Climate Change means no more flying for you after 2050

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by denverpilot, Aug 8, 2017.

  1. Cooter

    Cooter Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,012
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cooter
    Is it all just clickbait? Is it your view that all the dire warnings are nothing more than attempts to generate counters?
     
  2. azblackbird

    azblackbird Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,290
    Location:
    Colorado Boonies
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azblackbird
    What I probably should have made more clear is the combination of H and O whether bonded as water vapor or inert equals approx. 25% of the atmosphere. Hope that makes it more clear. Here's a thermal conductivity chart to give you an idea of the radiative qualities of each of the gases found in the atmosphere. As you will notice CO2 is kind of a disappointment given all the hoopla you guys make it out to be.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Everskyward

    Everskyward Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    31,501
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Everskyward
    The article posted by the OP is clickbait. The scientific studies are not.

    Hahaha. You can't resist responding to my posts even though you said you didn't want to interact with me. :D
     
  4. azure

    azure Final Approach

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,040
    Location:
    Vermont
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azure
    Yes, that IS a hypothesis that hasn't been definitely disproven, though it's a minority view. Might be, might not be. It seems awfully foolish though to burn oil without restraint on the basis of an unproven hypothesis; it's little better than wishful thinking at this point.

    That's an awfully strange comeback. What do YOU think makes water vapor?

    I think you misunderstood what Capn Jack was saying. Whatever increases temperature will increase the saturation concentration of water vapor, since the saturation point is temperature dependent. CO2 is one kind of forcing that increases temperature via the greenhouse effect. (I hope you aren't arguing against that, as that IS one part of the science that is settled.) As you yourself have stated, water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, so more water vapor leads to higher temperatures. In other words, water vapor acts as a POSITIVE feedback.

    Yes. Diatomic nitrogen and oxygen are the main causes of the wavelength-dependent scattering of sunlight in the atmosphere (Rayleigh scattering) that makes the sky appear blue.

    Not everything is open for debate. Some laws of physics are well established and we're quite sure we won't find violations of them on the scale of our ordinary experience. If you claim to invent a machine that can generate electricity without any kind of energy source, most scientists will ignore you straightaway. Another way to get branded a kook is to argue that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as a couple of Russian (?) physicists did a few years back.

    By "account for" I meant in keeping track of the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere, not in modeling future climate. Yes, CO2 is only one factor and there is apparently some physics going on that they aren't able to properly account for. Another factor is the coarseness of the spatial grids used in the models. But that's another subject.
     
  5. Cooter

    Cooter Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,012
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cooter
    I'm just trying to get you to pick a side! :incazzato:

    (although we all already know);)
     
  6. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    44,890
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    The repetitive theme of science prior to about the time of the industrial revolution was that it wasn't revered as the religion it is now, since it was mostly wrong.

    I even gave the title of a modern book which described clearly that "science" believed the North Pole was likely a sauna, as recently as the early 1900s.

    Three generations prior to my lifespan, is all that is. My grandfather was alive when people believed that crap from "science".
     
  7. Bobanna

    Bobanna Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Messages:
    611
    Location:
    Omaha
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bobanna

    But at least we can connect CO2 to fossil fuels and justify taxing the snot out of them. How could you do that with water?
     
    1RTK1 likes this.
  8. Everskyward

    Everskyward Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    31,501
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Everskyward
    That's one of the problems in the world today (and in the past). We have to be on sides, against each other.

    You think you know, but my opinion is probably more nuanced than you imagine.
     
  9. azblackbird

    azblackbird Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,290
    Location:
    Colorado Boonies
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azblackbird
    convection

    And a very poor one at that.

    That's what they're trying to clean up and make more uniform as we speak. Still going to be many years before we have any conclusive results, and even then it still won't be perfect.
     
  10. azure

    azure Final Approach

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,040
    Location:
    Vermont
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azure
    Yep, the fallacy that educated people in Columbus's day thought the world is flat has been debunked so thoroughly that no one teaches it to elementary school kids any more. In fact that knowledge predates Eratosthenes: Aristotle knew the Earth was round, based on the shape of its shadow on the Moon during eclipses, and also because the constellations visible from a given location varies with latitude. I always thought it was strange that he didn't use the argument you mention of how ships disappear in the distance, as that should have been (and probably was) a well known fact in his day. Anyway the medieval Catholic Church based much of their natural philosophy on Aristotle, so it was well known that the Earth was round.
     
  11. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    44,890
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    So the Attorney Generals just fell prey to clickbait and the lawsuits are all just a big misunderstanding?
     
  12. wrbix

    wrbix Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Messages:
    1,237
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Pilot Lite
    Sure are a bunch of amateur, absolutely unqualified, and without review "scientists" on this board.
    Carry on.
    Having fun?
    This is some serious s___, think 10 pages of "debate" here makes a whit of difference?
    <shaking head and shuffling off - only glad not to have waded thru 10 pages of mostly ad hominem arguments>
     
    PaulS likes this.
  13. azblackbird

    azblackbird Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,290
    Location:
    Colorado Boonies
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azblackbird
    Dihydrogen monoxide is one of the most dangerous chemicals on earth. Many thousands of people die from it each year, but yet we hear no mention of any boycotting, protesting, or government sponsored scientific studies on what we can do to make that nasty chemical more friendly to the environment. But noooo... they'd rather pick on CO2 and make it the bad guy even though only a small handful of people actually die from it each year. :rolleyes:
     
    GlennAB1 likes this.
  14. azure

    azure Final Approach

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,040
    Location:
    Vermont
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azure
    Huh??? :confused: Care to explain that?
    Relatively poor compared to water vapor, true. But you can't just pump water vapor into the atmosphere to produce more warming because once air saturates, the water precipitates out. That doesn't happen with CO2 under conditions that exist on Earth.
     
    Palmpilot likes this.
  15. Everskyward

    Everskyward Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    31,501
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Everskyward
    No, I think the AGs who are going after Exxon and others believe that the company did wrong. I am not convinced.

    What I meant was that your article and the magazines in the grocery store line are part of the same phenomena.
     
  16. Cooter

    Cooter Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,012
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cooter
    I get what you're saying, but pretending not to disagree doesn't ease the tension. Everything is politicized now, and I don't think that is going to change. Social media gives almost every group a voice, and many of them have a quest for power. I'm surprised this thread lasted, and I'm glad it did. It takes these types of discussions a little while to distill into a form that reveals people's real beliefs. In cases like this, someone is right and someone is wrong. But both sides need to be honest about the political implications of their respective position. You don't have to be much of a student of history to see that an issue as powerful as MMGW will be seized by those who are striving for power. Fascism has its roots in this type of political battle and it mimics the philosophies that lead to some serious strife last century. To ignore that is to be naive or blissfully ignorant.
     
  17. azblackbird

    azblackbird Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,290
    Location:
    Colorado Boonies
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azblackbird
    Actually in a sense it does. It just takes way more time. Think about it.
     
  18. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    44,890
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    The magazines, the online articles, and the lawsuits and power struggles are all intertwined. The cacophony of idiots that believe the articles keeps the equally stupid AGs in power. And their bosses.
     
  19. azure

    azure Final Approach

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,040
    Location:
    Vermont
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azure
    No it doesn't. CO2 can't exist as either a liquid or a solid under naturally occurring conditions on Earth. So there is no equilibrium between different phases like there is with water. If you're referring to the slow removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, those are very different processes and you CAN increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by pumping more into it. That's exactly why we can alter the climate with CO2 and not with water vapor.
     
    Palmpilot likes this.
  20. azblackbird

    azblackbird Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,290
    Location:
    Colorado Boonies
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azblackbird
    Okay... it's a well established fact among the climate change zealots that mankind is the all mighty and has the power to change the weather and climate patterns.

    Follow along with me if you will. Let's say I was King for day and had unlimited funding. With those funds I set up a worldwide network of CO2 scrubbers and sequestration stations that pumped the CO2 underground into salt domes, played out oil formations, or anywhere there was adequate cavitation in the subsurface to handle the incoming volume.

    My plan would be that any city, region, or area with CO2 levels above 450 ppm would initially receive these scrubbers and stations with the rest of the world being built out over a period of time.

    Let's say that after a period of 30 years due to my efforts I was able to get the worldwide measured CO2 down to 200 ppm.

    Describe to me the world we would be living in with a 200 ppm CO2 level. :dunno:

    .
     
  21. Dav8or

    Dav8or En-Route

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Discovery Bay, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dave
    And yet the crappy science of your grandfather's childhood gave us the world we live in today. Oh yes, they were all so wrong way back when... and yet here we are today. In just three generations we learned to fly and planted a flag on the Moon. All due to science and scientists. Nearly everything we enjoy in our modern lives is due to science. You know, airplanes, radio communications, digital computers, internet connectivity, diesel trucks, stuff like that. Not a whole lot of that going on back before your Grandpappy's days.

    Gosh... all those "scientists" were so damn dumb back then. They sure didn't have a clue...
     
  22. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    44,890
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    The modern research scientist writing endless papers about climate is a pretty far cry from how science was practiced during the boom after the industrial revolution. The vast majority of that "science" back then, we would call "engineering" today. What we call this new "science activism", well, feel free to make something up. They aren't the same.
     
    GlennAB1 likes this.
  23. gkainz

    gkainz Final Approach

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    7,457
    Location:
    Arvada, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Greg Kainz
    The basic problem, in my opinion, is SCIENCE vs POLITICS ...
     
  24. Salty

    Salty Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,729
    Location:
    FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Salty
    Saying you have evidence that there is warming is one thing. Saying that you want to create subsidies, taxes, and restrictions by passing laws because you have evidence of warming is another thing entirely.
     
    Lindberg and PeterNSteinmetz like this.
  25. Dav8or

    Dav8or En-Route

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Discovery Bay, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dave
    No they aren't any different. Those scientists way back when wrote research papers too. That's how they shared knowledge and got peer review and no it wasn't engineering. Engineering is what other people do with the scientific discoveries. You have to discover and understand before you can engineer greater, more complex machines.
     
  26. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    44,890
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    So is $30B necessary for something that won't lead to a "big complex machine", just a powerful useless bureaucracy? ;)
     
  27. Bobanna

    Bobanna Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Messages:
    611
    Location:
    Omaha
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bobanna
    Perhaps the
    Perhaps the
     
  28. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    44,890
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    ???
     
  29. Clark1961

    Clark1961 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    17,228
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Display name:
    My degree sez doctor of philosophy (petroleum engineering) so am I a scientist, an inginear, or a philosopher?
     
    denverpilot likes this.
  30. Bobanna

    Bobanna Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Messages:
    611
    Location:
    Omaha
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bobanna
    Sorry, DP, I started to write a reply and something came up. Then I must have inadvertently posted an unfinished reply. My bad.
     
  31. Bobanna

    Bobanna Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Messages:
    611
    Location:
    Omaha
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bobanna
    A PhD is an academic credential: Doctor of Philosophy (Philosophy meaning "love of wisdom"). So, I'd say you are a scientist. Maybe you're doing engineering work, but the PhD brands you as a scientist.
     
  32. azblackbird

    azblackbird Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,290
    Location:
    Colorado Boonies
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azblackbird
    By making that statement I wanted to test the climate change zealots here on their knowledge of history. Seems they all love to disregard history and the associated facts thereof, and would much prefer to live in their little fantasy world of "here and now" .

    Years ago just down the road from me there was a controlled "climate change" experiment that was publicized worldwide. It was called Biosphere II. Many of the nation's top educated fools got together and decided they were going to try and replicate Mother Nature and her ecosystem. Naturally as climate scientists, none of them had a pot to p*ss in, so they had to go begging for money to finance their little experiment. The irony of it all is... a bunch oil guys got together and gave them the money to play their little games.

    I won't bore the people here with the details, but let's just say it was one of the most massive failures in scientific history. What's really funny is that Google has scrubbed much of the hard data and the white papers of why it was such a massive failure. Once again going to prove, that climate change zealots and their ilk hate history! :yesnod:
     
    Cooter likes this.
  33. Dav8or

    Dav8or En-Route

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Discovery Bay, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dave
    You're just confused. ;)
     
    denverpilot likes this.
  34. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    44,890
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    No worries.
     
  35. Clark1961

    Clark1961 Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    17,228
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Display name:
    I am certain about my uncertainty about this matter.
     
  36. Bobanna

    Bobanna Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Messages:
    611
    Location:
    Omaha
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bobanna
    I would offer that "they" don't hate history as much as they hate verifiable data and observations that conflict with their dogmatic view of the universe.
     
  37. azure

    azure Final Approach

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,040
    Location:
    Vermont
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azure
    What does Biosphere II have to do with the discussion surrounding climate change? If I recall correctly, it was originally designed to test the feasibility of setting up a self-contained terrestrial ecosystem on another planet such as Mars. If the point is simply that Nature is a lot more complex than our naive thinking would lead us to believe as a first guess, I don't think anyone here would dispute that.
     
  38. azblackbird

    azblackbird Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,290
    Location:
    Colorado Boonies
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azblackbird
    Exactamundo! For those that think mankind has even an inkling of understanding Mother Nature's entire ecosystem, and even worse yet; to think we even have a modicum of control over those systems... is utterly preposterous! As I've stated many times before... we're just temporary guests on this planet. Mother Nature will destroy us long before we destroy her!

    Even though we're probably on opposite sides of the table, thank you for a respectable and civil debate. Wish more people were like you. :thumbsup:
     
    Bobanna likes this.
  39. azure

    azure Final Approach

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,040
    Location:
    Vermont
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    azure
    Thank you! :)

    I don't think we're entirely on opposite sides here. The only point I've really been making is that I think the basic physics behind climate science is more secure than some of your posts would lead someone to believe. That's not to say that the details of the model projections are reliable, they're obviously not. Nor do I think alarmist activism is completely supported by the science, though I think we know enough to be very concerned.

    I do agree that we're not in any position to "destroy nature". We can certainly cause extinctions, there are even historical examples of that, and humans might be responsible for the extinction of some of the Pleistocene megafauna like the mastodon and the wooly mammoth. We can do a lot of damage to the habitability of the planet for ourselves and many other species, but life on Earth has survived far worse catastrophes. Short of an all-out nuclear war, I can't see us even coming close to wiping out all life on the planet. Even then there will be survivors, even if they're only cockroaches, tardigrades, and viruses.
     
  40. CC268

    CC268 En-Route

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    Messages:
    3,466
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    CC268
    Soon our world will looks like the movie, "The Book of Eli"