How real are the threats of global warming?

Aviation Trivia, Jokes & Humour

Moderator: Moderators

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 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:53 am

The first video talks about the "swindle" which has been debunked:




Also a quote from a civil engineer not having expertise in any Climate Science.

Then As to Hocker's claims that warming increases Co2, that is false:

Hocker begins his analysis by calculating the first derivative of the CO2 data. He does this using the difference between the CO2 measurement six months after a given month and the measurement six months before. (Calculating this difference over a 12-month interval effectively removes the seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 concentration.)

At this point, alert readers may begin to glimpse the flaw in Hocker's methods. However, let's follow Hocker through to his conclusion.

He derives a simple model to estimate the temperature anomaly as a function of the derivative of CO2 concentration:

Hocker notes "There is a strong correlation between the measured anomaly and the Derivative model. It shows the strong El Niño of 1997-1998 very clearly, and also shows the other El Niño events during the plotted time period about as well as the satellite data does." He does not quantify the correlation between the two, but the squared correlation coefficient (r2) for the two time series is 0.36.

Let's pause here to consider the actual effect of Hocker's methods to this point. Taking the first derivative of the CO2 data removes the long-term trend in CO2 concentration, and shows the effect of short-term variability around that trend. Thus, it would be appropriate to conclude from this that short-term fluctuations in the overall upward CO2 trend are moderately well correlated with temperatures in the lower troposphere over oceans.

What Hocker actually concludes is quite different: "Using two well accepted data sets, a simple model can be used to show that the rise in CO2 is a result of the temperature anomaly, not the other way around. This is the exact opposite of the IPCC model that claims that rising CO2 causes the temperature anomaly."

In other words, Hocker is claiming that his model shows that the long-term upward trend in CO2 is explained by temperature, when his methods actually removed the long-term trend.

Your second video is a good example of the problems with sea level rising.

Ring of fire explains volcanic/tectonic activity, it's not debunking anything, there has never been a denial that volcanoes causes climate change, however it has been explained as to how and when it effects climate:

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.

The Ice Ages explained:

Climate change sceptics suggest that because the climate has changed dramatically in the past – and without man’s intervention – it is possible that current changes to the Earth’s climate are also a natural event. You may be familiar with paintings depicting Londoners skating on the frozen River Thames, when winters, at least in the northern hemisphere, were more severe. The beginning and end of this period are subject to various interpretations, but the period is referred to as the Little Ice Age (LIA) and occurred between the 16th to 19th centuries.

If we are to understand the LIA, we need to figure out what caused it. Scientists have examined several important strands of evidence about the LIA, including the activity of the sun, of volcanoes, and ocean heat circulation, principle drivers of natural climate change.

The activity of the sun can be assessed by looking at proxies – processes we know are affected by the sun’s activity. One of these is the formation of the radioactive isotope Carbon-14 in the atmosphere, which plants then absorb. By measuring carbon-14 in tree rings and other materials we know are from a certain period, we can estimate how active the sun was at the time. This graph shows the sun’s activity over the last millennium:

The carbon-14 data used in this graph go up to 1950. The graph below gives a fuller picture, showing that in the last three decades, the sun's normal cycle of activity has remained steady, while temperatures have shot up:

Yet while the dips in solar activity correlate well with the LIA, there are other factors that, in combination, may have contributed to the climate change:

Volcanic activity was high during this period of history, and we know from modern studies of volcanism that eruptions can have strong cooling effects on the climate for several years after an eruption.
The ‘ocean conveyor belt’ – thermohaline circulation – might have been slowed down by the introduction of large amounts of fresh water e.g. from the Greenland ice cap, the melting by the previous warm period (the Medieval Warm Period).
Sudden population decreased caused by the Black Death may have resulted in a decrease of agriculture and reforestation of agricultural land.

Can We Draw a Conclusion?

In truth, not really. The Little Ice Age remains for the present the subject of speculation. The most likely influence during this period is variable output from the sun combined with pronounced volcanic activity. We know that from the end of the LIA to the 1950s the sun’s output increased. But since WW2 the sun has slowly grown quieter, yet the temperature on Earth has gone up.

The sceptical argument that current warming is a continuation of the same warming that ended the LIA is unlikely. There is a lack of evidence for a suitable forcing (e.g. the sun) and numerous correlations with known natural forcings that can account for the LIA itself, and the subsequent climate recovery. Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.

DENIAL101 The Little Ice Age


Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (NOAA) and Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Thickness at 50nm (NASA GISS).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
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 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:15 am

People are hooked onto the word CO2 and sea level rises,because right now,its the goose that lay the golden egg. Nevermind the consiquences later, as long as the money roll in. I do not think anybody is soooo dum not to agree that the climate is busy changing,the problem come in,with the hype and moeny that runs paralell with it. In some parts earth is sinking, and yes, sealevels will rise,but one need to tell the whole story,not the one part only. In othe rparts of the world, earth rises,and sealevels drop. Again,same story. Making monery out of CO2 is miles easier then to make money out of the fact that earth at some time, will undergo a polar change. There is a French company selling solar farms up in NAMIBIA, but if one follow the money deal closer, you soon realize somebody in Franch is getting stinking rich out of the man on the street in Namibia. instead of helping,these farms drop them just deeper in the sh-it in 20 years time.
The old story again, you cannot run a smelter of a mine for argument sake on solar or wind alone. Just not possible. That 24 h power need to come from somewhere else. And there is only four options, coal, hydro(as long as there is not a serious drought), natural gas or biogas(but again, the resources need to be there) and then the contraversial nuclear. And there it begins and end. any industrial 24 h operation need reliable power on the main grid. But if one sit back and pump money in wind and solar and NOT paying attention to the others, you will soon run a 8 to 5 operation and Namibia is heading that way and the EUROPIANS got them exactly where they want them to be,to stand open hands and ask for more money and whatever.. And absolute no large economy can run on a 8 to 5 based unit. The mega farms turned into monopolies,pushing the poor just deeper down the scale. Forests is destroyed because of wood and farmland for the individual as he/she/they cannot afford the prices from mega farms. You buy the product or you die without it. There is alternatives,but to achieve that, we need to remove the money and corruption. People should sit back and really think logical about this.

Renewable energy forms part of our corporate port folio and thus, attend conferences around the world. I never heard of anybody talking about and promoting solar and wind, that they first of all,tell people that the "free" energy is only available during the day when the sun is shining or when the wind blow. That is two phrases one will never hear. Each got a place and yes, we need them but to say its the ALPHA and Omega is very ignorent of reality. Yes, one can use solar to pump water and release it during the night,but the payback of a system like that is enorm,by far more expensive then alternatives. Back to the money game again.To be asured of good income,you need to make people dependant on you.
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 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:34 am

I could say the same about the oil companies trying to sow doubt on climate change.
As to Making money, Well guess who has been making the REAL money, BIG oil, mere climate funding is nothing compared to the Monstrous Goliath amounts of money big oil has been making raping the earth for decades now.
Making money out of oil is second to almost none.

In 2012 alone the oil industry has profited by $120 Billion. That's 1 year only. You want to talk about monopolies, Oil's your Man, they are your PuppetMasters.

I'm not disputing your need for energy.
If Oil had spend only half it's profits on renewable research over the decades, we would have had the renewable infrastructure to power the world today. So yes it cannot power your power hungry industry right now, but the technology is advancing, change has to be made and the technology has to be developed, otherwise at some stage in the future the earth will sink 6 feet in together with Big oil's profits for good.
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 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:49 am

Not my oil. But sadly without oil, this conversation would not have taken place. Nobody deny anything about oil,from money to corruption,but at least,if you want to replace oil,do it also without the money and corruption,but sadly, the money around climate change make the oil industry look like a tiny ant on a big continent. I believe the project in the Northern Cape is already way over budget and silently the mayor party player wants out now on the project. Just rumours in the industrial world going around. I am open to all arguments, but then all the facts need to be on the table,not only two words,water levels rise and CO2. That is bu--------------------t,in short. I say it again, bring me a yellow machine that will run on solar or whatever alternative,and remember, the renewable world depends heavily on mning(another topic nobody talks about). And without that yellow machines,the smelters,the crushing, no solar ,nor wind turbine. So,whats the greenies answer to alternative mining methods. Please feel free to advice us with our so called oil.But I gues the mine workers will have a ball with a 8-5 mine. 8) 8)
Do yourself a favor and go on holiday to Germany when there is a next conference on renewable energy. It is like having Disney land for free and get lunch and dinner for free. The money makers want Germany 100 % on renewable energy, the current distribution networks need mega bucks and the two parties cannot find each other. So,for now,the greenies seems to win the fight,while the grid operators grind their teeth just to make things work each day. And all while more and more farmers go completely off the grid with biogas. Now it enters a political phase as from next year, new laws will heavily clamp down on new biogas installations,why, because the planned solar and wind need to get income,not paying farmers for their excess power. The grid operators love this fight. And Germany,s neighbours sit back smile and wait for this disney land fight to play out.
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 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:00 am

The day climate corruption exceeds big oil corruption the universe would cease to exist good one :lol: :wink:

ExxonMobil’s deliberate attempts to sow doubt on the reality and urgency of climate change and their donations to front groups to disseminate false information about climate change have been public knowledge for a long time, now.

Investigative reports in 2015 revealed that Exxon had its own scientists doing its own climate modeling as far back as the 1970s: science and modeling that was not only accurate, but that was being used to plan for the company’s future.

Now, a peer-reviewed study published August 23 has confirmed that what Exxon was saying internally about climate change was quantitatively very different from their public statements. Specifically, researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes found that at least 80 percent of the internal documents and peer-reviewed publications they studied from between 1977 and 2014 were consistent with the state of the science – acknowledging that climate change is real and caused by humans, and identifying “reasonable uncertainties” that any climate scientist would agree with at the time. Yet over 80 percent of Exxon’s editorial-style paid advertisements over the same period specifically focused on uncertainty and doubt, the study found.

The stark contrast between internally discussing cutting-edge climate research while externally conducting a climate disinformation campaign is enough to blow many minds. What was going on at Exxon?

I have a unique perspective – because I was there.

From 1995 to 1997, Exxon provided partial financial support for my master’s thesis, which focused on methane chemistry and emissions. I spent several weeks in 1996 as an intern at their Annandale research lab in New Jersey and years working on the collaborative research that resulted in three of the published studies referenced in Supran and Oreskes’ new analysis.
Climate research at Exxon

A scientist is a scientist no matter where we work, and my Exxon colleagues were no exception. Thoughtful, cautious and in full agreement with the scientific consensus on climate – these are characteristics any scientist would be proud to own.

Did Exxon have an agenda for our research? Of course – it’s not a charity. Their research and development was targeted, and in my case, it was targeted at something that would raise no red flags in climate policy circles: quantifying the benefits of methane reduction.

Methane is a waste product released by coal mining and natural gas leaks; wastewater treatment plants; farting and belching cows, sheep, goats and anything else that chews its cud; decaying organic trash in garbage dumps; giant termite mounds in Africa; and even, in vanishingly small amounts, our own lactose-intolerant family members.

On a mass basis, methane absorbs about 35 times more of the Earth’s heat than carbon dioxide. Methane has a much shorter lifetime than carbon dioxide gas, and we produce a lot less of it, so there’s no escaping the fact that carbon has to go. But if our concern is how fast the Earth is warming, we can get a big bang for our buck by cutting methane emissions as soon as possible, while continuing to wean ourselves off carbon-based fuels long-term.

For the gas and oil industry, reducing methane emissions means saving energy. So it’s no surprise that, during my research, I didn’t experience any heavy-handed guidance or interference with my results. No one asked to review my code or suggested ways to “adjust” my findings. The only requirement was that a journal article with an Exxon co-author pass an internal review before it could be submitted for peer review, a policy similar to that of many federal agencies.

Did I know what else they were up to at the time? I couldn’t even imagine it.

Fresh out of Canada, I was unaware that there were people who didn’t accept climate science – so unaware, in fact, that it was nearly half a year before I realized I’d married one – let alone that Exxon was funding a disinformation campaign at the very same time it was supporting my research on the most expedient ways to reduce the impact of humans on climate.

Yet Exxon’s choices have contributed directly to the situation we are in today, a situation that in many ways seems unreal: one where many elected representatives oppose climate action, while China leads the U.S. in wind energy, solar power, economic investment in clean energy and even the existence of a national cap and trade policy similar to the ill-fated Waxman-Markey bill of 2009

This study underscores why many are calling on Exxon to be held responsible for knowingly misleading the public on such a critical issue. For scientists and academics, though, it may fuel another, different, yet similarly moral debate.

Are we willing to accept financial support that is offered as a sop to the public conscience?

The concept of tendering literal payment for sin is nothing new. From the indulgences of the Middle Ages to the criticisms some have leveled at carbon offsets today, we humans have always sought to stave off the consequences of our actions and ease our conscience with good deeds, particularly of the financial kind. Today, many industry groups follow this familiar path: supporting science denial with the left hand, while giving to cutting-edge research and science with the right.

The Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University conducts fundamental research on efficient and clean energy technologies – with Exxon as a founding sponsor. Philanthropist and political donor David Koch gave an unprecedented US$35 million to the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in 2015, after which three dozen scientists called on the museum to cut ties with him for funding lobbying groups that “misrepresent” climate science. Shell underwrote the London Science Museum’s “Atmosphere” program and then used its leverage to muddy the waters on what scientists know about climate.

It may be easy to point a finger at others, but when it happens to us, the choice might not seem so clear. Which is most important – the benefit of the research and education, or the rejection of tainted funds?

The appropriate response to morally tainted offerings is an ancient question. In the book of Corinthians, the apostle Paul responds to a query on what to do with food that has been sacrificed to idols – eat or reject?

His response illustrates the complexity of this issue. Food is food, he says – and by the same token, we might say money is money today. Both food and money, though, can imply alliance or acceptance. And if it affects others, a more discerning response may be needed.

What are we as academics to do? In this open and transparent new publishing world of ours, declaration of financial supporters is both important and necessary. Some would argue that a funder, however loose and distant the ties, casts a shadow over the resulting research. Others would respond that the funds can be used for good. Which carries the greatest weight?

After two decades in the trenches of climate science, I’m no longer the ingenue I was. I’m all too aware, now, of those who dismiss climate science as a “liberal hoax.” Every day, they attack me on Facebook, vilify me on Twitter and even send the occasional hand-typed letter - which begs appreciation of the artistry, if not the contents.

The Alternative is to not be ignorant and deceitful about Human Induced Climate change, Implement changes gradually, don't have a happy go lucky attitude that Big oil is going to dominate forever because they won't, the world is changing, and like it or not, one day your Yellow Catippiliars will run on Renewables, Not now but definately later.
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 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:19 am

I say it again,I attend a lot of high level profiled conferences right around the world, and find the same waffle by "Academics" on this topic. TRhat some even shows up on the podiium go beyond my thinking. What we need now,is open headed discussions to come up with realistic and practical solutions. If I compare the notes from just 5 of these gathers, the speeches is so similar,theat they could for the sake just have been copied. Still,not one comes up with clear plan. Its always this grey world of climate change, global warming and CO2. It go round and round in circles. And each grab from research only the part that sounds good to the ear,not the full story. I seen people nearly going physical ,even dressed in formal suits. And all just because of the money in this. Nothing else. The oil and coal industry is qiuet in the background, because they long ago,realized that the money lay in the by products of coal and oil. Without them, there would be no chemical industry,no development and no sustainability. Take a look around you, and imaging a world without any coal and oil. Would you sit where you sit right now,nope, because coal and oil is not only about fuel. Its a industrial industry.
Wind and solar cannot manufacture themselves as to what coal and oil do. And it is here that biogas,aquaphonics and many other industries based on science come to play. Sadly,they are not money makers,and thus,not in the fight. Coal and oil is reality,period. Yes, we need to clean mother earth,but holy moses, spend your energy on real issues like sewage pollution,watse dumping, new forms of waste management,farming without pesticdes that kill all nature. That is where we need research,academics,not in the monetary industry. Leave that to to corporate prostitutes(consultants).
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 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:44 pm

Grey world of climate change ? Nothing is grey the science has been done and is there for all to see, not just the "select few", let me tell you whats grey, actually black, that's oil.

Not a care in the world to endorse a clean solution the only business they care about and know best is producing crude oil, and cannot scientifically prove scientists wrong, because they can't. Just sitting back and asking for the evidence when it has been provided to them over and over again, and still asking the same dumb question, getting slapped with even more Scientific evidence. Round and round we go indeed.

There's nothing grey about global warming and Co2, the facts are out there and the real science has been done, by climate scientists, specialists in their field, what is grey is the way politicians skew obfuscate and blatantly lie about the evidence.

Big oil is the one going around in circles not being able to prove science wrong furthemore not wanting to change their ways and the world's dependence on oil.

And yes i for one believe in technology. Renewable technology has come very far and will go very much further in the future, the oil industry does not care nor assist in advancing the technolgy.

"And each grab from research only the part that sounds good to the ear,"

That's big oil cherry picking on all the scientific graphs.

"The oil and coal industry is qiuet in the background, because they long ago,realized that the money lay in the by products of coal and oil."

Exactly that's why they will lie,skew and cheat to continue their deceiving ways.
not giving one bit of anything about the destruction of the earth they are causing.

I don't give one bit of a feather about their empire and billions they raped from the earth. I don't care what infrastructures they have created, it's here now, and they can start doing their part in creating a clean future, instead their greed will be their downfall.

If they invest not even half their profits into renewables, they would not have to continue wrecking the earth the way they do, but as you say, it's all about money, but to them, it's more greedy than that, it's about global dominance, Saving the earth is a phrase bestranged to them.
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 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:24 pm

Can you tell me what the environmental impact would be for a solar farm that do have a output of 1000 MW x 2000
User avatar
Gerard Schultz
Engine full power confirmed
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 7:41 pm
Closest Airfield: So many to choose from
Location: Charleston SC, USA and Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 4 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by Gerard Schultz » Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:10 pm

"Climate Change" is a means of making money. Just three examples:

1. A 'carbon tax' has been levied on new vehicles sold in SA. The SA government has commissioned several coal fired power stations. How do you reconcile one with the other, other than money making.
2. BCF fire extinguishers were outlawed in SA some years back because the gas used was dangerous to the atmosphere. In the USA halon fire extinguishers (same thing) are commonplace.
3. Certain fridges and airconditioners in SA had to be replaced or converted because the gas they used was similarly "dangerous". In the USA there are numerous airconditioners and fridges in use that use the same gas as what was banned in SA.
"It is nowise foolish to tilt at windmills. Providing you learn to knock them down." - Jeff Cooper
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 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:29 pm

Triaan: Interesting.. there was a joke about methane many years ago wrt 'global warming', saying that the researchers forgot to include the cattle farting volume in their analysis :lol:
It's definitely about buckazoids and disinformation from those in the power seats.

My similar example:
I worked in a geochem research lab in a support role to two research scientists, which was funded by the FRD/CSIR.
Like with any job like this I had to educate myself on scientific methods and preparations wrt to chemistry and equipment operations, besides repairing the research equipment (Mass-spec, XRFs, Ion Probes), eventually writing software to analyse/calculate the results of measurements.. Getting carried away.. :lol:

Anyway for the first 5 years all was hunky dory... post-doctoral researchers were visiting by the dozen, we were running samples on a 48 hour basis, 400+ samples a year (2nd researcher).. but there was one problem.

The chief researcher was doing zip. He was cited for his ground breaking thesis in Nature and this was why the FRD/CSIR had funded this facility. The 2nd researcher, a Wits guy and the rest of the lab staff were getting edgy.

Then the FRD/CSIR cut the funding for 1 more year... and the games had begun. At the end of year 6, interviews were conducted between the 3 researchers and each had to do a presentation lecture... I sat in all of them.

So 5 years of research was now to be presented....

First up was the Wits guy (the 'favourite' with a good angle - The local 2nd researcher was ready to go to ANU).. a good presentation, about a 100 samples, and logical process of deduction.

Next up the 2nd researcher... 400+ samples, a great graph distribution, also good logical process of deduction.

And now the Chief researcher... 4 samples, a graph that went way beyond the 4.3 Billion year mark (current earth age) with no explanation to this glaring anomaly... hums and hars . I nearly walked out. He got the job.

Now a bit of back ground (This is my own personal opinion):
A certain Professor in the department was a CEO of a diamond concession company operating in Namibia.
As far as I (many) concerned there was 'collusion' between him, the HOD Geology, the Chief, and maybe others at the university, to 'capture' the labs for their specific use, thus excluding any other exploration companies. There was one other lab at the time, but that was owned by the competition.

State Capture in scientific research ?? This is why I can well believe it when Ivar talks about Nature becoming a mouthpiece for the corrupt science.

NB: That department that was once a mountain.. is now a molehill :arrow:
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 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:40 am

dany wrote:Can you tell me what the environmental impact would be for a solar farm that do have a output of 1000 MW x 2000
Not a scratch compared to the damage oil casued the earth over decades.
Last edited by Triaan on Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:57 am, 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 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:42 am

Gerard Schultz wrote:"Climate Change" is a means of making money. Just three examples:

1. A 'carbon tax' has been levied on new vehicles sold in SA. The SA government has commissioned several coal fired power stations. How do you reconcile one with the other, other than money making.
2. BCF fire extinguishers were outlawed in SA some years back because the gas used was dangerous to the atmosphere. In the USA halon fire extinguishers (same thing) are commonplace.
3. Certain fridges and airconditioners in SA had to be replaced or converted because the gas they used was similarly "dangerous". In the USA there are numerous airconditioners and fridges in use that use the same gas as what was banned in SA.
Corruption runs far and wide, escpecially in south africa, however when it comes to energy, it all pales against big oil's corruption: In the US alone the corruption of the fossil fuel industry is all over, just a small example of many:



All too often, our decision makers are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry. In this 112th Congress alone, oil, gas and coal interests gave over $20 million of this “dirty energy money” to our Senators and Representatives, to influence their votes around industry-friendly measures from dismantling the power of regulatory bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to approving the Keystone pipeline, to opening up the outer-continental shelf to drilling.

The harsh reality is that until we limit our consumption of all fossil fuels, let alone stop the drunken pursuit of every last drop of them, we’re headed towards a point of no return with respect to climate change. The fossil fuel industry has limitless resources to invest in protecting and expanding their access and influence. Until we cleanse our democracy of the influence of dirty energy money, we’re facilitating this dangerous gold rush mentality. Our decision makers at every level must be accountable to the interests of their constituents, not those lining their campaign coffers.

Between January 2011 and June 2012, dirty energy companies spent at least $43.5 million on influencing federal elections in America. This figure includes money spent not only on contributions to sitting members of Congress, but also to congressional candidates who lost elections, presidential races, and the money flowing into Super PACs that cannot go directly to candidates but funds ads and campaigns, giving us a better picture of how much money these companies spend. And that figure quickly and dangerously skyrocketing as the 2012 Presidential election season picks up.

What’s more, the fossil fuel industry spends millions upon millions lobbying the members of Congress that they spend so much money in helping to get elected. In 2011, the oil and gas industry alone spent nearly $150 million in lobbying Congress.

In fact, big oil gets a 5800% return on the money it spends on Congress through campaign contributions and lobbying. That’s right – $59 for every $1 they put in!

When any industry is spending this much money influencing elections and the legislative process, there’s no question the process will be distorted. And we see it in the millions of dollars in taxpayer handouts (aka subsidies) they milk out of Congress each year.

And while Americans struggle to get by, the climate heats up due to emissions from fossil fuels, and Congress pours subsidies to their industry, fossil fuel industry CEOs swim in cash by way of exorbitant salaries and compensation packages.

With so much money to gain and politicians in their pockets, the fossil fuel industry is corrupting our government and force-feeding a status quo energy policy that will lead us to climate catastrophe.
Last edited by Triaan on Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
Mouser
Engine full power confirmed
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 1:31 pm
Closest Airfield: King Shaka
Location: Durban
Has liked: 69 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by Mouser » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:52 am

I hope I am contributing something of interest but aside from the yes/no of climate change, getting an income from "carbon tax / trading etc etc" is not that easy in my experience. I think the current framework for this is still the Kyoto Protocol which gave birth to CDM and the UNFCCC where basically the 1st world (mainly Europe and Japan, exc the US) would buy "carbon credits" from the 3rd world, encouraging them to clean up. Apologies for the crude language; I am not an expert in CDM itself. The practical side as I see it was that India and China mainly, cleaned up on this offer in spades, at least until 2008 or so financial crisis. Africa and SA dithered until too late. The rough selling price for "CER's" (one ton of CO2 destroyed or avoided) went from say 12Euro to now some 0,50Euro on the open market, such as it is.

The CER process has also become incredibly complex in my view. There are methodologies for everything from fuel switch to composting etc etc, most ever-changing with the UNFCCC as gatekeepers keeping themselves employed and the verifiers and validators on the bus (SGS, TuvSud etc). As far as I know, SA has one or two specialists in the CDM field and maybe a few projects that actually produce CER's and turn a profit. But the UNFCC has a very comprehensive website.
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 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:54 am

vanjast wrote:Triaan: Interesting.. there was a joke about methane many years ago wrt 'global warming', saying that the researchers forgot to include the cattle farting volume in their analysis :lol:
It's definitely about buckazoids and disinformation from those in the power seats.
While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ppm (parts per million) while methane levels are 1.75ppm. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 28% of the warming CO2 contributes.
This is not to say methane can be ignored - reducing methane levels is definitely a goal to pursue. The good news is since the early 1990's, the trend in increasing methane has slowed down and even leveled off in the last few years

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jo ... 000000.pdf

As for the corruption, as mentioned before, corruption runs wide throughout africa and in every nation and many types of orginizations, so i can beleive what you are saying, but it all pales in comparison to oil's widespread corruption.
User avatar
Jack Welles
Tree Tousand
Tree Tousand
Posts: 3832
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:15 pm
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Muizenberg
Has liked: 23 times
Been liked: 183 times

Re: How real are the threats of global warming?

Unread post by Jack Welles » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:39 am

Isn't nuclear part of the answer, for base load?
Jack Welles (thriller_author pen name)
https://www.amazon.com/Jack-Welles/e/B073VJQTTX
Eddie Haynes-Smart
Textbook - "The Lore of Negotiation"
http://www.loreofnegotiation.com

Return to “123.45”