Brisbane Airport welcomes Jet Zero council
Binghi, interesting person to reference this Bryson. From your own link he is said to have held the following positions on climate change:
You still struggle to see the difference between climatic conditions and Climate Change. Just because it is sunny in the morning and cloudy in the afternoon, that is not what people refer to when discussing Climate Change.
Given you consider MIT professors to be ‘numpties’ and your personal thought experiments trump NASA analysis then I’m clearly not going to convince you you’re wrong. I won’t waste any more time on this foolish debate.
- The climate is actually cooling because of human impacts on the environment.
- When the evidence proved that he was wrong and the climate was actually warming, Bryson testified to Congress that global warming from fossil-fuel combustion was politically unstoppable.
- He then reversed himself (again) and said the warming was not caused by humans after all.
You still struggle to see the difference between climatic conditions and Climate Change. Just because it is sunny in the morning and cloudy in the afternoon, that is not what people refer to when discussing Climate Change.
Given you consider MIT professors to be ‘numpties’ and your personal thought experiments trump NASA analysis then I’m clearly not going to convince you you’re wrong. I won’t waste any more time on this foolish debate.
Binghi, interesting person to reference this Bryson. From your own link he is said to have held the following positions on climate change:
…
- The climate is actually cooling because of human impacts on the environment.
- When the evidence proved that he was wrong and the climate was actually warming, Bryson testified to Congress that global warming from fossil-fuel combustion was politically unstoppable.
- He then reversed himself (again) and said the warming was not caused by humans after all.
…
I’ve been ‘utilising’ Bryson as an example here in pprune for many years now. As I said, in his time the most referenced (cited) climate scientist.
When Bryson and other climate scientists were convinced of the coming ice age the world average temperature had been in decline for a number of years. Time magazine had it headlined at the time. Lucky for the world economy at the time Al Gore and his ilk were not yet around to make the global climate ‘issue’ into the highly profitable money making and career making industry it has now become.
Poor ol Bryson and his fellow climate scientists later changed their views when the world average temps started to climb back up. Must have been traumatic at the time for the worlds most cited climate scientist to have got it so wrong. At least it got him delving into the so-called climate drivers a bit more. In the end Bryson researched a bit more of the archeology of the climate and noted things such as the medieval warm period, thats the medieval warm period that is were warmer than today, and noted there were no increased CO2 ‘driver’ to explain the medieval warm period - in fact, there is still no ‘scientific’ explanation of the medieval warm period. Nor is there any science as such on the warm period that predates the period of cooling that Bryson and other climate scientists thought were a coming ice age.
So its no surprise that near the end of his life Bryson said:
“You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 1st Nov 2022 at 00:48.
Binghi,
…
You still struggle to see the difference between climatic conditions and Climate Change. Just because it is sunny in the morning and cloudy in the afternoon, that is not what people refer to when discussing Climate Change.
Given you consider MIT professors to be ‘numpties’ and your personal thought experiments trump NASA analysis then I’m clearly not going to convince you you’re wrong. I won’t waste any more time on this foolish debate.
…
You still struggle to see the difference between climatic conditions and Climate Change. Just because it is sunny in the morning and cloudy in the afternoon, that is not what people refer to when discussing Climate Change.
Given you consider MIT professors to be ‘numpties’ and your personal thought experiments trump NASA analysis then I’m clearly not going to convince you you’re wrong. I won’t waste any more time on this foolish debate.
…I’m still wondering where is that proof of all that ‘global warming’. Beer Baron, surely some expert at MIT must have it…
Satellite based temperature data is useful as it is not influenced by heat sink effects or other spurious effects.
Hardly a shocking rise in a average troposphere temperatures since 1979.
Thank you for that Icarus2001..
Them satellites showed up an interesting effect:
“…A funny thing happens when you line up satellite and surface temperatures over Australia. A lot of the time they are very close, but some years the surface records from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) are cooler by a full half a degree than the UAH satellite readings. Before anyone yells “adjustments”, this appears to be a real difference of instruments, but solving this mystery turns up a rather major flaw in climate models.
Bill Kininmonth wondered if those cooler-BOM years were also wetter years when more rain fell. So Tom Quirk got the rainfall data and discovered that rainfall in Australia has a large effect on the temperatures recorded by the sensors five feet off the ground. This is what Bill Johnston has shown at individual stations. Damp soil around the Stevenson screens takes more heat to evaporate and keeps maximums lower. In this new work Quirk has looked at the effect right across the country and the years when the satellite estimates diverge from the ground thermometers are indeed the wetter years. Furthermore, it can take up to six months to dry out the ground after a major wet period and for the cooling effect to end…”
Article continues at: https://joannenova.com.au/2018/03/my...-predict-this/
Fascinating stuff that..
Beer Baron, it's not really worth engaging with ol Binghi, if you look here Gish Gallop: When people try to win debates by using overwhelming nonsense you can see his methods explained. In short it's just throwing out dozens of arguments regardless of how weak or unsupported they are, and hoping to wear you down because you'll get sick of rebutting things so it seems like a win for him, and it's far quicker for him to make a few more claims than it is for you to explain why they are wrong. Just because the world's scientific institutions all say something is happening based on vast numbers of independent data sources across multiple disciplines, it apparently doesn't matter because there are a mixture of (in much smaller numbers) genuine scientists who are either long-dead, not working in the field they're being quoted in, or whose work is being misrepresented by crackpots with blogs that disproves it all....
I mean, one of Binghi's arguments was that greenhouse gases are supposed to warm the atmosphere for years, but at night it gets cold, so....checkmate, I guess?
I mean, one of Binghi's arguments was that greenhouse gases are supposed to warm the atmosphere for years, but at night it gets cold, so....checkmate, I guess?
Beer Baron, it's not really worth engaging with ol Binghi, if you look here Gish Gallop: When people try to win debates by using overwhelming nonsense you can see his methods explained. In short it's just throwing out dozens of arguments regardless of how weak or unsupported they are, and hoping to wear you down because you'll get sick of rebutting things so it seems like a win for him, and it's far quicker for him to make a few more claims than it is for you to explain why they are wrong. Just because the world's scientific institutions all say something is happening based on vast numbers of independent data sources across multiple disciplines, it apparently doesn't matter because there are a mixture of (in much smaller numbers) genuine scientists who are either long-dead, not working in the field they're being quoted in, or whose work is being misrepresented by crackpots with blogs that disproves it all....
I mean, one of Binghi's arguments was that greenhouse gases are supposed to warm the atmosphere for years, but at night it gets cold, so....checkmate, I guess?
I mean, one of Binghi's arguments was that greenhouse gases are supposed to warm the atmosphere for years, but at night it gets cold, so....checkmate, I guess?
A: If I am wrong, someone will correct me
B: Nobody is correcting me, therefore I must be right
At this stage of the game, everyone has made up their mind on whether they think climate change is a problem to be concerned about. I figure any discourse on the matter ceased to be productive around 6-7 years ago
B: Nobody is correcting me, therefore I must be right
At this stage of the game, everyone has made up their mind on whether they think climate change is a problem to be concerned about. I figure any discourse on the matter ceased to be productive around 6-7 years ago
There but the grace of God go I...
I imagine most Climate Scientists would disagree.. but then Climate Science is their job (one that didn't even exist a few years back) ...and they have to compete in a tough environment with all these other Scientists for a large enough taxpayer-funded Government Grant to pay the food bill for their starving families. I'm sure these poor souls spend every waking hour coming up with ever-increasing quantities of facts and figures to keep their jobs for as long as possible before they're either lucky enough to win a teaching job at University or get tossed on the scrap heap with everyone else.
There but the grace of God go I...
There but the grace of God go I...
The scientific method, at least, attempts to replace opinion with interpretation of measurable data.
Non neighbourhood friendly STARs
Back to topic,
Bring back/bring on RNP AR approaches with 500’ final leg turns and stop the 185 kts at BETSO 4000 etc. That, combined with abolishing level descent segments at 9000 and 3000 ft, would save tonnes of fuel and many sleepless nights for residents.
Thrust up approaching 1000’ on final is still mighty conservative!
The morons who designed theses approaches and ATC unions who insists on these lazy approaches are burning more CO2 than any SAF will save. Seeing pilots dragging their aircraft in from 20nm with flaps and thrust, pull my eyes out ffs.
40 years in the industry and I’m dismayed we are flying like a bunch of carbon burning zombies.
Bring back/bring on RNP AR approaches with 500’ final leg turns and stop the 185 kts at BETSO 4000 etc. That, combined with abolishing level descent segments at 9000 and 3000 ft, would save tonnes of fuel and many sleepless nights for residents.
Thrust up approaching 1000’ on final is still mighty conservative!
The morons who designed theses approaches and ATC unions who insists on these lazy approaches are burning more CO2 than any SAF will save. Seeing pilots dragging their aircraft in from 20nm with flaps and thrust, pull my eyes out ffs.
40 years in the industry and I’m dismayed we are flying like a bunch of carbon burning zombies.
A: If I am wrong, someone will correct me
B: Nobody is correcting me, therefore I must be right
At this stage of the game, everyone has made up their mind on whether they think climate change is a problem to be concerned about. I figure any discourse on the matter ceased to be productive around 6-7 years ago
B: Nobody is correcting me, therefore I must be right
At this stage of the game, everyone has made up their mind on whether they think climate change is a problem to be concerned about. I figure any discourse on the matter ceased to be productive around 6-7 years ago
Whilst were waiting for Beer Baron to get back with that link lets have a look-see at some ‘adjustments’ made to the climate temperature record:
“…temperatures from the cold 1970’s period were repeatedly “adjusted” years after the event, and progressively got warmer. The most mysterious period is from 1958 to 1978
…Raobcore measurements are balloon measures. They started in 1958, twenty years before satellites. But when satellites began, the two different methods tie together very neatly–telling us that both of them are accurate, reliable tools.
So what do the raobcores tell us about the period before satellites started recording temperatures? They make it clear that temperatures fell quickly from 1960-1970.
If 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990’s, it rewrites the entire claim of all the unprecedented warming of late…”
https://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/th...#comment-37556
Note:
*The above comments were reference mid tropics readings.
*Weather balloon measurements can be fairly accurate depending on which country do them.
*Satellites have issues, especially over snow.
“…temperatures from the cold 1970’s period were repeatedly “adjusted” years after the event, and progressively got warmer. The most mysterious period is from 1958 to 1978
…Raobcore measurements are balloon measures. They started in 1958, twenty years before satellites. But when satellites began, the two different methods tie together very neatly–telling us that both of them are accurate, reliable tools.
So what do the raobcores tell us about the period before satellites started recording temperatures? They make it clear that temperatures fell quickly from 1960-1970.
If 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990’s, it rewrites the entire claim of all the unprecedented warming of late…”
https://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/th...#comment-37556
Note:
*The above comments were reference mid tropics readings.
*Weather balloon measurements can be fairly accurate depending on which country do them.
*Satellites have issues, especially over snow.
I do remember news back in the late 70's that warned of an on-coming period of Global Cooling/Ice Age, reinforced over years by disaster films like "The Day After Tomorrow", based on the 1999 book "The Coming Global Superstorm". Perhaps influences like that are still in the minds of many??