Perhaps aviation biggest challenge....
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Age: 48
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which, according to https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/MichelleFung.shtml and https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/EvelynGofman.shtml is better for hydrogen.
Storage and safety are legitimate concerns, which is why I mentioned "working on a safe way"
The effect of water emissions at high altitude are not so great in terms of contrails, that is indeed what some studies have suggested. However, the water formed by hydrogen combustion might just freeze and fall to the ground. I'm not saying that this is happening, I'm saying that it would be worth studying.
Storage and safety are legitimate concerns, which is why I mentioned "working on a safe way"
The effect of water emissions at high altitude are not so great in terms of contrails, that is indeed what some studies have suggested. However, the water formed by hydrogen combustion might just freeze and fall to the ground. I'm not saying that this is happening, I'm saying that it would be worth studying.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Age: 77
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The long answer is all those IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies that examine climate change and its causes very, very extensively.
I certainly haven't read all of those studies and reports. But I have read enough to get a good picture.
1) Global warming is a fact. In Physics, something is considered "discovered" if without it, the likelihood of the experimental results it at least 5 standard deviations away from normal. The evidence for global warming goes way beyond that criteria.
2) To go much further, we need a climate model. And we have many of these - none are fully convincing. But there is one sure thing that can be said: CO2 is a major factor. You can create models that include changes in water content, solar effects, contrails, etc - but if you don't include CO2 in your model, your model will not work.
3) You will often hear statements such as: "If we don't keep CO2 levels down, we will loose 1 million species over the next century." In most cases, they are based on good arguments and are good likelihoods. But there are a few problems with these statements.
They suggest that if we do control CO2 the bad result will not happen - in most cases, that's just false. In other cases, it is pushing the models well beyond their predictive powers. For example, even if we miraculously brought CO2 level back to what they were in 1900, that might not be enough to end climate change. Agriculture pumps huge amounts of water into the air and water is a far more potent green house gas - though one that is not persistent.
They also suggest that what we would need to do to avoid or reduce the consequence would be worth it. In the extinction example, they don't mention that that would leave 2.5 million species. I think most people would be happy with 2.5 million species in exchange for job security.
I certainly haven't read all of those studies and reports. But I have read enough to get a good picture.
1) Global warming is a fact. In Physics, something is considered "discovered" if without it, the likelihood of the experimental results it at least 5 standard deviations away from normal. The evidence for global warming goes way beyond that criteria.
2) To go much further, we need a climate model. And we have many of these - none are fully convincing. But there is one sure thing that can be said: CO2 is a major factor. You can create models that include changes in water content, solar effects, contrails, etc - but if you don't include CO2 in your model, your model will not work.
3) You will often hear statements such as: "If we don't keep CO2 levels down, we will loose 1 million species over the next century." In most cases, they are based on good arguments and are good likelihoods. But there are a few problems with these statements.
They suggest that if we do control CO2 the bad result will not happen - in most cases, that's just false. In other cases, it is pushing the models well beyond their predictive powers. For example, even if we miraculously brought CO2 level back to what they were in 1900, that might not be enough to end climate change. Agriculture pumps huge amounts of water into the air and water is a far more potent green house gas - though one that is not persistent.
They also suggest that what we would need to do to avoid or reduce the consequence would be worth it. In the extinction example, they don't mention that that would leave 2.5 million species. I think most people would be happy with 2.5 million species in exchange for job security.
in my lifetime, to date, the human species has doubled. Btw I have no progeny.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bio fuel will take over as cost is lowered and black oil cost increased, the Arizona desert will be covered by Algae farms, Pacific salt water pumped on way and biofuel the other...
https://www.flysfo.com/media/press-r...aviation-fuels
https://www.flysfo.com/media/press-r...aviation-fuels
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UAE
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bio fuel doesnt come for free. It takes large territories to grow thus reducing space available for the food-related agriculture and as far as I remember the process is producing co2 too... it is like Tesla - it doesnt make the world greener it is rather shifting pollutions to a different territories.
Out of sight, out of mind.
Tesla has tapped in to that part of the human psyche that comforts people thinking they aren't part of the problem.
Until base load electricity is generated from renewable energy sources, then plugging a 'green car' into the electric grid is just shifting the pollution to somewhere else. That somewhere else is often a power plant using fossil fuel.
Bio-fuel does exactly the same thing for the aviation industry. It provides comfort.
The marketing PR release say Airline X bought 30,000,000 gallons of Bio-fuel. Sounds impressive, yet in a few weeks that huge amount of fuel is gone. For the remainder of the year billions more gallons of jet fuel are fueling the aircraft.
The industry does not have a viable alternative. Assuming continued efficiency advances into perpetuity is fanciful.
Other purported 'alternatives' come at huge opportunity cost and that is ignored in favour of the 'technology will fix it'
IFF, the world focuses more attention of big emitters, then the airline industry may face a problem that PR won't fix; declining demand and additional cost pressure.
As Emma Thompson found out recently, saying one thing but doing another does get noticed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-New-York.html
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Berlin
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is hilarious that very basic and well understood physics, like the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by gas molecules, can be dismissed as wrong by people whose life depends daily on far more complicated physics, like the interaction of gas molecules at high densities and velocities.
But this isn’t a very basic and well understood issue we are discussing. There is consensus, and it would be an interesting personality type to happily swim against the tide of scientific opinion at this stage, but climate change is not at all basic and not at all well understood. Why? Because we can’t go into a Lab and reproduce experiments ( too many variables) and instead have to rely on models that in a decade will no doubt be considered crude.
The wiggle room for conjecture and argument is what makes this something we debate. If it was straight forward science ( like scattering of electromagnetic radiation by gas molecules) there would be no debate in mainstream society.
The wiggle room for conjecture and argument is what makes this something we debate. If it was straight forward science ( like scattering of electromagnetic radiation by gas molecules) there would be no debate in mainstream society.
But this isn’t a very basic and well understood issue we are discussing. There is consensus, and it would be an interesting personality type to happily swim against the tide of scientific opinion at this stage, but climate change is not at all basic and not at all well understood.
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations
When I looked at lists of scientists who deny human caused climate change I found no serious bodies prepared to deny it, scientists in other fields apart from climate science, a lot linked to the mining and oil industries and a lot connected to far right politics. And very few overall at that.
97% of scientific papers published recently find human caused climate change to be real. For the remaining 3% they were excluded because, like any good piece of science, their conclusions and methods were found, on peer review, to be flawed or contain significant errors. There’s no debate amongst the credible scientific community, only amongst special interests with agendas:
Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Berlin
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2. What is difficult to model is precisely where what will happen as a result, but the thermodynamics are unforgiving in that somewhere something must happen to accommodate the excess energy.
Dr Dre, I don’t think you understood the intent of my post ( maybe my fault).
I’ll try again when I get to the hotel but I wasn’t saying that there isn’t consensus, I was saying it isn’t basic, and it isn’t well understood. It is in fact incredibly complex with many many variables each having an effect on each other. ( as I’m sure you’re aware).
If someone agrees that there is man made climate change it doesn’t mean they understand man made climate change, or that it is basic. I was trying to make the point that because you can’t repeat an experiment in a Lab 500 times and say “ see.....global temperatures are going to rise by 2.3 degrees in the next 50 years” , we have a debate in society about whether or not climate change is as big a problem as most are saying it is. The only reason we can’t predict the future climate with certainty is because of the incredible complexity of the interactions that go to make it up. It isn’t basic and it isn’t well understood.
TehDehZeh
I agree but the debate around climate change is much more complex than that due to the large number of variables. A good example of this is when people ( quite legitimately) ask why we are under such time pressure to limit CO2 emissions when they have been many times higher in the earths long history without accompanying high temperatures. This can be explained of course but only through estimates of solar radiation emission from the same time periods....complex, not well understood. Not able to be proven. Would you agree?
I’ll try again when I get to the hotel but I wasn’t saying that there isn’t consensus, I was saying it isn’t basic, and it isn’t well understood. It is in fact incredibly complex with many many variables each having an effect on each other. ( as I’m sure you’re aware).
If someone agrees that there is man made climate change it doesn’t mean they understand man made climate change, or that it is basic. I was trying to make the point that because you can’t repeat an experiment in a Lab 500 times and say “ see.....global temperatures are going to rise by 2.3 degrees in the next 50 years” , we have a debate in society about whether or not climate change is as big a problem as most are saying it is. The only reason we can’t predict the future climate with certainty is because of the incredible complexity of the interactions that go to make it up. It isn’t basic and it isn’t well understood.
TehDehZeh
1. The mechanism behind green house gases literally is exactly that, and it is straight forward to show it experimentally.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Berlin
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say that, to the contrary, precisely because it is very hard to forecast just how nature will dump the excess energy on us, it is vital to keep the amount of excess energy low.
we have a debate in society about whether or not climate change is as big a problem as most are saying it is. The only reason we can’t predict the future climate with certainty is because of the incredible complexity of the interactions that go to make it up. It isn’t basic and it isn’t well understood.
I don’t know whether Aviation has a big part to play (although new technologies with electric propulsion and fuel reduction are interesting) and I certainly don’t know what the exact solutions to the problems are but it’s now increasingly clear something must be done.
Last edited by dr dre; 23rd May 2019 at 09:31.
If the IPCC is correct then the consequences of inaction are horrendous, potentially catastrophic and fatal for our species. If the IPCC is wrong, but we still take their recommendations the consequences are survivable, but society will change.
Are you a gambling man? (rhetorical)
Are you a gambling man? (rhetorical)
Nuclear - dangerous and “no waste in my back yard”
Wind - looks bad and kills birds
Sun- looks bad and diverts sun’s warmth from nature
Hydro - takes natural land and habitat and causes stress to rock structures
Plant solutions - not here
etc.
Often these are the same environmentalists who object to traditional fuels and methods.
Only solution is to give up the rat race and go bush...
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ilmington, Warwickshire
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What these tree huggers, and those that naively want is to return to the era of the horse and cart, seem to forget is there are many very poor countries whose only source of income is tourism. By drastically reducing air travel, you cut these people off at the knees and create another crisis. Without travellers dollars, many nations with poor economies will inevitably resort to more nefarious or polluting means to raise income.
Without travellers dollars, many nations with poor economies will inevitably resort to more nefarious or polluting means to raise income.
What these tree huggers, and those that naively want is to return to the era of the horse and cart, seem to forget is there are many very poor countries whose only source of income is tourism. By drastically reducing air travel, you cut these people off at the knees and create another crisis. Without travellers dollars, many nations with poor economies will inevitably resort to more nefarious or polluting means to raise income.
What can be done is for more research and development in electric propulsion, alternative fuels, more aerodynamic airframes, fuel reduction methods, more efficient flight paths, less holding, etc.
Isn’t that something to aim for?