He is right that H2O is the primary GHG, there's just not a lot we can do about it.

In fact one of the (several) problems with using hydrogen as jet fuel is the fact that the combustion byproduct is almost 100% water... and dumping a bunch of that into the stratosphere is still a problem, because it's not supposed to be there. So hydrogen can be totally carbon-neutral but is still a greenhouse problem (for jets, not really at all for low-altitude vehicles since water normally resides in the lower atmosphere, and any excess just precipitates as per temp/humidity conditions). Hydrogen would still actually produce less water than kerosene, which has a bunch of H to unload via bonding with O2 to make water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flytolive View Post
No they didn't. Obviously the global climate is an immensely complicated system. The specific effects are difficult to predict with precision, but the overall story was predicted and in some cases underestimated. Climate change is real, serious, man-made and CO2 is the primary green house gas. Those are not in dispute.


Or even better. - not at all?

Agreed which is why it is just a distraction even more so than cow farts and breathing.


Water Vapor

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. Not only are its infrared absorption features widespread and strong, but it displays a significant continuum absorption. Thus, while not one of the “gases of concern” in the sense of anthropogenic modification, the feedbacks engendered by the higher water content of a warmer atmosphere (and, potentially, greater cloud cover) are a vital element of these studies. Furthermore, water vapor, through continua centered at 100 and 1600 cm-1, is a crucial element in the radiative balance of the upper troposphere. TES routinely measures humidity (water vapor) profiles with a precision better than 10%.

Methane

Although the abundance of methane (CH4) is tiny compared with carbon dioxide, it is a far more potent warming agent. Methane also contributes to tropospheric ozone production. Monitoring of methane (CH4) is a secondary goal for TES.

It has been shown that TES is sensitive to the methane column. The column that can be derived has the most sensitivity between 300 and 400 mb. TES has a relatively small footprint size – meaning more homogeneous pixels allowing for higher probability of cloud-free pixels, and TES's infrared wavelengths allow some CH4 retrievals to occur even in the presence of clouds. In addition, TES does not require a high surface albedo to detect CH4, and does not need to assume an air mass factor based on CO2, which may vary with CH4. Finally, TES profiles contain some vertical information for CH4 (rather than containing only column averaged information).

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide (CO) is only a very weak direct greenhouse gas, but has important indirect effects on global warming. Carbon monoxide is an ozone precursor, and also reacts with the hydroxyl (OH) radicals in the atmosphere, reducing their abundance. As OH radicals reduce the lifetimes of many strong greenhouse gases (such as methane), CO indirectly increases the global warming potential of these gases.

I think whether climate change is real or not is not is not the issue. Yeah sure, humans don’t help the environment. The issue is what we do with that information. Do we use it to increase regulations and decimate whole industries because they aren’t “green enough,” which has second and third order effects for an economy that relies on fossil fuels and the stability of these industries — or do we allow people to innovate and let the economy and market trend towards green at a pace that ensures quality of life for the entire populace without hindering these industries? Also, the military’s job is to eliminate our enemies, not partake in climate change politics.

Admitting we have a problem is the first step. That took far too long because of the entrenched interests, their absurd arguments/distractions and the flat earthers.

Like coal? Dead man walking. How about we lead the world in creating whole industries and high paying jobs?

To eliminate enemies you have to identify them, their vulnerabilities and have the means to overwhelm them. It appears you are still in the denial phase.

Valid statistics or not, rhetoric like this will not obtain the funding that activists seek. Nobody has ever been insulted into handing over money or votes. Persuasion takes longer, but works better.
Of course, opponents also display bad manners, but the resulting stalemate is what they want anyway. :rolleyes:

Al Gore and others tried what you suggest. Tough love is necessary sometimes. When confronting entrenched interests like Big Oil playing nice simply doesn't work no matter how overwhelming the evidence as is the case here.

What is interesting is the human capacity for self-delusion even with folks whose profession is science-based and data driven. Hopefully, people will see and learn from how easily they have been manipulated.

The irony is the liberals killed the only industry that has the capacity to reverse climate change, nuclear.

Solving the China issue is simply not going to happen either.

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl & Fukushima, the nuclear waste and other cost issues had a little something to do with it. Stubborn facts darn it.

You've been spouting your viewpoint as if it's fact, with little to no push-back in the last couple of pages. Probably because most of us realize it's pointless to argue this with folks like you, but I can't help myself.

There is no proof that humans are responsible for whatever is happening to the global climate. The theory that we, as a species, can take actions that can control the global climate for better or worse is a farce. Global climate variations happen throughout the history of our planet - long before we got here. We're not causing it - we can't stop it. It's amazing that so many can develop the hubris required to actually buy into the idea that we have the ability to control our global climate. Be a good local steward? Sure. Reduce emissions.... help clean the air around LA or Beijing? Sure. Don't dump bad stuff in our waters? Sure.
Cool off the planet? Uhh....yeah - good luck with that.

Carry on.... windmills are over that hill...... :rolleyes:

I could name you hundreds of air accidents, do you still fly? Nuclear power has advanced since those designs were built. Those types of reactors will never be approved to be built ever again.

No proof, huh? I think you were right with the following except it applies to you. Exquisite projection.
I love it. Then what's the problem?

The Jimmy Carter ban on breeder reactors was just lifted in 2005, so we are way behind in technology, it won't be ready till 2020. The government has to provide assistance here, since it isn't cost effective vs natural gas, but all the liberal subsidies went to Solar/Wind.

If the human race survives in 1000 years, history will show it was the mismanagement of the climate by liberals that killed the planet. In their quest for control of government, liberals block or destroyed any engineering solution to address the problem. They only want the votes, they don't want the solution to the problem.

Sorry, but your political bent has obviously blinded you. http://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/wp-con..._subsidies.jpg

Left leaning websites producing fraudulent, misleading charts is a great example of what I'm talking about.

Just let this thread die! We are pilots. None of us are qualified to end this debate. At best, we cherry-pick facts that support our beliefs. Do you think the meteorologist forum has a thread discussing CRM?

"Jet fuel is the fourth most-used petroleum product in the United States. About 1.6 million b/d of jet fuel was consumed in 2016."

So anyone who really BELIEVES that fossil fuels are paving the way to global catastrophe has to be a total hypocrite to be in this business.

Exactly, so what is the overwhelming consensus of the scientists and the data?

The data shows the earth is warming, the models show it is caused primarily by green house gases other than CO2.(Mostly methane, and industrial gases used to make electronics.) If CO2 was the primary driver of global warming, it would be much hotter than it is right now, this is an indisputable fact.

True, because water vapor contributes as much as 70% of the greenhouse effect, but CO2 is the second biggest contributor and potentially the most controllable. Nice try though.

Who told you this? Based on what evidence?

The reason Nuclear isn't bigger is that it's hugely cost and energy inefficient, it doesn't produce the "cheap energy" that was claimed in the 50s. The massive infrastructure required, design, maintenance, security, contaminated parts, etc., requires massive amounts of money and energy to keep going. Even for the "fast breeder" reactors, there are significant technological challenges that have yet to be totally overcome. In some locations, it works ok due to several factors, but it's far from some windfall that solves everything. It's more energy efficient to use gas-turbines in cities. Even if you are powering an electrical car, it's more efficient to use the gas-turbine to make electricity and send it to the grid. They passed the 50% efficiency barrier years ago and are around 65% total efficiency, which is pretty amazing. If you need more power, installing another gas-turbine unit is relatively quick and easy. It's fossil fuel, but a far better way to use it, not to mention other options of renewable sources. If you really do the research on nuclear you'll see it's not practical in many/most places, it ends up sucking way too much energy and resources.

The US nuclear industry is stuck using 1950's technology for the most part. Modern designs and technologies exist which enhance safety and significantly enhance economics. It's just hard to get a permit to build a new one in the US.

Kind of like if airlines still operated 727's and DC-8's.

One of the issues is that all of the early generation US plants were one-off designs... basically every build is a prototype, and every operator a test pilot.

Other countries have done far better in that regard (ie France). I think the NRC's intent is to license standardized designs in the future (I think the economics would be better, and the safety certainly would).

Modern technology nuclear would compete in the ballpark with current fossil fuel prices and have zero net carbon footprint compared to fossil fuels (assuming carbon footprint to actually build the plant, manufacturing and construction, is similar to a conventional fuel plant). Also would not be subject to any catastrophic fuel price spikes.

Building anything has a carbon footprint, what the car manufacturers don't want you to realize is that the net carbon impact of building a new hybrid is probably higher than just driving your 2006 camry for another ten years. But hey when you're cool and hip, details like that don't matter as much as making a statement. When the camry actually wears out, then you can do the planet a favor by getting a LEV/ZEV.

But if carbon is the main concern, nuclear is the best way to get lots of juice to the grid. This is going to be even more important going forward, as vehicles transition to electric... large power plants will be the PRIMARY source of net carbon at some point, vice vehicles. Wind and solar can make a dent, but can't cover it all by a long stretch.

The technology was not allowed to mature, thus you wound up with what we have today. In the near future we will have modular nuclear reactors, built on an assembly line. Non-pressurized reactor's waste heat can be used to extract green houses gases right out of the air, completely reversing climate change.

No, not water vapor, the main contributor is fluorine type gases. CO2 warming is caused by secondary factors, e.g. water vapor has extended suspension in a higher CO2 concentrated gas. This relationship is poorly understood by scientists. When they say there is a consensus on CC, they are ONLY referring to:
1. it is happening at a historically fast rate.
2. it is caused by man made activity.
The rest is environmental modeling to determine the causes, and solutions. Models with a CO2 bias are off by 10+ standard deviations, models factoring the other gases are dead on.

LOL. Thankfully they and we have you to explain it to us. Gotta love pilots.

I don't understand it either, does it lag temperatures or is it leader, we don't know, no one does. Scientists have explicitly stated that, as the models don't match drawn conclusions. You are the one putting words into the mouth of scientists, or rather you are parroting political positions.

Pilot is not my primary profession, engineering and experimental statistics is what I went to college for.

This consensus to which your refer just means that one side of the argument has decided their OPINION holds the majority.

Consensus does not equal scientifically supported conclusions. Why don't you show us all the factual data (not provided by some liberal website that makes the data support their preconceived conclusion) that proves CC is a man-made consequence of our existence on the earth.

Even better, show us the factual data that shows we have the capability to alter the course of CC.

No data like that exists, you couldn't design an experiment to test that either. We would have to setup some sort of widespread carbon extraction system, and then take actual data as it comes in. That said, there is no doubt, pumping something like Sulfur Hexafluoride into the atmosphere causes warming.

There are some papers by well known climate scientists that state CO2 levels lag temperature, in other words, the rise in temperature happens first, then the CO2 level builds. However, more study is required. http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Ca...mlum_et_al.pdf

I rest my case. The Al Gore hand-wringing crowd wants us to jump through hoops of their design and take measures to "save the planet" that have no scientific basis. Just the assumption that anything labeled "green" is going to reverse what no one has been able to prove is under human control in the first place.

Well, it would be helpful to know what would change your mind. What would you consider to be factual data or evidence that would "prove" it? Can you give an example? What is the burden of proof that you are seeking here? I have talked to climatologists one on one, met with many of them as they have traveled through this state, been to many of the places studied. I've seen much of their data, but I have to ask, what would it take for you? If you haven't "made up your mind" to the point where you don't consider evidence and science, just what evidence and science are you willing to listen to?

How about including raw data with your adjusted temperature numbers and the formula used to adjust them in the first place. Why not admit that 2012 federal policy changes to managing forests are much more likely to blame for the California wildfires then the .0001 temperature increase over the last year.

The press covers science like they cover aviation, and that's after it processes through the liberal churn machine.

If you are looking for a traditional experiment here with raw data, then you won't find it. In simplistic terms, how climate science works, is a model is built, and tested by running it backwards in time. The data and equations are then adjusted to make the model fit to historical observations. The data, and how it's adjusted doesn't really matter. The model is then labeled valid if it passes this hind-casting test. The problem is, of the thousands of models run, every single one, 100% of them, have failed in future when CO2 is the driver of climate change. However, we know for a fact that the Earth is warming at an accelerated rate, and man is the cause, by process of elimination, man has to be the cause.

I am looking for actual temperature reading with an explanation as to why the recorded readings are manipulated up wards and why historical temperature readings are always adjusted cooler.

Do you not believe in correcting total air temperature for the adiabatic temperature rise in flight to get static air temperature either?

Yes there is a formula that is tested and verifiable by modeling as opposed to the warmest modifying (current and past) temperature to verify their modeling.

The climate data and models have been tested, verified and confirmed also. The evidence is indisputable. The deniers simply don't understand the methodology or don't want to believe it. They are the current day's equivalent to the flat earthers.

Which is why they don't release their models or raw data.

Not sure if you are aware of this, but the raw data is available to the public from NOAA NCDC.

Oops. Wonder what excuse we'll get next?

Pilots claiming to know more about climate science than the vast majority of climate scientists. Unveiling the liberal plot to control the world economy.

Priceless.

Go get 'em Scoob.