1989worstyear
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:51 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Aviation deals with this the way it deals with making sales: competing directly on the economics. Boeing and Airbus planes keep getting more efficient with every iteration and every new frame. The fuel efficiency drives down costs AND emissions, so it's a self-regulating industry from that standpoint.

Sustainable jet fuel is also 1% more efficient per liter and lighter per liter than refined Jet 1A, so as we bring more fuel-producing algae online, we can convert CO2 back into jet fuel very efficiently.

And, yes, eventually, we'll have carbon-saltwater batteries so energy-dense we'll be able to run hybrid engines over long distances efficiently. Don't know if TPAC will ever be possible, but domestically and TATL? Definitely.


Constantly warming-over decades-old designs (737, A320) is not going to get us to the point we need to be at. More investment is needed in clean sheet designs that incorporate the latest technology and, like you said, in alternate fuels.

However, I don't fault Boeing and Airbus in this case - they are simply listening what their airline customers want. I'm afraid when "the market" wakes up it'll be too late for this industry.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:11 pm

Slide wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
blockski wrote:

Well, no. The IPCC's reports are quite clear - we have to get to Net Zero emissions fast. That 8% of global emissions has to get to zero (on net), or we won't be able to limit warming to 2 degrees C.

Yes, it's true that other sources emit more carbon, but that's also irrelevant - we need to reduce emissions from all sources (as well as find ways to go negative on emissions - methods that don't currently exist).



None of this is true, of course. Human civilization has emerged in a relatively narrow and stable climate, and we've dramatically changed that with our own emissions. And we know that our current path of emissions will continue to dramatically change the planet. The planet itself will be just fine, but human civilization is at extraordinary risk.

The IPCC has put out their estimates of the carbon budget; we need to have global emissions peak in 2020 (next year!) and then drop by 66% from 2010 levels by 2050. And that still produces 2 degrees C of warming, with drastic consequences. We're no where near meeting that target. Exceed that budget, and we'll face much greater warming.


The IPCC's reports conveniently leave out the fact the upper troposphere is already cooling thanks to the next x-thousand-year cooler solar cycle. It also conveniently leaves out the fact no one has found any statistically significant oceanic warming. And did we forget that while one pole has ice receding, the other is growing much faster?

We are by no means in any immediate danger on this, not even on the scale of 200 years. Plant plenty of trees, enforce a certain percentage of greenery in any new residential city planning or road construction, and let aviation regulate itself as it already does. In fact, as I pointed out above, one of the biggest barriers to carbon reduction is, ironically, the regulators themselves. Get rid of the Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) standard, bring in opposed piston engines, get them scaled up for farming equipment after they make it into cars, and get a much more comprehensive climate report done at that point.

Bill Gates and others have developed methods of sucking CO2 right out of the air and returning Oxygen with relatively low electricity requirements, so yes, the methods exist.

I didn't realize humanity has only been alive 20,000 years... Our genetic ancestors go back tens of millions of years, through the last little ice age to a time when, yes, we had more than double the CO2 in the air at sea level and lived just fine. CO2 is a relatively harmless greenhouse gas too. High-altitude water vapor has much more drastic effects, demonstrated most notably by the shutdown of U.S. airspace in the wake of 9/11, when temperatures suddenly spiked by 2-3F all around the country due to, yes, lack of contrails.

Humanity also survives in a multitude of conditions from the freezing Swiss Alps to the 45-50C Australian and Indian deserts. We are more than capable of surviving in a warmer climate than we have today. If it's uncomfortable for you, go improve building codes and insulate the way the Swiss, Swedish, and Norwegians do. You won't have to run your air conditioner much more than an hour a day under the Aussie Sun if you do.

Also, there is no scientific study which has survived peer review which claims humanity's activity has had any significant effect on the climate cycle. While it IS almost universally agreed that greenhouse gases cause a net warming effect, and it IS universally agreed that we have been on a warming trend all through the industrial revolution, there is NO consensus, not even a plurality belief that humans are the primary cause. Every time a volcano erupts we get 4x as much CO2 and CFCs pumped into the air as an entire year of human activity.

The only sane approach is adding carbon sinks, not stopping human activity, and letting markets which would normally be competing on efficiency do so unimpeded. Get the regulators out of the way of the automotive industry (Mercedes and Achades both want to launch their own OPEs and have since 2000, but can't because of DEF), let the aviation industry continue its ongoing tooth and nail fight to have the most efficient planes in the sky, and come to grips with the fact economic activity must continue, else you wind up with global poverty.


This is completely incorrect with respect to the global scientific consensus on climate change. It is driven by human activity and its implications are catastrophic: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The question is not whether humans can survive in a warmer climate. Obviously, we physically can do so. The catastrophic danger is to the systems and environments that modern society is built upon. Fisheries and agricultural zones will change dramatically. Sea level changes will affect major population centers and industrial zones. Extreme weather events will become more commonplace. These effects threaten the very basic processes and systems that society depends upon - food, safety, stability.

Life on this planet does not require a climate that *never changes*, it requires a climate that is *stable over long periods of time*. Human activity has created extreme short-term instability in the climate, and that is the catastrophic problem that it poses.


The IPCC and NOAA have both been caught cooking the books when it comes to their data, and there are hundreds of thousands of scientists saying humanity is responsible for under 10% at the end of the day.
https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake- ... te-change/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/col ... ation.html

We have seen less than 0.1C in actual oceanic warming in the last 15 years. We are not in any danger on this, and we're about to enter a long solar cooling cycle anyway while the northern hemisphere is greening at rates not seen in 200 years. The oceans MIGHT rise by 10cm in the next century with even the latest NOAA data, and that'll be largely offset by desalination plants in Australia and Africa as they attempt to expand farming deeper into the outbacks and deserts to address their underfed populations and support agricultural trade with China on top of the expanding Antarctic ice. We, are, fine.

No one is denying that climate change is happening and that we are contributing to it, but we are far from the main driver, and the science backs this up despite the agenda in Brussels and at the U.N.. It's all about government takeover, not solutions, and certainly not truth. If you wanted to stop climate change for real, you'd be researching how to prevent volcanic eruptions.
Last edited by patrickjp93 on Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:15 pm

1989worstyear wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Aviation deals with this the way it deals with making sales: competing directly on the economics. Boeing and Airbus planes keep getting more efficient with every iteration and every new frame. The fuel efficiency drives down costs AND emissions, so it's a self-regulating industry from that standpoint.

Sustainable jet fuel is also 1% more efficient per liter and lighter per liter than refined Jet 1A, so as we bring more fuel-producing algae online, we can convert CO2 back into jet fuel very efficiently.

And, yes, eventually, we'll have carbon-saltwater batteries so energy-dense we'll be able to run hybrid engines over long distances efficiently. Don't know if TPAC will ever be possible, but domestically and TATL? Definitely.


Constantly warming-over decades-old designs (737, A320) is not going to get us to the point we need to be at. More investment is needed in clean sheet designs that incorporate the latest technology and, like you said, in alternate fuels.

However, I don't fault Boeing and Airbus in this case - they are simply listening what their airline customers want. I'm afraid when "the market" wakes up it'll be too late for this industry.


You want radical clean-sheet designs and want them now? Did the 737 MAX rush job not teach us anything? Grounding planes is pointless to combat climate change when we have much bigger fish to fry. The main driver in airframe efficiency today is better engines, and as we know from GE and RR, you can't speed those efforts up. In fact as a computer scientist myself, I'll tell you right now there's a mathematical law of scaling up ANY effort that says you run into negative scaling very early on the more people you throw at a problem. The only way you don't is somehow have zero overhead of communication or synchronization.

Amdahl's Law. https://youtu.be/B3b4tremI5o?t=2957 Takes about 5 minutes to watch the important part.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:47 pm

And then there's this little gem where the climate scientists can't actually find any warming yet and a leading physicist points out observations have not at all validated the models from the last 10 years, as well as a lot of alarm is being incorrectly generated by using surface temperature probes which are being overly influenced by growing cities, aka the Heat Island Effect.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:42 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Slide wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:

The IPCC's reports conveniently leave out the fact the upper troposphere is already cooling thanks to the next x-thousand-year cooler solar cycle. It also conveniently leaves out the fact no one has found any statistically significant oceanic warming. And did we forget that while one pole has ice receding, the other is growing much faster?

We are by no means in any immediate danger on this, not even on the scale of 200 years. Plant plenty of trees, enforce a certain percentage of greenery in any new residential city planning or road construction, and let aviation regulate itself as it already does. In fact, as I pointed out above, one of the biggest barriers to carbon reduction is, ironically, the regulators themselves. Get rid of the Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) standard, bring in opposed piston engines, get them scaled up for farming equipment after they make it into cars, and get a much more comprehensive climate report done at that point.

Bill Gates and others have developed methods of sucking CO2 right out of the air and returning Oxygen with relatively low electricity requirements, so yes, the methods exist.

I didn't realize humanity has only been alive 20,000 years... Our genetic ancestors go back tens of millions of years, through the last little ice age to a time when, yes, we had more than double the CO2 in the air at sea level and lived just fine. CO2 is a relatively harmless greenhouse gas too. High-altitude water vapor has much more drastic effects, demonstrated most notably by the shutdown of U.S. airspace in the wake of 9/11, when temperatures suddenly spiked by 2-3F all around the country due to, yes, lack of contrails.

Humanity also survives in a multitude of conditions from the freezing Swiss Alps to the 45-50C Australian and Indian deserts. We are more than capable of surviving in a warmer climate than we have today. If it's uncomfortable for you, go improve building codes and insulate the way the Swiss, Swedish, and Norwegians do. You won't have to run your air conditioner much more than an hour a day under the Aussie Sun if you do.

Also, there is no scientific study which has survived peer review which claims humanity's activity has had any significant effect on the climate cycle. While it IS almost universally agreed that greenhouse gases cause a net warming effect, and it IS universally agreed that we have been on a warming trend all through the industrial revolution, there is NO consensus, not even a plurality belief that humans are the primary cause. Every time a volcano erupts we get 4x as much CO2 and CFCs pumped into the air as an entire year of human activity.

The only sane approach is adding carbon sinks, not stopping human activity, and letting markets which would normally be competing on efficiency do so unimpeded. Get the regulators out of the way of the automotive industry (Mercedes and Achades both want to launch their own OPEs and have since 2000, but can't because of DEF), let the aviation industry continue its ongoing tooth and nail fight to have the most efficient planes in the sky, and come to grips with the fact economic activity must continue, else you wind up with global poverty.


This is completely incorrect with respect to the global scientific consensus on climate change. It is driven by human activity and its implications are catastrophic: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The question is not whether humans can survive in a warmer climate. Obviously, we physically can do so. The catastrophic danger is to the systems and environments that modern society is built upon. Fisheries and agricultural zones will change dramatically. Sea level changes will affect major population centers and industrial zones. Extreme weather events will become more commonplace. These effects threaten the very basic processes and systems that society depends upon - food, safety, stability.

Life on this planet does not require a climate that *never changes*, it requires a climate that is *stable over long periods of time*. Human activity has created extreme short-term instability in the climate, and that is the catastrophic problem that it poses.


The IPCC and NOAA have both been caught cooking the books when it comes to their data, and there are hundreds of thousands of scientists saying humanity is responsible for under 10% at the end of the day.
https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake- ... te-change/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/col ... ation.html


There are not hundreds of thousands of scientists saying this at all; you've presented two links, both to opinion pieces, both of which present no actual evidence and are just garden variety, anti-science climate denial.

We have seen less than 0.1C in actual oceanic warming in the last 15 years. We are not in any danger on this, and we're about to enter a long solar cooling cycle anyway while the northern hemisphere is greening at rates not seen in 200 years. The oceans MIGHT rise by 10cm in the next century with even the latest NOAA data, and that'll be largely offset by desalination plants in Australia and Africa as they attempt to expand farming deeper into the outbacks and deserts to address their underfed populations and support agricultural trade with China on top of the expanding Antarctic ice. We, are, fine.


We certainly warming in the last 15 years; I suspect the reference to 15 years (and not a longer timeframe) is an example of how to lie with data - a common trope of climate deniers.

Image

Also - desalinization doesn't do anything to stop sea level rise...

No one is denying that climate change is happening and that we are contributing to it, but we are far from the main driver, and the science backs this up despite the agenda in Brussels and at the U.N.. It's all about government takeover, not solutions, and certainly not truth. If you wanted to stop climate change for real, you'd be researching how to prevent volcanic eruptions.


You seem to be in denial about the basic physics of climate change. The basic chemistry of the greenhouse effect is quite simple and undisputed; likewise, the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere perfectly matches the amount of carbon humans have put into the air since we started burning fossil fuels at large scale. We, humans, are absolutely the main drivers of this change. That is not in doubt, nor is it in dispute. And to argue otherwise is to absolutely be in denial.

This matters to aviation, of course, because it's energy intensive and relies on fossil fuels. Even if nothing is done to reduce emissions, aviation will be dramatically disrupted by the economic shocks of a warming world, not to mention the weather changes, impacts on low-lying airports, etc.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3700
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:50 pm

Well, I guess we’ll see how warming works out then. Can’t wait!

Anything thing is “not in doubt, not in dispute” sounds more faith-based than science.

GF
Last edited by GalaxyFlyer on Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:52 pm

blockski wrote:

We certainly warming in the last 15 years; I suspect the reference to 15 years (and not a longer timeframe) is an example of how to lie with data - a common trope of climate deniers.

Image

Also - desalinization doesn't do anything to stop sea level rise...

No one is denying that climate change is happening and that we are contributing to it, but we are far from the main driver, and the science backs this up despite the agenda in Brussels and at the U.N.. It's all about government takeover, not solutions, and certainly not truth. If you wanted to stop climate change for real, you'd be researching how to prevent volcanic eruptions.


You seem to be in denial about the basic physics of climate change. The basic chemistry of the greenhouse effect is quite simple and undisputed; likewise, the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere perfectly matches the amount of carbon humans have put into the air since we started burning fossil fuels at large scale. We, humans, are absolutely the main drivers of this change. That is not in doubt, nor is it in dispute. And to argue otherwise is to absolutely be in denial.

This matters to aviation, of course, because it's energy intensive and relies on fossil fuels. Even if nothing is done to reduce emissions, aviation will be dramatically disrupted by the economic shocks of a warming world, not to mention the weather changes, impacts on low-lying airports, etc.


Those weren't opinion pieces they were assertions by actual Nobel-winning authorities on the matter. Skeptical Science is using surface temperature readings which, as pointed out by the authority in that second link, are known to distort those measurements. The oceanic and weather satellites have found next to nothing in terms of warming up over the last few decades. Hence why the first link specifically references the data NOAA was proved to have cooked, which was the basis for the report we're all panicking over. The assertion has not withstood peer review, not once.

The "deniers" are generally the ones with more comprehensive data and command of the underlying physics. And as stated in that second article, there's a 1999 study which proved CO2 comes AFTER warming of the planet and has historically done so for millions of years. Correlation is not causation, and CO2 levels rising from HUMAN activity pales in comparison to what we've gotten from volcanic eruptions in the last 100 years. It's a pittance.

Now, to get back to the core of the thread's question, aviation deals with it through their standard competitive practices, nothing more nor less, as we already have the best minds for the job working on it with economic incentive underneath. Go deal with the much bigger problems first.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/ ... l-records/

Links to the source paper are inside, along with a direct callout to the UN to retract its latest report due to faulty data gathering.

From the paper:
"The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor."
 
Slide
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:23 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Well, I guess we’ll see how warming works out then. Can’t wait!

Anything thing is “not in doubt, not in dispute” sounds more faith-based than science.

GF


To continue to deny human-driven climate change in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is certainly an awful kind of faith.
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:25 pm

I don't know what to tell you - if someone could actually disprove this stuff, they'd win an actual Nobel prize. The reason they haven't is because there's nothing to disprove.

The articles you've linked are from Selyn Duke, a freelance conservative journalist; Christopher Booker, another journalist know for previous work skeptical of the links between cigarette smoking, asbestos, and cancer; and Tim Ball, a retired professor who hasn't taught since 1996 - and is a straight-up climate denier. None of them are Nobel winners.

Likewise, the idea that CO2 comes after warming makes no sense, and requires us to simply disregard basic chemistry. CO2 is a byproduct of combustion. Unless you think all that jet fuel we burn doesn't actually combust, I don't know what else to say.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3700
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:38 pm

Slide wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Well, I guess we’ll see how warming works out then. Can’t wait!

Anything thing is “not in doubt, not in dispute” sounds more faith-based than science.

GF


To continue to deny human-driven climate change in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is certainly an awful kind of faith.


I’m not confirming or denying, just saying we’re not gonna do anything substantive about it especially over the next 12 months to contain “peak” CO2 in 2020.

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

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:48 pm

blockski wrote:
I don't know what to tell you - if someone could actually disprove this stuff, they'd win an actual Nobel prize. The reason they haven't is because there's nothing to disprove.

The articles you've linked are from Selyn Duke, a freelance conservative journalist; Christopher Booker, another journalist know for previous work skeptical of the links between cigarette smoking, asbestos, and cancer; and Tim Ball, a retired professor who hasn't taught since 1996 - and is a straight-up climate denier. None of them are Nobel winners.

Likewise, the idea that CO2 comes after warming makes no sense, and requires us to simply disregard basic chemistry. CO2 is a byproduct of combustion. Unless you think all that jet fuel we burn doesn't actually combust, I don't know what else to say.


Oh for God's sake, look at the papers being cited in the articles. All, Nobel, winners.

In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation. The significance of these observations are (sic) therefore ignored. At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.


The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.


Gas is trapped in polar ice at depths of ~50–120 m and is therefore significantly younger than the ice in which it is embedded. The age difference is not well constrained for slowly accumulating ice on the East Antarctic Plateau, introducing a significant uncertainty into chronologies of the oldest deep ice cores.


It is reasonable to say that virtually all potential diagnoses are eliminated by the removal of annual variation, but especially the sequence of events. Notice that the overall atmospheric average of CO2 is different, approximately 260 ppm to 300 ppm. This is a difference that the IPCC claim took us from about 50% CO2 control of global temperature in 1950 to 95% + today.


In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average. In their analysis, they took into account uncertainties about the carbon cycle, the rate of ocean heat uptake and the climate sensitivity but did not consider one important uncertainty: the size of the emission. Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries.


So the IPCC has not been able to address why it is that we have repeatedly proven CO2 rises AFTER temperatures increase, and we still don't even know what caused the end of the last ice age.

And no, it does not require we ignore basic chemistry, because no one has even measured CO2's effect in pure isolation, and even the original work linking the two had people on the actual research teams fighting over whether CO2 had any effect at all given most of what they measured involved the effects of water vapor.

You attempting to shut down the debate purely because of who wrote a given article is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. No one has come anywhere close to proving that CO2 from mans activity drives climate change, and the IPCC ignores data left and right to make its case.
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 8:51 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
blockski wrote:
I don't know what to tell you - if someone could actually disprove this stuff, they'd win an actual Nobel prize. The reason they haven't is because there's nothing to disprove.

The articles you've linked are from Selyn Duke, a freelance conservative journalist; Christopher Booker, another journalist know for previous work skeptical of the links between cigarette smoking, asbestos, and cancer; and Tim Ball, a retired professor who hasn't taught since 1996 - and is a straight-up climate denier. None of them are Nobel winners.

Likewise, the idea that CO2 comes after warming makes no sense, and requires us to simply disregard basic chemistry. CO2 is a byproduct of combustion. Unless you think all that jet fuel we burn doesn't actually combust, I don't know what else to say.


Oh for God's sake, look at the papers being cited in the articles. All, Nobel, winners.


Selective cherry picking in a blog post is not an article citation. That's propaganda, not science.


So the IPCC has not been able to address why it is that we have repeatedly proven CO2 rises AFTER temperatures increase, and we still don't even know what caused the end of the last ice age.


Yes, it has - the simple answer is that the study that 'repeatedly proves' CO2 rises after warming is a) looking at data from 20,000 years ago, coming out of an ice age - not based on CO2 emissions; and b) still shows that CO2 greatly amplifies warming.

And no, it does not require we ignore basic chemistry, because no one has even measured CO2's effect in pure isolation, and even the original work linking the two had people on the actual research teams fighting over whether CO2 had any effect at all given most of what they measured involved the effects of water vapor.


No one has measured CO2's effect in isolation because that's not relevant to the impact on the climate. It is relevant to our use of fossil fuels, however - because of the basic chemistry of combustion. We know we're burning lots of fossil fuels. We know that produces CO2. We know CO2 levels are rising dramatically. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know the greenhouse effect will warm the planet. We know all of these very basic things, and we're seeing exactly what the basic science would predict, just at a first approximation.

You attempting to shut down the debate purely because of who wrote a given article is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. No one has come anywhere close to proving that CO2 from mans activity drives climate change, and the IPCC ignores data left and right to make its case.


I'm not shutting down any debate, I'm just letting you know (and the board) that no one is actually debating the basic point here, any more than they're debating the earth's orbit around the sun.

"Proof" is not something that science does. Science is a method of collecting evidence and building knowledge. And all of the evidence we have says that human activity is indeed the cause of climate change.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:02 pm

There is no study continually showing that CO2 drives temperatures, and in fact we have not 1, but 2, that no one contests and in fact no one likes to discuss, that show CO2 historically has risen following the end of ice ages, has FOLLOWED rises in global temperatures. We do not have a single study today showing causation by CO2 increases of temperature increases, not one. The IPCC doesn't have one. No one has one.

We actually don't even know if CO2 is a GHG. See the 1999 paper and derivative works. No one has been able to measure CO2 as a standalone GHG and prove it is one. It has always had its effects conflated with water vapor in testing to the point that it's statistically nonexistent, and no one has shown the Climate Sensitivity of CO2 is significant either. There are SUGGESTIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS that the models are too conservative (even though measurements don't agree with the models), but no evidence.

No, the evidence does not suggest this and you can't cite any studies that have survived peer review suggesting otherwise. The IPCC is being propped up by intellectually weak people at large. The evidence isn't there.
 
DFW17L
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 2:53 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:06 am

I’m still waiting for global food shortages (was told this during grade school in the 60s). I’m still waiting to freeze during the coming ice age (“settled” science during middle school in the 70s). De-forestation from acid rain in the 80s (in college now). Global warming in the 90s to the present. What have I learned? I’ve learned not to deny, but to ask lots and lots of questions.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3700
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:59 am

DFW17L wrote:
I’m still waiting for global food shortages (was told this during grade school in the 60s). I’m still waiting to freeze during the coming ice age (“settled” science during middle school in the 70s). De-forestation from acid rain in the 80s (in college now). Global warming in the 90s to the present. What have I learned? I’ve learned not to deny, but to ask lots and lots of questions.


I’ve learned to treat anything pronounced by authority with deep skepticism and look for an underlying motive. Also, stay away from anyone telling me they’re just trying to save me.

The weaker the data available upon which to base one's conclusion, the greater the precision which should be quoted in order to give the data authenticity.


Norm Augustine
 
Slide
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:59 am

Seems to me that asking lots and lots of questions would lead you to researching and reading all of the prominent and readily available science on the matter, which would present any common reader with a lick of sense overwhelming and compelling evidence that climate change is happening rapidly, we are causing it, and we must do something about it to avoid catastrophic consequences.

Being a skeptic is important and everyone should do it. Denying reality in the face of hard evidence isn't skepticism, it's outright stupidity.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3700
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:26 am

As I’ve said before, when I see the scientists, the politicians, the public acting like climate warming is a threat, I’ll believe it. They haven’t, period. I’m not doubting your case, just that no one is acting in accordance with the facts. I am very skeptical because the data is squishy, the people arguing for action have clear motivations other than assessing change and have been found to cool the books.

Crying wolf by saying “if we don’t next year, it’s catastrophic” hasn’t changed anything in 15 years.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:47 pm

Slide wrote:
Seems to me that asking lots and lots of questions would lead you to researching and reading all of the prominent and readily available science on the matter, which would present any common reader with a lick of sense overwhelming and compelling evidence that climate change is happening rapidly, we are causing it, and we must do something about it to avoid catastrophic consequences.

Being a skeptic is important and everyone should do it. Denying reality in the face of hard evidence isn't skepticism, it's outright stupidity.


Then post some sources and see how long it takes me to either rip the studies/experiments to shreds on my own (did this plenty when reviewing students' Masters Theses before releasing for wider peer review in college) OR find a slightly older/newer study/experiment that contradicts them, analyze it, and reply with it and why I believe Y over X.

I'm a studious academic myself and have a LOT of patience for reading, something which others on here, some claiming being "conservative" is a disqualifier for having valid scientific opinions or inputs, probably can't match.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:01 pm

recommendation: don't argue with flat-earthers, anti-vaccinationers, evolution/climate deniers. Best put them on 'ignore' list.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:18 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
There is no study continually showing that CO2 drives temperatures, and in fact we have not 1, but 2, that no one contests and in fact no one likes to discuss, that show CO2 historically has risen following the end of ice ages, has FOLLOWED rises in global temperatures. We do not have a single study today showing causation by CO2 increases of temperature increases, not one. The IPCC doesn't have one. No one has one.


We have lots of studies, actually - again, this is basic atmospheric chemistry.

Instead, you're cherrypicking some findings from a paper about ice core climate data from 20,000 years ago and completely taking it out of context - the hallmark of the deniers.

We actually don't even know if CO2 is a GHG. See the 1999 paper and derivative works. No one has been able to measure CO2 as a standalone GHG and prove it is one. It has always had its effects conflated with water vapor in testing to the point that it's statistically nonexistent, and no one has shown the Climate Sensitivity of CO2 is significant either. There are SUGGESTIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS that the models are too conservative (even though measurements don't agree with the models), but no evidence.


For someone insisting that you're not denying the science, you seem to deny a lot of the very basic science!

No, the evidence does not suggest this and you can't cite any studies that have survived peer review suggesting otherwise. The IPCC is being propped up by intellectually weak people at large. The evidence isn't there.


The evidence is all around us, it is overwhelming and conclusive.

to believe your theory requires us to a) disregard all of the available evidence and science, and b) believe that a massive global conspiracy is doing this. It's absurd - what you're suggesting makes 9/11 truthers look sane by comparison.
 
extender
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:52 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:45 pm

The climate hype has been around for more than 50 years. The magnitude in which people are reacting to it is beyond belief. The sky is not falling, at least not yet. We're not at "Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea" yet.

Commercial aviation has made some significant strides in reducing emissions, and there are other sectors that should be more pressing.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:40 pm

blockski wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
There is no study continually showing that CO2 drives temperatures, and in fact we have not 1, but 2, that no one contests and in fact no one likes to discuss, that show CO2 historically has risen following the end of ice ages, has FOLLOWED rises in global temperatures. We do not have a single study today showing causation by CO2 increases of temperature increases, not one. The IPCC doesn't have one. No one has one.


We have lots of studies, actually - again, this is basic atmospheric chemistry.

Instead, you're cherrypicking some findings from a paper about ice core climate data from 20,000 years ago and completely taking it out of context - the hallmark of the deniers.

We actually don't even know if CO2 is a GHG. See the 1999 paper and derivative works. No one has been able to measure CO2 as a standalone GHG and prove it is one. It has always had its effects conflated with water vapor in testing to the point that it's statistically nonexistent, and no one has shown the Climate Sensitivity of CO2 is significant either. There are SUGGESTIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS that the models are too conservative (even though measurements don't agree with the models), but no evidence.


For someone insisting that you're not denying the science, you seem to deny a lot of the very basic science!

No, the evidence does not suggest this and you can't cite any studies that have survived peer review suggesting otherwise. The IPCC is being propped up by intellectually weak people at large. The evidence isn't there.


The evidence is all around us, it is overwhelming and conclusive.

to believe your theory requires us to a) disregard all of the available evidence and science, and b) believe that a massive global conspiracy is doing this. It's absurd - what you're suggesting makes 9/11 truthers look sane by comparison.


If it's basic chemistry then I'd be able to find an example equation of how CO2 presence and pressure insulates against thermal drafts (aka the Greenhouse Effect). I can't find one, and that's because no one has ever measured it and proved CO2 is a GHG to begin with. Find me "A" source.

And it's hardly absurd to suggest it's a conspiracy given what the green industries would gain if we just jumped right into their arms. The same goes for power-hungry governmental forces.

No one has yet demonstrated sustained warming as caused by CO2 emissions, and the thermal satellite imaging that we have going back multiple decades hasn't found a shred of warming either. Go find an analysis of satellite imagery saying otherwise. Ground surface sensors are subject to the Heat Island Effect and are not accurate enough to be used for this claim.
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:46 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
blockski wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
There is no study continually showing that CO2 drives temperatures, and in fact we have not 1, but 2, that no one contests and in fact no one likes to discuss, that show CO2 historically has risen following the end of ice ages, has FOLLOWED rises in global temperatures. We do not have a single study today showing causation by CO2 increases of temperature increases, not one. The IPCC doesn't have one. No one has one.


We have lots of studies, actually - again, this is basic atmospheric chemistry.

Instead, you're cherrypicking some findings from a paper about ice core climate data from 20,000 years ago and completely taking it out of context - the hallmark of the deniers.

We actually don't even know if CO2 is a GHG. See the 1999 paper and derivative works. No one has been able to measure CO2 as a standalone GHG and prove it is one. It has always had its effects conflated with water vapor in testing to the point that it's statistically nonexistent, and no one has shown the Climate Sensitivity of CO2 is significant either. There are SUGGESTIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS that the models are too conservative (even though measurements don't agree with the models), but no evidence.


For someone insisting that you're not denying the science, you seem to deny a lot of the very basic science!

No, the evidence does not suggest this and you can't cite any studies that have survived peer review suggesting otherwise. The IPCC is being propped up by intellectually weak people at large. The evidence isn't there.


The evidence is all around us, it is overwhelming and conclusive.

to believe your theory requires us to a) disregard all of the available evidence and science, and b) believe that a massive global conspiracy is doing this. It's absurd - what you're suggesting makes 9/11 truthers look sane by comparison.


If it's basic chemistry then I'd be able to find an example equation of how CO2 presence and pressure insulates against thermal drafts (aka the Greenhouse Effect). I can't find one, and that's because no one has ever measured it and proved CO2 is a GHG to begin with. Find me "A" source.


Well, let's start with the basics: you've incorrectly described the greenhouse effect. It's not about trapping convective heat (e.g. thermal drafts) which is how an actual greenhouse works - it's instead about radiative heating. If you'd like sources, please start here - there are lots of them to choose from: https://skepticalscience.com/empirical- ... vanced.htm

And it's hardly absurd to suggest it's a conspiracy given what the green industries would gain if we just jumped right into their arms. The same goes for power-hungry governmental forces.


It is literally absurd. The story you're proposing is that certain green industries are concocting a massive scam and misinformation campaign on a worldwide scale in order to... do something? Absurd.

Not to mention that the conspiracy requires you to ignore all of the physical evidence (rising CO2 levels, rising temperatures) and basic knowledge (how burning gas creates CO2).

If you want to be a denier, so be it. But please don't deny that you're a denier! Don't deny that you don't trust the scientific consensus.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:57 pm

blockski wrote:
Well, let's start with the basics: you've incorrectly described the greenhouse effect. It's not about trapping convective heat (e.g. thermal drafts) which is how an actual greenhouse works - it's instead about radiative heating. If you'd like sources, please start here - there are lots of them to choose from: https://skepticalscience.com/empirical- ... vanced.htm

And it's hardly absurd to suggest it's a conspiracy given what the green industries would gain if we just jumped right into their arms. The same goes for power-hungry governmental forces.


It is literally absurd. The story you're proposing is that certain green industries are concocting a massive scam and misinformation campaign on a worldwide scale in order to... do something? Absurd.

Not to mention that the conspiracy requires you to ignore all of the physical evidence (rising CO2 levels, rising temperatures) and basic knowledge (how burning gas creates CO2).

If you want to be a denier, so be it. But please don't deny that you're a denier! Don't deny that you don't trust the scientific consensus.


Self-contradicting source. Excellent, and it barely cites any primary sources either.

The increased greenhouse effect is also confirmed by NASA's IRIS satellite and the Japanese Space Agency's IMG satellite observing less longwave leaving the Earth's atmosphere.


No, the IRIS satellite did not confirm the GHE this way, because not only did the Earth not warm (again, no long-term satellite imaging study has found rising temperatures, only surface temperature probe studies show this, and there's been numerous accounts that the data is being cooked to focus only on the heat islands of major cities to make the data look good for the climate alarmists), but there's been less solar radiation bombarding the Earth since the mid-70s anyway, so less long-wave return radiation is within expectation (and notice they're avoiding citing the numbers on this, unlike the sources I gave you). We're entering a solar cooling cycle, and the upper troposphere cooling off is the first effect of this. A rather mild Australian summer this year is also attributed to this, as the ozone above Australia is known to be thin, hence the UV index near-always being extreme in Queensland. So if the GHG effect of CO2 were to be so bad, the first signs of it would be in Australia and at the poles.

To you it's not absurd that the oil companies are colluding in conspiracy to discredit climate alarmism in order to keep lining their own pockets.

To me it's not absurd that the green industry investors want to fraudulently line THEIR own pockets on the back of the alarmism.

And in at least one anecdotal example of this playing out on taxpayers' backs: Solyndra.
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:59 pm

extender wrote:
The climate hype has been around for more than 50 years. The magnitude in which people are reacting to it is beyond belief. The sky is not falling, at least not yet. We're not at "Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea" yet.

Commercial aviation has made some significant strides in reducing emissions, and there are other sectors that should be more pressing.


Here's the thing, though - and it's what makes climate change such a wicked problem to solve. The sky won't ever fall. Instead, it's the boiling frog metaphor - and humans are both the frog and the ones who turned on the stove. By the time it's obvious that the sky is falling, it's too late to do anything to stop it.

Likewise, the 'hype' around the actual science was never wrong. Had we (as a society) heeded James Hansen's warnings when he testified 30 years ago, we'd only need to reduce emissions by 3% a year - reasonable. Since then, we've done nothing to reduce emissions, we need to reduce emissions by 10% a year starting right now.

Like the rest of the economy, commercial aviation hasn't done a thing to reduce emissions. They've increased efficiency, but overall emissions are still going up. Reducing emissions and increasing efficiency are not the same thing.
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:03 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
blockski wrote:
Well, let's start with the basics: you've incorrectly described the greenhouse effect. It's not about trapping convective heat (e.g. thermal drafts) which is how an actual greenhouse works - it's instead about radiative heating. If you'd like sources, please start here - there are lots of them to choose from: https://skepticalscience.com/empirical- ... vanced.htm

And it's hardly absurd to suggest it's a conspiracy given what the green industries would gain if we just jumped right into their arms. The same goes for power-hungry governmental forces.


It is literally absurd. The story you're proposing is that certain green industries are concocting a massive scam and misinformation campaign on a worldwide scale in order to... do something? Absurd.

Not to mention that the conspiracy requires you to ignore all of the physical evidence (rising CO2 levels, rising temperatures) and basic knowledge (how burning gas creates CO2).

If you want to be a denier, so be it. But please don't deny that you're a denier! Don't deny that you don't trust the scientific consensus.


Self-contradicting source. Excellent, and it barely cites any primary sources either.

The increased greenhouse effect is also confirmed by NASA's IRIS satellite and the Japanese Space Agency's IMG satellite observing less longwave leaving the Earth's atmosphere.


No, the IRIS satellite did not confirm the GHE this way, because not only did the Earth not warm (again, no long-term satellite imaging study has found rising temperatures, only surface temperature probe studies show this, and there's been numerous accounts that the data is being cooked to focus only on the heat islands of major cities to make the data look good for the climate alarmists), but there's been less solar radiation bombarding the Earth since the mid-70s anyway, so less long-wave return radiation is within expectation (and notice they're avoiding citing the numbers on this, unlike the sources I gave you). We're entering a solar cooling cycle, and the upper troposphere cooling off is the first effect of this. A rather mild Australian summer this year is also attributed to this, as the ozone above Australia is known to be thin, hence the UV index near-always being extreme in Queensland. So if the GHG effect of CO2 were to be so bad, the first signs of it would be in Australia and at the poles.

To you it's not absurd that the oil companies are colluding in conspiracy to discredit climate alarmism in order to keep lining their own pockets.

To me it's not absurd that the green industry investors want to fraudulently line THEIR own pockets on the back of the alarmism.

And in at least one anecdotal example of this playing out on taxpayers' backs: Solyndra.


Look, it's simple. Who should I trust on the science? NASA, the IPCC, and virtually every single climate scientist alive? Or you, some guy on a.net? That's an easy answer from me.

You're not even going in on the complexity of the climate models or the uncertainty of projections and forecasts. Instead, you're both arguing that a) the warming isn't real, and b) CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. This is flat earth stuff.

Let me ask you this: do you think smoking cigarettes increases risk of lung cancer? Why or why not?
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:26 pm

blockski wrote:
Look, it's simple. Who should I trust on the science? NASA, the IPCC, and virtually every single climate scientist alive? Or you, some guy on a.net? That's an easy answer from me.

You're not even going in on the complexity of the climate models or the uncertainty of projections and forecasts. Instead, you're both arguing that a) the warming isn't real, and b) CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. This is flat earth stuff.

Let me ask you this: do you think smoking cigarettes increases risk of lung cancer? Why or why not?


You should develop your own individual acuity on statistics and scientific experiment so you don't have to TRUST either, but be able to interrogate them. The scientists often contradict each other; and a lot of people, myself included, will continue calling them on it. The models are nowhere close to lining up with reality, not even on trends. Of course fine-grained temporal matching is an unreasonable ask, but the models are not even able to reproduce the past given the data we have, and they're also not matching the measurements we take every day.

There's little need to go in on the complexity of models that aren't being validated by the measured data in any significant way. There are also over 20 recognized models, and they all have widely disparate results, NONE of which are being validated by many months and years of measurements.

Yes smoking cigarettes increases risk of lung cancer, because we know the combustion of tobacco laced with Arsenic introduces carcinogens directly into the mucus membranes of the mouth and lungs, and we know with very high precision and accuracy the cellular processes that lead to cancer. We DO NOT have that scientific maturity with the climate, not even the weather.

If the models were correct we'd have hundreds of articles showing they are. NOAA got caught faking data to make their model seem right, and no one else is claiming to have the silver bullet model yet.
 
User avatar
exFWAOONW
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:30 pm

blockski wrote:
extender wrote:
The climate hype has been around for more than 50 years. The magnitude in which people are reacting to it is beyond belief. The sky is not falling, at least not yet. We're not at "Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea" yet.

Commercial aviation has made some significant strides in reducing emissions, and there are other sectors that should be more pressing.


Here's the thing, though - and it's what makes climate change such a wicked problem to solve. The sky won't ever fall. Instead, it's the boiling frog metaphor - and humans are both the frog and the ones who turned on the stove. By the time it's obvious that the sky is falling, it's too late to do anything to stop it.

Likewise, the 'hype' around the actual science was never wrong. Had we (as a society) heeded James Hansen's warnings when he testified 30 years ago, we'd only need to reduce emissions by 3% a year - reasonable. Since then, we've done nothing to reduce emissions, we need to reduce emissions by 10% a year starting right now.

Like the rest of the economy, commercial aviation hasn't done a thing to reduce emissions. They've increased efficiency, but overall emissions are still going up. Reducing emissions and increasing efficiency are not the same thing.
so you don’t burn less and emit less as efficiency goes up? Keep drinking the kool-aid.
Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:56 pm

exFWAOONW wrote:
blockski wrote:
extender wrote:
The climate hype has been around for more than 50 years. The magnitude in which people are reacting to it is beyond belief. The sky is not falling, at least not yet. We're not at "Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea" yet.

Commercial aviation has made some significant strides in reducing emissions, and there are other sectors that should be more pressing.


Here's the thing, though - and it's what makes climate change such a wicked problem to solve. The sky won't ever fall. Instead, it's the boiling frog metaphor - and humans are both the frog and the ones who turned on the stove. By the time it's obvious that the sky is falling, it's too late to do anything to stop it.

Likewise, the 'hype' around the actual science was never wrong. Had we (as a society) heeded James Hansen's warnings when he testified 30 years ago, we'd only need to reduce emissions by 3% a year - reasonable. Since then, we've done nothing to reduce emissions, we need to reduce emissions by 10% a year starting right now.

Like the rest of the economy, commercial aviation hasn't done a thing to reduce emissions. They've increased efficiency, but overall emissions are still going up. Reducing emissions and increasing efficiency are not the same thing.
so you don’t burn less and emit less as efficiency goes up? Keep drinking the kool-aid.


If you don't fly more, then no. But we're flying a lot more, hence overall emissions keep rising.

This is not a new observation by any means - look up Jevon's Paradox.

For an aviation example, take a look at this: https://www.easa.europa.eu/eaer/system/ ... pdf#page=9

In Europe, between 2005 and 2017, average fuel consumption on flights decreased by 24%. That's good! But passenger kms increased by 60% in the same time span, meaning overall GHG emissions increased 16%.

To actually address climate change, we need the overall emissions numbers to go down, and go down dramatically. It's true that other sectors of the economy are better candidates to go carbon-free, but aviation cannot be exempt from the overall task.
 
User avatar
exFWAOONW
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:33 am

The only chance this boondoggle ingratiates itself into aviation is ground handling equipment. If a battery on a tug runs down, no one dies. Anywhere else, the risk is unacceptable.
Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:38 am

blockski wrote:
If you don't fly more, then no. But we're flying a lot more, hence overall emissions keep rising.

This is not a new observation by any means - look up Jevon's Paradox.

For an aviation example, take a look at this: https://www.easa.europa.eu/eaer/system/ ... pdf#page=9

In Europe, between 2005 and 2017, average fuel consumption on flights decreased by 24%. That's good! But passenger kms increased by 60% in the same time span, meaning overall GHG emissions increased 16%.

To actually address climate change, we need the overall emissions numbers to go down, and go down dramatically. It's true that other sectors of the economy are better candidates to go carbon-free, but aviation cannot be exempt from the overall task.

But the fact also remains that only India and China are rising markets at this point. Past that, the populations of Europe, the U.S.A., Japan, Korea, and even China have largely stabilized. We are plateauing on how many new routes open up and how many planes get chucked into the air per day. With the 787 and A350, we're also flying all but the top 2% of longest viable routes in the world. Just as with the days of piracy, the edges of the map are being filled in as we speak, so if we get another 24% reduction between 2017 and 2029, we'll have had a net 11% fall, which seems highly likely given the 707, 717, 737 NG-, 747-400-, 757, 767, 777-2/300, A300, A310, A320 CEO, A330 CEO, A340, A380, MD-11, MD-80, CRJs, Embraer E1s, and Fokkers get taken offline.

If someone could bring me the retirement schedules from the major world airlines that go out to 2030, I'd be happy to run the numbers on how much emissions would go down by the opening of 2030, but it's pretty obvious we're shedding a lot of gas-guzzling planes worldwide, at a higher rate than before as fuel prices continue climbing with no roof in sight.

And aviation isn't exempt, but it's already headed that way under its own steam and doesn't need artificial interference.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sun Sep 29, 2019 3:11 pm

The goal for most citizens and leading industrialists is for more and better mobility. And likewise more efficient, cheaper, better use of energy. There is a scientific and technical path so that more and more of the world's people can have it all. Aviation is one of the really important sectors. Its energy use is a matter of concern. Much of the answer is better and more efficient ground transportation. And as well better building efficiency for lighting, heating, and cooling. It is happening.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
extender
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:52 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:36 am

Blockski's posts are reminiscent of Greta's outburst in front of the UN. You keep scolding people, people are going to turn their backs and go about their business. After you posted that the engine manufacturer's have done nothing to reduce emissions, you became another Chicken Little.
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Mon Sep 30, 2019 2:40 pm

extender wrote:
Blockski's posts are reminiscent of Greta's outburst in front of the UN. You keep scolding people, people are going to turn their backs and go about their business. After you posted that the engine manufacturer's have done nothing to reduce emissions, you became another Chicken Little.


I didn't say they haven't done anything to reduce emissions. But the numbers do not lie. Emissions continue to rise! They have not actually lowered emissions.

Also, I'm not sure how Chicken Little is relevant. The fable of Chicken Little is that the chicken has an acorn drop on her head and thinks the sky is falling. Of course, there's not an actual threat of the sky falling.

Climate change is an actual threat. The science is crystal clear on this. Now, if you want to argue that 'scolding' is not the best way to get people to acknowledge the threat, fine. But don't pretend that the threat isn't real.

To actually address the problem, the world needs to reduce emissions, and we need to reduce emissions fast. Yet, emissions continue to rise rapidly.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3700
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:17 pm

Muddling through is a time-honored plan and that’s what’ll happen with climate change.

blockski,

Don’t you see the problem here—you believe and perhaps current science tells us that GHG have to be reduced by large amounts quickly, but 7 billion people aren’t going to change direction on an historical dime. Where there is democratic voting, voters aren’t going pay a large bill today in taxes and standard of living for a potential and questionable payout later, maybe after they’re dead. Good luck with that
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:28 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Muddling through is a time-honored plan and that’s what’ll happen with climate change.

blockski,

Don’t you see the problem here—you believe and perhaps current science tells us that GHG have to be reduced by large amounts quickly, but 7 billion people aren’t going to change direction on an historical dime. Where there is democratic voting, voters aren’t going pay a large bill today in taxes and standard of living for a potential and questionable payout later, maybe after they’re dead. Good luck with that


Of course. And like I said, this is what makes it a particularly difficult problem to solve.

But saying this straight up is honest. Denial of the science is not, and simply pretending that the risks aren't there is really stupid, for a variety of reasons.

So, if we're not going to do enough to reduce emissions so that we stay below 2 degrees C, then we'd better be preparing for the consequences. And rather than do that, I see far too many people still in denial about the nature of the problem.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:56 pm

blockski wrote:
extender wrote:
Blockski's posts are reminiscent of Greta's outburst in front of the UN. You keep scolding people, people are going to turn their backs and go about their business. After you posted that the engine manufacturer's have done nothing to reduce emissions, you became another Chicken Little.


I didn't say they haven't done anything to reduce emissions. But the numbers do not lie. Emissions continue to rise! They have not actually lowered emissions.

Also, I'm not sure how Chicken Little is relevant. The fable of Chicken Little is that the chicken has an acorn drop on her head and thinks the sky is falling. Of course, there's not an actual threat of the sky falling.

Climate change is an actual threat. The science is crystal clear on this. Now, if you want to argue that 'scolding' is not the best way to get people to acknowledge the threat, fine. But don't pretend that the threat isn't real.

To actually address the problem, the world needs to reduce emissions, and we need to reduce emissions fast. Yet, emissions continue to rise rapidly.


Rapidly? No. And as I said we'll be at (largely) critical mass in aviation once the Chinese and Indian economies and markets develop, which is probably around 2035. We'll have launched the lion's share of thin P2P routes by then thanks to the latest narrowbodies and 797. That'll tear some capacity off the 747s and A380s flying today, and those affected routes will be gauged down to the 777X, A350/NEO, 787/NG, and A330 NEO (2?) depending on which is the most appropriate craft for the mission. The world population is not growing much. Most developed nations are barely meeting replacement rates, and the ones that aren't, such as Japan, are welcoming more immigration to keep their economic machines whirring. That will slow down population growth in the less-developed nations too. So yes, we have a negative feedback system already in place that's going to make aviation emissions level off and then start decreasing, but the truth is the economic and social damage you'd have to wreak to simply ground so many planes to meet targets is probably enormous and even incalculable.

Aviation is fine. It's handling itself. Qantas and Air New Zealand will start using Sustainable Aviation Fuel from 2020 and 2022 onward for a number of their long-range operations (Qantas is focusing on LAX as their launch point for the 787s and A380s) while replacing their 737 NGs with Maxes in the coming years for largely the same routes flying today. The other airlines will follow suit, as that's how they compete: price to fly. And as the prices fall and more people want to fly, we'll naturally run into the slot limits of airports around the world. LHR, CDG, FRA, SYD, HKG, HND, JFK, EWR, LAX, and SFO basically have no slots left, so that function of negative feedback is coming into play as well.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:36 pm

Airports are investing in electrolytic tech to produce fuel on-site from CO2 as well, though based on the Conservation of Energy and Law of Entropy, I'm not sure that's actually going to reduce net emissions much.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49725741
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:46 pm

Oh, and though the news was buried, there was a group of 500 scientists and engineers who signed a declaration to the UN that there is no climate emergency and that warming has been much slower than predicted by any model we have.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... no-emerge/
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:19 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Oh, and though the news was buried, there was a group of 500 scientists and engineers who signed a declaration to the UN that there is no climate emergency and that warming has been much slower than predicted by any model we have.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... no-emerge/


So what? These denialists have every opportunity to actually disprove the science. They haven't done so because they're wrong. They're also an exceedingly small minority. These folks didn't get any attention because there's nothing worth noting about their petition. They are appropriately dismissed from regular news outlets just as 9/11 truthers aren't given front-page billing on the anniversary of 9/11, and for the same reasons that the media doesn't give anti-vaccine activists free reign to push their misinformation.

The IPCC operates by consensus. Peer reviewed science is already a slow process, and the IPCC's recommendations are an even more conservative estimate of the risks we face.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:27 pm

blockski wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Oh, and though the news was buried, there was a group of 500 scientists and engineers who signed a declaration to the UN that there is no climate emergency and that warming has been much slower than predicted by any model we have.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... no-emerge/


So what? These denialists have every opportunity to actually disprove the science. They haven't done so because they're wrong. They're also an exceedingly small minority. These folks didn't get any attention because there's nothing worth noting about their petition. They are appropriately dismissed from regular news outlets just as 9/11 truthers aren't given front-page billing on the anniversary of 9/11, and for the same reasons that the media doesn't give anti-vaccine activists free reign to push their misinformation.

The IPCC operates by consensus. Peer reviewed science is already a slow process, and the IPCC's recommendations are an even more conservative estimate of the risks we face.


They're the ones ASKING the IPCC to address their evidence, and they keep getting refused. That's the whole point of their declaration to the UN. The alarmists are quashing debate.
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:51 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
blockski wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Oh, and though the news was buried, there was a group of 500 scientists and engineers who signed a declaration to the UN that there is no climate emergency and that warming has been much slower than predicted by any model we have.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... no-emerge/


So what? These denialists have every opportunity to actually disprove the science. They haven't done so because they're wrong. They're also an exceedingly small minority. These folks didn't get any attention because there's nothing worth noting about their petition. They are appropriately dismissed from regular news outlets just as 9/11 truthers aren't given front-page billing on the anniversary of 9/11, and for the same reasons that the media doesn't give anti-vaccine activists free reign to push their misinformation.

The IPCC operates by consensus. Peer reviewed science is already a slow process, and the IPCC's recommendations are an even more conservative estimate of the risks we face.


They're the ones ASKING the IPCC to address their evidence, and they keep getting refused. That's the whole point of their declaration to the UN. The alarmists are quashing debate.


There's a similar reason the media didn't cover the group asking the 'cover both sides' of the debate whether the earth is round.

They make six specific points. Most are so vague as to be meaningless. But let's take them in turn:

· “Nature as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming”

good news! The IPCC agress. Nothing to debate here.

· “Warming is far slower than predicted”

Well, no. Not true. See:
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-earth-qui ... imate.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... predicted/

· “Climate policy relies on inadequate models”

a) No, it doesn't, and b) the specificity of the models is irrelevant to the basic goal - reducing GHG emissions. The very basic equation is simple: we need to stop the rise of GHGs to control warming at a reasonable level, and the only way to do that is to reduce emissions.

It's a simple risk management strategy.

· Carbon dioxide is “plant food, the basis of all life on Earth”

Yes, and the IPCC would agree. So what?

· “Global warming has not increased natural disasters”

Ok. Let's stipulate this is true. So what? It's not like people are saying "climate change is totally fine except for the increase in natural disasters." Are they going to even define what a "natural disaster" is?

· “Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities”

Ok? This is a meaningless demand. It's the kind of obfuscation someone throws out to sound smart while they're trying to slow things down.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:40 pm

blockski wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
blockski wrote:

So what? These denialists have every opportunity to actually disprove the science. They haven't done so because they're wrong. They're also an exceedingly small minority. These folks didn't get any attention because there's nothing worth noting about their petition. They are appropriately dismissed from regular news outlets just as 9/11 truthers aren't given front-page billing on the anniversary of 9/11, and for the same reasons that the media doesn't give anti-vaccine activists free reign to push their misinformation.

The IPCC operates by consensus. Peer reviewed science is already a slow process, and the IPCC's recommendations are an even more conservative estimate of the risks we face.


They're the ones ASKING the IPCC to address their evidence, and they keep getting refused. That's the whole point of their declaration to the UN. The alarmists are quashing debate.


There's a similar reason the media didn't cover the group asking the 'cover both sides' of the debate whether the earth is round.

They make six specific points. Most are so vague as to be meaningless. But let's take them in turn:

· “Nature as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming”

good news! The IPCC agress. Nothing to debate here.

· “Warming is far slower than predicted”

Well, no. Not true. See:
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-earth-qui ... imate.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... predicted/

· “Climate policy relies on inadequate models”

a) No, it doesn't, and b) the specificity of the models is irrelevant to the basic goal - reducing GHG emissions. The very basic equation is simple: we need to stop the rise of GHGs to control warming at a reasonable level, and the only way to do that is to reduce emissions.

It's a simple risk management strategy.

· Carbon dioxide is “plant food, the basis of all life on Earth”

Yes, and the IPCC would agree. So what?

· “Global warming has not increased natural disasters”

Ok. Let's stipulate this is true. So what? It's not like people are saying "climate change is totally fine except for the increase in natural disasters." Are they going to even define what a "natural disaster" is?

· “Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities”

Ok? This is a meaningless demand. It's the kind of obfuscation someone throws out to sound smart while they're trying to slow things down.


Both of your sources on warming use surface temperature probes which are known to be biased.

The models ARE inadequate. They are nowhere close to aligning with the data we have. Now, I know you don't believe ME on that, but let's give them the platform to prove it out in the open.

"Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities” is not meaningless at all. We are not nuking aviation and automotive industry in the name of stopping global warming, especially given the lack of evidence we have. We do not have the scientific capability to reach peak CO2 emissions by next year, and we need to approach the problem with level heads and honest proposals.
 
extender
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:52 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:35 am

Denialists. Ok Chicken Little, if you don't agree with your brand of science, you're a denialist. You're the kind of guy that makes me go burn tires on Earth Day.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2307
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:43 am

In the medium term blended fuel stocks with renewable kerosene-type fuels. Say 20/80 going to 25/75 to 33/67 to 50/50 and beyond. That doesn't solve the CO2 and NOx output problem really. I think even with all this scaremongering we're here to see kerosene-cut-powered jetliners for the foreseeable future. Meaning 100 years or more.
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:59 pm

Pellegrine wrote:
In the medium term blended fuel stocks with renewable kerosene-type fuels. Say 20/80 going to 25/75 to 33/67 to 50/50 and beyond. That doesn't solve the CO2 and NOx output problem really. I think even with all this scaremongering we're here to see kerosene-cut-powered jetliners for the foreseeable future. Meaning 100 years or more.


That would depend on our method of producing renewables. I don't think the electrolysis+refining methods will be nearly as effective as harvesting from GMO crops/algae. At least the latter purely uses sunlight as the catalyst for the breakdown and synthesis reactions, whereas electricity can come from any number of sources.
 
lazyme
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:57 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:45 pm

Drawing of the temperature of northern hemisphere during last 2000 years
Image

It was about same temperature as viking age we have now, and it was much warmer in Greenland compared with now.
Then came global cooling on a number of occasions,

What cooled it down again and again ?
Will that cooling happen again ? - yes most likely.

Should we care to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere? yes definitely - for a number of reasons, but don't make CO2 the only reason the world is warming up and cooling down.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:37 pm

lazyme wrote:
Drawing of the temperature of northern hemisphere during last 2000 years
Image

It was about same temperature as viking age we have now, and it was much warmer in Greenland compared with now.
Then came global cooling on a number of occasions,

What cooled it down again and again ?
Will that cooling happen again ? - yes most likely.

Should we care to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere? yes definitely - for a number of reasons, but don't make CO2 the only reason the world is warming up and cooling down.


I know Google Image Search makes things easier nowadays, but posting direct links is always appreciated in debates. With aviation I think the much more pressing pollutant to reduce is NOx, because it has negative health effects in any quantity.

We're entering a 5000-year solar cooling cycle. By the time we reach the far side of it, we'll either be flying all-electric planes/rockets over our oceans or using teleporters. In the meanwhile, plant more trees since we need to replace the O2 generation capacity of the Amazon anyway.
 
blockski
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:47 pm

lazyme wrote:
Drawing of the temperature of northern hemisphere during last 2000 years
Image

It was about same temperature as viking age we have now, and it was much warmer in Greenland compared with now.
Then came global cooling on a number of occasions,

What cooled it down again and again ?
Will that cooling happen again ? - yes most likely.

Should we care to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere? yes definitely - for a number of reasons, but don't make CO2 the only reason the world is warming up and cooling down.


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.
 
lazyme
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:57 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:20 pm

Sorry,link below, in previous post I made the editor ate the link up.

http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2013/0 ... en/graf-3/

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: skywalker92 and 29 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