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

Global warming (Merged)

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

Global warming (Merged)

Old 24th Nov 2007, 10:18
  #1081 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
I've already covered some of the rebutting arguments to the global warming sceptics, as has Benny Lin. Some of the global warming "sceptics" here have already made "arguments" many pages ago which clearly demonstrate such abysmal scientific understanding of this topic and the state of the latest atmospheric research that they cannot be taken seriously (that's my opinion). Sorry.
Are you saying that unless one is a climate/earth scientist, a professional in the field, one's opinion is not worth the airing? If so, you exemplify perfectly how we have got into this state of hysteria over CO2 and anthropomorphic climate change .

One does not need to be an expert to follow the arguments on both sides and make up one's mind. One needs only a reasonable education, a logical, inquiring and open mind, an ability to separate substantives from conditionals and fact from opinion.

Philosophers will tell you that often it is those who know least who see more clearly the truth. That is not to say they are ignorant, simply that they are not "experts" and so have no axe to grind, income to protect or pride to salvage.

Everyone's opinion is worth listening to because we all have a stake in this.
Wingswinger is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2007, 11:16
  #1082 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 753
Let's then attack some arguments!

Firstly off-topic: I can't believe that anyone would make a statement implying that there are no real risks associated with DDT use. There is TONS of research on DDT. While DDT has indeed been given to humans in certain doses without apparent ill effect at the time, this says nothing about the risks due to its known bio-accumulative properties or persistence. Its adverse effects may or may not be balanced by its effectiveness against malaria in some cases, but to imply that this organochlorine is essentially harmless is not supported by any facts at all.

Now let's attack another: Chuckles says that CFCs are heavier than "air" molecules and so they can't reach the upper atmosphere. Utter tripe! Just because they are heavier doesn't mean they can't get there. The atmosphere is not "still" (dunno whether anyone has noticed that - I certainly did flying from sydney to melbourne the other day!). Measurements by the WMO over several decades have shown CFC concentration to be constant up to >10km before slowly tapering off. CFCs are chemically stable/unreactive - so they survive for long periods of time. Long enough to migrate to the upper atmosphere eventually where strong UV radiation does its work breaking them down. The "molecular weight" argument is just soooooooo silly. Is Chimbu implying that mountain climbers run into trouble when they break through the oxygen layer into the nitrogen layer as they climb up a mountain? So oxygen molecules, heavier than nitrogen molecules, pool at lower altitudes? And water vapour (18 g/mole) should be floating around in a layer above both of them! And wouldn't it be funny when they finally reach the helium layer and try to speak? Oh give me strength.

"Ozone does not inhibit UVA". Oh give me strength again! ITS UVB WHICH IS THE BIOLOGICALLY DAMAGING RADIATION. And ozone prevents MOST of it from reaching the surface!

"An Ozone hole doesn't exist over the Arctic". Well actually measured losses of ozone have occurred over northern latitudes. However northern and southern polar meterology are quite different kettles of fish. And the location of the CFC producing "population" is completely irrelevant by the time the CFCs get to the upper atmosphere.

"Molina et al discovered in a lab that if they applied enough UV light to CFCs it could split into chlorines...they did NOT prove that was happening in the top of the stratosphere."

Hmmm...now that the laws of chemistry/physics determining how UV radiation splits CFC molecules could be different at sea level than they are at altitude (where the UV radiation is strongest).....that is a fascinating concept!

Last edited by DutchRoll; 24th Nov 2007 at 11:30.
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2007, 13:24
  #1083 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
Dutchroll did you even read that link about Carlson/DDT above?

For 30 years billions of people lived with DDT and it had no measurable negative effect....it does not accumulate dangerously in animals, whether two legged or 4, but is passed out in urine.

DDT is non toxic in humans and animals/birds...but VERY toxic in about 100 varieties of insect....it is that simple.

For the last 35 years DDT has been progressively banned around the world and 10s of millions of people have died as a direct result of insect borne deseases like malaria that DDT fights more cheaply and more effectively than anything else.

The replacements for DDT are organo phosphates...chemically very close to nerve gas...in fact the antidote to ingestion/exposure is the same...atropine

For two years a large group of people deliberately ingested 35mgs/day of DDT with no ill effects...try that with an organo phosphate like phosdrin and parathion...breath their fumes for a few minutes and without access to atropine you'd be dead within hours.

I have many friends who grew up on farms in the 60s and 70s who worked with both substances...DDT was cheap, safe and worked...the replacements were expensive, dangerous and ineffective.

You dont need to be a chemist to draw conclusions from the 70 year long human experiment...the last part of which was carried out at the behest of the environmental movement.

CFCs....I read a link (I think on this thread and I believe the same one you're quoting from) which suggests clorines from volcanos and sea salt don't make it to the stratosphere...despite being helped along...you ever seen a volcano erupt close up in person?

I have.

But while these naturally occurring chlorines don't apparently make it up there in significant amounts we are expected to believe much heavier manmade molecules that exist in much smaller quantities escaping from airconditioners and fridge/feezers do....but mostly in the sparsely populated southern hemipshere.

UVA is believed to cause most mellanomas...although a mate who recently was diagnosed with a mellanoma asked why it formed on a part of his body not exposed to significant sunlight...when he asked his specialist she replied that despite the media rhetoric it was by NO MEANS certain that mellanoma had anything to do with exposure to UV anything...UVB does apparently cause most of the non fatal skin cancers.

CFCs were first discovered in the 30s...they became widely used in the 50s...increased skin cancer rates were first noted in the 30s before CFCs became widely used...increased skin cancer rates coincide with people starting to take their clothes off and going to the seas side, not with CFCs or the depletion of the ozone over the south pole...where people don't go to the beach OR take off their clothes.

Why do the left believe everything is mankind's fault?
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2007, 15:39
  #1084 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
DutchRoll

Why do you expect people to remember what you said in previous posts as being your arguments? There are dozens of people posting here. I was answering your previous post, which made points which obscure the debate rather than adding anything relevant.

To again address that post, you still haven't said how you justify the ridiculous comments about thalidomide, flat Earth and faked moon landings. These are cases where the evidence is good, and unequivocal. Therefore either you misunderstand this whole thread or you are being dishonest using techniques of propaganda. this thread discusses AGW and recently has comments on DDT and ozone depletion where the evidence is much weaker and more equivocal.

As to your other post, please do not repeat hypothesis as truth! DDT's accumulation is not known, it is speculated.
adverse effects may or may not be balanced by its effectiveness against malaria
May not? Where did you get the idea that it might not be balanced? How can immeasurable, uncertain negative effects not be balanced by millions of lives saved?
Life's a Beech is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2007, 20:20
  #1085 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NE Scotland & London
Posts: 40
Why do the left believe everything is mankind's fault?
Because deep down they hate themselves for being naive and instinctively blame everyone else for it...
BlooMoo is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2007, 22:27
  #1086 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 753
Life's a Beech,

One of the unfortunate things about writing on a forum is that sometimes people don't pickup "tone". The comments about flat earth etc, were quite on the satirical side - a result of reading silly science here. There is no "justification" required for a satirical, tongue-in-cheek comment. Perhaps a "smilie" like or or would've made it more obvious.

But now that you mention it, I actually did have a pilot (who was a good operator, and I thought was pretty smart) one night over the middle of the Pacific turn to me and say "you know, I just saw that Fox documentary on how NASA faked the moon landings, and it brings up some really good points".
There ensued a long conversation on why the Fox doco was scientifically misleading at best (in a similar style to the Great Global Warming Swindle). How dust doesn't behave the same in a vacuum as it does on earth, what the Van Allen belts are, rocket engines 101 and fuels which burn colourless flames, and why you can't see stars in photos on the moon (or even in similar photos taken from earth). He was a bit embarrassed after that, but it shows how a slickly produced doco full of half-truths or misleading assertions, but neatly presented, can hijack an entire topic.

I find it hard to understand how CFC destruction of ozone can be rated as "equivocal". It is not. There may be legitimate debate about other influences on ozone, and the ozone cycle, but the destruction of it by CFCs is not equivocal, nor was the measurable presence of CFCs in the upper atmosphere.

Also, that DDT has certain degrees of toxicity (eg, reproductive and developmental) and is bioaccumulative (that's not a good property for a pesticide to have!) is not "equivocal" either. Any number of lab rats will attest to that. I've never said it shouldn't be used - the risk versus benefit is a completely different matter, especially as far as malaria goes. But to state quite matter-of-factly that it's totally harmless is completely wrong. Read the words carefully. The two paras above are not "equivocal"!
Why do the left believe everything is mankind's fault?
Gee, I don't know mate. Maybe the Aral sea just decided to pack up and take a holiday? Maybe the Newfoundland Cod just got sick of the Atlantic and wanted to be known as Pacific cod and we just haven't found them yet? Why do people always blame destruction, pollution and extinction on mankind? I just dunno. EDIT: Ooops! Forgot the "tonal" smilie in this para!

Last edited by DutchRoll; 24th Nov 2007 at 22:43.
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2007, 23:19
  #1087 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
Maybe the Newfoundland Cod just got sick of the Atlantic and wanted to be known as Pacific cod and we just haven't found them yet?
May I ask why you brought up the Cod? It was over fishing that caused the depletion of the Cod and other fishes on the Banks. Not DDT or Global Warming.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2007, 23:29
  #1088 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Con, don't even bother using logic.........just remember that man is a pest that is raping and destroying mother earth
We will all be MUCH better off when we go back to our mud huts and hunter gathering ways.

Dutchroll, more wonderful unrelated and yet rather personally revealing sweeping statements.
haughtney1 is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2007, 23:56
  #1089 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,336
Fox documentary
Oxymoron of the day.

The vehemence with which the AWG proponents attack contrary opinions indicates to me that there is more emotion than science involved. Happens when an issue takes on the attributes of a 'cause'. Unassailable rectitude and all that; pity, it does deserve rational discussion.
PaperTiger is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2007, 00:29
  #1090 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 112
Con,

I can't resist, but in response to "Why do the left believe everything is mankind's fault?" Dutch Roll gave a good short sample of where mankind has fvcked things up (while many claimed the situation could continue as normal) and overfishing is just one very good example of that.... an enlightening example of man's capacity to be the root cause behind destruction of the natural habitat and a perfectly good answer to the question. Quite logical indeed LAB.
Sunray Minor is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2007, 00:57
  #1091 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NE Scotland & London
Posts: 40
it shows how a slickly produced doco full of half-truths or misleading assertions, but neatly presented, can hijack an entire topic.
Dutchroll, if you were really thinking on all cylinders then you wouldn't have said that, would you...
BlooMoo is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2007, 01:01
  #1092 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Why do the left believe everything is mankind's fault?
Because they have some kind of guilt syndrome. They feel bad that mankind has achieved the level of prosperity, we have, and want to destroy it all under the guise of "loving the planet". Of course it is always "the little people" that have to sacrifice while the "players" are too important and need to use the resources in order to "educate" us. (e.g. Al Gore and his globetrotting on a private jet, while preaching the reduction of "carbon footprint")
 
Old 25th Nov 2007, 01:29
  #1093 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 753
Originally Posted by haughtney1
Dutchroll, more wonderful unrelated and yet rather personally revealing sweeping statements.
Could you please give an example of which one was a "sweeping statement" and why?

con-pilot, as sunray pretty much said, multiple pages of this whole thread are littered with statements implying that mankind just can't possibly be the root cause of major and long-lasting environmental impact. Not only is that not an "argument" of any description, it is also a preposterously ridiculous opinion. There is no nice way of putting it. It's just dumb. Sorry if that offends anyone.

Overfishing is an example. We fished the living daylights out of the Newfoundland Cod Fishery, and hey presto! No more cod. And stocks haven't recovered. Nor is there any indication that they will. We poor li'l ol' innocent humans just thought it would go on forever, that the fish would just keep magically appearing out of the water, and they'd look after themselves.
The Aral Sea was quite literally drained to death. Seen photos of it? It once supported a vibrant local fishing economy, and lots of wildlife. Now? Nothing. Not a sausage. Again, humans thought "aww heck it's a sea, how could we possibly permanently destroy that?" Well they succeeded. Beyond anyone's wildest expectations.

These are only two of numerous examples of humans thinking they can "take" with impunity and good old mother nature will just look after us. If we do anything to excess, beyond what nature can cope with, Mother Nature just says "Fine! Screw you guys! I'm going home!" (apologies to southpark). We are pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere in a shorter space of time than anything in nature ever has. Scientists are rightly concerned that this could be yet another man-made problem.

Sorry, another edit to respond to Chuckles:
Chuckles, Both UVA and B contribute to skin cancers. All the current evidence suggests UVB does the most damage. Both can cause melanoma. UVB also damages DNA. UVB is also damaging to plants, crops, and marine organisms. UVB is the primary cause of sunburn. UVB is the one affected by ozone depletion.

Last edited by DutchRoll; 25th Nov 2007 at 02:04.
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2007, 01:55
  #1094 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 59
Posts: 587
So What!

Let nature take it's course.

What YOU, Dutch roll' and the rest of the 'greens' do everytime is to assume that we just mustn't do this or that..... becauuse it will be bad for the planet.
Well, let me introduce you to a simple fact.

The planet will take care of itself.............and if it means we go to the wall then so be it.

Perhaps we will get away with a bit of 'thinning out'.

The assumption that we, the humans, must be able to continue to expand ad infinitum and spend/consume as we see fit, is so naive.

Almost as naive as the AGW proponents, whose eternal position is, "we like the world the way it is, and we're jolly well going to keep it that way".

(Even tho we know it's been roasting/ ice age in the past. WE LIKE IT LIKE THIS!)

We've been here for a while.

If it turns to 'survival of the fittest'............... I say


'Eat a green!'

No loss!
brain fade is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2007, 02:06
  #1095 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 753
Originally Posted by brain fade
The planet will take care of itself.............and if it means we go to the wall then so be it.
Oh I love it!

Nurse!
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2007, 02:11
  #1096 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 59
Posts: 587
Well Dutch

Let me introduce you to a simple fact.

In the short to medium term..........we're mostly dead.

In the long term................we're extinct.

Have fun while you're alive.............and spare me your pish.
brain fade is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2007, 02:17
  #1097 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
In the short to medium term..........we're mostly dead.

In the long term................we're extinct.
And it doesn't matter how many SUVs are taken off the road, or planes grounded...
 
Old 25th Nov 2007, 02:21
  #1098 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 59
Posts: 587
Correct.........................

I know it's uncomfortable.

If you'd like eternal life..............could I suggest prayer?

Putting up taxes for AGW reasons will only result in you being poorer.

You'll still die...........only you'll leave a bit less for your kids.
brain fade is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2007, 02:48
  #1099 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by brain fade
The planet will take care of itself.............and if it means we go to the wall then so be it.
Oh I love it!
Nurse!
Dutchroll,
yes it actually will. Have a look here:
Prince William's Oily Mess: A Tale of Recovery
Pay special attention to the section "Did the massive cleanup operations actually cause more harm than good?"
 
Old 25th Nov 2007, 04:08
  #1100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
DutchRoll

I can't believe you are still standing by those comments. I know exactly what you meant by them. I am not sure why you think I misunderstood you. The whole point is that the science here is, in general, not silly at all. You are bullying your opponents with propaganda to say it is. I am not sure how I can express it more simply, so I hope you understand this time!

I never said that the fact that CFCs destroy ozone is equivocal. However as you admit the degree of influence of CFCs on the cyclical changes of ozone levels is unknown. Unlike the fact that thalidomide caused major deformities, the Earth is flat and men landed on the moon. Note I approved of the actual response to that uncertainty.

The fact that DDT is harmful seems to be accepted by all here. Yes it is toxic, but the only test that seems to show it used many thousands of times the levels any animals were exposed to by its use (was it 15% concentration? I can't be bothered to do your research for you). The accumulation is a myth. Yes there is a certain level, as there is with many chemicals. However it is nowhere near what Silent Spring suggested. It is not a chemical that is not broken down and excreted by vertibrates.

This again makes Silent Spring (which is the source I originally mentioned when I introduced the topic) completely different from claims of thalidomide damage, a flat Earth, and moon landings.

Is that straightforward enough for you?
Life's a Beech is offline  

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.