Another link about Plane Travel and Global Warming.
Found this link, once again, on another mb,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/200...1/escape.green
Personally, I'll only start feeling guilty about taking a plane flight when something quite unlikely occurs: when the people currently sitting in the U.S. Senate and House start feeling guilty about their already-in-place program to financially destroy the U.S. middle class. Not before!
Re: Another link about Plane Travel and Global Warming.
^^^ and all of this assumes that Co2 emissions (or reduction thereof) actually have any significant effect on global warming, a hypothesis that seems less and less true by the day as more and more solar research is being published.
Re: Another link about Plane Travel and Global Warming.
^ what? sorry but that is just downright absurd!
Re: Another link about Plane Travel and Global Warming.
oh really ...
(snip)"All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."
The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.
In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.
CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. "(snip)
Re: Another link about Plane Travel and Global Warming.
Yes really.And according to these people who are btw the world's top authority on this stuff, the sun is not the main cause of global warming. CO2 is the main cause. But I dug up a few other quotes and links too just for shits and giggles.
Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.
Other recent research has suggested that the effects of variations in the sun's output are "negligible" as a factor in warming
While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.
the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.
But hey if you want to believe it is all the fault of sunlight you go right ahead but don't be surprised when most people treat you like a member of the Flat Earth Society for doing so ;)
Re: Another link about Plane Travel and Global Warming.
I'm glad that you respect national geographic as a credible source ... but you apparently missed this report
and most importantly
the last time I checked, we were not exporting CO2 as cargo on space probe missions, and no humanoid residents have been identified on other planets in our solar system !
Quote:
But hey if you want to believe it is all the fault of sunlight you go right ahead but don't be surprised when most people treat you like a member of the Flat Earth Society for doing so
Actually what matters to me is the scientific TRUTH, not the concensus opinion of mainstream media or of certain scientists whose careers depend on continued grant funding from organizations that would 'like us to believe' that human activity is the root of all evil. It also bothers me when our gov't starts making laws which further limit our freedoms and opportunities on the basis of a 'concensus' rather than proven fact (i.e. the carbon tax just proposed by congress, for example)
- and particularly so when the people promoting the new laws will also profit from the institution of the carbon tax !
and
~
Re: Another link about Plane Travel and Global Warming.
if scientific truth was what was important to you then you would lean more towards agreement with majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists who say CO2 is the main cause.
and if you want to drag politics into this discussion which I've noticed you do about EVERYTHING ::) I'll just point out that it's traditional energy companies who have more to lose by CO2 emissions being lowered. Those are the people who have the greatest interest in promoting fake science.
I thought it so f-ing funny that you tried to use that National Geo link to prove your case when on page 2 of that story it said about the guy whom you think is correct about the sun being the cause rather than CO2
"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.
"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."
Plus the National Geo link you cited to support your case even has links to several other National Geo articles that also say the sun is NOT the main cause. So like I said to begin with your idea of blaming the sun is just abusrd!
But alas you are about the most biased person I have encountered on the net
so reasonable debate with you seeems pretty much pointless. And since I've already made my case and backed it up, I'm done here.
Enjoy your lifetime membership with the Flat Earth Society :sun:
Re: Another link about Plane Travel and Global Warming.
Again, if this were merely a matter of scientific evidence (or lack thereof), then we could agree to disagree and allow research to continue until conclusive scientific evidence settled the question once and for all. However, gov't officials are laying the groundwork to pass laws (and in some cases have already passed laws) and take regulatory actions based on the supposed 'concensus' which will have PROFOUND effects on the US economy, US businesses, and the US middle class. I for one do not look forward to energy 'rationing' and a doubling or tripling of energy costs as a result of a carbon tax, along with the inevitable secondary effects that will certainly stem from this (i.e. the death of suburbia, exodus of even more US businesses). This is particularly the case when such draconian measures are justified by use of a 'concensus' that could eventually be proven incorrect. Since it is gov't that will enact these measures, it is impossible to exclude politics from the mix of scientific facts, 'consensus' and economic consequences.
Coincidentally, this brings us right back to the point of the original post in this thread ... that the travel and tourism industry is already seeing the possible secondary effects of this 'consensus' and the carbon tax etc. which are based on that consensus. Imagine the effect on the economies of Las Vegas or Florida for example if the carbon tax forces the price of plane tickets up to $1000. Imagine the effect on the economies of a myriad of US states if heating and/or air conditioning costs triple as a result of the carbon tax. Also, imagine the discussions in corporate board rooms of remaining US businesses who may soon be facing highly taxed energy costs in the US but no similar tax on energy costs in China or India.
This subject's potential impact goes far beyond politics ! Some point out that this subject has the potential to rapidly change the USA into a third world country. As such, forgive me if I continue to question the actual science behind the supposed 'consensus' rather than blindly accepting mainstream media's spin and willingly agreeing to doom my children and grandchildren to a third world standard of living, all the while 'ignoring' an already significant and steadily increasing body of evidence disputing the supposed 'consensus' i.e. that human generated CO2 is in fact a driving force for global warming.
PS the 'alternate explanation' is that rising CO2 levels are the RESULT of warming not the cause of warming ... ... which BTW uses IPCC data for it's calculations.
~