Global warming

Aviation Trivia, Jokes & Humour

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Iceberg
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2376
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:09 pm
Closest Airfield: FAWB
Location: Pretoria

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Iceberg » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:17 am

Interesting discussion.
There have been 5 great 'extinctions' in the earth's history as far as can be determined.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontolog ... xtinctions

It is speculated that some might have been climate related - methane gas amongst other causes.

We are now part of (and the cause of) the sixth great extinction - caused by climate change, overpopulation and pollution.

Some compare humans to a virus, the host being the earth.

It replicates so fast that one of two things happens:
The host dies and the virus dies with it.
The host retaliates and kills the virus.

Either way, the virus colony (humans on earth) dies.
So enjoy it while it lasts...
The sky is not the limit....
ZS-MDK
Karl Eschberger
User avatar
snoopy
Engine full power confirmed
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:02 pm
Closest Airfield: FASH

Re: Global warming

Unread post by snoopy » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:25 am

Humanity has been pretty good at wiping out overpopulation through war...famine (often also controlled by humans) does the rest. Climate change is a marker for war, as is famine.

I don't think we are too far from the next great world war. It will come and pass, just like other great wars have...and it will probably more destructive than any preceding war.
Last edited by snoopy on Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Vivere come se mai dovessimo morire
User avatar
cage
8000 Tousand
8000 Tousand
Posts: 8868
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:47 am
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: ..for the grass 35

Re: Global warming

Unread post by cage » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:25 am

snoopy wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:02 am
I basically believe its all about earth's life stages. :wink:
Blurring somewhat different sciences and concepts together and then ending up back in the world of "belief".
In the words of R. Kelly - I believe I can fly, yet somehow flapping my arms just doesn't get me airborne. :smt051
The common theme here are so many beliefs but nothing vaguely connected to fact, science or indeed credible evidence.
Beliefs can't be reasoned with as they lack a foundation in reason or logic.
We may as well be debating religion as that is as factual and evidence based as anything presented here, and has a similar zealous following :smt108
“It is discouraging to try to penetrate a mind like yours. You ought to get it out and dance on it. That would take some of the rigidity out of it.”
― Mark Twain
User avatar
cage
8000 Tousand
8000 Tousand
Posts: 8868
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:47 am
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: ..for the grass 35

Re: Global warming

Unread post by cage » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:27 am

Iceberg wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:17 am
Some compare humans to a virus, the host being the earth.
I would suggest that mankind is a parasite in many ways.
User avatar
snoopy
Engine full power confirmed
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:02 pm
Closest Airfield: FASH

Re: Global warming

Unread post by snoopy » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:31 am

Cage, I sense you have a latent hostile personality... :twisted:

Science is based on guesses often, it postulates, and agrees to the most probable answer, often one which is just to be swept away by new studies that look at the same thing from a different angle. :wink:

Science ... what it discovers over a time line often gets debunked or dis-proven by new insight, curiosity and investigation. Some scientists will even call it philosophy. :twisted: :lol:

A scientist can be awarded a PhD for exposing new "knowledge" or "insight" ; a few years later the same new knowledge can be debunked by newer insight...and it happens a lot.

The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in Greek philosophy ;not science; first...and the philosophers were right.
Vivere come se mai dovessimo morire
User avatar
cage
8000 Tousand
8000 Tousand
Posts: 8868
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:47 am
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: ..for the grass 35

Re: Global warming

Unread post by cage » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:48 am

snoopy wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:31 am
Science is based on guesses often, it postulates, and agrees to the most probable answer, often one which is just to be swept away by new studies that look at the same thing from a different angle. :wink:
Not quite.
There are some theoretical sciences, but even those need to be proven and then agreed.
What is being referred to in this context and science is not guesswork, it is not postulating.
This topic is data driven, from many different sources and the outcomes based on accepted physics (in the same way we accept Newton today).
This is a common argument to try deflect that facts aren't facts but some sort of educated guess, when that is not the case.
No doubt our understanding will evolve, within limits, as models improve and more data is collected but no one will wake up 10 years from now and say it was all bollocks.
That is reserved for theoretical physicists who are pushing the boundaries of known (and unknown) science.

FYI, while the philosophers postulated about the shape of the earth, it was when astronomers (scientists) could show it was round did people start to believe, even then there were many, many skeptics and deniers (and they exist today still) and it was only when Magellan demonstrated it that people woke up.
Sound familiar?
Sadly, the same will be required here as closed-mindedness and skepticism are human traits of the masses. Only when the world changes beneath them will many be convinced.
I'd say that what is at stake is too great to risk.
Fortunately I don't have kids and won't live long enough for it to be my problem so am quite happy for the planet to hit the reset button and return mankind to it's rightful place on nature's ladder.
User avatar
kudu177
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1788
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:57 pm
Closest Airfield: Rand
Location: Jo'burg

Re: Global warming

Unread post by kudu177 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:31 pm

Iceberg wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:17 am
Some compare humans to a virus, the host being the earth.
We are. And a particularly nasty, virulent and adaptive one too.
Nav is a good life lesson: pick a point on the horizon and go there
User avatar
sampie
Power on stall
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort

Re: Global warming

Unread post by sampie » Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:03 pm

snoopy wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:31 am
Cage, I sense you have a latent hostile personality... :twisted:

Science is based on guesses often, it postulates, and agrees to the most probable answer, often one which is just to be swept away by new studies that look at the same thing from a different angle. :wink:
If Credible science was a guess as you suggested, is it a guess whether your phone would light up when you press the button, no it's a fact, that's because science made it work, is it a guess that you can get your milk to warm in the microwave when you press the button ? No it really works, and that was due to Science, You would not be staring at your screen right now seeing these words if it was not for Science making it possible. Science when done by respected and reputable institutions is Real and provide the facts and proves and demonstrates logic and truth, every technological innovation in existence is because of Science.

Arguing the facts that it is simply a guess is hilarious, if it were NOT for Science, we'd still be sitting like cavemen with spiked clubs and grunting like fat trolls (like many politicians do year after year)

Your savvy tech does not work because some dumb politician said if you take a lightning bolt and push it into this plastic cubicle your cubicle will turn on like a TV, No your Tv works because of repeated scientific experiments tested, creating various components that work together for it to work and it works, everyone has a TV !

If not for science O'l Trumpy would not have been able to use the hair-loss drug finasteridand scientifically developed, a type 2-selective 5α-reductase inhibitor to grow his hair. Yet he is as dumb as a rock like al the rest of his corrupted oil funded bureaucracy when it comes to Human Induced Climate Change.

Secondly another argument from the sceptics that has been repeated and beaten beyond numb by the truth is that Earth's climate does naturally change.
Scientists understand and know that, it's a fact. But humans is tipping the scales by adding more Co2 into the atmosphere than the earth can absorb. Adding "fuel to the fire" in terms of heating up the earth.

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the release of emissions 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. The Scientific 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.
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200

Re: Global warming

Unread post by vanjast » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:13 am

cage wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:48 am
This topic is data driven, from many different sources and the outcomes based on accepted physics (in the same way we accept Newton today).
Deary me Deary me...
Hawking's Big Bang is yesterday, Einstein was proven 'wrong', Newton is now under scrutiny and postulations are being made that he might not be correct. New ideas, new data... and the exciting world of new science - nothing is what it seems and it would be folly to assume so. :lol:

Some 'earthquakes' turn the solid ground under your feet into 'liquid'.
:wink:
User avatar
cage
8000 Tousand
8000 Tousand
Posts: 8868
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:47 am
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: ..for the grass 35

Re: Global warming

Unread post by cage » Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:08 am

vanjast wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:13 am
Deary me Deary me...
Hawking's Big Bang is yesterday, Einstein was proven 'wrong', Newton is now under scrutiny and postulations are being made that he might not be correct. New ideas, new data... and the exciting world of new science - nothing is what it seems and it would be folly to assume so. :lol:

Some 'earthquakes' turn the solid ground under your feet into 'liquid'.
:wink:
Probably helps to read what people write but don't let that get in the way of a post.
Einstein was a theoretical physicist, not unlike Hawking but different fields, I would hope he would get some things wrong else he would be perfect - but then I said as much.
Feel free to enlighten me about Newton, quite interested to see how much googling that took and who and what is scrutinising it.
The lengths people go to, to justify their "belief" system.
User avatar
zander
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: honeydew

Re: Global warming

Unread post by zander » Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:36 am

The deniers have lost yet again 6 love.

Amazing the lengths they will go to prove themselves incompetent :lol:

First they try to deny that Human Induced Climate Change is real, saying the science is wrong, after seeing that tactic didn’t work as they need to back up their meaningless drivel and absolutely can find no evidence supporting the mountain of hot air, they all of a sudden change their opinion saying the science is correct ! by presenting paid oil presenters that has been caught out lying right in front of everyone to see :lol: Contradicting their own statements ! and deliberately leaving out information as well as cherry picking.

Finally seeing that did not work out Amazingly they Yet Again do a 360 changing their stance to the opposite stating the science is Yet again wrong.

Where they just get beaten down into a never ending circle and Again they have nothing to back up their meaningless claims. They are running the hamster wheel, and the crowd is sitting on the outside having a great time :lol:

This is the typical denier trend that repeats itself year after year after year.
User avatar
Jack Welles
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2246
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:15 pm
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Muizenberg

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Jack Welles » Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:14 am

Funny how differently people see things: human beings as parasites etc etc.

I see wonderful buildings and amazing artworks, I hear fabulous music and see amazing feats by sportspersons, I know of wonderful acts of charity, amazing space explorations and astonishing technical innovations (like my almost new smartphone :lol: ) ... etc etc

And I think that as the pressure builds somebody (or somebodies) will come up with an answer to the global warming phenomena, too :smt045
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
User avatar
cage
8000 Tousand
8000 Tousand
Posts: 8868
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:47 am
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: ..for the grass 35

Re: Global warming

Unread post by cage » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:49 pm

Jack Welles wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:14 am
Funny how differently people see things: human beings as parasites etc etc.

I see wonderful buildings and amazing artworks, I hear fabulous music and see amazing feats by sportspersons, I know of wonderful acts of charity, amazing space explorations and astonishing technical innovations (like my almost new smartphone :lol: ) ... etc etc

And I think that as the pressure builds somebody (or somebodies) will come up with an answer to the global warming phenomena, too :smt045
Well, some humans can do incredible and creative things. They are the minority, most are just born to be cogs in the machine and consumer fodder. We don't get to pick and choose but a planet full of open-minded, creative people would be an interesting place. Viva hippies viva.

One man's beautiful building can be another's slum packed full of desperation.
User avatar
MadMacs
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2086
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:41 pm
Closest Airfield: GRJ
Location: On my bed

Re: Global warming

Unread post by MadMacs » Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:43 pm

[YouTube2017]
https://youtu.be/jPP7P43wulg
[/YouTube2017]
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.
Triaan
Taxiing
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Triaan » Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:17 am

MadMacs wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:43 pm
[YouTube2017]
https://youtu.be/jPP7P43wulg
[/YouTube2017]
Ask Burt Rutan :lol: Ask a person who part of his life was spent burning Rocket Fuel for a living to give an opinion ! !?? The deniers desperately coming back for more humiliation :lol:

Burt Rutan who has no relation to Climate Science has been featured in Exxonmobil’s article’s of engineering around the same time his misleading video was made, my Golly.. i wonder who would be surprised at how he got so lured into lying, deceiving and misleading on Climate Change.

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2 ... eers-week/

Rutan Admitting himself he is not a Climate Scientist and like all the rest of the deniers, lie and deceive.

Burt Rutan was beaten soundly in a debate pointing out his lies,assumptions and conveniently leaving out data:

Brian Angliss does a superb job to discuss science with Burt Rutan,
Engineer to Engineer like,
and Burt Rutan exposes himself as a ideologically driven demagogue he seems to have become
refusing to acknowledge anything other than his own shallow talking points.

Brian's even tempered issue focused approach is a thing of beauty.

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/0 ... n-angliss/

Moreover:

Burton was part of a denial group trying to publish debunked opinions on Climate Change:

Denying the Consensus
The op-ed begins with the wholly unsupported assertion that:
"...a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed."
The fact that only 16 scientists and engineers signed this letter casts serious doubt on this assertion.  The fake skeptics were able to get ~100 signatories on a similar letter 5 years ago - this seems more like a small and dwindling number of fake skeptics.  It's also worth noting that 255 National Academy of Science members (truly prominent scientists) signed an opposite letter, urging action to address climate change.
"We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un-restrained burning of fossil fuels."
Furthermore, why should we care what these few self-proclaimed "distinguished scientists and engineers" think we should do about climate change?  If I need heart surgery, I'm not going to allow a dentist to perform it, even if it's the best dentist in the world.  Virtually all of the climate science experts agree that actions to address global warming are needed.  Their informed opinions are the ones we should heed when it comes to climate science, not those of astronauts and physicians.
Gish Gallop of Fake Facts
After making a number of unsubstantiated and false assertions about the "growing number" of climate "skeptics," the letter then lays out what they see as the evidence supporting their fake skepticism.  In reality, it's the same sort of Gish Gallop we've come to expect from climate denialists.

The article references work by economist William Nordhaus to try and justify climate inaction.  When we actually listen to what Nordhaus has to say, the picture looks very different:
"We’ve got to get together as a community of nations and impose restraints on greenhouse gas emissions and raise carbon prices. If not, we will be in one of those gloomy scenarios."
Although he tends to be quite conservative about the costs of climate change relative to other economists, Nordhaus still supports putting a price on carbon emissions.  Nordhaus not appreciate his name being invoked to justify foolish calls for climate inaction, telling Andrew Revkin:
"The piece completely misrepresented my work. My work has long taken the view that policies to slow global warming would have net economic benefits, in the trillion of dollars of present value. This is true going back to work in the early 1990s (MIT Press, Yale Press, Science, PNAS, among others). I have advocated a carbon tax for many years as the best way to attack the issue. I can only assume they either completely ignorant of the economics on the issue or are willfully misstating my findings."
Is this the Best Climate "Skeptics" Can Do?
If we boil down this op-ed to its basics, we're left with a letter signed by only two scientists with peer-reviewed climate research publications in the past three decades, which exhibits a serious lack of understanding of basic climate concepts, and which simply regurgitates a Gish Gallop of long-worn climate myths.  The letter claims that climate "skepticism" is growing, and yet only has 16 signatories, at least 43% of which have received funding from the fossil fuel industry, and not one single new argument which hasn't been long-debunked.
If this is the best today's climate fake skeptics can do, perhaps, as Patrick Michaels suggests, they are losing the battle.  We can only hope that this is the cas



Burton’s lies pointed out in the discussion:
In that spirit, however, I continue to be disappointed that you refuse to explain what you mean by “data presentation fraud,” or to explain the inconsistency in your own presentation. Recall that you accused Al Gore of fraud for removing error bars from an IPCC graph while failing to include error bars or even any discussion of uncertainty in 20 graphs on the preceding five pages of your January 2011 presentation. As I see it, it is your ethical duty as a professional and an engineer to either a) explain how those 20 images do not actually represent a double standard on your part, or b) retract your claim that Gore committed “data presentation fraud” and then correct any of your presentations that make that claim.
You write that “I do not have that expertise and cannot critique the atmospheric analysis within the computer models that theorize the coming catastrophe.” But this doesn’t hold with what you wrote above in your Comment #4. You wrote there that
Modeling is more correctly a branch of Engineering and there are some basic rules that have been flouted by CAGW _ CO2 modelers.
Firstly there has to be a problem analysis which identifies relevant factors and the physical, chemical and thermodynamic behaviors of those factors within the system.
Any claim that this has been done in the CO2 warming problem is PREPOSTEROUS.
There are perhaps a thousand PhD topics there waiting to be taken up by researchers.
We could start with work on understanding heat transfer between the main interfaces; eg Core to surface / surface to ocean depths/ ocean depths to ocean surface / ocean surface to atmosphere and so on, not having yet reached the depth of space at just slightly above absolute zero.
To claim that the entire system of atmospheric temperature moderation has been described by
the fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 content while excluding the other obvious factors such as atmospheric water vapour content, solar flux and orbital mechanics is just nonsense.
This strikes me as yet another inconsistency – you say you cannot critique the analysis generated by climate models, yet you did that very thing just a few days ago. You can’t have it both ways.
Which brings me again to another criticism you have still failed to address, namely that your CO2 argument made in Comment #4 is incomplete. I pointed out in #99 that you were neglecting a significant number of factors that were different between today and prior geologic eras. The point I didn’t make then, but will now, is that all those differences make the climate in prior geological eras incomparable to modern climate. In essence, the proper response to “When the Dinosaurs roamed, the CO2 content was 6 to 9 times current and the planet was green from pole to pole” is: so what? The burden of proof is on you to prove that all the differences I listed in Comment #99 are inconsequential.
It’s true that the hacked CRU emails and the subsequent investigations found that the University of East Anglia and CRU did not properly handle FOI requests. They fought the process tooth and nail, and they shouldn’t. But you can’t honestly tell me that you wouldn’t fight tooth and nail yourself against a competitor using a FOIA action to try and get your emails, flight data, and design blueprints for a US government program. Of course you would – you’d be handing over the family jewels to a competitor. So while what CRU did was wrong, it was completely understandable and reasonable to any anyone who has worked in business, never mind an engineer.
I’m stunned to see you resorting to a smear in your attempt to address the argument I made about insufficient context in the hacked CRU emails, Burt. Why do you choose to ignore the arguments I made in the piece and instead resort to making statements without supporting them? “The 1100 emails represent no more than 0.1% of the entire email record” – if you find the argument unconvincing, then explain why. Simply calling it “sad” is an evasion, not an argument.
However, you did address one of my criticisms of you, and so I’ll explain further what I think we’d find if Scaled Composites’ emails were hacked, cherry-picked, and subsequently published.
I think the emails would show you and/or you employees badmouthing your competition and occasionally your partners and financial backers. I think the emails would show repeated examples of your engineers saying one thing internally while spinning something different for your customers or the public, likely even including what you’d call “data presentation fraud.” I think the emails would show your marketing department tries to cast your own company in the best light possible by glossing up data. I think the emails would show early versions of code that have placeholder functions and artificial test data, and comments that were removed in the final code that could be spun to make it look like you had fudged your simulations and risked peoples’ lives.
I think the emails could be spun to show that you had inappropriate contact with government officials from time to time. I think the emails could be made to show your financial situation wasn’t as good as you told people. I think the emails would show that you and your engineers are just like every other engineer out there – you use words like “trick” and phrases like “hide the (fill in the blank)” in ways that are completely innocuous when the context is known, but that could be spun to make it look like you defrauded your customers, lied to the public, and risked lives.
Published emails from Scaled Composites would say all of this and more for two reasons. First, some of these behaviors are entirely normal – it’s normal for people to badmouth the competition and to complain about their partners in private. It’s normal for marketing departments to gloss things up – that’s the entire reason marketing departments exist. It’s normal for early versions of code to have placeholders, use test data from oddly-named files (“were_so_screwed.dat,” for example). It’s normal for people to say things using technical shorthand that look really, really bad to anyone not familiar with the shorthand.
Second, when someone cherrypicks 0.1% of a large email record, the person doing the cherrypicking can make the emails say anything they want, even things that are outright false. Can you honestly tell me that three emails in the middle of a long thread, or the first half of an email train, tells the whole story?
I’d also like to point out that the Independent Climate Change Email Review, the most thorough of all the investigations, found that my argument about insufficient context was correct. From my post on the ICCER final report:
The third specific allegation that addressed by the ICCER was that Keith Briffa had asked an anonymous reviewer to justify Briffa’s rejection of a manuscript that Briffa ostensibly disagreed with. However, the ICCER found that the published CRU email record lacked sufficient context to justify the allegation. Briffa provided copies of the complete email chain from his personal records to the panel and the result was a very different picture. The complete email chain showed that Briffa had apologized for the delay in sending the reviewers’ comments to the manuscript’s authors and offered to “fast-track publication” of the manuscript if the authors revised it as recommended by the the reviewers. The ICCER said “we see nothing in these exchanges that supports the interpretations of subverting the peer review process that have been placed upon [the original published CRU email]” and that the complete email chain provided by Briffa doesn’t “provide evidence of subversion of process in rejecting contradictory ideas as has been alleged.”
The ICCER quote is from Section 8.5 of the ICCER final report, BTW – I invite you to read it yourself, and then to correct any allegations of fraud you’ve made against Keith Briffa as a result of the email.
You did provide specific data, but unfortunately your calculations are incorrect. The actual temperature trends lines for the data is easily obtainable.
Last edited by Triaan on Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:57 am, edited 2 times in total.

Return to “123.45”