I don't follow US politics closely, I'm sure there's a lot going on there that the rest of the world can learn from. If this was around October 2018 then it's probably a reference to the IPCC: SR1.5 - Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 C

The 2019 backdrop to all of this is something that surprises me, school children are now protesting about Climage Change: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...ave-the-world/.

I found a few more interesting events in London:

• UCL: Low-carbon aviation: how far can we go? – UCL Energy Seminar (2nd April 2019)
• Imperial College: Aircraft electric propulsion: volting into the air (4th April 2019)

It's interesting to see that hybrid designs are being looked at beyond road vehicles (Toyota Prius are very common over here):

• Rolls-Royce Paul Stein, Chief Technology Officer on the E-Fan-X programme
• RAeS: Proceedings: Greener by Design 2018 - Impact of Electric and Hybrid Propulsion in Aviation

Yeah, right...

So, tell the teacher to turn off the aircon in the classroom, walk to school instead of riding 2km in Mum's huge 4WD, take a cut lunch instead of eating Macca's methane-producing beef, turn off your IPhone, iPad, wireless headphones, Gameboys, supercomputers running web-linked games and go outside to play cricket. No? Then STFU.

And who revs up these children? The limp wristed, hand wringing left wingers that are their teachers. What are they doing about jet travel and all the APU's that are running at every domestic and international airport the world over? Nothing! that's what!. The earth is still coming out of an ice age that only ended around 30,000 years ago. Global warming or climate change as it's now known is about finding a new way to tax people to pay for the promises that bought their votes.

It's 2020. It's interesting to note that one school child has become rather prominent in spreading the word of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to the masses and politicians. I don't know if anyone's done the study but I've got an idea what would come out if one sampled the population and looked at viewpoint and certainity of viewpoint on climate change by (life remaining, gender, education level).

Nature has also thrown one of its rare but inevitable googlies at us which may have far more effect in the short term on lowering consumption than the inaction from complacent populations and governments. I'm not sure if any of us can accurately predict the effect it'll have over 2020. Ironically, it may help save Flybe!

I forget who it is was but there was a woman on Radio 4 recently who pointed out indirectly that aviation industry does not generally respond (as in explain the whole issue) to the carbon issue well. As she, I and Ascend Charlie have pointed out, it's not about one aspect but every aspect of our lives that can be reviewed from a carbon point of view.

I don't know who "rev'ed them up" but two of my friend's children are now almost vegetarian/vegan based on climate change due to the desire for a more protein efficient diet, cf "Veganuary". The parents are certainly not "left wingers" and I'd wager both children are brighter than the average PPRuNer.

AC deserves......:ok::ok:!

As does the Evil Twin!


Brain washing by Leftists in the Educational System you reckon?

I heard of one rich guy recently, who was ' carbon shamed ' into leaving his copter in the barn. So he decided to take his Tesla instead. Being a well known and moderately unpopular chap, he was recognized and harassed at an intersection. He's now flying again.

I'd not heard of carbon shaming. I suppose the serious aspect of that is attitudes do change over time particularly between different generations. Actually one thing that's really surprised me is the speed and size of the backlash against polymers and the fast reaction by some Firms to this. If you were paying attention at school then it was pretty obvious than man had created something with a few nifty catalysts that simply didn't exist in nature and was highly problematic for disposal and recycling.

Now, If I could hire a fat-shamer to follow me around that would be a useful service for a healthier lifestyle with a bit less consumption...

My personal experience with regard to the latest “Friday for future” demos.

1. Good for business as we got to fly for the news media on all three occasions
2. The amount of participants in those demos decreased dramatically (70.000 in September 2019, 55.000 in November 2019, 20.000 in February 2020 (even though Greta was on scene and a local band was performing for free)And to be honest, to me it looked more like 3.000 on that last occasion.
3. ilegal drone operated by FFF in a no-fly zone on at least one occasion
4. During our scenic flights the following day I had at least one kid on board proudly announcing to the rest of us that it had been “down there to demonstrate” the preceding day. :D

I fly helicopters for a living and look down on several container ships (the big ones), at least 2-3 cruise ships per day, one of the most sophisticated but also the least efficient coal-fired powerplant in Europe (district heating not being used), the oldest active coal-fired powerplant in my home country and down on a street closed to my Diesel car (Euro 5) not complying with the latest European emission standard.

So you better don’t get me into a discussion on carbon footprint.

Just let an avocado-munching, soya milk drinking, bunny-hugger tell me not to fly.
They will get a carbon footprint on their a$$.

I always eat a vegan chocolate coconut bar with lunch when I’m flying - entirely offsets two hours of emissions from an R-44.

Without CO2 and water vapour in the atmosphere to absorb and reflect a great deal of the harmful incoming solar radiation, the earth would be uninhabitable - and the supporters of the myth of anthropogenic climate change (the planet has been warming and cooling for millennia all by itself) want to reduce all 'greenhouse gases'.

A greenhouse works by restricting cooling convective airflow, not by magnifying the effect of radiation.

Total world energy consumption is a little over 100,000 terawatt-hours per year, only a small fraction of which is waste heat into the environment. The Sun delivers over 20,000 times as much energy to the planet as that, all directly into the environment.

You need to go talk to the Sun, because us humans are just a pimple on the ass of climate change.

You all need to go read some actual science behind the problem, which has long since been proven across the various climate disciplines.
The effect of humans on the environment as a whole isn’t a matter of opinion.
The ultimate solution is fewer humans, which a few trips to Italy should cure. :E

Bell_ringer Are you saying I can't just make my mind up on this by reading a few posts by my favourite forum friends who have no relevant research experience and hand out cast-iron guarantees ranging between problem 1) doesn't exist, 2) isn't man made, 3) can't be addressed by any action? Ok, I'll have to go rummage through my favourite tabloid newspapers...

Done the science reading rather than just believing the self-licking lollipop that is the IPCC.

Start with the idea about a greenhouse and explain how a greenhouse with only 0.04% of its glass being present can retransmit enough heat to cause an 'effect' inside itself.
Then explain the science behind how 0.04% of the atmosphere is keeping the earth warm.
Look at the data regarding historic variations in temperature and CO2 levels and you will find that the temperature leads the CO2 and not the other way round.

We are polluting the planet and the climate is changing but carbon trading as a means of changing anything is a big con.

Carbon trading is complete rubbish, helps nothing.

I can see you have the whole greenhouse metaphor sussed and I have little interest in trying to convince deniers and sceptics, who will not be around to experience the real consequences (not that you aren't already), that their facebook groups and think tanks are incorrect.
I prefer listening to the likes of NASA and respected proffesionals that backup their work with evidence based science and not opinion.

Besides, you are conflating different concepts to suit an incorrect perspective.
Cover a greenhouse with thin glass that represents 0.04% of the entire contents and it is no less effective at warming.
Most greenhouses don't have a much higher ratio of glass to volume regardless.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
They also have a kiddie version for those that are scientifically challenged. :}

Ironically, when the gulf stream slowly shifts, the UK will get much, much colder.
If it hasn't sunk by then.

It would appear inviting Helicopter Pilots to a Global Warming Seminar might be fraught with peril for the Advocate attempting to recruit more believers.

Elmer Gantry's last Revival would not compare to how that would turn out!

Because a greenhouse prevents convective cooling, it doesn't magically heat up the inside by retransmitting radiation.

The problem with the NASA agreed 'greenhouse gas' theory that we keep getting rammed down our throats is this - Quote from their website ‘In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect’

Tyndall was a mountaineer who was searching for a reason why the earth maintained a pretty constant temperature and identified water vapour ( approx. 4%) of the atmosphere to be the main reason that the earth avoided the extremes of temperature seen on bodies such as the moon without an atmosphere. Are we going to try and reduce that 'greenhouse gas'? - the one which is over 100 times more prevalent than CO2?

Arrhenius incorrectly used Fouriers explanation that the atmosphere behaves like a glasshouse because it allows the light rays from the sun in but contains the dark rays from the earth. Fourier never mentioned glasshouses or hothouses and went on to say that for the atmosphere to behave like a hotbox – referring to the experimental apparatus of de Saussure (1779) – it would have to solidify whilst retaining its optical qualities.

I don't dispute the change in climate but how do you explain the variations over many hundreds and thousands of years - look at the temperature in 12-1300 AD for example (industrialisation?????) it was only a tiny bit colder than what we are currently experiencing. Then the mini-ice age in 1500AD from which we are gradually recovering.

Time to open your eyes and ask questions of the science rather than blindly accepting it.

Indeed.
Humans are a strange bunch.
Mention climate change and no one wants to be vaguely inconvenienced.

Have a cruise ship passenger cough on one and they are happy to lock themselves away for weeks, wrapped in clingwrap, bumping feet as a greeting, hogging toilet paper (why?!?!) and dried pasta, treating China town like Chernoble and breathing through an old sock..
:}

While you’re at it, tell ‘em there will be no more plastic toys at Christmas. Back to just the wooden ones and an orange, bah humbug!