The Future of Air Travel.

[Murmur 3,944]

11 hours ago, dave2013 said:

 

I agree with you, but he'll always have the last word. He will repeat the same things round and round. You can't convince him otherwise. Not even with past articles and headlines demonstrating their contradictions. He's as dogmatic and blind as he's accusing others to be.

I'll happily go on, leaving people like him worrying that we're all doomed. The reality will make things straight, but it will require decades.

[tonywob 4,770]

Interesting discussion. The biggest issue I see on either side of the fence is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to trust any sources these day, no matter how "credible" they may first appear to be, and this a common thread you see throughout various similar debates. Maybe it's just because I'm getting older and more crazy/cynical, or maybe I've just got past the point that I care because seemingly nobody else does. 

For me it's enough that I've been hearing the same doom and gloom since my early school days, and none of it ever happened. By now, the UK and the Netherlands. would be under water and the ice caps would have melted, the ozone layer would be gone, etc... so it's really no surprise that deniers exist. I'm under the impression that in 20-30 years time, absolutely nothing would have changed and we'll still be in the same position as we are today, because this is how it's been all my life.

Whether there is a real threat or not, taxing people and companies even more won't solve the problem, it'll just kill of the poorer competition and make the rich richer. When celebrities, elites and politicians etc start practicing what they preach and give up their private jets and boats, then perhaps the rest of us will start listening.

China doesn't care, India doesn't care, so why should western countries push this agenda when it won't change anything unless the entire planet gets involved, and I'd say good luck to that.

[LHookins 3,108]

1 hour ago, tonywob said:

For me it's enough that I've been hearing the same doom and gloom since my early school days, and none of it ever happened.

Worry works!  99% of the things I worry about never happen. 😄 

Hook

[dave2013 1,142]

 

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

To suggest that climate scientists are all banding together and lying about the research to steal our taxes for their research, the entire multitude of climate scientists, is mindnumbingly dumb.

 

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

Anyone who can't grasp the concept of a fossil fuel industry, whose product is under threat, whose livlihood, no existance, is threatened, funding deniers and conspiracy theorists in desperation, is short of the required number of neurons.

Instead of trying to make your argument and persuade people that you are right, you resort to insults and name-calling.

Yes, increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere do increase the Earth's temperature due to the greenhouse effect, but the actual amount of temperature increase is debatable.  Scientists use isotope levels in ice core samples to indirectly determine the historical temperature, and by measuring the CO2 levels in those samples can then correlate the CO2 levels with temperature.  However, I just read an article in Astrobiology magazine which calls into question the accuracy of those ice core temperature measurements.

The causes and effects of global warming is not settled science no matter how much you wish it to be.  There are scientists who do not agree with the so-called consensus.  Are all those scientists being bribed by the fossil fuel industry?

Science is not omniscient and infallible.  It is about experimenting, observing, learning, and not being influenced by our assumptions.

Dave

[HighBypass 2,339]

18 hours ago, dave2013 said:

However, SourceWatch cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here

Including any links to Abraham Lincoln's twitter feed... 

Future of air travel... will jet noise ever disappear? I hope not, just like thunder, it gives a sense of power, and, depending upon what aircraft is making the noise, the cosy, safe feeling generated by knowing that the sound is a precursor to the controlled violence of threat neutralisation: No harm can come to us because such a threat will never be able to manifest itself at our front door.

One thing's for certain though: Rockets launching into space will never be quiet..  Unless... if any anti-gravity tech makes it out of Area 51, then of course we will have quiet air superiority fighters and rockets.. 

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

3 hours ago, dave2013 said:

The causes and effects of global warming is not settled science

Science is never “settled”. It’s not dogma like either a religion or a political philosophy. As new information arises, new hypotheses are tested. But forget about all the incorrect information that you’ve posted so far In this thread and just explain this one phenomenon:
 

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

[dave2013 1,142]

8 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Science is never “settled”. It’s not dogma like either a religion or a political philosophy. As new information arises, new hypotheses are tested. But forget about all the incorrect information that you’ve posted so far In this thread and just explain this one phenomenon:
 

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

Antarctica's ice mass is actually increasing.  The polar ice cap has indeed shrunk somewhat, but it has yet to disappear as climate alarmists 20 years ago said would have happened by now.

Even if the ice caps are shrinking and continue to shrink, which no one can predict, how do you know that man-made activity is the cause?  Certainly, the pollution we've been pumping into the air for over 100 years likely has had some effect on the global average temperature, but is it the only, or even a major, factor?  

Someone else here stated that we know for certain the cause of the ice ages.  He was referring to the Milankovitch cycles.  However, that is a theory which doesn't completely account for the actual warming and cooling cycles determined from ice core samples.  It's a real problem for climate catastrophists because they need to find something else to explain past climate changes besides CO2 levels.

The climate is an extremely complex system which cannot be easily modeled, especially over thousands of years.  We can't even get tomorrow's weather forecast right all the time, so how can we expect climate scientists to know anything for certain?  The fact is that they do not.

A famous U.S. President and climate change advocate stated several years ago that rising sea levels threaten every coastline.  Despite the dire climate change warnings, he recently purchased a multi-million dollar 7000 square foot beachfront mansion on an island a few feet above sea level.  Aside from the massive carbon footprint for such a large estate for only 2 people, wouldn't that be an awful investment if you believe that sea levels will rise?  Coastal properties all over the world continue to rise in price.  If you don't believe your own BS then how can you expect me to believe it?

Dave

[martin-w 3,252]

21 hours ago, dave2013 said:

 

 

Instead of trying to make your argument and persuade people that you are right, you resort to insults and name-calling.

 

 

I have insulted nobody here by name. I wouldn't do that. However, I am entitled to an opinion of those who are denying what science knows to be a fact.

Whether its denying evolution as fact, claiming vaccines are murdering our children or that climate change is all made up  (implausibly - by literally thousands) of scientists to fund their research, the opinion stems from a number of factors.  Ignorance of the basics of climate change, for example you confusing climate with weather, not appreciating the importance of long term averages globally, making easily countered statements like "scientists cant even predict weather". Then we have political bias, right wing organisations funded by the fossil fuel industry (same organisations that said smoking was safe) or those with something to lose if we attempt to mitigate climate change. Then we have the frightening war on science that is without doubt being conducted currently, even by certain world leaders. 

 

Quote

Yes, increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere do increase the Earth's temperature due to the greenhouse effect, but the actual amount of temperature increase is debatable.  Scientists use isotope levels in ice core samples to indirectly determine the historical temperature, and by measuring the CO2 levels in those samples can then correlate the CO2 levels with temperature.  

 

"the actual amount of temperature increase is debatable."  False claim! We have pretty accurate data in regard to the instrumental temperature record. I've already posted the graph, overlayed with our CO2 emissions. The correlation is there for all to see. You haven't commented on the graph I posted or offered any kind of counter argument. 

https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

A new study has verified the accuracy of recent global warming figures.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190417084535.htm

As for long term proxy data, the infamous hockey stick graph, we now have an entire hockey team of graphs all from different proxy data, and they all suggest the same trend. No, proxy data will never be 100% accurate, but what it does do is give us a pretty definitive idea as to what the trend is.

 

 

https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

 

 

Quote

The causes and effects of global warming is not settled science no matter how much you wish it to be. 

 

False Claim! 

The nice thing about facts is that they remain facts whether you want to believe them or not. 😉 

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/
 

 

Quote

There are scientists who do not agree with the so-called consensus.  Are all those scientists being bribed by the fossil fuel industry?

 

Of course there are! There are those who are educated in fields other than climatology, hence its not their expertise. There are those who are funded by the fossil fuel industry. There are also those who are included in fake lists on google who barely can be described as scientists. And those with absolutely minimal qualifications in a scientific field.

However... here's the consensus for you. 

Too many organisations for me to waste time counting them all or listing their names. Here's the link..

https://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

So you think all those organisations above, literally hundreds and hundreds of scientists and those in associated fields, are all lying through their back teeth? So tell me, I'm curious, how would such an enormous conspiracy work? How would it remain in place since the early 18th century when we figured out the role our CO2 emissions play. Interested in your answer. You haven't bothered to counter this yet despite it being put to you several times. 

 

Edited October 10, 2020 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,252]

8 hours ago, dave2013 said:

The polar ice cap has indeed shrunk somewhat, but it has yet to disappear as climate alarmists 20 years ago said would have happened by now.

 

 

Nobody said polar ice would vanish entirely 20 years ago. Some  suggested it as a possibility. 

That is an invented statement.   Re polar icecap... it's shrunk more than "somewhat". Polar icecaps are now melting SIX TIMES faster than in the 90's. 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

Antarctica's ice mass is actually increasing. 

 

Another example of totally misunderstanding the science. 

"Some differences in seasonal sea ice extent between the Arctic and Antarctic are due to basic geography and its influence on atmospheric and oceanic circulation. The Arctic is an ocean basin surrounded largely by mountainous continental land masses, and Antarctica is a continent surrounded by ocean. In the Arctic, sea ice extent is limited by the surrounding land masses. In the Southern Ocean winter, sea ice can expand freely into the surrounding ocean, with its southern boundary set by the coastline of Antarctica. Because Antarctic sea ice forms at latitudes further from the South Pole (and closer to the equator), less ice survives the summer. Sea ice extent in both poles changes seasonally; however, longer-term variability in summer and winter ice extent is different in each hemisphere, due in part to these basic geographical differences."

 

Sea ice in the Arctic has decreased dramatically since the late 1970s, particularly in summer and autumn. Since the satellite record began in 1978, the yearly minimum Arctic sea ice extent (which occurs in September) has decreased by about 40% [Figure 5]. Ice cover expands again each Arctic winter, but the ice is thinner than it used to be. Estimates of past sea ice extent suggest that this decline may be unprecedented in at least the past 1,450 years. Because sea ice is highly reflective, warming is amplified as the ice decreases and more sunshine is absorbed by the darker underlying ocean surface.

Sea ice in the Antarctic showed a slight increase in overall extent from 1979 to 2014, although some areas, such as that to the west of the Antarctic Peninsula experienced a decrease. Short-term trends in the Southern Ocean, such as those observed, can readily occur from natural variability of the atmosphere, ocean and sea ice system. Changes in surface wind patterns around the continent contributed to the Antarctic pattern of sea ice change; ocean factors such as the addition of cool fresh water from melting ice shelves may also have played a role. However, after 2014, Antarctic ice extent began to decline, reaching a record low (within the 40 years of satellite data) in 2017, and remaining low in the following two years."

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-12/

 

Quote

Even if the ice caps are shrinking and continue to shrink, which no one can predict, how do you know that man-made activity is the cause?  

 

"Sea ice shrinks in step with carbon emissions"

"Since at least the 1960s, the shrinkage of the ice cap over the Arctic Ocean has advanced in lockstep with the amount of greenhouse gases humans have sent into the atmosphere, according to a study published this week in Science. Every additional metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) puffed into the atmosphere appears to cost the Arctic another 3 square meters of summer sea ice—a simple and direct observational link that has been sitting under scientists’ noses. If current emission trends hold, the study suggests the Arctic will be ice free by 2045—far sooner than some climate models predict. The study suggests that those models are underestimating how warm the Arctic has already become and how fast that melting will proceed. And it gives the public and policymakers a concrete illustration of the consequences of burning fossil fuels. For instance, a U.S. family of four would claim nearly 200 square meters of sea ice, based on U.S. emissions in 2013. Over 3 decades, that family would be responsible for destroying more than an American football field’s worth of ice."

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6312/533.summary

 

 

Quote

We can't even get tomorrow's weather forecast right all the time, so how can we expect climate scientists to know anything for certain?  The fact is that they do not.

 

We actually do a reasonable job of weather forecasts despite its short term unpredictability. AGAIN, I've now several times... climate change induced by global warming is determined by LONG TERM, AVERAGE, GLOBAL temperature. Not the weather down your backyard last week. 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Rebuttal-to-Scientists-Cant-Even-Predict-The-Weather-Right.html

 

 

Quote

A famous U.S. President and climate change advocate stated several years ago that rising sea levels threaten every coastline. 

 

US presidents are not climatologists. 

 

Quote

Despite the dire climate change warnings, he recently purchased a multi-million dollar 7000 square foot beachfront mansion on an island a few feet above sea level. 

 

So what? That's irrelevant. Politicians are notorious for all manner stupidity. Listen to THE EXPERTS, NOT those with zero qualifications in the field. Unless they directly quote the experts of course. 

Edited October 10, 2020 by martin-w

[dave2013 1,142]

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

"the actual amount of temperature increase is debatable."  False claim! We have pretty accurate data in regard to the instrumental temperature record. I've already posted the graph, overlayed with our CO2 emissions. The correlation is there for all to see. You haven't commented on the graph I posted or offered any kind of counter argument. 

Yes, CO2 levels have an effect on temperature.  I've never denied that.  What I question are 1)are the measured CO2 levels from thousands of years ago accurate, and 2)are the temperature measurements from that same period accurate?  The answer is "maybe".  The methods used to infer these measurements from isotope levels are not 100% reliable.  The scientists using these methods admit that in their articles. 

Why do I continue to make this point about past climate data?  Because the relatively rapid warming we have seen over the past 100 years could have happened in the past, which would destroy the argument that only man-made CO2 emissions have caused the warming. 

I do not deny that pollution such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, CFCs, etc. that we've been spewing into the atmosphere for 100 years has had an effect on the climate.  ***The question is: "how much of an effect?".***  I do not believe that the 1-1.5 degree C increase in temperature is solely due to man-made activity.

There are too many variables, too many unknowns, where the earth's climate is concerned.  It cannot be modeled perfectly, especially over long time spans.  The data used as inputs to those models is not 100% accurate before 100 years ago, and perhaps even just 50 years ago, as the advanced instrumentation we use nowadays didn't exist.  You simply cannot know for certain what the exact temperature or CO2 level was in an area thousands or even hundreds of years ago.  You can say, for example, that it was 10-20 degrees warmer or colder during such and such a period with some certainty, but it is a range of temperatures or CO2 levels, not an exact measurement.  So if I want to prove my argument then I just choose the high or low range of data to use in my models to make them better fit my theory.  I saw scientists where I used to work make exaggerated and disingenuous claims about their research just to secure continued funding from the govt., even though we all knew that even if our institute closed it would have no ill effect at all on society other than less knowledge about what they were studying, which was something that has absolutely no consequence at all on people's lives.  So yes, scientists do bend the truth when they feel they need to.

I'll say it again: I agree that we must reduce fossil fuel usage, if only for the reason that supplies of it will not last forever, but mostly because it pollutes our air and is harmful to our health.  I do not agree that we must do this within the next 12 years or we are all doomed.

Dave

 

[martin-w 3,252]

Quote

are the measured CO2 levels from thousands of years ago accurate,

 

Proxy data from thousands of years ago from ice cores, corals, pollen, tree rings, ocean and lake sediments for example, is something I've previously addressed, I recall to you, in this thread. As I said before... individual proxy data isn't 100% reliable. This is why scientists pay attention to multiple proxies to provide a more accurate representation of historical climate. Proxies are used more for guidelines and trends. And trend is the important consideration. For a more accurate picture look at the instrumental temperature record.

 

Quote

are the temperature measurements from that same period accurate? 

 

Yes, accurate enough to provide data regarding the trend. What isotope levels? Which proxy or proxies are you talking about? Again, proxies are considered as multiple proxy data. 

 

Quote

Why do I continue to make this point about past climate data?  Because the relatively rapid warming we have seen over the past 100 years could have happened in the past, which would destroy the argument that only man-made CO2 emissions have caused the warming. 

 

No it wouldn't destroy the argument. Again, as I have said multiple times but you keep ignoring. None of the causal factors responsible for past warming are present now. Scientists are EXPERTS not fools, this is their job, their expertise, they know what they are doing, and have considered all manner of causal factors for present warming. They have considered ocean currents, volcanism (which cools) solar activity and all other causal factors. They are scientists, its what they do! 

And again... like I said before... Our CO2 is identifiable because it has a different ISOTOPIC COMPOSITION! So we KNOW it's our CO2 that's the issue. Sorry for caps, just trying to emphasis because I keep having to say the same thing repeatedly. 

 

Quote

I do not believe that the 1-1.5 degree C increase in temperature is solely due to man-made activity.

 

You are entitled to an opinion, but as you have hardly any understanding of the science, your opinion has a very low probability of being valid. 

And NO, science does not say that its SOLELY due to mankind, science says most of it is. Again, read my previous reply regarding it's isotopic signature. Not to mention basic chemistry, basic physics we have known about since the 18th century. I keep telling you that we have understood that our emissions can warm the planet for a VERY long time, its' NOT NEW. 

Were Joseph Fourier in 1824 and John Tyndall in 1861 and Svante Arrhenius in 1996 all trying to steal your taxes too??? Even the fossil fuel industry now agrees, are they in on the ginormous conspiracy along with the scientists and politicians too? 

 

Quote

There are too many variables, too many unknowns, where the earth's climate is concerned.  It cannot be modeled perfectly, especially over long time spans.

 

Dave, I'm having to repeat myself over and over again. You just keep ignoring me and keep claiming the same thing.

Again.. YES, where climate is concerned there is considerable variability. But that variability is manifest over the short term, or as short term peaks and troughs over the long term. This is why climatologists look at average temperature globally over the long term. That way variability is eliminated as you are looking at the overall trend. Peaks and troughs aren't important, we need to see where the average trend is taking us. 

 

Quote

You simply cannot know for certain what the exact temperature or CO2 level was in an area thousands or even hundreds of years ago.

 

We don't need to. We only need approximations. When we look at those approximations over the long term we get a predicted trend. Climatologist include error parameters within those approximations. 

 

Quote

So yes, scientists do bend the truth when they feel they need to.

 

Of course they do. Scientist are human beings, and from time to time dodgy ones appear. Obviously. But literally thousands of climate change scientists worldwide, and historically going back to scientists in the 18th century, have not all got together and faked literally thousands of peer reviewed papers. That David is a ridiculous premise.  Climate science is replicated, repeated by completely different teams, and they are all coming to the same conclusion. They are not all criminals responsible for theft of taxes and fraudulent research.

I have addressed the notion that scientists are ALL lying numerous times now and like most climate change deniers you are offering zero counter arguments to the points I am raising. I'm also having to repeat the same things over and over again. 

 

Quote

I do not agree that we must do this within the next 12 years or we are all doomed.

 

We wont be ALL doomed. However... in certain low lying parts of the world people are suffering NOW. Not to mention those suffering the impact of increasing wildfires, flooding, droughts etc. What will happen is that the longer we leave it, the longer we procrastinate, the more certain our fate becomes. 

https://theyearsproject.com/learn/news/right-here-right-now/

 

Again... The data that generated the graph below hasn't been made up for a laugh, or by hundreds of scientists all colluding to steal your cash. And they didn't go back in time to 1896and ask Svante Arrhenius to join it too. 😁

 

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

 

[dave2013 1,142]

10 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Dave, I'm having to repeat myself over and over again. You just keep ignoring me and keep claiming the same thing.

Because you keep making the same fallacious arguments and quoting a number of unreliable, and biased, sources.

This source for example: https://theyearsproject.com/learn/news/right-here-right-now

That article is full of hyperbole.  Much of the content is based on articles cobbled together from several biased, left-wing sources: CBS News, New York Times, and Slate magazine.

I love debating, but I grow weary of it.  I was supposed to quit this a couple weeks ago. 

If you really believe all the climate change hype and doomsday predictions, then I advise you to prepare accordingly.  If you also believe that giving trillions more in taxes to corrupt governments will fix the problem then I am sorry that you are so naive.

Dave

 

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

When I was a little kid I had a complete collection of the Golden guides to Nature, which were little paperback books on topics like trees, birds, weather etc.. Almost 60 years later, I still have most of them.

In the Golden Guide to Weather which the first edition was in the 1950s, there is a matter of fact discussion of the greenhouse effect and how CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa were increasing due to human activities.

https://www.etsy.com/listing/826221806/vintage-weather-guide-golden-nature

It makes me laugh when the neo-Luddites continue to dispute this connection. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

[HighBypass 2,339]

... meanwhile in Japan...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCzHpvAoYRY

Waiting for Sakurajima to get violent...

[LHookins 3,108]

Remember Smokey the Bear?  "Remember, only YOU can prevent forest fires."

I think global warming needs a similar spokesperson.  Perhaps a snowflake would be appropriate.  Susy Snowflake says, "Remember, only YOU can prevent global warming."

🙂

Hook