How real are the threats of global warming?

Aviation Trivia, Jokes & Humour

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by sampie » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:23 am

The great global warming swindle is just one typical example of many used by corrupted politicians to spread their lies.
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debunked:

vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 808
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 20 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by vanjast » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:08 am

User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by sampie » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:21 am

Ivar Gaeviar is known for trying to cause confusion umongst the public, yet another typical denier grasping at straws:
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 808
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 20 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by vanjast » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:03 am

If his 'simplistic' evidence in that video is false, then I might agree.
But if it's true...well.. of course he's a 'troublemaker' for telling the truth. :lol:

.. and why must we believe, just another attitude video from someone with a dislike to someone else.
This person is playing the person and not the ball - he's already lost the argument :wink:
User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by sampie » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:42 am

All he is using the very same tactic used by the oil industry and the tobacco industry,

He tries to mislead the public by telling them the change in temperature on the earth has little to no impact on the earth, trying to bring doubt into the measuring process clearly shows his willingness to confuse and cast doubt in what has been proven by repeated scientific measurements to be the truth.
Everything he questions has an easy counter by actual scientists, he could easily ask those scientists and clear any confusion he has and get the truth, but instead he cherry picks and engages in strawman tactics.
Last edited by sampie on Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by sampie » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:44 am

vanjast wrote:
.. and why must we believe, just another attitude video from someone with a dislike to someone else.
This person is playing the person and not the ball - he's already lost the argument :wink:
There is no argument to lose, because he is telling the truth, and explains that Ivar misleads the public and what he does to do it, everyone deserves to know the truth. If there is someone that is not playing the ball it is Ivar. :wink:
dany
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1910
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:07 am
Closest Airfield: moscow
Location: Moscow/Africa
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 13 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by dany » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:53 am

At this stage mother nature is throwing a curve ball at mankind in the form of massive energy release from deep inside earth. Absolute nothing mankind can do about. With seismic activity, we just passengers. We can change as much carbon we want, if plates decide its time to go,that is just what it will do. Wait for the vulcanoes to join in on the fun, then the pollution mankind create will be absolute nothing compared. Just saying. If one really follow those who actually study this for a living, then one would say we in a period where all hell can broke loose tomorrow. There is jumps in the cycle pattern from calm to bad, and then calm again till the next step. We right in the beginning of a step and a step can be anything from less then 50 years to a thousand years. What many believe right now,is one or two massive vulcano eruptions. The problem is, with all the quacks it is difficult to establish where and when and how many. Things need to calm down a little for more accurate sensing.
Since the beginning of the year, all of Iceland showed a drastic increase in seismic activity, Costa Rica vulcanos woke up. Anbd it is time to study and go back into the solar history to pin point where we are in between extreme or peak activity. The results if frighntning but also exciting,as we might just be lucky to wittness some mayor events and live to tell. The next cycle might wipe all out,tomorrow, thousand years from now,or thousands of years from now. Right around the world, all eyes is on each and every seismic monitoring system,from private ameteur to the most expensive and complicated.
Last edited by dany on Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Triaan
Take off Clearance
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 36 times
Been liked: 19 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by Triaan » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:08 pm

The burning of Fossil fuels is a major player in climate change.

The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than is present in the atmosphere or oceans. Some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Volcanic emissions are a small but important part of the global carbon cycle. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Mörner and Etiope and Kerrick report a range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 34 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.

Volcanoes can—and do—influence the global climate over time periods of a few years but this is achieved through the injection of sulfate aerosols into the high reaches of the atmosphere during the very large volcanic eruptions that occur sporadically each century.
dany
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1910
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:07 am
Closest Airfield: moscow
Location: Moscow/Africa
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 13 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by dany » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:35 pm

Not pointing at you but rather some scientists and specially social media.Why is everbody,s mind clamped around CO2.?
Mayor eruptions bring a million times deadlier compounds to the table, release pressure on plates and earthquakes and sunami,s is the result. How many people was killed in the last 50 years by CO2 and whatever,compared to the results of earth quakes, vulcano,s. Oops, I foget, the oppertunity to make money from that is not very much. Hmmmm.
Triaan
Take off Clearance
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 36 times
Been liked: 19 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by Triaan » Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:28 pm

Not disputing what you say with regards to earthquakes, it's true earthquakes are devestating for sure. Climate change is a gradual build up.
Already influencing the climate and will be devestating should it get completely out of control, that is something we have more control over if everyone works together. Earthquakes combined with an uncontrolled climate will make things even worse however.

As for making money

Spending on Climate Science is barely a drop in the ocean compared to the triliions upon trillions upon trillions filthy oil made through the decades.
Mouser
Airspeed active
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 1:31 pm
Closest Airfield: King Shaka
Location: Durban
Has liked: 72 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by Mouser » Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:41 am

I do a little bit of technical (engineering not scientific) work in the "climate change" industry (CDM); switched from "global warming" when that was not so clear. Two comments:

The man made problem is not just CO2 but "greenhouse gases". For example methane (CH4) is adjudged to be 25 times (it used to be 21) worse than CO2 (the equivalence) and with "destruction of methane" (burning it) you end up with CO2. Other gases have their factors and say, nitrous oxide is 298 times worse than CO2.

Then, being involved in the process since 2007 and a bit before, I was exposed to some debate between essentially opposite factions, which often had vested interests. The only one that stood out was two UK "scientists" (guys with science education and experience rather than engineering) who were largely independent being involved in emissions unrelated to climate change. In the mid 2000's one was very sceptical, the other ambivalent. They both now broadly believe climate change to be happening, that it's effects will be harsh and that "man" should try something to slow it.
User avatar
V5 - LEO
Six Tousand
Six Tousand
Posts: 6277
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:18 pm
Closest Airfield: FYWH
Location: Namibia
Has liked: 85 times
Been liked: 82 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by V5 - LEO » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:13 am

Mouser wrote: Other gases have their factors and say, nitrous oxide is 298 times worse than CO2.
......txs, now I know why I never liked these street racer kind of persons .... :twisted:
In God I trust. The masses are never right, the minority are sometimes right, but the truth is always right.
“One good teacher in a lifetime may sometimes change a delinquent into a solid citizen.” — Philip Wylie
dany
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1910
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:07 am
Closest Airfield: moscow
Location: Moscow/Africa
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 13 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by dany » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:35 am

Climate change is for real(Earth go through cycles),been like that for hundreds of millions of years, what is WRONG, is to make money out of it and turn a blind eye to the reality of what mankind is doing. To save money sewage is dumped into the ocean, to save cost on waste, rubbish is dumped in the ocean. To make money in basicly forcing the person onthe street with laws that is written around climate change and make him beleive that LIFE will end tomorrow if he she they do not do as the law makers say.The media is used to chase the man on the street in a corner and the rest of the bad is hidden away from reality.

Nobody talk about the mining process for minerals to produce solar panels.(Show me a big yellow machine that can run on batteries or solar--- Wonder how big the battery pack would be to run a Cat D11). And also not the damage to the environment.
For years nobody really believed the story of tsunamis. Till they strike and noiw the West coast of the USA all of a sudden is going to get a early warning system. From the very same people that say it will never happen..

Nevermind stores,open your own cupboards in the house,garage and see what you purchase in the form of chemicals and think where it ends up. Look at all the poison sold to the public on general stores, with nobody there to give expert advice. All is about money. That is PROBLEM NUMBER ONE. Stop destroying forests for wood, these plants need CO2. That is how mother earth operate. Harvest/generate methane,scrub and feed the CO2 to plants--- the tiny problem we have here,is that the man on the street can use methane cheaply and IT WILL IMPACT THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM. Big NO NO. WHY,simple, somebody going to loose making money,the sale of LP GAS will drop. To prevent that, sell the idea to mankind that METHANE is evil.CO2 is evil. Yet plants live on it. How stupid or shorti sighted must one be not to understand this. Look how the farming industry changed. From the outside. No more small abbatoirs where the farmer can sell his product at random . There is now a middle man as controller to earn money. Simple example,take the price of on the hoof and end supermarket price. Where is that money going. To make that work, the greedy need to impliment laws to make that happen. Try putting up a tunnel now in your yard, and see how many hoops you need to jump through. You think it is not a for a reason.
User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by sampie » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:04 am

dany wrote:Climate change is for real(Earth go through cycles),been like that for hundreds of millions of years....
This quote has been used by many climate skeptics and deniers.

Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

Abrupt vs slow change:

Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.

But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today.

Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change.

So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.
User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by sampie » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:06 am

dany wrote:Stop destroying forests for wood, these plants need CO2. That is how mother earth operate. Harvest/generate methane,scrub and feed the CO2 to plants.....sell the idea to mankind that METHANE is evil.CO2 is evil. Yet plants live on it. How stupid or shorti sighted must one be not to understand this.
An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.

However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.

It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this, 'skeptics' make their claims of benefical botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops.

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements.

What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general?

1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).

On the other hand, as predicted by climate research, we are experiencing more intense storms with increased rainfall rates throughout much of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately when rain falls in short, intense bursts it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of soil and fertilizer.

2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons, particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted. Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the price of food.

3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.

4. As is confirmed by long-term experiments, plants with exhorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit

5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows.

6. Likely the worst problem is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. Unfortunately it does not follow that soil conditions will necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.

In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of climate change.

Added CO2 will likely shrink the range available to plants while increasing the size of deserts. It will also increase the requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant damage from insects.

Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses.
dany wrote:....is to make money out of it and turn a blind eye to the reality of what mankind is doing.
Exactly what oil an their corrupted empire has been doing for decades.
Last edited by sampie on Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “123.45”