denverpilot
Tied Down
P.S. The original article is the best example of someone doing what they need to to feed themselves. It's total clickbait.
Climate Change means no more flying for you after 2050
- Thread starter denverpilot
- Start date
bluerooster
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,072
- Display Name
Display name:
shorty
Dad recently told me that he said something similar back when he was younger. He's 90 now, and still flying. (and he "don't really care")
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Why do you think that money is the prime motivator? Maybe it is for you, but it's not for everyone.
denverpilot
Tied Down
I don't. It doesn't matter what my notification is. I use science. Maslow wins when the food goes away.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Not quite understanding what you wrote here. Did you mean "motivation"? It's not black and white. Just because someone doesn't choose the more lucrative path doesn't mean the food is going away.
Mtns2Skies
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2008
- Messages
- 5,618
- Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2Skies
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,479
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
This has been an informative and helpful thread. Thanks to the mods for keeping it going. What troubles me most is the "'Shut up,' he explained" approach taken by gatekeepers of information such as the L.A. Times, which only deepens the divide.
azure
Final Approach
Well, we are capable now of inflicting damage that will take a very long time to repair, but I'm thinking of large-scale nuclear war there, not global warming. Yes, I agree that on geological time scales, we are unlikely to cause any permanent damage beyond our own extinction and the extinction of a fraction of the species on the planet. In the end, nature wins and we're just... gone. BUT... if that happens because of our actions and we can avoid it by changing course, then I vote we change course. If we don't, it's like keeping on trying to land when there's not enough runway left to stop safely. The outcome is both predictable and avoidable.As I stated previously... mankind is nothing but a gnat on an elephant's ass in what Mother Nature has in store for us. I'm a history and geology buff. I've seen the damage done by man against mother nature. Mother nature always wins. It may take her a little time (relative to us, but a blink of an eye to her) to repair herself, but she will always win. Remember that!
That's assuming you mean what I *think* you mean. If you're saying that we're too small and unimportant to have any effect on global climate, then all I can say is that science doesn't support that position.
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
I was being polite by responding. Kind of like what I'm doing here.For someone who doesn't want to interact with me, you sure quote me often.
Today my alerts have mostly been from your replies.
azblackbird
Pattern Altitude
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. We have no more control over the climate than we do controlling the sunrise and sunsets. And no... the science doesn't support it. It's all theory and conjecture with no solid proof whatsoever. The data currently used to support the "man made" climate change fallacies is so corrupt I don't even know where to begin. I guess that's a good thing in a way, otherwise there would be many climate scientists out of work because they wouldn't have a purpose in trying to make the data more accurate and reliable. They're working on it though, and I wish them well, but they have a ways to go yet before it's totally accurate.
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
Seriously, can you not make a single post without attacking the straw man image you have of those who disagree with you? Let's just cut through it and interact at the very core issue. That is assuming you are capable of discussion, which you have yet to demonstrate here.
And we can dispense with all the nonsense straw men and ad hominems. I've heard them all, let's just get to the point.
Why is the earth here, where did it come from, and why is it worth saving? What rational basis do you have for your views?
Mtns2Skies
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2008
- Messages
- 5,618
- Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2Skies
Other than your laughable retreat into defensive attacks of your own did you completely skip over the link I posted?
denverpilot
Tied Down
Typical strawman. It doesn't negate the observation that the vast majority of scientists go where the majority of the money is. Like someone else said, it's just a distraction and not addressing the topic. The small few that will operate on principal are a statistical anomaly. Math and science combined with economics.
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
Defensive attacks? Have you read the thread, it's been discussed over 7 pages. Why not answer my questions?
denverpilot
Tied Down
iPad autocorrect to the wrong word, correct assumption on intended word.
azure
Final Approach
We have no solid proof that "most of the current warming is due to our greenhouse gas emissions". That is as far as I can go in agreeing with you. Everything else you are saying is coming from a perspective that is either biased or badly uninformed. "We have no more control over the climate than we do controlling the sunrise and sunsets" is completely at odds with the science. I don't have enough time or energy to go into the details of the science on this forum, but briefly:
1. The greenhouse effect is well understood, established science. It has been known about since the 19th century and was put on a firm theoretical footing in the 1970s. The basics of that theory have to do with radiative energy transport in the atmosphere and can now be found in textbooks. Refinements come largely from the fields of fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. These are not fringe theories but part of mainstream physics.
2. Radiative transport theory makes a crude prediction of how the magnitude of the greenhouse warming depends on greenhouse gas levels. That dependence turns out to be logarithmic. In particular it can be used to predict how much the mean global temperature will rise due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. That comes to about 4.5C iirc. That prediction can be refined upwards or downwards depending on "feedbacks" like ice-albedo and the effects of clouds, but no calculation I'm aware of changes the magnitude of the effect by more than a factor of 2 or 3 either way.
3. CO2 levels have increased by about 40% so far since pre-industrial times and the vast majority of that increase is due to burning of fossil fuels. That's not conjecture; CO2 from natural sources can be distinguished from CO2 from organic sources by the ratios of the isotopes of carbon.
The bottom line is that mainstream physics tells us that our burning of fossil fuels puts enough CO2 into the atmosphere to have a significant effect on global average temperature. Yes that is theory, but it isn't "just" theory and it's certainly not conjecture. The same basic physics underlies plasma displays, our understanding of what causes auroras, satellite measurements of cloud-top temperatures, and other non-controversial topics. It's funny that when applying that physics to climate, suddenly people try to argue that the science is all just conjecture.
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,479
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Because politicians, activists and hucksters are not trying to pass laws, fundamentally change society and control other people's lives based on theories about plasma displays, auroras and cloud tops.
CC268
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,532
- Display Name
Display name:
CC268
I like to listen to Ravi Zacharias sometimes...very very interesting to listen to. He frequently talks about your last questions.
azure
Final Approach
I agree, that's pretty much the size of it. <sigh>
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
I'm familiar with him, he's awesome. Not many people consider their own assumptions, he's good at pointing that out.
CC268
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,532
- Display Name
Display name:
CC268
Yea that guy will blow your mind. Talk about deep theological thinking
azblackbird
Pattern Altitude
Totally agree. My problem is the zealots trying to pin everything on a minuscule trace gas which has very minute radiative properties when compared to the most abundant greenhouse gas (water vapor) in the atmosphere.
Compared to natural variation, mans contribution to the overall CO2 volume of the atmosphere is barely measurable and has no effect whatsoever on any climate variations. The combination of orbital shifts, plate/tectonic movements, water vapor, and the oceans are responsible for 99.999% of our climate, not some minute naturally occurring gas.
There you go with your predictions and theories. Thank you for making my point. Like I said... we're still in the very crude stages of accurate measurement and data acquisition. The sad fact is, that the truth will never be fully reported once the true facts present themselves, that the earth is just undergoing it's normal changes and variations and we're just along for the ride. Thankfully it's already starting to leak out, as more scientists realize how wrong they've been all these years, and are starting to jump ship off the anthropogenic climate change bandwagon
I have no problem with the science. It's the way the data is gathered/parsed and modeled that I have a problem with. Garbage in = Garbage out! It's still going to be awhile until the accuracy factor comes into full play. They're working on that as we speak.
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
That's the problem- it doesn't radiate. It efficiently traps long wave radiation (IR). Been known to do so since the days of Arrhenius.
Actually, is is easily measurable. A sister division to the company where I work makes the analyzers
http://www.teledyne-ai.com/products/gfc7000t.asp
Some of this equipment was used for this data (I don't know if it was the unit in the other link, or something else): https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Carbon dioxide absorbs IR so well, it is actually very easily measured.
If you say so....
If you say so...
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
Agrees with my recollection as well. However, 4.5 / 3 = 1.5 which is close to the apparent change already observed.
The way I like to sum up my current view of the science on this presently is something like -
Has the earth recently warmed - probably.
Is this due to anthropogenic activity - maybe.
Would dramatically reducing CO2 emissions reduce the rate of warming - possibly.
Will further warming cause a non-recoverable runaway effect causing huge further warming - not very likely.
The book "The End of Doom" has a nice chapter on the state of the science as of a few years ago. And also covers how we may be better off allowing market processes to deal with this rather than trying a Luddite approach of trying to prevent emissions with regulations.
IMO likely better to try and figure out how to adapt to changes, since Mother Nature may throw us a doozy which will make any effects due to CO2 emissions look trivial by comparison.
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
Unfortunately there has been more than one investigative journalist that has uncovered scientists caught changing or manipulating data.
People are people, scientists are not above others when it comes to human faults. They should be though............
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.
People are people, scientists are not above others when it comes to human faults. They should be though............
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.
Dav8or
Final Approach
Yes, they will clean it up as there are more and more affluent, educated people there that will demand a better environment. When they do, the cheap manufacturing in China will be over and the pollution will be exported again to the next desperate country with a large number of poor population. Basically we and other western nations have exported our pollution to China who willing took it to raise themselves up, absorb knowledge, technology and cash in a very short time, getting them many steps closer to being the world's biggest super power.
azblackbird
Pattern Altitude
Uh huh... and who makes the calibration equipment and defines the standards those analyzers must be certified under. That's the problem, there's no uniformity and barely any calibration standards adhered to when it comes to measuring the climate and compiling the data based off those measurements. Everybody has their own set of toys they like to play with. However, things are starting to get better. They've adopted some standards. They're cleaning up the ground reporting stations and repositioning them to keep the noise level down. Same goes for the ocean buoys and satellites. They revamped the ocean buoy design and have them going deeper and are more strategically placed. They're placing more weather satellites in orbit along with equipment that is more accurate in measuring the earth. Unfortunately it's going to be many years before there is enough data compiled to establish any relevant trends. Until then, everybody is just basically guessing.
So which is going to warm the atmosphere more... the 25% of H2O or the 0.0360% trace amount of CO2? You guys picked the wrong gas to make the bad guy. You guys should've picked Argon or something, it sounds more sinister and scary. Of course the welders and light bulb makers might get a little testy.
Last edited:
Dav8or
Final Approach
Well, that just depends on what you consider ecologically sound. If you mean just human survival and adaptation, then you are correct, not that big of an issue. We'll likely survive the effects of climate change, but not after plenty of war, famine and disease as we fight for resources and eliminate the weak.
However if you care about all the animals, the oceans and all the habitats, then climate change is a very big issue. We are now in the biggest mass extinction since the dinosaurs died except this time there was no meteorite. Ask any diver anywhere in the world, they will tell you, the oceans are dying. Ask any deep sea fisherman, the fish are fewer and smaller. Even where I live, inland fishing on the rivers is less and less as the sea lions come up to eat and spawning becomes more difficult. For this of you over 40, ask yourself, is there anywhere you used to go as a kid that is as beautiful now as it was then? For me the answer is no way.
Greater population = crappier environment. Just how it goes I guess, but why not let technology help?
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
Uh huh... and who makes the calibration equipment and defines the standards those analyzers must be certified under. That's the problem, there's no uniformity and barely any calibration standards adhered to when it comes to measuring the climate and compiling the data based off those measurements. Everybody has their own set of toys they like to play with. However, things are starting to get better. They've adopted some standards. They're cleaning up the ground reporting stations and repositioning them to keep the noise level down. Same goes for the ocean buoys and satellites. They revamped the ocean buoy design and have them going deeper and are more strategically placed. They're placing more weather satellites in orbit along with equipment that is more accurate in measuring the earth. Unfortunately it's going to be many years before there is enough data compiled to establish any relevant trends. Until then, everybody is just basically guessing.
So which is going to warm the atmosphere more... the 25% of H2O or the 0.0360% trace amount of CO2? You guys picked the wrong gas to make the bad guy. You guys should've picked Argon or something, it sounds more sinister and scary. Of course the welders and light bulb makers might get a little testy.
Yep, water is the biggest green house gas. Don't forget about the contributions of that big glowing orb in the heavens
GlennAB1
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2015
- Messages
- 4,889
- Location
- Home will always be Vandalia, OH
- Display Name
Display name:
GlennAB1
I've recently been to a place that I am sure is much more beautiful than it was 40 years ago, and it is all because of human's doing.
Dav8or
Final Approach
What, in your opinion causes water to vaporize? No one has forgotten that "big glowing orb in the heavens", what about it?
azure
Final Approach
That's a half truth. The absolute amount of CO2 humans add to the atmosphere is small compared to the amount added by natural processes. It's still true that the increase in CO2 *concentration* is pretty much entirely us. What you're forgetting is that CO2 is both added to (source) and removed from (sink) the atmosphere all the time by natural processes. If you increase the CO2 source without also increasing the sink, then the amount actually in the atmosphere is going to gradually increase. That will happen even if the amount you're adding is smaller than all natural sources. If I recall correctly, Science of Doom explains this very clearly.
How am I making your point? I'm not making any predictions or proposing new theories, I'm just summarizing the basic physics. You're not understanding what I'm saying, apparently.
Which scientists are "jumping off the bandwagon" because of the "true facts" coming out? There are quite a few scientists who disagree with the alarmist camp, but not because the facts as presented have somehow been shown to be wrong. There is disagreement about the measurement of surface temperatures, the reliability of the models, the effects of feedbacks (especially clouds), and yes, how much of the current warming is due to GHG and how much to natural variation. We don't know yet. But we have every reason to believe that some of it is due to GHG, and that it isn't unmeasurably small. It's just hard to disentangle from natural variation because we don't yet have a handle on all the sources of that variation.
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,479
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
And therein lies the disconnect.
We are daily lectured by MSM that there is no debate, it's over, done, and anyone who even dares to ask a question about MMGW is a hatemongering Neanderthal. When open, civil discussion is stifled, then it's a reasonable inference that those doing the stifling have something to hide.
Again, this thread has been valuable on many levels. Sadly our society has largely forgotten how to do this.
azure
Final Approach
I agree completely that the MSM has not given the public an accurate picture of the state of the science. It isn't entirely their fault, as the most visible climate scientists have contributed to this by dumbing down the science for public consumption, and also because many of them are in the alarmist camp themselves. I also agree that stifling debate by throwing ad hominems at people who question the "consensus" - or worse, threatening climate change skeptics with prosecution - is not helpful and really goes against the entire purpose and methodology of science.
azblackbird
Pattern Altitude
That's kinda what I've been trying to say. There's still way too much noise out there yet to validate any of the evidence for anthropogenic "climate change". It's going to be many years before we can even begin to draw any conclusions and validate that evidence with hard facts. The real science community is working on those data points as we speak. The instrumentation to gather that evidence is improving every day. It's good they finally adopted some standards; that will help things progress on a more even keel as we progress toward the future.
Only 5% of the worlds oceans have ever even been explored/mapped. Lord knows how many "under ocean" volcanoes and fissured vents are spewing noxious gases into the atmosphere. The equipment to measure any of those events are still being placed. It's a slow process.
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
After seeing even just bits of the activities in Charlotte today, I'm pretty convinced the multiplying idiots will get us all killed, long before we'll need to worry about climate change.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
We disagree on this. I believe that more scientists than you think operate on principal, or at least on curiosity about what the truth is, but there is no scientific study to prove this.
GlennAB1
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2015
- Messages
- 4,889
- Location
- Home will always be Vandalia, OH
- Display Name
Display name:
GlennAB1
'Principal' doesnt pay the bills, having findings that guarantee continued funding does.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Sure there is. Unless you're one of those who says economics isn't science.
Remove half of the funding and see how many papers are written on the topic. Simultaneously offer similar money to study something completely different, see who takes the new jobs. It's basic finance. We've all heard of starving artists, but I haven't met too many starving scientists selling their science as buskers on street corners with a hat for tips. You?
The number of papers on the topic has exploded. That didn't happen just because a bunch of middle of the bell curve scientists woke up one day and decided to write them on principal.
denverpilot
Tied Down
I'm not even convinced it's about the findings. Just the focus of study. There's tons of things as important to study as climate change that get nearly no funding at all, so you see a whole lot less studies about those things.
This "pile of work" problem, gives the public the false impression that the thing everyone is cranking out papers on, is more important than anything else. A new paper every week they hear about, and hundreds being filed a year in one area, gives it a legitimacy feel or important feel that it may not deserve.