Global warming

Aviation Trivia, Jokes & Humour

Moderator: Moderators

Triaan
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Triaan » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:28 am

Not at all, I would love to climb on an ice breaker, just because there's thick ice in certain places does not mean Human Induced Global Warming does not exist, in most parts on a global scale its rapidly melting, the earth is big and science looks at the whole planet, not a single patch, more is melting than what is accumulating and that's what is important :wink:

The "argument" of climate change exists as long as all exists has loooong been thoroughly explained, scientists know that, in fact they discovered it, page back you'll see it shown many times, yet it gets repeated like a broken record #-o
Kortbroek
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:13 am
Closest Airfield: FAPE
Location: Port Elizabeth
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Kortbroek » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:05 am

Triaan wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:28 am
... Human Induced Global Warming...
This is I believe where most people lose the plot. The current warming cycle is most definitely not human induced. We are possibly accelerating it, but it is a very natural heating cycle.

Funny thing about the "Ice Breaker" story, climate change coupled to global warming doesn't necessarily mean all the ice will disappear. In fact a very likely scenario is that dry regions become even drier, wet regions get more rain, polar regions with high precipitation might see an increase in ice buildup etc.

Likewise polar regions with low or no precipitation are likely to see a decrease in ice.

Where does this leave us? Well if you look at the geological record the planet has done much worse to itself multiple times over history than we are doing and aside from literally blowing it to pieces we won't kill the planet. So dealing with global warming and climate change has nothing to do about saving nature as some greenies believe, it has everything to do with the survival of humans as a species.
Triaan
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Triaan » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:43 pm

Kortbroek wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:05 am
Triaan wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:28 am
... Human Induced Global Warming...
This is I believe where most people lose the plot. The current warming cycle is most definitely not human induced. We are possibly accelerating it, but it is a very natural heating cycle.
Funny how if you just say so you assume it simply becomes so, sorry thats not how it works, just saying so does not make it so ! And It's not a "plot" it is Science.

This is the myth deniers claim:

It's a natural cycle
"Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years." (Don Easterbrook)


A new article by Lon Hocker at the website "Watts Up With That?" examines the relationship between global temperature and CO2 over the last three decades. The article's conclusion is concisely summarised in its title: The temperature rise has caused the CO2 increase, not the other way around. This conclusion would be rather startling if it were true, since the scientific consensus is that CO2 is currently acting as a "forcing" that warms the climate. How does Hocker reach this conclusion, and is it reasonable?

The data used in Hocker's analysis are monthly atmospheric CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa (obtained from NOAA) and satellite-measured temperature data for the lower troposphere (from UAH, apparently using a subset of the global data over the oceans only). The temperature data are recorded as anomalies, or differences between the actual temperature and the long-term mean.

The Mauna Loa CO2 data show a long-term increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The Mauna Loa data are the longest high-quality CO2 record, dating back to 1958. While one might think that the side of a volcano might not be the best place to measure CO2, in fact the procedures used at Mauna Loa compensate for any contamination by volcanic gases. As shown in Figure 1, since 1980 we have had global CO2 data from a network of stations, and these data show that the Mauna Loa trend is very representative of the global trend in CO2.

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.

This is where the previously-mentioned alert readers will be nodding their heads and saying "Yes! We knew it!" The error that Hocker makes - taking the derivative of a time series to remove its long-term trend, then correlating a second data set with this derivative, and finally claiming the second data set explains the long-term trend - is exactly the same error that was recently discovered in a prominent "skeptical" paper by McLean 2009. McLean correlated an index of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation with the first derivative of temperature, while Hocker correlates temperature with the first derivative of CO2 concentration. Perhaps if Hocker were an avid reader of Skeptical Science, he would have been familiar with this error in McLean's analysis and would have avoided repeating it!

What else can be said about this subject? Well, it is true that the solubility of CO2 in seawater is a function of temperature, and all else being equal, as the ocean warms it will give off CO2 to the atmosphere. And in fact this is the mechanism by which a CO2 feedback amplified the temperature swings during the Pleistocene glacial/interglacial cycles. But in today's world, the greatly increased partial pressure of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions causes a flux of CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans. This is known from decades of oceanographic surveys that show the oceans are a "sink" rather than a source of CO2 in the atmosphere (Takahashi 2009, Sabine 2004).

It's also interesting to note that climate scientists have known for at least three decades that short-term fluctuations in temperature (e.g., those associated with the ENSO cycle) are correlated with short-term fluctuations in the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 (Bacastow and Keeling 1981). Section 7.3.2.4
Where does this leave us? Well if you look at the geological record the planet has done much worse to itself multiple times over history than we are doing and aside from literally blowing it to pieces we won't kill the planet.
Entirely wrong, quote your reference, those events distinctively led to mass extinctions:

The geological record shows many ancient changes in climate, including massive ice ages, hot-house conditions, oxygen-free and acidic oceans, and massive extinction events. These changes happened millions of years before humans, most occurred before even primitive mammals, appeared on the scene. Previous climate changes were caused by orbital wobbles, solar fluctuations, and movement of continents. None of those effects are causing the current heating

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/1 ... 711-105521
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/arch ... 19-4-4.pdf
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/ge ... m=fulltext
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ ... rian.shtml

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.

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.
Kortbroek
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:13 am
Closest Airfield: FAPE
Location: Port Elizabeth
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Kortbroek » Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:04 pm

Ok slow down quotezilla.

Go read my statements carefully. We've been in a progressive warming cycle for the last 11 000 odd years since the end of the Pleistocene which was approx when the last major ice age was. This is undisputable. I am not disputing that our emissions have an influence on global climate and temperature which is effectively what your quote says. I'm merely stating that without our emissions this would more than likely have happened anyhow, possibly would just have taken a few million years longer.
Previous climate changes were caused by orbital wobbles, solar fluctuations, and movement of continents.
This is all just possible scenarios punted by various researchers. They more than likely all have some validity. Keep in mind that looking into geological history and doing paleoclimate studies we are constrained mostly by what has been preserved which unfortunately gives us only part of the picture. From there we extrapolate the rest based on our understanding of the processes involved. In the light of this, if you think about all the mass extinctions you mention, sure I agree most lifeforms were wiped out, again if you read what I wrote above you'll see I said exactly that. Doesn't really matter much to the planet though considering decently complex life has only been present since about 550 million years ago while the planet has been pushing itself through various major warming and cooling events since the archean.

Now on to your CO2 stories:
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.
This quote gets to me a bit. Give us some context there? Are you referring to the fact that present day volcanic CO2 accounts for approx 0.22% of anthropogenic emissions? Or are you implying that no major volcanic episode has ever produced this much CO2? Because I'd tread carefully when trying to say that current day CO2 emissions are higher than any we've had in the history of the planet.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 379290243C
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... /90EO10192
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/ge ... 963/206581
But in today's world, the greatly increased partial pressure of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions causes a flux of CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans. This is known from decades of oceanographic surveys that show the oceans are a "sink" rather than a source of CO2 in the atmosphere (Takahashi 2009, Sabine 2004).
I like this statement because if you really think about it, many times in the history of the planet the oceans had to be a sink for CO2, else how would you deposit chemical limestone deposits? They're not all formed from dead marine life.

Something else to consider when people refer to rapid climate changes or rapid changes in the atmosphere, they're talking a few 1000 years. In fact for reference, in my research framework a rapid event happens in about 5 million years.

The other problem here is that the topic we're discussing is so broad that to try and pin this on a single component like just CO2, that gets tricky. I mean we're not taking into account the various Fe2+/Fe3+ isotopes which influence marine life, which has an influence on O2, which has an influence on CO2 flux in the ocean.... etc. I think you get my point?

And lastly if I may quote your opening line:
Funny how if you just say so you assume it simply becomes so, sorry thats not how it works, just saying so does not make it so ! And It's not a "plot" it is Science.
According to the Cambridge online dictionary, lose the plot: "to no longer be able to act normally or understand what is happening"

Funny thing telling me this is science. These scientists you quote so willy nilly, I just happen to be one of them :D
Kortbroek
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:13 am
Closest Airfield: FAPE
Location: Port Elizabeth
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Kortbroek » Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:19 pm

now that I've argued that side of the coin, let me hop over to the other side where we are the major cause 8)

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 48002/meta

Biophysical feedbacks between the Pleistocene megafauna extinction and climate: The first human‐induced global warming?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 10GL043985

Pleistocene Reindeer and Global Warming
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 05.00267.x
Kortbroek
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:13 am
Closest Airfield: FAPE
Location: Port Elizabeth
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Kortbroek » Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:46 pm

Image
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 10RG000345

Some more good reading on industrial age temperature trends globally.
Kortbroek
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:13 am
Closest Airfield: FAPE
Location: Port Elizabeth
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Kortbroek » Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:51 pm

So one last post:

This is part of the argument why I think human activity did not initiate climate change/global warming. I'm not disputing that we have a big effect on it now though.
Climate Change During the Holocene (Past 12,000 Years)

Abstract
This chapter summarises the climatic and environmental information that can be inferred from proxy archives over the past 12,000 years. The proxy archives from continental and lake sediments include pollen, insect remnants and isotopic data. Over the Holocene, the Baltic Sea area underwent major changes due to two interrelated factors—melting of the Fennoscandian ice sheet (causing interplay between global sea-level rise due to the meltwater and regional isostatic rebound of the earth’s crust causing a drop in relative sea level ) and changes in the orbital configuration of the Earth (triggering the glacial to interglacial transition and affecting incoming solar radiation and so controlling the regional energy balance). The Holocene climate history showed three stages of natural climate oscillations in the Baltic Sea region: short-term cold episodes related to deglaciation during a stable positive temperature trend (11,000–8000 cal year BP); a warm and stable climate with air temperature 1.0–3.5 °C above modern levels (8000–4500 cal year BP), a decreasing temperature trend; and increased climatic instability (last 5000–4500 years). The climatic variation during the Lateglacial and Holocene is reflected in the changing lake levels and vegetation , and in the formation of a complex hydrographical network that set the stage for the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age of the past millennium.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -16006-1_2


Then just another spin on the topic:
Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/
Triaan
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Triaan » Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:26 pm

Kortbroek wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:04 pm
Ok slow down quotezilla.

Go read my statements carefully. We've been in a progressive warming cycle for the last 11 000 odd years since the end of the Pleistocene which was approx when the last major ice age was. This is undisputable. I am not disputing that our emissions have an influence on global climate and temperature which is effectively what your quote says. I'm merely stating that without our emissions this would more than likely have happened anyhow, possibly would just have taken a few million years longer.
Of course, that is true however.
That difference could mean the difference between life and extinction, the information i give is not stories though.
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.

This quote gets to me a bit. Give us some context there? Are you referring to the fact that present day volcanic CO2 accounts for approx 0.22% of anthropogenic emissions? Or are you implying that no major volcanic episode has ever produced this much CO2? Because I'd tread carefully when trying to say that current day CO2 emissions are higher than any we've had in the history of the planet.
Good questions, well said, i am not going to delve into a deep 10 page answer as this is a huge topic, this i wil say:

There are a few studies, i will cite this one as it would be rather large to post all individually:

One scientific study, published in the journal Science, scientists analyzed shells in deep sea sediments to estimate past CO2 levels, and found that CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now for at least the past 10 to 15 million years, during the Miocene epoch.

The 34 billion tonnes of annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates.

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate’s sensitivity to CO2.

While there have been past periods in Earth's history when temperatures were warmer than they are now, the rate of change that is currently taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past, and therefore it will likely be more difficult to adapt to.

Scientists can determine the source of CO2 in the atmosphere.That which comes from burning fossil fuels is different from that which comes from volcanoes or from biological sources. The excess CO2 (that above pre-industrial 280 ppm or so) has come from fossil fuel burning.

Sea levels are increasing today in response to the warming climate, as ice sheets melt and seas expand due to rising temperatures.

it is clear that CO2 levels are now higher than they have ever been in mankind’s history. With global CO2 emissions continuing on an upward trajectory that is likely to put CO2 concentrations above 450 ppm or higher, it is extremely unlikely that the steadily rising shape of the Keeling Curve is going to change anytime soon.

“There's an esthetic to the curve that's beautiful science and troubling reality,” Keeling said. “I'd very much like to see the curve change from going steadily upward to flattening out.”

The measured radiation imbalance in the TOA (Top of Atmosphere) shows that the new atmosphere composition is causing a radiative forcing of the climate, just as all the climate models show. The excess heat trapped in the troposphere layer goes mainly (over 90%) into heating the ocean - and the warming ocean is causing the Arctic sea ice to whither away in the summer. Last year was another big record, smashing the 2007 record. The oceans, and land, and ice will continue to warm. Glaciers are melting, the Arctic sea ice will vanish in the summers, the oceans will continue to warm, even the abyss, and will continue to do so until the increased energy radiated from the higher temperature troposphere balances out with the incoming energy from the Sun. Hence the “pipeline” - until the input/output is balanced, the Earth will continue warming towards it’s new equilibrium point.
But in today's world, the greatly increased partial pressure of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions causes a flux of CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans. This is known from decades of oceanographic surveys that show the oceans are a "sink" rather than a source of CO2 in the atmosphere (Takahashi 2009, Sabine 2004).

I like this statement because if you really think about it, many times in the history of the planet the oceans had to be a sink for CO2, else how would you deposit chemical limestone deposits? They're not all formed from dead marine life.

Something else to consider when people refer to rapid climate changes or rapid changes in the atmosphere, they're talking a few 1000 years. In fact for reference, in my research framework a rapid event happens in about 5 million years.

The other problem here is that the topic we're discussing is so broad that to try and pin this on a single component like just CO2, that gets tricky. I mean we're not taking into account the various Fe2+/Fe3+ isotopes which influence marine life, which has an influence on O2, which has an influence on CO2 flux in the ocean.... etc. I think you get my point?
Good and interesting answers. Yes it is true that a lot of factors is involved in climate change however given the evidence i have seen i am convinced that Co2 is the main driver for Climate Change, i will only quote the following from science whether you agree or not is up to you.

Processes that have historically altered the face of the planet, like cycles in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun or shifts in continental tectonic plates, occur over tens of thousands to millions of years. While not nearly as dramatic, the influence of solar, ocean, and wind patterns is much more immediate, but these effects generally alternate between warming and cooling over the course of months to decades in relation to their respective cycles. Volcanic eruptions and impacts from celestial bodies, like asteroids, have a near instantaneous effect, but very few of these one-time events are of sufficient size to impact the global climate for more than a few years.

The industrial contribution of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere differs from its natural counterparts in fundamental ways. This human influence is happening very rapidly, is not cyclical, and pushes the climate continually and relentlessly in the single direction of warming.

All of these influences, along with additional factors like land use changes, carbon soot and halocarbon emissions, and albedo variations, must be considered cumulatively to determine the net impact.

Over the last 30 years of direct satellite observation of the Earth’s climate, many natural influences including orbital variations, solar and volcanic activity, and oceanic conditions like El Nino (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) have either had no effect or promoted cooling conditions.

Despite these natural oppositions, global temperatures have steadily risen throughout that time.

While natural processes continue to introduce short term variability, the unremitting rise of CO2 from industrial activities has become the dominant factor in determining our planet’s climate now and in the years to come.
And lastly if I may quote your opening line:
Funny how if you just say so you assume it simply becomes so, sorry thats not how it works, just saying so does not make it so ! And It's not a "plot" it is Science.
According to the Cambridge online dictionary, lose the plot: "to no longer be able to act normally or understand what is happening"

Funny thing telling me this is science. These scientists you quote so willy nilly, I just happen to be one of them :D
Little did i know that your are a scientist, sorry lots of deniers here i'm used to people just giving answers without looking at evidence, i can tell by the questions you pose you are a scientist.

Nothing compared to the evidence I’ve seen can convince me human induced climate change is not real.There is way too much evidence pointing towards it.
Last edited by Triaan on Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:09 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Triaan
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Triaan » Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:55 pm

Kortbroek wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:19 pm
now that I've argued that side of the coin, let me hop over to the other side where we are the major cause 8)

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 48002/meta

Biophysical feedbacks between the Pleistocene megafauna extinction and climate: The first human‐induced global warming?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 10GL043985

Pleistocene Reindeer and Global Warming
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 05.00267.x
Good
Triaan
Flaps set for Take off
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Triaan » Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:58 pm

Kortbroek wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:51 pm
So one last post:

This is part of the argument why I think human activity did not initiate climate change/global warming. I'm not disputing that we have a big effect on it now though.
Climate Change During the Holocene (Past 12,000 Years)

Abstract
This chapter summarises the climatic and environmental information that can be inferred from proxy archives over the past 12,000 years. The proxy archives from continental and lake sediments include pollen, insect remnants and isotopic data. Over the Holocene, the Baltic Sea area underwent major changes due to two interrelated factors—melting of the Fennoscandian ice sheet (causing interplay between global sea-level rise due to the meltwater and regional isostatic rebound of the earth’s crust causing a drop in relative sea level ) and changes in the orbital configuration of the Earth (triggering the glacial to interglacial transition and affecting incoming solar radiation and so controlling the regional energy balance). The Holocene climate history showed three stages of natural climate oscillations in the Baltic Sea region: short-term cold episodes related to deglaciation during a stable positive temperature trend (11,000–8000 cal year BP); a warm and stable climate with air temperature 1.0–3.5 °C above modern levels (8000–4500 cal year BP), a decreasing temperature trend; and increased climatic instability (last 5000–4500 years). The climatic variation during the Lateglacial and Holocene is reflected in the changing lake levels and vegetation , and in the formation of a complex hydrographical network that set the stage for the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age of the past millennium.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -16006-1_2


Then just another spin on the topic:
Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/
Interesting, you look at things from a logical perspective, what did i expect you are scientist why shouldn't you 8)
User avatar
Wingnutter
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:14 pm
Closest Airfield: Chek Lap Kok VHHH
Location: Hong Kong
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Wingnutter » Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:32 am

Love this:

https://youtu.be/pBbvehbomrY

Basically we’re all screwed and there’s nothing anyone’s prepared to do about it, because it would be inconvenient to change and cost money - like most of the worlds problems, such as plastic.

Glad I don’t have kids.
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
User avatar
rare bird
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:47 pm
Has liked: 40 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by rare bird » Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:26 am

genuine question : what is the percentage difference in effect between water vapour and CO2 ? (as a greenhouse gas) .

also just a question (with glass of wine in hand) : how much heat does the ocean / water absorb (the specific heat capacity of water is high, compared to iron and nickel etc) and also, what would the properties of iron & nickel be at very high temperature & very high pressure (eg at the centre of the earth?)
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 8 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by vanjast » Sun Jan 27, 2019 11:12 pm

A civilised chat about it...
There are plenty of these, as the wave of truth starts to hit home :wink:



and this is where the looneys come from..


The revolution is coming .. :lol:
User avatar
MadMacs
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2288
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:41 pm
Closest Airfield: GRJ
Location: On my bed
Has liked: 138 times
Been liked: 25 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by MadMacs » Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:25 am

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: 5363
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:45 pm
Closest Airfield: Rhino Park
Location: Pretoria
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 78 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by heisan » Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:44 am

Hmmm... I wonder if this research also applies to climate change :twisted: :

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/canada ... 1c9df46672
Across four studies conducted in three countries — the U.S., France and Germany — the researchers found that extreme opponents of genetically modified foods “display a lack of insight into how much they know.” They know the least, but think they know the most.

“The less people know,” the authors conclude, “the more opposed they are to the scientific consensus.”
Justin Schoeman

ZU-FSR (Raven)

Return to “123.45”