Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?

[Leonhard]

It's not a "greenhouse gas" in the way the environmental wackos describe it, where it can cause catastrophic, runaway warming. There is no evidence that anything like that has or will happen. That's what was being debunked.

Well the problem with communicating the results of the IPCC is that it didn't come up with one model, it came up with five, from least bad to worst. And it had more "scenarios" based on things that might be the case... say the increase in temperature causes the permafrost to melt, it could start to rot and produces methane which is thousands of times more powerful as a greenhouse gas and this would cause the temperature of the ocean to rise to release a lot of its CO2.. this could cause a runaway scenario with a twelve degree increase in global temperature.

That's an example of a hypothetical doomsday scenario, but as you can see there's a long chain "This could cause this", each has some probability, and the more of them you chain together the more improbably the scenario becomes. So they're described, but they're not proposed.

The media is notoriously bad at reporting science so it doesn't distinguish between these things. And politicians are worse at reporting science so you had Al Gore using outdated science on climate change from the seventies, where they had an exaggerated climate change.

I'm more of a moderate, I believe that the climate change we experience since the late fifties is caused mainly by human activity. I believe there's reason enough to suspect that accumulated over the next century it will cause significant disruptions to the biosphere, a lot of species of animals will die off, and there will be negative consequences on the economy of many countries. Based on the evidence we have, I conclude that action taken now is better than action taken later. It's more expensive to adapt than to prevent.

I don't believe it will kill humans.

As for any arguments based on NOAA or NASA data, they have been caught deceptively manipulating their numbers so frequently and so blatantly that I simply don't trust them. Sorry.

Then you also really can't use them to support your argument. That would be a bit inconsistent I think. I do hope to return to that attempt to do some of the climate temperature reconstruction on my own. Other bloggers beat me too it, I was too busy getting my career to work.

The raw data is available at the weather stations though, you can contact them and get them yourself. Some bloggers have done that, I'll see if I can find them.

I'm glad I did that though, I got a full time employment a while back.

[Sparko]

Is that it?

I thought it was something really offensive and annoying he'd have said longer back than that.

Mostly it seems to be an argument against serious discussion in any internet forum, and whether it matters or not. I'll gladly concede that what we say on this forum likely doesn't matter all that much. I have a gay friend who has a bigger outreach than all the visitors combined who visits this place. Including fence-sitters and conservatives. This is mostly a close-knitted community that goes back. We're here because we like the banter. Also sometimes we get to learn something. At least I do.

I also because I hope I can reach at least some of you on at least a few issues.

And also because Cow Poke starts posting threads about 'Where the Liberals have Gone'.

I was just making a humorous comment to Tassman about how unlikely it would be that we would solve global warming by arguing on tweb, so a few derails this far into the thread isn't going to hurt anything. Instead, Chuck turned it into an entirely NEW derail.

My post:

And this is a good thing is it? The planet is faced with catastrophic global warming and you think it cute to "derail" the thread and talk about AstroTurf. Be aware that most of the world does not believe that these are the End-Times and that Jesus is about to return on his cloud of glory. Most of us are more concerned about the futures of our grand-kids on an uninhabitable planet than the religious delusions of the few.

Right, because a bunch of nerds arguing in a discussion forum are going to solve global warming, right?

[Leonhard]

private jets are very expensive relative to the number of people that can fly in them, so they will always be more of a plaything for the rich, or a service vehicle for the powerful, CEO's, politicians and the like.

Here are some numbers for the FAA itself:

commercial flights per month average around 1.3 million
private buisiness jet flights average around 350,000

kg CO2 per km: Bombadier lear jet 45: 0.684
kg C02 per km: Airbus A321: 9.074

So, taking the liberty of just generalizing based on FAA data and US/Canada and these airplanes - per km flown (not incredibly accurate)

commercial aviation puts out 11,760,000 kg CO2,

buisiness travel puts out 253,000 kg CO2

That is - per km flown* - commercial aviation puts out about 46 times as much carbon as private. which leaves the playthings of the rich and powerful adding about 2.15% to the total aviation carbon output.

note, most 737s are comparable, while 747 (and likely 777, airbus 380s) are more than 3x the A321 so I don't think this is a low-ball sort of estimate, that is, buisness jets may well have a smaller impact than 2%

Jim

*I did not take into account a potential difference in the average flight length commercial vs private jet.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/

https://aspm.faa.gov/apmd/sys/bjpdf/b-jet-201703.pdf

https://micpohling.wordpress.com/200...-by-aeroplane/

That's about what I expected.

[Leonhard]

I was just making a humorous comment to Tassman about how unlikely it would be that we would solve global warming by arguing on tweb, so a few derails this far into the thread isn't going to hurt anything. Instead, Chuck turned it into an entirely NEW derail.

My post:

Right, because a bunch of nerds arguing in a discussion forum are going to solve global warming, right?

Inception derail.

[Cow Poke]

Sparko is bullying him, it's a dead horse, move on.

This is about me, isn't it?

[Leonhard]

This is about me, isn't it?

[Cow Poke]

If you can always end discussion by pointing to the fact that writing on a discussion board does not solve problems, there is no need to even start discussing, is there?

Um..... it was not my intent to "end discussion". You're free to bloviate all you want, you're just not accomplishing anything here, I don't think. Both sides pretty much have their minds made up. But, hey, bloviate away!

[Sparko]

private jets are very expensive relative to the number of people that can fly in them, so they will always be more of a plaything for the rich, or a service vehicle for the powerful, CEO's, politicians and the like.

Here are some numbers for the FAA itself:

commercial flights per month average around 1.3 million
private buisiness jet flights average around 350,000

kg CO2 per km: Bombadier lear jet 45: 0.684
kg C02 per km: Airbus A321: 9.074

So, taking the liberty of just generalizing based on FAA data and US/Canada and these airplanes - per km flown (not incredibly accurate)

commercial aviation puts out 11,760,000 kg CO2,

buisiness travel puts out 253,000 kg CO2

That is - per km flown* - commercial aviation puts out about 46 times as much carbon as private. which leaves the playthings of the rich and powerful adding about 2.15% to the total aviation carbon output.

note, most 737s are comparable, while 747 (and likely 777, airbus 380s) are more than 3x the A321 so I don't think this is a low-ball sort of estimate, that is, buisness jets may well have a smaller impact than 2%

Jim

*I did not take into account a potential difference in the average flight length commercial vs private jet.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/

https://aspm.faa.gov/apmd/sys/bjpdf/b-jet-201703.pdf

https://micpohling.wordpress.com/200...-by-aeroplane/

You need to figure in how many people are using each flight. A commercial flight might put out more per km, but it is carrying hundreds of passengers, where a business jet is carrying a handful.

[Sparko]

Inception derail.

dang. now it has a name.

[Leonhard]

You need to figure in how many people are using each flight. A commercial flight might put out more per km, but it is carrying hundreds of passengers, where a business jet is carrying a handful.

I can't believe I missed this point. Now I can't sleep until I've calculated it.

[Cow Poke]

I can't believe I missed this point. Now I can't sleep until I've calculated it.

To me, it's the obvious point.

Commercial airliners are built for efficiency because they want to move the highest number of people at the lowest rate possible --- to make money.

Private jets, on the other hand, are built for speed and comfort for people who have tons of money.

[Mountain Man]

private jets are very expensive relative to the number of people that can fly in them, so they will always be more of a plaything for the rich, or a service vehicle for the powerful, CEO's, politicians and the like.

Here are some numbers for the FAA itself:

commercial flights per month average around 1.3 million
private buisiness jet flights average around 350,000

kg CO2 per km: Bombadier lear jet 45: 0.684
kg C02 per km: Airbus A321: 9.074

So, taking the liberty of just generalizing based on FAA data and US/Canada and these airplanes - per km flown (not incredibly accurate)

commercial aviation puts out 11,760,000 kg CO2,

buisiness travel puts out 253,000 kg CO2

That is - per km flown* - commercial aviation puts out about 46 times as much carbon as private. which leaves the playthings of the rich and powerful adding about 2.15% to the total aviation carbon output.

note, most 737s are comparable, while 747 (and likely 777, airbus 380s) are more than 3x the A321 so I don't think this is a low-ball sort of estimate, that is, buisness jets may well have a smaller impact than 2%

Jim

*I did not take into account a potential difference in the average flight length commercial vs private jet.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/

https://aspm.faa.gov/apmd/sys/bjpdf/b-jet-201703.pdf

https://micpohling.wordpress.com/200...-by-aeroplane/

Wrong way of looking at it. It's a question of pollution generated per person.

Another way to think about it, imagine the amount of pollution that would be generated if every person who now flies commercial were to charter a private jet instead.

[Leonhard]

I can't believe I missed this point. Now I can't sleep until I've calculated it.

Actually belay that. This doesn't matter. If you calculate the CO2 per passanger per mile, then you effective get the efficiency of the transport, and no one is arguing that private jets are comparable to commercial jets in terms of efficiency. They're a lot less efficient by about an order of magnitude.

The question is what percentage of the footprint do they represent and that's a footnote. Its 2.5% is still significant though.

For what it matters I believe any policy that makes flying more expensive, should also make private jets more expensive proportionately.

[oxmixmudd]

Look, Jim, no matter how many times you try to rephrase your passive aggressive insults, it's still an ad hominem, and you're still a hypocrite.

Maybe try focusing less on me and more on what I've actually posted?

Ok, i take back my previous compliments.

And I have dealt with the content you have posted.



Jim

[Teallaura]

I'm curious to read that one to see what counts and what the data consists of. Its certainly interesting, but I've got a lot of skeptical questions. For instance is it studies of Twitter data (which is what I'm seeing so far).

Dunno - it was merely interesting and it is a counter to your point that you hadn't evidently seen. Y'all can argue it.

True, at least from the stand point of pure politics.

If you actually believe in this then you'd BETTER pay attention to 'pure politics' - because it's a political, not a scientific, decision as to whether a nation-state - or all of them - will act. In almost all, there's an upward limit of what you can inflict on a population that isn't sold on the necessity.

It is still a weak argument. It doesn't actually change whether there's a problem or not.

You're on the wrong page. You now have to convince the population of the planet that not only is this real but it's worthwhile for them to make drastic changes to their lifestyles - or to never advance to First World status. People who can't read the literature - who will therefore be relying on how trustworthy the reporters are. Reporters here being scientists and activists in addition to the media. None of which seem interested in maintaining good reputations - and are strangely surprised when people doubt them and their veracity even in their First World backyards.

It's not even obvious that private jets of a handful of people is the issue. Is all optics.

I'm only one person and I never fly in jets. So, you are now arguing that I shouldn't have to change my lifestyle since it would be insignificant? And you actually wonder why this makes people MORE skeptical?

In December 1500 people will lose their jobs - 83% of them Navajo. Their reservation will take a tremendous economic hit. But it's okay, because one isolated coal plant that has never failed to meet its environmental requirements will be shut down and ... what?

Is it going to make a *%&$^ bit of difference? Will it save even one polar bear? Will a glacier stop melting? What exact environmental impact will it have - what does it IMPROVE?

Nothing - it won't accomplish anything other than making the Navajo even more dependent on the Federal government. Global whatsits - even assuming it's real and can be altered by humans - has been hijacked as a means to force the introduction of socialism. Do not be surprised when the blow back gets so extreme that no nation can continue with even the weakest of the accords.