Climate Change

[ForestfortheTrees]

Forest, if you actually care about what Freeman Dyson has to say on the AGW hoax, here's some Youtube clips...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU

Dyson worked in Oakridge and did do climate modeling. His main point though isn't that the models are so flawed and wrong, his main issue is with people who want to claim that the hypothesis of man-made warming can't be challenged, that a consensus exists in the scientific community, and that the debate is over. Only religion does that. Science doesn't do that. Science always questions, and when it stops questioning, it stops being science.

Once again, I don't think your view is that logical. Did you actually watch these videos or do just not understand what he is saying? In the first video, his main critisicm is around the quality of the input data and it's effects on the models. Very fair point. However, he does not say that this information is being used to perpetrate a hoax of any kind. Since this video was uploaded 6 years ago, it is incorrect to conclude that this is the current state of things.

The kicker comes in part two at 0:54 where he starts to talk about Stratospheric Cooling. This is an effect that is theorized to be an impact of the greenhouse effect. The stratosphere is warmed by out-going long-wave radiation, and not incoming short-wave radiation. As CO2 builds up, the energy associated with reflected long-wave radiation is kept in the troposphere. It does not get back out to space and so the stratosphere cools. In the video Dyson says it is something we know a lot about and is a "direct effect of carbon dioxide" and also "can be extremely serious as it directly effects the ozone." Please re-watch this section.

Also, in around 2008, Dyson wrote an article for the New York Review of Books called The Question of Global Warming. Here are a couple of quotes from that article:

I begin this review with a prologue, describing the measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science.

There is a famous graph showing the fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it varies month by month and year by year. It gives us our firmest and most accurate evidence of effects of human activities on our global environment. . . . Keeling was a meticulous observer. The accuracy of his measurements has never been challenged, and many other observers have confirmed his results.

I don't have access to all of the article, but you get the idea.

So, please check that your sources are actually supporting your statements. Misrepresenting someones statements for your own purposes makes you look like a religious zealot.

[logicalview]

So, please check that your sources are actually supporting your statements. Misrepresenting someones statements for your own purposes makes you look like a religious zealot.

excellent way to turn it around there Forest. Your entire spin on Dyson's comments would make anyone dizzy. The fact remains that whenever the theories and models coming out of the AGW machine are questioned, the machine and the zealots go into full on frenzy mode. And that's not science. AGW is a religion. And that's Dyson's point. It's not science, it's religion.

[ForestfortheTrees]

Really? Thats your response?

The religious zealot comment was really a joke about your religion vs science comment. I suppose you missed that. Looks like you missed the other points as well.

Please tell me how I "spun" Dyson's words. Where has he said that AGW is a "hoax"? Seems to me that he has just been critical of some of the methods, which is great. However, his other comments suggest that he does not have an issue with the hypothesis of human induced climate change.

Really, it seems like I am having a conversation with the Green Barbarian--if you can't understand or rebut the argument given, you just make fun of them. I watched your videos and made my points. If you can't discuss them with some level of intelligence you really shouldn't be posting on this thread.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

excellent way to turn it around there Forest. Your entire spin on Dyson's comments would make anyone dizzy. The fact remains that whenever the theories and models coming out of the AGW machine are questioned, the machine and the zealots go into full on frenzy mode. And that's not science. AGW is a religion. And that's Dyson's point. It's not science, it's religion.

I watched the videos ... hoax ?? Dyson's point .. not science but religion ?? Huh ??
Your spin on these videos make me dizzy ..

[hobbyguy]

If AGW is a "religion", it is interesting that the CEO of Exxon says it exists and is a problem. One would think that someone with the resources, contacts, and apparent bias of advantage,such as the Exxon CEO would be happy to be a denier. My guess is he's a pretty hard guy to con.

[ForestfortheTrees]

removed - Jennylives

[averagejoe]

removed - Jennylives

[Woodenhead]

removed - Jennylives

[averagejoe]

The only reason they came out with climate change is to cover there butts while humanly messing with the weather.

Read this:

http://csat.au.*bleep*.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

The U.S.A.F. needs practice to change the weather. Just look around.

[logicalview]

However, his other comments suggest that he does not have an issue with the hypothesis of human induced climate change.

LOL Forest. That response actually made me laugh pretty hard. Dyson most definitely has an issue with the hypothesis of human induced climate change, specifically all of the apocalyptic predictions, and especially with all of the current prescribed "cures" that politicians are only too willing to blindly throw billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars at. Really, we need to separate the issues here. One being - is AGW real? You seem to be firmly in the "yes" camp. A lot of us, like Freeman Dyson, are in the "show me actual proof" camp. Dyson is saying that the current "consensus" that the media claims exists in the scientific world is totally bogus, and that the current conclusions about AGW are based totally on computer models, models that are totally flawed and not at all representative of the real world. So - he's a definite "maybe" on AGW existing, but where he gets his back up, and me as well, is when everyone is supposed to just turn their brain off, accept that the conclusions from the flawed models are true, and then just accept the "remedies" of the climate shysters like Al Gore, the wind power scam artists, the solar hypsters, the carbon credit nonsense, and all of the other scammers in the giant AGW apocalyptic religious movement. Billions upon billions have to be poured into stupid foolish "alternative" energy scams, where the money just ends up in the pockets of a few select billionaires. It makes no sense.

And if you have the sense to say "NO!!" to these scams, or to question the flawed computer model, you are attacked with religious fervour. BIG OIL!!! HERETIC!! DENIER!!! It's all just so stupid. Woodenhead is right - both sides are guilty of hyperbole. That's why Dyson is right on. Here's an interview he did with a brain-washed reporter from the Independent. Check it out:

Letters to a heretic: An email conversation with climate change sceptic Professor Freeman Dyson

From: Steve Connor

To: Freeman Dyson

You are one of the most famous living scientists, credited as a visionary who has reshaped scientific thinking. Some have called you the "heir to Einstein", yet you are also a "climate sceptic" who questions the consensus on global warming and its link with carbon dioxide emissions. Could we start by finding where we agree? I take it you accept for instance that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas that warms the planet (1); that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen since direct measurements began several decades ago (2); and that CO2 is almost certainly higher now than for at least the past 800,000 years (3), if you take longer records into account, such as ice-core data.

Would you also accept that CO2 levels have been increasing as a result of burning fossil fuels and that global temperatures have been rising for the past 50 years at least, and possibly for longer (4)? Computer models have shown that the increase in global temperatures can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (5). Climate scientists say there is no other reasonable explanation for the warming they insist is happening (6), which is why we need to consider doing something about it (7). What part of this do you accept and what do you reject?

So - there's the party line from a typical AGW "believer", that's bought into the nonsensical "consensus" derived from the horribly flawed computer modeling process. Let's see what Dyson responds with to this poor naive fool...

FD:

First of all, please cut out the mention of Einstein. To compare me to Einstein is silly and annoying.

Answers to your questions are: yes (1), yes (2), yes (3), maybe (4), no (5), no (6), no (7).

There are six good reasons for saying no to the last three assertions. First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly. Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer. Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past. Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs. Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects. Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it

.

So - did Mr. Connor have the brains to at least think about Mr. Dyson's arguments? Or did his brain default to the typical AGW believer panic mode response when confronted with someone who doesn't just buy into all of the AGW bally-hoo? Hmmm....prepare to be disappointed...

Steve Connor:

So you accept that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas that warms the planet, that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have been rising since direct measurements began several decades ago, and that CO2 is almost certainly higher now than for at least the past 800,000 years. You think it "maybe" right that CO2 levels have been increasing as a result of fossil fuel burning but you don't accept that global temperatures have been rising nor that the increase in carbon dioxide has anything to do with that supposed trend. And finally, you have little or no faith in the computer models of the climate.

As a physicist you must be aware of the calculations of estimated increases in global average temperatures due to the positive radiative forcing of the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – the heat "captured" by CO2. The mainstream estimate suggests that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels would increase global average temperatures by about 3C. If you accept that CO2 levels have never been higher, but not that global average temperatures have increased, where has the extra trapped heat gone to? Can we deal with this before we go on?

No. True to form. Panic for Mr. Connor has set in. How can anyone, anywhere ever question the great "consensus"! It makes no sense!!! Let's see what Mr. Dyson responds with...

FD:

No thank-you! The whole point of this discussion is that I am interested in a far wider range of questions, while you are trying to keep us talking about narrow technical questions that I consider unimportant.

You ask me where the extra trapped heat has gone, but I do not agree with the models that say the extra trapped heat exists. I cannot answer your question because I disagree with your assumptions.

Bwha haaaa haaaaaa haaaa!! I just love it when an AGW disciple tries to argue his foolish mantras with someone galaxies smarter than they are. By now I am sure Mr. Connor has officially pooped his IPCC issued AGW proof diapers...

Steve Connor:

Sorry you feel that way, I hope we can get back on track. I was only trying to find out where your problem lies with respect to the scientific consensus on global warming. As you know these models are used by large, prestigious science organisations such as Nasa, NOAA and the Met Office, which use them to make pretty accurate predictions about the weather every day. The scientists who handle these models point out that they can accurately match up the computer predictions to real climatic trends in the past, and that it is only when they add CO2 influences to the models that they can explain recent global warming. There is a scientific consensus that CO2 emissions are having a discernible influence on the global climate and I was attempting to find out more precisely why you part company from this consensus.

You have written eloquently about the need for heretics in science who question the accepted dogma. There are a number of notable instances in science where heretics have indeed been proven to be right (Alfred Wegener and continental drift) but many more, less notable examples where they have been shown to be wrong and, in time, will be forgotten (remember Peter Duesberg or Andrew Wakefield?). So it was in the light of your heretical stance on climate science that I'd like to know why we should believe a few lone heretics – albeit eminent ones such as yourself – rather than the vast body of scientists who have a plethora of published work to back up their claims? It's an important question because it's about who we, the public, should believe on scientific matters and why?

yes once again Mr. Connor uses that dreaded word "consensus". It is just inconceivable that anyone could ever question anything, now that this "consensus" exists. Mr. Connor is beside himself. How could this be? Anyone and everyone must be convinced. NASA is on board! NOAA is on board!! None of their funding is based on AGW research...oh ok, billions is based on it...but that's beside the point...oh what a conundrum!!! So what does Mr. Dyson respond with...

FD:

When I was in high-school in England in the 1930s, we learned that continents had been drifting according to the evidence collected by Wegener. It was a great mystery to understand how this happened, but not much doubt that it happened. So it came as a surprise to me later to learn that there had been a consensus against Wegener. If there was a consensus, it was among a small group of experts rather than among the broader public. I think that the situation today with global warming is similar. Among my friends, I do not find much of a consensus. Most of us are sceptical and do not pretend to be experts. My impression is that the experts are deluded because they have been studying the details of climate models for 30 years and they come to believe the models are real. After 30 years they lose the ability to think outside the models. And it is normal for experts in a narrow area to think alike and develop a settled dogma. The dogma is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. In astronomy this happens all the time, and it is great fun to see new observations that prove the old dogmas wrong.

Unfortunately things are different in climate science because the arguments have become heavily politicised. To say that the dogmas are wrong has become politically incorrect. As a result, the media generally exaggerate the degree of consensus and also exaggerate the importance of the questions.

I am glad we are now talking about more general issues and not about technical details. I do not pretend to be an expert about the details.

As Sheldon says....BAZINGA!! Will Mr. Connor finally see the light?? Will he finally clue in to reality??? Let's find out...

Steve Conner:

Well, I'll try to keep it general, but it may involve talking specifics. One of my own academic mentors once explained to me that science is really just a very useful intellectual tool for teaching us about the world, just as philosophy teaches us how to think. The trouble for non-scientists is that we have to rely on professional scientists to tell us what they are finding out. But as you say yourself, it is even difficult sometimes for scientists in one field of endeavour to truly get to grips with the details in a different discipline. So, as a layman, I look at the wealth of evidence being presented to me on climate change, and the qualifications and track record of those presenting their results in the peer-reviewed literature, and I make a judgement. Do I believe in the small minority of mavericks, many of whom do not have a published track record, or the vast majority who do? Do I go with the heterodox or the orthodox?

Politicians of course have to do the same but they have to make important decisions, or not as the case may be. And the problem with climate change, as you know, is that if we wait until we are absolutely certain beyond any doubt whatsover that global temperatures are rising dangerously as a result of carbon dioxide emissions, it will be too late to do anything about it because of the in-built inertia of the climate system. Even if we stopped carbon dioxide emissions overnight immediately, temperatures would still be expected to increase for some years to come before they stabilise.

So I guess my question would be, what if you are wrong? What if all the other scientists connected with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UK Met Office, NASA, NOAA, the World Meteorological Organisation, and just about every reputable university and institute doing research on climate science, happen to be right? Isn't it a bit risky for me and the rest of the general public to dismiss this vast canon of climate science as just "fuss" about global warming when all I've got to go on is a minority opinion?

Yes. Once again Mr. Connor returns to the same argument. NASA! NOAA! Every other "reputable" university out there are doing "research" on AGW, so it must exist! And what happens if they are right, and it does exist??? Merciful heavens!! We are all doomed!!!! Dyson's response...and you can tell by now how irritated he is getting...

FD:

Of course I am not expecting you to agree with me. The most I expect is that you might listen to what I am saying. I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain. On the other hand, the remedies proposed by the experts are enormously costly and damaging, especially to China and other developing countries. On a smaller scale, we have seen great harm done to poor people around the world by the conversion of maize from a food crop to an energy crop. This harm resulted directly from the political alliance between American farmers and global-warming politicians. Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by politics more than by science. If it happens that I am wrong and the climate experts are right, it is still true that the remedies are far worse than the disease that they claim to cure.

I wish that The Independent would live up to its name and present a less one-sided view of the issues.

Bwha haaaaaaaaaaaa haaa!! Yes, it would be nice if the media would present some actual fact for a change instead of hysterical nonsense and hand wringing. So - valid point. Lots of damage being done to countries, specifically poor people, in the name of saving the entire world from the evil horrible man-made climate change that will destroy us all - because the models tell us this, and besides, NASA says so too!!! So will Mr. Connor acknowledge all of the evil being done in the world in the name of saving it? Or will he stay brain-washed...hmmmm...

Just to return to Alfred Wegener for one moment. Although he wasn't the first to note that the continents seem to slot together like a jigsaw, such as the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America, he was a visionary who actually went out to find the geological evidence to support his idea of continental drift. However, as you say, he didn't have a mechanism for how this "drift" happened. So it is perhaps understandable that many of his peers dismissed his theory in the 1930s. It was only with the discovery of plate tectonics 30 years later that everyone could agree on the true mechanism, which replaced Wegener's discredited theory of the continents somehow forging their way through the crust of the ocean basins. This doesn't in any way undermine his heroic contribution to science, and I say heroic in the true sense of the word given that he died in 1930 on his 50th birthday while trekking across Greenland – his body was never recovered and is now presumably encased in ice and moving slowly to the sea.

The point I want to make is that it may well have been right for the scientific "establishment" of the 1930s to be sceptical of Wegener's theory until more convincing evidence emerged, which it eventually did. The experts, rather than the public, could see the flaws in Wegener's argument which is why there was a scientific consensus against him. You are saying that the situation today with global warming is similar. However, surely an important difference this time is that it is the scientific consensus that is warning us of the dangers of continuing emissions of carbon dioxide, and that this consensus is saying quite categorically that if we wait until utterly definitive evidence emerges of dangerous climate change it will be too late to do anything about it.

One of the problems I have with the climate "sceptics" is that they keep changing their arguments. First they say that there is no such thing as global warming, thereby dismissing all the many thousands of records of land and sea temperatures over the past century or so. Then they say that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing the Earth to warm up, thereby defying basic physics. If that fails, they say that a bit of extra heat or carbon dioxide might not be that bad – it may be true that more people die from cold than heat, but how many die of drought and famine? And true, carbon dioxide boosts plant growth, but did you see the recent research suggesting a possible link between two atypical droughts in the Amazon in 2005 and 2010, when the rainforest became a net emitter of carbon dioxide, with higher sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic? Plants need water, not just carbon dioxide.

And if all else seems to fail, the final line of argument of the "climate sceptics" is that, "OK, carbon dioxide may have something to do with rising temperatures but what the heck, we can't do anything about it because the cure is worse than the disease". It seems to me that although there are still many uncertainties, much of the science of climate change is pretty settled, more so than you will admit to. To continue to report on "both sides" as you suggest is rather like ringing up the Flat Earth Society and asking them to comment on new discoveries in plate tectonics.

And right back Mr. Connor goes to the "Flat Earth" nonsense. What a massive tool. This guy actually develops a lecturing, condescending tone with one of the smartest people on earth. Yes, lets ring up the Flat Earth Society Mr. Connor. This is just another example of the arrogance in the AGW movement. Just pathetic. Will Mr. Dyson have any more time for this poor sad excuse for a journalist? I am thinking...probably not...

My three days of silence are over, and I decided I have no wish to continue this discussion. Your last message just repeats the same old party line that we have many good reasons to distrust. You complain that people who are sceptical about the party line do not agree about other things. Why should we agree? The whole point of science is to encourage disagreement and keep an open mind. That is why I blame The Independent for seriously misleading your readers. You give them the party line and discourage them from disagreeing.

With all due respect, I say good-bye and express the hope that you will one day join the sceptics. Scepticism is as important for a good journalist as it is for a good scientist.

Yours sincerely, Freeman Dyson

From: Steve Connor

To: Freeman Dyson

Sorry you feel that way. Thank you anyway.

Steve Connor

And another milestone is reached in the great debate. Dyson laid out all of his points, and instead of listening, Mr. Connor the journalist decided to lecture him on how wrong he was, and to stay faithful to the usual AGW talking points. This is why this debate just goes no where. Until science returns to its skeptical roots, the plague of the AGW scam will continue to suck billions out of our economies, and out of taxpayer coffers. All spending on "mitigation" and taxation should end right now, until the models actually are proven to be accurate. Prediction after prediction has failed - the prediction in the year 2000 by climate shyster "scientists" was that winters in the UK were a "thing of the past". Look how that worked out for them. Enough of this scam. Enough wasting our money, energy and time.

[Glacier]

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012

Hydrate hypothesis illuminates growing climate change alarm

Compiled by John Stokes

A recent scientific theory called the "hydrate hypothesis" says that historical global warming cycles have been caused by a feedback loop, where melting permafrost methane clathrates (also known as "hydrates") spur local global warming, leading to further melting of clathrates and bacterial growth.

In other words, like western Siberia, the 400 billion tons of methane in permafrost hydrate will gradually melt, and the released methane will speed the melting. The effect of even a couple of billion tons of methane being emitted into the atmosphere each year would be catastrophic.

The "hydrate hypothesis" (if validated) spells the rapid onset of runaway catastrophic global warming. In fact, you should remember this moment when you learned about this feedback loop-it is an existencial turning point in your life.

By the way, the "hydrate hypothesis" is a weeks old scientific theory, and is only now being discussed by global warming scientists. I suggest you Google the term.

Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing the Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to when we will pass the tipping point and be helpless to stop the runaway Global Warming.

There are enormous quantities of methane trapped in permafrost and under the oceans in ice-like structures called clathrates. The methane in Arctic permafrost clathrates is estimated at 400 billion tons.

Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2, and the atmosphere currently contains about 3.5 billion tons of the gas.

The highest temperature increase from global warming is occurring in the arctic regions-an area rich in these unstable clathrates. Simulations from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that over half the permafrost will thaw by 2050, and as much as 90 percent by 2100.

Peat deposits may be a comparable methane source to melting permafrost. When peat that has been frozen for thousands of years thaws, it still contains viable populations of bacteria that begin to convert the peat into methane and CO2.

Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. The west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70 billion tonnes of methane. Local atmospheric levels of methane on the Siberian shelf are now 25 times higher than global concentrations.

By the way, warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons have caused microbial activity to increase dramatically in the soil around the world. This, in turn, means that much of the carbon long stored in the soil is now being released into the atmosphere.

Releases of methane from melting oceanic clathrates have caused severe environmental impacts in the past. The methane in oceanic clathrates has been estimated at 10,000 billion tons.

55 million years ago a global warming chain reaction (probably started by volcanic activity) melted oceanic clathrates. It was one of the most rapid and extreme global warming events in geologic history.

Humans appear to be capable of emitting CO2 in quantities comparable to the volcanic activity that started these chain reactions. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, burning fossil fuels releases more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes.

Methane in the atmosphere does not remain long, persisting for about 10 years before being oxidized to CO2 (a greenhouse gas that lasts for hundreds of thousands of years). Chronic methane releases oxidizing into CO2 contribute as much to warming as does the transient methane concentrations.

To summarize, human activity is causing the Earth to warm. Bacteria converts carbon in the soil into greenhouse gasses, and enormous quantities are trapped in unstable clathrates. As the earth continues to warm, permafrost clathrates will thaw; peat and soil microbial activity will dramatically increase; and, finally, vast oceanic clathrates will melt. This global warming chain reaction has happened in the past.

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rose by a record amount over the past year. It is the third successive year in which they have increased sharply. Scientists are at a loss to explain why the rapid rise has taken place, but fear the trend could be the first sign of runaway global warming.

Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth's remaining resources.

Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.

Bibliographic reference courtesy of Brad Arnold who has an extensive resrarch background on Global Warming.

THE CANADIAN
January 8th, 2007

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/F ... 01291.html

[phoenix 2000]

Seems to me that the core of dissension about global warning rests on the problem of energy. I was always adamantly opposed to nuclear energy until a couple of weeks ago I was introduced to Liquid Thorium nuclear reactors. It is a proven technology which is being actively researched in China and India. It was developed in the States and then abandoned in favor of the type of nuclear power we presently use as it could be used to produce weapons as well, and liquid thorium won't work that way.
This video is the best of the ones I have seen about this. There is another long one which goes into great detail as to why this technology got sidelined but this one is more pertinent as to what it is and how it works and why it is so different that the sort of reactors we presently use.
It's a 30 minute video but worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyqYP6f66Mw

[hobbyguy]

I think you hit the nail on the head with the thought that energy use, which is dominated by fossil fuels, is at the heart of the discussion.

It is very easy to be reactionary in your thinking when someone says: what you are doing is not good, especially when it is something one has been doing for a lifetime.

This article, while betraying its bias, contains some interesting facts about air travel/pollution impacts:

https://www.eta.co.uk/environmental-info/air-travels-impact-on-climate-change/

The information about short haul flights is especially interesting, as it points out that train/bus travel are about 1/10 as damaging as air travel, and driving a car is less than 1/2 as damaging as air travel from a carbon perspective. Add in the contrail effects, and air travel looks just awful.

I wonder how many folks are concerned about climate change, but think nothing about hopping a flight to Mexico or wherever...or spend the extra money for a hybrid vehicle and do the same...

Unfortunately, train travel, and ship travel, are very expensive.

So if we really want to do something, air travel has to be substantially reduced, and that would put travel out of the average person's budget, and what about the small cities of employees at airports etc.?

Maybe constantly rising air fares have an unintended benefit.

Edit: I suspected this article was somewhat biased. The 1.2 mt of carbon for London to New York seemed high, so I calculated based on a 747 carrying 300 passengers, and got half that amount in fuel consumed for a round trip. I hate it when folks on either side of an issue seem to twist the facts. From what I gather, short haul flights are about 1/4 of that efficiency, so the numbers for short haul look close.

[averagejoe]

More silly climate change propaganda.....preparing Australia for mass immigration while playing with the weather.


Australia urged to formally recognise climate change refugee status

Refugee Council says new category would protect those fleeing the effects of global warming and warns Australian government to prepare for thousands forced from low-lying Pacific islands.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... gee-status

[Woodenhead]

Both sides are so steeped in propaganda it's not worth bothering.