Macron banning private jets

[turboplanner]

Just now, kgwilson said:

So the science is all wrong then. CO2 levels aren't rising, the oceans aren't becoming more acidic and global temperatures are not increasing. 

I recommended people did their own research into the lot. Certainly some will not get the link between ocean rise and global temperature and othe complicated links.

 

[Ian]

 

 

On 07/09/2022 at 6:34 PM, Flying Binghi said:

Ian, can I recommend you actually study the subject…🙂 

I have a pretty good understanding of what science actually says in this area. While there is a lot of the non-science chatter in the popularist mediums (this one included), proper journals actually publish good material and I suggest you acquaint yourself with these sources of information.

Wikipedia too is a good source of information. Contentious issues tend to be moderated by people who understand and attempt to provide a viewpoint which reflects consensus.

 

On 07/09/2022 at 6:34 PM, Flying Binghi said:

Physicist Steve Koonin, former U.S. under secretary for science, and the director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University

Rather than argue I'll simply point to the following. Firstly read the wikipedia article on the guy. While he worked for a Government department he wasn't the go-to guy, he was an under-secretary. This is a member of the management team but not a head-honcho. The secretary is the go-to person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Koonin

 

Secondly read a couple of rebuttals in either a respected popular science rag such as Scientific American which has had articles written by luminaries such as Einstein https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/

Another nice rebuttal is provided by one of his previous PhD students, who actually liked the guy https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/05/a-critical-review-of-steven-koonins-unsettled/

 

 

[Ian]

54 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

If you, like me start to get curious, you can google Ann Bressington, a Member of the Legislative Council of South Australia who, in 2013 felt something was wrong and tracked down the Club of Rome and an outrageously corrupt United Nations official who decided they could make money using the power of the United Nations. The Club still exists today, hiding in plain sight. More and more UN people joined the network. At one point a committee is appointed to look at ways of making big money; the committee reports back that they have chosen about ten things, and one of them happens to be Climate change. The UN/COR group form the  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The IPCC is not a scientific body, it's the body set up to drive the "Climate Change Agenda" and new world order which was to  make the billions of dollars. The Intergovernmental Panel as its name suggests has the job of coaching the world leaders, and you can google IPCC and see the regular bulletins they send to countries including Australia, including the one which reset the start date back 245 years for the 1.5 degree  Armageddon/Doomsday. 1.5 degrees is about the average difference between Sydney and Melbourne. They flattened the line gradient from an embarrassing arrival about now to an almost flat line allowing it to be used as a stick for most of this century.

Ann Brassington was treated horribly, but she had brought the evidence to the surface. 

This sound a bit conspiracy theoryish to me. I'd suggest that you read up on what the IPCC is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change and understand it's funding model. It paid for by Governments and the payments are voluntary. It's reports are based upon good science, not conspiracies or some special club's agenda.

 

Look I've worked in an around Government agencies for decades and they struggle to tie their shoe laces, even given an instruction book. Yes the "Club of Rome" is an organisation however it's not a particularly potent lobby organisation. It reflects a point of view but not a particularly great one or one backed by rigourous modelling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome they aren't particularly influential

 

There is no "Climate change agenda", there is a climate change problem. Climate change is a real problem and it is based upon very simple science with some appalling outcomes, in many way the analogy to the recent Chinese booster launch stage coming back down recently is a good one. Just because we can't predict where it will land doesn't mean it won't be coming down. That sucker is coming down and it's based upon very simple maths which a high school student can do, similarly climate change is based upon very simple maths, however predicting the exact outcomes is very difficult. The key thing is that this lack of certainty is actually worse

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-28/chinese-long-march-booster-rocket-fall-earth-china-doesnt-know/101276380

 

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Shorthaul Jet travel has changed our lives and economy in Australia.

Shorthaul jet travel may have had a significant impact on the operation of some mines however that doesn't mean that it is a sustainable business model if you factor in the cost of emissions. Once you do other options might present themselves as more attractive. Even minor efficiency gains like turboprops start to add up so if you want to invest in transport they'd be the way to go.

 

Look I want to do things which have an extravagant energy budget however I'm smart enough to know that fossil fuels are bad. They're extremely handy and we've 120 years of optimising processes to make stuff from them. If you look at the four pillars of modern society as "cement, steel, plastic and ammonia" we currently make them all from very old sunlight in the form of fossil fuel, getting away from that will be incredibly hard and expensive.

 

Look while I think that wind and solar have a place in the overall energy solution personally I don't think that it is a viable solution for more than about 15% of our electricity grid needs. We need clever people making good decisions on what technologies to base our economy on which don't emit greenhouse gases. We don't need lazy thinking blaming it on a "conspiracy theory".

 

I read up on the costs associated with ammonia production via solar and wind and it's pretty ludicrous. For example a best case scenario gives you about a 20% efficiency ignoring the fact that you might need to transport it, and the fact that nobody yet has a power generation turbine which can run on ammonia so you'd need to split it back into Hydrogen making it even less efficient, ignoring the fact that burning ammonia makes 100x the NOx emissions of natural gas.  Also ignoring the fact that you'd want to be running the electrolysis unit as 100% rather than intermittently and the fact that you need to run the Haber-Bosch process continuously or otherwise it damages the catalysts. 

 

 

 

 

[onetrack]

I have this constant niggling thought, that a lot of scientific people fail to understand the difference between "Climate Change" and "Climate Cycles".

 

Our weather systems have been in place for aeons, and what little records we can find out about weather and climate in past centuries and millenia, show that our planet is subject to major climate variations - that often occur over a long period of time.

 

We have measurements for flooding and storms that speak of "1 in 100 year, 1 in 250 year, and 1 in 500 year" floods and storms. This alone shows that people recognise there are climate cycle extremes.

 

The average human lifespan is around 70 or 80 years, but that's a drop in the ocean, as regards climate length and variations over long periods of time, that no one human individual could observe.

 

Climate cycles have been with us for millenium, the scientists keep finding out new things about climate drivers - including such things as average wave height, which affects our weather.

 

Average wave height studies have only recently been added to the climate studies, thanks to satellite technology.

 

I find it difficult to grasp how scientists can get a complete handle on climate variability, when climate inputs are so immense and widespread, and difficult to measure precisely - and which inputs can vary over multiple lifespan periods.

 

I have little doubt that the vast amount of fossil fuels mankind has consumed in the last approximately 120 years has had an impact on our planets climate. Whether that impact is major enough to totally destroy life on Earth as we know it, is the $64 question.

 

I, like many others, always have reservations about U.N.-funded panels who adopt an approach that results in countries sovereignty being subsumed to an unelected group who profess to have all the answers to the vexing problems of our planet.

[facthunter]

I would like to believe otherwise but I think WE have stuffed it already. Nev

[Ian]

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

I recommended people did their own research into the lot. Certainly some will not get the link between ocean rise and global temperature and othe complicated links.

I really don't understand what is so complicated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

1. Greenhouse gasses make things warmer.
2. Ice melts when it get hot.
3. Water runs down hill and eventually gets to oceans.
4. When you add water to a container the level in the container gets higher. Water also expands as it gets warmer.

You can check this by visiting pretty much any glacier that you want to, they've receded or disappeared.

 

The whole social media meme of Sydney harbour shows no sea level rise is simply bogus.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/10/26/fact-check-sea-levels-sydney-harbor-rising-data-shows/10555953002/

 

Geologic processes make individual points rise and subside. So it is possible and even likely that some area will show sea level rising or subsiding, however by comparing lots of these areas you can average them together and figure out what is going on.

Grabbing a single data point and spouting about it is called "cherry picking" for good reason. Just because a plane momentarily pitches down doesn't imply a mechanical problem when it flies well for the rest of the time, it could simply mean that you entered an area of descending air. On average the air is static however there are areas where it's moving up and others where its moving down.

The atmosphere isn't a conspiracy.

[facthunter]

The sea has been soaking up CO2 but that causes acidity and that acidity is now a threat to crustaceans, Krill etc. Fresh water floats on salt water changing currents and sea ice reflects heat and clear oceans absorb heat. Same with snow and cloud cover.  Warmer oceans make air less stable due the high temps combined with the high amount of humidity. The energy of cyclones is from the Latent heat of water released when water vapour condenses to form mist or cloud. That heated air rises creating the  Hail and Cb clouds mostly in the tropics but lately even  further from the tropics than we expect.  Nev

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Ian said:

This sound a bit conspiracy theoryish to me. I'd suggest that you read up on what the IPCC is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change and understand it's funding model.

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories.

 

I use Wikipedia a lot, but never for final documents because anyone can overwrite the original posts, and they could be a 14 year old nerd from Dayton Ohio. It's great to pick up the basics, but then you go to the genuine documents  and papers. Have a look at the list of authors at the end of the above link; know them? are they climate scientists? oceanographers? etc.

 

What I recommended was for people to research the actual bodies and actual people in the trail. If you do you will find:

 

Ann Bressington's discoveries which lead to some key contacts.

 

1968 - Origin of the Environmental movement when the Club of Rome was formed.

 

The document called The First Global Revolution, authored by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, pages 104 and 105 say:

 

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea of:

 

·         Pollution

·         Threat of Global Warming

·         Water shortages

·         Famine

And the like would fit the bill.”

 

1972 “Limits to Growth” document.

 

UN’s  Maurice Strong and his relationship with COR and his activities and statements.

 

1992 Agenda 21 and what it is.

 

Yes the Sydney Harbour photos were a hoax, but that wasn't what I said.

 

Let's not lose the end game here:

 

In France it looks like the loss of short range RPT

 

In Australia it could extend to Recreational Aviation, Sky Diving, Tourist Flights etc - all the non-essential travel.

 

Some people already are simply going along with the trend, happy to give up flying; if you can see where this might lead, you'll need some hard facts to make a case. Best to look for where it all started and who is involved.

 

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Nobody talks about the "Club of Rome" seriously these days. Better to talk to Insurance Companies etc who have to assess risks Properly or they go bust. Nev

[Ian]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories.

My takes on it is that Ann Bressington is a bit a looney, and taking in her theories as gospel is really drinking the cool aid.

You have groups like this https://likethedaysofnoah.wordpress.com/agenda-21-by-anne-bressington/ who think its a good idea. I'd just call them the religious fringe. ie the world is 7000 years old and homos should be cured types. If man was meant to fly God would have given him wings etc.

 

Agenda 21 is a non-binding resolution which simply says try not to shit in the nest. Build sustainably.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

Conspiracy theories associated with Agenda 21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21#Conspiracy_theories

Quote

Conspiracy theories

The right-wing John Birch Society described Agenda 21 as a plot, disguised as an environmental movement, to end individual freedom and establish a one-world government.^[28][29] Activists believed that the non-binding UN resolution was "the linchpin in a plot to subjugate humanity under an eco-totalitarian regime."^[27] The conspiracy had its roots in anti-environmentalist ideology and opposition to land-use regulation.^[29]

Anti-Agenda 21 theories have circulated in the U.S. Some Tea Party movement activists and others promoted the notion that Agenda 21 was part of a UN plot to deny property rights, undermine U.S. sovereignty, or force citizens to move to cities.^{[25][27][8][16]}

Conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck warned that Agenda 21 was a "seditious" conspiracy to cut the world population by 85%.^[28] He claimed it represents a move towards "government control on a global level" and the creation of a "police state" that would lead to "totalitarianism."^[28] Beck described the dystopia it would cause if the world followed the UN plan in a 2012 novel he co-authored called Agenda 21.^[30][31][32]

 

Articles on the conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theory associated with Agenda 21 https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/24/agenda-21-conspiracy-theory-sustainability

 

This is pure nonsense and drivel.

 

 

[Ian]

What wrong with making private jets carbon neutral? Bill Gates does it with his?

Just buy a starship and it's not a private jet and more efficient to boot. 😉

 

[Ian]

3 hours ago, onetrack said:

I have this constant niggling thought, that a lot of scientific people fail to understand the difference between "Climate Change" and "Climate Cycles".

Yes they do. If you actually read the publications from climate scientists you'd find that this has been done to death. Cycles are well understood, there are many sources of data relating to this.

 

What is poorly understood is by many people is the rate of change caused by greenhouse gases.

 

Anyway I think banning private jets is dumb, making them carbon neutral is a much better concept.

[spacesailor]

Just my poor understanding of  ' ocean expansion ' .

The Mediterranean has been Filling for a few decades. 

AND   It is rising! .

BUT

For that length of time it Should be, as full as it can be .

BUT

Evaporation is reducing that Mighty fill rate .

SO

IF the earth is Warming,  it's evaporation will increase making the earth ' wetter & warmer ' .

Just like it was before getting hit by a big astoroid,  making  " SnowBall " earth. 

spacesailor

 

[BrendAn]

i think the biggest problem in the world is china, there huge pollution problem and the thousands of fishing boats they send out raping the oceans . acidic oceans will not matter because there will be no fish left in them.  whats the point of a tiny population like ours following all these emission reductions when they do what they want.

[facthunter]

Probably the worlds largest producer of electric vehicles. The "we're too small to matter doesn't cut the ice as per capita we are poor performers and very wealthy. At least SOME are but more to those already living well is the plan here, particularly with the mob that just got kicked out... Nev

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Ian said:

My takes on it is that Ann Bressington is a bit a looney, and taking in her theories as gospel is really drinking the cool aid.

You have groups like this https://likethedaysofnoah.wordpress.com/agenda-21-by-anne-bressington/ who think its a good idea. I'd just call them the religious fringe. ie the world is 7000 years old and homos should be cured types. If man was meant to fly God would have given him wings etc.

 

Agenda 21 is a non-binding resolution which simply says try not to shit in the nest. Build sustainably.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

Conspiracy theories associated with Agenda 21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21#Conspiracy_theories

 

Articles on the conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theory associated with Agenda 21 https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/24/agenda-21-conspiracy-theory-sustainability

 

This is pure nonsense and drivel.

 

 

Fine, you choose to frame a 2013 Speech at the Adelaide Convention Centre by Anne Breesington within the format of an unrelated  extreme website (the days of noah) and then use that frame to paint her a looney.

 

It's a free world and anyone is free to do that, however for the rest of the world what she had to say at that presentation probably gives enough detail to do the other 30 or so hours reading to grasp the sequence and get the references.

 

Let's say you're one of those people who quit reading at page 2, the issue is if France opts to ban corporate jets to reduce atmospheric CO2 output, then for whatever reason switches and let's the executive jets go but bans short-route flights, then it's a possibility that Australia will make some off decisions too, like banning non-essential CO2- producing activities like flying for fun, which means some people could lose the chance to hire aircraft for recreation, but others could find they just lost their entire investment.  That's the purpose of doing the research; it's certainly not compulsory.

[facthunter]

It's possible that the small jet concept may involve some rather poor fuel used/pax/Km. Anyone got some figures on this? Generally if you can fill a plane  like the Airbus A 380 it seat Km costs are low. Nev

[kgwilson]

I don't have any figures but it is obvious. Small turbines are not as efficient as large ones for a start. The amount of bypass is minimal so they are more turbo than fan. The diameter of large turbines with high bypass on long range ETOPS aircraft is greater than the fuselage diameter on a lot of executive jets, possibly all of them.

[facthunter]

You're not wrong Narelle. I'd like to work some figures  but I feel you are right and that's probably what Macron is driving at.  There is a logic to a lot of what the French do but few Anglo's will acknowledge it. Nev 

[kgwilson]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Probably the worlds largest producer of electric vehicles. The "we're too small to matter doesn't cut the ice as per capita we are poor performers and very wealthy. At least SOME are but more to those already living well is the plan here, particularly with the mob that just got kicked out... Nev

China is far and away the biggest producer of Electric vehicles, about 1/2 the worlds production with 100 manufacturers and about 700 models. They also have the largest solar installations, massive wind farms etc but with 1.4 billion people who have been brought out of poverty to being first world citizens there is massive demand for the trappings of modern society. They also have a lot of fossil fuel requirements and consume enormous amounts of coal and oil. Xi Jinping may be an autocrat with dubious methods and a ruthless MO but the rise of China during his tenure cannot be denied. The Lib/Nats got it completely wrong so we end up with billions in sanctions. Albo will try to mend that and perhaps agree to disagree on certain things and leave some things completely off the Agenda, like Taiwan.

Edited November 14, 2022 by kgwilson

[facthunter]

Agreed again. How China grows is what keeps The current leader where he is. No country in history has achieved what Modern China has. Pity  they  just copied the Wests style of materialism and imposed a form of life style I would not like. (total surveillance and control.) Chinese don't like to lose MONEY.  Nev

[BrendAn]

15 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

China is far and away the biggest producer of Electric vehicles, about 1/2 the worlds production with 100 manufacturers and about 700 models. They also have the largest solar installations, massive wind farms etc but with 1.4 billion people who have been brought out of poverty to being first world citizens there is massive demand for the trappings of modern society. They also have a lot of fossil fuel requirements and consume enormous amounts of coal and oil. Xi Jinping may be an autocrat with dubious methods and a ruthless MO but the rise of China during his tenure cannot be denied. The Lib/Nats got it completely wrong so we end up with billions in sanctions. Albo will try to mend that and perhaps agree to disagree on certain things and leave some things completely off the Agenda, like Taiwan.

if we let taiwan fall to china there will be no stopping them. they are already setting themselves up ready to become the rulers of the pacific, wonder if you will still think how fantastic they are when it happens.

[BrendAn]

and  of the 700 models of electric cars 600 are probably rubbish.

whats the carbon footprint like for those solar farms and electric car manufacturing.

i like toyotas idea of pursuing hydrogen technology at least it will be able to power aircraft. electric aircraft travel is a century away.

[BrendAn]

i had to laugh when that young girl got put on stage with her rehearsed speach about how bad we all are wrecking the planet. she stood up and said how dare you, blah,blah,blah.  she sailed to the conference to show how she practiced what she preached then the crew that sailed her over hopped on a plane and flew home.

Edited November 14, 2022 by BrendAn

[turboplanner]

9 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

and  of the 700 models of electric cars 600 are probably rubbish.

whats the carbon footprint like for those solar farms and electric car manufacturing.

i like toyotas idea of pursuing hydrogen technology at least it will be able to power aircraft. electric aircraft travel is a century away.

I pulled the latest manufacturing FY manufacturing figures, 2021

China's BEV market share of total sales is 2.6%, much the same as Australia's at 1.95%.   Still the same number of vehicles but a more realistic measure.