The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Flying high on greenhouse gas > Comments

Flying high on greenhouse gas : Comments

By Andrew Macintosh and Christian Downie, published 4/6/2007

If nothing is done to curb aviation emissions, we won’t be able to meet the targets that are necessary to deal with global warming.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
"Pope Benedict XVI recently called for a Permanent World Wide Car Boycott (http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/04/144209.php) We need the same for air travel."
He then promptly jumped in his limousine and drove to the airport. Hmmm.

"The real world has moved on bigmal, the debate is what to do about GW"
Maybe somebody should tell NASA's and James Hansens' boss. At last some common sense.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Administrator_Michael_Griffin_Not_Sure_Global_Warming_A_Problem_999.html

"BigMal obviously does not understand the concept of ‘positive feedback loops’ in terms of climate science (no matter his highschool/academic background) so I will try to explain"
Isn't he helpful? I think bigmal understands more than you think davsab.
Posted by alzo, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 3:18:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A non-Australian's Comment:

Aviation certainly needs to be targetted for intervention.
Equally important is to do soemthing about the WTO dominated free trade after quickly assessing how many thousand tons of Diesel that is unnecsssarily burnt by ships, trains, and trucks and the massive quantities of GHGs produced thereby.

Asim Majumdar. Mumbai, India
Posted by Asim, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 5:55:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Somebody has already told Griffin, his name is Mr President. Even George is now changing his tune, not quite a back-flip like our own John dubya though.

Griffin at least admits NASA can not “take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another … NASA is not an agency chartered to battle climate change."

If Big Mac, Alzo or anyone else would like to go to the NASA site, try these.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2007/2007051524971.html

An update on Antarctica’s ice and snow melt, contrary to BigMal’s assertions.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html

A bit dated (2006) but says much the same thing and easy to read

http://www.physicscentral.com/action/2006/grace-research.html

Amazing GRACE … requires a few more years to substantiate trends in climate change, but already corroborates CSIRO’s claims that our current drought is most likely due to global warming – not some cyclical event that our PM wants to hang on to. Pray for rain – why not, better than sticking your head in the sand.

Try the NASA archives that pertain to the science of climate change.

It will be interesting to see the GW skirmish this week at the G8 talks. But hey, even they acknowledge something has to be done. Give credit where credit is due though, even the real big boys and girls are moving on.

“I think bigmal understands more than you think davsab.” Methinks he is a sceptic (contrarian) at best, a denier at worst. I have time for the former, a little less for the latter. Where do you sit Alzo or can you offer any constructive views in moving forward?

Most people don’t want to take the risk on our planet’s future and only want to do the right thing; they expect our leaders to do the same.

BTW, ‘white-housers’ in NASA attempted to silence Hansen, typical strategy of deniers – a case of ‘killing’ the messenger. Much akin to what Alzo wants done to the IPCC no doubt.

Asim (a global citizen) makes a good comment. Developed and developing countries’ consumerism and greed, together with globalisation, is driving increased GHG emissions.
Posted by davsab, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 8:19:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mauget SA 2004, shows that the over all pattern of climate variation is a reduced tendency to hydrological drought to an increased incidence of Hydrological surplus. This is in reference to the corn belt in the USA and instinctively is what one would expect with increases in temperatures and more moisture. The same logically should apply elswhere.

Holgate 2007 shows that the cumulative increase in the mean global sea level has been about 150mm,since 1900, and the curve is dropping, ie decelerating. So much for there being any doom laden ice melt.

That still leaves all the other hard to swallow points as well Davsab.

and no, I am not a denier, just very sceptical and suspiciuous of anyone who uses computer models to project 100 years ahead and frighten people as to the consequences. That is both irresponsible and absurd.

On top of this there are pages of instances where the theory is not supported by the current evidence,some of it as recounted above, based upon records going back to 1690.

And we are still left with the fact that it was warmer in the MWP.

Cheers
Posted by bigmal, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 8:58:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
May conclusions be right if assumptions are questionable? -

“With falling prices and rising incomes Australians are flying more than ever before. But climate change is going to change all this. How are we going to deal with our addiction to flying?”

Whose real incomes are on rise? What category of Australians travels more? Is addiction to flying or access to free-of-charge flights the most?

However, one must not be surprised for such a deliberation if UK report suggested increasing of row meal import in order to decrease local production of a cattery affecting national statistics of green gas emissions.
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 6 June 2007 3:21:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First let me apologise to all genuine OLO posters on this article. Some others are treating the article in this forum as a game and are trying to hijack it.

Big Mac et al, my below comments are directed at you and whatshisname.

Your citation (Mauget) in context and reference to the US Corn Belt and then saying “instinctively is what one would expect” and “the same logically should apply elsewhere” demonstrates that you are in fact just a denier.

If you were indeed a sceptic (in the scientific sense) you would know the appropriate channels, sites and syntax to present your case. You obviously haven’t.

As for your Holgate citation and saying “So much for there being any doom laden ice melt”. What are you on? You haven’t a clue what your talking about.

It is a fact that IF the ice caps, glaciers and ice sheets disintegrate, sea levels will rise by about 70 metres – this is the doom you are alluding to. BUT, no one is saying this is going to happen any time soon Big Mac; can you comprehend this salient point?

IF they do disintegrate, it would take 1000’s of years before a sea level rise of this magnitude would occur.

I’m sure you are up to date with the research Big Mac et al (NOT), check out this, published today,

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006JF000597.shtml

Only the abstract of course, for a few dollars, you can have the whole paper.

Big Mac et al, go back to school, you might learn something.

As you say,
Cheers
Posted by davsab, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 6:48:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy