From here
Peter wrote:
The problem is that all methods of travel use up the same amount of fuel, within an order of magnitude. There is no “eco” travel option. All the “zero carbon” stuff is a con, obtained by planting trees at €x/tree, purchasing fictitious 3rd World carbon credits, etc.
Real net zero travel options exist, like the Porsche fuel based on carbon capture. Of course the volume is extremely small (thus prices are very high, around 10€/L), but optimistic estimates on bigger scales can make it end up down to around 2€/L. Using entirely existing distribution network, just new facilities for the fuel (which are much like current refineries), and large scale methods of CO2 capture (that still remains to be seen, but oceanic capture has some potential). Not planting trees or other nonsense. Of course it’s net zero and does not revert CO2 emissions. But it allows for net zero fuel which we know for sure works for distribution and consumption (and is mostly much higher quality than petrol-based fuel).
The UK Met Office are reporting record temperatures all of the time, the previous one was by an airport after 2 x Military Jets departed whilst the latest “heat island” effect was a monitoring station which used to be in the countryside and is now surrounded by black heat absorbing solar panels! The photo in the article is actually a greenhouse type structure not solar panels (the same outcome) but there are previous met office “records” which are right next to PV arrays
It is possible, but I am not sure the UKMO would be that stupid, because correct ways to measure ambient temperature (e.g. sensor in a shaded box placed in the middle of a grass area which is mowed to have very short grass) have been known since for ever.
But who knows… people with skills are retiring and it is increasingly hard to replace them, because not much value is attached these days to remaining in a job for a long time. I’ve visited the Met Office a number of times over the years and it was obvious that they had a lot of really good tech boffins in there.
Archer-181 wrote:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/24/same-corrupted-places-crop-up-again-and-again-in-met-office-daily-temperature-heat-records/
An expressly anti-science website. Hardly reliable for anything.
Airborne_Again wrote:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/24/same-corrupted-places-crop-up-again-and-again-in-met-office-daily-temperature-heat-records/
An expressly anti-science website. Hardly reliable for anything.
The article is very specific on the locations of the monitoring stations and they got the accuracy from these monitoring stations from the Met Office from a Freedom of Information request. The guys behind the website or Oxbridge educated, very good at statistics and have asked the Met Office to debate with them or point out the flaws. Nobody from the Met Office will engage. If they are so wrong, why doesn’t the Met Office debate this and allow light and truth into the subject?
I think we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on this!
Local effects can be quite substantial, and increase temperature even if you place a shaded sensor in a grass field. But the real impact that these locally biased “record” announcements have is debatable, because outside of these localized reports there is a truckload of highly reliable data which influences much more the public and expert opinion. A few people might get emotional here and there because there’s a new “record”, but I really doubt it’s a real source of misinformation.
What would be good for the world is ending 60 years of movement into human cultures that are motivated by “causes” and not facts nor the well being of people.
Ultranomad wrote:
Scandinavian acquaintances of mine that civil rights and freedoms, especially privacy, have been gradually eroded in recent years. Maybe I am overreacting – please correct me if so. @Airborne_Again, do you have an opinion on that?
IMO Scandinavia is going downhill, although it is still on top because civil rights are being eroded all over the world.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
It is extremely frustrating to see that people even in aviation foras buy into this rubbish and point fingers at fellow aviators and their daily bread, just as long as nothing happens to the flying lawnmowers they use themselves.
Well – if I thought that abandoning flying lawnmowers would substantially help solve the climate issue, then I would hand in my license tomorrow.
But it doesn’t. On the other hand, my household use of power does, which is why I now own an electric car, has installed a solar cell system in my home and is a member of a wind power cooperative.
And I pushed through the sale of my club’s Cessna 172S (≈32 l/h) to buy an Evektor Sportstar (≈19 l/h) instead. My club is also offsetting all CO2 it produces. I’m not sure how much that helps, but at least it doesn’t hurt.
Archer-181 wrote:
The article is very specific on the locations of the monitoring stations and they got the accuracy from these monitoring stations from the Met Office from a Freedom of Information request. The guys behind the website or Oxbridge educated, very good at statistics and have asked the Met Office to debate with them or point out the flaws. Nobody from the Met Office will engage. If they are so wrong, why doesn’t the Met Office debate this and allow light and truth into the subject?
Climate scientists are very well aware of local effects on monitoring stations and correct for that in their analyses. Claiming that global warming is fake based on the location of (some) measurement sites just shows a lack of understanding of the subject. Which, of course, most people don’t have and can’t be expected to have either but then they should be a bit careful with not being victims of the Dunning-Kreuger effect.
