Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The thread just closed drifted into the problem of the effect of commercial jet traffic on "GW." A paper was recently published suggesting jet contrails would warm the planet by several degrees. If that's true, why don't we complain more about all the "scientists" who fly to international conferences every year to discuss ways to prevent GW? If they didn't have the conferences, that would be a start.
Moreover, this recent paper- all based on measuring IR rays reflected back down from contrails and then data manipulated by computers, ignores the sunlight reflected back out by the artificial clouds, not to mention the empirical (not computer fantasy) evidence that contrails actually COOL the atmosphere. Cf- 2degC RISE in temps during the week of "no fly" following 9/11? https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/e...ge-experiment/
The Warmist paper using the computer predictions is discussed here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/...imate-by-2050/ Pay particular attention to the comments that site earlier, well done studies confirming the cooling effects of air travel.
So, are all the rich celebrities travelling frequently in their private jets being hypocritical, complaining about GW while contributing to it, or are they smarter than us and know that their jet travels are really cooling things down?
Any members here avoiding air travel to prevent GW?
Not really. It's just the most recent reason to be added to the (long) list of reasons why I don't fly.
The main reason why I don't fly is that I come down with some kind of flu or cold almost every time I fly. And almost as important is that I object to being treated like some poor cow being herded to the slaughterhouse.
I can remember the first time I ever flew, more than 50 years ago. It was still an "upscale" experience then.
"I can remember the first time I ever flew, more than 50 years ago. It was still an "upscale" experience then."
Yes, the first time I flew, circa 1954, was a great experience, even for the cheapest possible ticket. We flew from Kalispell, MT to PA, on DC-3s for the first and last legs, and DC-4 across country.
We returned on the train. "milk run" from PA to Chicago, then the Empire Builder from Chicago to Whitefish, MT.
Both the plane ride and the train ride were definitely "upscale"!
In 1966, I caught a ride on an R5D-2 (DC-4) Navy aircraft from Hawaii to NAS Whidbey Island, then flew commercial on the return trip. While the ride on the Navy plane was noisier and longer (12 hours), the Navy box lunch was nearly as good as the "meal" served on the commercial flight!
In 1963, we took the Empire Builder from Whitefish to Seattle. The service was poor, and the train was dirty.
The commercial flight from Saigon to Oakland in December 1966 was great, though.
Yes, public transportation has a lot to answer for these days when it comes to service and meals!
And this in a state that has wall to wall sunshine 12 months of the year.
Plenty of renewable jobs.
A recent U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report on jobs and the economy found that 6.4 million Americans work in the energy sector, with 300,000 jobs added last year. A huge percentage of these new jobs are in renewable energy and efficiency.https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles...s-clean-energy
Shoot man, just google it. DCforever didn't do the research, they're just sharing what they've read.
"Any car getting over 44.7 mpg beats the airplane"
But, average fleet MPG in US isn't near that high, is it?
Doesn't this assume a car with only one person in it though? If you drive with your spouse, or with your spouse and kids, isn't the car destroying the plane in terms of efficiency? A prius gets roughly the same mileage with one occupant vs 4 occupants, but the fuel usage for flying is computed per seat in these studies so the fuel used in flying effectively doubles if you buy two seats, or quadruples if you buy four.
With that in mind, a family of four driving a terribly inefficient car would easily beat flying, since 20mpg for four occupants beats the fuel consumption per seat x 4 in an airplane.
Let's be honest though, if it's the environment you care about, you're taking the train or a bus- the fuel usage per seat in those methods of travel is miniscule.
... and very few people fly to work each day in a commercial airplane. This is getting into a ridiculous p*ssing match just for the sake of trying to be the most obtuse and annoying.
The whole thread also ignores infrastructure costs, impacts on ecosystems, government subsidies that skew figures behind the scene, tax breaks, labor costs, and a host of other factors. One might just as well argue that roller skating to work is more efficient and green than walking, without taking into account the impact of sidewalks (which, BTW, are NOT green if unused, as the making of concrete and placement of the walks have significant impact).
Very few people travel four to a Prius across country.
But did you see the rest of my post? Since airline fuel usage is computed per seat, whereas automobile fuel usage remains constant regardless of number of passengers (within reason), you could drive a huge hulking behemoth of a car and still come out ahead of flying if you have a family of four.
If 30mpg is the break-even between flying and driving for a single person, the fuel consumed by four airline seats would likely be on par with driving a small to medium sized RV cross country holding four people. My 25 ft RV got 10mpg, and 10 is greater than 30 divided by 4, so...
But did you see the rest of my post? Since airline fuel usage is computed per seat, whereas automobile fuel usage remains constant regardless of number of passengers (within reason), you could drive a huge hulking behemoth of a car and still come out ahead of flying if you have a family of four.
If 30mpg is the break-even between flying and driving for a single person, the fuel consumed by four airline seats would likely be on par with driving a small to medium sized RV cross country holding four people. My 25 ft RV got 10mpg, and 10 is greater than 30 divided by 4, so...
If you look at the report I posted, they adjusted for actual passenger load, fuel economy, etc. In real life, flying is not bad. Those who say it is present no scientific evidence in support. I've shown on simple fuel economy air travel is more efficient than auto travel. One can propose instances where that isn't correct, but those don't represent the real world environment. Americans don't travel 4 to a car
If you look at the report I posted, they adjusted for actual passenger load, fuel economy, etc. In real life, flying is not bad. Those who say it is present no scientific evidence in support. I've shown on simple fuel economy air travel is more efficient than auto travel. One can propose instances where that isn't correct, but those don't represent the real world environment. Americans don't travel 4 to a car
I told you my observations and here is one article that tends to back me up: https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/e...ge-experiment/. That article is titled: "Empty skies after 9/11 set the stage for an unlikely climate change experiment".
Like I have stated before; my observations were over thousands of miles. I wish that we could repeat another three days just as an 'experiment'; but we never will.
It is easy to say that there is no scientific evidence to support that flying is bad; but sometime you just have to open your eyes and maybe wear polarized sunglasses!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
