Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Global Warming .... I've had enough (merged)

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Global Warming .... I've had enough (merged)

Old 27th Oct 2006, 09:07
  #61 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,727
Too easy just to blame the media.

Stephen Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change, Stanford University; Senior Fellow Center for Environment Science and Policy, Institute for International Studies.

1989:
"as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have........"

2002:
"I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming."
ORAC is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 09:26
  #62 (permalink)  

...the thin end thereof
 
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Believers are nitwits but I will not persuade them here.

FTR, we're not 'believers', that has supernatural or religious connotations. I'm arguing from the scientific viewpoint. I agree with Kansasw - deniers are nitwits because they blindly refuse to accept irrefutable scientific proof. And they do that because the concept of man-made global warming doesn't fit their blinkered world view, and perhaps there's an element of conscience in there - after all, as long as we don't believe we're doing any damage, we can live as profligate an existence as we want.

SET 18 - a few questions:

there would be no measurable drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and absolutely no impact whatsoever on climate change.

How did you come to this extraordinary conclusion when you'd preceded if by admitting that cars cause 0.5% of total CO2 emissions? Where you've gone wrong is in your assumption that 0.5% is not 'significant'. It is very significant in terms of the delicate balance of the eco-system.

On environmental grounds, based on carbon dioxide considerations, petrol should surely be taxed at 2.5%.

Note that the tax on petrol and diesel was very high long before people started talking about global warming. I accept that in recent years governments have accelerated tax rises on vehicle fuels, partly citing damage to the environment as their justification. But the fact remains, to which you have not offered a convincing response, that governments get more votes from allowing greater fossil fuel consumption than by restricting them.

Don't tax that which matters; just tax that which will gain you most income.

Again, if that is true, why does aviation fuel enjoy 0% tax? By your model it would be taxed on a par with motor vehicle fuel - which would of course put every airline in the world out of business. Which would be economically disastrous. So there's your answer - governments care more about industry than the environment.

Very good post Dr Dave, yet more evidence of the scientific proof which the deniers blindly refuse to accept.

SET 18 - what do you think about this?

In December 2004, Science published an essay by geologist and science historian Naomi Oreskes that summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
There's more evidence for you to consider, 928 separate papers analysed, not just those 'funded by governments' but by scientists from across the spectrum. And not one refuted the consensus view that human activity is responsible for the recent and rapid warming we are experiencing.

It's a nonsense; really, just a nonsense. I despair of those who blindly refuse to accept clear scientific proof.
Wedge is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 09:27
  #63 (permalink)  
Dr Dave
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
ORAC

I agree with your central point, although I disagree with much of the detail of Schneider's argument (although there have been some scientists who have gone way over the top). Just as in aviation there is a manifest failure to communicate the key information to journalists, so there is in science. It doesn't change the fact that much of the information on the science of climate change that is reported in the media, and seems to form the basis of the arguments in this discussion, is wrong.

By the way, Schenider's own web site provides a great review of climate science, and is to be thrpououghly recommended.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/index.html

Dr Dave
 
Old 27th Oct 2006, 09:38
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
Wedge.
And not one refuted the consensus view that human activity is responsible for the recent and rapid warming we are experiencing.
I will never be convinced that man's activites make the slightest difference to 'Global Warming'. In the global scheme of things man is not even a tiny pimple. To get an idea of the size of the Earth you need to launch across the Pacific at 340 knots. When you eventually get to the other side - you tell me that man is in any way significant.
forget is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 09:43
  #65 (permalink)  
Dr Dave
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by forget View Post
Wedge.
I will never be convinced that man's activites make the slightest difference to 'Global Warming'. In the global scheme of things man is not even a tiny pimple. To get an idea of the size of the Earth you need to launch across the Pacific at 340 knots. When you eventually get to the other side - you tell me that man is in any way significant.
Earthlights data gives a slightly different perspective though (this is light pollution data from NASA)



Dr Dave
 
Old 27th Oct 2006, 09:44
  #66 (permalink)  

...the thin end thereof
 
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
To get an idea of the size of the Earth you need to launch across the Pacific at 340 knots. When you eventually get to the other side - you tell me that man is in any way significant.

That's about as 'Mickey Mouse' an argument as I have ever seen here.

Back in the real world, why don't you have a look at the total weight in tonnes of CO2 emissions that post-industrial revolution humankind produces in one year from cars, aeroplanes, construction, industry and domestic power consumption.

Then come back and tell me it's not 'in any way significant'.
Wedge is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 09:51
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
Must read

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/...04-28/load.htm
forget is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 09:52
  #68 (permalink)  

Untitled
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 87
Then come back and tell me it's not 'in any way significant'
Quite; the earth may be a very big place but the substantial atmosphere is only a few miles high.
Polikarpov is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 10:09
  #69 (permalink)  

Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 644
Smile

Alot of interesting comments have contributed to this thread I started just a few days ago during a moment of annoyed frustration. Thanks to the professor for further enlightening us too.

Like I mentioned previously this isn't so much to do with GW, whether it's happening, slowing down, accelerating, etc but more regarding the absence of informed opinion and consequently debate. It appears that the green brigade are like most lefties very jealous people inside and want to ensure that we all dance to their tune, Not me. This is the annoying point not only do these greenies/lefties/giddy matrons/freeloading celebrities patronise us all with their will they expect total conformity and compliance. Do the believe they're the torch bearers for the human race. Are these self appointed personalities the holders of an exclusive licence meriting compassion, action and respect of the environment. I find this whole thing difficult to swallow but then again most of these idiots travel left, right and centre via car when they could easily walk. Correct I mentioned walk not public transport (that's just an excuse) and a quick jaunt down to the shops is never very far away. Alas they're too lazy to do that or can't be bothered! Dear oh me and yet these enforce their will on us when they themselves probably have a great degree of indiscipline about themselves. Now I'm not saying that we're somewhat better nor superior but at the very least we have a different or questioning attitude towards their viewpoint and so should have an equal voice in this so called media debate. I see the faces in the gym when the latest GW news story is being presented and most people are totally taken in by it, what a shame.
boogie-nicey is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 10:12
  #70 (permalink)  
Dr Dave
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by forget View Post
Interesting, but scientifically flawed I'm afraid. For example:

"If all the water vapour was removed from the atmosphere, the temperature would fall by 33 degrees Celsius. But, remove all the carbon dioxide and the temperature might fall by just 0.3 per cent."

This is clever for two reasons. First, 0.3% doesn't sound like very much when you are thinking in degrees C, but convert temperature to Kelvin (as it of course should), and you get 0.3% of 288 K = 0.96 K, which sounds rather more. However, unfortunatelythis is incorrect as it is generally agreed that CO2 is responsible for about 4-8% of the natural greenhouse effect (it is actually very hard to determine exactly how much due to the complex interactions, some calculations are as high as 25%). As the natural greenhouse effect is indeed 33K, 4-8% is 1.3-2.6 K.

To date the estimated rise in global temperature associated with anthropogenic CO2 emissions (and other greenhouse gases) is 0.6 K.
 
Old 27th Oct 2006, 10:18
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
This is clever for two reasons. First, 0.3% doesn't sound like very much when you are thinking in degrees C, but convert temperature to Kelvin (as it of course should), and you get 0.3% of 288 K = 0.96 K, which sounds rather more.
Eh I'm missing the logic here. Why not convert it to yet another scale so it sounds even more!
forget is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 10:19
  #72 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,727
I´ll accept global warming exists, but not the sometimes hysterical projections as too the consequences. It is a sad fact that extremism seems to prevail on both sides, but it is very disappointing to see it so prevalent on the side of those who claim to speak with scientific impartiality.

I was particularly offended by the virulence of the attacks on Bjørn Lomborg´s "Sceptical Environmentalist". The subsequent work done by the Copenhagen Consensus on the best way to spend the available resources seems to have further served as a red rag to a bull.

Which is why Schneider´s comments struck a chord with me. And why articles, such as the one I linked to earlier saying we are at, are past tipping points, that immediate action is vital, as cynical exercises in scaremongering.
ORAC is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 10:23
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 112
Sorry Boogie, exactly which part of global warming have you chosen not to believe?

For your information, the debate started in the 70's. In the face of overwhelming scientific consensus the theory has moved beyond debate to the realisation that something needs to be done....NOW.

The hysteria is due to the fact that a great many people have their heads stuck in the sand and refuse to make the sacrifices necessary to reverse the warming trend.
Sunray Minor is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 10:28
  #74 (permalink)  
Dr Dave
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by forget View Post
Eh I'm missing the logic here. Why not convert it to yet another scale so it sounds even more!
The centrigrade scale has an arbitrary zero, chosen for convenience. In this case the zero value that was chosen was the freezing / melting point of pure water at a standard atmosphere. If you take a percentage based on this arbitrary scale, the numbers are meaningless. For example, compare the percentage fdifferences you get if you compare a change in temperature measured in degrees C with the same change measured degrees F (which has a different arbitrary zero).

However, there is an absolute value of zero temperature (this is 0), which is -273 C. So, to calculate a real percentage you must convert to the non-arbitrary scale (i.e. to Kelvin).

Hence 20 C is not twice as warm as 10 C, but actually about 3% warmer.

Remember that temperature is actually a measure of the molecular activity of the object (absolute zero is when the moloecules have no energy).

So reporting one temperature change in degree C, but the other as a percentage, is a cunning way to make sure that the lay person cannot compare the two, and to emphasise the point you are trying to make.
 
Old 27th Oct 2006, 10:34
  #75 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
Which pot? Which kettle?

Originally Posted by Dr Dave View Post
No, it has not. Questioned yes, but in fact broadly supported recently by a report by the US National Academy of Science (June 2006). The debate still rages, and there is a long way to go, but to say debunked is incorrect.

Pot, kettle?

Dr Dave
The only more or less sort of evidence for a role of Carbon dioxide in climate was the hockeystick. The corrolation between actual temps and CO2 is not convincing, giving the 1960-1980 cooling. The hockeystick was the only construction with a 1000000% correlation between temps and CO2, now that the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age are back with quite some natural variability without CO2 having anything to do with it, it's back to square one, square zero actually because it's all so obvious that the world was double crossed with the hockey stick and science was perverted in order to force global warming to be right. But you won't read that in the media. Why not?

Here's a report from the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Committee appointed a group of statisticians of impeccable qualification and independence, under the leadership of Dr Edward Wegman, Professor of Statistics at George Mason University , who chairs the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics.

Some of their conclusions:

•Mann et al., misused certain statistical methods in their studies, which inappropriately produce hockey stick shapes in the temperature history. Wegman’s analysis concludes that Mann’s work cannot support claim that the1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium.
•A social network analysis revealed that the small community of paleoclimate researchers appear to review each other’s work, and reuse many of the same data sets, which calls into question the independence of peer review and temperature reconstructions.
•Although the researchers rely heavily on statistical methods, they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community.
•Authors of policy-related science assessments should not assess their own work.
•Policy-related climate science should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review involving statisticians.
•Federal research should involve interdisciplinary teams to avoid narrowly focused discipline research.
•Federal research should emphasize fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate change, and should focus on interdisciplinary teams to avoid narrowly focused discipline research.

Global dimming, glaciers melting, sea levels rising etc etc is merely telling about climate variation. Global dimming however is very local. In Holland we have global brightening. Sun is shining more every year. So it has been warmer in the 1990ies but that trend did not persists after 1998. The point is that there is nothing proving the cause of that warming.


Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 10:38
  #76 (permalink)  

Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 644
I can't take anymore... save yourselves and run for the hills ....! Shouting, screaming, mass hysteria, arms waving in the air.....

Well that's probably a generalised description of the public these days anyway. I went to the mobile phone shop yesterday and they couldn't believe I didn't have a mobile phone previously, other than a PAYG back in 2001...

Shows if you're not signed up the social compliance and stupidity you're seen as a lepper.
boogie-nicey is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 10:39
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 112
Originally Posted by boogie-nicey View Post
Society is in no position to 'engineer' nature, have some respect for the scale of task that it merits.
Unfortunately this is exactly what we have already done; a tiny proportion of the worlds population has been responsible for huge carbon release in a very short space of time. That is set to increase exponentially when the majority population reaches our level of industrialisation. What do you propose - to ban them from industrialising? Or perhaps lead by example?

I'm sure that nature can more than cope with the man's relatively small infractions into the natural system.....
What a scientific answer to global warming. Ahh, the world looks so huge from up here, we can't possibly be doing anything wrong.

As a matter of fact, you are better off looking at global warming from ground level, because that is where it matters and that is the level where the affects are being felt.

In the hysteria of your comments you haven't backed up your own views at all....merely shooting the messengers and resorting to what borders on paranoid rhetoric. How about coughing up the evidence that global warming isn't occurring.

Other than tax (another well rehearsed line) what are they going to do about.
Contraction and convergence is one method, carbon credits are another. Much the same as war-time rationing, they can work. It would take the equivilent on 1 years global growth cancellation to make the sacrifices necessary to solve this problem.

Rather than those warning of global warming being led, I think those denying it are the ones being led: governments around the world are refusing to take the steps necessary to tackle this phenomenon simply because it will be costly and will deflate growth. This will cost will likewise cost them an election so in one breath they claim something must be done, in the next they reassure us we can continue as normal.

I'm sure when the day comes and you finally realise GW has occurred you will be the first to turn around and blame the government for misleading you, an excuse many now use for supporting the Iraq war.
Sunray Minor is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 10:40
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Age: 47
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by Wedge View Post
It's not being appraoched in a rational way by either side. You'd hardly expext a pilot's forum to be particularly hot on environmental issues, aviation is one of the most polluting human activites. but the tone of denial and 'we're only human, we can't do that much damage' nature is far more powerful, is a very convenient fall-back position for pilots, when the truth is that they know in reality that their industry is doing huge damage to the environment.

....


Which is one of the special interest groups that has the greatest interest in debunking the 'myth' of global warming? The aviation industry, and therefore pilots. Sorry, it doesn't wash. I love aviation the same as everyone else does here, but it's doing huge damage to the environment. There is irrefutable scientific proof of that.
True - but . . .

According to the Sustainable Development Commission, 4% of Co2 is caused by aviation. Depending on how conservatively you do the sums, cement-based building materials, including concrete, account for between 5% and 10% of all carbon dioxide emissions in the UK.

In the middle east, concrete is used for a massive amount of construction - and yet they can't use the sand they have over there. They therefore have to import it - this causes even more pollution.

The answer could be C-Fix (also called carbon concrete) which saves 3.5 tons of CO2 per ton of concrete used (overall). It's a "thermoplastic" heavy-duty binder developed by Shell and the University of Delft and is already in use on the two busiest roads in the Netherlands. It is suitable, aparently, for replacing 90% of concrete and asphalt applications.

It comes, ironically enough, from the oil industry.

When crude oil is "cracked" into its components, the top of the refinement process produces petrol, followed by diesel, light fuel oil and then heavy fuel oil. At the bottom of the barrel lies a "fraction" of blackened waste material. It is hard and sticky and of scant economic worth.

The standard way of dealing with this low-grade oil is to mix it with light fuel oil to make more heavy fuel oil. It gets burnt off and doesn't have to be treated as a waste, but that burning causes further CO2 emissions as it's an even more impure fuel source.

Main article is in the Gruniad.
The Hustler is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 10:50
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 112
Originally Posted by forget View Post
Wedge.
I will never be convinced that man's activites make the slightest difference to 'Global Warming'. In the global scheme of things man is not even a tiny pimple. To get an idea of the size of the Earth you need to launch across the Pacific at 340 knots.
And I will never be convinced that the world is not flat......

Have you possibly considered that the scientists involved in global warming research are also aware of the size of the planet?
Sunray Minor is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2006, 10:56
  #80 (permalink)  
Dr Dave
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Capt.KAOS View Post
The only more or less sort of evidence for a role of Carbon dioxide in climate was the hockeystick.
Absolute poppycock! The hockeystick is just one element of the case, not the sole part. You really need to spend some time looking at the scientific literature.

As the authors of the RealClimate.org site state:

"MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth.
This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution Studies". Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases)."

Please note also that the Mann et al papers on the hockey stick graph have recently been supported by the US National Academy of Sciences report, and also by new, fully peer-reviewed studies, including those of Rutherford et al (2005) and Wahl and Amman (2006).
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.