Climate Change and YSSY crosswinds?

[Dexta]

I think Dr Dre that you will find that very few things in science are actual laws, most things are still theories or a combination of both. Take gravity (very pertinent to pilots), we have Newtons Law of "Universal" Gravity (I have put Universal in quotes - see below*) which gives a formula which allows us to calculate force as per "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." *So far this has only been tested on Earth, in orbit and on the moon, i.e. "Universal" being in the vicinity of Earth, who knows if gravity acts the same way in all parts of the universe :-)
However HOW Gravity works is still a Theory, there is a lot of data, a lot of very smart people working on the topic but so far no one really knows how gravity works. To me, changing climate is very similar to gravity, we can measure (see my post above re: measurement) temperature change and we even have formulae to calculate heat transfer through various mediums etc. BUT what is causing the change and how that change will manifest in the future is still a theory, a lot of scientists think they know and there are a lot of smart people who are working on the issue. Many scientists have thought they cracked gravity, I would even say that 97% thought that string/loop theory was the answer (a consensus?) but new information in the last few years is blowing that apart.
So, the scientific approach to climate change should be: Climate is changing: Yes, Why is it changing: we have lots of ideas and there is strong evidence that humans are involved in some way, What does the future hold: We don't rightly know, and it is too soon to make any worthwhile prediction.

[Willie Nelson]

Thank God for you Dr. Dre

I genuinely appreciate they you’re making a concerted effort to persuade your fellow pilots of the legitimate concerns of human induced climate change in a respectful and informed manner.

Us pilots have have so much skin in the game of climate denial and doubt. It’s just too hard for many pilots to recognise the conflict of personal interest. I am also deeply concerned but I am such a small minority within the community of professionals that for the most part I truly respect.

As such a small minority within aviation, I have sadly given up trying to convince anyone anymore, it’s just bloody exhausting.

So thanks you for doing some of the heavy lifting.

[dr dre]

Habuhunter, 73qanda and dexta,

Good job trying to trip me up on little irrelevancies. But I'm not going to play that game.
It is unequivocal that every credible scientific body on earth believes that human induced climate change is real, that the evidence that humans have altered the climate in negative ways is now beyond reasonable doubt. Not just theories, not just hypothesis, not just consensus, proven fact.

Now if you want to concede that because the future hasn't happened yet and you can't say with a definite observation of what will happen exactly, you can. But scientists are now so sure that based on what has happened, what is happening now and what their multiple models show for the future that there will be negative effects if current trends are continued or accelerated. There are already consequences happening today.

Not a single person here would not start treatment for cancer if given a diagnosis by one doctor, let alone 97. There's no way a doctor can predict exactly what the cancer is going to do right, so why not wait until conclusive, observed evidence arises that the cancer is having disastrous effects on your body? Why not wait until the cancer has spread to your lungs and brain and you're coughing up blood and having blackouts, then we will have definite evidence and be 100% sure that the cancer is an issue.

There is some debate in scientific ranks over the future for climate change, but it isn't really between those who believe the planet will warm vs those who don't think the science is settled. The debate is actually between those who think the inevitable warming can be altered, vs those who think it's too far gone and no real action can be taken. That's where the debate and skepticism is at the moment. You can discuss that, and you can discuss what measures should be taken to stop it. You can discuss if large economic and cultural changes are worth it to combat climate change, or if the negative economic effects of CC will outweigh those, that's a debate worth having. But given what's known about AGW the science community moved on from debating whether or not it's caused by humans a long, long time ago.

I have friends whom are scientists. They tell me climate deniers or skeptics or whatever you want to call yourselves are viewed in the science community just like chemtrailers are viewed by pilots. Difference being scientists won't get on a science board and tell other scientists that chemtrail theorists have some valid opinions.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by Willie Nelson

I genuinely appreciate they you’re making a concerted effort to persuade your fellow pilots of the legitimate concerns of human induced climate change in a respectful and informed manner.
Us pilots have have so much skin in the game of climate denial and doubt. It’s just too hard for many pilots to recognise the conflict of personal interest. I am also deeply concerned but I am such a small minority within the community of professionals that for the most part I truly respect.
As such a small minority within aviation, I have sadly given up trying to convince anyone anymore, it’s just bloody exhausting.
So thanks you for doing some of the heavy lifting.

Thanks for your appreciation, I don't want to do this, I do feel like Galileo at times. Climate scientists have received threats and abuse, and worse, for doing their jobs.

I do think the opposition to the science stems from a lot of places, but for pilots it's principally because they are convinced their livelihoods and wealth will be affected. Because they believe that any measures to combat climate change will cause them to lose wealth or income they latch on to pseudo science and biased opinions with an agenda denying the reality. it doesn't have to be that way, and pilots should be making a concerted effort to work with science to produce low emissions aircraft, more use of electric and battery powered machines. Humans have accomplished great things with science (medical technology, spaceflight) there's no reason why we can't make it a unified goal if we work together.

[HabuHunter]

Originally Posted by dr dre

Habuhunter, 73qanda and dexta,

Good job trying to trip me up on little irrelevancies. But I'm not going to play that game.

Dr Dre, all I asked you to do was to stop ad hominem attacks, stop using the consensus argument and to examine your sources.
If you think that those things are small and irrelevant then you won’t convince many people that you have anything worthwhile to contribute except your passion.

[George Glass]

dr dre , It must give you a warm inner glow and sense of deep satisfaction to right off anybody who dares to question your diatribes with the epithet of Climate Denier but may I suggest that simple restating grievance ad infinitum as not activism. Its hectoring to no purpose.
The conceit of all Climate Zealots is that of all activists who believe that belief alone and force of will will by itself see the Unbelievers to see the true path and repent. But it wont. For some very simple reasons, many of which humble operational Pilots understand intuitively.
Fossil fuels are of incomparable economic utility.
Fossil fuels lifted humanity out of the Hobbesian nightmare of 90% of human existence.
China, India and the rest of the developing world know this and are determined to have their moment in the sun. Nothing middle class hand-wringing westerners will change that.
Renewables are nowhere near supplying the majority of base-load power anywhere, and wont for the foreseeable future despite the fantastical non-physical properties advocates dream of.
Until you can come with REAL alternatives to the Jet A1 that powers every jet aircraft, the fuel oil that powers every cargo ship or the diesel that powers every regional diesel electric train, all heavy road transport and farm machinery please spare me your sanctimonious harping.
Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels will be extraordinarily difficult and in some cases not possible at all.
Either way scientists , engineers and entrepreneurs will provide the solutions , not haranguing from Cultural Revolution re-enactors from Extinction Rebellion.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by HabuHunter

Dr Dre, all I asked you to do was to stop ad hominem attacks, stop using the consensus argument and to examine your sources.

I did. You told me I didn't understand the scientific method. I posted a link direct from NASA explaining how they use the scientific method to explain that human induced climate change is fact.
Here it is:
The scientific method and climate change: How scientists know

Stop using the consensus argument? I will state my views mirror what NASA has written below:
Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming

Examine my sources? OK, after examination I believe that NASA, the several thousand scientists who constitute the IPCC and all of the over 200 worldwide scientific bodies who back them up are good sources.

Ad hominems? OK, here's direct quotes by the aformentioned "scientist" directly refuted: These are not ad hominem attacks:
Climate Misinformation by Source: Judith Curry

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by George Glass

Either way scientists , engineers and entrepreneurs will provide the solutions , not haranguing from Cultural Revolution re-enactors from Extinction Rebellion.

You know, despite all your other abusive nonsense directed at me in the rest of you post, that's actually the point I'm making.

I've actually posted nothing, no links or comments from Extinction Rebellion or Greta Thunberg for that matter. Despite being accused multiple times on this thread of being an "Extinction Rebellion luddite" or a "Greta fanboy", I've sourced info from NASA, the CSIRO, researchers at the IPCC, UniQld's Global Change Institute, National Geographic, BoM, various National Academies of Sciences, various University Climate research institutes. I guess they're just a bunch of communist treehugging hippies too, huh?

And as well I notice that you don't deny that humans are changing the climate in negative ways, as is stated by almost every climate scientist on earth. That's the other point I'm making.

[George Glass]

dr dre, Abusive nonsense????
If you are as scientifically literate as you say you are , please contest ONE of the assertions I’ve made.
Please don’t retreat into the “ I’ve been offended” trope.
As I have said before in another post I have a BSc , including some Physics, so I’m more than happy to engage in an informed conversation.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by George Glass

dr dre, Abusive nonsense????

Actually, yeah.
"It must give you a warm inner glow and sense of deep satisfaction"
"your diatribes"
"hectoring".
"all Climate Zealots"
"hand-wringing westerners"
"fantastical non-physical properties advocates dream of"
"your sanctimonious harping."
"not haranguing from Cultural Revolution re-enactors from Extinction Rebellion".

It definitely wasn't offensive, because I'm not offended, but it was full of personal insults, and if you want to debate someone don't start it off with personal insults.

[George Glass]

I miss the good old days of the Cold War pre 1990.
At least you could have an argument with a Communist.
Now its just millennials with a sense of grievance and a very thin skin.
You still haven’t made an argument against what I asserted.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by George Glass

Now its just millennials with a sense of grievance and a very thin skin.

OK boomer.

(I really don't like that phrase, and have refrained from using it, but that comment was just begging for it.....)

Anyway enough talk about language, I'm not an climate expert but nor is anyone else here, so is there anyone here with genuine questions re climate change who wants genuine answers, not just their worldview confirmed? I can try and find some contact details for climate scientists at various institutes around the country if so.

[George Glass]

OK boomer

That says it all.

All credibility evaporates in an instant.

Not much point in continuing.......

I’m going fishing

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by George Glass

OK boomer
That says it all.
All credibility evaporates in an instant.
Not much point in continuing.......
I’m going fishing

I thought you said it was the millennials who had the thin skin George...?

[George Glass]

Yeah, but you never really answered the question , did you ? That’s the point. You probably think you’re the future don’t you? But you’re really clueless. And maybe I wont go fishing. THe early season conditions at Lake Louise are the best in years.

[Oceanair]

Well said mate . However, the saying, ‘ Don’t place your pearls before swine ‘ comes to mind when confronted with the wilful ignorance amd self interest of right wing zealots/ climate change denialists and radio shock jocks who will happily spruik science based anecdotes at social occasions to appear more cerebral but go red in the face and throw all their toys out of the cot when the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence concludes that a change in behaviour is required for our collective well being.
Some horses just won’t drink the water no matter how they are lead.

[Asturias56]

"Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels will be extraordinarily difficult and in some cases not possible at all."

Absolutely correct George

TBH using Fossil fuels for a lot of current uses is a terrible waste of a very valuable resource. Most informed people don't see a total stop to fossil fuels but a reduction where possible.

A lot of the real argument is about how fast & who pays

The current UN Conference will not be an edifying spectacle .................

[HabuHunter]

Originally Posted by dr dre

I did. You told me I didn't understand the scientific method. I posted a link direct from NASA explaining how they use the scientific method to explain that human induced climate change is fact.
Link removed

Stop using the consensus argument? I will state my views mirror what NASA has written below:
link removed

Examine my sources? OK, after examination I believe that NASA, the several thousand scientists who constitute the IPCC
plink removed

Ad hominems? OK, here's direct quotes by the aformentioned "scientist" directly refuted: These are not ad hominem attacks

Do you even read the articles you link? The first link takes you to an article written by a pro-climate change journalist who states that “scientists have used the scientific method to proved climate change is real”. What the?

The second link is better and I can see if you haven’t got a science background why you would be misled. But you’ve used another logical fallacy, the appeal to authority fallacy.
Regardless of what NASA says, science is not consensus. NASA has been politicised and there is a growing controversy about its climate activism.

Ok your 3rd link was to a list of scientific organisations, which is great, but you don’t use them. Instead you use incredibly biased, non science, anonymous climate alarmist websites such as your last link, the skeptical science website. I’ve already told you this but you are still using it. The linked article is nonsense. It says things like, “Judith Curry says there is no consensus. She is wrong because 97% of climate scientist agree.” Surely you can see that this is unmitigated rubbish?

[str12]

I disagree, Dr Dre has plenty of credibility and uses science to argue his point, not debunked theories and opinion.

GG, et al, you are not Climate Scientists but argue you are right and all the Worlds credible Climate Scientist are wrong yet offer only opinion and debunked theories. To me that is irrational and demonstrates clear lack of understanding of science, strong bias, and an unwillingness to accept peer reviewed research. It is your credibility that needs to be questioned. You may know a little about aviation but know jack about science, and absolutely nothing about Climate Science. The Flat Earth Society suffers from the same behavioral pattern.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by HabuHunter

=

Do you even read the articles you link? The first link takes you to an article written by a pro-climate change journalist who states that “scientists have used the scientific method to proved climate change is real”. What the?

What the? Yes, that's exactly what the writing at the link says. What's the problem with the journalist being "pro-climate change"? It was written by NASA's research centre, the JPL. Staffed by employees and processors at CalTech, considered the world's top Physical Sciences university. Quoting a PhD working in Oceanography and Climate science. I think they know exactly what the scientific method is.

Regardless of what NASA says, science is not consensus. NASA has been politicised and there is a growing controversy about its climate activism.

Now we start to veer into conspiracy theorist territory. What, I guess all their research has been deliberately corrupted and NASA has been infiltrated by "deep state globalists"? Is that you, Senator Malcolm Roberts??'

Now if you're referring to the 2012 letter from 49 former NASA employees including some former astronauts disputing NASA's position on climate change (but conveniently including zero facts or evidence to back up their position), that was easily debunked. There were quite a few spaceflight experts, spacecraft engineers, astronauts, pilots and mission control directors on that list, but absolutely none of them had undertaken one second of climate change research. You might as well have gotten a letter written by 49 former NASA cleaners and kitchenhands. The NASA climate scientists completely refuted their statement, and NASA has not changed any policies due to that letter. It has gone nowhere. There's no "growing controversy".

Ok your 3rd link was to a list of scientific organisations, which is great, but you don’t use them. Instead you use incredibly biased, non science, anonymous climate alarmist websites such as your last link, the skeptical science website. I’ve already told you this but you are still using it. The linked article is nonsense. It says things like, “Judith Curry says there is no consensus. She is wrong because 97% of climate scientist agree.” Surely you can see that this is unmitigated rubbish?

C'mon, if I stopped using websites you disliked I'd be limiting myself to the GWPF, wattsupwiththat and Andrew Bolt's blog.
You dislike Skeptical Science because it's a very well written and scientifically accurate debunking of skeptic arguments. It's endorsed by the CSIRO. I think I'll keep using it.