Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Could Aviation be part of the climate change solution?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Could Aviation be part of the climate change solution?

Old 16th Oct 2019, 22:45
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 392
Originally Posted by Australopithecus View Post



Within the next ten years I expect carbon shaming to apply to all private aircraft, pleasure boats, snowmobiles, jetskis etc. So it's a cinch that all discretionary internal combustion will be seen as very anti-social, and carbon offsets will be de rigueur.
And from CNN, eliminate frequent flier miles and tax frequent fliers. Steamships anyone?

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/a...ntl/index.html

b1lanc is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 23:06
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: DFFD Ouagadougou
Age: 58
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by gearlever View Post
Wow, the well known Trumpmenistan Mantra.
And 97% of worldwide climate scientists are wrong........
Could just be, the mainstream, Anyone who disagrees is ostracised immediately. Climate change is an ongoing process,thugs are trying to profit from it. Man doesn't have a snowball's hope in hell of changing the climate. When I see 100 or more large jet aircraft at the COP summit, it immediately trashes any credibility.
Raffles S.A. is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 01:32
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 308
The psychological impact this subject is having on people aged between 12 and 30 is significant. I stopped and talked to a 19 year old girl on the street in Melbourne a couple of days ago who was raising money for Doctors Without Borders. She was a bit emotional about kids being bombed in Hospitals overseas and I agreed that things like that were terrible. She was so down that I told her to remember to look on the bright side of things at least a couple of times a day, I reminded her that there are less people living in extreme poverty than ever before, that there are less school age children ‘not in school’ than ever before, and that if she had kids they were much much more likely to survive than any other time in history and that women and racial minorities are more equally compensated for work, have more education opportunity, and are afforded more rights than at any other time in history. She looked at me sort of sideways, like she was figuring out how to deal with a crazy person. My statements hung in the air as if I had just used the C word in a public address.
Eventually she said “ But we have the climate”. I am pretty sure she thought I was nuts and that the idea that not everything was doom and gloom was completely foreign to her.
I told her to make sure she looks on the bright side of life at least a couple of times a day and carried on my way.
Thinking about it now, I wonder if her news feed ever pops up positive news or if she and her mates just get continuously bombarded with negative opinion pieces and then engage each other in deadly serious conversations about how the future of mankind rests in their hands? I wonder if me suggesting that we’re doing ok is met neurologically in the same way as someone suggesting to me that Santa is going to give me a waterfront property for Christmas? Ie it just doesn’t compute as a possibility.
Anyway, our young folk are pretty worried and are not getting a balanced view of things which will cause problems that nobody seems to be talking about. Pretty irresponsible from the vast majority of our leaders IMO.
73qanda is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 02:02
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 145
I think you have raised a very good point. The young are that stressed by all the doom and gloom being presented to them through SM and the education system that they really believe that the world is coming to an end. The perfect expression of that was Greta Thunberg's emotional address to the UN. I have no doubts about her sincerity but I also don't believe that she hasn't been manipulated by the adults around her. Much like the young girl that you encountered in Melbourne. In any flight deck discussion about CC it is very much a demographic divide. The younger pilots arent as sceptical as the older pilots. One of the big diferrences is that this is the first big issue that the younger generation have faced and accept it at face value. The older generation have seen it before with acid rain, nuclear winter, Y2K, crippling and irreversible environmental pollution, the hole in the ozone layer etc etc. The only way the current "crisis" will go away is it will be superseded by another threatening scare.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 02:21
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
Forget CO2 or other emissions....

look at the contrails creating cloud cover... (posts 15 and 22)
Smythe is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 13:04
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,314
Originally Posted by gearlever View Post
Wow, the well known Trumpmenistan Mantra.
And 97% of worldwide climate scientists are wrong........
Well it is actually 97% of 79 responses to a survey that claimed climate science expertise out of 3,146 scientists that responded to a survey.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

There is a lot more in that link on similar claims. The entire field of climate 'science' is riddled with wild claims that have no support in reality but make extremely good press releases.
Ian W is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 15:08
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by Ian W View Post
Well it is actually 97% of 79 responses to a survey that claimed climate science expertise out of 3,146 scientists that responded to a survey.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

There is a lot more in that link on similar claims. The entire field of climate 'science' is riddled with wild claims that have no support in reality but make extremely good press releases.
Exactly right.
And that isn't even the tip of the ice berg. Every single climate prediction has been wrong. C02 has never been a temperature driver on this planet. In our own interglacial we have had at least three periods where it has been warmer than today with less C02. We have had ice ages during times when C02 were 4000 PPM. All 3 known interglacials prior to this one have been warmer with less C02. After glacial periods temperature increases first then C02 follows with a 800 year lag as the oceans warm.
Sea levels are not rising any faster than they have been. Arctic Ice is not at an all time low. Antarctic ice is growing, polar bears are thriving, heat waves were much worse in the 1930's here in the United States. An inconvenient fact that NOAA, NASA and IPCC conveniently neglect to show on their graphs, in line with the now infamous hockey stick graph of " professor" Michael Mann fame..

So if we can figure out that AGW is mostly B.S. you don't think establishment science, media and politicians can too? Of course, but saving the world is obviously not on the agenda, but keeping a multi billion dollar a year gravy train certainly is. Collateral damage of brain washed Swedish teens be damned. A very sad and scary state of affairs since we have an abundance of actual problems to solve...
Reluctant Bus Driver is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2019, 06:39
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Auckland nz
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by Ian W View Post
Well it is actually 97% of 79 responses to a survey that claimed climate science expertise out of 3,146 scientists that responded to a survey.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

There is a lot more in that link on similar claims. The entire field of climate 'science' is riddled with wild claims that have no support in reality but make extremely good press releases.
Seems like click bait to me with subscription required to access it. Not saying it isn't authoritative or peer reviewed but just cant tell behind a paywall.

Edit. Had to wiki Zimmerman/ Doran to get any information and you will see quite a lot that discounts your propersition Ian. Essentially you have selected supportive quotes and there are plenty within the wiki article regarding the many surveys on this topic that have been conducted, that provide an alternative and supportive view by researchers who have researched over 11000 peer reviewed papers related to climate change. An interesting comment is that unlike the researchers comprehensive works, offhand criticisms of this research designed to nullify this overwhelming consensus has not been peer reviewed. So do we accept it ahead of peer reviewed work?. Why would anyone do that? On this forum we are quick to waive off non pilot comments especially when they criticise pilot actions. I would like to see references to peer reviewed criticisms of this subject...if we can find them in abundance...in which case I would certainly be prepared to have another view. Although, if they existed, I doubt this thread would! 😊

Last edited by Lord Farringdon; 18th Oct 2019 at 10:04.
Lord Farringdon is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2019, 15:48
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 41
Here is an unrestricted link to the 97% non sense. https://cei.org/sites/default/files/...cent_Final.pdf

Furthermore, there is no consensus in science. There are only theories that you can or cannot prove. Anything else falls under politics and religion. Since the climate establishment cannot prove AGW they simply make stuff up, like the debunked 97% or erasing the Medieval warm period ​​​​​, or adjusting temperature data to make it look like it is warmer than it actually is. Yes this has happened and is still happening which can be verified by a simple Google search. Climate " science" is totally rotten and in my humble opinion will one day be exposed as the greatest fraud in scientific history.
Reluctant Bus Driver is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2019, 22:42
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Auckland nz
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by Reluctant Bus Driver View Post
Here is an unrestricted link to the 97% non sense. https://cei.org/sites/default/files/...cent_Final.pdf
I note the following regarding this libertarian movement:
"Academic research has identified (CEI) as one of the Conservative think tanks central to promoting climate change denial.[3]"

Not sure why I would accept their clearly political based research over more scientific and peer reviewed research.

To be fair. The title of this thread is not about climate change and whether you or I agree with it not. It's really for those who accept that our body of scientists show consent not dissent toward the proposition and that if you accept that, what can aviation do to help.
Lord Farringdon is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2019, 10:17
  #51 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Bonny Scotland
Posts: 97
Whether we like it or not, or even whether it is or it is not, aviation is seen as a major contributor to climate change and as such I initially wondered if there is anything that could be done to turn a perceived negative into a positive.

From the thread it’s obvious that it’s not so straight forward, however if the climate models are really as incomplete as some replies suggest I still think that there just might be a way in which we could use our high level emissions to humanities advantage.

i also still think that there may be a possibility that high level clouds would be beneficial as they might provide an element of shade but still have enough atmosphere below them to allow the energy absorbed into the earth to be dissipated into the air immediately below the clouds and have less effect on the lower atmosphere, and surely high level H2O emissions would be better than CO2.

Hopefully as climate modelling advances we will be able to accurately asses this and find a better way forward for aviation.
StraightLevel is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2019, 15:13
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by Sholayo View Post
Hehe, but note that right now we have less hungry people than we had back then, when you were young. That's one thing.
Second - population is not an issue anymore.
Current Big Thing is climate change.
There will be something else in decade or two from now, do not worry.

And about aviation and CO2 - now think of banning flights and impact on economy of all those places which are destinations of all these flights? Me myself? I prefer if my place would get warmer by 2-3 Celsius rather than economy collapse.
Sorry!

&
If your place, whichever it is, get 2-3 C warmer, there is a strong chance economy WILL collapse.

Think agriculture productivity, for instance... most of western europe had reduced crop yield due to drought this summer, and we are not even at plus 1 deg.
fab777 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2019, 15:19
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: gatwick
Age: 46
Posts: 32
Along with many threads the reflection appears again as clueless individuals bleating.

These forums used to have a reasonable level of common sense. I really trust that they do not reflect upon the present body of flight crew. They obviously have been infiltrated by others.
rotorwills is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2019, 16:32
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 557
Originally Posted by alphasun View Post
There are certainly signs of a potential 'hydrogen economy'. Apparently there is a well-understood industrial process for producing hydrogen.
As has been pointed out, water vapor is by far the earths most potent greenhouse gas, so not sure hydrogen would give much benefit to aviation, even if using it removes the CO2 stigma.
etudiant is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2019, 16:53
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Here
Posts: 4
Perhaps those wishing to comment on climate science would like to, to put it politely, actually read what the scientists say before commenting. Just because you have an opinion does not make it a reality, and it is highly discourteous to rubbish the work of scientists without even reading or understanding it. These people are experts for a reason: They have a detailed understanding of the subject and suitable training in the field.
That doesn't make them right, but it does mean that, unless you are also an expert in the subject and have read extensively on that subject, they're more likely to be right than you.
jimmievegas is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2019, 14:24
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
Very many scientists do not believe in MMGW. In fact if you take out those scientists who are on the MMGW gravy train then there are almost certainly more "deniers" than "warmists".
Here is one reference: Global Warming Petition Project
And here is another:

As has been pointed out earlier there was the Medieval warming period, 1.5C warmer than the current one. The coast of Greenland was farmed successfully by the Vikings, you can still see the remains of their farms. And there was no fossil fuel use then.
The Roman warming period was as much as 4C warmer than the current one. They grew exotic Mediterranean fruits at Hadrian's Wall. And this was well before Ryaniar existed.

Two bits of science to add clarity. Firstly there are an infinite number of ways of measuring the earths temperature, even producing trend graphs going in opposite directions. "Scientists" tend to select the graph that fits their theory. Secondly climate change is experienced more the closer you get to the poles, with far less effect near the equator.

There is no scientific proof that CO2 has a greenhouse effect on our planet. Many scientists say that it doesn't. Here's one: https://principia-scientific.org/che...global-warming
In fact you could say that the use of fossil fuels is only returning to the atmosphere carbon that used to be there but which has been trapped underground. That we actually currently have a historic shortage of CO2.
The only provable scientific effect of burning fossil fuels that every scientist agrees on is that has massively greened the planet. Providing food for our burgeoning population. Preventing famine. Because CO2 is plant food. So those turbines on Ryanair's fleet are feeding children in Africa. This fact would confuse Greta.

Unfortunately the MMGW debate has nothing to do with science. It is pure politics with the UN using it as an excuse for globalisation. So those who believe in globalisation, such as the BBC, force the MMGW mantra down our throat at every opportunity, having sacked their scientists, such as David Bellamy, who did not agree with it.

Finally take a look at Milankovitch Cycles. The earth does not follow the same orbit round the sun every year because it is puled slightly off course by the gravitational pull of the planets. In the 1920s Milankovitch showed that this created cycles that had an effect on the climate. Scientists have now calculated Milankovitch Cycles going back hundreds of thousands of years and they are a perfect fit for the climate records.

And yes we do have climate records going back that far from looking at isotopes in glacial layers and in lake bed deposits.
Eclectic is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2019, 16:57
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Eclectic - absolutly correct.

Apart from that, Earth's atmosphere can not even be compared to a "greenhouse" - it is not a closed off container and the heat is not trapped - as mentioned water vapour manages to absorb some of the heat (infra red) and hold it in suspension for a while - the rest radiates into space - all dependend on solar insolation. If insolation increases, temperature rises and more CO2 and other gases such as methane is gased out of the oceans as a delayed result, more giga tonnes CO2 that could be produced by man in a decade. The concentration of CO2 is so minute in the atmosphere and it only proved heating properties in a closed container at a 100% concentration. A higher CO2 is better for plants and trees as photo- synthesis can not occur without.
SO the human induced CC by CO2 emmision is a hoax to impose taxes.

Other gasses induced by humans, such as certain Krypton isotopes which have rising levels, do not change the climate but are far more lethal to life on earth. SO2 is also a problem (acid rain). We do need to become cleaner in this regard for sure - we as pilots do see much of the plastic being dumped in the 3rd world and oceans being plastic polluted - this is a real visible problem - that is were the industry should start, but not blame everything on an invisible gas. Come On... it's BS.

​​​
Propellerpilot is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.