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!

And don't forget that its not that long ago the scientists were forecasting another ice age

The air inside is warmed by the sun in the usual manner but is kept inside by the glass barrier, preventing it mixing with outside air which cools.
A very thin glass layer permits this, if science permitted, you could use an impossibly thin piece of glass for the same effect.
CO2 and other byproducts form a similarly thin barrier in the atmosphere preventing some of the heat being radiated outwards.
Most of this additional heat is absorbed by the oceans as is some of the excess CO2 which changes the ph.
The sea can only absorb so much, which is why ice levels/depth are relevant.
This subtle affect is what is driving the now (regular) extreme weather events.

We have detailed recordings from different studies of ice, land and tree cores that shows the varitations of CO2 over quite some time almost all of the increases attributed to industrialisation in modern times.
Very few sceptics deny the relevance of CO2 or the increase thereof, they usually just dispute the cause.
regardless, what do we have to lose by being more efficient, greener and kinder to the environment?
You don't have to go Uber-vegan and start wearing a hemp flightsuit.
Worst case is your grandkids get to breathe clean air and not have their downstairs turning into a swimming pool twice a year.

Fortunately it's all just one big hoax so nothing to see here, move along. :uhoh:

Sohttps://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5ed0d09e74.jpgThis is from the British Geological Society web site. Sure their are deviations from this curve and the average temperature curves due to the buffering of oceans for dissolved gasses and as a thermal sink. That does have its limits. Do any of you sceptics who don't believe humans are contributing to global warming have an explanation for this ( please, other than that thousands of scientists and their data points are lying for some totally unknown compelling conspiracy). If you are unfamiliar with the term "industrial revolution" this may not mean much to you. Even deniers understand that the over production of greenhouse gasses, not to mention other forms of industrial pollution is not good ( the way we farm is a huge one) so why not do what little we can to tone it down? Too bad our collective memories seem to last for about a generation and a half. Of course, the heart of the problem that nobody really talks about is population growth and the reasons behind why nobody thinks that is their problem.

Yes. It means we burned a lot of stuff. It does not, however, show what effects, if any, burning all that stuff has had on the climate. It's like saying how much fuel the helicopter used, but not how far it went on that fuel. Try some stat's that matter.

The planet has been this warm many times before with no human inputs to the climate. Similarly it has been a lot colder. To blame all of climate change on only human activities defies logic.

aa well said.
claudia

So the greenhouse analogy doesn't work with the earth since convective mixing is exactly how heat transfers across the atmosphere.

Now if you said water vapour was responsible for trapping heat when it makes vast layers of reflective cloud then you might have an argument but your CO2 molecules are arranged in a random fashion not in neat layers or a shield or a blanket.

Lets minimise water vapour - we could all stop breathing, that would help but it would be inconvenient.

The oceans contain far more CO2 than the atmosphere and when the temperature of the water rises, more is given off into the atmosphere but the temperature rise is the driver for the CO2 release, not the other way round.

As I have said, I have no argument that we are polluting the planet - of that there is no doubt - but that pollution is a very minimal part of the climate change and the greenhouse argument simply does not hold water - it's a simple argument that seems sort of sensible if you don't look too deeply which is why politicians like it.

aa777888 -:ok:

Roscoe1 - if there is direct correlation between fossil fuel burning and atmospheric temperature, why was the earth less than a degree warmer than it is now in 1200 - 1300AD?

So, I'm open to other explanations. Perhaps you can give me other reasons besides " it's been this warm before", which isnt really a reason to begin with. The folks who insist that we are not the primary cause of this round of planetary warming should check out NASA's website where even with the US current administration it spells it out quite clearly. Pay particular attention to the CO2 level versus total solar radiation graph. It really isn't worth discussing because nobody ever really examines the evidence and none of us are capable of developing our own accurate statistics, so nobody changes their mind on issues like this. It's just that the hard science is ignored by one group that makes this debateable. In all honesty, can you point to any climate studies that were put together by reputable universities, or government agencies, that were peer reviewed and published in actual scientific journals? What possible gain is there for the huge percentage of geochemical climate experts to push what you consider to be bogus science. Has there ever been scientific quackery before? Of course there has but on a scale like this? Pehaps it is vaccines that are really causing warming.

When NASA or any other "expert" can show me a mathematical model that fully explains every nuance and detail of the behavior of the Sun and its every effect upon the Earth then perhaps I might listen to this AGW baloney.

Folks....the Human Species has a very long way to go before it can claim with any credibility to accurate understand the Universe we live in.

I look out the window and cannot tell you what the weather shall be tomorrow morning when I hope to be able to go out in the boat to go fishing on the Ocean.

So....you AGW Cultists give up trying to convince me you got it all figured out.

Understanding Planet Earth is not the same as understanding the universe. We've been studying the oceans and atmosphere for centuries. We put measurement probes adrift in both media. We use remote sensing from space to make incredibly accurate and precise measurements. We can even do regression analysis that lets you plug in as many variables as you wish into the mathmatical model you dismiss because you haven't seen it, that results in numerical proof of the weight each factor carries to get us where we are. The sad part is you want it in a trifold brochure that has bold face bullet points that somehow you think you would understand ( I know I wouldn't) to appear before you say ah ha. The models are, in fact, out there and that is wy 95% of climate experts believe we are pushing this phenomenon. You try to diminish expertise by putting it in quotes. I guess you don't believe in expertise either. Once again, how am I part of a cult and what is my motivation? I know the oil companies and coal industry have a powerful reason to get folks to believe we aren't the cause of global warming. I guess there is also this big university and government agency cult thing, kind of like the deep state, eh.

and we still know less about the sea bed than we do about the surface of the moon. Where is the data about the heat being added to the oceans by the undersea volcanoes and geysers? Our earth's crust is a series of unstable plates floating on molten rock - where are all the measurements about how the earth is heated from within?

The IPCC only allows science it approves of and is on message to be published - you can peer review as much as you like but if the data and studies you review are flawed or skewed then you won't get a true result.

The issue of past temperature variations is exactly the point - how can you claim to know what is happening now if you can't explain what happened in the past?

The greenhouse gas argument allows governments to tax more and show how green they are by pushing eco-friendly alternatives - the push to electric cars is a classic, let's rape the earth of rare minerals to make more batteries that we can't re-cycle and forget we have to generate the electricity to put in the batteries in the first place.

All the while the hydrogen fuel cell is sidelined because it isn't fashionable.

Pretending we can cool the planet by going vegan and taking less holidays is the height of futility and is a result of those with other agendas jumping on the AGW bandwagon.

Ok, you are just flat out wrong if you think we know more about the moon than we do the sea floor. Just because you say that doesn't make it plausable. If the undersea volcanos were heating up the oceans there would be warmer water at depth. The fact is that surface waters warming is accelerating and deep water warming has remained constant. Heat budgets for the oceans are out there published and with what we know about ocean mixing it is true that surface waters are rising at rates not explained by heat exchange from depth.

Roscoe,

The Sun and the Earth are bound together thus to understand the either one must understand the other.

The Earth's Seas are a pretty big and complex bit of water and life forms.

Are you going to try to tell us that Man has these Oceans all figured out....we don't even know what we don't know about the extent of life forms in the oceans.

We probably know more about the surface of the Moon than we do the bottom of the deepest parts of the Earth's Seas.

After all we can ponder the Moon....like last night for instance as it shined so bright and clear.

It is cloudy today and I KNOW the Moon is still out there because of the Tide Levels in front of my house....that can only be estimated because of the Wind Effect from water being pushed or pulled from the Bay. Uneven heating of the Earth causes the Wind....right?

How you you measure that effect?

You just keep thinking Man has it all figured out....see how that works for you.

By the way....where is Al Gore....off enjoying his Millions from Carbon Offsets or something?

I hope he invested well as if he is still ticking.....so is the Earth despite his dire forecasts in the past when he gave us...what was it ....Ten or Twelve Years?

Nobody said we know all.
Most of the oceans are not the "deepest parts". I might mention I have an MSc. Degree in biological oceanography. I've been on scientific cruises on Canadian CG CGS Hudson multiple times in the North Atlantic. We know a heck of a lot about pelagic life in the oceans, especially in those zones that receieve sunlight. I came to helicopters late in life.

Moon, convective heating, tides, yeah we know a lot about that too. We do a pretty good job of weather forecasting in my book. No earth science is as exact as you are insisting it be.

Where is Al Gore? He has written 4 books since 2006, has an active Facebook page and heads the Climate Reality Project. At his age of 72 I could only hope to be as activist and active. He isn't in your world because you didn't look for him.

10 or 12 years....what is that about and where did it come from? There were climate experts warning us to what is likley to happen 40 years ago. You can't deny the melting ice caps at rates way beyond what people 10 or 12 years ago thought we'd see.

Enjoy the moonlight, it'll be there for thousands of years but the beach front property won't be where it is now.

Don't forget to follow the money, folks. Only politically acceptable research gets money, both public and private. And it's the media that decides what's politically acceptable, not scientists. Not a minor consideration. You'll note we are going through the same sh*t right now in a more acute way with COVID 19, which promises to kill merely a tithe of what H1N1 accounted for in its first year, but where was the media then?

For those who are more conspiratorial you can peel however many layers off that as you wish, but on the surface that's all it takes.

Sad, you assume nobody has a soul or a conscience to go with it. When I was in the sciences I was as apolitical as could be. The science led me to what was worthy.
So now we have woven in the Corona virus outbreak. What you didn't say is that we now have BOTH the run of the mill flu, which basically disappears every spring ( not that that helps the poor folks who die from it every year) AND a new virus that we know next to nothing about in terms of epidimiology because we've not seen it in humans before. Sure, the press shapes what most folks think but we really do not know how this will play out. I say better safe than sorry.

I am making no assumptions. I live, breath and work in that exact environment, although not in the bio or eco-sciences area specifically. I have colleagues that sell their very souls every single day for a dollar.

Well said Roscoe 1 - This thread shows that dinosaurs still do roam the earth!

Thanks Blackdog. Roscoe was actually a much beloved black dog I had a couple of dogs ago. I kind of consider myself a dinosaur in some regards ( I have no Facebook account) but I am not foolish enough to think that that giant meteors don't exist that might hit the earth.

I TOTALLY agree.