patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:46 pm

blockski wrote:
No one - absolutely no one - is saying that CO2 is the only reason the world is warming. However, this chart (from a 2010 paper - https://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjar ... -years.pdf ) is not claiming that the temperatures in the past were the same, so everything is fine. It's also a paper focused solely on the historical record. We know how much we've changed the atmosphere since we started burning fossil fuels. CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 800,000 years (homo sapiens has only been around for the last 300,000 years, btw) was never more than 300 parts per million, and we just shot through 407 ppm.

There's no evidence that the cooling will just happen. Saying 'yes most likely' is a statement completely without evidence.

The broad outlines are all there: we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas; we know we're emitting lots of it; we know this will warm the planet. We expect to see all of these things, and that's exactly what the instrument observations show.


Sorry but Homo Erectus lived in 650 ppm, and there's no evidence to say we'll be in trouble if we reach that point, as long as O2 remains within +/- 10% of where it is today (though, with obesity rates rising we may very well see boatloads of unhealthy people die of asphyxiation at the extreme end of that, which isn't necessarily a bad thing from the evolutionary standpoint). What we really need to watch is where the O2 is going, along with NOx.

There's outstanding evidence that the cooling will "just happen" as readable from my previous sources, directly from the 1999 paper the IPCC keeps trying to bury without counter evidence.
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:35 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
blockski wrote:
No one - absolutely no one - is saying that CO2 is the only reason the world is warming. However, this chart (from a 2010 paper - https://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjar ... -years.pdf ) is not claiming that the temperatures in the past were the same, so everything is fine. It's also a paper focused solely on the historical record. We know how much we've changed the atmosphere since we started burning fossil fuels. CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 800,000 years (homo sapiens has only been around for the last 300,000 years, btw) was never more than 300 parts per million, and we just shot through 407 ppm.

There's no evidence that the cooling will just happen. Saying 'yes most likely' is a statement completely without evidence.

The broad outlines are all there: we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas; we know we're emitting lots of it; we know this will warm the planet. We expect to see all of these things, and that's exactly what the instrument observations show.


Sorry but Homo Erectus lived in 650 ppm, and there's no evidence to say we'll be in trouble if we reach that point, as long as O2 remains within +/- 10% of where it is today (though, with obesity rates rising we may very well see boatloads of unhealthy people die of asphyxiation at the extreme end of that, which isn't necessarily a bad thing from the evolutionary standpoint). What we really need to watch is where the O2 is going, along with NOx.

There's outstanding evidence that the cooling will "just happen" as readable from my previous sources, directly from the 1999 paper the IPCC keeps trying to bury without counter evidence.


No one is concerned about CO2 impacting the breath-ability of the air; they're concerned about the greenhouse effect.

I'm not sure how the lifespan of homo erectus is relevant. We're talking about threats to human civilization, not the idea of supporting life. Homo erectus used rocks as stone tools.

If we hit 650 ppm CO2, we're on track for 4.5 deg C of warming (and this is where we are headed today), the risks of substantial sea level rise, mass extinctions, crop failures, mass migrations from climate refugees - all of these factors will be immensely destabilizing. The US's own National Climate Assessment pegs the economic loss at $280 billion a year in that scenario - that's the Great Recession each and every year.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:48 pm

blockski wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
blockski wrote:
No one - absolutely no one - is saying that CO2 is the only reason the world is warming. However, this chart (from a 2010 paper - https://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjar ... -years.pdf ) is not claiming that the temperatures in the past were the same, so everything is fine. It's also a paper focused solely on the historical record. We know how much we've changed the atmosphere since we started burning fossil fuels. CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 800,000 years (homo sapiens has only been around for the last 300,000 years, btw) was never more than 300 parts per million, and we just shot through 407 ppm.

There's no evidence that the cooling will just happen. Saying 'yes most likely' is a statement completely without evidence.

The broad outlines are all there: we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas; we know we're emitting lots of it; we know this will warm the planet. We expect to see all of these things, and that's exactly what the instrument observations show.


Sorry but Homo Erectus lived in 650 ppm, and there's no evidence to say we'll be in trouble if we reach that point, as long as O2 remains within +/- 10% of where it is today (though, with obesity rates rising we may very well see boatloads of unhealthy people die of asphyxiation at the extreme end of that, which isn't necessarily a bad thing from the evolutionary standpoint). What we really need to watch is where the O2 is going, along with NOx.

There's outstanding evidence that the cooling will "just happen" as readable from my previous sources, directly from the 1999 paper the IPCC keeps trying to bury without counter evidence.


No one is concerned about CO2 impacting the breath-ability of the air; they're concerned about the greenhouse effect.

I'm not sure how the lifespan of homo erectus is relevant. We're talking about threats to human civilization, not the idea of supporting life. Homo erectus used rocks as stone tools.

If we hit 650 ppm CO2, we're on track for 4.5 deg C of warming (and this is where we are headed today), the risks of substantial sea level rise, mass extinctions, crop failures, mass migrations from climate refugees - all of these factors will be immensely destabilizing. The US's own National Climate Assessment pegs the economic loss at $280 billion a year in that scenario - that's the Great Recession each and every year.

The widely cited sea level rise paper that USED to be in Nature (the famous journal, not the magazine) was debunked by a casual mathematician just two weeks after the paper was published and it took Nature a whole year to pull the paper. It was taken out just a couple days ago with a largely muted retraction. It was based on shoddy mathematical work and invalid assumptions.

The two studies being held up as holy grails for the global warming/climate change alarmists have had plenty of evidence surface that their data was tampered with to fit an agenda too. The 20+ climate models we are actively using are woefully inadequate and haven't yet lined up with the data being gathered, not even close.

No one has yet found this supposed warming effect from CO2. 20+ years of satellite imaging and they have found just 0.1*C of warming across the globe, entirely attributed to increased solar activity that is now starting to lull into a 5000-year cooling cycle.
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:20 pm

You keep citing the satellite imaging data, except... it's not true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... e-problem/

The data is also premised on starting in 1998, one of the strongest El Nino years on record, to demonstrate that there's no warming. That's a textbook case of cherrypicking your comparison, when the obvious trend is clear. Same idea as in this graphic:

Image
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:22 pm

[quote="blockski"]You keep citing the satellite imaging data, except... it's not true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... e-problem/

The data is also premised on starting in 1998, one of the strongest El Nino years on record, to demonstrate that there's no warming. That's a textbook case of cherrypicking your comparison, when the obvious trend is clear. Same idea as in this graphic:

However many years we have. Whether it's 20, 30, 40, the data does not find any warming.

The data you're citing is based on ground level temperature probes, not satellites.
Last edited by patrickjp93 on Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:44 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
blockski wrote:
You keep citing the satellite imaging data, except... it's not true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... e-problem/

The data is also premised on starting in 1998, one of the strongest El Nino years on record, to demonstrate that there's no warming. That's a textbook case of cherrypicking your comparison, when the obvious trend is clear. Same idea as in this graphic:

Image


However many years we have. Whether it's 20, 30, 40, the data does not find any warming.

The data you're citing is based on ground level temperature probes, not satellites.


I'm not posting that image to cite the data, I'm posting the image to show how you're cherrypicking data to deny the truth of what's happening. You can also click the link I posted, which notes: "But if you take the entire record, then the trend is 0.123 degrees Celsius per decade."

But, since the image is of ground temperature probes, they clearly show warming. You have to consider all the data - and all of the data sources we have show that the warming is happening.

I honestly don't understand why you (or anyone) is questioning whether the warming is actually happening. It clearly is. The only reason to doubt the instrument record is some kind of denial or motivated reasoning.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:50 pm

blockski wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
blockski wrote:
You keep citing the satellite imaging data, except... it's not true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... e-problem/

The data is also premised on starting in 1998, one of the strongest El Nino years on record, to demonstrate that there's no warming. That's a textbook case of cherrypicking your comparison, when the obvious trend is clear. Same idea as in this graphic:


However many years we have. Whether it's 20, 30, 40, the data does not find any warming.

The data you're citing is based on ground level temperature probes, not satellites.


I'm not posting that image to cite the data, I'm posting the image to show how you're cherrypicking data to deny the truth of what's happening. You can also click the link I posted, which notes: "But if you take the entire record, then the trend is 0.123 degrees Celsius per decade."

But, since the image is of ground temperature probes, they clearly show warming. You have to consider all the data - and all of the data sources we have show that the warming is happening.

I honestly don't understand why you (or anyone) is questioning whether the warming is actually happening. It clearly is. The only reason to doubt the instrument record is some kind of denial or motivated reasoning.


You don't have to consider data sources that have known inaccuracies. Satellite imaging is much more accurate and has found bupkis. Ground temp probe data is biased to the Heat Island Effect and will effectively be over-sampled. Sure, it's good data to inform state, city, and federal governments when planning for city expansion and making sure enough greenery is around to mitigate it, but as for informing global policy on carbon emissions, no, just no.

The warming is not clearly happening. One pole is melting while the other is expanding. The Troposphere is cooling. The oceans have not gotten one iota warmer. The only thing getting warmer is air near cities, and as the Sun becomes less and less active over the next few thousand years, even that won't be a problem. Heck if we enter another mini ice age as we cyclically should in the next hundred years, those hot and bothered cities will become refuges for the freezing suburbans and rural dwellers.
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:18 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
blockski wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:

However many years we have. Whether it's 20, 30, 40, the data does not find any warming.

The data you're citing is based on ground level temperature probes, not satellites.


I'm not posting that image to cite the data, I'm posting the image to show how you're cherrypicking data to deny the truth of what's happening. You can also click the link I posted, which notes: "But if you take the entire record, then the trend is 0.123 degrees Celsius per decade."

But, since the image is of ground temperature probes, they clearly show warming. You have to consider all the data - and all of the data sources we have show that the warming is happening.

I honestly don't understand why you (or anyone) is questioning whether the warming is actually happening. It clearly is. The only reason to doubt the instrument record is some kind of denial or motivated reasoning.


You don't have to consider data sources that have known inaccuracies. Satellite imaging is much more accurate and has found bupkis. Ground temp probe data is biased to the Heat Island Effect and will effectively be over-sampled. Sure, it's good data to inform state, city, and federal governments when planning for city expansion and making sure enough greenery is around to mitigate it, but as for informing global policy on carbon emissions, no, just no.

The warming is not clearly happening. One pole is melting while the other is expanding. The Troposphere is cooling. The oceans have not gotten one iota warmer. The only thing getting warmer is air near cities, and as the Sun becomes less and less active over the next few thousand years, even that won't be a problem. Heck if we enter another mini ice age as we cyclically should in the next hundred years, those hot and bothered cities will become refuges for the freezing suburbans and rural dwellers.


Satellite imaging is not more accurate when measuring either surface or atmospheric temperatures. From that same Washington Post article I posted:

Mears and Benjamin Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, recently co-authored a strong critique of Cruz’s “Data or Dogma” hearing. “Satellites are not a thermometer in space, they’re not making direct measurements of atmospheric temperature, they’re measuring the microwave emissions from oxygen molecules,” Santer said. He cites numerous types of uncertainty associated with satellite temperature data and numerous corrections to it required — such as due to satellites’ orbital drifts — making the entire endeavor a “tough job.”

“There’s over a dozen satellites that you need to string together and each of them have calibration and drift issues that need to be dealt with,” added Gavin Schmidt, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA. “If there’s an issue with any particular satellite or any particular calibration it affects all the temperatures, so it’s much easier to have systematic issues that affect the whole record.”


Likewise, the idea that warming is only found in cities from urban heat islands is also untrue. We have temperature records from non-urban surface locations. We have them from weather balloons. We have them from ocean buoys.

Every comprehensive analysis of all the data shows the warming is clearly happening. Even increased snow/ice at one of the poles is actually consistent with warmer temperatures - you don't get snow accumulation when it's too cold!
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Oct 04, 2019 12:11 pm

blockski wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
blockski wrote:

I'm not posting that image to cite the data, I'm posting the image to show how you're cherrypicking data to deny the truth of what's happening. You can also click the link I posted, which notes: "But if you take the entire record, then the trend is 0.123 degrees Celsius per decade."

But, since the image is of ground temperature probes, they clearly show warming. You have to consider all the data - and all of the data sources we have show that the warming is happening.

I honestly don't understand why you (or anyone) is questioning whether the warming is actually happening. It clearly is. The only reason to doubt the instrument record is some kind of denial or motivated reasoning.


You don't have to consider data sources that have known inaccuracies. Satellite imaging is much more accurate and has found bupkis. Ground temp probe data is biased to the Heat Island Effect and will effectively be over-sampled. Sure, it's good data to inform state, city, and federal governments when planning for city expansion and making sure enough greenery is around to mitigate it, but as for informing global policy on carbon emissions, no, just no.

The warming is not clearly happening. One pole is melting while the other is expanding. The Troposphere is cooling. The oceans have not gotten one iota warmer. The only thing getting warmer is air near cities, and as the Sun becomes less and less active over the next few thousand years, even that won't be a problem. Heck if we enter another mini ice age as we cyclically should in the next hundred years, those hot and bothered cities will become refuges for the freezing suburbans and rural dwellers.


Satellite imaging is not more accurate when measuring either surface or atmospheric temperatures. From that same Washington Post article I posted:

Mears and Benjamin Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, recently co-authored a strong critique of Cruz’s “Data or Dogma” hearing. “Satellites are not a thermometer in space, they’re not making direct measurements of atmospheric temperature, they’re measuring the microwave emissions from oxygen molecules,” Santer said. He cites numerous types of uncertainty associated with satellite temperature data and numerous corrections to it required — such as due to satellites’ orbital drifts — making the entire endeavor a “tough job.”

“There’s over a dozen satellites that you need to string together and each of them have calibration and drift issues that need to be dealt with,” added Gavin Schmidt, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA. “If there’s an issue with any particular satellite or any particular calibration it affects all the temperatures, so it’s much easier to have systematic issues that affect the whole record.”


Likewise, the idea that warming is only found in cities from urban heat islands is also untrue. We have temperature records from non-urban surface locations. We have them from weather balloons. We have them from ocean buoys.

Every comprehensive analysis of all the data shows the warming is clearly happening. Even increased snow/ice at one of the poles is actually consistent with warmer temperatures - you don't get snow accumulation when it's too cold!


It IS more accurate. We have long-established mathematics to deal with this, and the satellites work with higher orbit GPS to ensure they're measuring correctly. The data is self-correcting. Lawrence Livermore is also a huge alarmist nest getting tens of billions just to build computers to analyze biased data, so...

The weather balloon records don't back you up either. The only data being used by the IPCC declarations has been surface temp probes, reason being they're incredibly convenient and easy to bias.
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:35 am

The costs are only going to rise from here: SFO to spend $587m to raise the sea wall around the airport.

http://www.mercurynews.com/sfo-plans-to ... bay-waters
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:37 am

blockski wrote:
The costs are only going to rise from here: SFO to spend $587m to raise the sea wall around the airport.

http://www.mercurynews.com/sfo-plans-to ... bay-waters


A likely unnecessary effort for another 5000 years, but oh well.

If people were serious about controlling Carbon OR the sea levels rising, they'd be investing in nuclear energy and planting hectares of Carbon Sink plants in desserts and investing in drip irrigation and desalination to supply water from the sea while selling the salt for all sorts of purposes. That keeps the greenery out of the way of construction all while cooling down the surface, taking CO2 out of the air, adding O2 back, and withdrawing water from the oceans just as fast as it's melting into it from the glaciers.

The solutions are obvious, simple, and easily achievable. Proof? Israel's orchards.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alias1024, Francoflier and 38 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos