Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
G-RFRY

The Future of Air Travel.

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Murmur said:

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.

I'm inclined to do the same as this discussion will ultimately go nowhere.  There are those who believe in the impending climate catastrophe and those that do not, and I don't see either side being convinced that they are wrong.  I do, however, feel an obligation to push back and state the opposing view, or at least a less hyperbolic and exaggerated one, of the issue, so that less informed people can decide for themselves.  People need to know that this is not established, settled science.  It is a hypothesis.  Perhaps it is a theory, but no more than that.

Personally, I don't consider myself a "climate change denier", the disparaging term used by climate alarmists for those who don't worship their climate change *theory* and believe whatever they are told.  I do actually agree that the average global temperature is rising, and that the rate of the rise has increased over the past 60 years or so.  What I do not agree with is that the rate of increase will continue to go up, that the temperature will continue to rise, or that the observed increases are solely due to man-made activity.  One can see a possible correlation, but no absolute proof of the cause and effect. 

Moreover, this type of warming over a historically short period of time could indeed have happened many times in the past, but there is no way to know this because accurate data with sufficient granularity doesn't exist - thermometers and recorded temp measurements have only been around for a few hundred years, and for the first 200 of those years there was not a record of temperature measurements from all over the earth.  Sufficiently accurate temperature data over short periods in history cannot be obtained from ice core samples or tree rings. 

There is also no proof that a 1 or 1.5 degree Celsius increase in the average global temperature, or a small increase in CO2 concentration, will have catastrophic consequences.  The future climate models make assumptions that cannot be proven, and their predictions have missed the mark many times over the past 50 years.  Predictions of sea level increases, polar ice losses, crop failures, extreme weather, etc., have all been wrong.

We need to reduce pollution and transition to sustainable, non-fossil fuel energy in the long run, but there is no cause for alarm.  We have time.  We have the technology.  We will figure it out without scare tactics, doomsday predictions, and billions in increased taxes going to corrupt governments and the wealthiest 1%, all of whom will continue to zip around the world on private jets while the rest of us poor suckers are crammed into crowded train cars and buses like cattle.

Those are my final words on this topic.

Dave

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Murmur said:

 

 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...

 

 

No, scientists have never done that. But thanks for conducting yourself respectively in this thread. Something that doesn't usually happen in climate  change debates. 🙂 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I'm inclined to do the same as this discussion will ultimately go nowhere.  There are those who believe in the impending climate catastrophe and those that do not, and I don't see either side being convinced that they are wrong.  I do, however, feel an obligation to push back and state the opposing view, or at least a less hyperbolic and exaggerated one, of the issue, so that less informed people can decide for themselves.  People need to know that this is not established, settled science.  It is a hypothesis.  Perhaps it is a theory, but no more than that.

 

Dave

 

"I do, however, feel an obligation to push back and state the opposing view, or at least a less hyperbolic and exaggerated one, of the issue, so that less informed people can decide for themselves. "

 

Problem is Dave, you have shown with your comments that you are one of those less informed people. You have stated things that are factually, demonstrably wrong. 

 

"It is a hypothesis.  Perhaps it is a theory, but no more than that."

 

This is a fine example. No its not a hypothesis. The scientific opinion is based on literally thousands of peer reviewed papers. Replicated research. This is not defined as a hypothesis. Furthermore, as I've said numerous times, this is not new. Global warming is basic chemistry  we learnt about at school. We have understood this since the mid 1800's. We absolutely know, in fact its a scientific FACT, that if you increase the amount of CO2 in an atmosphere then the temperature rises. We would be defying the laws of physics if that didn't happen. 

You say "no more than a theory". Which tells us that you aren't aware of what a scientific theory actually is. It's not like a layman's theory. A scientific theory is more closely related to fact. For example, you are familiar with the "theory" of gravity, now what would happen if you jumped off a 30 storey building? 

 

Quote

What I do not agree with is that the rate of increase will continue to go up, that the temperature will continue to rise, or that the observed increases are solely due to man-made activity.

 

Basic chemistry tells us that as we increase CO2 in the atmosphere temperature rises. It has to! Where do you think the increase in energy within the atmosphere will go? Hyperspace? 🙂 take a look at Venus for an example of a runaway greenhouse effect. 465 degrees Celsius. Toasty. 🙂 Science does not say that the increase in the planets temperature is "solely" due to mankind. Just that "today's" warming is "primarily" caused by mankind. Look at the graph I posted! See how our CO2 emissions are in step with increases in global temperature? 

And we KNOW that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is OUR CO2 because we can measure the CARBON ISOTOPES! Our CO2 from burning fossil fuels has a much different ISOTOPIC COMPOSITION. So we know its our CO2 that's the issue. 

"Sufficiently accurate temperature data over short periods in history cannot be obtained from ice core samples or tree rings. "

False! Individual proxies are not a clear indictor. Which is why scientists use a combination of multiple proxies that provide a much clearer picture. You see, scientists are not idiots. They are actually highly qualified experts who know what they are doing.

 

"There is also no proof that a 1 or 1.5 degree Celsius increase in the average global temperature, or a small increase in CO2 concentration, will have catastrophic consequences. "

 

False! That small increase in temp  provided by our CO2 emissions is amplified many times, thanks to the water vapour positive feedback loop. Our small increase in CO2 causes greater evaporation. Now, water vapour is the most potent greenhouse gas, so temperature increases many times more. As temp increases  further due to evaporation, locked up CO2 and worse still methane, from places like permafrost is  released. Then the temperature rises even further. More evaporation follows and the positive feedback loop continues.  

"The future climate models make assumptions that cannot be proven, and their predictions have missed the mark many times over the past 50 years. "

 

False! Climate models do have limitations, but they have actually been  successful. 

 

Quote

 

Conclusion

Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

 

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

 

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, WingZ said:

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

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.  

 

 

 

Precisely! And indeed the funding that powers part of the climate denier movement comes from exactly the same source, the same organisations that told us smoking was harmless. Same tactics used by some of the same organisations. Unfortunately they are quite good at fooling the less informed. 

Yep, the power industry does look like its beginning to sort itself out. The  majority of the fossil fuel companies now agree we are warming the planet and the consequences are bad. Behind the scenes of course they are still dragging their feet. I recall Exon was still funding climate deniers while simultaneously admitting climate change was real.  

https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/exxonmobil-still-funding-climate-science-denier-groups

Share this post


Link to post

I hope China takes this on board - they are the biggest culprits so they've got a lot of hard work to rectify their 29% of world CO2 output... but given what they did to the rest of the world I don't have any respect for the CCP. The people themselves from my limited experience having never been their in person seem to be good people though! :cool:

 


Mark Robinson

Part-time Ferroequinologist

Author of FLIGHT: A near-future short story (ebook available on amazon)

I made the baby cry - A2A Simulations L-049 Constellation

Sky Simulations MD-11 V2.2 Pilot. The best "lite" MD-11 money can buy (well, it's not freeware!)

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, HighBypass said:

I hope China takes this on board - they are the biggest culprits so they've got a lot of hard work to rectify their 29% of world CO2 output... 

 

 

We must remember though that per capita China is only ranked 47th. US is ranked 11th per capita. 

Of nations with a sizable population US is top per capita. With 3X the global average.

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm.. I see what you're saying, but I don't necessarily agree with the per capita logic. Surely we as a whole - the human race - should look at where the highest output of CO2 is and deal with that area of the planet first?

An extreme example, however implausible if I may: If for some obscure unknown reason, Antarctica (extremely sparsely populated), suddenly started gushing out the highest amount of the CO2, then we would investigate and deal with that. It would be irrelevant how many or how few people lived there...

  • Like 1

Mark Robinson

Part-time Ferroequinologist

Author of FLIGHT: A near-future short story (ebook available on amazon)

I made the baby cry - A2A Simulations L-049 Constellation

Sky Simulations MD-11 V2.2 Pilot. The best "lite" MD-11 money can buy (well, it's not freeware!)

Share this post


Link to post

Lake district jet suit..Not going to happen! The "ramblers" take umbrage about 4x4 vehicles going green laning so a guy with four gas-guzzling :biggrin: jet engines strapped to him is a definite no-no.IMO. 🍻

The strange thing is, green laners (aka people using 4x4s to access the UK countryside on legal tracks - "green lanes" are ancient highways where vehicles are still allowed to travel. Some of these lanes are so bad that it is easier to use a 4x4 than to try and traverse them on foot!) tend to take their rubbish home with them - they are in vehicles after all! They are all usually in contact with each other via CB radio especially in areas devoid of cellphone coverage. Thus they are able to coordinate in an emergency situation. Say for example a hiker ends up breaking their ankle - the green laners can offer support, get to the emergency services quicker and may (subject to trained medics approval etc,) get the victim transported back to a normal road. Green laners offer the opportunity for those who are no longer able to, or cannot, walk, to go out and enjoy the many wonderful views of the countryside.:cool:

 

EDIT - to everyone else with common sense and a love of technology (including me! ) then that is a bloody amazing idea for jet-suit usage! :cool:

Edited by HighBypass
  • Like 1

Mark Robinson

Part-time Ferroequinologist

Author of FLIGHT: A near-future short story (ebook available on amazon)

I made the baby cry - A2A Simulations L-049 Constellation

Sky Simulations MD-11 V2.2 Pilot. The best "lite" MD-11 money can buy (well, it's not freeware!)

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, HighBypass said:

EDIT - to everyone else with common sense and a love of technology (including me! ) then that is a bloody amazing idea for jet-suit usage! :cool:

It would take a gang of complete idiots not to wholeheartedly support such a means of getting to an accident scene quickly and safely by first responders (often the ONLY responders!).

  • Upvote 2

Fr. Bill    

AOPA Member: 07141481 AARP Member: 3209010556

Interests: Gauge Programming - 3d Modeling for Milviz

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, n4gix said:

It would take a gang of complete idiots...

We have plenty of stupid in the UK, don't worry, Father. :blink:


Mark Robinson

Part-time Ferroequinologist

Author of FLIGHT: A near-future short story (ebook available on amazon)

I made the baby cry - A2A Simulations L-049 Constellation

Sky Simulations MD-11 V2.2 Pilot. The best "lite" MD-11 money can buy (well, it's not freeware!)

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

We have plenty of stupid in the UK, don't worry, Father. :blink:

 

We do have nut jobs in the UK. But I think the individuals you cite are concerned about damage to the countryside. This jetpack tech doesn't damage anything, just blows bushes about a bit.

Edit: I must get out of the habit of saying "we in the UK" as from yesterday its not me. Guernsey isn't strictly part of the UK. So, correction... you guys in the UK do have some nut jobs. word not allowed Brits. 😆 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think too much a-do is made of carbon dioxide. There is a sizable contingent of researchers who say the warming effect is overrated. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    49%
    $12,400.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...