Airshowhammer wrote:For god sake.
No-one is making you read it, let alone care.
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 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
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!
I was hoping for a serious discussion
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? )
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.
Secondly you seem to be claiming that David Bellamy is a scientist. You must define that title very broadly!
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.
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.
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.
Dan213 wrote:You need to do some serious reading of the primary literature. The figures and reasons you give here are actually laughable
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.
Dan213 wrote:Both of which come primarily from agriculture.
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.
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.