Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
User avatar
By PaulB
#1733692
I'm coming at this from a curiosity standpoint....

It's said that there is going to be a tipping point in the next decade and after we pass it bad things will happen (not too sure what the bad things are.)

There's presumably loads of evidence for this and even more interpretations complete with biases of all sorts. Where is the most credible evidence and what is the level of certainty regarding these effects that will happen (and indeed for the tipping point)?

I'm not coming at this from a detail point of view, but a scientific one.

What are the least biased sources of data and interpretation?
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1733701
I'll tell you with confidence that a credible source is not angry 16yr olds. :shock:

Personally I don't think there is time to conclusively prove one way or the other. It would be rather ironic to sit on our hands until we have conclusive proof of catastrophe only to simultaneously prove we are 18.5 months too late in taking action. :roll:

Who seriously believes we will do enough and in time?

It has just been announced there has been an increase in greenhouse gasses during 2019, held at an artificially low level due to lower than expected growth in China and India. Lower coal consumption but increased demand for oil and gas are being blamed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50648495
JAFO liked this
By riverrock
#1733727
General overview of the science: https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/ ... te-change/
However your question is on the cliff edge / tipping point.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/ ... is-facing/
Basically there are a number of current changes which are going to be hard to reverse, which will have an accelerating effect such as deforestation & fires (especially in the amazon) (fewer trees means less CO2 converted back to O2); arctic & Antarctic permafrost melting, which will increase sea level and change ocean currents; warming seas changing and breaking ecosystems so again, less CO2 converted;

What isn't known is whether, and at what quantity, any effects will be compensated for naturally. For example, plants increase respiration / photosynthesis when exposed to a higher CO2 concentration atmosphere.
By chevvron
#1733743
PaulB wrote:I'm coming at this from a curiosity standpoint....

It's said that there is going to be a tipping point in the next decade and after we pass it bad things will happen (not too sure what the bad things are.)

I understand we are overdue for a 'tipping point' this being the reversal of the Earth's magnetic field which has apparently happened several times in the past.
Whether this just involves compasses pointing the wrong way or the entire globe flipping over I don't know.
User avatar
By PaulB
#1733782
Miscellaneous wrote:Personally I don't think there is time to conclusively prove one way or the other.


I wasn't asking for conclusive evidence, I was asking about the degree of certainty that scientists have in their data and the future trends and effects.
By johnm
#1733784
@riverrock references are an excellent place to start with clear explanations without to much excitement and too many equations.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1733793
PaulB wrote:
Miscellaneous wrote:Personally I don't think there is time to conclusively prove one way or the other.


I wasn't asking for conclusive evidence, I was asking about the degree of certainty that scientists have in their data and the future trends and effects.

Same difference.
User avatar
By PaulB
#1733796
I'm not sure that it is....
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1733802
In the sense that we need to take drastic action now to have any chance of stabilising man's influence it doesn't really matter whether we are 50% confident, or 100%. It's a moot point beyond discussion. The reality is whatever it is. :D
User avatar
By TheFarmer
#1733827
I bet the dinosaurs didn’t get as worried as everyone seems to be now when it started to get hotter.

Imagine how worried they’d also have been if they’d known there were thousands of years of Ice age coming, 60 million years later.

It’s one big con, giving jobs to people who otherwise wouldn’t have anything to do, and fuelling yet more sensationalistic social media hype.

Would type more, but I’ve misplaced the Range Rover keys and I need to go and feed the cows.

8)
User avatar
By PaulB
#1733888
I'm left wondering what little old (despite our financial clout) UK can do alone. Surely this needs the *really* big players to do something.

Similarly, what can Mr & Mrs UK average person on a salary of £25k or whatever it is do? They may well be struggling already.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1733898
Now you're thinking straight, Paul. :wink: :thumright:

Take China alone, at first glance their per capita CO2 doesn't seem too bad at 7.5tonnes (from memory) until one considers the poverty in China and the fact those in poverty make the average misleading. If, off the top of my head, there's 3 to 4 hundred million creating China's output but the average includes the other billion people what happens to the per capita output when the billion achieve an acceptable standard of life and how does that equate to the UK's 60 million reducing our rate by x%? Moreover, what does that say about China's efforts to reduce output and the realistic output per head?

Same story for the billion plus in India and then there's Africa...

This is why I tire of people suggesting I should stop eating meat, or I should have an electric car...

Where's the plan that show's the objective and the method of achieving it?

The current CC arguments are akin to the pension planning of many, they know they need a pension so to alleviate their guilt they blindly make minimum monthly payments and ignore the massive inevitable shortfall. :roll:
#1734016
The best source is the IPCC report, but it can be pretty turgid and impenetrable. This is a good "Janet and John" version from the most recent synthesis report:-

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads ... AL_SPM.pdf

It's 32 pages, pretty accessible, and extremely stark.

If you want a more explanatory explanation, I'd recommend buying the Ladybird book of climate change - which is remarkably good. It is claimed to be written by Prince Charles, but actually was "ghostwritten" by the then President of the Royal Meteorological Society.


We're nearly but not quite there yet with peer review, but I've been working with some colleagues on some analysis of climate change on aircraft operations. We've elected to do it on Greek airports - as the Greek tourist industry is utterly reliant upon single runway airports near sea level. We used quality assured met data since about 1955 averaged over each year, and certified aircraft performance data for an A320 and a Q400. Note - all certified and historical, no models. We're seeing typically mean temperatures increasing by ~½°/decade, and often mean headwind decreasing by ½-1 knot per decade. On the shorter runways, that's coming out at a significantly reduced payload per departure (on average) year on year.

A colleague of mine has also done work on the North Polar jetstream and showed convincing evidence of increasing frequency and severity of clear air turbulence.

There are hard-to-find but public domain reports (I'll find and post the links tomorrow) for UK major airports, which shows developing major problems with various weather issues as climate change modifies UK weather. It's caused a lot of concern in airport management company boards.

All getting a bit worrying really.

I'm personally a big admirer of a certain 16 year old girl, as she's got people listening to arguments that scientists have been making - and were being ignored - since well before she was born. That is doing the world a great service: but having had one's attention caught, one should then go and read the proper scientific literature.

G
nallen, johnm, eltonioni and 1 others liked this