Global Climate Change Science News

[Hermit]

How do the squares on the sceptic boards know Newtons magic failed? With Newton having the awkward times he had, having some magic interest might have staved off the doubters who could have ruined his career and contributions in the real science. So it might have worked. Like a cultural placebo - or something.

Newton had a rough start indeed. He was born prematurely two years into the civil wars. His father died three months before his birth. But before he was five years old things had settled down. The wars had ended and his mother had remarried by then. Life was comfortable and peaceful. Between the age of 12 and 17 he was educated at The King's School, Grantham. From there he went to another elite school, King's School, and then, at the age of 19, to Trinity College, Cambridge. You could not really get there unless your parents were already well connected. Three years later he was awarded a scholarship which paid his way to an MA four years later. If Newton possessed magical powers already, which I doubt, they were not needed.

[aufbahrung]

How do the squares on the sceptic boards know Newtons magic failed? With Newton having the awkward times he had, having some magic interest might have staved off the doubters who could have ruined his career and contributions in the real science. So it might have worked. Like a cultural placebo - or something.

Newton had a rough start indeed. He was born prematurely two years into the civil wars. His father died three months before his birth. But before he was five years old things had settled down. The wars had ended and his mother had remarried by then. Life was comfortable and peaceful. Between the age of 12 and 17 he was educated at The King's School, Grantham. From there he went to another elite school, King's School, and then, at the age of 19, to Trinity College, Cambridge. You could not really get there unless your parents were already well connected. Three years later he was awarded a scholarship which paid his way to an MA four years later. If Newton possessed magical powers already, which I doubt, they were not needed.

Your applying modern takes on a skeletal history - it was seriously different abled in those days.

[macdoc]

We find a few around thinks there is global cooling going on because they are in an Arctic Dipole cold zone. of course they live in Alberta so are awaiting the return of the oil boom...ain't happening.

2020 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, NASA Analysis Shows

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2020 ... ysis-shows

[Brian Peacock]

Share it?

[pErvinalia]

Did her handlers approve?
[/Cunt]

[Brian Peacock]

[blindfaith]

It looks like they have reanimated patrick moore in that vid

[Brian Peacock]

Lolz.

[Brian Peacock]

The myth of carbon offsetting air travel...

[macdoc]

Let's see...some mug on youtube or David Suzuki?

Purchasing Carbon Offsets: A Guide for Canadian Consumers, Businesses, and Organizations is a guide for Canadians seeking to offset climate-altering emissions from air travel or other activities. The guide provides general information on offsets, as well as a comparative ranking of 20 offset vendors from Canada and around the world. The ranking is based on criteria established by staff from the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation.

https://davidsuzuki.org/science-learnin ... nizations/

https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/carbon-offsets/

[Brian Peacock]

Nice. But if we're going to finesse a market solution to the persistence of carbon dioxide atoms in the atmosphere why not charge the polluters directly? Wouldn't that kind of capital imperative drive technical innovation towards reducing pollution?

On the other hand, wouldn't we expect a market in offsetting to drive prices down for the consumers, which in this case are the polluters - more pollution cheaper? If not, what's the rationale for granting the polluters the privilege of devising and instituting regulatory systems and market solutions to address their own ongoing pollution? Isn't that like putting the alcoholic in charge of the cocktail cabinet?

Let's have a discussion about it.

[macdoc]

You treat the airlines as villians and think they want a market solution when in fact they are highly regulated and are working on a wide range of carbon neutral or reduced carbon solutions..a Dreamliner gets better fuel mileage per capita than a prius with 4 people aboard and that's the kind of plane the airlines are flying now ( Air bus has a couple of uber efficient planes as well )

Industrial society needs aircraft for transport both for goods and people.
Using valid offsets is a temporary and effective method of neutralizing the current carbon release as new solutions arise. It does not matter where the decarboning arises.

EV aircraft are not effective yet for long range but are moving foward for commuter planes

https://thedriven.io/2020/03/13/commerc ... y-by-2030/

and bio fuel is progressing as well tho that has issues.

Rolls-Royce tests 100% biofuel in latest business jet engine ...www.aerospacetestinginternational.com › engine-testing
2 Feb 2021 — Engineers at Rolls-Royce have conducted the first tests of 100% Sustainable Aviation Fuel in a business jet engine. The testing was conducted ..

[Tero]

Global watming eats climate research station:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ch-station

[Brian Peacock]

You treat the airlines as villians and think they want a market solution when in fact they are highly regulated and are working on a wide range of carbon neutral or reduced carbon solutions..a Dreamliner gets better fuel mileage per capita than a prius with 4 people aboard and that's the kind of plane the airlines are flying now ( Air bus has a couple of uber efficient planes as well )

Industrial society needs aircraft for transport both for goods and people.
Using valid offsets is a temporary and effective method of neutralizing the current carbon release as new solutions arise. It does not matter where the decarboning arises.

EV aircraft are not effective yet for long range but are moving foward for commuter planes

https://thedriven.io/2020/03/13/commerc ... y-by-2030/

and bio fuel is progressing as well tho that has issues.

Rolls-Royce tests 100% biofuel in latest business jet engine ...www.aerospacetestinginternational.com › engine-testing
2 Feb 2021 — Engineers at Rolls-Royce have conducted the first tests of 100% Sustainable Aviation Fuel in a business jet engine. The testing was conducted ..

Sorry, I missed this in the froth.

You treat the airlines as villians...

Not a great way to start a discussion is it, specially one offered in good faith? Asking question about what the airline industry is doing, as well as challenging them on their own rhetoric, is entirely legitimate, and certainly not something that should attract automatic moral disdain. Anyway...

When it comes to CO2 and green house gas emitters the airline industry is an accountable portion of the global total. I'm not casting them as the prime culprits here, just a sector which, when taking into account the CO2 and high altitude water vapour which results from air travel, make up around 5% of planet warming emission per annum.

That might not seem very much in the grand scheme of things but it is not an inconsiderable amount, particularly if one acknowledges that only very small proportion of the world flies. Indeed, when crunching the numbers it appears that, on average, around half the population of the developed world takes a flight annually, yet in reality only around 12-15% of the population in, for example, the UK or the US account for those annual air-hours travelled (note that I'm not touching on freight here but talking about so-called frequent fliers). The point here is to say that a relatively tiny proportion of the global population are responsible (whether directly or indirectly - we can talk about that too if you like) for the vast majority of aviation emissions.

Generally speaking, I'm more than happy to acknowledge that as airlines and manufacturers begin to look at cleaner and more sustainable alternatives to aviation fuel some kind of intermediate mitigation is probably going to be needed if, that is, the sector as a whole isn't going to take an economic nose-dive under the regulatory burden of meeting nationally and international agreed emissions targets. However, on that point international shipping and aviation are the only two sectors not included in the UN emissions targets set out in the 2015 Paris agreement. These sectors were granted exceptions from those targets because they necessarily involve travelling over, across, and through different national and supra-national jurisdictions and so targets were effectively considered unworkable - companies might have to meet targets and/or adhere to regulations in one region while having to deal with completely different sets of regimes when they crossed into another.

For this reason the aviation sector was given the responsibility of agreeing, implementing and enforcing it's own emissions regulations. In 2016 the airlines and manufactures, under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (Wiki), adopted what has become to be known as the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), which gave all participants a 4-year lead-in to maintaining carbon neutral emission at 2019 levels from 2020 onwards. The CORSIA scheme is a carbon accounting mechanism in which 'carbon credits' are to be purchased by emitters based on their own emission estimates, and with which they're supposed to pay others to not emit or to capture an equivalent amount.

As mentioned in the earlier video, CORSIA has a number of significant flaws. Firstly it is only a voluntary scheme and isn't due to become mandatory until 2027, and then it will only be mandatory for those who sign up to the ICAO protocols. Secondly, for those who do sign up there are no legal obligations or enforcement measures by which to hold emitters to account and emitters are individually responsible for assessing and reporting on the level of their own emissions. Thirdly, CORSIA fixes the cost of carbon at $10 USD per tonne, which is rather cheap compared to the current industrial cost of carbon capture at c.$1000 USD per tonne, as well as the scheme only dealing with the costs of CO2 capture but not the long-term storage thereof, the carbon footprint of making and delivering a plane, as well as ignoring non-CO2 planet warming emissions such as methane burnoff in aviation fuel manufacture, or fuel transportation, or the aforementioned high-alititude water vapour. Fourthly, and perhaps most significantly, the scheme only applies to CO2 emissions which exceed 2019 levels, meaning that the overwhelming majority of commercial aviation emissions from 2020 onwards are not accounted for by the scheme.

This is what I was referring to when I suggested that "if we're going to finesse a market solution to the persistence of carbon dioxide atoms in the atmosphere why not charge the polluters directly" for each tonne emitted? Because as things stand at present under CORSIA the aviation sector isn't so much invested in carbon off-setting as in an assured systems of carbon on-setting.

Undoubtedly new kinds of engines and/or fuels are going to be needed, but the question is what do we do about the long-lived carbon atoms being added to the atmosphere from today until that point? We are a long way from viable electric flight or a sustainable synthetic hydrocarbon alternative to kerosene.

There is an argument which suggest that if societies over-burden the aviation industry with regulatory and fiscal obligations on their emissions then profits will be hit and with that the amount of money available for the necessary R&D into alternatives. In this regard the aviation industries also point out that imposing such limits and obligation on the sector will undoubtedly increase the operating costs of aviation and with it ticket prices. Nonetheless, in order to support these arguments a case has to be made that the sector as a whole, or the tiny proportion of the human population who are responsible for overwhelming majority of the sector's contribution to planetary heating, should be, or at least are entitled to continue to be, the beneficiaries of this low-cost, high-polluting activity - not least while nearly all air travel across and around the world is so heavily subsidised from the public purse.

[Brian Peacock]

An illuminating, if somewhat depressing, read...

Why Carbon Credits For Forest Preservation May Be Worse Than Nothing

... I looked at projects going back two decades and spanning the globe and pulled together findings from academic researchers in far-flung forest villages, studies published in obscure journals, foreign government reports and dense technical documents. I enlisted a satellite imagery analysis firm to see how much of the forest remained in a preservation project that started selling credits in 2013. Four years later, only half the project areas were forested.

In case after case, I found that carbon credits hadn’t offset the amount of pollution they were supposed to, or they had brought gains that were quickly reversed or that couldn’t be accurately measured to begin with. Ultimately, the polluters got a guilt-free pass to keep emitting CO₂, but the forest preservation that was supposed to balance the ledger either never came or didn’t last...

https://features.propublica.org/brazil- ... -cambodia/