A Different view of RIAT

Simple Answer … Go Part Nuclear

Simple Answer … Go Part Nuclear….. or back to the stone age. (Now ive done it ! Stirring up a hornets nest!)

France seems to have a good fuel/energy policy using Nuclear to dovetail into its power generating infrastructure. Sounds obvious to me to have ‘some of this’ and ‘some of that’ to mix and match.

Anyway, Mother Nature will sort us humans out if she gets fed up with us. One big Volcano or two and its goodbye to us self opinionated, bi-pedal lifeforms!

Or the cows could take their revenge and wipe us all out for the next 10,000 years….. wonder what it would be like to come back as a cockroach??? At least id have WINGS and be able to fly…yipee!

Sorry to be flipant (sp) folks but lets hear it for a good airshow … we need to get out more and have some fun. Life is serious enough and we are so fragile…. Enough rambling…. Fly Safe

Whatever the truth, whether the earth is cooling or warming doesn’t really matter.

What matters is that we try to keep our impact as low as possible. Burning fossil fuels obviously releases elements that the earth had stored away, and it did perfectly well without them.

On the other hand, our scientists are charged (or should be charged) with developing energy solutions that don’t have byproducts that will alter our environment.

But an airshow designed to bring understanding to aviation, and how it can aid and protect us, has far more pros than cons, in my view.

And I doubt there are sufficient revived historic machines about to make any significant environmental impact one way or the other.

Understanding “dirty” technology, and the history surrounding it, is both a marker towards improving technology, and instruction on how not to make the mistakes of the past again.

Plus, watching and operating those machines is immensley satisfying – which is pure gravy.

Hi TempestNut,

I would never suggest that you are an “Eco-terrorist” :p

The whole global warming issue, is one of those questions, where you pick your side of scientists. Each side then defame and undermind the other.

There are very valid and scientific papers supporting both sides, as the whole issue about atmospheric chemistry and global warming in general, is rather complex and hard to estimate.

Your own link points to a myth about “Modeling the earth’s climate is nearly an exact science.” Naturally this goes both ways.

There is no consensus on the models used in these predictions, hence the different results and predictions.

“Antarctic ice extent this year will again break all records, Arctic ice last year was nothing unusual despite the hysteria,”

The Arctic ice is schrinking and it has been for a number of years:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml

This year the ice has increased compared to last year, but its has still decreased compared to earlier data, so clearly there is no “record breaking” going on. However, these data do not go back far enough to make a true judgement in a historic context.

This is where the discussion de-rails. Stating that the arctic ice sea-ice is at a historic “high” is clearly false. Likewise its false to claim its at a historic “low”.

Fact is that the arctic sea-ice this year is 10% below the avarage of 1979-2000.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NSIDC071708.JPG

Appearently there is too much hysteria to make a fair call from either side. However, this years figures show, that decrease in the arctic sea-ice is not constant trend. We will have to wait to see, if the ice returns to the level of 1979-2000.

Once the sea-ice drops below avarage, there need to be another year above avarage to make the numbers fit,otherwise the avarage drops. This has yet to be seen. From 2000 the ice has been below the avarage between 1979-2000. Granted thats only an 8 year span, compared to 20 years for the last figures. In theory it could be ice free for 19 years, and then have a humdinger of an increase to make the numbers fit 😉

We all know about statistics.

This decrease in arctic sea-ice has an effect on polar bear habitat. Since we don’t know if its permanent, we can’t predict anything about the habitat either, but the subpopulations in the affected areas are currently under threat.

When ICECAP say the decline in polar bears around Hudson bay is to prevent overpopulation:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths#17

The question should be, why are the area suddenly overpopulated?

Perhaps due to the loss of habitat and decline in food. There is no difference between culling a population and letting the population decline naturally. Both are results of of overpopulation. There are no figures to show, that the population suddenly increased by 259 animals, which would have to be culled to make the population sustainable. Ather scenario is more likely, mainly that the area no longer can sustain those 259 animals.

Globally the numbers might look different, but the affected subpopulation around Hudson bay has decreased along with 4 other subpopulations.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/docs/PBSG14proc.pdf

This might not be anything alarming, as habitats change naturally (there were once giraffes, where the sahara is now), however the solution is not to deny the figures, or discredit the science behind them, but to investigate why.

The whole global warming issue, has descended into a “tit for tat” argument, that is not becomming for a scientific community.

As you say; measuring the CO2 ppm is quite difficult.

However, ice core data suggest that for the last 400.000 years it was never above 300 (ending in 1950):
http://carto.eu.org/article2481.html

Here are other data set:
http://powerpoints.wri.org/climate/img001-large.jpg

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm

I would like to see the data for 1820 and 1944 (this is not a challange, i truely would like to see them, as I find all information should be used in such a debate and I can’t find them).

I’m not a tree-hugger or anything in that direction, I purely take notice whan i see a trend i don’t like. Fact is that we are polluting the atmosphere, to an extend that is above the natural chemical levels. It does not seem unlikely to me, that one day we will have to pay for that pollution, just as we have paid for pollution on land and in the sea.

The ecological system has evolved to cope with the natural chemistry of earth, once you add to the system it becomes hard to predict the end result.

Hi Mondariz
The “Eco-terrorist” part is a defence mechanism and was aimed generally and not at you. Usually if I am discussing this subject I get interrupted early on and subject to personal rebuke, seldom is the actual science discussed.

The record ice is in reference to the Antarctic and not the Arctic. Not sure of the exact numbers but I believe 95% of the worlds ice is in the Antarctic with maybe 3 % in Greenland. Doesn’t take much Maths to get matters in proportion does it.

Here is a great site, http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=18&fy=1988&sm=07&sd=18&sy=2008

It allows you to compare any 2 years for any day of the year. Yes last year was a year of high late melt, but was they think caused by an unusual weather system, but in the greater scheme of things it has no effect on anything and is just a way for the media to hype matters up amongst the general Public who for the most part don’t have access to all the data. Well that has all changed now and that is why more and more people are challenging their politicians to justify the utter nonsense that issues forth from their mouths

For the information and reference material on CO2 try this paper
http://suesam.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/climate-change-re-examined.pdf

From this site http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/ the links at the left hand side are where the real information is to be found. Steve McIntyre of the Climate Audit has done as much as anyone to sort out fact from fiction. The famous hockey stick is now no longer referred to anywhere other than Politicians’ who haven’t done their homework and environmental activists who are trying to push an agenda that in the main is damaging the environment (think bio fuels something I dismissed 10 years ago as being a waste of energy to produce and of limited to no use in reducing engine emissions) Ice cap is a great new site that is updated each day, and the 2 New Zealand sites Climate debate daily and the science site NZCSC that has a great archive. Gives a sense of how long people have been banging away at this nonsense without the media taking a jot of notice

As little as 12 months ago it was a small number of individuals plugging away on the internet but now there are hundreds of sites. But what has changed is the sites I have outlined above are all run or assisted by IPCC reviewers and other top scientists. Their views have to be taken into account as in the main they have changed their minds, or are unhappy how their research has been misrepresented.

Plain stupid, plane stupid ( Beat that you grass eating hippie)

http://www.planestupid.com/

Ridiculous.

Hi TempestNut,

I would never suggest that you are an “Eco-terrorist” :p

The whole global warming issue, is one of those questions, where you pick your side of scientists. Each side then defame and undermind the other.

There are very valid and scientific papers supporting both sides, as the whole issue about atmospheric chemistry and global warming in general, is rather complex and hard to estimate.

Your own link points to a myth about “Modeling the earth’s climate is nearly an exact science.” Naturally this goes both ways.

There is no consensus on the models used in these predictions, hence the different results and predictions.

“Antarctic ice extent this year will again break all records, Arctic ice last year was nothing unusual despite the hysteria,”

The Arctic ice is schrinking and it has been for a number of years:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml

This year the ice has increased compared to last year, but its has still decreased compared to earlier data, so clearly there is no “record breaking” going on. However, these data do not go back far enough to make a true judgement in a historic context.

This is where the discussion de-rails. Stating that the arctic ice sea-ice is at a historic “high” is clearly false. Likewise its false to claim its at a historic “low”.

Fact is that the arctic sea-ice this year is 10% below the avarage of 1979-2000.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NSIDC071708.JPG

Appearently there is too much hysteria to make a fair call from either side. However, this years figures show, that decrease in the arctic sea-ice is not constant trend. We will have to wait to see, if the ice returns to the level of 1979-2000.

Once the sea-ice drops below avarage, there need to be another year above avarage to make the numbers fit,otherwise the avarage drops. This has yet to be seen. From 2000 the ice has been below the avarage between 1979-2000. Granted thats only an 8 year span, compared to 20 years for the last figures. In theory it could be ice free for 19 years, and then have a humdinger of an increase to make the numbers fit 😉

We all know about statistics.

This decrease in arctic sea-ice has an effect on polar bear habitat. Since we don’t know if its permanent, we can’t predict anything about the habitat either, but the subpopulations in the affected areas are currently under threat.

When ICECAP say the decline in polar bears around Hudson bay is to prevent overpopulation:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths#17

The question should be, why are the area suddenly overpopulated?

Perhaps due to the loss of habitat and decline in food. There is no difference between culling a population and letting the population decline naturally. Both are results of of overpopulation. There are no figures to show, that the population suddenly increased by 259 animals, which would have to be culled to make the population sustainable. Ather scenario is more likely, mainly that the area no longer can sustain those 259 animals.

Globally the numbers might look different, but the affected subpopulation around Hudson bay has decreased along with 4 other subpopulations.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/docs/PBSG14proc.pdf

This might not be anything alarming, as habitats change naturally (there were once giraffes, where the sahara is now), however the solution is not to deny the figures, or discredit the science behind them, but to investigate why.

The whole global warming issue, has descended into a “tit for tat” argument, that is not becomming for a scientific community.

As you say; measuring the CO2 ppm is quite difficult.

However, ice core data suggest that for the last 400.000 years it was never above 300 (ending in 1950):
http://carto.eu.org/article2481.html

Here are other data set:
http://powerpoints.wri.org/climate/img001-large.jpg

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm

I would like to see the data for 1820 and 1944 (this is not a challange, i truely would like to see them, as I find all information should be used in such a debate and I can’t find them).

I’m not a tree-hugger or anything in that direction, I purely take notice whan i see a trend i don’t like. Fact is that we are polluting the atmosphere, to an extend that is above the natural chemical levels. It does not seem unlikely to me, that one day we will have to pay for that pollution, just as we have paid for pollution on land and in the sea.

The ecological system has evolved to cope with the natural chemistry of earth, once you add to the system it becomes hard to predict the end result.

I wonder where the electricity for their computers come from?
Those big nasty, filthy power stations, pumping out CO2 powering their computers so they can be all indignant and have a go at other people producing CO2… oh the irony!

standing ovation from me

Mondariz, I take it you have not read the links I sent. Let me state it again and then I’ll be silent. The world has cooled for the last 6 years in a row and has cooled overall since the strong El Niño in 1998. There are 6 or 7 or organisations supplying figures and they all agree; all that is except GISS run by Hansen who is Al Gore’s great Mate. The Figures from GISS have been shown to be open to interpretation and are widely discounted as being manipulated. It’s all there in the links in my previous post. I’m an engineer and have spent 30 years interpreting figures and even I can smell a rat with GISS. No one that knows their stuff will get up and say otherwise.

The IPCC is at the heart of the problem. Read the links and see how the reviewer’s have all been carefully chosen for their views and at the end of the day the statement for policy makers that the press so avidly reports is written by politicians and administrators and NOT scientists.
And to set the record straight:
Antarctic ice extent this year will again break all records, Arctic ice last year was nothing unusual despite the hysteria, and Polar bear populations are at an historic high!!! The sea level has not markedly increased when measured correctly; hurricanes and other storms are lower now than historically and certainly have not increased.

What has happened?
Well we have had a strong La ninja, hence the 2 cold winters (except Western Europe that was mild) and rubbish summers which is perfectly in keeping with these phenomenons. The sun has not had a sunspot for over 2 years and we are still in solar cycle 23 despite it being predicted we would be 2 years into 24. This has a huge influence on our climate.
No one denies that the Planet warmed from 1975 until 1998. In fact it has been warming since the end of the little ice age in the 1800’s. It’s now widely accepted by those of an open mind that In the US the 30’s was the warmest decade of the 20th century. Cooling occurred from 1940 to 1975.

And damming of all is the fact that chemical measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere put the concentrations higher around 1820 at 450 ppm and again in 1944 at 410 ppm as against 385ppm today. The IPCC has suppressed this information and we have to ask why which is what’s happening now. Clearly natural forces have more influence than the IPCC will acknowledge. However it has to be said that CO2 is not evenly distributed in the atmosphere so measuring it is fraught with difficulty. If anyone says otherwise ask them to prove it.
In fact I would ask this. What is the global average temperature and how on earth do you measure it. If someone gives a simple answer to that they are lying.
Now sit back and enjoy the ride because some sacred cows are about to be kicked into touch. And a whole revenue stream is about to be cut off. Please don’t make the error of thinking that I’m some sort of eco terrorist. I have done more work to save fuel burn and improve emissions in diesel engines than most and know very well what is and what isn’t a pollutant. I just deal in facts and not fantasy, real engineering and not computer games.

Excellent point, well made. Thank you

If they have a problem with Global Warming, and they are saying it’s bad, why don’t they stop using electricity, cars, etc. A computer which they have used to make SAVE-THE-GAY-WHALE-AND-EAT-CELERY.COM, must have used alot of energy in it’s history.

It is also been pointed out that they have vandalised the banner. Fairford has had alot of Hippies do things, remember when those Hippies damaged B52 bomb loading equipment.

And, put aside the whole CO2 debate, I also notice that this “group” deliberately makes graffiti and soils other people’s property, namely the banners in this case.

Should’t they get billed for their actions? In my book, if you degrade someone else’s property, you pay.

Excellent post TempestNut

Mondariz, I take it you have not read the links I sent. Let me state it again and then I’ll be silent. The world has cooled for the last 6 years in a row and has cooled overall since the strong El Niño in 1998. There are 6 or 7 or organisations supplying figures and they all agree; all that is except GISS run by Hansen who is Al Gore’s great Mate. The Figures from GISS have been shown to be open to interpretation and are widely discounted as being manipulated. It’s all there in the links in my previous post. I’m an engineer and have spent 30 years interpreting figures and even I can smell a rat with GISS. No one that knows their stuff will get up and say otherwise.

The IPCC is at the heart of the problem. Read the links and see how the reviewer’s have all been carefully chosen for their views and at the end of the day the statement for policy makers that the press so avidly reports is written by politicians and administrators and NOT scientists.
And to set the record straight:
Antarctic ice extent this year will again break all records, Arctic ice last year was nothing unusual despite the hysteria, and Polar bear populations are at an historic high!!! The sea level has not markedly increased when measured correctly; hurricanes and other storms are lower now than historically and certainly have not increased.

What has happened?
Well we have had a strong La ninja, hence the 2 cold winters (except Western Europe that was mild) and rubbish summers which is perfectly in keeping with these phenomenons. The sun has not had a sunspot for over 2 years and we are still in solar cycle 23 despite it being predicted we would be 2 years into 24. This has a huge influence on our climate.
No one denies that the Planet warmed from 1975 until 1998. In fact it has been warming since the end of the little ice age in the 1800’s. It’s now widely accepted by those of an open mind that In the US the 30’s was the warmest decade of the 20th century. Cooling occurred from 1940 to 1975.

And damming of all is the fact that chemical measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere put the concentrations higher around 1820 at 450 ppm and again in 1944 at 410 ppm as against 385ppm today. The IPCC has suppressed this information and we have to ask why which is what’s happening now. Clearly natural forces have more influence than the IPCC will acknowledge. However it has to be said that CO2 is not evenly distributed in the atmosphere so measuring it is fraught with difficulty. If anyone says otherwise ask them to prove it.
In fact I would ask this. What is the global average temperature and how on earth do you measure it. If someone gives a simple answer to that they are lying.
Now sit back and enjoy the ride because some sacred cows are about to be kicked into touch. And a whole revenue stream is about to be cut off. Please don’t make the error of thinking that I’m some sort of eco terrorist. I have done more work to save fuel burn and improve emissions in diesel engines than most and know very well what is and what isn’t a pollutant. I just deal in facts and not fantasy, real engineering and not computer games.

which movie has the classic line??

Found this today, hope this lot realise what the armed forces do for them ?

http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/688607?condense_comments=false

is it Full Metal Jacket OR Heartbreak Ridge with “Shut your face Hippie” quote from the Gunnery Sgt ?

about sums it up………IMHO of course………. tree hugging save the gay whale 2CV drivers…..:mad:

Oh, I do not intend to start a discussion about golbal warming and CO2, I just wanted to point out, that there is more to it than a “gravy train”.

While many would agree with the statement about how the situation has reached near panic levels, there is no denying that the avarage global near-surface air and ocean temperature has been increasing and is projected to continue its increase in the foreseeable future.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

(key findings from same UN Panel raport)
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/44456/story.htm

Although anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations might not be the key element in this, there is no doubt that it contributes to the effect.

CO2 emission create these greenhouse gases, thats undisputed and pure atmospheric chemistry. The issue is how much out emission contributes to global warming, and thats what is dividing the scientists involved.

Despite what was posted above, the avarage temperature has not “cooled” the last 10 years. It has increased 0.3 degrees celcius.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/069.htm#fig220

But from there to panic and stopping airshows and various forms of combustion engines, might be slightly over the top :rolleyes:

Rest easy every one, the CO2 gravy train has come to an end. After 10 years of cooling the alarmists have run out of ideas as the world cools and changes under the influence of the same natural phenomenon that caused the warming in the first place. Don’t believe me just read it all here. http://icecap.us/index.php

Billions of dollars has been spent on looking for the man made signature in the environment and it not been found and finally the scientists have summoned the courage to hop off the gravy train and publicly admit this. Many have as individuals have been saying so for years, and now we just have to get our Politician’s to wake up before they ruin our economy for good. This whole sorry saga has contributed in no small measure to the terrific rise in fuel prices. When the US and Canada have reserves equal to 12 Saudi Arabia’s there is something very wrong. But our Politicians just blame China and India. When will they look at their own false policies?

What is now coming out is how all the vested interests have covered up the truth to maintain the fear. CO2 concentration has a minute effect on our climate and doubling the concentration would have little effect. It would however as has already been demonstrated contribute to markedly increased plant growth and resistance to drought of many trees.

Read more here
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

Mod’s please pardon this rant – but having been involved with the airshow industry in North America since the early 90s, I feel I’m owed this….

These same CO2 apers are the same ‘lost souls’ (and similar) who denounced the ‘glorification of war and killing machines’ over 10 years ago (as well as ‘globalization’).

Now its CO2… well, from my educated, informed point of view… these ‘apers’ could do a heck of a lot more to cut CO2 emissions in the world if they would simply shut their yaps!

‘Tis all fine and dandy to spout about rights and freedoms, but ‘these’ have to remember that we ALL have those rights, and no one person has the right to denounce another’s nor interfere with anyone else’s right to attend and enjoy.