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

The Climate Change debate

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

The Climate Change debate

Old 13th Jun 2011, 17:57
  #8101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
Er, yes.

Er, no, I was in fact referring to Hellsbrink's contribution about my use of apt but don't let me get in the way of your confusion.

shome mishtake shurely ! it would appear that you are getting confused over your own posts ....

Hellsbrink/Stuck you miss my point completely and take refuge in semantics.
So, what did we learn from this little thread detour.. well, it seems that the pro-AGW camp have their fixed ideas and are not interested in changing them, no matter what facts and empirical data are presented. Anyone who elects to consider and examine the facts and empirical data is therefore a 'denier' and will be met with false accusations, false assertions and attempts to discredit.

kinda sums up the whole situation.

i feel like i've just been taxed unfairly !

Last edited by stuckgear; 13th Jun 2011 at 18:02. Reason: and i dont actually see where hellsbrink attacked anyone over the use of the word 'apt' either!
stuckgear is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 19:02
  #8102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
Gentlemen, please spare your keyboards, I merely pointed out in a mild fashion that my use of apt was a reasonable way of indicating a general tendency than an absolute belief. I certainly didn't accuse anybody of "attack" or any of the other silliness you seem to be pulling out of the ether.

I suggest that you take some time to think and read about the subject you hyperventilate about rather than demonstrating exactly what Chuks so articulately noted about this thread in the first place.

I, for one, will happily leave you to fulminate in peace as there is so much more sense writtten and spoken about this subject elsewhere.

Edited later to say I did use the word apt and later used the word "attack" so clearly the opponents of AGW have scored a big success in their fight for truth, justice and tropospheric way!

Having somebody sticking arrogantly to a dogged position when there is evidence to the contrary is irritating gentlemen isn't it?

Truly there is more to be learned about human psychology than the climate on this thread.

Caco

Last edited by Cacophonix; 14th Jun 2011 at 03:13.
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 20:59
  #8103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Thanks for some very interesting responses to my post...

I spent today, a holiday in Germany, doing some research. We went to Norderney (an island, as it happens) and did not drown, were not submerged by rising sea levels and swept away to sleep wit' da fishes. A good day was had by all.

So I guess that means that I was wrong and that AGW is a monstrous fraud after all? I hope that makes you all (you too, Cacophonix!) very, very happy, reading that.

On the other hand, I still use Wikipedia, being aware of its shortcomings even before that well-meaning person here pointed them out. Well, it is not the only thing I use, you see, and not even the primary one, but it does come in handy sometimes.

Please do not bother me with any little charts; about all I can say is that the colors look lovely on my new MacBook Pro. If you expect me to go out and find a chart that shows lines going in some other direction to refute your little charts, well, no, sorry, that is just not going to happen.

If you want to argue about the symbolism found in Moby-Dick then I am your man. Climate science, I will just go with the mainstream for now and leave it at that, while holding hard to the notion that most of the climate scientists might be wrong and a small percentage might be right; boy, won't I look like a muppet then! Sort of like that poor man of God who told us the world ended about a month ago now....
chuks is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 21:17
  #8104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
I certainly didn't accuse anybody of "attack"
selective memory ?

post #8069
I was, of course referring an attack on my use of the word "apt"
I suggest that you take some time to think and read about the subject you hyperventilate about
That's just the point. We have and in many case in depth, with the result being that the presented data is contradictory, falsified, manipulated and factored.

rather than making an assertion you would actually do well to review some of the previous posts on this thread, like for example GG's self admission that he was previously in the AGW camp, however having looked in depth at the presented data, the facts have lead him away from that point. there are others on this thread who are likewise.

but then it's just so much easier to have a predetermined idea and stick with it rather than review the facts and make assertions that support the preconceived notion, incorrect or not.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 21:26
  #8105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
magnus, indeed it does

and chuks' recent contribution, just confirms the point.

On the other hand, I still use Wikipedia, being aware of its shortcomings even before that well-meaning person here pointed them out. Well, it is not the only thing I use, you see, and not even the primary one, but it does come in handy sometimes.

Please do not bother me with any little charts; about all I can say is that the colors look lovely on my new MacBook Pro. If you expect me to go out and find a chart that shows lines going in some other direction to refute your little charts, well, no, sorry, that is just not going to happen
chucks, as a word of advice, in reference to your academic commitment wikipedia is not a reference source that is suitable for use. while it may be useful in determining some validity to what 'fat bloke down the pub said' it's open source and such would be questionable for use at GCSE level, certainly not at degree or masters level.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 21:47
  #8106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,331
EASA: Global Warming caused AF 447 to crash

Well, sort of, my title is a bit misleading.

From this AviationWeek article on crystal ice and frozen pitot tubes ...
BEA officials first want to learn about the size and shape of ice crystals formed in the extremely cold high-altitude conditions, which can block pitot tubes and lead to erroneous speed information being provided to pilots and flight control systems. Currently, the probes are certified only to handle temperatures of up to -40C. EASA says climate change could be contributing to more extreme weather conditions at high altitudes that have not previously been encountered by aircraft.
---
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 22:26
  #8107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,319
Lonewolf_50,

From that same Aviation Week article....
"The calls to do more would impact Airbus, airline operations and European regulators." (my emphasis).

Talk about "misleading". The certification regulations for pitot tubes are not "European".
But we all know they are totally inadequate and obsolete....
Blaming that on "Global Warming" is not only ridiculous, but makes one wonder about the agenda of the person who made that statement.....

Christian
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 07:20
  #8108 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere between E17487 and F75775
Age: 75
Posts: 723
So it's not "Goodby Venice"

New research led by an Australian government boffin says that Venice is not, in fact, set to disappear underwater in the near future as a result of global warming.
"The survival of Venice and its lagoon is seriously questioned under the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global sea level rise scenarios," says Dr Alberto Troccoli of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). However, according to new work by Troccoli and colleagues in Italy and the UK, things are actually set to improve for the much-beloved city of canals.


The regular floods which beset Venice today - aka "Acqua Alta", high water events, not something that residents of the tideless Mediterranean generally expect - are caused by storm surges.

"Possible future changes in storm surge occurrences critical to flooding events remain largely unexplored," explains Troccoli. "It is important to understand how these events will evolve since a moderate to strong storm surge event is required to cause serious flooding."
According to the doc and his colleagues' analysis, the Acqua Alta is actually set to become a less frequent visitor to Venice as the Earth's climate evolves through the 21st century. The famous piazza of St Mark's will no longer be so regularly inundated.
"We found that the frequency of extreme storm surge events affecting Venice is projected to decrease by about 30 per cent by the end of the 21st century which would leave the pattern of flooding largely unaltered under 21st Century climate simulations," says Troccoli.
As the doc says, this clashes sharply with the official UN position. Just a few years ago, Italian wire service ANSA reported that Osvaldo Canziani, the then deputy head of the IPCC, had warned that "Venice is destined to disappear" within decades.
Troccoli and his colleagues' results assume that the UN global projections of sea level rise are correct, but their findings appear to show that the consequences to be expected in any given location may be very different from that one might expect.
The doc says that his research "emphasises the need for location-by-location studies to determine coastal flooding impacts". The paper Storm surge frequency reduction in Venice under climate change is published here by the journal Climatic Change. ®
OFSO is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 07:23
  #8109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
well, EASA, from its own media:
European Aviation Safety Agency

The centrepiece of the European Union's strategy for aviation safety.

Our mission is to promote the highest common standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation in Europe and worldwide.
my bold for emphasis.

So here we have an organisation that is charged with aviation safety and environmental protection ?

Say what!

Run that by me again ?


Now, as we are aware, the EU ETS also involves aviation http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/4464...on-eu-ets.html

and also EASA, while being charged with aviation safety, are clearly moving in the wrong direction http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...s-changes.html

In stark similarity, the EASA flight time changes were not predicated on any scientific data, in fact they are divergent from scientific data on the subject.



from a post in the EASA FTL thread:

within the EU, the objective is set (quote from separate EU document from the above) "to make flying cheaper and more performing." In hard reality and practice. The EASA FTL proposal document does not do this.

Two separate EU departments both presenting cases on the aviation industry in the latter part of 2010, but are also contradictory to the proposals themselves. In the first case above the document sets forth the need to improve performance, competitiveness, effectiveness and stability but also states "the need to pursue a comprehensive approach toward aviation's impact on climate change through: Pursuing market-based measures through the inclusion of aviation in the EU’s Emissions Trading System from 2012 onwards".

So the essence there is to make the aviation industry more competitive internationally, by "introducing market based measures on Carbon Trading" for operators! Say Again?

In the second document which sets forth the proposal of "making flying cheaper and more performing", the presentation directs toward operators making cost efficiencies and to promote use of "greener" transportation particularly at congested times and locations. Uh! Run that by me again?

Both of these documents cite respectively: "The EU is committed to achieving the highest safety and security performance" and "a maintained or even enhanced level of safety."


Essentially, we can look at the proposals, the hot air and presentations and determine that the EU is aware that the industry is suffering in Europe with a saturated market that is regulated to the point that existing operators and new entrants are dissuaded from entering new and future market places; and with profit margins so small that the slightest market fluctuation could see the difference for operators going from profit to debt; so to adjust the regulatory failures of the EU they are passing the cost saving to be made (to be competative and more performing [sic]) on the professional flight crews who are already fatigued and low paid.

Yet they wave the flag of safety?

This is illustrative of the endemic failures of the EU to support the industry and have buck passed their failures around the EU and now to EASA, who with the EU aviation safety mandate [sic] have drafted a fantasy proposal which does everything the opposite of the data, studies, actions of the FAA to alleviate fatigue and prior regulations support.

All in the name of safety ? You got to be fking kidding me ?

EASA's own mission statement:


Quote:
Our mission is to promote the highest common standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation in Europe and worldwide.
As one poster previously suggested: Not fit for purpose. Both EASA and the EU Euro-crats.

The worry is that it is blatantly obvious the dark hole commercial operations in Europe are headed toward and when it comes apart at the seams; We'll be left with a bunch of agencies and Eurocrats with their thumbs jambed tightly up their backsides not understanding what happened, what went wrong and why.
So when we see 'Climate Change' raised as potential citation in an accident investigation involving EASA and by consequence the ability to push an EU agenda, it's hardly suprising. Shocking but not suprising.

Last edited by stuckgear; 14th Jun 2011 at 07:37.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 08:21
  #8110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Please see...

Post #8051 has a link, one I made the mistake of clicking on and then reading further...

There is the story of the 22 Australians (or perhaps Austrians, it is somewhat unclear) who did away with a tree on the Maldives that was evidence that sea levels are not in strict point of fact rising at all. Proof of this is... a picture of a tree!

Well, I mean! That settles it, guys. I am now a convert. That poster of Al Gore in action has come down off the bedroom wall. (My wife didn't like it anyhow, she was always complaining about how 'His eyes seem to be looking at me wherever I stand,' so that she was reduced to undressing inside her capacious German wardrobe.) Anyone who believes in AGW... right off the Christmas card list! Bah, humbug!
chuks is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 08:47
  #8111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Wow, what a brilliant intellect, Chuk, that's what you learnt from that link? Pity your teacher.

Here's the specific scientific paper by Morner peer reviewed and published about Maldives' sea levels rise story

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...erEtAl2004.pdf

Read it

And here's one more article by Morner on rising sea levels

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research...20_GSA-vol.pdf

All it required was to google Morner, Maldives and Sea levels to get the articles free off the web.

Of course that's if you really want to look and learn with an open mind.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 08:51
  #8112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
And by the way, the greatest travesty in Climate Science regarding " One Tree " was Keith Briffa's paper published in " Science ", showing paleoclimatic temperature calculations, based on one tree, yes one tree in Yamal peninsula in Siberia, code named YAD 06. Go check google and see about Briffa, Yamal and one tree. If you really want to learn about that deception go to " climateaudit.org " and read how Steve McIntyre has shown in detail as to what Briffa did. He took data from a range of trees, discarded all that did not fit his theory and took the readings of just one tree. And he based his story about paleo temperature record based on that one tree.

You don't need to believe my words. Go see for yourselves.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 09:12
  #8113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
so you dismiss the whole interview predicated on a picture of tree which you use to attempt to push the article out of context and dismiss the facts presented or in fact the subject interviewee..


Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and
Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.
He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission
on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and
leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has
been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for
some 35 years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on

June 6 for
EIR.



and ignore such data and the transparent methods in which the data was gained:


we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930,
by observation, and we have it by rotation recording.
So we go with those two. They go up
and down, but there’s no trend in it; it was up
until 1930, and then down again. There’s no
trend,

absolutely no trend.



and ignore statements such as :




in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s]
publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it
changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per
year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so
nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but
they

hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which
they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction
factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was
not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I
accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow—
I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not
a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite,
but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered,
that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten
any trend!

[...]

As a matter of fact, it is a falsificationof the data set



yet it doesnt fit with your preconcieved mind-set. you are not interested in any facts or empirical data, only that which conforms to your preconcieved stance.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 09:24
  #8114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Stuck, pretty amazing isn't it? The sheer effrontery and hypocrisy exhibited is breathtaking.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 09:43
  #8115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
yep RV and quite sad too.

to ignore facts and data there either there has to be an agenda where some personal gain is anticipated or it is a closed mindset that refuses to consider any data that does not support an indoctrinated view. but then that been the flaw of the human race that has lead to atrocities, the destruction of civilisations and so over the course of history.

yet we again face a direct threat to our freedoms, personal property industry and indeed future existence over an indoctrinated position. For some facts are irrelevant in countermanding that.

as the old saying goes, "there's none so blind...."



However, there is a caveat to that.

Chuks or Caco's viewpoint or predetermined notions may not be concurrent with the what the factual data presents, however, under democracy, I respect that they have the right and sanctity of their own opinions, no matter how irrational or factually incorrect I find them as the data is there to determine what is factually correct.

However, it is fact that should dictate policy not biased conjecture, manipulated, manufactured or 'factored' data and that freedom of speech to demonstrate and publicise fact should not be overridden by bias.

It can therefore be considered that the 'AGW / Climate Change' are fact-deniers in favour of inaccurate bias and are in essence supporters of oppression, political control and the removal of free speech.

Go figure.

Last edited by stuckgear; 14th Jun 2011 at 10:50.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 11:08
  #8116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
Black is white and white is black...

Chuks or Caco's viewpoint or predetermined notions may not be concurrent with the what the factual data presents, however, under democracy, I respect that they have the right and sanctity of their own opinions, no matter how irrational or factually incorrect I find them as the data is there to determine what is factually correct.
Gentlemen, strong stuff indeed!

I put it to you that in your fervour you might not recognise irony and a bit of mild ribbing (slightly unfair of me I know to tease and deny a fact when it didn't serve my argument but I hope the point was taken) even if it bit you on the collective behind.

Just because I (and I suspect Chuks as well) won't join you in the futility of swapping hockey sticks and internet links to our appointed authorities, I am now irrational. Doesn't that appear to be, er, a little irrational?

I am quite prepared to look at the relevant evidence on its own merits and have no preconceived notion either way. The fact that I am honest enough to admit that there is also evidence that does point to AGW somehow puts me beyond the pale in your eyes.

So be it!
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 11:31
  #8117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
If you refuse to review factual data and dismiss it favour of data that has shown to be manufactured distorted and manipulated so as not to show the true results then that would be irrational.

Irrational; The term is used, usually pejoratively, to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful or more illogical than other more rational alternatives.
I put it to you that in your fervour you might not recognise irony and a bit of mild ribbing (slightly unfair of me I know to tease and deny a fact when it didn't serve my argument but I hope the point was taken) even if it bit you on the collective behind.
The only 'fervour' so far has been from the pro-AGW camp, the 'sceptics' have proved data that countermands the presented viewpoint of the pro-AGW camp and have invited, several times, discussions as to the data presented, none of which have been taken.

it would apprear in fact that your position has bitten you on the collective behind.

I am quite prepared to look at the relevant evidence on its own merits and have no preconceived notion either way.
Then please do it, don't just claim to do it.

The fact that I am honest enough to admit that there is also evidence that does point to AGW somehow puts me beyond the pale in your eyes.
And several times you've been invited to present that data for discussion...

still nothing .........
stuckgear is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 11:54
  #8118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
Then please do it, don't just claim to do it.
Stuckgear, you are going to have to trust me when I say that I read all the links posted by GG and was particularly interested in the article on chaos, the doings of Lorenz and Benoit Mandelbrot being a longtime interest of mine.

Out of respect to you guys (despite the ribbing you know, I hope, that this isn't personal), I will come back on GG's links. Clearly I hope to be accorded the same level of basic respect. I will return to the fray within the next two days (mortgages and ex wives currently having to be fed). Can I be fairer than that?

Publications
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 12:33
  #8119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
of course.

TTFN.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 13:01
  #8120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Fair enough Caco, if you were ribbing, I unreservedly take back anything wrong I said about your posts and apologise.
rvv500 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.