The Future of Air Travel.

[martin-w 3,235]

16 hours ago, Murmur said:

Aaaaaaand... More failed predictions:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/

 

Aaaaaaaad... probably the worst source of information you could have chosen. A well know, utterly notorious, climate change denier website. Well known for misinformation. Ran by an unqualified weathercaster who is indirectly funded by the fossil fuel industry. 

 

Quote

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

 

 

[dave2013 1,130]

19 hours ago, martin-w said:

Yes Dave but as demonstrated by your comments, you aren't qualified to draw a valid conclusion from your amateur research.

I never claimed to be an expert in climate science.  I suppose that you are?  Anyway, I'm simply basing my conclusions on articles I have read and data I have seen which demonstrate that there is no climate catastrophe looming.  The wild, exaggerated climate-related predictions of many scientists and govt. officials have been proven wrong over and over again.

Weather is cyclical.  Some years are hotter and some are colder.  Some years there are a lot of hurricanes and some years there are very few.  We had the Dust Bowl in the Great Plains area of the USA back in the 1930s which was due to drought and inappropriate farming techniques.  There was good rainfall and moderate winters in the 1920s in the area which fooled people into moving there and farming the land, but by the 1930s there was drought and higher temperatures.  Have you heard of the 1936 North American Cold Wave, followed by the 1936 North American Heat Wave?  There are also longer cycles that last decades, centuries, and even millennia.  Why did glaciers cover most of Europe and North America up until about 12 thousand years ago?  What caused the warming that melted those glaciers?  I'm sure there are several theories, but those things certainly weren't caused by humans.

I'm all for reducing pollution and the use of fossil fuels, but I'm not OK with engaging in hysteria and fearmongering in order to take more of people's hard-earned money.  I have seen many government officials, scientists, and wealthy elites who fly to climate conferences on private jets and then hypocritically preach to their audiences about how we must eliminate fossil fuels and use more mass transportation and ride bicycles.  I'm sorry but I don't trust these people.

Dave

Edited September 28, 2020 by dave2013

[charliearon 3,024]

Let's at least try to keep this from becoming another COVID discussion!

[HighBypass 2,339]

Am I wrong to believe that more CO2 is not necessarily a bad thing because why else would growers pump extra CO2 into polytunnels? The plants grow better with 1000+ parts per million, and use less water in doing so. Surely that's a good reason for NOT getting anxious? If plants thrive better then they will gradually take back areas of the planet. Increased plant life is better than deserts is it not?  More plant life means more availability of bio fuel for the "chip fat burning jumbos" doesn't it?

[Murmur 3,944]

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

Aaaaaaaad... probably the worst source of information you could have chosen. A well know, utterly notorious, climate change denier website. Well known for misinformation. Ran by an unqualified weathercaster who is indirectly funded by the fossil fuel industry. 

So you are allowed to quote sources whose funds depend on the general alarmism about climate change (do you know that funds to IPCC and other organisations would plummet if they would, per hypothesis, scale back the supposed extent and dangers of climate change) and I'm not? That doesn't seem fair.

Moreover, that is not even the point. The link has data, quotes and explanations. Debunk that instead of resorting to ad-hominem attacks.

 

[Murmur 3,944]

Aaaand... Did you know that the world is warming up at twice the rate of... The world itself? That doesn't add up, right?

https://medium.com/@globalcooling/the-world-is-warming-twice-as-fast-as-the-world-bb5affb02f6d

[Murmur 3,944]

North and South poles warming faster than the rest of the world:

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warmingpoles.html

Europe warming faster than the rest of the world:

www.euronews.com/amp/2020/04/22/eleven-of-the-12-hottest-years-on-record-occurred-since-the-year-2000-study-finds

Canada and USA warming faster than the rest of the world:

www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-47754189

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/04/us-to-warm-faster-than-the-rest-of-the-world/

Australia warming faster than the rest of the world:

mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN0L02P820150127

Russia warming faster than the rest of the world:

tass.com/society/1051300/amp

Africa warming faster than the rest of the world:

https://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/2019/05/08/global-warming-west-africa-warming-faster-than-rest-of-the-world/amp/

https://m.traveller24.com/Explore/Green/2017-heats-up-the-records-as-one-of-the-top-3-hottest-years-ever-20171108

 

[martin-w 3,235]

22 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I never claimed to be an expert in climate science.  I suppose that you are? 

Dave

 

No I'm not an expert, of course I'm not, I have no qualifications in this field. I understand the science better than the average person though. 

 

Quote

I'm simply basing my conclusions on articles I have read and data I have seen which demonstrate that there is no climate catastrophe looming.

 

Then your "data" is wrong. And contrary to literally thousands of peer reviews scientific papers, replicated research, by scientists with the necessary qualifications. My advice would be to avoid climate change denier websites, they spread misinformation, and when they can they discredit reputable scientists. many of them have fossil fuel industry pay masters. 

 

Quote

 

 

Quote

Weather is cyclical.  Some years are hotter and some are colder.  

 

It's not about short term weather. The issue is long term warming over the entire planet as an average temperature. We look at  temperature over many decades as an average to eliminate short term variability as a result of factors like volcanism, changes in ocean currents, solar activity etc. When we do that, the trend is clear, the AVERAGE temperature of the entire planet is increasing rapidly, at a rate that is so fast it's unprecedented. 

 

Quote

The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather. 

 

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

 

Quote

We had the Dust Bowl in the Great Plains area of the USA back in the 1930s which was due to drought and inappropriate farming techniques.  There was good rainfall and moderate winters in the 1920s in the area which fooled people into moving there and farming the land, but by the 1930s there was drought and higher temperatures.  Have you heard of the 1936 North American Cold Wave, followed by the 1936 North American Heat Wave?  

 

Dave... that's LOCAL! Not GLOBAL! Remember... it's called GLOBAL warming. Not LOCAL warming. 🙂 The concern is long term GLOBAL climate change. The temperature of the ENTIRE planet measured as an average. Cold or hot in your backyard for months, days, years is not  necessarily related to global warming. 

 

Quote

Why did glaciers cover most of Europe and North America up until about 12 thousand years ago?  What caused the warming that melted those glaciers?  I'm sure there are several theories, but those things certainly weren't caused by humans.

 

That was the last glacial period. The onset of an ice age is related to changes in the Erath's tilt and indeed it's orbit. As I said before, we know the causal factors responsible, and those causal factors are not present now. What caused the planet to warm was the fact that the Erath's tilt and orbit changed once more, back to it's pervious state.  

 

Quote

I'm all for reducing pollution and the use of fossil fuels, but I'm not OK with engaging in hysteria and fearmongering in order to take more of people's hard-earned money. 

 

We have unequivocal evidence that we are warming the planet and that the consequences will be severe. It's not fear mongering. 

 

Quote

 I have seen many government officials, scientists, and wealthy elites who fly to climate conferences on private jets 

 

There aren't many climate scientists wealthy enough to fly around in business jets. They don't own Bugatti Veyron's and live on Richard Branson style private islands either. 🙂 Government officials certainly do but they are the individuals who talk big but then do very little about mitigating the impact of climate change or reducing our emissions. In fact, every time there's a new IPCC report, the scientists are forced to dumb it down to satisfy the politicians.

 

 

[martin-w 3,235]

16 hours ago, Murmur said:

So you are allowed to quote sources whose funds depend on the general alarmism about climate change (do you know that funds to IPCC and other organisations would plummet if they would, per hypothesis, scale back the supposed extent and dangers of climate change) and I'm not? That doesn't seem fair.

Moreover, that is not even the point. The link has data, quotes and explanations. Debunk that instead of resorting to ad-hominem attacks.

 

 

Yeah that's nonsense. If scientists were "in it for the money" they would be working for the fossil fuel industry that pays substantially more. You know, like the Exon scientists, who told their bosses that global warming was real and a severe threat. Exon bosses then ignored their own scientists and started to fund climate change deniers like your What's Up With That pal. 

Climate change "in it for the money" debunked here...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-in-it-for-the-money.htm

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Your "data quotes and explanations" are from a well known dubious source. Obviously cant be trusted. You picked the most notorious source known to man. Lol! 

So you trust a man paid by the fossil fuel industry to tell you the truth and not scientists... err, okay then... Lol! 

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,235]

20 hours ago, HighBypass said:

Am I wrong to believe that more CO2 is not necessarily a bad thing because why else would growers pump extra CO2 into polytunnels? The plants grow better with 1000+ parts per million, and use less water in doing so. Surely that's a good reason for NOT getting anxious? If plants thrive better then they will gradually take back areas of the planet. Increased plant life is better than deserts is it not?  More plant life means more availability of bio fuel for the "chip fat burning jumbos" doesn't it?

 

This is something that has been researched quite extensively. We have become somewhat greener in recent decades. But as CO2 rises further so does temperature and the increase in temp ultimately decreases plant growth. CO2 as a "plant food" is vastly over simplified.  

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2016/08/30/1606734113.full.pdf

 

 

Quote

 

The experiment

The Stanford scientists set up 132 plots of flowers and grass in California and introduced varying levels of carbon dioxide, temperature, water, and nitrogen. The scientists conducted the experiments over 16 growing seasons between 1998 and 2014. They found that only higher nitrogen levels resulted in higher plant productivity, while higher temperatures caused it to decline.

While this experiment was specific to California grasslands, other studies have similarly undermined the ‘more CO2 is great’ myth. For example, a 2012 paper found that higher temperatures are detrimental to French corn yields. While French corn production has increased steadily in recent decades due to a combination of technological improvements and CO2 fertilization (the former far more than the latter), yields have leveled off in recent years, and were particularly low when struck by heat waves.

A significant reduction in maize yield is found for each day with a maximum temperature above 32°C, in broad agreement with previous estimates. The recent increase in such hot days has likely contributed to the observed yield stagnation.

Another study published in Nature Climate Change last week concluded that higher temperatures will cause wheat production to decline. Just a 1°C rise in global temperature will decrease wheat yields by about 5% (approximately 35 million tons). Climate change is bad news for several of our staple crops.

 

 

[martin-w 3,235]

This may help, although deniers will always deny. 😃

The temperature peaks and troughs are the natural variability I spoke of and the trend is apparent and corresponds to our CO2 emissions. 

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html

Edited September 29, 2020 by martin-w

[dave2013 1,130]

30 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Then your "data" is wrong. And contrary to literally thousands of peer reviews scientific papers, replicated research, by scientists with the necessary qualifications. My advice would be to avoid climate change denier websites, they spread misinformation, and when they can they discredit reputable scientists. many of them have fossil fuel industry pay masters. 

Here's a link to a petition signed by 90 Italian scientists entitled "PETITION ON GLOBAL ANTHROPGENIC HEATING" - https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/04/90-leading-italian-scientists-sign-petition-co2-impact-on-climate-unjustifiably-exaggerated-catastrophic-predictions-not-realistic/

The following are some important points made in the petition:

"However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models"

"The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC."

"All the evidence suggests that these MODELS OVERESTIMATE the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations."

 

And these are 90 scientists in *just a single nation*.  There are likely thousands of like-minded scientists all over the world, only they don't get the publicity and spotlight.

You can have the most accurate data ever, but if you use that data in flawed models then you get an incorrect result.  That is a big part of the climate catastrophe error.  The other part involves people taking advantage of the issue and using it for their own gain.

Models are not always right.  One only has to look at the most recent Atlantic hurricane Sally where the models had it continuing westwards to Louisiana, but then it surprised everyone by abruptly turning north over Florida and then northeast over Alabama.  Weather forecasters use models and they are frequently wrong in their predictions.  Now imagine how unreliable similar models used to make climate predictions on a global scale over long periods of time can be.  Yet we're supposed to hand over billions in taxes and turn our world upside down because some climate models predict disaster.  A couple years ago we were told that we only have 12 years to avert catastrophe.  Now we're being told that we only have 7 years to stop climate change.  More hysterics and hyperbole.  Give me a break.

 

Dave

 

[martin-w 3,235]

Yeah that was the stunt that was pulled prior to the New York climate summit a while back. No research to back up the claims, no peer review, no replicated research. Nothing! 

Think it was this stunt.

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/

Edit... hang on, think this was a different stunt. This one, if you do the research contained just 2 climate scientists. You usually find they are comprised of astronomers, architects all manner of non related fields. Anyone they can find that can be called "a scientist" they get to sign. 

 

Quote

I went to the trouble to go through the list of those 80 "scientists" who signed the letter. I found four, I repeat four, of the signers who have training in climatology and I'm giving a pass to the two whose training is in meteorology. There were 6 nuclear physicists, 23 geologists, 9 physicists, with the rest scattered over the fields varying from architecture to astronomy. If Mr. Fischer ever has a problem with his kidneys I'm sure he'll go see a heart specialist.

 

There have been quite a few scams like this. That Monkton guy is famous for setting them up. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by martin-w

[WingZ 547]

We've been here before, and it's inevitable to get strong pushback when a very large industry finds itself under threat.

Happily the balance has tipped in the Climate discussion, where it matters: at regional and local level. Very visible by way of fossil fuelled vehicles: 20 cities and 14 countries have voted to exclude these within the next decade or so. It's only a question of time and local politics. And now after Dieselgate, a fear of being Found Out. 
So the spotlight will fall on trucks, ships, and as the thread title suggests: aircraft too.

The power industry is sorting itself out as well: I read somewhere that one of the biggest new employers worldwide is renewable energy in various forms.

The Climate argument is over for all practical purposes.
There will still be Smokers, but with a bit of luck, not enough to break the planet.  

 

 

[Murmur 3,944]

Well, I gave my point of view and now I'm out of this thread. After all I don't think any of us will change our ideas, so after all it would just be a waste of time for everyone.

Only the reality will make it justice. Just as it made it for those (mostly scientists!) that 30 years ago were predicting the end of the world in 10 or 20 or 30 years. Now they're predicting it, again, in 10 or 20 or 30 years... And then again... And again...

Some time ago I read an article in which they quoted predictions from scientists that blamed climate change for a lot of things and, literally, their exact opposite. Very funny to read, and a definitive proof of what a farce that is. But I guess not even that would convince climate catastrophists. It's a pity I can't find it anymore as easily as I found the other articles previously posted.

Well, see you in 7 years then: 😆

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/20/arts/design/climate-clock-metronome-nyc.amp.html&ved=2ahUKEwjlzIuyxo_sAhWDk4sKHbYgBoEQFjABegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2kWvtifTH1t3T3GKNyE3I1&ampcf=1