|
I can't assert why the climate is changing, but I assert that it appears to be. In addition to my clients, who research the climate for a living, and telling me they have documented change, I simply see the change myself! I have watched the weather as a GA pilot for more than 40 years, and the last two years have been noticeably different weather than from years prior. patterns I came to expect are no longer there. Patterns we were not used to, are more common, and repeating. Forecasters describing a "once in a hundred year weather event" for the second time in the same year, where we'd never had one in memory before that.
I see the change, and I read reports. As my work is responsible for some of the climate change measurement, when I see the results of the measurements, I know that they're true. Maybe this is just a very long period cycle in the weather, and not attributable to mankind, but so far, for all the pollution we throw into the atmosphere, I believe those who say climate change is at least in part due to mankind. I pay more attention to what I expel into the atmosphere than I did five years ago. Do I think that mankind will succumb to climate change? I do not. But, I'm imaging a different world for my great grandkids, than I know from my lifetime. It may not be as nice. For those who live very close to sea level, I imagine them having to move. My work measures arctic and antarctic ocean ice thickness - and in the last 12 years I've been approving that research equipment in the airplanes, there has been measurable sea ice reduction - that's indicative of land ice pack reduction too, and sea level is going to increase. How much? Not mine to speculate. But some places I have visited cannot withstand much without a dramatic change to their society! As I said to my charge, while I mentored her flying a 180HP PA-18, "enjoy this now, because when you're my age, burning gas like this to go 85 MPH will just not be tolerated by society!". So as we price out polluting, including light airplanes, what will the pilots of the future fly in to build their experience? The techies will build super simulators, and self flying planes, so our sim trained pilots just sit in the seat, in case the red light flashes, then try to apply skills they only ever learned in the sim, and hope that they don't really have to actually fly the plane to safety. So not only will my great grandkids live in a different world, but they'll travel in it differently too - probably not near as much as we do now, nor with so well trained and experienced pilots! |
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR
(Post 10479057)
So as we price out polluting, including light airplanes, what will the pilots of the future fly in to build their experience?
And before the naysayers chip in, yes it has limited range and there are some considerations with charging, so it’s not perfect yet, but the technology will be improved and become more efficient and user friendly over time as more R&D is done in the field. It’s like witnessing the first flight of the Wright Flyer in 1903 and exclaiming “pfft, a fabric and wire contraption that can’t even travel 100m, as if people will cross oceans in that one day, might as well give up and stick with coal burning ships!” |
Originally Posted by 73qanda
(Post 10479047)
Now......can anyone tell me why the graphic above with the thermometer reading depiction shouldn’t be used when assessing temperatures for that particular area and time span? This happens to be a rather poor choice of scale , considering 99% of the real estate of the graph doesn't contain any information, but one could think of even worse ways to plot this. It is a bit like Boeing publishing a graph of how many souls were safely transported on their planes per year in percent (a quantity close to 100% for any year) on a scale starting a 0%. The MAX deaths are in that figure, just not so trivial to see as if you plotted the deaths directly, or zoomed into the region between 99,9 and 100%.. |
The oldest records are only in hundreds of years, the planet's age billions.
Therefore, change has likely been the constant. However, changing weather patterns aside, other industries are actively transitioning away from hydrocarbon based fuel. Perhaps, focusing on the declining availability of a non-renewable resource is the actual challenge. To this point, the aviation industry has no ETS in place; it doesn't start for 8 more years. Its strategy relies on assumptions of dubious robustness. Yet, most strikingly, is the industry has no plan, timeline or cohesive strategy to get the industry away from the current fuel source. Motherhood statements on bio-fuel undermine the technical and practical complexity. Battery technology is but a wish and laminar flow flying wings would require a rather lot of fossil fuel to be expended building an entirely new infrastructure. Climate change or not, what viable alternative is there? |
Originally Posted by 73qanda
(Post 10479047)
Well , if those of us following and contributing to this thread refrain from using terms that invoke emotion ( tree huggers, deniers, zealots, you types etc etc) and explain to each other what they think has happened, will happen, and why they think that, we might get a bit closer to developing a realistic understanding. We essentially have two teams, the ‘ All our grandchildren are going to die’ team and the ‘ this is all just hysteria’ team. I’d be surprised if the actual reality wasn’t hidden somewhere in between. Now......can anyone tell me why the graphic above with the thermometer reading depiction shouldn’t be used when assessing temperatures for that particular area and time span? The problem with the graph you quoted is that, by choosing a fairly arbitrary large scale, it minimises changes in temperature. As someone noted earlier, why not choose a Kelvin scale? The temperatures that matter are the ones at which we can reasonably live, and -40º is certainly outside that range! (1) Yes, these are just my opinions but I think they are true. No, I do not have any corroborating evidence. |
In what other branch of science do so many amateurs challenge the scientific consensus, based on selective Googling? Evolution? Nup. Quantum Theory? No way. The Big Bang? Waaay too complicated. But apparently climate science isn’t that hard! |
And still nobody is talking of shipping (marine)........
|
Originally Posted by Rated De
(Post 10479124)
To this point, the aviation industry has no ETS in place; it doesn't start for 8 more year
|
It does not matter how the data is presented - any sane person will perform analysis on the raw data and not in the graph. The problem with the graph you quoted is that, by choosing a fairly arbitrary large scale, it minimises changes in temperature |
Originally Posted by oneeyed
(Post 10479184)
And still nobody is talking of shipping (marine)........
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...l#post10478744 :) |
Originally Posted by 73qanda
(Post 10479209)
What % of the public do you think performs analysis on the raw data? I would guess at less than 1%. Neither of these routes requires anyone to produce a useless graph such as the one we are talking about. |
Originally Posted by 73qanda
(Post 10479209)
The problem with the graph you quoted is that, by choosing a fairly arbitrary large scale, it minimises changes in temperature |
Originally Posted by CargoOne
(Post 10479208)
Excuse me but ETS is in place for a number of years for all European Union operators. How does it helps anyone including global climate change remains a mystery as effectively it is just yet another tax. And still nobody is talking of shipping (marine)........ The aviation industry has no such intention, it appears that consumption of hydrocarbon based fuel is their intent. |
Ok dr dre, I know I am fighting an unwinnable battle here. The resources lined up behind you, whose very existence depends on destroying their ‘opponents’ using whatever methods necessary means that only time will have a chance of exposing whatever is the truth. One of those ‘methods’ is to attack from all angles and denigrate and destroy anybody who does not agree with their position. Can I also point out that you tend to lose us people that you only refer to with the derogatory tag ‘deniers’, (I know, in weak moments I have referred to ‘alarmists’ a couple of times), the moment you refer to someone as being a “paid stooge for the fossil fuel industry”. If such people exist, people who actually give speeches contrary to what they believe in regard to this issue and receive money from the ‘fossil fuel industry’ for doing so, then I believe their number is an immeasurably tiny fraction when stood beside the vast army being paid around the world to create and inflate any reason to sustain the behemoth that the ‘climate change industry’ now is. (And may I again refer to to Al Gore...) A great example from earlier days was the BBC’s silencing of David Bellamy. I am afraid listening to the sainted David Attenborough now only reminds me of what was done to David Bellamy. Thank you very much for your reply regarding Dr. Patrick Moore and in particular the link ‘Patrick Moore vs. Patrick Moore on Climate Change’. Reading that felt like I was watching a synopsis of my own thought progression on climate change through the years. I one hundred per cent agree with the man regarding nuclear energy. Of course location of the power plants will always be a problem. We are all NIMBYs when it comes to those. But surely the latest designs do offer the one efficient, relatively low cost way to ensure a plentiful reliable supply of energy in the future? With regard to his contrarian statements, I see a man like Keynes who changes his mind when the facts change. What do you do? However your attempt to dismiss him with the statements: “He doesn’t know what he’s talking about because (like you) he isn’t considered legitimate for many reasons (lack of expertise in the field, obvious connections to fossil fuel companies) by the climate science community.” and “He may have been involved with Greenpeace decades ago but it’s obvious he’s sold out his beliefs and his trailing to be a paid stooge for the fossil fuel industry” (sic), is classic! His story - feel free to point out any lies he is telling: Patrick Moore: Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide? | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) This is a man who Greenpeace themselves acknowledged on their website as a founder member back in the day (he was one of the guys in the dinghy sheltering the whales from the Russian whalers for gawdsake!). An archived Greenpeace webpage: https://web.archive.org/web/20051216...story/founders But he has now been written out of that position and Greenpeace have written and contributed to dozens of articles denigrating his contribution ever since. Nice! Even Google got in on the act.. https://www.neogaf.com/threads/googl...-scam.1473676/ Admittedly it may have had something to do with his views on what Greenpeace has morphed into: Why I Left Greenpeace ? Dr. Patrick Moore He is not alone in his views about the current Greenpeace (to give just one tiny example): https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/...-full-of-****/ So frankly, I guess I should thank you for providing a perfect example of how the Climate Change Industry deals with naysayers. I am just grateful that despite their best efforts, there are still brave people willing to stand up against the onslaught coming their way whenever they try to point out and discuss facts. I will just say again something I think we can all agree on. The climate is changing. If you ask a man to find a trend and tell him his livelihood depends on it, he will find a that trend, somewhere, somehow. I will do my best to bow out here now. I know I am literally wasting my time....... |
I’m a big believer in looking after the environment but I’m not quite sure that the general population of earth will suddenly reduce the amount of flying they do based on their love for nature. The reason I say this, is that about 15 years ago the developed world was making a massive fuss about American-style SUV fuel guzzlers and how they were the enemy of the future of the earth. Fast forward a few years and here we are with all developed countries’ populations driving expensive oversized luxury SUVs despite us all apparently despising them. I predict aviation will be no different. |
Air transport operates within the earths atmosphere. Extreme wx events are showing a dramatic increase over the last twenty to thirty years. There could well come a time when such wx conditions would make it very difficult and unsafe to operate within the bands of the atmosphere which can support flight by aircraft of our times. It is not just convective wx that may be a problem. Increase in volcanic activity and its combined effects of spread due to strong convective atmosphere and jet stream activity that would be a major issue when such conditions become permanently established as the norm rather than the exception.
Here is the link to articles on the subject of extreme wx: https://nca2 014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/extreme-weather#intro-section-2 Richard Branson and his Virgin Galactic may perhaps be the answer to the future of aviation. |
I forgot to include, regarding the bunkum 97% con-census: The ?97% Con-sensus? ? Use Due Diligence on? Climate Chronus, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over anything produced by the NCA (or the IPCC). https://realclimatescience.com/2018/...ssment-part-1/ https://realclimatescience.com/2018/...ssment-part-2/ |
. Always have a look on what the motives and benefits are. |
Population
Originally Posted by xorrox
(Post 10478239)
Totally agree: population growth is the elephant in the room that no one is talking about. We should have stopped at between 3 and 4 billion people. We can reduce each person's individual footprint all we can but if the world population just keeps rising it won't do any good. If we don't come up with a plan to stop and reverse this growth back to a sustainable level, pollution, disease, starvation and war will do it for us.
|
What happens when cheap mass oil runs out, in 50 or 60 years? Trains and cars can go electric, ships can use sails and electric, but what's the answer for planes? Knowing how long it takes to get revolutionary new technology into commercial everyday service, I'd have thought there would be some good alternatives to oil surfacing from Rolls/P&W etc by now,..
But yes the big problem is over population and over consumption. G |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:34. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.