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 26th Jun 2008, 20:00
  #801 (permalink)  
Recidivist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,239
More wind farms are the answer (apparently).

So our feckwit government have announced today that yet more money is to be wasted in that direction.
frostbite is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2008, 20:01
  #802 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
You were being ironic again weren't you?
In general its neccessary to read the whole of a post to grasp the meaning. (sarcasm)

Just because we don't know how big a perturbation it would take to make a system go unstable, does not prove that no such point exists. (logic)
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2008, 20:06
  #803 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
If you choose to call the earth equilibrium mystical then that's up to you.
I don't, see:

The earth’s climate knows no more about what is the correct state to be in than a brick.
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2008, 20:12
  #804 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NE Scotland & London
Posts: 40
Just because we don't know how big a perturbation it would take to make a system go unstable, does not prove that no such point exists. (logic)
Nor does it prove that it actually exists. Nor does it prove that such a point, if it does exist - which you agree is in any case highly uncertain, is actually remotely reachable which again is by your own admission highly uncertain. Doesn't add up to much really does it?

I'm trying to use logic here.
BlooMoo is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2008, 20:24
  #805 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
I'm trying to use logic here.
Perhaps you are, but here I was trying only to dispose of the witless notion that mindless gases and liquids are part of some implicitly stable system.

This one statement should not be construed to be the full story.
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2008, 20:29
  #806 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
"I don't"

Really? Do you read your own messages?
So humans can't be expected to influence climate , but somehow mystical nature can.
In case you might be interested, here are some interesting articles about Earth's equilibrium:

Saturated (°) Greenhouse Effect

(°) fill in ******** dot com on the dots...
Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2008, 20:38
  #807 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Really? Do you read your own messages?
Quote:
So humans can't be expected to influence climate , but somehow mystical nature can.
Oh dear, a few posts back the thread took a turn off into irony, but it seems that not everyone is able to keep up without the smilies.
Would you be from the US of A perchance, Capn?
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2008, 20:54
  #808 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
Would you be from the US of A perchance, Capn?
Nope, and next time pls include your own disclaimer...
Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2008, 20:54
  #809 (permalink)  
airfoilmod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Dynamic

Allow me to humbly correct what I perceive to be an error in the argument. Global climate is inherently unstable, and "seeks" an equilibrium as a result of dozens of processes that vary in impact and location. Wind, current, ice, rain, insulation, heating and cooling are all part of an extremely complex system that is difficult to understand and resists a "standard" model of explanation. This is my conclusion; it relieves me of the duty to explain the casually inexplicable science, but allows me to pass judgment on the political and cultural ideas to mitigate a problem that may or may not exist.

I have noticed the general lack of healthy scepticism by otherwise intelligent people as regards politics; the science is unsettled and theory resistant. It is the gonzo sheep think that truly bothers me. I am interested completely in the science, and rue the fact that an otherwise intellectual discussion was co-opted by an International Body with a terrible record in Global Policy. It didn't help when a certified simian with a nose for power and personal aggrandizement piggy-backed on the issue and polarized everybody in his own selfish motives. I can't describe the degree of plummet my respect for NASA took when Hansen was outed for his faked numbers and instead of apologizing, turned into a rabid wreck trying to terrify people to push a political agenda.

Airfoil

Last edited by airfoilmod; 26th Jun 2008 at 21:06.
 
Old 26th Jun 2008, 20:57
  #810 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NE Scotland & London
Posts: 40
I was trying only to dispose of the witless notion that mindless gases and liquids are part of some implicitly stable system.
But that notion seems the fundamental basis for the entire pro-AGW movement - i.e. that the contemporary climate would be stable were it not for us humans.

This one statement should not be construed to be the full story.
So what is the full story then? You don't really have a clue do you? - as per your own statement of :

the climate is in, as it were, long side down stability, or not. I don’t know, neither does anyone else.
I'm genuinely struggling with your logic...
BlooMoo is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2008, 21:23
  #811 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
But that notion seems the fundamental basis for the entire pro-AGW movement - i.e. that the contemporary climate would be stable were it not for us humans.

It may well be, I don't pretend to speak for the AGW, and I'm not acquainted with all their arguments.

My take is that some of the 'Deniers' of AGW maintain that a climate condition compatible with human life will be maintained regardless of what humans do. The argument sometimes used in support of this, as in various posts from Capt K, is that the climate is inherently stable.

Hence,
I was trying only to dispose of the witless notion that mindless gases and liquids are part of some implicitly stable system.
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2008, 21:32
  #812 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
It didn't help when a certified simian with a nose for power and personal aggrandizement piggy-backed on the issue and polarized everybody in his own selfish motives.
Yes airfoilmod, but isn't it just a given that politico's will co-opt any issue to their own ends.

Didn't JFK, for example, make an issue out of the Soviet lead in space. Did it make Neil Armstrong's footprints on the moon any less wonderful?
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2008, 21:50
  #813 (permalink)  
airfoilmod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Jim

You misunderstand. My point is that the quality of resistance to politico pathos has diminished to below trace values. Don't forget that the USSR lead in science and space was actually true, and hastened our steps on the Moon.

Would you agree that other insincere claims have affected public policy in the recent past? Our immunity to gas bag propaganda has been infected with something I cannot fathom. You had to have followed Al Gore to understand and regret his grip on otherwise bright people.

The climate will carry on, regardless of man's (non)intervention. It Will.

I've been in politics, and have been a democrat. I also have been reading a good deal about CO2 from 1958 and the IGY to the present. It is almost always a good idea to wait a suitable length of time before implementing any political "solution" to any "problem". Just Sayin'

Regards, Airfoil
 
Old 26th Jun 2008, 22:17
  #814 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
airfoil
You misunderstand. My point is that the quality of resistance to politico pathos has diminished to below trace values.
Perhaps, and politicals have become ever more skilled at news management. Most people are happy to accept whatever the politicians come up with. They don't even have to believe it, as long as THEY don't have to go to war, give up the good life or anything else that might get them out of their comfort zone.

And why not? Civillisation has delivered a pretty good life for most of us. Hence, I tend to be mindful of how much we have to lose. And wonder about what circumstances might cause us to lose it.

cheers

JJ
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2008, 01:36
  #815 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
And wonder about what circumstances might cause us to lose it.
Pandering to the likes of Algore and the green barmy army for starters.

JJ go on youtube and listen to Prof Bob Carter explain the raw data.
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2008, 01:49
  #816 (permalink)  
Silly Old Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: saiba spes
Posts: 3,728
The NT Government is recommending Territorians "retire'' their beer fridges in a bid to tackle climate change.

Those bloody hippys will prise my beer fridge from my cold dead hands
tinpis is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2008, 02:12
  #817 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 71
Posts: 2,394
Those bloody hippys will prise my beer fridge from my cold dead hands
I agree by god.

Now, after the Supreme Court decision today I guess I need to go out and buy a gun to protect me beer fridge.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2008, 11:21
  #818 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
Humble apoligies tinpis for interupting discusion about beer fridges - as a former Terrartorian I fully understand your concerns

But, back to the thread...

This has been floating around for a while, but science daily just discovered it, so worth another look-in ...

A research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has uncovered evidence of explosive volcanic eruptions deep beneath the ice-covered surface of the Arctic Ocean.

...the buildup of CO2 in magma in the sea crust would have to be ten times higher than anyone has ever observed in seafloor samples... The research team hypothesizes that excess gas may be building up like foam or froth near the ceiling of the magma chambers beneath the crust, waiting to pop like champagne beneath a cork.

Full article via -

Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean

And I thought the science was aaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllll done..

...........wait until somebody discovers that there are something like 3,000,000 volcanic domes under the sea



.... nobody did question my claim that the Sun is the source of all atmospheric heat .......
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2008, 15:57
  #819 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
I'm not a gunlover, but if they're after my cold Heineken I'm afraid I have to get me a shotgun.

The corruption of climate science or Yellow Science.
Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2008, 10:25
  #820 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
How to destroy an economy - part one

I wonder just how much time and money is being wasted on the unproven science of AGW ??? .... meanwhile, the poor of this world are foregotten

PRESSURE over a new greenhouse gas regime and the looming Garnaut report on emissions trading is fuelling the deepest cabinet divisions over policy and politics since the election of the Rudd Government.

more at -

Climate change strategy splinters Kevin Rudd cabinet | The Australian
Flying Binghi 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.