5 hours ago, martin-w said:

And I guess it kept me entertained while in self isolation for two weeks after moving to the channel islands. 🙂

I suppose there are worse places than a notorious tax haven for the wealthy to be in self isolation.😉 

I'm only speculating, but based on the cost of real estate in the Channel Islands, plus the fact that many, if not most, of the residents are among the wealthy elite, you and your neighbors would have no problem affording the exorbitant costs of electricity and many other things should the climate alarmists get their way.  As for the rest of us poor middle class folks...

Dave

 

14 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I suppose there are worse places than a notorious tax haven for the wealthy to be in self isolation.😉 

I'm only speculating, but based on the cost of real estate in the Channel Islands, plus the fact that many, if not most, of the residents are among the wealthy elite, you and your neighbors would have no problem affording the exorbitant costs of electricity and many other things should the climate alarmists get their way.  As for the rest of us poor middle class folks...

Dave

 

 

😁 Not exactly Dave. Wish we were wealthy. Although my daughter does have an excellent job. Quite a phenomenon she is. 

I'm in Guernsey currently, at my daughters rented cottage self isolating with her. "Most" of the residents aren't wealthy here, it's more a lower percentage of middle class like us, lots of lower-middle class in the service industry, like restaurants etc and then the lucky super wealthy. 

As for exorbitant real estate prices, there are actually two property markets, the local market for Guernsey residents and the the more expensive open market. The open market is closer to London prices.

If you have a job here you get a permit, and you can rent or buy on the cheaper local market, as my daughter does. For me, I'm retired, so will be moving to one of the smaller island in the bailiwick after isolation, the property prices are a bit cheaper there. 

Back on topic: anything Boeing can do...

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/airbus-expands-flapping-wings-test/

 

Nice RC model!  Interesting concept, I presume the aerodynamic improvements to be had will outweigh (pun intended!) the extra weight and complexity of wing fold actuators.

"meet their climate-neutral targets"

Please, spare me the self righteous belief that somehow consuming vast quantities of the planets resources are somehow "neutral" in their impacts.

This "belief" is complete nonsense.  The whole aspect of making (the factory, the physical materials, the distribution of those materials, the harvest of those materials) the construction of a plane sucks back vast quantities of non renewable materials.  The best we can do is stop polluting the atmosphere as much as possible but we are still "doomed" with having a ballooning population and limited resources with which to supply that population with the life style we have become accustomed to.  All we can try to do at this time is minimize the impacts, which we be futile in the end.  We currently have significant populations of folks fighting over turf, killing each other with a thought that my belief is better than  yours, 100 of millions living in squalor.  Start with looking at the big picture, then move down into the details, ask yourself how in heck can this mess be fixed?  Certainly not by making more planes.

Get real. Two or three generations out those folks are going to have a hell of a problem to deal with unless we stop breeding.

This is nothing more than population dynamics, of any species.

55 minutes ago, 1st fltsimguy said:

This "belief" is complete nonsense.  The whole aspect of making (the factory, the physical materials, the distribution of those materials, the harvest of those materials) the construction of a plane sucks back vast quantities of non renewable materials. 

As much as I like planes and machines - this does seem to me like a very strong argument for NOT making a new airliner. with or without flappy wings.

Edited October 14, 20205 yr by HighBypass
clarification

Not at all, and I like flappy winged flying machines that are more efficient.

1 hour ago, 1st fltsimguy said:

Please, spare me the self righteous belief that somehow consuming vast quantities of the planets resources are somehow "neutral" in their impacts.

Humans have and always will, shape their environment.

Mostly this involves taking stuff and refining/concentrating it and turning it into useful things.
This model fails for fossil fuels because it takes millions of years to create the feedstock.
Just about everything else can be recycled after primary use.

It's a big industry, here's a transport-related example which has been going for years.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/videos/a32531/heres-how-bmw-recycles-its-cars/

It's the next step after fixing the air pollution thing: if you sell a product, you are liable for its ultimate responsible disposal too.

No more taking stuff to the dump and wishing it away.
It's all about being sustainable.
We can do this.  

 

22 hours ago, WingZ said:

Back on topic: anything Boeing can do...

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/airbus-expands-flapping-wings-test/

 

"Airbus has named the project AlbatrossONE and Chief Engineer James Kirk said the payoff is in more efficient designs."

I wonder if his middle name is Tiberius? 😖

On 10/13/2020 at 6:34 AM, martin-w said:

Great video here. David won't watch it of course. Lol!

 

I watched the video.  A lot of gloom and doom prophets in the comments section.  There were also a number of preppers commenting about how they were preparing for the collapse.  Sigh, we've heard it all before.

Yes, the Arctic sea ice is at its lowest since 2012, which was the record low - since 1979, that is.  We didn't have satellite imagery of the poles before then, only anecdotal information from ship crews sailing in the Arctic.

Scientists don't know for sure what the extent, or volume, or area, of the Arctic ice was in the past.  Yes, there is a study of Arctic sea ice extent for the past 1450 years showing another sensational hockey stick of decreasing ice in the past 50 years or so, but again it uses *proxy* data like ice cores, sediments, etc. from which they can *estimate* the extent, but there's no way to prove their findings. 

Here's some links to articles refuting the "the ice caps are melting, we're all doomed" crowd, all fossil-fuel industry funded of course:

https://realclimatescience.com/2020/01/the-history-of-the-arctic/

This is an abstract of a study that 20th century warming could be attributed to natural causes - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304380003003600

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/arctic-sea-ice/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/13/greenland-and-the-1950s-climate-consensus/

 

Dave

 

17 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Scientists don't know for sure what the extent, or volume, or area, of the Arctic ice was in the past. 

Seriously, since when was the Northwest Passage navigable? You don't need satellite photos, just history books.  I can't wait to hear your response about Greenland and the Vikings.

2 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Seriously, since when was the Northwest Passage navigable? You don't need satellite photos, just history books.  I can't wait to hear your response about Greenland and the Vikings.

Oops, looks like I was wrong.  Arctic sea ice satellite data has been around since the early 1970s, but the climate alarmists graphs don't include the 1970s portion where sea ice was decreasing:

Uh oh, the temperature data supporting our climate change disaster scenario has a little problem:

Some more interesting articles from the past:

This is from 1922:

Wait a minute, scientists now agree that it's getting colder!

 

Dave

 

 

Edited October 14, 20205 yr by dave2013

David, why do you do it? I'm baffled. Again you are ignoring everything I've said to you. 

In the 60's and 70's SIX TIMES as many climatologists were predicting warming not cooling. AGAIN I have to repeat myself. 

Furthermore, the cooling trend of interest was mostly northern NOT GLOBAL!!!

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-basic.htm

I can't keep repeating the same things over and over again for you to simply ignore. Its a pointless waste of my time. 

 

 

 

"In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result SOME scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970."

"At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a GREATER number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would exert a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effect"

 

P.S. And please stop posting dog poo from notorious denier sites that have been proven to misrepresent the facts. 

Like the utterly notorious WhatsUpWithThat site. 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/watts-pbs-newshour.html

"Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.^[1]"

 

^{https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts}

 

Edited October 15, 20205 yr by martin-w

Looks like Rolls Royce are in the electric VTOL game too. Currently being ground tested.

 

 

Ground test video below

https://evtol.com/news/video-evtol-ground-tests-cranfield-airport/

Looks like they are utilising the VTOL concept of flipping the entire wing upward for vertical takeoff. 

Edited October 15, 20205 yr by martin-w

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

David, why do you do it? I'm baffled. Again you are ignoring everything I've said to you

I do it because I feel a duty to push back against climate extremists such as yourself.

The website which you love to post links to, skepticalscience.com, is a notorious climate alarmist site run by a self-employed cartoonist.  According to your own posts, how dare someone so unqualified have an opinion on climate change???  Unlike you, I don't put so much importance on university degrees.  I have seen firsthand how scientists cleverly, and sometimes disingenuously, advocate and promote their research in order to get more funding.  I have also met many university educated people over the years who were complete fools.

http://debunkingskepticalscience.com/

I love science and engineering, especially space and aviation related science.  However, I do not have absolute faith in climate scientists as many of them have other agendas, plus they have been caught distorting/manipulating/massaging their data to promote and legitimize their climate change conclusions.

As in many areas of life, the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.  The problem is that there is no middle ground with climate alarmists.  They want to enact extreme measures in order to, according to them, save the planet.  I cannot go along with this and will fight back.

Dave

Edited October 15, 20205 yr by dave2013

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

I do it because I feel a duty to push back against climate extremists such as yourself.

 

 

That's not what I was referring to as you well know. Which demonstrates your disingenuous approach throughout this debate. Why do you do it in terms of ignoring all my responses and then making the same claim again, multiple times. If you aren't willing to address my counter arguments its pointless. It was there in the very sentence you quoted. " ignoring everything I've said to you". If you simply ignore me and don't offer a valid counter argument you have essentially lost the debate.

And no, I'm not an extremist as you put it. Agreeing with what the majority of experts say is not extremism. IT's SCIENCE! There are a smaller number of climatologist who think our fate will be worse, and a smaller number who think our fate will be less severe than expected. IT'S THE MIDDLE GROUND!

 

Quote

According to your own posts, how dare someone so unqualified have an opinion on climate change??? 

 

Wrong! Again  you have ignored my response. I actually said everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if you aren't qualified in that field its less likely to be a valid opinion.

 

Sceptical scientist was used because its valid science that can be verified, it's generated by scientists and relayed to you by the author of the blog, and all links to scientific papers are included. Unlike your dodgy sites that can be proven to be utter nonsense. If you aren't happy about the source then pay attention to the links I have given you to respected scientific journals, like Nature, Science, The Royal Institution, NASA... 

 

Quote

plus they have been caught distorting/manipulating/massaging their data to promote and legitimize their climate change conclusions.

 

Like when, whom? And please don't be naive enough to say "ClimateGate" as the scientists in question were exonerated by several independent reviews. And even if you do find a dodgy climate researcher, its irrelevant as there have been THOUSANDS of peer reviewed, replicated, papers with reproducible results. But again... that's something I've said numerous times before, and in your usual style you have, and will, ignore it like its not happened.

 

Quote

The problem is that there is no middle ground with climate alarmists.

 

The hundreds of climate scientists on the planet, along with hundreds of scientists in associated fields, are not "alarmist" for gods sake, they are PROFFESIONALS, who understand this subject and conduct themselves in the manner they should. For gods sake man, the scientific method works, or you would be living in a cave. If this silly and illogical notion that "scientists are all lying to get funding" were true then they would apply that philosophy in other scientific fields to get funding too. Which they dont! And again, the PC you are using now would not function and your nice warm home would be a chilly hole in the side of a mountain. 

As for "middle ground", scientific opinion IS middle ground. And either side of that middle ground you will find more extreme views and more moderate views. 

I'm just going to stand back now and wait for you to ignore every point I have raised and offer zero counter arguments.

Edited October 15, 20205 yr by martin-w