Global warming

Aviation Trivia, Jokes & Humour

Moderator: Moderators

Airwayfreak
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 974
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:56 am
Closest Airfield: FAJS
Location: Johannesburg
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 20 times

Re: NASA scientist debunks man made global warming

Unread post by Airwayfreak » Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:13 am

Mfezi wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:52 pm


Calm down? I don't think you have seen me mad yet :twisted:

However, in this case it changed the result completely: In one case volcanoes would be one of the biggest contributors to CO2 among the factors mentioned, in the other it is the smallest contributor. I'm an engineer - forgive me for being pedantic when an incorrect number completely changes the implications. There is enough misinformation already floating around when it comes to so-called global warming.
As an engineer you should be more circumspect about taking anything posted on the internet seriously.....Abraham Lincoln said so.
Mfezi
Reaching altitude
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 11:07 pm
Closest Airfield: FAKT
Location: South Africa
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 0

Re: NASA scientist debunks man made global warming

Unread post by Mfezi » Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:57 am

Of course :wink:
Image
User avatar
zander
Take off Clearance
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: Honeydew
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: NASA scientist debunks man made global warming

Unread post by zander » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:19 am

Airwayfreak wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:16 am
skytrooper wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:56 pm
dany wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:34 am
Bottom line, in the end all is about money,nothing else.
And the fossil fuel industry as always still leads the way in spreading their deception and lies with their multitrillion dollar filthy industry.
Blame the volcanoes. They produce 200 000 000 000 000 kg's of Carbon Dioxide annually.
:lol: The way how this figure is put out in kilograms just show's the source's lack of professionalism, and is a drop in the ocean compared to Human Induced CO2 generation.

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 (2002) and Kerrick (2001) 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.
User avatar
zander
Take off Clearance
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: Honeydew
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: NASA scientist debunks man made global warming

Unread post by zander » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:40 am

Iceberg wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:29 am
Mmmmm, yes the irony is that all the Co2 we are pumping into the atmosphere came from there in the first place.
He he - just bringing back the equilibrium of the hot, humid swampy world of 200 million years ago in which huge dinosours thrived...
This is another variant of many common denier arguments to try and twist the truth towards their liking.

This statement betray a fundamental ignorance about how the earth system works, and has worked in the past. They are true to a point; yes, the earth was warmer during the age of the dinosaurs, and there was most certainly more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So why is the current warming anything different than a part of the Earth's natural cycle?

Consider the Cretaceous Period, about 145-65 million years ago. The dinosaurs still roamed the Earth, and were about to bite the dust in the extinction that geologists use to label the break between the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras (we live in the Cenozoic). By this time, the earth's continents were finally separating from Pangaea, the supercontinent centered over the equator. Europe and North America were still attached, and Gondwana (composed of South America, Africa, Australia, India, and Antarctica) hadn't yet drifted apart. At the beginning of the Cretaceus, the Rockies, Andes, Himalayas, and Sierra Nevada Mountains hadn't formed (though there were some mountains in the American West - thanks to tectonite for the correction!). The Rockies, Andes, and Himalays would begin their uplift at the end of the Cretaceous, and the Sierra Nevadas would begin forming in the Jurassic. A shallow inland sea covered most of inland North America, from the Appalachian Mountains to the east (believed to then be as high as the Andes, or even the Himalayas), and the rolling foothills where the Rockies would eventually uplift in the west. Sea levels were much higher because there was no polar ice yet; as much as a third of the Earth's land mass was under water (see some nice maps of Cretaceous landmasses here.

The climate was most certainly much warmer than today, with tropical oceans being 9-12 degrees (C) warmer than present, and deep oceans as much as 15-20 degrees warmer. The Tethys Sea, which separated the diverging Laurasian (North American and Asia) and Gondwana supercontinents, connected the tropical oceans. Land masses hadn't drifted as far north as they are today, and the extensive oceans mediated the climate. Tropical vegetation prevailed in most regions, and fossils of palm trees have been found in modern-day Alaska. Even as North America moved close to its present-day position by the end of the Cretaceous, the poles remained warm; the Edmontosaurus lived so far north it would have to have migrated with seasonal darkness in the northern hemisphere!

We're currently living in the Quaternary Period; for the last two and a half million years, we've seen regular cycles of ice ages (100,000 years of ice, and 10,000 of interglacial warmth in between). Even though the continents were close to their present position during the late Cretaceous, the climate was significantly warmer. We know ice ages are caused by a combination of cycles in the Earth's tilt and orbit over tens of thousands of years, but these certainly haven't changed during Earth's history. So why, then, do we have ice ages today, but not during the Cretaceous?

The position of the continents certainly helped mediate the climate, but it took more than that to cool the earth enough for permanent ice to form at the poles. Several important changes in the millions of years following the Cretaceous are responsible for this shift:

1. Mountain uplift. The Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau in particular had a major impact on global cooling after the Cretaceous, forming as a result of the Indian subcontinent colliding into Asia. High mountains change prevailing wind and Jet Stream patterns, blocking warm and moist ocean air from reaching the interior of the continents.

2. Mountain-building and atmospheric carbon. When mountains uplift, they expose more rock to the air, allowing for greater rates of weathering. Carbon dioxide dissolved in rainwater reacts with minerals in rock, forming carbonates. These carbonates get washed to sea, where they settle to the sea-floor and are "trapped" from the atmosphere. The formation of mountains after the Cretaceous actually helped sequester carbon, lowering the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere!

3. The closing of the Isthmus of Panama. When North and South American were connected during the Great American Interchange, the tropical sea currents that connected the widening Atlantic with the Pacific were closed off. The Atlantic in particular cooled significantly, now that ocean currents were diverted from tropical warmth.

4. The opening of the Drake Passage. When South America and Antarctica finally broke apart, this allowed oceans to circulate the South Pole and created a new zone where cold oceanic deepwater is formed (deepwater is cold surface water that sinks to the deep ocean and helps drive oceanic conveyor belts).

The dinosaurs weren't the only part of our planet to disappear during the Cretaceous; temperatures were warmer, and carbon dioxide levels were greater than present, but these were due to a distinct set of characteristics that no longer exist on planet Earth. It took tens of millions of years for the current Earth system to evolve, and the system that has existed for the last 2.4 million years is dramatically different than the past. To compare the age of the dinosaurs to the modern climate system is ludicrous, but it betrays a common misunderstanding of the changing Earth system.
Airwayfreak
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 974
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:56 am
Closest Airfield: FAJS
Location: Johannesburg
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 20 times

Re: NASA scientist debunks man made global warming

Unread post by Airwayfreak » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:41 am

zander wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:19 am

:lol: The way how this figure is put out in kilograms just show's the source's lack of professionalism, and is a drop in the ocean compared to Human Induced CO2 generation
Actually the source had it at 200 000 000 tons per annum. I added extra zeros to get the knee jerk reaction I expected. I even got that wrong, so the only non professional here is me.
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: NASA scientist debunks man made global warming

Unread post by sampie » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:47 am

dany wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:15 am
In school they teach, Animals and humans need oxygen and plants need carbon dioxide.
Unfortunately that's where the mere school education system falls short.

This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic, if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects.
Last edited by sampie on Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Iceberg
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:09 pm
Closest Airfield: FAWB
Location: Pretoria
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 14 times

Re: NASA scientist debunks man made global warming

Unread post by Iceberg » Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:59 am

zander wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:40 am
Iceberg wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:29 am
Mmmmm, yes the irony is that all the Co2 we are pumping into the atmosphere came from there in the first place.
He he - just bringing back the equilibrium of the hot, humid swampy world of 200 million years ago in which huge dinosours thrived...
This is another variant of many common denier arguments to try and twist the truth towards their liking.

This statement betray a fundamental ignorance about how the earth system works, and has worked in the past. They are true to a point; yes, the earth was warmer during the age of the dinosaurs, and there was most certainly more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So why is the current warming anything different than a part of the Earth's natural cycle?
I knew almost all of the stuff you quoted - se be careful before saying I'm ignorant. [-X
Sure, my statement was simplistic and the quote in blue merely echoes what I said.

The point I was making is that the earth system is not static - has never been - and it is complex, yes. So if the CO2 levels are changing, the climate is changing etc., is this necessarily good or bad in the long term? It is just inconvenient for us humans who like predictable stable environments, but that will never be as it has never been in the past.
The sky is not the limit....
ZS-MDK
Karl Eschberger
User avatar
zander
Take off Clearance
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: Honeydew
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: NASA scientist debunks man made global warming

Unread post by zander » Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:03 pm

Airwayfreak wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:41 am

Actually the source had it at 200 000 000 tons per annum. I added extra zeros to get the knee jerk reaction I expected. I even got that wrong, so the only non professional here is me.
no stress man :smt023
User avatar
zander
Take off Clearance
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: Honeydew
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: NASA scientist debunks man made global warming

Unread post by zander » Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:15 pm

Iceberg wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:59 am
zander wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:40 am
Iceberg wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:29 am
Mmmmm, yes the irony is that all the Co2 we are pumping into the atmosphere came from there in the first place.
He he - just bringing back the equilibrium of the hot, humid swampy world of 200 million years ago in which huge dinosours thrived...
This is another variant of many common denier arguments to try and twist the truth towards their liking.

This statement betray a fundamental ignorance about how the earth system works, and has worked in the past. They are true to a point; yes, the earth was warmer during the age of the dinosaurs, and there was most certainly more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So why is the current warming anything different than a part of the Earth's natural cycle?
I knew almost all of the stuff you quoted - se be careful before saying I'm ignorant. [-X
Sure, my statement was simplistic and the quote in blue merely echoes what I said.

The point I was making is that the earth system is not static - has never been - and it is complex, yes. So if the CO2 levels are changing, the climate is changing etc., is this necessarily good or bad in the long term? It is just inconvenient for us humans who like predictable stable environments, but that will never be as it has never been in the past.
No disrespect, it's just similar statements have been brought up before.

As to the climate not being static, it's a very bad thing if the change get's pushed beyond certain limits, where manmade climate change plays a big role.

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

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

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

So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.
User avatar
Iceberg
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:09 pm
Closest Airfield: FAWB
Location: Pretoria
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 14 times

Re: NASA scientist debunks man made global warming

Unread post by Iceberg » Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:26 pm

zander wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:15 pm
Iceberg wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:59 am
zander wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:40 am


This is another variant of many common denier arguments to try and twist the truth towards their liking.

This statement betray a fundamental ignorance about how the earth system works, and has worked in the past. They are true to a point; yes, the earth was warmer during the age of the dinosaurs, and there was most certainly more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So why is the current warming anything different than a part of the Earth's natural cycle?
I knew almost all of the stuff you quoted - se be careful before saying I'm ignorant. [-X
Sure, my statement was simplistic and the quote in blue merely echoes what I said.

The point I was making is that the earth system is not static - has never been - and it is complex, yes. So if the CO2 levels are changing, the climate is changing etc., is this necessarily good or bad in the long term? It is just inconvenient for us humans who like predictable stable environments, but that will never be as it has never been in the past.
No disrespect, it's just similar statements have been brought up before.

As to the climate not being static, it's bad thing if the change get's pushed beyond certain limits, where manmade climate change plays a big role.

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

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

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

So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.
One can argue that the expansion of the human population, the expansion of knowledge in that population and its use of fossil fuels is part of the naturally changing earth system. About 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, and we as humans will follow that path as well...

As Stephen Hawking said:

"The initial configuration of the universe may have been chosen by God, or it may itself have been determined by the laws of science. In either case, it would seem that everything in the universe would then be determined by evolution according to the laws of science, so it is difficult to see how we can be masters of our fate."
The sky is not the limit....
ZS-MDK
Karl Eschberger
User avatar
zander
Take off Clearance
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: Honeydew
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: NASA scientist debunks man made global warming

Unread post by zander » Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:50 pm

That argument leaves the impression that it's ok to just lay waste and pump forth pollution into the air and oceans as pleased (like the fossil fuel industry is doing without a care in the world) before greedy empires, this was not the case, point being everything begins and ends in this reality yes, how much the process can be slown is what matters.
User avatar
MadMacs
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2290
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:41 pm
Closest Airfield: GRJ
Location: On my bed
Has liked: 142 times
Been liked: 25 times

Global warming

Unread post by MadMacs » Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:55 pm

So, apparently yesterday or the day before it was 10 years ago that Al Gore stated that the polar ice caps will completely melt within 5 years due to global warming!!
The closest I get to flying these days is when I put my cellphone in 'flight mode'.
User avatar
heisan
Fife Thousand feet
Fife Thousand feet
Posts: 5370
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:45 pm
Closest Airfield: Rhino Park
Location: Pretoria
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 81 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by heisan » Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:22 pm

MadMacs wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:55 pm
... Al Gore stated that the polar ice caps will completely melt within 5 years due to global warming!!
This is why it is so easy to simply dismiss climate change denialists. Misquoting someone, and out of context at that, to 'prove' that he was wrong...
Justin Schoeman

ZU-FSR (Raven)
Skymaster
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:32 pm
Closest Airfield: FAGM
Location: Johannesburg
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Skymaster » Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:32 pm

In 2009 Prince Charles - the royal who chats to his plants - announced in reference to global warming "we have 10 years to save the world."
Jel
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Jel » Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:17 am

Skymaster wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:32 pm
In 2009 Prince Charles - the royal who chats to his plants - announced in reference to global warming "we have 10 years to save the world."
Again in context.... some would say, which I would agree with, we have passed the tipping point, and no matter what we do now its too late... 10 years to make the necessary changes to save the world... :shock: :shock:

Return to “123.45”