Brisbane Airport welcomes Jet Zero council
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Somewhere South
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Earth has been going through ice ages and interglacial warming periods for 4.5 billion years. There is no reason to suspect that this has suddenly stopped.
12.000 years ago the Arctic was free of ice and human interference cannot be blamed for this!
The human effect of 'Global Warming' probably has some effect but the governmental scientists have never tried to explain how much - other than saying it is all our fault.
This is probably because they receive a generous remuneration from respective governments, so why should they ever say anything that would take away their moment of glory and pay package.
For governments it is a very welcome cash cow by way of green levies so why should they admit anything that could reduce these.
Our Sun which is 93 million miles away has controlled the climate of out Earth since it was formed and its sheer power has held us in a tight orbit around it.
When someone can prove that the Sun is not the controlling influence of our climate, I might sit up and listen, but until then any net zero initiatives are virtue signalling and just reasons to raise taxes.
12.000 years ago the Arctic was free of ice and human interference cannot be blamed for this!
The human effect of 'Global Warming' probably has some effect but the governmental scientists have never tried to explain how much - other than saying it is all our fault.
This is probably because they receive a generous remuneration from respective governments, so why should they ever say anything that would take away their moment of glory and pay package.
For governments it is a very welcome cash cow by way of green levies so why should they admit anything that could reduce these.
Our Sun which is 93 million miles away has controlled the climate of out Earth since it was formed and its sheer power has held us in a tight orbit around it.
When someone can prove that the Sun is not the controlling influence of our climate, I might sit up and listen, but until then any net zero initiatives are virtue signalling and just reasons to raise taxes.
Originally Posted by ersa
Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) has accelerated its targets to reach net zero scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2025. Scope 1 and 2 relate to emissions generated from BAC’s direct activity. However, BAC understands that Scope 3 accounts for the vast majority of emissions. Scope 3 includes activity by third parties, including businesses operating at Brisbane Airport, and of course, aviation.
“Increasing the use of SAF as an alternative to fossil fuels is essential for the de-carbonisation of the aviation industry sector and its long-term sustainability. And Brisbane Airport wants to be a leader in the SAF industry,” Paris said.
“Increasing the use of SAF as an alternative to fossil fuels is essential for the de-carbonisation of the aviation industry sector and its long-term sustainability. And Brisbane Airport wants to be a leader in the SAF industry,” Paris said.
Nothing to see here, move along!
Last edited by PiperCameron; 27th Oct 2022 at 04:16.
https://news.defence.gov.au/media/me...-area-airspace
Wonder what the Jet-zero council has to say about the NSW Military Flying area changes ?
Basically means every passenger jet flying in/out of SY NW bound and every QLD to VIC/SA/WA to QLD passenger jet will not get their preferred route or level for hours on end and for 26/52 weeks a yr.
Wonder what the Jet-zero council has to say about the NSW Military Flying area changes ?
Basically means every passenger jet flying in/out of SY NW bound and every QLD to VIC/SA/WA to QLD passenger jet will not get their preferred route or level for hours on end and for 26/52 weeks a yr.
Originally Posted by Fonz121
I’m not going to debate the finer points of a topic that’s not my area of expertise. I’ll leave that to the people who have spent their lives committed to the research and science behind it. I’m going to take a wild guess that you don’t fall into that category. I’m getting more of a University of YouTube vibe.
Imagine being told by a plumber that the science behind aerodynamics is wrong, because you know, it’s all a conspiracy by the woke media.
Jesus some of you are dense.
Imagine being told by a plumber that the science behind aerodynamics is wrong, because you know, it’s all a conspiracy by the woke media.
Jesus some of you are dense.
Jesus eh. The name of god in vain. Straight to hell for ye Fonz121..
…and an excellent segway to:Lets have a look-see at how an uneducated novice could question someone with a highly educated ‘expertise’ of a subject.
Fonz121, there are millions of scholars who have spent their life studying and interpreting Islam. Me, i’m an atheist who has done very little study of any religion.
Fonz121, by your reasoning as I am not an expert on religions I can not ‘deny’ the scholarly reasoning behind religion or reject all ‘man made’ religions outright as I have done because I am not ‘educated’ on the subject.
For an example, why would I question Islam: When Islam dictates that a female is worth half a man I am unable to see how that would pass the most basic test of common sense. And yet, it seems to uneducated me to be one of the central ‘themes’ of that religion - apparently the ‘proof’ is to be found in the scholarly texts.
Back to climate. One of the central themes of the ‘proof’ of man changing climate is how current events are unusually hotter/colder/wetter/dryer/more flammable than the past. That’s something any atheist can check…
.
.
…
.
.
…
.
.
Originally Posted by 10JQKA
https://news.defence.gov.au/media/me...-area-airspace
Wonder what the Jet-zero council has to say about the NSW Military Flying area changes ?
Basically means every passenger jet flying in/out of SY NW bound and every QLD to VIC/SA/WA to QLD passenger jet will not get their preferred route or level for hours on end and for 26/52 weeks a yr.
Wonder what the Jet-zero council has to say about the NSW Military Flying area changes ?
Basically means every passenger jet flying in/out of SY NW bound and every QLD to VIC/SA/WA to QLD passenger jet will not get their preferred route or level for hours on end and for 26/52 weeks a yr.
Originally Posted by Beer Baron
Really?!? You can’t figure it out?
Grow a crop that absorbs carbon from the atmosphere and it reduces atmospheric CO2. Burn it in a jet engine and you release the carbon but you then absorb it again by growing more of the crop. In theory a perfect system would be net zero.
Otherwise you release carbon from a source (oil) that absorbed carbon 10 million years ago. So you are only adding CO2 to the atmosphere today.
Grow a crop that absorbs carbon from the atmosphere and it reduces atmospheric CO2. Burn it in a jet engine and you release the carbon but you then absorb it again by growing more of the crop. In theory a perfect system would be net zero.
Otherwise you release carbon from a source (oil) that absorbed carbon 10 million years ago. So you are only adding CO2 to the atmosphere today.
Producing and suppling fertilizer has a large carbon footprint
So to does all the farm equipment
Road transport to a refinery
The carbon absorbing land they had to clear to grow the crop wipes out a lot of the carbon absorbing bonus
Then you have very thirsty crops such as sugar cane and corn
So bio fuel isn't a silver bullet, far from it...
Originally Posted by Deano969
So bio fuel isn't a silver bullet, far from it...
A bit like being told by a palaeontologist in 2007 that rainfall would become close to zero?
Gotta love the science eh? eh? Kept you safe during the 2.5 year mild flu season. (Heavy sarcasm).
Jesus some of you are dense.
Rely on government to make all of your decisions?
Quintuple vaxxed?
You'd drink the poison in Jonestown?
Originally Posted by Deano969
A lot more to it than that mate
Producing and suppling fertilizer has a large carbon footprint
So to does all the farm equipment
Road transport to a refinery
The carbon absorbing land they had to clear to grow the crop wipes out a lot of the carbon absorbing bonus
Producing and suppling fertilizer has a large carbon footprint
So to does all the farm equipment
Road transport to a refinery
The carbon absorbing land they had to clear to grow the crop wipes out a lot of the carbon absorbing bonus
- Fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction are primarily methane which has a 25x greater greenhouse effect than CO2.
- Plenty of heavy equipment used in oil production. (Offshore rigs and a fleet of helicopters to supply them)
- Trucking bio-fuel from an Australian facility to an Australian airport can’t be much worse than digging it up in the Middle East and shipping it halfway around the planet to Singapore and then to Oz.
And traditional production has ZERO offset.
Originally Posted by Beer Baron
Fossil fuel production has significant emissions too beyond burning the final product:
- Fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction are primarily methane which has a 25x greater greenhouse effect than CO2.
- Plenty of heavy equipment used in oil production. (Offshore rigs and a fleet of helicopters to supply them)
- Trucking bio-fuel from an Australian facility to an Australian airport can’t be much worse than digging it up in the Middle East and shipping it halfway around the planet to Singapore and then to Oz.
And traditional production has ZERO offset.
- Fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction are primarily methane which has a 25x greater greenhouse effect than CO2.
- Plenty of heavy equipment used in oil production. (Offshore rigs and a fleet of helicopters to supply them)
- Trucking bio-fuel from an Australian facility to an Australian airport can’t be much worse than digging it up in the Middle East and shipping it halfway around the planet to Singapore and then to Oz.
And traditional production has ZERO offset.
Hmmm… do tell Beer Baron. That 25x greater effect figure you claim. Is that the claimed greenhouse effect of methane in an atmosphere that also includes water vapour and CO2. Or is it comparing an atmosphere that only contains C02 to an atmosphere that only contains methane ?
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by DROPS
My word, that is a HUGE board.
Directors fees must be through the roof
QUOTE=Icarus2001;11321243]Here are the leaders…
https://www.bne.com.au/corporate/abo...oard-directors
Directors fees must be through the roof
QUOTE=Icarus2001;11321243]Here are the leaders…
https://www.bne.com.au/corporate/abo...oard-directors
No user fees are through the roof . They are well and truly making up for lost revenue during Covid.
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi
Hmmm… do tell Beer Baron. That 25x greater effect figure you claim. Is that the claimed greenhouse effect of methane in an atmosphere that also includes water vapour and CO2. Or is it comparing an atmosphere that only contains C02 to an atmosphere that only contains methane ?
Let’s say a factory releases a ton of methane and a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere today. The methane immediately begins to trap a lot of heat—at least 100 times as much as the CO2. But the methane starts to break down and leave the atmosphere relatively quickly. As more time goes by, and as more of that original ton of methane disappears, the steady warming effect of the CO2 slowly closes the gap. Over 20 years, the methane would trap about 80 times as much heat as the CO2. Over 100 years, that original ton of methane would trap about 25 times as much heat as the ton of CO2.
As to your question, it would appear they are comparing adding methane or CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere as opposed to a hypothetical atmosphere of 100% CO2 or CH4. You can ask MIT for their methodology.
MIT reference
Originally Posted by Beer Baron
It’s not my claim, here are what scientists (not pilots) at MIT have to say:
Let’s say a factory releases a ton of methane and a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere today. The methane immediately begins to trap a lot of heat—at least 100 times as much as the CO2. But the methane starts to break down and leave the atmosphere relatively quickly. As more time goes by, and as more of that original ton of methane disappears, the steady warming effect of the CO2 slowly closes the gap. Over 20 years, the methane would trap about 80 times as much heat as the CO2. Over 100 years, that original ton of methane would trap about 25 times as much heat as the ton of CO2.
As to your question, it would appear they are comparing adding methane or CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere as opposed to a hypothetical atmosphere of 100% CO2 or CH4. You can ask MIT for their methodology.
MIT reference
Let’s say a factory releases a ton of methane and a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere today. The methane immediately begins to trap a lot of heat—at least 100 times as much as the CO2. But the methane starts to break down and leave the atmosphere relatively quickly. As more time goes by, and as more of that original ton of methane disappears, the steady warming effect of the CO2 slowly closes the gap. Over 20 years, the methane would trap about 80 times as much heat as the CO2. Over 100 years, that original ton of methane would trap about 25 times as much heat as the ton of CO2.
As to your question, it would appear they are comparing adding methane or CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere as opposed to a hypothetical atmosphere of 100% CO2 or CH4. You can ask MIT for their methodology.
MIT reference
Here’s me thinking water vapour were the most important greenhouse gas..
Beer Baron, when you did your met study to get your pilots licence were there much mention of C02 or methane building them big storms? Perhaps there were a mention of methane suddenly condensing into fog, or… yer gets the idea..
Beer Baron, when yer out in a cloudless desert day and the temperatures running 52c and a 0% water vapour humidity, I guess yer could blame that C02 and methane for the heat. But then the sun goes down and yer freeze… Why don’t it stay hot ? I thought that methane and C02 were supposed to warm the atmosphere for many years..
…or, you could be in Darwin Australia in the middle of the monsoon sweating away on a hot 32C day with 95% water vapour humidity and think at least you will be cool at night when the sun goes down - But it ain’t. Maybe C02 and methane only work at night in Darwin…
.
It is very hard to know what you are driving at here Binghi. At no point did I posit that Methane was the most importantgreenhouse gas, I stated that it is more potent than CO2 (how much so depends on the timeframe). I don’t see you disputing that.
As to your odd obsession with water vapour, here is what NASA says on the subject:
So perhaps you are confused about what causes weather systems and what causes Climate Change. Increased water vapour being a consequence of climate change not a driver of it. Again, if you disagree with these positions, take it up with NASA. As you are clearly smarter than an MIT professor then I am sure you will be an excellent resource for the folks at NASA.
NASA. The causes of Climate Change
As to your odd obsession with water vapour, here is what NASA says on the subject:
Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, but because the warming ocean increases the amount of it in our atmosphere, it is not a direct cause of climate change.
NASA. The causes of Climate Change
Originally Posted by Beer Baron
It is very hard to know what you are driving at here Binghi. At no point did I posit that Methane was the most importantgreenhouse gas, I stated that it is more potent than CO2 (how much so depends on the timeframe). I don’t see you disputing that.
As to your odd obsession with water vapour, here is what NASA says on the subject:
So perhaps you are confused about what causes weather systems and what causes Climate Change. Increased water vapour being a consequence of climate change not a driver of it. Again, if you disagree with these positions, take it up with NASA. As you are clearly smarter than an MIT professor then I am sure you will be an excellent resource for the folks at NASA.
NASA. The causes of Climate Change
As to your odd obsession with water vapour, here is what NASA says on the subject:
So perhaps you are confused about what causes weather systems and what causes Climate Change. Increased water vapour being a consequence of climate change not a driver of it. Again, if you disagree with these positions, take it up with NASA. As you are clearly smarter than an MIT professor then I am sure you will be an excellent resource for the folks at NASA.
NASA. The causes of Climate Change
Hmmm… Beer Baron, I referenced your link. I quoted from and covered the expert “methodology” of your MIT link..
That’s the link written by: “…Andrew Moseman, MIT Climate Portal Writing Team and guest expert Jessika Trancik, associate professor at the MIT Institute for Data, Systems, and Society…”https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-...we-underrating
Beer Baron, you want to try using the common sense approach to just what is a ‘driver’ of climate. Real world ‘climate’ is not a flat earth climate computer model them MIT numpties fondle with wishful thinking.
Try doing a reductio-ad-adsurdum thought experiment: Remove all water vapour from the atmosphere and what are we left with ? …clouds ? …Fog ? …Rain ? …Cyclones ? …warm humid nights ?
Tell me again about this ‘driver’ of climate…
As the, in his time, most referenced climate scientist said: “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.” Reid Bryson. Bryson were referencing the effect of water vapour.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Bryson
Reid Bryson were one of those hands on weather experts. During WW2 he used to jump into the back of B25’s and fly off into enemy territory so he could do better forecasting. He were one of the wx forecasters of the cyclone that caused the largest disaster in US navy history.
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 30th Oct 2022 at 19:25.
