How real are the threats of global warming?

Aviation Trivia, Jokes & Humour

Moderator: Moderators

dany
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1907
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 9:15 am

If it make you happy, then so be it. All I say, we now in a cycle that mankind cannot stop, and what we can stop is ignored, we just passengers while leeching on each other. The signs is there that we need to prepare for a mayor energy release from mother earth. And that energy release might kill millions(anyway, there is way to many people on earth,so time earth take control of itself). Wonder what they will come up next. You need to buy a house that is completely earth quake proof,or be ready to be heavily taxed. It is coming ,mark my words.
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 9:20 am

That i agree with, for change to happen everyone must stand together and actively implement a like minded strategy. It is not easy though i feel that it is possible however hard it may be.
dany
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1907
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 9:46 am





dany
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1907
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 10:09 am

One of the reasons why we came to Africa with business. Our new business in Namibia is all about building material(beside biogas and aquaphonics as well as alternative building processes). Natural building processes. Before, the dressing of rock was extremely expensive as it calls for a large labor force to go commercial. Now rock can be split fast and easy.(soon 200 houses built with natural rock,at around half the price as what they would have been built with normal cement bricks)
Building with rock bring a lot of advantages. Less cement and paint. The price of a brick is not the final cost (brick,then plaster and on top, two or three coats of paint that needs to be redone some years later). Built with rock,and what you see is what you get. No plaster and no paint.). And no more interlocks. do as the romans did, built with cobble stones. We support now three companies that manufacture hydraulic splitting machine.(Video do not want to embed)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB04B7WVcSs&t=19s
User avatar
V5 - LEO
Six Tousand
Six Tousand
Posts: 6245
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:18 pm
Closest Airfield: FYWH
Location: Namibia
Has liked: 84 times
Been liked: 79 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by V5 - LEO » Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:51 am

....hey that guy is wearing down the front teeth more than the rest :D :D Dany where is this build in Namibia gonna take place, would like to drop in and see the quality of workmanship?
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
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 805
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 » Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:06 am

Back to Ivar on a point that all greenies seem to sweep under the carpet... :wink:

Scientific Method ...
As he has no connections to any vested interests, he's free of the economic chains and blackmail, to say what he thinks.

..and he says the scientific methods used to come up with results are flawed - I don't how the greenies have missed this.
Even Nature is suspect nowdays and there are doubts whether it can be used objectively for peer review.

Now if his claim for scientific methods are wrong... where can one find objective counter claims, without activists going moggy in their usual way and militant fake news - this will be an interesting course and I'd love to see it.
:D
User avatar
kudu177
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1876
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:57 pm
Closest Airfield: Rand
Location: Jo'burg
Has liked: 61 times
Been liked: 12 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by kudu177 » Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:32 am

V5 - LEO wrote:....hey that guy is wearing down the front teeth more than the rest :D :D Dany where is this build in Namibia gonna take place, would like to drop in and see the quality of workmanship?
Sure it's not in Nambia? :twisted:
Nav is a good life lesson: pick a point on the horizon and go there
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 11:53 am

vanjast wrote:Back to Ivar on a point that all greenies seem to sweep under the carpet... :wink:

Scientific Method ...
As he has no connections to any vested interests, he's free of the economic chains and blackmail, to say what he thinks.

..and he says the scientific methods used to come up with results are flawed - I don't how the greenies have missed this.
Even Nature is suspect nowdays and there are doubts whether it can be used objectively for peer review.

Now if his claim for scientific methods are wrong... where can one find objective counter claims, without activists going moggy in their usual way and militant fake news - this will be an interesting course and I'd love to see it.
:D
There is nothing "moggy' or 'Fake" about Ivar's ignorance, and about his misunderstanding of the role of the greenhouse effect in climate change. He is not a climate scientist.
As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows.

Ivar himself have shown not to understand even the basics:
We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise

As he admits in his own words, Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever fits this mould perfectly:

"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case."

That quote comes from a presentation Giaever gave to the 62nd Meeting of Nobel Laureates.

For some unknown reason on the subject of climate change. As Giaever notes at the beginning of his talk, he has become more famous for his contrarian views on global warming than for his Nobel Prize, which have made him something of a darling to the climate contrarian movement and climate denial enablers.

His contrarian climate opinions come from a position of extreme ignorance on the subject, as Giaever admits. Giaever personifies the classic stereotype of the physicist who thinks he understands all scientific fields of study.

Accuracy of the Surface Temperature Record:

In his talk, Giaever spent a lot of time criticizing Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC chairman) for winning the Nobel Peace Prize for - according to Giaever - 'making the global surface temperature record famous.

Giaever proceeded to question the accuracy of the surface temperature record, ultimately asking:

"How can you measure the average temperature of the Earth? I don't think that's possible."

Unfortunately this simply displays an ignorance regarding the surface temperature record, whose accuracy has been confirmed time and time again, and which is also consistent with lower troposphere temperature measurements.

Giaever also disputed the significance of the measured 0.8°C average global surface warming over the past 130 years, comparing it to a human fever and the temperature at which he had to maintain tissue for cell growth during his own biophysical experiments.

Giaever does not seem to know how to put the observed 0.8°C global surface temperature change in proper context. It may sound small in comparison to the absolute global temperature in Kelvin, or in comparison to changes in human body temperatures, but it is a very large change in global surface temperature, especially over a period as brief as 130 years.

in addition to this rapid surface warming, the global oceans have also been accumulating heat at an incredible rate - the equivalent of more than two Hiroshima "Little Boy" atomic bomb detonations per second, every second over a the past half century. Presumably a physicist of Giaever's stature would appreciate the magnitude of this global energy accumulation.

As a physicist, Giaever should also understand that seemingly small objects and quantities can have large effects, but instead he seems to rely on incorrect "common sense" perceptions which are based on ignorance of the subject at hand.

CO2 vs. Water Vapor

As another example of this behavior, Giaever proceeds to demonstrate that he also does not understand the role of the greenhouse effect in climate change.

"Water vapor is a much much stronger green[house] gas than the CO2. If you look out of the window you see the sky, you see the clouds, and you don't see the CO2."

Needless to say, the second sentence above represents a very bizarre argument. Giaever is either arguing that CO2 is a visible gas (it is not) and the fact that you can't see it means there is too little in the atmosphere to have a significant warming effect, or that only visible gases can warm the planet, or some other similarly misinformed assertion.

"Because carbon dioxide accounts for 80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing in the current climate atmosphere, atmospheric carbon dioxide therefore qualifies as the principal control knob that governs the temperature of Earth."

Climate Myth Whack-a-Mole

Giaever continues ticking off the most common climate myths, going from arguing that it may not even be warming, to claiming the warming is insignificant, to asserting the warming is caused by water vapor, and ultimately that the warming is indeed caused by human influences:

"Is it possible that all the paved roads and cut down forests are the cause of "global warming", not CO2? But nobody talks about that."

Climate scientists do of course investigate and discuss the effects of deforestation and urban influences. The 2007 IPCC report discusses the influences of deforestation on climate in great detail, and devotes a section to policies aimed at reducing deforestation here. The United Nations has also implemented the Collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) to address the effects of deforestation on climate change. In short, by claiming that nobody has considered the effects of deforestation on climate, Giaever once again demonstrates that he simply has not done his homework.

At this point we're 9 minutes into Giaever's presentation, and he begins comparing climate science to religion. Yet based on his arguments in those first 9 minutes, it's clear that Giaever has not done even the most basic climate research, so how can he possibly make such a radical determination?

Memo to climate contrarians - expertise comes from actually researching a subject. There is a reason why scientists who have researched climate change in the most depth are also the most likely to be convinced that global warming is human-caused.

Giaever complained that he had become famous for his climate contrarianism, which he claimed indicated that dissenting opinions on the subject are not welcome. On the contrary, Giaever has been criticized for repeating long-debunked climate myths which he could have easily learned about through a little bit of research.

instead, Giaever has used his position of scientific authority as a Nobel Laureate to misinform people about a subject on which he has not even done the most basic research. That is not how a good scientist should behave, and that is why Giaever has rightfully and deservedly been criticized. Giaever finishes his talk by proclaiming

"Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely."

The problem is that Giaever has not done his homework, which is why he gets the wrong answer, and his presentation deserves a failing grade. Ironically, Giaever defines "pseudoscience" as only seeking evidence to confirm one's desired hypothesis, which is precisely how Giaever himself has behaved with respect to climate science.

In this post we will examine the claims made by Giaever in his talk, and show that his contrarian climate opinions come from a position of extreme ignorance on the subject, as Giaever admits. Giaever personifies the classic stereotype of the physicist who thinks he understands all scientific fields of study:

In his talk, Giaever spent a lot of time criticizing Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC chairman) for winning the Nobel Peace Prize for - according to Giaever - 'making the global surface temperature record famous'

Glenn Tramblyn has answered Giaever's question in great detail in his four part series Of Averages & Anomalies, and Kevin C also had an excellent and detailed post on recent temperature measurements in The GLOBAL global warming signal. The answers to these questions are out there for those who are willing to spend more than a few hours on Google searches, and it is not constructive to give presentations on subjects without first doing such basic research. We are again left wondering why Giaever was asked to give a presentation to Nobel Laureates on a subject on which he has no expertise and has not done even the most basic research.
The Significance of the Observed Global Warming

Giaever small temp change slide

holocene temps

Eight records of local temperature variability on multi-centennial scales throughout the course of the Holocene, and an average of these (thick dark line) over the past 12,000 years, plotted with respect to the mid 20th century average temperature. The global average temperature in 2004 is also indicated.

In addition to this rapid surface warming, the global oceans have also been accumulating heat at an incredible rate - the equivalent of more than two Hiroshima "Little Boy" atomic bomb detonations per second, every second over a the past half century. Presumably a physicist of Giaever's stature would appreciate the magnitude of this global energy accumulation.

As a physicist, Giaever should also understand that seemingly small objects and quantities can have large effects, but instead he seems to rely on incorrect "common sense" perceptions which are based on ignorance of the subject at hand.
CO2 vs. Water Vapor

As another example of this behavior, Giaever proceeds to demonstrate that he also does not understand the role of the greenhouse effect in climate change.

That clouds are visible to the human eye and CO2 isn't simply is not relevant to the greenhouse effect and global warming. It's also worth noting that like CO2, water vapor is not visible - clouds are condensed water droplets, not water vapor.

Additionally, water vapor does not drive climate change. There is a lot of it in the atmosphere, so it is the largest single contributor to the greenhouse effect. However, water vapor cannot initiate a warming event. Unlike external forcings such as CO2, which can be added to the atmosphere through various processes (like fossil fuel combustion), the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapor is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. As Lacis et al. (2010) showed, as summarized by NASA.

The IPCC report also discusses the influences of urban heat islands and land use effects here and here, for example. Giaever then claims that one person has talked about these effects - US Secretary of Energy and fellow Nobel Laureate Steven Chu, who suggested paining roofs white to offset some warming, though he does not discuss Chu in a very flattering light.

"Chu has been bought by the global warming people, and he's now helping Obama trying to make green energy in the United States."

In the presentation in question, Chu described the potential effects of the white roof proposal as follows:

"Making roads and roofs a paler color could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years"

Chu discusses white roofs as a geoengineering possibility in response to greenhouse gas-caused climate change, as a way to offset a small portion of the global warming our fossil fuel combustion and associated carbon emissions are causing.
Failure to do Homework Earns a Failing Grade

At this point we're 9 minutes into Giaever's 32-minute presentation, and he begins comparing climate science to religion. Yet based on his arguments in those first 9 minutes, it's clear that Giaever has not done even the most basic climate research, so how can he possibly make such a radical determination?

While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows. He simply bounces from one climate myth to the next, demonstrating a lack of understanding of Climate Science 101, and then insults the entire scientific field by comparing it to a religion.

Memo to climate contrarians - expertise comes from actually researching a subject. There is a reason why scientists who have researched climate change in the most depth are also the most likely to be convinced that global warming is human-caused


Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change (green) and unconvinced by the evidence (red) with a given number of total climate publications.

In his talk, Giaever complained that he had become famous for his climate contrarianism, which he claimed indicated that dissenting opinions on the subject are not welcome. On the contrary, Giaever has been criticized for repeating long-debunked climate myths which he could have easily learned about through a little bit of research - by perusing the Skeptical Science database, for example, where we have debunked all of his Googled climate misconceptions.

Instead, Giaever has used his position of scientific authority as a Nobel Laureate to misinform people about a subject on which he has not even done the most basic research. That is not how a good scientist should behave, and that is why Giaever has rightfully and deservedly been criticized. Giaever finishes his talk by proclaiming

"Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely."

The problem is that Giaever has not done his homework, which is why he gets the wrong answer, and his presentation deserves a failing grade. Ironically, Giaever defines "pseudoscience" as only seeking evidence to confirm one's desired hypothesis, which is precisely how Giaever himself has behaved with respect to climate science.

Listening to Giaever's opinions on climate science is equivalent to giving your dentist a pamphlet on heart surgery and asking him to crack your chest open. While climate science has a basis in phyiscs (and many other scientific fields of study), it is an entirely different subject, whose basics Giaever could undoubtedly grasp if he were willing to put the time in to do his homework.

But individual scientists (even Nobel Laureates) suffer from cognitive biases like anyone else. That's why we don't rely on indvidual scientists or individual papers to draw conclusions about climate change. The only way to get an accurate picture is through the work of many scientists, peer reviewed and scrutinized over decades and tested against multiple lines of evidence. Giaever demonstrates how far cognitive bias - reinforced by a few hours of Googling - can lead anyone to the wrong conclusions, and also proves that no individual's opinion, regardless of his credentials, can replace the full body of climate science evidence.
Last edited by sampie on Tue Sep 26, 2017 12:04 pm, edited 11 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 » Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:57 am

vanjast wrote:.
Now if his claim for scientific methods are wrong... where can one find objective counter claims, without activists going moggy in their usual way and militant fake news - this will be an interesting course and I'd love to see it.
:D
Because there are so Many.
List the claims you want to see countering claims of Exactly, and i will list the true scientific counter claims by all means Exactly :wink:
Last edited by sampie on Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
V5 - LEO
Six Tousand
Six Tousand
Posts: 6245
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:18 pm
Closest Airfield: FYWH
Location: Namibia
Has liked: 84 times
Been liked: 79 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by V5 - LEO » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:08 pm

kudu177 wrote:
V5 - LEO wrote:....hey that guy is wearing down the front teeth more than the rest :D :D Dany where is this build in Namibia gonna take place, would like to drop in and see the quality of workmanship?
Sure it's not in Nambia? :twisted:

:lol: :lol: yeah and Trumps best buddies are getting rich here he says, well I'm still pp :twisted: :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: 1907
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 1:11 pm

Do not know where Nambia is,but surely do know where Namibia is. :lol:
User avatar
Christopher
Tree Tousand
Tree Tousand
Posts: 3793
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:43 pm
Location: Gloucester (The Perfect Storm), Mass.
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 17 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by Christopher » Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:04 am

vanjast wrote: <...For the simple reason that we do not have a few hundred thousand years of records ot actually make a sensible conclusion, so it's nothing but theory and fear mongering by a twisted media, that feeds off 'scientists' wanted to make a name for themselves and the greed for 'research funds'...>, etcetera...

I cannot let that go unchallenged, vanjast! Actually, Russian dany slightly took you to task for it; but I suggest you view a documentary movie called "Antarctica: Ice and Sky" -- <From the Oscar-winning director of "March of the Penguins", "Antarctica: Ice and Sky" is an epic tale of scientific adventure and a stirring personal memoir that recounts the remarkable life's journey of Claude Lorius, the first scientist to discover conclusive evidence of man-made climate change deep beneath the Earth's surface> dany told you that nature keeps all the records -- this is correct. All the evidence is trapped perfectly safely in the ice: Claude Lorius has drilled down roughly 2500' at the Russian base at south pole (the highest base in Antarctica and therefore the one with the most ice beneath it) I cannot remember what the 2500' plugs of ice represented; but it was hundreds and thousands of years' worth and he has shown, quite conclusively, that CO2 levels are far, far, far higher than ever before! All the nuclear test detonations from the 1950s and 1960s were represented, too, in the ice: every one! See this movie. I have also just seen Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Sequel 2" and he is very compelling. Do you remember in his first movie the computer-generated schematic that showed the flooding of the WTC memorial site, in the case of severe high tides? Everyone pooh-poohed him and his team for that: what happened when hurricane Sandy came home to roost? It flooded the WTC, exactly as predicted!

I suggest that there are too many people who insist on keeping their heads firmly buried in the sands, like the proverbial ostrich...President Trump (arschloch nummer eins) is one of this number!

BTW: renewable energy sources can and do work: see what Chile is doing right now! I reckon solar farms in the Karoo or Northern Cape could be <highly> effective?
Christopher Godfrey (always missing aviation!)
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 805
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 » Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:45 pm

If there are links to counter Ivar's claim of flawed scientific methods, I'd like to see them :wink:

Even if he knows little about the subject, he knows about scientific methods and this is the crux of the matter with any research, and the conclusions drawn from the results.
:wink:
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 » Tue Sep 26, 2017 8:28 pm

If ivar is so stupid to ask a question such as this when you are suppose to be an expert:

"How can you measure the average temperature of the Earth? I don't think that's possible."

So him not being a climate scientist admitting not to even be much interested in climate science does not think it is possible ? ? That is beyond hilarious. So he blatantly disregards the evidence because He himself now claims to know more than what Climate Scientists have produced by NASA GISS, UEA CRU, and NOAA NCDC. I lost faith in his credibility reading the first paragraph of his misconceptions.

Being a scientist in one field does by far not make him an expert in another.

I can go on but feel the evidence shown about his many other misunderstandings, confusion and self centered conclusions have been clearly demonstrated on this thread already. :wink:
dany
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1907
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 » Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:47 pm



Now first watch this video



And compare to this video and tell who you think is telling the true story.



And throw this in the pigeon cage.



Little bit of the story,but still with tectonic plates.



How little we still know.





A interesting video on exploration on the Mariana trench.

Return to “123.45”