We all need aircraft.

Turbines are getting more efficient (I still leave four whopping great exhaust trails, however... :eek: )

Aircraft are a fact of life, no matter what your bent or how bad your maths. :)

Burn more dinosaurs I say, just do it better (a regularly serviced thronomeister is essential). :}

Gentlemen

It may be that aircraft are the only thing stopping the the whole weather thing from going into meltdown.

A scientist noticed that after the tragedy of the 11th September 2001, the weather across nearly the whole of the continental USA was clearer and warmer than normal.

This piqued his interest and he obtained the weather records from across the country which confirmed his suspicion. The only thing he could put it down to was that as nearly all aircraft had been grounded the sky was clear of the usual collection of contrails.

This has led a number of scientists to investigate further and they have come to the conclusion that the environmental measures that are being put in place (motor vehicle emission controls etc.) are making the atmosphere clearer but not reducing the real problem. As a result, more of the suns heat is now reaching the earth and making the whole shooting match much warmer.

More contrails I say. :ok:

PLovett

While I’m sure we are both in agreement with this atmospheric pollution debate, contrails and there effect on surface temperature is also a furphy. Contrails tend to be seasonal. They are much more prevalent in the winter months than the summer months. Most contrails are very short lived, i.e. less than 30 seconds. Generally over the US 0f A around early September each year contrails are few and far between and those that do form are very short lived.

It is true that there appeared to be a small increase in average temperature across the US for a few weeks after 911 but most scientists are divided as to its cause. The most plausible reason I have seen is because road transport increased dramatically after 911 because of the hundreds of thousands of people stranded all over the country renting cars to get home. Evidence supporting this is the huge increase in business car rental companies had the days following 911.

I hope John Travolta doesn't see this thread!

Also worth noting that the most recent research shows the ozone hole shrinking, not growing. There's one in the eye for the tree-hugger industry (and it IS an industry).

Greenpeace proved their ability to lie shamelessly if they think it will advance their agenda, in particular over the Brent Spar affair. They are as bad as they claim the oil companies are.

Back when Concorde was first built the doomsayers forecast that the exhaust gases left in the stratosphere would cause cloud blankets and global cooling. The end of the world was nigh.

But then academics love getting their name published. It sort of gives them street cred amongst their fellow egg heads. Also helps land that government grant to keep them employed for a few more years.The fact that its bullsh*t matters not. Just get your name in the media attached to your latest theory.

Well Concorde came and went and we are still here. Funny about that.

Now we are told its global warming to worry about. Warming, cooling I can't
sleep at night worrying.

Just have a think for a moment what the consequences would be if there was a Chernoble type accident in England or Japan, both of which have alot of nuclear reactors.
Given the right circumstances it could render either of these islands completely uninhabitable.
The effects of an incident like that on the global economy and world political stability are staggering.

That enviro protest against Concorde was payed for by Boeing.

****su, I can assure you that alot of 'medivac' flights are totally unnecessary, unless you think that ingrown toenails and similar trivial medical conditions warrant burning a ****e load of jet A1 to attend to.

Do I really want to hear about that?, probably not ! I hope they don't have ME D 1 on the f p l ?

MOR - Yeah the Ozone hole is shrinking, but the ozone layer depletion and Global Warming are two completely seperate issues. CFC Use depleted the Ozone layer, which as you know were banned after the discovery of the Ozone hole. As such the Ozone layer is slowly recovering. But Carbon emmisions don't have any significant effect on the Ozone layer.

Mr Gout,

Nuclear power generation has come along way since Chernobyl and three mile island, whilst there will always be a risk, till now, no one has come up with a better mass power generation source!!

You yourself have said Japan and England already have a lot of Nuclear reactors, how long have these been running? What are their safety records like? Have they had a Chernobyl type disaster? Or even a small incident?

Cheers, HH.:ok:

Here's one random incident/accident from each country mentioned:
“The worst previous incident at a Japanese nuclear facility was at a uranium processing plant in Tokaimura, north of Tokyo, in September 1999, when an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction was triggered by three poorly trained workers who used buckets to mix nuclear fuel in a tub. The resulting release of radiation killed two workers and forced the evacuation of thousands of nearby residents.”
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsst...2004/story.htm
“Radioactive contamination detected at the Fairlie station where spent fuel flasks from Hunterston are transferred to flat bed railway trucks on their way to Sellafield. Caesium 137 levels were 30 times greater than the highest post Chernobyl concentrations and 100 times the levels found in Strathalyde where the station is located.”
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key...980%27s-09.htm
There's hundreds more...

Not yet.

My opinion is leave the Uranium in the ground forever where it belongs.

I was reading that a nuclear waste facility in the USA was trying to figure out what symbols to put on the caps of the nuclear waste dump to warn whatever civilization is here in 10000 years not to go near it.....:eek:

Lets not forget that many of these existing nuclear power stations are quite old. Any new nuclear installations will be very modern incorporating cutting edge technology, lets not shy away from that simple fact that the 'chance' is diminished with modern levels of technology. We have made great strides in near critical applications like laser technology and modern day computer systems (not the PC on your desk but REAL industrial strength computing ... an eye opener). So why can't we try and implement those advances into future plans for power generation. In the long term they are green because of their relatively lower emissions and can really help put us on the road to a better environment but cutting the biggest polluter of all by a long margin, power generators bruning fossil fuels.

Besides other up and coming nations are looking to nuclear power with great enthusiasm so why can't we? Can we really afford to fall behind in the global race and at the expense of our economy? We need to pull our finger out and get going, however I am not advocating some blind rush to nuclear but a very methodical and carefully planned long term vision of nuclear, how and why.

What about offshore with our numerous islands of the coast of Scotland or even more adventurous and utilise all the 'not long to go' North Sea oil rigs that can be resonstructed to form an artificial base in the North Sea.

By the way I love the environment and have an almost spiritual affection for it, after all it is life sustaining. BUT I am no fool and realise that all the self appointed green brigade are just moaning because they have little else to do in their lives and because Daddy didn't buy them a pony when they were younger. Practical and purposeful outlook .......

:confused: :confused: :confused:

All well and good navel gazing and arguing the future of the world.

Can't see a viable nuclear reactor on a 747-100, meybe we can use some of the surplus QLD sugar cane to make some methanol!

As a career aviator I reckon the last place to run out of the black oozy stuff will be the middle east.

Shame about the weather and sand though!

404 Titan.

I notice that the total air pollution figures do not include natural pollution caused by volcanoes, earthquakes, rotting vegetation etc.. One atmospheric scientist I heard on radio a few years ago suggested that natural pollution accounted for something more than 95% of total pollution put in to the atmosphere.

Staggerwing

That’s because the article I got it from was dealing with man made air pollution and water pollution. In regards to pollution caused by nature, the problem I have with this idea is that the Earth can cope with natural pollution and has done so since its creation. The Earth though can’t cope with man made pollution and in some parts of the world neither can we. You have only got to be in Hong Kong when the prevailing winds are coming in from the North, bringing all the crap down from China to know what I am talking about.:yuk:

Yeah just like we do with oil... :}