Do planes have any effect on climate?

What i am getting at is the attitude of the people that go to university and then always start a conversation with. "I have a degree... or Did you go to uni". Then when they find out that you did not study science at university they treat you like ****. This is the arrogance that i was referring to.

If anything, specifically with this climate chains non sense. The people that went to university are some what biased as they have received the climate change indoctrination that is needed to roll out the carbon tax etc. So their education has been compromised.

Similar with economics when you have all the Keynesian economists coming out with the same ideas and how they look down on people who don't follow their train of thought.
 
groen said:
What i am getting at is the attitude of the people that go to university and then always start a conversation with. "I have a degree... or Did you go to uni". Then when they find out that you did not study science at university they treat you like ****. This is the arrogance that i was referring to.

If anything, specifically with this climate chains non sense. The people that went to university are some what biased as they have received the climate change indoctrination that is needed to roll out the carbon tax etc. So their education has been compromised.

Similar with economics when you have all the Keynesian economists coming out with the same ideas and how they look down on people who don't follow their train of thought.
Click to expand...

Wow, that is one serious chip on your shoulder. I was going to try and reply, but fear it will be fruitless :(
 
HeadlessChicken said:
Aaah, a nice hardcore degree, good stuff. The furthest I dabbled into that side of it was basic volcanology & tectonics, as well as a little sedimentology. That was enough :D
Click to expand...

Volcanology and tectonics are ok, however I much prefer palaeontology and Sedimentology, past environments and the chance of finding dinosaurs. :p

Having said that Volcanology has its perks, i'd love to actually study an active volcano, do all the sampling of erupting material etc.

I take it you work in a scientific field?

groen said:
all you arrogant academics love to think you are intelligent because you went through university and got a stamp. But how many times i have listened to lectures from 30+ year medical professionals talking about the dangers of vaccines and then some guy who just went through uni thinks he knows what he is talking about...
Click to expand...

I take it you didn't read one of my previous posts? The one where I mentioned I had studied climate change at university but still don't think I know enough to comment thoroughly either way?;)

In which case how is someone who has read a few newspaper articles and watched a few tv shows (that "academics" have probably read and watched too) likely to be any wiser?
 
Last edited:
groen said:
What i am getting at is the attitude of the people that go to university and then always start a conversation with. "I have a degree... or Did you go to uni". Then when they find out that you did not study science at university they treat you like ****. This is the arrogance that i was referring to.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you hang out with the wrong sort of people?

groen said:
If anything, specifically with this climate chains non sense. The people that went to university are some what biased as they have received the climate change indoctrination that is needed to roll out the carbon tax etc. So their education has been compromised.
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks... Did it ever occur to you that universities are independent institutions? They don't actually have a national syllabus like GCSEs and A levels, you get taught what the lecturers are good at? Once you realise that, you need to realise that most "academics" couldn't give a carp about politics and much prefer the enjoyment of their work, the end result is a bonus, whichever way it goes... That usually means than not all lecturers/academics think exactly the same thing.

Where is this leading? Well it should be telling you that there is no climate change indoctrine, however there is study, they give you the hard data as ground work and you then build on it any way you want. You could argue that climate change was man made or natural or even that it was some kind of alien plot to overthrow humans as long as you can show the data points to this, it perhaps fits current models (whichever one you choose as there are usually a few) and a reasoned argument as to why you think that...

Unfortunately (yeah i'm going to do that arrogant bit), those that haven't studied (perhaps a science) may not realise that it's not the end result that is usually important (with regards to getting grades at least) it is how you get there... Using sources and papers reliably, critical analysis of data and the realisation that not all data and papers hold the same standing. For example you would be shot for using Wikipedia as a reference...

groen said:
Similar with economics when you have all the Keynesian economists coming out with the same ideas and how they look down on people who don't follow their train of thought.
Click to expand...

Obviously all economists will think the same thing... Its all a conspiracy isn't it? It's not like if a better idea came along that the person that thought of it or utilised it would suddenly get rich quick or be far more accurate...
 
Telescopi said:
Climate models don't work because we don't understand 1% of the processes involved. I don't know if politicians are being lied to about this this or just choose to ignore an uncomfortable uncertainty so they can be seen to be doing something.
Click to expand...

Actually, modelling the climate is very well understood (thermo- and fluid dynamics). Unfortunately, to get an accurate model is extremely computationally heavy (everything is coupled to everything else). There are a lot of good approximations however, which give us a very good estimate.

Climate model
Climateprediciton.net. A distributed computing approach. As you rightly say, the statistics is the hard bit of making a prediction. This group (based at Oxford uni) use the approach of running many (fairly simple) models and looking at the future predictions using a wide range of initial conditions.

As I've said before, I haven't yet met a member of the faculty who didn't think global warming was man-made, and extremely risky business. The only opinions contrary to anthropogenic global warming come from scientists on the payroll of oil giants.
ExxonMobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics
ExxonSecrets
 
Last edited:
groen said:
What i am getting at is the attitude of the people that go to university and then always start a conversation with. "I have a degree... or Did you go to uni". Then when they find out that you did not study science at university they treat you like ****. This is the arrogance that i was referring to.
Click to expand...

To be honest, when it comes to discussing science subjects it does sometimes help to know what level of science education someone has. What you learn changes the further along in education you go and some things that you learn at the lower levels can dramatically change (I am looking at you atomic structure!). It also helps to find out what sort of real understanding of the scientific process and method the person has. Even such a simple thing as the word "theory" and how that is interpreted can cause serious confusion if the people involved are approaching it from different directions.
 
groen said:
I had actual reasons for calling academics arrogant, unlike your childish attack, which of course is clearly arrogant. Considering the rest of my posts ? When am I ever arrogant ?

Yea that makes sense. Are you aware of any studies that have been done in controlled environments with gases in confined areas like that,
testing for the radio active reflectiveness ?
Click to expand...

Yes I was extremely childish defending all those which your tarnish with the same brush. I threw lots of insults across the internet at you... oh wait, no I didn't.

The entire second half of your post WREAKS of arrogance, "how many times i have listened to lectures from 30+ year medical professionals"..... in other words, "I know more than everyone with a degree. I've been to lectures held by people who more than everyone, I don't need a degree". I only posted in this discussion to wind you up, I don't really care about the topic... In my opinion the great mass of plastic floating in the sea is of much more concern than a bit of CO2.

You clearly have a GIANT chip on your shoulder, I suggest getting over it.... a weeks course of drunk freshers should do the trick. Take 1 every 24 hours for a week and you should be less of a **** at the end of it.

Crap, that was childish ://
 
simulatorman said:
The grounding of 63,000 flights over the past four days has saved 1.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, more than the annual emissions of many developing countries.
Click to expand...

That equates to 320,076 tonnes of jet fuel.

That's 391,698,000 litres, or 86,161,515 imperial gallons.

Does that figure seem realistic?
 
Last edited:
ElvisFan said:
That equates to 320,076 tonnes of jet fuel.

That's 391,698,000 litres, or 86,161,515 imperial gallons.

Does that figure seem realistic?
Click to expand...

I don't know. A Boeing 747 has 183,380 litres of fuel fully loaded (source). Taking your 391,698,000 litres estimate (assuming you've done it right) that's ~2135 fully fueled aircraft. Compared to their figure of 63,000 flights it almost seems like an underestimate in CO2 (the average plane would only be fueled to 3% capacity)
 
groen said:
all you arrogant academics love to think you are intelligent because you went through university and got a stamp. But how many times i have listened to lectures from 30+ year medical professionals talking about the dangers of vaccines and then some guy who just went through uni thinks he knows what he is talking about...
Click to expand...
Ok, I was going to rise to this but I think everyone else has done instead :)

groen said:
Please explain to me how they measure the radio active reflectiveness of gases in the atmosphere. (the green house effect) how do they determine which gases reflect the suns rays more than others ?

An over simple explanation would be sufficient. I only ask because i have looked in to it on the internet and can not find any information on how they actually measure it.
Click to expand...
Currently it's measured at ground level and from satellites by looking at the temperature. You know what the solar intensity is, you know what the atmospheric CO2/methane/NOx/SO2 etc content is and you can make an estimate of what the temperature should be. Where I work we're looking into new methods to measure it from space directly, so we can study the effects in more detail.

You've got to remember that we didn't even know the effect existed before 9/11 when the weather stations suddenly reported abnormal temperature swings. Since then we've managed to identify the cause (aerosols high in the atmosphere) and we can track the effect by studying where the wind blows the pollution to, for example. I'm sure these couple of days have proved quite valuable and exciting research time for anyone working directly on this.
 
Jonny69 said:
Ok, I was going to rise to this but I think everyone else has done instead :)
Click to expand...

I don't wish for this to be ad hominem but merely putting something into context here: groen also seems to be the very same poster who's blind jingoism on behalf of the BNP is making a mockery of himself over in SC. It speaks volumes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom