Extinction Rebellion are threatening to shut down Heathrow Airport with drones

[Gove N.T.]

Most pollution in the area comes from the junction of the M4 and M25 where more vehicles (generally trucks and vans (diesel of course)) transit in 15 -30 minutes than entire aircraft movements in a day. Most ramp vehicles at LHR produce either no or very little pollution.
Plans for tolls will be advanced in action soon I suspect
E.R's actions are supported by the British Labour party, - They deserve each other - Drongos the lot of them

[ProPax]

Originally Posted by Paul852

Only vaguely. But no, the difference now is progress in scientific understanding.

I believe in science. Do you?

I believe in science. But what I see now is that any scientist who opposes the "vox populi" gets ostrasized and loses any financing for his research. People who dare to say they don't believe in global warming are immediately ridiculed and attacked from all fronts. I want to see a scientific discussion on the issue, not witch hunting.

[ProPax]

Originally Posted by PerPurumTonantes

(source: NASA)

Would you mind posting a link to a NASA page where this diagram was published? I may be wrong but I don't think NASA's interests scope paleoclimatology.

[PerPurumTonantes]

Originally Posted by Bergerie1

One has to be very careful of statistics, but, from what I read, the UK has reduced its carbon footprint by over 30% since 1990. These people would do better to praise the UK's record and direct their efforts towards China. But that would be futile, wouldn't it!

China makes pretty much everything from the laptop I'm typing on to the pushchair we just bought. Manufacturing all these things causes CO2. I bet most of China's CO2 emissions are due to manufacturing the stuff that you and I buy every day. That makes it our CO2. Kind of futile to point the finger at China.

[PerPurumTonantes]

Originally Posted by ProPax

Would you mind posting a link to a NASA page where this diagram was published? I may be wrong but I don't think NASA's interests scope paleoclimatology.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2535/s...above-400-ppm/

[BluSdUp]

Reduction with 3rd Rwy.

The Ground holding and most importantly airborne inbound hold over London for Gatwick and particularly Heathrow today , if reduced by say 80% will make for LESS pollution.
This looks much like something Putin is supporting.
Pure terrorism.
Treat it like that.
Sincerely
Cpt B

[TURIN]

Originally Posted by Paul852

And meanwhile you're all happy for everyone to keep driving the human race to extinction?

As quoted by PropPax "nuff said".

Global aviation is responsible for between 3 and 6% of total CO2 emissions. Depending on who's stats you believe. The UK is responsible for a tiny fraction of that. ER could shut down the entire UK aviation sector and it would make not one jot of difference to the problem of climate change.

I find it strange that no one seems to be worried about commercial shipping. They don'y even have a plan to reduce their emissions never mind measure them.
Funny that.

I fully accept that we as a species need to reduce our pollution (of all types) but targeting the most efficient sector first seems idiotic. its the heavy industry and surface transport that needs sorting first.

[ProPax]

Originally Posted by PerPurumTonantes

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2535/s...above-400-ppm/

This is what I read in the text of that article:

Each year during the Northern Hemisphere spring, the greening of the planet begins. Trees sprout their leaves, plants grow and vegetation takes hold north of the equator, where nearly 70 percent of Earth’s total land mass lies. As photosynthesis ramps up, plants breathe in carbon dioxide (CO2), and atmospheric levels of CO2 begin to drop. Then in fall and winter, when trees lose their leaves and foliage declines, CO2 levels begin to rise again. This up-and-down sequence creates an annual cycle of minimum and maximum levels of atmospheric CO2.

The problem I see with this explanation is that while 70% of land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere, the majority of foliage lies in South America. It's not called "the lungs of the planet" for nothing. And South American, African, and Asian jungle and rainforest is green year round. There is no "winter" or "summer" there. So at least that part is questionnable.

I also don't quite understand how National Aeronautic and Space Administration discovered the CO2 levels 500,000 years ago. They cite "Vostok ice core data" as the source, but Vostok station is located at the pole and at high elevation. The atmosphere above the Vostok station is stunningly different from what we breathe. How can that "data" be extrapolated to the entire planet?

This actually proves my point - if NASA wants financing, they must follow the "trends".

And the last but not the least, 95% of plants on our planet (C3 photosynthesis type) would thrive at 1000 ppm CO2. If the current level is 400, they are still not at the optimal. Adding another 300ppm would increase some plants growth up to 49%. So the current situation is actually beneficial for most of the plants.

[ProPax]

Originally Posted by PerPurumTonantes

China makes pretty much everything from the laptop I'm typing on to the pushchair we just bought. Manufacturing all these things causes CO2. I bet most of China's CO2 emissions are due to manufacturing the stuff that you and I buy every day. That makes it our CO2. Kind of futile to point the finger at China.

China makes everything, that's the impression, right? Would I surprise you if I told you China only makes 8% of the world's goods. I was amazed by two thing when I learned this number. One, it's much lower than what I expected. And two, that's more than any other country. :-)

[Planet Basher]

There are some questions about the principals of this organisation and their funding.

You Tube

[ProPax]

Originally Posted by TURIN

I find it strange that no one seems to be worried about commercial shipping. They don'y even have a plan to reduce their emissions never mind measure them.

Commercial shipping uses the most effective engines. They have efficiency in excess of 50% which makes them H-system compliant. They use turbocompounds to increase efficiency even further. Even the PAINT on modern ships reduces friction and thus emissions. And they do measure them. Every single project of every single ship has efficiency all over it.

Originally Posted by TURIN

I fully accept that we as a species need to reduce our pollution (of all types) but targeting the most efficient sector first seems idiotic. its the heavy industry and surface transport that needs sorting first.

Actually, commercial shipping is the most effective sector. Wartsila diesels have BSFC of 0.260 bs hp/hour. I wonder how it compares to GEx?

[atpcliff]

Originally Posted by Paul852

This is true, and neither, in itself, will, for example, Australia generating most of its electricty from very dirty coal. And at my (and I suspect your) age, being selfish, we really don't need to care. But for people who hope still to be alive in 60 or 70 years time these things are very important. I get that. And I hope more of our generation will soon.

All Christians, basically, believed in Past Lives, until the Roman Emperor called a meeting of Christian leadership to standardize Christian beliefs and dogma, around 400 AD. At that meeting, the decided to get rid of Past Lives/Reincarnation. I suspect it was because the wealthy/leadership wanted to accumulate wealth and act with no regard for future generations.

If we realized that we are coming back, we would be less likely to **** up Our Earth.

God Bless, and Namaste...

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by BluSdUp

Pure terrorism.
Treat it like that.

IT's like the 1960's and 1970's all over again.
Red Army Faction, part (how many?)

But I'll offer a slightly different descriptive for these (censored)s:
Anarchists.

[BluSdUp]

Lonewoolf 50

Well, somewhat, and Putin are stocking this I bet.
Were did my AG3 go,,,
Crap, I handed it in at 40.

And ,Turin, by the way: Aviation accounts for 1.92% of global pollution , ie NOTHING.

[20driver]

It would be a interesting to see what global temperatures were during that timeline and if it the previous eposides of rising CO2 correlated with climate change.
20driver

[edi_local]

Originally Posted by PerPurumTonantes

It's possible to love aviation and at the same time realise that we cannot continue expanding.

This is the problem:


(source: NASA)

Aviation is fun, challenging, mind broadening, brings cultures together, etc. But most of it is non-essential. What do we need a third runway for? To free up 27L and R so more people can go to Thailand for 2 weeks?

It's pretty clear that we're facing a serious climate problem. We've known about this since the 70s and b***er all's been done really. Yes we've done a few things on power generation. But transport? All we've seen is more cars, more planes. So although I don't think shutting down Heathrow with drones is a good idea, you can see where they're coming from, because no other form of protest seems to be working.

Why is the talk always about limiting aviation? Why do we need to limit it when every new generation of planes is becoming cleaner? Why do people want to go backwards, place more restrictions on future generations and dictate what is essential? Rich countries have had the benefit of booming Aviation sectors for decades, now poorer countries are finally catching up and all of a sudden it's time to curtail aviation? Is there more to all of this that no one is admitting?

These ER lot seem very keen on us all doing as they say and living life by their rules. Quite a worrying path for people, especially younger people, to willingly want governments to go down. Shutting down LHR with drones will disrupt hundreds of thousands of Travelers who are flying for whatever reason. No one needs a reason to fly. That's the beauty of the industry. It can take you anywhere for any reason.
​​​
No one has the right to violently and deliberately disrupt people going about their daily lives peacefully. I suppose the thousands of LHR staff who's days will become chaotic as they are on the receiving end of torrents of abuse is vital to saving the planet too? How about the families kept apart by cancelled flights or the companies losing money as their workers and goods are stuck somewhere trying to get to London? Will ER repay them? Will ER man the ticket desks and take on the role of front line staff to stand and be shouted at and verbally assaulted while their mates fly some drones around?

​The conversation should be about developing greener fuels and more efficient planes, not about dictating what's essential and how many people go to Thailand on holiday. To suggest we start to reverse the number of flights is admitting defeat and just giving up on trying to improve the industry, which has already become the easy target for people too blinkered to see that other industries need to be doing far more work and are getting away with doing b*gger all!

​​

[Chris2303]

Originally Posted by ProPax

And that's the problem with the British approach - heads should roll. And it leads to quick, "decisive" but utterly useless "action". When it happened at Gatwick, the government "decisively" responded with a larger exclusion zone, a decision much praised by the British pilots union leaders. But how exactly did it improve the situation or reduced the risks? The answer is - it didn't.

In sight of that "measure", I predict the likely course of action for Heathrow:

1. Criminalize the sales of drones.
2. "Combat the illegal practice of unlicensed drone sales".
3. "Allocate additional funds to combat the illegal practice of unlicensed drone sales".
4. Create the Illegal Drone Sales Monitoring Board which will have the authority to close the M4, except the bus lane.
5. Create the Parliamentary Committee on Illegal Drone Activity
6. Blame the Labour.
7. Nigel Farage And Boris Johnson will submit a motion to forbid immigration from the drone-producing countries.

The end result, however, will be "nought".

You forgot
8. Daily Mail reveals that Corbyn had a meeting with (unnamed) communists regarding "under the table" supply of drones

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by PerPurumTonantes

This is the problem:


(source: NASA)

​

Why only pick on CO2?
It along with 3 other greenhouse gases, CO2 make up less than 10% of the problem. Why don't you among others never mention the biggest warming culprit in the atmosphere, waper vapor at 90%? Guess what "clean" fuels emit into the atmosphere?

And if CO2 is such a bad thing (i.e., plants can't live without it), how many tonnes of CO2 does the additional 6B inhabitants put out in a years time in the last 150 years? Theres more to the equation than reducing airline flights or the burning fossil fuels as more studies are released showing a different reasoning than what's been spewed since the 70s. Be careful what you wish for.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by wrench1

Why don't you among others never mention the biggest warming culprit in the atmosphere, waper vapor at 90%?

Debunked:

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

And if CO2 is such a bad thing (i.e., plants can't live without it), how many tonnes of CO2 does the additional 6B inhabitants put out in a years time in the last 150 years?

Debunked:

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone

Does CO2 always correlate with temperature

Theres more to the equation than reducing airline flights or the burning fossil fuels as more studies are released showing a different reasoning than what's been spewed since the 70s. Be careful what you wish for.

Again, hate to sound like a broken record but...:

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by ProPax

I believe in science. But what I see now is that any scientist who opposes the "vox populi" gets ostrasized and loses any financing for his research.

Debunked:

Climate scientists could make far more money in other careers - most notably, working for the oil industry

If Climate Scientists waned big money they could just become deniers and get paid off by groups like the Heartland Institute, bankrolled by Shell and Exxon Mobil.

People who dare to say they don't believe in global warming are immediately ridiculed and attacked from all fronts.

As they should. Not believing in human caused climate change in 2019 is akin to believing the earth is flat. There’s tonnes of scientific proof backing up these facts, and people who choose to believe quacks and fossil fuel lobbyists only have themselves to blame if they are being ridiculed:

Climate Science Denial Explained

I want to see a scientific discussion on the issue, not witch hunting.

The scientific discussion has been had, and the conclusion has been overwhelmingly reached. I had previously thought the consensus was 97%. I was wrong. It’s more accurately 99.84%:

Consensus: 99.84% of Peer-Reviewed Articles Support the Idea of Global Warming

By all means have a debate, but the topic is “what are the best measures to take to slow the rate of climate change” and “what role should Aviation play in the solution?”. The topic isn’t “is human induced climate change real?”. That was ended years ago.

There’s probably 0.16% of “scientists” who think the earth is flat, or chemtrails are real, or vaccines are a conspiracy to control the population. I guess we should hold a debate and legitimise their views as well, huh? /s