Extinction Rebellion are threatening to shut down Heathrow Airport with drones
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northern Territory Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let’s assume ,without prejudice ,that all the hyperbole about climate change is true.
What is more intriguing is why anybody in the UK assumes that their hand wringing has any impact whatsoever in the rest of the world.
Memories of Empire?
Relevance deprivation syndrome?
The Guardian?
Decisions made in Beijing, Washington, New Delhi and Jakarta will shape the world, not those in London.
These protesters need to get out more.
What is more intriguing is why anybody in the UK assumes that their hand wringing has any impact whatsoever in the rest of the world.
Memories of Empire?
Relevance deprivation syndrome?
The Guardian?
Decisions made in Beijing, Washington, New Delhi and Jakarta will shape the world, not those in London.
These protesters need to get out more.
I imagine they are not wanting to shut down LHR so much as to get people talking. A proven way to get something on the national agenda is to cause disruption. You can't do it by a letter to the Times.
Re the temperature timeline posted above. There is about a 40 degree celsius difference in the average temperature between Helsinki and Singapore. Both cities provide a very high standard of living to their inhabitants. So humans can do quite nicely in a wide range of temperatures. Ask any Inuit.
As far as I know the mechanism that lead to the ice sheets is still unclear, neither temperature or CO2 explains it. It was the flooding behind the retreat of the ice sheet, The Laurentian Sea, that formed the geomorphology of New England and Eastern Canada. Interpreting that geomorphology provided my job. Al Gore highlighted in one of his original slides that the flooding was a warning of what would/could/might happen if we did not check climate change. After reviewing the other slides I came to the conclusion the man is the PT Barnum of our age and began to be very skeptical of the rest of the AGW movement. Everything else I have researched tells me that there is a gross oversimplification being sold of a very complex system we do not understand or control.
Most people are convinced that the relationship between climate and CO2 is analogous to the burner on your stove and the control knob. Simply not true and no evidence anywhere.
This article , referenced above, https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...77379118307261, is really fascinating. Back when I tool up being an environmentalist the big concern was the next ice age! There was a lot of research, for the time, showing land use change in Canada and Australia, was behind climate change. How does land use affect water vapor? Any takers?
20driver
As far as I know the mechanism that lead to the ice sheets is still unclear, neither temperature or CO2 explains it. It was the flooding behind the retreat of the ice sheet, The Laurentian Sea, that formed the geomorphology of New England and Eastern Canada. Interpreting that geomorphology provided my job. Al Gore highlighted in one of his original slides that the flooding was a warning of what would/could/might happen if we did not check climate change. After reviewing the other slides I came to the conclusion the man is the PT Barnum of our age and began to be very skeptical of the rest of the AGW movement. Everything else I have researched tells me that there is a gross oversimplification being sold of a very complex system we do not understand or control.
Most people are convinced that the relationship between climate and CO2 is analogous to the burner on your stove and the control knob. Simply not true and no evidence anywhere.
This article , referenced above, https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...77379118307261, is really fascinating. Back when I tool up being an environmentalist the big concern was the next ice age! There was a lot of research, for the time, showing land use change in Canada and Australia, was behind climate change. How does land use affect water vapor? Any takers?
20driver
.........
And since you chose not to "debunk" the natural increase in population as a direct link to climate change, allow me to provide this. A recent study of human climate effects in the 1500-1600s found that the loss of 50+ million indignant peoples in the Americas .....
And since you chose not to "debunk" the natural increase in population as a direct link to climate change, allow me to provide this. A recent study of human climate effects in the 1500-1600s found that the loss of 50+ million indignant peoples in the Americas .....
............. After reviewing the other slides I came to the conclusion the man is the PT Barnum of our age and began to be very skeptical of the rest of the AGW movement. Everything else I have researched tells me that there is a gross oversimplification being sold of a very complex system we do not understand or control.
Most people are convinced that the relationship between climate and CO2 is analogous to the burner on your stove and the control knob. Simply not true and no evidence anywhere.
.....
Most people are convinced that the relationship between climate and CO2 is analogous to the burner on your stove and the control knob. Simply not true and no evidence anywhere.
.....
Do I deny climate change? Definitely not. Who can possibly argue that point?
Now, about cause and effect. A much more complex question.
Much too complex for me to get on my soapbox over. Sufficiently complex to give me a serious dose of the skeptics though, especially when the common case is being pushed by rattle snake handlers.
They seem to have won the day, for now.
Unfortunately I will not be here to see the science resolved. I just know that we're a long way from that point just now.
Consequences? I just don't see even the worst predictions resulting in the demise of mankind.
Even if the negative outcomes of the warming trend outweigh the positive (and there will be some of those also) the worst outcome that I can imagine would be a slowing in global population growth.
Now convince me that that is a bad thing.
It's a bad thing if you or your children and grandchildren die young because of it.
My bottom line is, if there is a 5% chance that the predictions are on average very roughly correct, and offered solutions are steps in a necessary direction, then we should take those steps. Where would you put your threshold for wanting to take action?
There's a chance of almost nil that a burglar will visit us one night, but we still lock the car and the house.
My bottom line is, if there is a 5% chance that the predictions are on average very roughly correct, and offered solutions are steps in a necessary direction, then we should take those steps. Where would you put your threshold for wanting to take action?
There's a chance of almost nil that a burglar will visit us one night, but we still lock the car and the house.
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercial shipping uses the most effective engines. They have efficiency in excess of 50% which makes them H-system compliant. They use turbocompounds to increase efficiency even further. Even the PAINT on modern ships reduces friction and thus emissions. And they do measure them. Every single project of every single ship has efficiency all over it.
Actually, commercial shipping is the most effective sector. Wartsila diesels have BSFC of 0.260 bs hp/hour. I wonder how it compares to GEx?
Actually, commercial shipping is the most effective sector. Wartsila diesels have BSFC of 0.260 bs hp/hour. I wonder how it compares to GEx?
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are You all still on about global warming or not!?
This is a aviation forum not greenpeace.
I eat whale meat and burn ca 100 000kg of JetA1 on a good month.
And proud of it!
Now how are we going to get hold of these terrorist and what is the punishment going to be.
Remember a third Rwy in London will REDUCE emissions due massively reduced holding.
Seriously!!
This is a aviation forum not greenpeace.
I eat whale meat and burn ca 100 000kg of JetA1 on a good month.
And proud of it!
Now how are we going to get hold of these terrorist and what is the punishment going to be.
Remember a third Rwy in London will REDUCE emissions due massively reduced holding.
Seriously!!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercial shipping uses the most effective engines. They have efficiency in excess of 50% which makes them H-system compliant. They use turbocompounds to increase efficiency even further. Even the PAINT on modern ships reduces friction and thus emissions. And they do measure them. Every single project of every single ship has efficiency all over it.
Actually, commercial shipping is the most effective sector. Wartsila diesels have BSFC of 0.260 bs hp/hour. I wonder how it compares to GEx?
Actually, commercial shipping is the most effective sector. Wartsila diesels have BSFC of 0.260 bs hp/hour. I wonder how it compares to GEx?
Yes, very effective....at polluting the atmosphere.
Economist-Green Finance for Dirty Ships.
SHIPPING may seem like a clean form of transport. Carrying more than 90% of the world’s trade, ocean-going vessels produce just 3% of its greenhouse-gas emissions. But the industry is dirtier than that makes it sound. By burning heavy fuel oil, just 15 of the biggest ships emit more of the noxious oxides of nitrogen and sulphur than all the world’s cars put together. So it is no surprise that shipowners are being forced to clean up their act. But in an industry awash in overcapacity and debt, few have access to the finance they need to improve their vessels. Innovative thinking is trying to change that.
As for efficiency, here's a Wiki . Unfortunately, due to the very nature of the beasts, the comparison with your diesel isn't straight forward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust...el_consumption
Why should we totally trust those scientists but then blatantly ignore the warnings of other scientists who tell us climate change will have dire consequences if not acted upon now?
This isn’t just “tree huggers” from a politcial activist group like Greenpeace, it’s worldwide bodies of huge scientific clout like NASA, you know the National Aeronautics and Space Administration?
Too much like watching soap operas for my befuddled mind.
I just can't get interested in the plot.
Would you mind, seriously, explaining to me how and why your grandchildren might die young because the mean global surface temperature has increased by, say, 4 deg. C?
I just don't see the link.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, very effective....at polluting the atmosphere.
Economist-Green Finance for Dirty Ships.
Dirty little
As for efficiency, here's a Wiki . Unfortunately, due to the very nature of the beasts, the comparison with your diesel isn't straight forward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust...el_consumption
Economist-Green Finance for Dirty Ships.
Dirty little
As for efficiency, here's a Wiki . Unfortunately, due to the very nature of the beasts, the comparison with your diesel isn't straight forward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust...el_consumption
when the pros that are supposed to know cannot agree on the effects of El Niño, then one has to question not only the message, but the messengers too.
Too much money to be made in regulating anything, when you see “the business case for Climate Change being touted, one tends to question the religious aspect of it all.
Look up Tom Stayer, one of the new high priests billionaires.
interesting to watch the propaganda machine at work, sliding articles, shows, especially children’s, school curriculum, we are terrifying a whole generation over an obsession about which we all know very, very little.
when politicians make asinine comments like ” we only have 12 years” and the younger folks take that as gospel and adjust their spending habits accordgly, that is fear mongering at its worst.
Regulate cow farts, seriously? but they burp more than fart, that’s the level of knowledge being bandied about as truth.
Now its the hand wringers turn:
Dirty little truth is a lot of the cargo ships burn used oil, yes, the stuff that comes from cars/trucks/industrial plants, cheap too.
when the pros that are supposed to know cannot agree on the effects of El Niño, then one has to question not only the message, but the messengers too.
Too much money to be made in regulating anything, when you see “the business case for Climate Change being touted, one tends to question the religious aspect of it all.
Look up Tom Stayer, one of the new high priests billionaires.
interesting to watch the propaganda machine at work, sliding articles, shows, especially children’s, school curriculum, we are terrifying a whole generation over an obsession about which we all know very, very little.
when politicians make asinine comments like ” we only have 12 years” and the younger folks take that as gospel and adjust their spending habits accordgly, that is fear mongering at its worst.
Regulate cow farts, seriously? but they burp more than fart, that’s the level of knowledge being bandied about as truth.
Now its the hand wringers turn:
Methane from cows became a misrepresented lightning rod following flippant comments from the new congress, and the underlying problem remains occupancy rates on the rock, the activtiy rate of said occupants, and the use of resources that occurs.*
Feel free to drive your 6.7 Hemi to walmart and McD's while you have the opportunity, however, at some point in time, the planet gets the last laugh, and those with any expectation of providing a suitable habitat for their grandchildren need to put on a game face and start dealing with the hard questions. Or keep on with denial and relax, it's a nice day, today...**
The underlying problem really is even if we had solid proof sufficient to shape an editorial from Fox News, then self interest and complacency remains until disaster strikes. The politicians are the supposed people who have the responsibility to assure the survival of their constituency, however they are apparently much more interested in maintenance of their own seat.
Global warming in the short term is not all bad news. Lots of stuff will benefit from the changes, such as insurers, once they redo their premiums, they will be more important than ever. We will have new diving spots on many islands in the pacific. More properties in Miami will be waterfront than are now. The building trades will delight in demand from recovery post hurricanes etc. Some crops will grow better, including cannabis I would imagine. Pelagic fish will not be so happy, Tuna will be a memory on the menu for Tekka Maki or Maguro, or Tuna Tataki. (we were heading that way already, so it already sucked to be born a tuna....).
The Nile delta, and the Arabian peninsula once was woodland/rainforest. We can expect that changes will occur, and as some places start growing new plants, others will become great adventure parks for off roading. Out with the Baja bugs, and enduros.
** * * * **
*
*
*
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northern Territory Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What will happen if the individual concerned does not have £ 50K of cash available to pay the fine you propose??
Very true but also true that humanity can probably manage without the third runway.....
.
Wonder why describe them as "idiots" ?? Ever thought they could be correct in what they say?
Very true but also true that humanity can probably manage without the third runway.....
.
Wonder why describe them as "idiots" ?? Ever thought they could be correct in what they say?
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the major issue of our time and that of the next few generations.
...Nuclear power has a component of total electrical supply but Chernobyl and Fukushima, 3 Mile, didn't add to the happy faces of risk analysts. Uranium supply is a finite resource, even though considered as some 2 hundred years of fuel stock available at present from known reserves and existing processing.
...they don't have the Chernobyl or Fukushima disaster plan in their "DNA". PBMR/GCR/MPBR type reactors are safe,.....
Climate change is occurring, and as the rock was once molten on the crusty bits we inhabit, that should not be a surprise. Anthropogenic causation is becoming more difficult to deny, and even without any facts being tabled, a simple .
...Nuclear power has a component of total electrical supply but Chernobyl and Fukushima, 3 Mile, didn't add to the happy faces of risk analysts. Uranium supply is a finite resource, even though considered as some 2 hundred years of fuel stock available at present from known reserves and existing processing.
...they don't have the Chernobyl or Fukushima disaster plan in their "DNA". PBMR/GCR/MPBR type reactors are safe,.....
Climate change is occurring, and as the rock was once molten on the crusty bits we inhabit, that should not be a surprise. Anthropogenic causation is becoming more difficult to deny, and even without any facts being tabled, a simple .
The climate has always been changing and so what?
Nothing to do witha tiny trace gas at wait for it 0.04% - proven to be incapable of warming anything, never mind a large rocky entity covered with mostly water, and chock full of volcanoes.
Fact is it was considerably warmer in the MWP than today, as well as the 1st century AD.
CO2 is outgassed when water gets warmer, never drunk a flat warm coke ever folks?
Sea levels are not rising any faster, Artic ice is not melting, and no accurate thermometer records existed before 1900, at which point we were still emerging from a nasty famine inducing LIA.
Most of all the so called "data", the 99% consensus and the computer simulations are fakes to manipulate public opinion and secure even more funding for the scam.
COLD kills not warmth, as happened to both Napoleon and Hitler's army at the gates of Moscow.
Best way to be cured of the biggest scam in human history, as well as an antidote to little mentally ill Thunberg, and her unhinged opera singer mother, (who can see Co2, she claims), is to take a little dose of watts up with that dot com.
Enjoy your flight.
The biggest threat to you is gamma radiation on your flight, not CO2 (thanks to the weakening of the earth's magnetic field, 15% increase in cosmic radiation, solar minimum right now, and secondary particle spallation at FL 30-35)
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I posted on a much earlier post that the Vostock ice core samples have proved a definite link between global warming and CO2 levels. The problem is, the rise in CO2 levels FOLLOWS the rise in temperature by approx 250 years. Not the other way round! Now, there's odd, isn't it?
Does anyone else want to come out with a pile of greeny bollox or hearsay on this thread?
The climate has always been changing and so what?
Nothing to do witha tiny trace gas at wait for it 0.04% - proven to be incapable of warming anything, never mind a large rocky entity covered with mostly water, and chock full of volcanoes. Fact is it was considerably warmer in the MWP than today, as well as the 1st century AD.
CO2 is outgassed when water gets warmer, never drunk a flat warm coke ever folks?
Sea levels are not rising any faster, Artic ice is not melting, and no accurate thermometer records existed before 1900, at which point we were still emerging from a nasty famine inducing LIA. Most of all the so called "data", the 99% consensus and the computer simulations are fakes to manipulate public opinion and secure even more funding for the scam. COLD kills not warmth, as happened to both Napoleon and Hitler's army at the gates of Moscow. Best way to be cured of the biggest scam in human history, as well as an antidote to little mentally ill Thunberg, and her unhinged opera singer mother, (who can see Co2, she claims), is to take a little dose of watts up with that dot com.
Enjoy your flight.
The biggest threat to you is gamma radiation on your flight, not CO2 (thanks to the weakening of the earth's magnetic field, 15% increase in cosmic radiation, solar minimum right now, and secondary particle spallation at FL 30-35)
The climate has always been changing and so what?
Nothing to do witha tiny trace gas at wait for it 0.04% - proven to be incapable of warming anything, never mind a large rocky entity covered with mostly water, and chock full of volcanoes. Fact is it was considerably warmer in the MWP than today, as well as the 1st century AD.
CO2 is outgassed when water gets warmer, never drunk a flat warm coke ever folks?
Sea levels are not rising any faster, Artic ice is not melting, and no accurate thermometer records existed before 1900, at which point we were still emerging from a nasty famine inducing LIA. Most of all the so called "data", the 99% consensus and the computer simulations are fakes to manipulate public opinion and secure even more funding for the scam. COLD kills not warmth, as happened to both Napoleon and Hitler's army at the gates of Moscow. Best way to be cured of the biggest scam in human history, as well as an antidote to little mentally ill Thunberg, and her unhinged opera singer mother, (who can see Co2, she claims), is to take a little dose of watts up with that dot com.
Enjoy your flight.
The biggest threat to you is gamma radiation on your flight, not CO2 (thanks to the weakening of the earth's magnetic field, 15% increase in cosmic radiation, solar minimum right now, and secondary particle spallation at FL 30-35)
The 21st century is going to be focused on the resource grab that is well underway by the Chinese under their current plans. The rest of the world has enabled China to be in that position and they are acting in most theatres actively tying up resources. As most conflicts result from resource grabs, and conflict has generally been pretty unkind to commercial operations other than reserve airlift, then this is a peripheral subject that should be of interest to anyone wanting to drive aluminium tubes around that don't have ordnance stuffed under their wings. Was ever thus.
CO2 levels do indeed lag temperature in greenland and antarctic core samples, and the correlations are pretty darn good. To that end, on the face of it, that would preclude CO2 as being the driver of change, however that is if the sequestration occurs in ice at the same rate as it does in the oceans. One good belch from Pinatubo put a sizeable change into the global temps ( -0.6C for 15 months) as well as the amount of SO2 emitted 20 million tons of SO2 in 1991's eruption. Volcanoes don't throw up much CO2... Pinatubo 0.05 Gt vs 2015 anthropogenic CO2 from fuel combustion of 32.3Gt/yr. The latter figure is pretty easy to get a ball park figure from the chemistry of combustion and the fuel used for the period, or is available from USGS.
You don't have to be a tree hugger to do mathematics, or to consider system processes. It does raise the question however as to why would anyone have disdain for efforts to ensure stability of their lifestyle, as in the end, being sustainable is a simple matter of practicality. Global resource exhaustion doesn't get Chapter 11 relief.
Charities have a mixed history of justification; they are in the end competing for funding from various areas which depends on the extent that they invoke response from the public. Many or even most of the campaigns are righteous, and worth the support, the activists achieve a level of counterpoint to the general institutions and that is needed more often than not to break moribund bureaucracy and self interest of corporations. They also overstep the mark on occasions, and indignant objection can be warranted. Society doesn't have a great track record on getting the balance right, the 20th century was the poster child for how poor the choices are handled, and at the rate we are going this century, we will be wistfully yearning for a return to the relative comfort of last century.
CO2 emission is not the problem, excessive depletion of resources is the event that will bring the tent down around our ears.
But there is always Trumps "clean coal", getting lots of people to scrub the black from chunks of carbon will help employment no end.
Civilisation can sort it's act out, but that takes more adult supervision than is evident at present, and it needs focus on the real issues not the hot button topics.
- Sustainability of energy supplies, preserving high calorific content fuels where no alternatives are readily available.
- Expanding GCR use promptly to maximise the use of nuclear fuels, and to reduce operational, storage, and proliferation risks.
- Education and assistance to family units in all societies aiming to reduce poverty and thereby reduce population expansion through economic self interest.
- Reinforcing biodiversity as a necessity for long term system health.
- The tough one.... sorting out economic incentives to reduced population and economic activity. [beats me how to do that, no one that I am aware of has attempted to sort that out without a world war or genocide; it is possible that a reduction can be managed, Germany has had a negative population growth and coped with it, but they had a constant increase in total activity, that is the problem area].
- Bring back R-2800's. Life isn't worth living without a radial engine around.