Climate Change and YSSY crosswinds?

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by 73qanda

What I’m not sure of is how accurate the predictions of future global warming are

Scientists confirm the accuracy of temperature models by applying modelled results to historical temperature data, and this has shown to be accurate.

There were already climate models made in the early 90’s (the first IPCC Report was actually in 1990). The observed measured temperature rise up til today that was predicted by these models have been within the range of those projections.

A study that looked at climate models since the 70’s and their results as well found the projections were accurate. In fact, a lot of projections were shown to be too conservative, and the actual recorded figures were worse than the mean prediction, at the upper end of the IPCC range.

So unlike Dexta in post #163

how hard is it to say "from our best estimates and assumptions, based on models built on what we currently know we postulate that this will happen in X years, but we must stress that this is only a hypothesis, we hope to get a better idea in future years"

or what you posted at #182

It will take decades to build a half descent (SIC) understanding of how our climate works

scientists are confident today they know how our climate works. Unlike what you just said (a rehashing of the old “the science isn’t settled argument), the over 50 links I’ve posted on this thread from credible scientific organisations (vs about a half dozen links from deniers from conservative lobby groups like the Heartland Institure and fundamentalist websites like “Life Site News”) have shown that science has a more than “half decent understanding” of what climate change is. It’s using the science and models that bodies like the IPCC, NASA, CSIRO etc make their policy statements and recommended actions. If they are confident in using them then you should be too.

You seem very hung up on the point that because scientists can’t measure and definitely observe climate and temperature with 100% accuracy at some point in the future and tell us what it is now then it is just a wild guess. It’s actually at quite a high confidence interval at the moment.

I’ve stated numerous times that basically every single credible scientific organisation on earth holds the view that “the fact is humans cause climate change”. None of those organisations state “the fact is humans are causing climate change now, but because we can’t measure what will happen with 100% certainty in the future and tell you now let’s just wait another few decades to see if it really will have quite negative effects”. Even rises at the lowest ranges of the models show that negative effects will occur with continual climate change.

I’ll restate what I posted previously.

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.

[Willie Nelson]

Perhaps a useful term?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

In days gone past there was never unanimous agreement that the precise ill effects of smoking where ‘fact’ different studies indicated greater concerns around different levels of smoking and different types of ill effects but nobody put it down to a conspiracy by the UN.

Tobacco companies with a vested interest used the differences in studies and the not easily repeatable precise outcomes of other studies to highlight so called doubt but the consillience of evidence always pointed to the long term harmful effects on human health. To this day some people still believe that smoking is absolutely harmless and will point to people like George Burns who smoked like a chimney and lived till 100 years of age but this does not dispute the evidence off the widely understood I’ll effects of smoking.

With reference to the NASA minority report, that was news to me and I’m happy to take it on board keeping in mind that NASA employs around 18,000 people, I don’t find it too surprising that there might be 49 former employees who take a different view to their leadership particularly if you take into account all of the current and former employees.

From the Guardian “Attacks on NASA by former staff shouldn’t be taken seriously” (You may well bitch about the source but I dare you to prove them wrong before you do)

Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science). Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers. You can review the signatories for yourself here.

​​​​​So yes I will acknowledge there is some doubt from some very smart former employees of NASA as to the veracity of the anthropogenic consensus but you’ll have to forgive me for putting that to the side for now.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re - "And on and on and on...Just like how hundreds of world wide scientific bodies hold the exact same position - The following are worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:=left
It isn't just a hypothesis, it isn't just a theory, it isn't just a guess, it's fact, it's empirical, it's proven. After going through the scientific method. I really don't know what else needs to be said."

I wonder just how much WW2 affected 'Global Warming / Climate Change'..??

ALL of those bombs and the effect, in both Europe and Asia, including the A & the H bombs, plus those used for 'testing' in the various world locations......
I would have thought that 'somebody' would have thought of that by now....
But.....

p.s. I won't even mention the various world's volcanoes that spew forth every now and again........
Nor the fact that, in geological terms, we had an 'ice age' that is reported to have finished between 15K and 10K years ago, and the planet has been 'warming' ever since....
Thankfully....otherwise many of us (Nearly all of us?) would not be here...???

OVAH!

[Lookleft]

Willie have another look at that letter, the eminent signatories are not claiming that climate change is not occurring they are more concerned with NASA's stance on the catastrophic effect of climate change. My take on it is that they consider the science of the extreme cc hypothesis is not settled and that their primary concern is for the reputation of NASA. Some of those signatories established NASA's reputation so to just dismiss them as equivalent to kitchen hands suggests that a hysterical narrative is at play. Yet if you are a paleontologist who is able to secure a government paid position and spruik the hysterical cc narrative then you are considered to be an expert on cc! If you are a failed US presidential candidate looking for relevance post politics then you are considered an expert on cc and if you are an actor who has no scientific background then you are considered an expert on cc. Its not surprising that a significant number of people view with sceptisicm the claims of those who say that cc is out of control and it is only by changing the Western way of life that it will be fixed.

[George Glass]

Well dr dre , I have to confess a sneaking admiration for the grimly determined way you persist in your mission of converting the great unwashed into seeing the marvellous advantages of the scientific method. But I already get that. I got it when I completed a BSc in 1979.

But its not the point , is it ?

The over-subscribed float of 1.5% of Saudi Aramco next week will raise around $25.6 billion and value the company at $1.7 trillion.

Where I live , Australia ( I see you cryptically inhabit “ The World “ - Wow ! ) coal and gas exports amount to 26.5% of total exports valued at around $87 billion annually. Iron ore is around 15% and is often processed using , shock , horror , metallurgical coal. Then there is bauxite that is turned into aluminium by prodigious amounts of cheap electricity.

Does any of that suggest that fossil fuels are on the way out ? Then of course there is Jet A1 , diesel etc.etc. I could go on but hopefully you get the point.

Sooner or later this rather adolescent debate will have to progress to finding real world solutions.

Baying at the moon wont do it.

[De_flieger]

Originally Posted by Ex FSO GRIFFO

I wonder just how much WW2 affected 'Global Warming / Climate Change'..??

ALL of those bombs and the effect, in both Europe and Asia, including the A & the H bombs, plus those used for 'testing' in the various world locations......
I would have thought that 'somebody' would have thought of that by now....
But.....

Well, they did. There's been research done on exactly that topic, comparing global temperatures, considering the effects of solar irradiance, pollution, weather patterns such as El Nino and volcanic events and so on. The temperature record actually shows a slight decline in temperatures over a few years following World War 2, which is believed to be due to the broad effects of smoke haze and increased sulphate aerosol atmospheric pollution, which has a cooling effect but a bunch of other negative impacts such as acid rain, and which in later decades was greatly reduced as governments legislated for reductions in those emissions.

In terms of total CO2 emissions though, for the entire 7 year period covering 1939-1945 the global CO2 emissions were calculated to be approximately 34 billion tons (US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory figures). By comparison, the global CO2 emissions for 2018 alone were approximately 37 billion tons, so in one year last year there was more CO2 emitted globally than during the entire Second World War. The annual rate of CO2 emissions has gone up by a factor of more than 7 between the WW2 era you're looking at, and recent years.

p.s. I won't even mention the various world's volcanoes that spew forth every now and again........

Again, not something that climate researchers ignore. Forbes has an article that discusses this How much CO2 does a single volcano emit , which has figures of approximately 645 million tons of CO2 emitted every year due to volcanic activity in various forms (volcanic eruptions, mid ocean tectonic ridge activity and a few other things that are technically volcanic activity, while not being the traditional idea of an erupting volcano). That sounds like a lot, until it is compared to calculated level of human CO2 emissions in the last year, being approximately 37 billion tons of CO2.

Their article looks at the CO2 emitted by some of the very large, infrequent eruptions that make the headlines and people are aware of, and to match the levels of CO2 currently produced by human activity each day they point out that "It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.".

The US Geological Survey also discusses this here Volcanoes can affect the Earth's climate , with similar figures and conclusions. In short, volcanoes produce CO2, however the global contribution of volcanic activity to atmospheric CO2 is around the 1% mark, give or take, depending on how various forms of volcanic activity are calculated and what year is used as the baseline for the human contribution. Basically, it's a myth that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity, the true figure is that humans produce approximately 100 times more in recent years.

Nor the fact that, in geological terms, we had an 'ice age' that is reported to have finished between 15K and 10K years ago, and the planet has been 'warming' ever since....
Thankfully....otherwise many of us (Nearly all of us?) would not be here...???
OVAH!

Again, this isn't a surprise to researchers. There's a fair bit of published work on this topic. Here's a reasonable read, published in Nature, a very highly regarded scientific journal, that looks at how the end of that last ice age was associated with increasing CO2 levels, with the temperature increasing following the rising CO2 levels. Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation It doesn't contradict the existing observations of what is happening; quite the opposite in fact.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by George Glass

But its not the point , is it ?
Sooner or later this rather adolescent debate will have to progress to finding real world solutions.

The first step to solving a problem is admitting there is one. Have a debate on solutions to the problem by all means, but at the moment the issue is getting some to admit that the problem exists.

Some come around. The current NASA administrator was originally a climate change denier. Look what happened:

The former congressman from Oklahoma had long denied the scientific consensus on climate change and said in a 2013 speech on the House floor that "global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago."

In May, Bridenstine first announced publicly that he now believes human activity is the main cause of climate change.

“I heard a lot of experts, and I read a lot,” Bridenstine told the Washington Post on Tuesday. “I came to the conclusion myself that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that we've put a lot of it into the atmosphere and therefore we have contributed to the global warming that we've seen. And we've done it in really significant ways.”

NASA chief says he changed mind about climate change because he 'read a lot’

[TimmyTee]

Ironic isn’t it, that we are talking about Sydney airport and whether it’s being impacted by climate change, while the entire time this has gone on, it has been covered in toxic smoke from unprecedented bushfires, that experts (ie scientists) told/tell us non-experts, will become more frequent and intense..

[Chris2303]

Originally Posted by TimmyTee

Ironic isn’t it, that we are talking about Sydney airport and whether it’s being impacted by climate change, while the entire time this has gone on, it has covered in toxic smoke from unprecedented bushfires, that experts (ie scientists) told/tell us non-experts will become more frequent and intense..

And all the greenhouse gases from the fires.......................

Enough to make Greta weep, but I don't see her over here peeing on them

[601]

The first step to solving a problem is admitting there is one. Have a debate on solutions to the problem by all means, but at the moment the issue is getting some to admit that the problem exists.

Some people must be living under a rock or only listen to the ABC or read the Guardian to form the opinion that "the issue is getting some to admit that the problem exists".

If you are talking about China or India, I agree. For the rest of the world I believe that it is acknowledge that CC is here and are doing their bit to reduce emissions.

The question is, what are YOU doing as an individual instead of shouting at deniers, politicians and whoever you think has an alternative view.

[George Glass]

TimmyTee, check out Captain Cook’s account of his voyage up the east coast of Australia in 1770. He had trouble seeing the shoreline a lot of the time because of the smoke. The black fella’s burnt it of routinely. They would be horrified at the idea of living in unburnt bush.

[Asturias56]

"Enough to make Greta weep"

no doubt she's on her way by sail - or bicycle.....................

[HabuHunter]

So what is the problem?

Is it “Global cooling” as touted by the IPCC in the 1970s? Or is it “global warming” as touted by the IPCC in the 1990s?
or is it “Climate Change” as touted by the IPCC in recent times?

Maybe its all these things.... because the climate has always changed. The world has been a lot colder in the past and the world has been a lot hotter in the past.... all without human produced CO2.

[unexplained blip]

Originally Posted by HabuHunter

So what is the problem?

Is it “Global cooling” as touted by the IPCC in the 1970s? Or is it “global warming” as touted by the IPCC in the 1990s?
or is it “Climate Change” as touted by the IPCC in recent times?

Maybe its all these things.... because the climate has always changed. The world has been a lot colder in the past and the world has been a lot hotter in the past.... all without human produced CO2.

The climate has always changed, and there have always been crosswinds at YSSY. So next time the crosswinds are 40kts, please continue to land. What's that you say? There are safety limits? Well bugger me, maybe that says something about the climate too.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by 601

Some people must be living under a rock or only listen to the ABC or read the Guardian to form the opinion that "the issue is getting some to admit that the problem exists".

Nope. You can go back through this thread and see that there are plenty of posters disagreeing with the science, from skepticism of future predictions to outright mistruths about scientific facts. For an example this one right here:

Originally Posted by HabuHunter

Is it “Global cooling” as touted by the IPCC in the 1970s? Or is it “global warming” as touted by the IPCC in the 1990s?
or is it “Climate Change” as touted by the IPCC in recent times?

Nope. It is a myth that the scientific consensus in the 70s predicted cooling. The IPCC wasn't formed until 1988, so saying the IPCC was "touting Global cooling" in the 70s is downright false. It was more of a media invention. Even in the 70s the majority of peer reviewed papers indicated a warming trend, not a cooling one. The reason a few studies indicated global cooling was an increase in SO2 levels at the time, for which limits were enacted for environmental reasons. All of it is totally explainable.

Maybe its all these things.... because the climate has always changed. The world has been a lot colder in the past and the world has been a lot hotter in the past.... all without human produced CO2.

Nope. That has been totally and thoroughly debunked for a while now. The recorded temperatures aren't the issue concerning scientists. It's the huge rate of warming that concerns them, much faster than anything in history. All of it directly linked to human produced C02, which is which is directly linked to the extremely fast rate of change.

All of this is explained in a great visual format in this chart here. If scroll all the way down to the bottom of the chart you can see why scientists are concerned by the rate of change in temperature over the last 50 years or so.

[601]

Nope. That has been totally and thoroughly debunked for a while now. The recorded temperatures aren't the issue concerning scientists. It's the huge rate of warming that concerns them, much faster than anything in history. All of it directly linked to human produced C02, which is which is directly linked to the extremely fast rate of change.

All of this is explained in a great visual format in this chart here. If scroll all the way down to the bottom of the chart you can see why scientists are concerned by the rate of change in temperature over the last 50 years or so.

Dr Dre So instead of shouting at all and sundry who may have a different point of view to yours, what do you think is the correct way of arresting this CC?

Solar or wind or a combination of both will not solve the problem.
Solar or wind or a combination of both with massive storage, not piddly little batteries as in SA but pumped hydro on a massive scale, may solve the problem.
Or, dare I say it nuclear. .

What is it going to be the energy source that will stop the crosswinds at SY?

I get bored with all the shouting that the sky is falling without offering anything concrete to solve the problem. Frankly all this shouting it is a turnoff.

As for the 70s cooling, We did not have the web nor the scourge of "social media" to amplify what may or may not have been accurate. But in those days, the media was more about factual reporting that opinions. We had to make up our own minds from the reporting. It may have been debunked later but it felt real at the time.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by 601

Dr Dre So instead of shouting at all and sundry who may have a different point of view to yours

I haven’t been “shouting” at anyone. I’ve just pointed out false statements presented by others and debunked them with linked info from scientific sources. That’s not “shouting”.

I get bored with all the shouting that the sky is falling without offering anything concrete to solve the problem. Frankly all this shouting it is a turnoff.

There are solutions out there to climate change, but the measures don’t sit well with a lot of people. We’ll collectively have to decide whether we pay the cost of them now or pay for the cost of not dealing with what science is telling us will almost certainly happen later.

As for the 70s cooling, We did not have the web nor the scourge of "social media" to amplify what may or may not have been accurate. But in those days, the media was more about factual reporting that opinions. We had to make up our own minds from the reporting. It may have been debunked later but it felt real at the time.

Well that’s the perception you got from the media at the time. The science was still being done. So to say “in those days the media was more about factual reporting than opinions” would be incorrect as theories about “global cooling” weren’t proven nor were accurate. So it was an “opinion” over “factual reporting” in the 70s. But now it’s pretty obvious that the credible scientists have come to this conclusion, and those are the people we should be listening to now, not media talking heads.

I’m not (nor have I ever claimed to be) an expert on climate related issues. All I’ve done is read a lot, facts and info from credible scientists. It’s all out there in the open. The facts, the data, the scientific method, the predictions and solutions to the problem.

For an overview of some solutions, check out this page from the Australian Academy of Science. Broadly problems can be dealt with by emissions reduction, sequestration, adaptation or geoengineering.

[Willie Nelson]

Originally Posted by Lookleft

Willie have another look at that letter, the eminent signatories are not claiming that climate change is not occurring they are more concerned with NASA's stance on the catastrophic effect of climate change. My take on it is that they consider the science of the extreme cc hypothesis is not settled and that their primary concern is for the reputation of NASA. Some of those signatories established NASA's reputation so to just dismiss them as equivalent to kitchen hands suggests that a hysterical narrative is at play. Yet if you are a paleontologist who is able to secure a government paid position and spruik the hysterical cc narrative then you are considered to be an expert on cc! If you are a failed US presidential candidate looking for relevance post politics then you are considered an expert on cc and if you are an actor who has no scientific background then you are considered an expert on cc. Its not surprising that a significant number of people view with sceptisicm the claims of those who say that cc is out of control and it is only by changing the Western way of life that it will be fixed.

I’ve specifically not dismissed the NASA petition, I’ve acknowledged that there’s some smart people in group of 49. I guess what I’m trying to point to is what might otherwise be referred to as “false balance” I.e. a group of 49 former employees versus not only the current group of 18,000 employees but every other employee, scientist or not that has ever worked for NASA. It’s an interesting letter and I read it with some degree of surprise for sure.

At at some point the media stopped publishing articles of the medical research that failed to find a link between smoking cigarettes and it’s not that the information wasn’t any longer available or being produced it just stop being disputed by everyone who had a dog in the game in favour of the tobacco industry.

At some point you too will have to settle on a view one way or the other, maybe you feel that point is not yet, fair enough. To some degree I’m open to alternative points of view, that’s why I read the letter too, I just don’t find it ultimately persuasive despite the respect I would no doubt hold for the skills and expertise of those that wrote it.

[HabuHunter]

Dr Dre said:
”There are solutions out there to climate change, but the measures don’t sit well with a lot of people.”

Can you tell us what the solutions are?

[HabuHunter]

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/upload...tober-2019.pdf

700 climate scientists have written to the U.N. to say there is no climate emergency.
It’s worth a read if you are interested in balancing out the debate.