Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Global warming (Merged)

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Global warming (Merged)

Old 7th Jan 2007, 01:17
  #1 (permalink)  
FFP
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Global warming (Merged)

So watched that Al Gore movie last night about Global warming. One of the things it suggests is telling eevryone you know about it. So, here I am, telling you to watch it. It's worth a watch and makes you think about things.
So now I'm all guilty for using the car and obsessive about turning off the lights to make me feel like I'm doing my bit.
On the website they use, you can calculate your carbon footprint. As a pilot, it's fair to say the footprint is high, given my beast burns about 7 or 8 tonnes an hour, and given an average G/S of 7 miles a minute, and using the conversion of 1 metric ton of aviation gasoline equals 1,415 litres or about 372 gallons gives a mpg of 0.15 miles to the gallon.
(Is that right ?!?! 0.15 mpg ? Can an adult please check that and put me straight )
Anyway, it's bad either way.
So I either A) offset my carbon emission (which although I haven't looked into yet I'm sure will be considerable given the gas I'm burning) or B) I don't fly.
Reckon I could claim against my tax for offsetting ?
Anyone else get a twinge of guilt when they plug the burners in after departing the tanker or dump all the fuel on exercise when the trade cancels (if such things do indeed go on .. )
Thoughts ?
FFP is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 01:37
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,313
In all of Al Gore's jetting around the world of late complaining about the size of some folks foot prints...and knowing how much his campaign rhetoric consisted of bullshit...and in his very own words....animal exhaust is yet another great poisoner of the air we breathe...perhaps the most effective thing he could do is sit down and shut up. Please!
SASless is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 02:26
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 59
Posts: 587
Gw is total bollox
No one knows the Earths natural trend, nor its sense (+ or -)
Also, despite the claims, no one knows the 'true temp'of the earth today, never mind 150 years ago and that's for sure.
further to that, the anthropomorphic element is also an unknown, and all agree on that one.
But, hey.............will it be OK if we tax you a weeny bit more?
Yeah..............thought it would be.........idiots.

FOLKS it's been hotter, it's been colder........................ ARE WE STILL HERE OR WOT?
FURTHER< ACCORDING TO 'THE SCIENTISTS' WE GREW HERE<

Give me strength to repel the attacks of well intentioned IDIOTS!
brain fade is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 04:06
  #4 (permalink)  
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 323
So are you saying everything's ok and we should just keep on the way we always have?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 04:58
  #5 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
Yep...that about covers it.

Doomsayer cults have a long history...perhaps going back to the origins of mankind. The only difference is that we now have the 'information age' where you can scare a shitload more people.

It's all about wealth and power transfer and follows a well worn path.

1/. Someone announces something as being a problem.
2/. An advocasy group, usually the environmental movement in the last 40 years or so, starts screaming to the media.
3/. The media, with a heavy burden of left wing tree huggers but also with a burning desire for headlines, splashes the headlines across the front pages in the most dire wording they can come up with. They point blank refuse to report in a balanced fashion.
4/. Scientists are made up of the same personality sub groups as the rest of society and it's no problem at all to find some with heavy environmentalist leanings or who are just motivated by a desire for power (in the form of 'celebrity') and grant money to ensure long term career security.
5/. Lawyers get involved...money to be made.
6/. Politicians get involved...votes to be gained and taxes to be levied. The various 'green' taxes on fuels being an example.
7/. Beaurocracies are created, IPCC as an example. We all know a beaurocracy's main aim in life is to replicate and garner power.
8/. Industries are created who make enormous money.
9/. Scientists, or anyone else, who dares try to give a balanced view or present the facts are denounced as 'a minority'. In the case of GW it has achieved religous fervour levels with words like 'non believer' being levelled at anyone who dares challenge 'the consensus'.

The scientific 'consensus' once said that the earth was flat and, later, that the sun revolved around the earth...Gallileo was a lone 'dissenter' who paid dearly in his day.

The same things have happened with Global cooling (70s), DDT (60s/70s), population bomb (late 70s), Asbestos (80s), CFCs/Ozone depletion (80s) Y2k (90s) and now GW and more lately Peak Oil.

All Bollox!!!

GW- most likely caused by solar activity. C02 is not causing it but reacting to it. Man can not control it and is certainly not causing it. No evidence exists, outside computer modelling (which can't even 'predict' tha past let alone the future), that what little warming we may be experiencing will be catastrophic. 3000+ yrs ago the world was 3+ C warmer and yet the poles didn't melt and no harm was done. Less than 3% of atmospheric C02 is anthropogenic (man made) the rest is entirely natural...and indeed essential for all life on earth.
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 05:07
  #6 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
Some good reading on the subject...all with links to the actual science rather than the doomsayer rhetoric.

http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm

http://www.junkscience.com/

http://www.john-daly.com/
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 05:46
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,305
I gave up convincing pilots about global warming... - they wouldn't even believe it if their a*s would burn off
I told them already in basic aviation school (that's about 20 years ago), and the hatred that washes against me was always the same.
Btw, I'm also a pilot.
I guess you have to give up flying, specially if it's just leasure. If a messenger is flying around the globe then I think that is a good investment, granted that the message is an important one. Since this post is in the military forum (where it doesn't necessarily belong to), it would help the world also a great deal if Bush would stop his ridiculous war(m) game - btw another unconvenient truth the good people in the world warned long time ago and never got the reply they deserved.
Oooops, looks like this thread turns into a political one and soon will be scratched from the forum
Dani
Dani is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 06:17
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,540
In 1998, the German Meteorologisches Institut Universitat Hamburg and Forschungszentium surveyed a wide spectrum of climatological scientists.

67% of Canadian climate scientists "rejected the notion that any warming due to human activity is occurring", along with 87% of German climate scientists, and 97% of American climate scientists.


The famous letter on Global Warming published a few years ago with all of those signatures of scientists was filled with names from biology, archeology, genetics, etc... but less than 10% were climate scientists, and they represented less than 10% of the climate scientists who had been personally asked to sign (only a small percentage were asked, as the majority of the field had already publicly stated their disbelief).

Much has been made of the .5 C rise on global average temperature in the 20th century... but ask yourself this... why did that occur between 1890 and 1940, when 80% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 occurred after 1940?

Global average temperature dropped .2 C between 1940 and 1970, and rose less than .3 C by 1990, to less than 1 C above 1940... and has stabilized since then.


Do you remember 1975, when Science magazine on March 1, Newsweek on April 28, and Wildlife International in July all declared that the Earth's climate was cooling down, and that we were going to enter a new ice age caused by pollution... especially carbon emissions?


Hardly sounds like CO2 is really what it is claimed to be, now is it?


Those scientists who actually make their living studying the climate agree there is nothing man is doing that is really affecting global climate in any way... and that the warming is a result of natural processes we have no control over.

Specifically, by the early 1990s the general consensus among the climate scientists was that the temperature changes were directly linked to the solar sunspot cycle!



I guess we need to build a vast set of orbital shutters to regulate the planet's exposure levels, eh?
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 07:46
  #9 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
Exactly...and a little more insight into these feckwits called 'environmentalists'.

DDT- One of mankinds really great discoveries. No downside for any living things except mosquitos and about 100 other sundry insects.

And yet thanks to the long loud compaign from the environmental lobby, based on lies about DDT's effects on wildlife, it was banned in the US in 1972 and eventually around the world, after intense lobbying where foriegn aid was tied to sundry third world Govts banning it too.
Result?

At least 100 million dead from insect born diseases in the third world...a toll that increases by about 3 million per annum...and farmers the world over being forced to use extremely toxic chemicals that a/. don't work anything like as well and b/. cost many times more.

Ozone hole over Antartic?

NASA 'discovers' a hole in the Ozone layer in the mid 80s at a time when they were suffering funding cuts...Ozone depletion was actually first noticed and studied in the mid 50s.

It was discovered then that;

a/. Ozone is created by solar radiation, UVC, interacting with ozygen in the stratosphere.
b/. It is constantly being created (by UVC) and depleted (by UVB). UVA is completely unaffected in it's passage through the atmosphere by Ozone...so the catastrophic effect on mankind (increased cancer rates) by Ozone depletion is a complete lie.
c/. When the southern winter brings total darkness to Antartica production stops.
d/. Repletion from more northern latitudes is inhibited by the polar vortex, a very strong upper atmosphere wind created by the very steep temperature gradient across the southern latitudes. This is why the same sort of hole doesn't appear over the northern hemisphere despite vastly more CFCs being used in the northern hemisphere...the North Polar regions don't get anything like as cold as the southern polar regions because it is an area of mostly sea ice instead of a continental region..hence a much weaker polar vortex that doesn't stop repletion from more southern latitudes and hence only a 'thinning' occurrs in the northern polar winter.
e/. When the sun comes out in the southern summer the polar vortex is broken down and the solar radiation starts making Ozone again...until next winter.
f/. CFC molecules are many times (6+) heavier than air molecules...the only way naturally occurring CFCs get to the stratosphere is from volcanic eruptions....man made CFCs don't get there.

And yet CFCs...another of mankinds really cool discoveries because of it's various uses and near zero side effects....gets hammered by the environmetalists which leads to the Montreal Protocol banning CFCs and we all get to pay for the alternatives that don't work as well but cost lots more.

Asbestos?

Three forms, white, brown and blue. White asbestos is harmless but has great thermal and fire resistant properties. Brown asbestos is not nice stuff and blue is deadly.

That didn't stop claims being made that 10' of thousands of people would die from 'asbestos' in the 80s.

Result?

100s of billions of dollars spent removing 'asbestos' from public buildings and schools in the western world...all of it,100% of it was white asbestos!!!!!

A very small % of blue asbestos was used in some military establishments during WW2...which did indeed probably cause some health issues. Interestingly also blue asbestos was used in cigarette filters in the 50s. There is significant data that suggests the interaction of blue asbestos and cigarette smoke carcinogens causes a multiplying effect where cancers are cuased at many times the rate that either blue asbestos or cigarette smoke would do taken alone.

Billions paid out in compensation claims...70% of which went to Lawyers.

The Asbestos removal industry.

The alternatives cost more, don't work as well and have very similar fibrous structures as blue asbestos...fibrous structure being what causes blue asbestos to cause cancer when breathed into the lungs.

Picking up the trend here? It's not a grand conspiracy...it's merely sundry groups coallescing around an idea...all with their own seperate adgenda.

Another interesting effect is things are bamed on one thing when they are almost certainly caused by another.

Various mosquito born diseases like Malaria and Nile River Fever etc are appearing in places like New York. This is used as evidence of global warming when in fact it is merely the return of such diseases to these areas after they were irradicated by DDT use in the 40s, 50 and 60s.

Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 7th Jan 2007 at 08:06.
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 07:51
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,481
Whatever type of fighter burns 8 tonne per hour? That's more than even a VC10 which has a thirst of almost Oliver Reed proportions!

We used a transit consumption rate for a 2-jug fag chariot at M0.7 of 36 kg/min which is 79 lb/min. Call it 80 lb/min, then if the fuel weighs 8 lb per gallon, that's 10 gall/min - or at 7 mile/min, 0.7 mpg. With a crew of 2, that's 1.4 seat miles per gallon, which is the better figure to use for 'carbon' consideration.

Think of a 300 seat airliner doing M0.8 and burning 160 lb/min. 0.4 mpg - but with 300 POB, that's 120 seat miles per gallon. Which is about 5 times better than my car!

If you want to see a truly contaminating vehicle, just research the amount of crap generated by every space shuttle launch!

Global warming is cyclical. In Roman times, we had a much warmer climate in the UK - and I don't think that they drove or flew very much! They probably also put tree-huggers to the sword.....

Now there's an idea!

Anyway, 354bhp and 0-60 in 4.8s. Because I can, you tree-hugging wimps!
BEagle is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 08:34
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 379
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
We used a transit consumption rate for a 2-jug fag chariot at M0.7 of 36 kg/min which is 79 lb/min.
A jaguar doing M0.7 ???? Wow, I guess it was LL tanking in Norway then?
threepointonefour is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 08:38
  #12 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
For those with great patience...or broadband internet. A short, 28 odd minute, film done by the Climate department of the University of Calgary.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...13209160533271
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 10:27
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 143
Angel

Whatever, the reasons for so called climate change, whether they be part of the long term global geological/astronomical cycles or due to the exponential population growth post the industrial revolution along with our thirst for carbon based fuels, one thing is this; We will one day, sooner or later, run out of economically available fossil fuels, but that may be 50 to 150 years from now, who knows?
However, to save us being increasingly dependent upon unstable nations and regions, let's move to cleaner and more locally generated renewable resources for all areas of power generation, domestic, industrial and even aviation, the technology is already there.
I for one am not interested in unnecessary global conflict with natural resources as a root cause and I would like me and my family to live in a cleaner world with less air pollution from all types of vehicles and power stations.
Ginge
Ginger Beer is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 10:28
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 322
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
If you want to see a truly contaminating vehicle, just research the amount of crap generated by every space shuttle launch!
I thought NASA went all eco-friendly in the mid 90s and now only emit water vapour with very few contaminants
Aynayda Pizaqvick is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 10:51
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,481
Whilst that might be true of the main engines; the SRB exhaust cloud is so toxic that pilots are advised to stay at least 5 miles away from it even when it drifts outside the KSC restricted area.....
BEagle is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 11:15
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Originally Posted by Ginger Beer View Post
in part.....
I for one am not interested in unnecessary global conflict with natural resources as a root cause and I would like me and my family to live in a cleaner world with less air pollution from all types of vehicles and power stations.
Ginge
I could swear the London atmosphere today is a lot cleaner than it was say 50 years ago. Also Europe as a whole seems cleaner, certainly less lead around. I would like to see garbage collection and disposal to get some of the irrelevant Carbon Parity funding. Then a Uni to offer Rat Catching as a serious subject instead of Media Studies etc. Go Nuclear seems a good way to provide power until we learn to efficiently harvest the free output of the Sun. Frankly Aviation's CO2 contribution is really quite small in comparison to Mother Nature's outpourings. Shipping contributes more BTW. Mankind's CO2 production is Political spin doctered Smoke and Mirrors IMHO. Just think how much CO2 is exhaled by every Politician. Eliminate them and we have lowered our output.
Aviate 1138
aviate1138 is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 11:45
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,917
Originally Posted by Ginger Beer View Post
let's move to cleaner and more locally generated renewable resources for all areas of power generation .......... even aviation, the technology is already there.
I understand your point about other energy users, but what technology is 'already there' as a realistic alternative to liquid hydrocarbons in aviation?

I lean towards Chimbu Chuckles' side of the debate but, given the environmentalist lobby's increasingly noisy attacks on aviation, it's worth taking every opportunity we can to point out that aviation contributes only about 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 11:54
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 360
But what happens if we don't believe the doom merchants, do nothing and they are right? It wil be too late to take action then.

Surely it makes sense to be economical in using our resources and reduce pollution.
Brewster Buffalo is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 12:16
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,481
Too right, BB.

Which is why I try to use the car's supercharger slightly less these days.....








Ah to hell with it. No I don't - life is too short to hug a tree! In any case, I get a lot more smiles per gallon when the blower is running!
BEagle is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2007, 12:19
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lincoln
Age: 67
Posts: 455
What I cannot understand is this governments willingness to accept every minority groups opinion in all areas of life, i.e. environment, ethnic, gay etc and act on their ideology and ignores the concerns/opinions of the majority of this countries inhabitants. The latest idiocy being the increase in air fares and petrol as this will save the world, the government is using any excuse to tax us even further to line their own pockets and appease the aforementioned minority groups for what they see as the only way of gaining votes to keep them in jobs.

Also my take on the hole in the ozone layer is to use a greenhouse with a thermostaically installed window in the roof, when the temperature goes up inside the greenhouse the window opens and vice-versa. I also read somewhere that since satellites have been put in space there is some that monitor the earths temperature and it has not altered by more than 2 degrees either way which is seasonal anyway.
Exrigger is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.