Climate Change - Airshows

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby CJS on Sun 17 Jun 2018, 9:10 pm

Airshowhammer wrote:For god sake. :surrender:


No-one is making you read it, let alone care.
"Forewarned is forearmed"
How do you know I didn't?
User avatar
CJS

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby tuska2 on Mon 18 Jun 2018, 9:21 am

Interesting and studied figures verelli, exactly what is required in such a discussion. Meanwhile roll on July and aviation action! which presumably we all enjoy?
tuska2

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby CJS on Mon 18 Jun 2018, 9:38 am

It's required along side other layperson's discussion too :grin:

And yes, we presumably all do.
"Forewarned is forearmed"
How do you know I didn't?
User avatar
CJS

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Andyph on Mon 18 Jun 2018, 9:43 am

tuska2 wrote:Interesting and studied figures verelli, exactly what is required in such a discussion. Meanwhile roll on July and aviation action! which presumably we all enjoy?


I was hoping for a serious discussion - but in it's place I will enjoy the comedy - didn't quite expect of this genius though!

I find it interesting that people trust science implicitly on subjects they know nothing about, such as DNA or finding of the Higgs Bosun but as soon as the science might negatively impact people (climate change) and a majority suddenly are deniers and cry fowl! This behavior does explain to a lot of us how it might be that humans do metaphorically fall off the cliff!

Back to the thread - I predict in the next ten years that this will be looked at (and acted on) by governments. The more we do nothing the more governments will have to act with a broad brush when the tide turns.
Exciting times I think
Andyph

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Marathon Milkshake on Mon 18 Jun 2018, 11:07 am

Andyph wrote:
I predict in the next ten years that this will be looked at (and acted on) by governments. The more we do nothing the more governments will have to act with a broad brush when the tide turns.
Exciting times I think


That will be more tax then :surrender:
Those that matter, don't mind. Those that mind, don't matter
Marathon Milkshake

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Mr Pid on Mon 18 Jun 2018, 11:30 am

Having done a bit of research into climate change, there seems to be a popular opinion that climate change is something that the media has over-inflated to distract from other, more serious issues.

The world is changing, and is a living, breathing thing. The impact that we humans contribute is substantial but the world does more on its own.

You will all notice the weather getting worse, summers are hotter, but shorter and winters are longer and wetter. Animals are facing extinction that were not threatened before and there has also been an increased frequency of migrations of animals beaching and being washed up.

The world is apparently going through a Polar Shift, where the magnetic poles are switching positions. This greatly affects the weather and navigational properties of migrating species. Some say that this is also contributory to the increased volcanic activity we are seeing now.

This is expected to be completed in the next 15 years or so. It has happened before but not in "modern man's" lifetime so we are not sure what to expect. It does also re-enforce the need to look into alternative energy sources.

The north pole is currently on its way to Siberia and the south pole has left its position and is on its way to Australia.

It's difficult not to sound like a tin foil hat wearing lunatic on this subject, but if you want to do some research, it leads to some scary findings.

I do believe that the air show calendar shouldn't be greatly affected in the not-to-distant future though :-)
Mr Pid

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby ericbee123 on Mon 18 Jun 2018, 11:45 am

As a proud Generation-X member I am looking forward to cashing in my pension and pocketing my profits from raping the housing market and blowing it all destroying what’s left of the Ozone Layer. Exactly the same as my Baby-boomer parents didn’t ,while I’ve still got a breath left in my “thieving” body.
Just to further wind up those moaning Millenials - is a good enough reason.
Disclaimer-I have spell/grammar checked this post, it may still contain mistakes that might cause offence.
User avatar
ericbee123

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Brevet Cable on Mon 18 Jun 2018, 3:52 pm

Please - if you don't think climate change is real please don't post! - this is not the place.
I find it interesting that people trust science implicitly on subjects they know nothing about, such as DNA or finding of the Higgs Bosun but as soon as the science might negatively impact people (climate change) and a majority suddenly are deniers and cry fowl!

Somewhat at odds with your claim that
I was hoping for a serious discussion


Climate change ( natural ) and climate change ( man-made/influenced ) are two different things, regardless of how the "It's all mankind's fault" zealots try to conflate them.
Whilst you'll find a small percentage of people who deny that natural climate change occurs, that's a big difference to those ( including scientists ) who question the extent of mankind's influence on it.
The 'man-made climate change' evangelists ( and the associated money-making sub-culture ) have been given too much political influence, to the extent that very few scientists will openly speak against them, because to do so will invariably lead to them being ostracised, denied funding & treated somewhat akin to holocaust deniers ( when's the last time you've seen David Bellamy presenting a television show, for example? )
Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Mr Pid on Mon 18 Jun 2018, 4:30 pm

Interesting article....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tva ... f-BBC.html

Closing paragraph is quite comical really.....

I might start a campaigning to bring back David Bellamy.... just after I finish my "Free Tony Robinson" campaign... :-)
Mr Pid

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Paul_Reflex on Mon 18 Jun 2018, 4:54 pm

Brevet Cable wrote:Climate change ( natural ) and climate change ( man-made/influenced ) are two different things, regardless of how the "It's all mankind's fault" zealots try to conflate them.
Whilst you'll find a small percentage of people who deny that natural climate change occurs, that's a big difference to those ( including scientists ) who question the extent of mankind's influence on it.
The 'man-made climate change' evangelists ( and the associated money-making sub-culture ) have been given too much political influence, to the extent that very few scientists will openly speak against them, because to do so will invariably lead to them being ostracised, denied funding & treated somewhat akin to holocaust deniers ( when's the last time you've seen David Bellamy presenting a television show, for example? )


There's quite a lot of nonsense to digest there Brevet, I but two things stand out in particular. First is that there are not two kinds of climate change, just the one kind where the climate changes. You might crudely divide sone of the range of things that might affect climate into natural and man made, but that's not quite the same thing.

Secondly you seem to be claiming that David Bellamy is a scientist. You must define that title very broadly!
User avatar
Paul_Reflex

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Brevet Cable on Mon 18 Jun 2018, 5:01 pm

Not forgetting the farcical situation where the likes of Al Gore - whose degree is in politics ( or whatever the Americans call it ) - are treated with unquestioning reverence for preaching the "It's all mankind's fault" mantra yet those such as Ken Clarke - whose degree is in law - express their opinion that it's not are shouted down amid rants of "what does he know, he's not a scientist"
Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Brevet Cable on Mon 18 Jun 2018, 5:11 pm

Paul_Reflex wrote:There's quite a lot of nonsense to digest there Brevet, I but two things stand out in particular. First is that there are not two kinds of climate change, just the one kind where the climate changes. You might crudely divide sone of the range of things that might affect climate into natural and man made, but that's not quite the same thing.


Nope.
It's the lobbyists themselves who have separated it into two in order to ignore natural climate change and push their agenda that it's solely down to mankind's influence.

Secondly you seem to be claiming that David Bellamy is a scientist. You must define that title very broadly!

He's a botanist, ergo he's a scientist. You may want to look up the definition.
Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Paul_Reflex on Mon 18 Jun 2018, 7:06 pm

Brevet Cable wrote:
Paul_Reflex wrote:There's quite a lot of nonsense to digest there Brevet, I but two things stand out in particular. First is that there are not two kinds of climate change, just the one kind where the climate changes. You might crudely divide sone of the range of things that might affect climate into natural and man made, but that's not quite the same thing.


Nope.
It's the lobbyists themselves who have separated it into two in order to ignore natural climate change and push their agenda that it's solely down to mankind's influence.

Secondly you seem to be claiming that David Bellamy is a scientist. You must define that title very broadly!

He's a botanist, ergo he's a scientist. You may want to look up the definition.


I don't accept your first point, but I won't comment further because I don't think that you're coming from a very objective viewpoint on this at all.

As far as David Bellamy is concerned, he may meet the dictionary definition of a scientist but really? He hasn't done any structured research or delivered a paper for 50 years. He is also not very qualified in his field. I think we'll have to agree to disagree with this one too.
User avatar
Paul_Reflex

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Brevet Cable on Mon 18 Jun 2018, 7:28 pm

My viewpoint being.......?
Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Paul_Reflex on Mon 18 Jun 2018, 7:30 pm

Brevet Cable wrote:My viewpoint being.......?


It seems to be that a group of people have hijacked science for some sort of gain.
User avatar
Paul_Reflex

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Brevet Cable on Mon 18 Jun 2018, 7:53 pm

:up:
Some of the things mankind has done over the centuries have had an influence & changes were needed ( deforestation, CFCs, etc. ) but there are some 'experts' who are either working to their own blinkered agenda or are out to make a name for themselves by parroting others.
Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Dan213 on Tue 19 Jun 2018, 9:24 am

verreli wrote:tuska2, your post is not a million miles away from my own thoughts. I think a lot of people have 'faith' in things that they haven't fully thought through on both sides of an argument. I like to mix things up by trying to get people to think for themselves.

So regarding climate change, what's more likely - temperatures are rising because of heat release or because a gas that is 0.041% by volume is trapping heat? Occam's razor!

Since the end of the second world war the global population has increased by c.5bn people. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change from one form to another. Each of those people consume on average 2000kCals or 8374 KiloJoules per day so the net effect of those extra people being on the planet is the release of 15.3 Trillion MegaJoules of heat per annum. To put this in perspective, the Hiroshima bomb was 63 Terra Joules so there's the equivalent of 660 Hiroshima size bombs of heat being released into the atmosphere every day just from those extra people being alive.

Now add modern living - Heating, Air conditioning, transport, industry, etc, etc and I've estimated this to be about 1.65x10^20 Joules. Very crude calc.

The amount of energy needed to increase the atmosphere by 1 Centigrade can be calculated.
The mass of the atmosphere is 5.3x10^18 Kg
Its specific heat is 1.005 KJ/Kg
Therefore it will take 5.33x10^21 Joules to increase the atmosphere by 1C.

If you compare these two figures it suggests the temperature will rise by slightly less than 0.1C pa which is not far off what you see from the data.

The other point to make is that most of the sources of heat creation, human, electricity, etc have CO2 as a by-product so you would see CO2 as a trailing indicator.

Coming back to the original point about airshows. It won't make a scrap of difference on global temperatures so I say the more afterburners, the better.


You need to do some serious reading of the primary literature. The figures and reasons you give here are actually laughable
Dan213

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby verreli on Tue 19 Jun 2018, 11:33 am

Dan213 wrote:You need to do some serious reading of the primary literature. The figures and reasons you give here are actually laughable


Dan213, why don't you enlighten us and give us all a laugh. I don't mind being shown to be wrong but you critique without an alternative argument. Which bits are you disputing? The first law of thermodynamics leading to heat release or the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere? You seem to suggest you've read the primary literature so better to add to our collective knowledge rather than imply you have some secret understanding.
verreli

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Dan213 on Wed 20 Jun 2018, 1:56 am

verreli wrote:
Dan213 wrote:You need to do some serious reading of the primary literature. The figures and reasons you give here are actually laughable


Dan213, why don't you enlighten us and give us all a laugh. I don't mind being shown to be wrong but you critique without an alternative argument. Which bits are you disputing? The first law of thermodynamics leading to heat release or the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere? You seem to suggest you've read the primary literature so better to add to our collective knowledge rather than imply you have some secret understanding.


I have read the primary literature, I have a degree in biology. Without making this overly long and complex, two other greenhouse gases play a key role; Nitrogen andMethane. Both of these are far more potent than CO2. Both of which come primarily from agriculture. You pose a good point with regards to where the excess energy is going but most of the energy is going into the oceans. Water has a much higher specific heat capacity than air meaning that it takes more energy to increase its temperature for a given volume. I’m 2017, the measured sea surface temperature increase equates to an energy input of order of magnitude x10^22J (to put this into context, this is 600x greater than China’s annual energy output)

Climate change is also far more complex than what is usually portrayed in the media, which often become fixated on the term global warming. There are several feedback mechanisms that accelerate the rate of change and a key example of this is sea ice melt. Sea ice is white in colour and therefore reflects heat radiation ( this is often referred to as having high surface albedo). Areas of ocean on the other hand are much darker in colour and thereforfore absorb far more energy. This increased energy increases the sea surface temperature, which in turn causes increased rates of sea ice melting which subsequently result in smaller ‘energy-reflecting’ areas and larger ‘energy-absorbing’ absorbing areas. This is a key contributor to climate change at high latitudes and the increased rate of warming at these latitudes can be seen quite clearly on NASAs climate anomaly graphs. These things are often referred to as ‘runaway events’ for obvious reasons.

The ‘lag’ associated with climate change also poses a number of issues in terms of actually measuring the effects. Our current climate is reflective of mid-1990s levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

I hope this clears some things up. Many of the problems, as I have previously said, come from the oversimplification of the effects and therefore things appear to be ‘missing’. If you have any more queries then feel free to drop me a PM or post on this thread.
Dan213

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Brevet Cable on Wed 20 Jun 2018, 6:45 am

Dan213 wrote:Both of which come primarily from agriculture.

It's been said only semi-jokingly for years -- kill all the domesticated ruminants & you'll cut CO2 production by about 50%; Kill off all the plants & there'll be very little NOX production or nitrate pollution....which will mean that most of the land-based lifeforms on the planet will die, thus saving the Earth.
Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby verreli on Wed 20 Jun 2018, 12:43 pm

Dan213 wrote:I have read the primary literature, I have a degree in biology. Without making this overly long and complex, two other greenhouse gases play a key role; Nitrogen andMethane. Both of these are far more potent than CO2. Both of which come primarily from agriculture. You pose a good point with regards to where the excess energy is going but most of the energy is going into the oceans. Water has a much higher specific heat capacity than air meaning that it takes more energy to increase its temperature for a given volume. I’m 2017, the measured sea surface temperature increase equates to an energy input of order of magnitude x10^22J (to put this into context, this is 600x greater than China’s annual energy output)

Climate change is also far more complex than what is usually portrayed in the media, which often become fixated on the term global warming. There are several feedback mechanisms that accelerate the rate of change and a key example of this is sea ice melt. Sea ice is white in colour and therefore reflects heat radiation ( this is often referred to as having high surface albedo). Areas of ocean on the other hand are much darker in colour and thereforfore absorb far more energy. This increased energy increases the sea surface temperature, which in turn causes increased rates of sea ice melting which subsequently result in smaller ‘energy-reflecting’ areas and larger ‘energy-absorbing’ absorbing areas. This is a key contributor to climate change at high latitudes and the increased rate of warming at these latitudes can be seen quite clearly on NASAs climate anomaly graphs. These things are often referred to as ‘runaway events’ for obvious reasons.

The ‘lag’ associated with climate change also poses a number of issues in terms of actually measuring the effects. Our current climate is reflective of mid-1990s levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

I hope this clears some things up. Many of the problems, as I have previously said, come from the oversimplification of the effects and therefore things appear to be ‘missing’. If you have any more queries then feel free to drop me a PM or post on this thread.


Dan - An interesting read and you make some good points.

I agree Nitrogen is a greenhouse gas. 100% of greenhouses are filled with 78% Nitrogen. As an inert gas, I'm not sure it contributes to global warming though. Methane has been linked to warming and is said to be more effective than CO2 but it is 0.0002% of the atmosphere so the same argument can be made as for CO2.

The specific heat of water is higher than air and the oceans are a store of energy. They also act as a heat sink and moderator but for this to happen, first the air is heated, then there needs to be a heat exchange with the ocean, either directly or via the water cycle. There is a limit to how fast this can happen so if you're constantly pumping heat into the atmosphere at an ever greater rate, the net effect will be an increase in average air temperature.

The sea ice point is well made but you missed the effect of cloud cover. I agree about the complexity. There's also the effect of the sun which is in a continuous cycle. Some long term data suggests there may be a falloff in sun energy output that will lead to sun caused climate change to have a net cooling effect by around 2070. What we're talking about here though is the recent uptick in data that is out of sync with long term trends and is likely caused by man.

Politically there is broad consensus that CO2 is bad and leads to man made influence of the atmospheric temperature. To that end, and the drawdown of hydrocarbon use, we are moving to emit less CO2. In around 30 years (2050) there is a good chance fusion will start to be brought online, transport will be electric, heating will be electric and the global population will be over 10 billion. This will mean there is less CO2 pumped into the atmosphere and levels should drop. If all the climate change scientists, politicians and you are right we should see a stabilisation of global temperatures. If I'm right we'll be pumping twice the current levels of heat into the atmosphere and global temperatures will continue to grow.

Does it matter and what are the effects? Neglecting the effects of the sun. In the UK, we would see nice summers, higher average wind speeds and more rain so not too bad. In Africa where there will be over 1 billion more people, there will be drought and famine due to higher temperatures and an unsustainable population. People will be fighting to survive. This will lead to migration levels that will make today look like a picnic and political / cultural change that will change the world.

You ended your last post by saying my hypothesis was laughable. I wonder who will have the last laugh? As you can see from my conclusion, I really hope it's you that's right.
verreli

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby CJS on Wed 20 Jun 2018, 3:09 pm

Brevet Cable wrote:
Dan213 wrote:Both of which come primarily from agriculture.

It's been said only semi-jokingly for years -- kill all the domesticated ruminants & you'll cut CO2 production by about 50%; Kill off all the plants & there'll be very little NOX production or nitrate pollution....which will mean that most of the land-based lifeforms on the planet will die, thus saving the Earth.


Is Trump one of these? You know, every little helps and all that...
"Forewarned is forearmed"
How do you know I didn't?
User avatar
CJS

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby tuska2 on Wed 20 Jun 2018, 3:09 pm

Dan 213 and verelli, both very interesting reads, who is right? I don't know, but its good to read informed discussion as opposed to name calling and zealotry.
tuska2

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Brevet Cable on Wed 20 Jun 2018, 3:31 pm

CJS wrote:Is Trump one of these? You know, every little helps and all that...

Nope.
He sure ain't domesticated.
:biggrin:
Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: Climate Change - Airshows

Postby Dan213 on Thu 21 Jun 2018, 2:17 am

Some really good points verelli. Nitrogen should have read oxides of nitrogen apologies.

With regards to the effect on the U.K., our current area of concern related to the fact that our highest areas of productivity in terms of arable farming, are situated in low lying areas in the East of England. These areas are particularly susceptible to flooding and are likely to be the in the first areas of the U.K. affected by sea level rise.

I too am sceptical about us getting the situation under control. Whilst the EU may be able to reach its target emissions, we still have numerous countries that are developing and industrialising. Cement production is a huge emitter of CO2 in these countries. Whilst it might be easy to look at this as not being our problem, we were at that stage too in the past and are indeed the highest cumulative greenhouse gas emitters alongside the USA
Dan213

PreviousNext

Return to Aviation Waffle

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 138EAW, convair, jbs and 33 guests