground or protected today are part of the "active" carbon cycle – they absorb carbon when they grow, and that returns to the atmosphere if they fall down and decay, or are burnt.
Related Article
Steffen says that re-growing vegetation might help restore some of the balance in the atmosphere that existed before it was cut down but won't mitigate the impact of releasing carbon that's been locked up in the ground for millions of years and burnt by airlines as jet fuel.“You can equate the uptake with trees from a geological source like petroleum. That’s where, from a scientific point of view, you’re not flying carbon neutral," he says.Andrew Blakers, a professor of engineering, also at the ANU, says offsetting is "perfectly respectable" – as long as it is done by creating new sources of clean energy, such as funding new wind or solar farms, which then prevents coal or other fossil fuels being used.“There’s no reason they shouldn’t fly provided that they find a really reputable method of offsetting," he says.
Offsets are the only way forward to greatly reduce aircraft emissions for the next 10 to 20 years, until technology catches up.
But what are the alternatives?
Professor Steffen says an enormous amount of the world's air travel today could actually be done by high-speed rail, and the rest could be operated with biofuels, which desperately needs research funding.These alternative jet fuels, made from sources such as crops, can reduce emissions by up to 80 per cent but currently cost almost twice the price as standard jet fuel. Biofuels makes up 0.01 per cent of the global industry's fuel use today.British Airways, for example, is working on a plan to make jet biofuel from commercial waste, and expects to spend $US500 million ($740 million) developing viable biofuels over the next 20 years. Qantas is spending $50 million over the next 10 years trying to kickstart a local biofuel industry."It is these sorts of projects that are much more important than planting trees," says Professor Steffen.Will we ever fly carbon-free?
As well as using biofuels, one solution to truly green flying is to power flight with batteries charged from renewable sources.Several companies are working on battery-powered aircraft, ranging from four- or five-person "air taxis" promoted by the likes of Uber to small aircraft such as Airbus' hybrid E-Fan X, which could operate on many of the world's domestic short-haul routes.Air New Zealand is looking at ways to convert its fleet of small turbo-prop planes used on domestic routes to electric or hybrid engines, while Norway plans for all domestic flights to be on electric aircraft by 2040.However, 80 per cent of aviation's CO2 emissions come from flights of more than 1500 kilometres, according to the International Air Transport Association, which no electric aircraft in development could fly.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: At home.
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Experts
I and people like me worked on Y2K for a number of banks to ensure it was a non issue. The banks listened to the experts and took appropriate action. People who run banks are generally much smarter than pilots. Why do pilots think they know more about the climate than climate scientists just because they read an article by someone that is not an expert, or listened to a mate down the pub?
if you get pain in you chest would you:
a) Ask the FO
b) Ask your GP
c) Do nothing
I am certain everyone would, I hope, do b) so why is it so hard to trust scientists who are the recognised experts?
Q: How many of the top 500 Scientific Institues on the planet agree that Climate Change is real, man made, etc?
A: Every. Single. One.
Look it up if you do not believe me.
if you get pain in you chest would you:
a) Ask the FO
b) Ask your GP
c) Do nothing
I am certain everyone would, I hope, do b) so why is it so hard to trust scientists who are the recognised experts?
Q: How many of the top 500 Scientific Institues on the planet agree that Climate Change is real, man made, etc?
A: Every. Single. One.
Look it up if you do not believe me.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farum
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably. The big question is just "how much is man made". New published research concludes man is only responsible for about 0,2 degrees C out of the approx 1.0 deg C rise the last 100+ years.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I and people like me worked on Y2K for a number of banks to ensure it was a non issue. The banks listened to the experts and took appropriate action. People who run banks are generally much smarter than pilots. Why do pilots think they know more about the climate than climate scientists just because they read an article by someone that is not an expert, or listened to a mate down the pub?
if you get pain in you chest would you:
a) Ask the FO
b) Ask your GP
c) Do nothing
I am certain everyone would, I hope, do b) so why is it so hard to trust scientists who are the recognised experts?
Q: How many of the top 500 Scientific Institues on the planet agree that Climate Change is real, man made, etc?
A: Every. Single. One.
Look it up if you do not believe me.
if you get pain in you chest would you:
a) Ask the FO
b) Ask your GP
c) Do nothing
I am certain everyone would, I hope, do b) so why is it so hard to trust scientists who are the recognised experts?
Q: How many of the top 500 Scientific Institues on the planet agree that Climate Change is real, man made, etc?
A: Every. Single. One.
Look it up if you do not believe me.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One can calculate the radiative equilibrium temperature of a planet given its distance from tbe sun by radiative balance. Heat in = heat out. Heat out varies as T^4..
For Earth, Venus snd Mars the surface temperature is higher.
This is because atmospheric gases absorb radiated infra-red from the surface. Heat from the sun is deposited at the surface but can't be lost to space from there. So heat is transported up through the atmosphere until the overlying layers of absorbing gases are insufficient to stop it radiating away. This heat current requires a thermal gradient. So the surface is hotter than predicted by radiative balance.
It is the assymetric molecules that absorb this radiation. Notably CO2, NOx, SO2, and H2O. Not O2 or N2
The wster cycle is rapid so it responds to the balance driven by the other gases. It ampifies their effect since higher T leads to higher water content.
The baseline concentration of these gases explains the surface tempersture of the earth.
The concentration of these forcing gases has increased significantly since industrialisation. Heat has to get higher in the atmosphere to be radiated away. The current is the same, so the gradient is the same. Same gradient... longer distance... bigger T difference between radiative equilibrium and surface T... higher surface T.
isotopic evidence demonstrates the source of the extra CO2 is burning of fossil fuels.
So basic, well understood science predicts that the climate should have warmed.
Predicting the detailed effects is very complex.
But believing there is no significant effect is scientifically illiterate.... it's like denying the absorption spectrum of CO2.
For Earth, Venus snd Mars the surface temperature is higher.
This is because atmospheric gases absorb radiated infra-red from the surface. Heat from the sun is deposited at the surface but can't be lost to space from there. So heat is transported up through the atmosphere until the overlying layers of absorbing gases are insufficient to stop it radiating away. This heat current requires a thermal gradient. So the surface is hotter than predicted by radiative balance.
It is the assymetric molecules that absorb this radiation. Notably CO2, NOx, SO2, and H2O. Not O2 or N2
The wster cycle is rapid so it responds to the balance driven by the other gases. It ampifies their effect since higher T leads to higher water content.
The baseline concentration of these gases explains the surface tempersture of the earth.
The concentration of these forcing gases has increased significantly since industrialisation. Heat has to get higher in the atmosphere to be radiated away. The current is the same, so the gradient is the same. Same gradient... longer distance... bigger T difference between radiative equilibrium and surface T... higher surface T.
isotopic evidence demonstrates the source of the extra CO2 is burning of fossil fuels.
So basic, well understood science predicts that the climate should have warmed.
Predicting the detailed effects is very complex.
But believing there is no significant effect is scientifically illiterate.... it's like denying the absorption spectrum of CO2.
Heres some actual research that shows how much humans are influencing the climate:
Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans
That said regardless of the validity of the science, if this starts catching on there will be no Aviation industry at all, which means we all will be out of a job and society will have a much lower standard of living than it once had. High Speed Trains and Bio Fuel are certainly not the solution.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know plenty of scientists. Despite what your favourite media talking heads may tell you is the truth a grand total of zero of them are communists hell bent on overturning our capitalist economic system.
Not necessarily. New jet airliners have greatly improved fuel efficiency over time. There’s no reason why it can’t continue. R&D can be conducted into new propulsion sources, electric, solar, battery that further decrease emissions. It just needs politcial will and industry cooperation to achieve it.
Then an annual worldwide cap by lottery on who can have a child, no winning ticket, no child, number decided by Governments.
So, whose first then?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: At home.
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is it? Published where? Bet it is not in a peer reviewed scientific publication…
I know plenty of scientists. Despite what your favourite media talking heads may tell you is the truth a grand total of zero of them are communists hell bent on overturning our capitalist economic system.
What is stupid is that numerous countries could go and shoot themselves in the foot economically, lower the quality of life and living standards, no flying, no cars, limited power. Meanwhile China just carries on as the world biggest polluter dominating the world economically and militarily.
Don’t even need to go that far, simply euthanize 2/3rds of the worlds population, far less heat sources/CO2 produced.
Then an annual worldwide cap by lottery on who can have a child, no winning ticket, no child, number decided by Governments.
Then an annual worldwide cap by lottery on who can have a child, no winning ticket, no child, number decided by Governments.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“There’s no reason why it can’t continue. R&D can be conducted into new propulsion sources, electric, solar, battery that further decrease emissions. It just needs politcial will and industry cooperation to achieve it.”
See, that’s the problem in a nutshell. There is an assumption amongst climate change advocates that its just a matter of political will. Its not. Show me a serious engineer that thinks that battery powered RPT aircraft are a possibility anytime soon. Or that China is going to give up coal. Or that solar in Europe in January does more than urinate money up against the wall. Checkout G. B. National Grid status
At some stage this panic as got to be moderated by reality
And just quietly, I’m not sure why some posters assume that pilots aren’t scientifically literate. I have a B.Sc.
I’m more than happy to have a discussion about the physics of climate change.
See, that’s the problem in a nutshell. There is an assumption amongst climate change advocates that its just a matter of political will. Its not. Show me a serious engineer that thinks that battery powered RPT aircraft are a possibility anytime soon. Or that China is going to give up coal. Or that solar in Europe in January does more than urinate money up against the wall. Checkout G. B. National Grid status
At some stage this panic as got to be moderated by reality
And just quietly, I’m not sure why some posters assume that pilots aren’t scientifically literate. I have a B.Sc.
I’m more than happy to have a discussion about the physics of climate change.
Last edited by George Glass; 29th Nov 2019 at 05:16.
What is interesting is that Climate Change seems to only affect first world democratic countries. China is completely immune to any affect of climate change. That in itself is suspicious. If climate change is a big of a deal as everyone makes out then China needs to get in line today. The reality is in the big picture Aviation and Australia are totally irrelevant. The idea of per capita consumption is pointless. It is only virtue signalling. If you want to really fix climate change as it is being currently described then China needs to change today. And everyone needs to stop driving cars. Until then this whole thing is just a way of destroying countries.
New jet airliners have greatly improved fuel efficiency over time.
I haven't noticed an increase of pilots resigning in protest at the lack of action on climate change. When will the followers of st Greta take up her example and eschew aviation all together? Let us know when you do so that we can see the seriousness in which you take the climate change emergency as opposed to the hysterical rhetoric that has been dished up so far.
Interesting, I don't recall any climate scientist stating that the world would "end" in 2030. I believe the official message is that warming should be limited to 1.5 degrees by 2050 to avoid a hostile climate in the future. Anything above this value would have undesirable consequences.
We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN Urgent changes needed to cut risk of extreme heat, drought, floods and poverty, says IPCC
Did someone mention hyprocisy:
While it could be argued that the threat of climate change is imminent, and an actual state of emergency is warranted, that hasn't been done in the case of these climate-emergency declarations.
"Unless there's actually a written declaration that refers to an Act, and I haven't seen one, then that's all it is — symbolism," Dr Eburn said.
"Maybe they're [making] a statement so that one jurisdiction can say to the Commonwealth 'look, this really is important'.
"That might be used to bring more pressure to bear, but as far as I can tell, [it doesn't] have any legal meaning at all."
Canada is a case in point.
On June 18, Canada became the second country to make the declaration.
The following day, the same Canadian government approved the massive expansion of an oil pipeline that will be capable of moving up to 600,000 barrels of oil every day out of Alberta to port in British Columbia.
This is not what we might expect from a country that has just declared an emergency largely caused by fossil fuels.
"Unless there's actually a written declaration that refers to an Act, and I haven't seen one, then that's all it is — symbolism," Dr Eburn said.
"Maybe they're [making] a statement so that one jurisdiction can say to the Commonwealth 'look, this really is important'.
"That might be used to bring more pressure to bear, but as far as I can tell, [it doesn't] have any legal meaning at all."
Canada is a case in point.
On June 18, Canada became the second country to make the declaration.
The following day, the same Canadian government approved the massive expansion of an oil pipeline that will be capable of moving up to 600,000 barrels of oil every day out of Alberta to port in British Columbia.
This is not what we might expect from a country that has just declared an emergency largely caused by fossil fuels.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farum
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Canadian example is typical - C govt is elected principally by people who are energy users not producers and so can grandstand
Alberta is a state of energy producers and so is mainly interested in job creation and tax preservation.
Sometime a political party will run on the basis that renewables are costing the tax payer a lot of money right now and should be scrapped - it'll be interesting to see how the public will vote.........
Alberta is a state of energy producers and so is mainly interested in job creation and tax preservation.
Sometime a political party will run on the basis that renewables are costing the tax payer a lot of money right now and should be scrapped - it'll be interesting to see how the public will vote.........
For a debunking of that “research”:
The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity
The CSIRO, the BoM, the Australian Academy of Science, Institues of Physics and Marine Science have experts who would know all the answers to all of your questions. Feel free to ask them.