Climate Change means no more flying for you after 2050

[lolachampcar]

Releasing carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years will have an effect.
The question is how much of an effect it will have.
Given it will have an effect, why take the chance?

Fossile fuels are a depleting resource. Why go whole hog consuming them when they might very well be useful in the future for things other than energy?

Continuing to consume fossile fuels and not going all out on renewables leaves someone else to fill that void, add value and replace us as an economic engine.

These are simple basic facts for which there are no "alternative facts". Anyone can attack anything. Remember all the examination of the science behind smoking related illness? That was a similar situation as most people would agree that hanging out in your car with the exhaust plumbed in or walking into a burning building would not be the best place for your lungs. The stakes with the climate issue are just much higher all around.

Let's face it folks, life in the US has gotten too easy. The concept of entropy teaches us that any system left to its own devices will deteriorate to its lowest form of energy. Pull the throttle back at altitude and you will get a fine example. In our case, we are well on our way to starting down a steep decline from simple lack of attention and energy being put into our (democracy)(environment)(infrastructure) - pick your word. We blame our politicians, scientists, far right, far left and the like but we are the real problem and, until we take responsibility for our life/government/planet, things will only continue to accelerate in downward direction.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Uh huh... and who makes the calibration equipment and defines the standards those analyzers must be certified under. That's the problem, there's no uniformity and barely any calibration standards adhered to when it comes to measuring the climate and compiling the data based off those measurements. Everybody has their own set of toys they like to play with. However, things are starting to get better. They've adopted some standards. They're cleaning up the ground reporting stations and repositioning them to keep the noise level down. Same goes for the ocean buoys and satellites. They revamped the ocean buoy design and have them going deeper and are more strategically placed. They're placing more weather satellites in orbit along with equipment that is more accurate in measuring the earth. Unfortunately it's going to be many years before there is enough data compiled to establish any relevant trends. Until then, everybody is just basically guessing.

The papers do list the calibration procedures. For something like the analyzer I linked to, using Beer's law, the calibration is simple and those sort of spectrometers have been around since the turn of the last century. I really don't think you know what sort of sensors can be used nor how they work in the same fashion an A&P mechanic can tell whether someone actually has some knowledge of how to maintain an aircraft..

So which is going to warm the atmosphere more... the 25% of H2O or the 0.0360% trace amount of CO2? You guys picked the wrong gas to make the bad guy. You guys should've picked Argon or something, it sounds more sinister and scary. Of course the welders and light bulb makers might get a little testy.

This, right here, shows you are pulling numbers from a questionable source. There's more water vapor in the atmosphere than oxygen?

In any case, water vapor contributes about 60% to the total greenhouse effect which keeps our planet habitable, but the amount of water vapor is controlled by the temperature. It is in equilibrium with the ocean, and also condenses out to from rain or snow over land. The water cycle is very basic science taught in grade school. CO2 is not a condensable gas (under standard earth conditions that we live within), so its concentration doesn't change with temperature. However, the addition of the non-condensable gases (CO2 and others) causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature.

Can such a small concentration of something make a difference? Fill a 2-liter bottle with water, and add a drop of food coloring and mix well. The concentration of food coloring is well below that of CO2 in the atmosphere (0.0005% for the food coloring) and yet you can see it with your eye rather easily from the absorption of visible light.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Sure there is. Unless you're one of those who says economics isn't science.

Remove half of the funding and see how many papers are written on the topic. Simultaneously offer similar money to study something completely different, see who takes the new jobs. It's basic finance. We've all heard of starving artists, but I haven't met too many starving scientists selling their science as buskers on street corners with a hat for tips. You?

The number of papers on the topic has exploded. That didn't happen just because a bunch of middle of the bell curve scientists woke up one day and decided to write them on principal.

So who's doing all this funding?

 

[Axtel4]

So who's doing all this funding?

We do through our taxes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...with-disastrous-climate-science/#612c73a87ecf

Though the article is dated I remembered reading it before. It's interesting it was buried about 5 pages deep in the Google search. The previous 5 pages of the search covered the current administration's plan to cut Climate Research funding.

From the linked article:
"Who pays for all this bad science, and worse, news? We do, of course. And it doesn't come cheap. According to data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Public Policy Institute, the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn't count about $79 billion more spent for related climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for "green energy.""

While searching for the above article, I came across this one:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne

 

[Salty]

Releasing carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years will have an effect.
The question is how much of an effect it will have.
Given it will have an effect, why take the chance?

Interesting comment. For it to have been sequestered in crude, it had to have already been in the atmosphere first.

 

[Axtel4]

Interesting comment. For it to have been sequestered in crude, it had to have already been in the atmosphere first.

Interesting thought. By extension, does that suggest the sequestering of CO2 into crude proceeded the Ice Age? If so, does releasing the CO2 from Crude, return the atmosphere to it's pre Ice Age state?

 

[azure]

That's kinda what I've been trying to say. There's still way too much noise out there yet to validate any of the evidence for anthropogenic "climate change". It's going to be many years before we can even begin to draw any conclusions and validate that evidence with hard facts. The real science community is working on those data points as we speak. The instrumentation to gather that evidence is improving every day. It's good they finally adopted some standards; that will help things progress on a more even keel as we progress toward the future.

Certainly there is a great deal of noise in the temperature data. We've just gone through a ~15 year period where the surface temperature has remained roughly constant. It was completely unpredicted by the models and shows that we don't yet have a handle on natural variation. Then we had a couple of El Nino years that gave us record warmth, and it's not yet clear whether the rising trend has resumed. That's a big part of why it isn't yet quite settled. The arguments you were using earlier, though, just aren't part of the scientific debate. They're more like talking points from a pre-scientific perspective.

Only 5% of the worlds oceans have ever even been explored/mapped. Lord knows how many "under ocean" volcanoes and fissured vents are spewing noxious gases into the atmosphere. The equipment to measure any of those events are still being placed. It's a slow process.

And inorganic CO2 sources like volcanoes are NOT part of that noise, if that's what you're implying. Again, the isotope profile is quite distinct from organic sources like our fossil fuel burning. We do increase the effect of ALL sources by removing sinks like tropical forests - deforestation is one of our activities that increases the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But it's a factor they take into account.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

We do through our taxes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...with-disastrous-climate-science/#612c73a87ecf

Though the article is dated I remembered reading it before. It's interesting it was buried about 5 pages deep in the Google search. The previous 5 pages of the search covered the current administration's plan to cut Climate Research funding.

From the linked article:
"Who pays for all this bad science, and worse, news? We do, of course. And it doesn't come cheap. According to data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Public Policy Institute, the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn't count about $79 billion more spent for related climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for "green energy.""

While searching for the above article, I came across this one:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne

And that includes such things as weather satellites (just monitoring cloud cover is a climate study), the AWOS at your local airport (again, the data is collected). Those sources don't break down the spending.

Sure there is. Unless you're one of those who says economics isn't science.

Remove half of the funding and see how many papers are written on the topic. Simultaneously offer similar money to study something completely different, see who takes the new jobs. It's basic finance. We've all heard of starving artists, but I haven't met too many starving scientists selling their science as buskers on street corners with a hat for tips. You?

The number of papers on the topic has exploded. That didn't happen just because a bunch of middle of the bell curve scientists woke up one day and decided to write them on principal.

How long does it take to get a PhD to get this funding? Oh...there's money being thrown around...I was trained as a chemist but now I'm an atmospheric scientist and I can just dip into that money.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Interesting comment. For it to have been sequestered in crude, it had to have already been in the atmosphere first.

Perhaps not. Some of it was volcanic.

Interesting thought. By extension, does that suggest the sequestering of CO2 into crude proceeded the Ice Age? If so, does releasing the CO2 from Crude, return the atmosphere to it's pre Ice Age state?

Which ice age? There have been several of them.

 

[deonb]

Interesting comment. For it to have been sequestered in crude, it had to have already been in the atmosphere first.

Well yeah of course, during the Paleozoic and Cambrian Era the atmospheric level for carbon was at 7000ppm.

We weren't alive back then though, and we would probably not enjoy the 140F days that came with it.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The Earth is a raging planet; always has been and always will be. The so-called "consensus" of scientists is suspicious given that it's apparent that scientists are rewarded for conforming to the CC narrative. More importantly, science is not a process of consensus: any theory must be disprovable: there must be an observable result that refutes the theory.
As for rising sea levels, bring it on: Nebraska was once
the floor of an ocean, and large parts of Nebraska were also covered with glaciers.

At the same time?

So, when has climate ever been unchanging? And what is the desirable perfect climate? Climate change is being foisted as a dogmatic religion and any questioning of the data, the model, and the predictions is frequently met with ad hominem attacks.
I find it striking that the Climate Change camp invokes simplistic, specious correlations followed by a lot of "hand-waving," but never produce a refutable prediction with defined confidence limits.

The perfect climate depends on the species that you ask. A polar bear would like it colder. I personally wouldn't mind warmer winters with less snow.

Most of the ad hominem attacks I've seen in this thread from from the skeptics...the suggestions that the scientists are "cooking the books" as mentioned earlier in the thread, and then being told one is being "over sensitive" for taking that in a negative manner. Even in your comments, the suggestion is there that the climate scientists don't know that the earth's climate has been unchanging, and that they therefore are incorrect by forgetting this fact. As for being rewarded, what do I get? A bonus for conforming this year?

 

[1RTK1]

What, in your opinion causes water to vaporize? No one has forgotten that "big glowing orb in the heavens", what about it?

My education background is bio/chem with another degree on top.
One thing I have learned is that if you are ever caught manipulating or falsifying data everything forward must be disregarded.
My father in law worked for Lawrence Livermore labs and at sandia, his degrees were in mathematics and chemistry, his opinions were not the same as the main stream media either, he probably had insight to more information than most
Burt Rutan wrote a paper on global warming, people should read that too.

 

[SkyDog58]

...
f) People who don't understand the difference between weather and climate

One more:
f) People who believe that God made the world and He made it for the people. Good stewardship is a primary responsibility. Good stewardship starts with the understanding that humans aren't a plague to the earth and any belief system that elevates the interest of the planet above those for whom it was created is errant and misguided. And, it's bound to bring suffering instead of blessing.

so therefore:
f=f

 

[Cooter]

so therefore:
f=f

What the h)? Good catch.

 

[Dav8or]

After seeing even just bits of the activities in Charlotte today, I'm pretty convinced the multiplying idiots will get us all killed, long before we'll need to worry about climate change.

Agreed. We are a seriously dumb species and have been trying to kill ourselves ever since we became a species.

 

[Everskyward]

Sure there is. Unless you're one of those who says economics isn't science.

Remove half of the funding and see how many papers are written on the topic. Simultaneously offer similar money to study something completely different, see who takes the new jobs. It's basic finance.

You can talk about setting up such a study, but it's not realistic to think that the issue is so simplistic. I don't think economics is a science in the same way that physics is a science because economics involves a lot of variences in people's motivation.

 

[GlennAB1]

About the difference between 'weather' and 'climate': What's the definition of 'temperate climate'?

 

[denverpilot]

You can talk about setting up such a study, but it's not realistic to think that the issue is so simplistic. I don't think economics is a science in the same way that physics is a science because economics involves a lot of variences in people's motivation.

So climate scientists can get their theories wrong continually and claim they're still working on refining them, but the economists can't, and only one is "science"? Laughable.

 

[azblackbird]

Fossile fuels are a depleting resource.

That's another debate. I have theories and there are several scientists that support it, that oil is abiotic much like gold, silver, lead and other inorganic mineral based compositions.

This, right here, shows you are pulling numbers from a questionable source.There's more water vapor in the atmosphere than oxygen?

What do you think makes water vapor?

However, the addition of the non-condensable gases (CO2 and others) causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature.

You have it backwards. Higher temperatures produce more CO2.

Can such a small concentration of something make a difference? Fill a 2-liter bottle with water, and add a drop of food coloring and mix well. The concentration of food coloring is well below that of CO2 in the atmosphere (0.0005% for the food coloring) and yet you can see it with your eye rather easily from the absorption of visible light.

If we eliminated CO2, would the sky still be blue?

Then we had a couple of El Nino years that gave us record warmth, and it's not yet clear whether the rising trend has resumed. That's a big part of why it isn't yet quite settled. The arguments you were using earlier, though, just aren't part of the scientific debate. They're more like talking points from a pre-scientific perspective.

Everything is open for debate, except in the case of climate science. Seems when real scientists want to debate the climate scientists, they never show up, and then accuse them of being "deniers". That's no way to conduct a debate.

And inorganic CO2 sources like volcanoes are NOT part of that noise, if that's what you're implying. Again, the isotope profile is quite distinct from organic sources like our fossil fuel burning. We do increase the effect of ALL sources by removing sinks like tropical forests - deforestation is one of our activities that increases the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But it's a factor they take into account.

One factor out of a myriad of thousands. That's why the models are so inaccurate.

 

[denverpilot]

How long does it take to get a PhD to get this funding? Oh...there's money being thrown around...I was trained as a chemist but now I'm an atmospheric scientist and I can just dip into that money.

And? What does length of time to meet job requirements have to do with the overall effect still being that research goes where the money is? If anything, it means for most that the student loan for the PhD needs to be paid back.

The similar analogy here would be me saying that pilots go to the airlines that are hiring, and you saying "yeah but it takes years to get an ATP". Unrelated.

 

[Everskyward]

So climate scientists can get their theories wrong continually and claim they're still working on refining them, but the economists can't, and only one is "science"? Laughable.

All science involves refining theory. Not sure why you have a problem with that. Economics includes variables concerning human nature, which is less predictable than hard science.

 

[SkyDog58]

After seeing even just bits of the activities in Charlotte today, I'm pretty convinced the multiplying idiots will get us all killed, long before we'll need to worry about climate change.

I think you mean Charlottesville.... though we do have many of that same type here in and around Charlotte as well.

Or were you talking about the PGA Championship? Some poor decision making there.

 

[denverpilot]

All science involves refining theory. Not sure why you have a problem with that. Economics includes variables concerning human nature, which is less predictable than hard science.

But you've continually told me that scientist's motivations are altruistic and I say they're not. Sounds like we need much more money spent on the more difficult human behavior science a billions less on climate change, and we need to convince more young people to become economists doesn't it?

 

[PaulS]

All science involves refining theory. Not sure why you have a problem with that. Economics includes variables concerning human nature, which is less predictable than hard science.

So when the theory is "incontrovertible" and "settled" then it is no longer science.

 

[jordane93]

 

[Dav8or]

My education background is bio/chem with another degree on top.
One thing I have learned is that if you are ever caught manipulating or falsifying data everything forward must be disregarded.
My father in law worked for Lawrence Livermore labs and at sandia, his degrees were in mathematics and chemistry, his opinions were not the same as the main stream media either, he probably had insight to more information than most
Burt Rutan wrote a paper on global warming, people should read that too.

If Burt Rutan writes a paper about aeronautics, or engineering, aerodynamics, I'd read it and put a lot of weight to those words, but when Burt Rutan writes a paper about climate change, he's just another opinion and a distraction.

 

[denverpilot]

I think you mean Charlottesville.... though we do have many of that same type here in and around Charlotte as well.

Or were you talking about the PGA Championship? Some poor decision making there.

Well that's how little I watch "the news". I missed the city name.

I figure for the next week all we are going to hear about is the fringe psychos in Charlottesville and what the power mongers and their cults in DC have to think about them.

"The news" won't bother to mention it was "the news" that drove all the idiots into a riot.

Of course it doesn't help that they all really are complete idiots. Saw this quote yesterday, and just rolled my eyes and turned off "the news".

"We have been celebrating a traitor [Robert E. Lee] for too long, who is as bad as Benedict Arnold, and he was hanged for it."

And that was posted by a so-called "leader" of one of the protest groups.

I wonder how many people think Arnold was hanged after they heard that idiot say that. LOL. SMH.

Wonder if the idiots know what this is...

 

[Dav8or]

And? What does length of time to meet job requirements have to do with the overall effect still being that research goes where the money is? If anything, it means for most that the student loan for the PhD needs to be paid back.

The similar analogy here would be me saying that pilots go to the airlines that are hiring, and you saying "yeah but it takes years to get an ATP". Unrelated.

Here's the thing about the whole "corrupt scientists milking the system" theory- nearly every scientist, all across the globe, in many different countries, with many different sources of funding, agree with the findings so far and the theory as a whole. That is one hell of a conspiracy!!

 

[Cap'n Jack]

That's another debate. I have theories and there are several scientists that support it, that oil is abiotic much like gold, silver, lead and other inorganic mineral based compositions.

If you say so.

What do you think makes water vapor?

Non-sequitur. Colder air holds less water vapor at saturation than warmer air. Basic science here. The whole earth is 0.02% by mass water so I really don't know where you got that 25% number. After the atmosphere reaches saturation, clouds form and you get rain, snow, or ice on your plane.

You have it backwards. Higher temperatures produce more CO2.

No I don't have it backwards. The atmosphere is nowhere near saturation with respect to carbon dioxide.

If we eliminated CO2, would the sky still be blue?

Raleigh scattering is different from the absorption I was describing earlier. You will call this an ad hominem attack, but confusing different mechanisms of absorption and scattering, taught in high school, cause me to question your competency to have a serious discussion about this matter. I'll report myself so if the moderators decide I'm being truly ad hominem, they may delete this reply.

Everything is open for debate, except in the case of climate science. Seems when real scientists want to debate the climate scientists, they never show up, and then accuse them of being "deniers". That's no way to conduct a debate.

Who are these "real scientists"?

One factor out of a myriad of thousands. That's why the models are so inaccurate.

If you say so

 

[Cap'n Jack]

So when the theory is "incontrovertible" and "settled" then it is no longer science.

The skeptics here seem to be the only ones saying that the theory is "incontrovertible" and "settled". I merely say the majority of the data supports the theory.

 

[PaulS]

The skeptics here seem to be the only ones saying that the theory is "incontrovertible" and "settled". I merely say the majority of the data supports the theory.

Now you are just making crap up as you go.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Here's the thing about the whole "corrupt scientists milking the system" theory- nearly every scientist, all across the globe, in many different countries, with many different sources of funding, agree with the findings so far and the theory as a whole. That is one hell of a conspiracy!!

Yep... No less a leader than the Australian Prime Minister has said global warming science is a plot by the UN to set up a new world order and undermine democracy ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...dvisor-says-climate-change-a-UN-led-ruse.html )

But you've continually told me that scientist's motivations are altruistic and I say they're not. Sounds like we need much more money spent on the more difficult human behavior science a billions less on climate change, and we need to convince more young people to become economists doesn't it?

This has really stopped being a discussion of the science and has turned into people making stuff up or claiming that because they got a grant, they need to do provide data that supports the agenda of whoever gives the grant. That isn't how I see it in chemistry, but somehow climate science is different.

And now we have someone else that decides the water cycle taught in pilot ground school is incorrect and makes up his own stuff.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Now you are just making crap up as you go.

If you say so. Theories are never proven, they are supported by the data and make predictions on that data.

 

[PaulS]

If you say so. Theories are never proven, they are supported by the data and make predictions on that data.

Jack, go back through this thread, there is at least one GW guy here telling us that it is "incontrovertible". It is a major theme in the press and with most who argue we must do something to stop it. The "deniers" have said nothing of the sort. It is actually refreshing to see a GW believer, you, state the obvious, most refuse, they are too vested in being right to understand they may be very wrong.

 

[denverpilot]

Here's the thing about the whole "corrupt scientists milking the system" theory- nearly every scientist, all across the globe, in many different countries, with many different sources of funding, agree with the findings so far and the theory as a whole. That is one hell of a conspiracy!!

So did those who claimed the next ice age was coming in the 70s. What makes the groupthink correct this time?

I've already given examples from history where all the major scientific minds believed the world was flat.

A majority rarely indicates accuracy until the theory is proven. Scientists know that.

Global economics applies. Conspiracy is your made up assumption, that I never said. But it's a significant driving factor on both sides believing the other of conspiring. Probably related to known political cult behavior being associated with the topic? Mmm? I tend to think "careless stupidity" before I think "conspiracy" but perhaps you've exposed your motivations?

What was the number given above again? $30 billion spent only in the U.S. on it? What's the global number? It's not conspiracy, is popularity.

And this is the sort of theory that can't be proven, so they're either all correct and man warmed up the planet -- which they DON'T agree on whether that's a bad thing or not -- or they're wrong and they'll just claim they were "refining" their theory.

As Mari says, sounds like "soft" science to me. With lots of global money attached to it.

We'd better make some laws and jail some people over it.

 

[Everskyward]

So when the theory is "incontrovertible" and "settled" then it is no longer science.

A theory is not "incontrovertible" by definition. Otherwise it would be fact.

 

[Everskyward]

But you've continually told me that scientist's motivations are altruistic and I say they're not. Sounds like we need much more money spent on the more difficult human behavior science a billions less on climate change, and we need to convince more young people to become economists doesn't it?

I didn't say ALL scientists motivations are altruistic. Besides, I don't think altruistic is the correct word. I think scientists want to find out how the world actually works. A few may try to falsify results, scientists are like any other profession and they may be bad apples. I doubt that is the rule, though.

 

[denverpilot]

A theory is not "incontrovertible" by definition. Otherwise it would be fact.

That was his point. The Scientific Method requires the theorem be tested and proven. Else, it is only partially completed science.

All sorts of people on TV claiming this science is "settled". It's not, and never can be. Just like economics, which you call "soft" science.

 

[azblackbird]

No I don't have it backwards. The atmosphere is nowhere near saturation with respect to carbon dioxide.

Here's an easy one for you. We all know water boils/freezes at a certain temp conducive to what the altitude/atmospheric pressures are... right? According to the climate change theorists, CO2 leads temperature... right? I need you to show me the formula/chart/data that given a certain saturation point (ppm) of CO2 at a static altitude/atmospheric pressure, what will the atmospheric temperature be? This should be an easy one for you.

If you could show me something similar to this, I'd be much appreciative.

 

[denverpilot]

I didn't say ALL scientists motivations are altruistic. Besides, I don't think altruistic is the correct word. I think scientists want to find out how the world actually works. A few may try to falsify results, scientists are like any other profession and they may be bad apples. I doubt that is the rule, though.

And I never claimed their motivations weren't altruistic either, but I claimed that most of them will go where the jobs and the money are.

Just wanting to know how the world works, doesn't negate that economic fact of life.

If there was $50 billion worldwide being thrown at scientists to study New Guinean Tree Frogs, we'd all be talking about that instead and some author would be telling us that airplanes wouldn't take off in 2050 because the runway would be covered in frogs.

(Remember my original reason for posting the article was to show the utter stupidity caused by the topic, and the real world results in "news" articles about it, not debate the science. Manipulation of stupid people in this topic abounds. Unless you think nobody read that article and BELIEVED it?)