Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Aviation Trivia, Jokes & Humour

Moderator: Moderators

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

Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by Skymaster » Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:44 pm

Methane warming exaggerated by 400%
By Barry Brill


The IPCC’s AR5 estimated the global warming caused by a tonne of livestock methane would be 28 times that of a tonne of carbon dioxide. New research destroys that estimate.
The war on meat has been gathering pace amongst our Western elites. The Economist makes a detailed case for “plant-based food” in the interests of quelling climate change –
The FAO calculates that cattle generate up to two-thirds of the greenhouse gases from livestock, and are the world’s fifth largest source of methane. If cows were a country, the United Herds of Earth would be the planet’s third largest greenhouse-gas emitter.
These calculations are based on figures supplied by the IPCC’s AR5, which contends that the global warming potential (GWP) of methane over 100 years is no less than 28 times the global warming it expects to be caused by an equivalent weight of carbon dioxide. This estimate is up from the GWP of 21 put forward in the IPCC’s previous report.
All this is now challenged by a new and authoritative research paper, Allen et al (2017): “A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, under ambitious mitigation”. This paper finds that conventional GWPs misrepresent the impact of short-lived gases (such as methane) on global temperature – and recommends the adoption of a new metric, denoted as GWP*.
This is a big advance. The abstract observes that, “measured by GWP*, implementing the Paris Agreement would reduce the expected rate of warming in 2030 by 28% relative to No Policy”. And who would know this better than lead author Myles Allen, who was also a co-author of the IPCC’s SR1.5 in 2018.
Currently visiting New Zealand, Professor Allen has recommended that enteric methane be entirely omitted from that country’s cap-and-trade scheme (ETS) because a steady-state herd of cattle can add very little to global warming. Methane has a half-life in the atmosphere of only about six years – so that every new molecule added is offset by the expiry of a molecule emitted by that herd a few years earlier.
He says:
“Traditional greenhouse gas accounting ignores the impact of changing methane emission rates while grossly exaggerating the impact of steady methane emissions”. And –
“Climate policy the world over has traditionally treated every tonne of methane as supposedly “equivalent” to 28 tonnes of carbon dioxide… It isn’t.
To find the carbon dioxide emissions that would actually have a similar impact on global temperature as methane emissions, you need to multiply those methane emissions by seven (not 28), and add the rate of change of methane emissions (measured in tonnes of methane per year per year), multiplied by 2100.”
If there is no “rate of change” (ie the quantity of emissions by weight is constant over time) then there is a one-off impact of only seven times the equivalent weight of CO2. Note that this should only be counted once – there is no accumulation as is the case for CO2 and other long-lived gases.
And, if the herd’s digestive efficiency is improved ever so slightly –
“Even more strikingly, if an individual herd’s methane emissions are falling by one third of one percent per year (that’s 7/2100, so the two terms cancel out) …then that herd is no longer adding to global warming. Yet if methane were included in a European-style Emission Trading System (ETS), the owner of the herd would have to pay just as if it was.”
Professor Allen is not beset by doubts regarding the error of the old ways:
“That this formula is vastly more accurate than the traditional accounting rule is indisputable.”
Not only are steady-state cattle herds climatically harmless, but they have the opportunity to help out the motorists and jet-setters. Professor Allen says in a further speech that if New Zealand reduced methane emissions by 30% over the next 30 years, that would actually contribute to global cooling:
“If a farmer is providing a service to the rest of the country by compensating for other people’s global warming, then that farmer might want to make a case that they should be compensated for that.”
As a co-author of SR1.5, the professor has a tip for the meat warriors that they should not rely on RCP scenarios:
“Those scenarios are based on economic models of the relative cost of different ways of reducing emissions. Some of the inputs to these models, like the estimated “cost” of a large fraction of the population turning vegetarian, are deeply subjective. The scenarios provide background information, but I would not rely on them as a basis for national policy.”
The findings of the Allen et al paper have been implicitly accepted by New Zealand’s Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton – formerly the head of the OECD Environment Directorate. He has this week published a lengthy and detailed report, Farms, Forests and Fossil Fuels, which recommends that the Government develop two separate targets for the second half of the 21st century – a zero target for fossil emissions, and a reduction target for biological emissions.
Let’s all enjoy a hearty guilt-free steak, served with lashings of cheese and butter!(...ends)

The alarmists, goody-two-shoes, snowflakes and Hollywood slebs have little understanding of the real world.
There are many parts of the world where the land is too poor to grow edible crops.
However this self same land can sustain livestock which provides much needed protein for citizens of third world countries.
Forcing a vegetarian diet, which the luvvies all subscribe to would see many of these people starve to death!
Ecologist Alan Savory has demonstrated how shifting herds of cattle over poor pasture can result in healthy animals whilst restoring the quality of the soil - breaking up hard surfaces and allowing ingress of manure and water.
Sensible people all over the world are coming to realise that the hokum theory that Co2 alone is the cause of global warming is no longer credible.
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: Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by heisan » Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:09 pm

Interesting paper. Here it is, if you actually want to read it, instead of a butchered summary:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8

So, basically the current models calculate methane equivalence based on mass plus growth rate. He proposes splitting it into separate factors for mass and growth rate (which judging from other articles seems to be a valid proposition).

Of course, it makes no difference at the moment, because methane growth rate is still fairly constant - but it does mean that if we do manage to reduce the growth rate the cumulative effect will be stronger than originally calculated. Good news indeed, if the growth can be capped - but until it is, the boat is still sinking.
Justin Schoeman

ZU-FSR (Raven)
JCA
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1411
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:34 pm
Closest Airfield: Krugersdorp
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by JCA » Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:35 pm

Weren't cattle and other animal methane producers around long before IC engines and jets? Last stand of the Vegans? ps don't stand downwind of China and India. Especially in the bean season.
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: Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by heisan » Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:50 pm

JCA wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:35 pm
Weren't cattle and other animal methane producers around long before IC engines and jets? Last stand of the Vegans? ps don't stand downwind of China and India. Especially in the bean season.
Yes - but in balance with plant and carnivore life. High density farming skews the ratio.
Justin Schoeman

ZU-FSR (Raven)
User avatar
skytrooper
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2134
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:39 pm
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 23 times

Re: Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by skytrooper » Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:16 am

The Evidence is there, They don't get it wrong, it's the deniers that Always gets to stupefy themselves overlooking the facts :wink:
These users liked the author skytrooper for the post:
sampie
Ubluwulululululu....!
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: Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by Skymaster » Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:22 pm

Here's how the "Global Warming believers" get it completely wrong with their unproven and unscientific claims that C02 causes global warming, climate change or whatever they call it this week to be congruent with their mistaken narrative.

1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years. And just last week, a snowstorm forced Heathrow airport to shut down, stranding thousands of Christmas travelers.
A spokesman for the government-funded British Council, where Viner now works as the lead climate change expert, said that that climate science had improved since the prediction was made. (Ha Ha Ha!)
British Council spokesman Mark Herbert said. "However, Dr Viner believes that his general predictions are still relevant."

2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.
"On the whole I would stand by these predictions -- not predictions, sorry, scenarios -- as having at least in a general way actually come true," he said. "There's been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that's in drought has increased over that period."
That may be in doubt, however. Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century.

3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
Status of prediction: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.
The group that did the study, Atmospheric and Environmental Research Inc., said it could not comment in time for this story .
But Oppenheimer said that the difference between an increase of nearly one degree and an increase of two degrees was "definitely within the margin of error... I would think the scientists themselves would be happy with that prediction."
Many scientists, especially in the 1970s, made an error in the other direction by predicting global freezing:

5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.
Life Magazine also noted that some people disagree, "but scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the following predictions."
Air quality has actually improved since 1970. Studies find that sunlight reaching the Earth fell by somewhere between 3 and 5 percent over the period in question.

6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.
According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1970.
How could scientists have made such off-base claims? Dr. Paul Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb" and president of Stanford University's Center for Conservation Biology, said that ideas about climate science changed a great deal in the the '70s and '80s.
"Present trends didn't continue," Ehrlich said of Watt's prediction. "There was considerable debate in the climatological community in the '60s about whether there would be cooling or warming … Discoveries in the '70s and '80s showed that the warming was going to be the overwhelming force."
Ehrlich said that the consequences of future warming could be dire.
The proverbial excrement is "a lot closer to the fan than it was in 1968," he said. "And every single colleague I have agrees with that."
He added, "Scientists don't live by the opinion of Rush Limbaugh and Palin and George W. They live by the support of their colleagues, and I've had full support of my colleagues continuously."
But Ehrlich admits that several of his own past environmental predictions have not come true:

7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
Ehrlich's prediction was taken seriously when he made it, and New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled "In Praise of Prophets."

8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

The facts of the matter is that scientists who dispute the unproven theory of Co2 have NOT got it wrong.
In fact they are quite correct in questioning why the minute increase in C02 has not resulted in the doom and gloom forecasts predicted by alarmists.
There are hundreds of examples on file that prove the lie to most global warming claims yet the alarmists continue to reel them out in the vain hope that sensible people will believe their twaddle. Thus sustaining their gravy train grants and allowing greedy governments to introduce so called "carbon taxes" to fill their vote-buying coffers.
The climate may well be changing, but to claim that Co2 is the sole cause is naive, arrant nonsense.
User avatar
Wingnutter
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2209
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:14 pm
Closest Airfield: Chek Lap Kok VHHH
Location: Hong Kong
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 12 times

Re: Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by Wingnutter » Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:38 am

Climate change: Sir David Attenborough warns of 'catastrophe' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47976184

But what would Sir David Attenborough know - it’s not like he’s devoted his life to studying and observing the planet or anything like that.
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
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: Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by sampie » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:01 pm

Skymaster wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:22 pm
Here's how the "Global Warming believers" get it completely wrong with their unproven and unscientific claims that C02 causes global warming, climate change or whatever they call it this week to be congruent with their mistaken narrative.

The facts of the matter is that scientists who dispute the unproven theory of Co2 have NOT got it wrong.
In fact they are quite correct in questioning why the minute increase in C02 has not resulted in the doom and gloom forecasts predicted by alarmists.
What those references you provided from the 70s and 80s ? :lol:
There are hundreds of examples on file that prove the lie to most global warming claims yet the alarmists continue to reel them out in the vain hope that sensible people will believe their twaddle.
Really??? I have not seen ONE posted on ALL the Climate Change threads we had here, only ignorant dumb and stupid political speakers caught out lying EVERYTIME ! :lol:
Thus sustaining their gravy train grants and allowing greedy governments to introduce so called "carbon taxes" to fill their vote-buying coffers.
The deniers beyond pathetic reasoning is now so desperate, they try pretend Big Oil's Decades of Iron Fist ruling Destroying the planet in too many ways to mention
and Capitalizing on every possible OIL energy source conceived ruining 1 ecosystem after another relentlessly and Boldly, can even be Conceived to compare with Climate Change funding ? ? ?
Really ? ? ? #-o
The climate may well be changing, but to claim that Co2 is the sole cause is naive, arrant nonsense.
The proof for CO2 being the SOLE cause is so much you would drown in it if i lay it upon your shoulders :lol:

All your dumb points are referenced from the 70s and 80s. You must either be ignorant,blind dumb or all of the above not to understand how science have changed since those primitive days. Let alone illiterate with regards to the MOUNTAIN of evidence PROVING climate change ! ! !

Go stick your head inside only ONE of fossil fuel's 10s of thousands of factories chimneys around the globe and tell me what comes out there is all Roses and Sunshine =D> #-o
The burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tonnes (21.3 gigatonnes) of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year ! ! ! that's right 21.3 BILLION TONNES ! ! ! Natural processes can only absorb about half of that amount, so there is a net increase of 10.65 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year ! ! !

The deniers are all stuck in the 70s it seems to be the going trend for them, not wanting to accept change and reality, that's why most of them also believe the earth is still flat and the moon made of golden cheese ! #-o
Last edited by sampie on Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
These users liked the author sampie for the post (total 4):
zanderTriaannicoflyChris
User avatar
Fransw
Fower Tousand
Fower Tousand
Posts: 4790
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:22 pm
Closest Airfield: Pretoria
Location: Pretoria
Has liked: 108 times
Been liked: 34 times

Re: Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by Fransw » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:23 pm

Interesting article on the development of plants that absorb large quantities of CO2..https://www.google.com/amp/s/timesofsan ... hange/amp/

(Troll alert!...)
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: Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by sampie » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:27 pm

Applause to them for trying but not the magic solution:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=213985&start=300:
These users liked the author sampie for the post (total 3):
zanderTriaannicofly
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 715
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 8 times

The Appaling Turnout.....

Unread post by vanjast » Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:50 am

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-n ... e-16154018

A joke really... all over the radio as if it's a big event... We're going to shut down the world.
Half-witted, gullible, lo-IQ, 'un-educated' oxygen wasters...

No wait I'm wrong... their existence is producing CO2 in vast amounts :lol: :lol: :lol:
Just around the corner is a ship with a short plank, they need a long walk :twisted:
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: Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by zander » Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:40 am

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-n ... e-16154018
Excellent ! ! ! =D> =D>
The Filthy Oil Empire is so Rot with Lies and Deception, stooping far lower than the filthiest scum you find at the local drainage. I'd prop up this riot 1000 000 000 fold if i had the funds ! ! ! =D> =D>
User avatar
Wingnutter
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2209
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:14 pm
Closest Airfield: Chek Lap Kok VHHH
Location: Hong Kong
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 12 times

Re: The Appaling Turnout.....

Unread post by Wingnutter » Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:38 pm

vanjast wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:50 am
https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-n ... e-16154018

A joke really... all over the radio as if it's a big event... We're going to shut down the world.
Half-witted, gullible, lo-IQ, 'un-educated' oxygen wasters...

No wait I'm wrong... their existence is producing CO2 in vast amounts :lol: :lol: :lol:
Just around the corner is a ship with a short plank, they need a long walk :twisted:
Believe it or not change begins with these “half witted oxygen wasters” it’s called awareness, and every change starts with awareness. The French Revolution started with ‘uneducated oxygen wasters’. One thing is for sure - continuing on the path we are on is 100% guaranteed to end in tears - at least they care enough about their children’s future to make their voices heard. Governments start to sit up and take notice when things like this happen, because no government wants social unrest - ultimately that leads to policy change.
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
C Africa
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:59 am
Closest Airfield: Wonderboom
Location: Pretoria
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 8 times

Re: Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by C Africa » Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:00 am

sampie wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:01 pm
The burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tonnes (21.3 gigatonnes) of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year ! ! ! that's right 21.3 BILLION TONNES ! ! ! Natural processes can only absorb about half of that amount, so there is a net increase of 10.65 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year ! ! !
Maybe you should try to understand the dynamics of carbon dioxide. The CO2 in the air is in equilibrium with the CO2 dissolved in the oceans (where it exists basically as carbonic acid). The amount of CO2 in the oceans is a large multiple of the amount in the atmosphere. So only a small portion of that CO2 ends up in the atmosphere!!

This is of course also a problem for the future. If you can reduce the CO2 output to the point that we produce less than what gets used by plants etc, it will have almost zero effect on the atmospheric CO2 because as fast as you remove it from the atmosphere, it will get topped up by CO2 evaporating from the ocean to maintain the equilibrium.


C
These users liked the author C Africa for the post:
HJK 414
User avatar
HJK 414
Fife Thousand feet
Fife Thousand feet
Posts: 5109
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:34 pm
Closest Airfield: EHTW
Location: wandering ...
Has liked: 19 times
Been liked: 130 times

Re: Alarmist scientists continue to get it wrong.

Unread post by HJK 414 » Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:33 am

C Africa wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:00 am
sampie wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:01 pm
The burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tonnes (21.3 gigatonnes) of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year ! ! ! that's right 21.3 BILLION TONNES ! ! ! Natural processes can only absorb about half of that amount, so there is a net increase of 10.65 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year ! ! !
Maybe you should try to understand the dynamics of carbon dioxide. The CO2 in the air is in equilibrium with the CO2 dissolved in the oceans (where it exists basically as carbonic acid). The amount of CO2 in the oceans is a large multiple of the amount in the atmosphere. So only a small portion of that CO2 ends up in the atmosphere!!

This is of course also a problem for the future. If you can reduce the CO2 output to the point that we produce less than what gets used by plants etc, it will have almost zero effect on the atmospheric CO2 because as fast as you remove it from the atmosphere, it will get topped up by CO2 evaporating from the ocean to maintain the equilibrium.


C

hold it C.... :wink:

You may disturb the purpose in life our tree huggers have with all kinds of facts...... [-X
Then who do they blame and accuse as from tomorrow??
They may have to face reality...... :shock:

JK
The wisest mind has something yet to learn. ...

Return to “123.45”