Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Closed
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-28-2012, 04:09 PM   #121  
With The Resistance
 
jungle's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,055
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine View Post
Why does everyone think that just because the earth once had high CO2 levels or there were ice ages in the past that this would be OK again? What matters is not the way the earth was before, but the way it is now. Our society is dependent on this current climate. Just because the Sahara used to be a rain forest, the Midwest used to be under the sea, and Europe used to be covered in ice does not mean it would not be disastrous if that happened again.

I don’t have a dog in this fight because I don’t listen to a pilot’s view on science just as I would listen to scientist’s views on landing. There are a lot on APC who like to criticize others for believing in climate change by saying they are just regurgitating reports from scientists who have an agenda, but are they not doing the same thing? There is money to be made on both sides of this debate, so there are a lot of half-truths and misconceptions on both sides.

One of my favorite APC arguments against climate change is when people find specific examples of record snow fall amounts in months or areas that don’t normally see that much snow. If anything that supports climate change because high atmospheric moisture content supports the argument that the atmosphere is warming and the climate is changing. And even if you take the examples where posters just report record cold spells in winter, then how would you explain the incredibly warm winter the Northeast is experiencing now? Normally this time of year the streets have 2-foot snow banks on the side and it is painfully cold. So far, it has only snowed 3 times (including a strange storm in October) and the snow has always melted the next day. For the majority of January, the temperatures have been in the mid 50s!
Quite right, but I don't think anyone here disagrees that climate change has taken place or will take place in the future, it is the debate over the exact mechanism that seems to bring so much controversy.
There are numerous unanswered questions though and it is a mistake to think that the whole concept is in any way settled.

1. Can you point us to any scientific study that shows a statistically significant temperature rise in the last twenty years that is greater than those over the last 500 years?

2. If we are causing climate change, can you give us a practical solution?

3. How would any proposed man made change to the climate, to reduce or increase temperature, work? What would be the net effect, what temperature are you trying to achieve?
jungle is offline  
Old 01-28-2012, 04:41 PM   #122  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 7,981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine View Post
Why does everyone think that just because the earth once had high CO2 levels or there were ice ages in the past that this would be OK again? What matters is not the way the earth was before, but the way it is now. Our society is dependent on this current climate. Just because the Sahara used to be a rain forest, the Midwest used to be under the sea, and Europe used to be covered in ice does not mean it would not be disastrous if that happened again.

I donít have a dog in this fight because I donít listen to a pilotís view on science just as I would listen to scientistís views on landing. There are a lot on APC who like to criticize others for believing in climate change by saying they are just regurgitating reports from scientists who have an agenda, but are they not doing the same thing? There is money to be made on both sides of this debate, so there are a lot of half-truths and misconceptions on both sides.

One of my favorite APC arguments against climate change is when people find specific examples of record snow fall amounts in months or areas that donít normally see that much snow. If anything that supports climate change because high atmospheric moisture content supports the argument that the atmosphere is warming and the climate is changing. And even if you take the examples where posters just report record cold spells in winter, then how would you explain the incredibly warm winter the Northeast is experiencing now? Normally this time of year the streets have 2-foot snow banks on the side and it is painfully cold. So far, it has only snowed 3 times (including a strange storm in October) and the snow has always melted the next day. For the majority of January, the temperatures have been in the mid 50s!
So one of your favorite argument against climate change is when a specific example of a weather anomaly is used to refute man made global warming and then you site a specific example of a weather anamaly to support MMGW. OK.

We all agree the weather is changing. We just disagree on whether or not we can stop it from changing.
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 01-28-2012, 05:39 PM   #123  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 335
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine View Post
Why does everyone think that just because the earth once had high CO2 levels or there were ice ages in the past that this would be OK again? What matters is not the way the earth was before, but the way it is now. Our society is dependent on this current climate. Just because the Sahara used to be a rain forest, the Midwest used to be under the sea, and Europe used to be covered in ice does not mean it would not be disastrous if that happened again.

I don’t have a dog in this fight because I don’t listen to a pilot’s view on science just as I would listen to scientist’s views on landing. There are a lot on APC who like to criticize others for believing in climate change by saying they are just regurgitating reports from scientists who have an agenda, but are they not doing the same thing? There is money to be made on both sides of this debate, so there are a lot of half-truths and misconceptions on both sides.

One of my favorite APC arguments against climate change is when people find specific examples of record snow fall amounts in months or areas that don’t normally see that much snow. If anything that supports climate change because high atmospheric moisture content supports the argument that the atmosphere is warming and the climate is changing. And even if you take the examples where posters just report record cold spells in winter, then how would you explain the incredibly warm winter the Northeast is experiencing now? Normally this time of year the streets have 2-foot snow banks on the side and it is painfully cold. So far, it has only snowed 3 times (including a strange storm in October) and the snow has always melted the next day. For the majority of January, the temperatures have been in the mid 50s!
Well then we are in big trouble because in the billions of years the earth has been evolving, the climate changes. And that won't change.

P.S. Pilots are known for thinking a lot of themselves but they pale in comparison to someone who thinks humans can change/stop mother nature. Sure would be some money to be made if one could!!!!!!!
Zoot Suit is offline  
Old 01-28-2012, 07:55 PM   #124  
Gets Weekends Off
 
2StgTurbine's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,465
Default

I believe I said that I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't have the answers and I won't pretend I don't. I am just commenting on the fact that many on APC criticize those who believe in climate change because the scientific community isn't in complete agreement. If you read the previous threads, first they criticized the fact that the earth was warming, then they said the warming was not affecting the climate because it was still cold in the winter, then they bring up the fact that the earth experienced extreme temperatures before, and then they say the link between human activity and CO2 levels has not been established. The point I am trying to make is there is dogma on both sides.

Criticism is important in science, but make sure you are criticizing conclusions and not facts (that goes for both sides of the argument). Again, I don't care what the climate of the earth used to be like; I care what it is like now and in the future. If it can be established that humans affect the climate, then why not try and stop its destruction? I am not saying we know enough now to start taking radical steps, but why not continue to study the theory? If some of you think it is impossible for humans to have such a large effect on our environment in such a short amount of time, then how about the ozone layer?

What I see on this forum is one poster claiming there is proof of climate change based on one report. Then another poster refutes that report with another one. That is good, but when others just attack each side by claiming they are corrupt because there is money in the science their side supports or uses antidotal experiences (yes even the one I gave to highlight the pitfalls of that style of argument) it cheapens the debate.

Just because you can find an article that says the earth is not warming or humans have no noticeable affect on the climate does not mean the debate is over just as much as a report stating the opposite does. Why not approach this with an open mind?
2StgTurbine is offline  
Old 01-28-2012, 09:44 PM   #125  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: Cessna 150
Posts: 90
Default

My favorite part of this whole thing was when the Republicans hired their own climate scientist to testify in front of Congress. Professor Richard Muller examined the data that had been taken by the same scientists for years and even put a team together to collect their own data. Much to his surprise, his team's results mirrored that of the so-called "Climategate" scientists. In live testimony to Congress and in front of a bunch of Republican congressmen, he proclaimed that the climate data is indeed accurate and man made global warming is real. He stated that although many errors were made in the collection, the data does indicate that man made causes are causing global warming. The Republicans were in an uproar; the very man they hired to prove their claims completely refuted it. It was an instant classic.
BigTime is offline  
Old 01-28-2012, 09:55 PM   #126  
With The Resistance
 
jungle's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,055
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTime View Post
My favorite part of this whole thing was when the Republicans hired their own climate scientist to testify in front of Congress. He examined the data that had been taken by the same scientists or years and in front of a bunch of Republican senators proclaimed that the climate data is accurate. He stated that although many errors were made in the collection, the data does indicate that manmade causes are causing global warming. They were in an uproar; the very man they hired to prove their claims completely refuted it.
Outstanding! Now, if you don't mind, would you direct us to the science behind your amusing little anecdote?

Fiction is easy to produce, but there always seems to be a dire shortage of facts.

Why not approach this with an open mind instead of using it as a political football?

I would like to ask these questions again, since we have not yet gotten any answers, or even attempts at answers:

1. Why are Mann, Jones and others hiding data, falsifying data, and presenting false conclusions?

2. What is the correct temperature for the Earth?

3. What percentage of climate change in the past was caused by man, and what percentage by natural cycles?

4.What effect would the UN proposals or cap and trade have on the climate?
What are the costs/benefits of these proposals?
/////////////////////////////////////
It is quite clear that Muller has no answers either, read the last sentence:

In October 2011, Muller wrote in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, concerning his work with the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.
Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Interesting, he noted what everyone knew, but still cannot make an honest statement as to cause. It is one thing to be a liar by profession and quite another to risk human lives as a matter of trade.

Last edited by jungle; 01-28-2012 at 10:15 PM.
jungle is offline  
Old 01-29-2012, 06:31 AM   #127  
With The Resistance
 
jungle's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,055
Default Look at the Science and the Data

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online
jungle is offline  
Old 01-29-2012, 06:53 AM   #128  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 7,981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine View Post
I believe I said that I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't have the answers and I won't pretend I don't. I am just commenting on the fact that many on APC criticize those who believe in climate change because the scientific community isn't in complete agreement. If you read the previous threads, first they criticized the fact that the earth was warming, then they said the warming was not affecting the climate because it was still cold in the winter, then they bring up the fact that the earth experienced extreme temperatures before, and then they say the link between human activity and CO2 levels has not been established. The point I am trying to make is there is dogma on both sides.

...

Just because you can find an article that says the earth is not warming or humans have no noticeable affect on the climate does not mean the debate is over just as much as a report stating the opposite does. Why not approach this with an open mind?
There is only one side that says there is no room for debate and that the science is "settled". There is only one side that takes money and flushes it down the solyndra toilet because the science is "settled". There is only one side that could with a straight face shutdown the key stone pipeline and then claim that they are for an "all of the above" energy solution to our problems. Find an article, post or opinion from the "deniers" that says climate change (or as we like to say, The Weather) shouldnt be studied. On the contrary we say it hasnt been studied enough.

You sound very reasonable, guess what you are a denier in the other sides eyes.

What about the ozone layer? Is the gravity stronger at the south pole is that why all the fluorocarbons settle down there and eat all the ozone? Or is it because those nasty man made chemicals just naturally roll to the bottom of the earth. You would think they would eat all the ozone in the northern hemisphere since that is where all the bad capitalists are concentrated.

Last edited by FDXLAG; 01-29-2012 at 07:37 AM.
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 01-29-2012, 07:40 AM   #129  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: electron wrangler
Posts: 371
Default Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy View Post
I have you beat. 31,487 scientists do not agree with you and have signed a petition here...

I guess the science isn't "settled" now is it?

32000 Scientists - YouTube
N2264J is offline  
Old 01-29-2012, 07:46 AM   #130  
With The Resistance
 
jungle's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,055
Default Woops!

The supposed Ďconsensusí on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.


Read more: Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Looks like there is a new consensus, the old "consensus" was clearly wrong, as were the predictive models.
jungle is offline  
 
 
 

 
Closed
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Part 135 change in personnel requirements CLewis Part 135 5 07-11-2011 07:35 PM
XJ 9E 9L SLI Thread FlyJSH Regional 666 05-22-2011 06:43 PM
Jeppesen Guided Flight Discovery DVDs Gajre539 The Boneyard 0 07-19-2010 02:45 PM
Mesa Chap 11 Filling hslightnin Mesa Airlines 207 01-07-2010 07:33 PM
Glide Slope... BEWELCH Flight Schools and Training 43 03-21-2007 10:42 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:18 AM.