Roost Air Lounge => General Discussion => Topic started by: fireflyr on July 24, 2006, 10:32:19 PM
Title: Global warming and aviation
Post by: fireflyr on July 24, 2006, 10:32:19 PM
Global Warming :o We, as aviators and aviation lovers should be concerned with this phenomenon and it's effects on our beloved industry. I would like to hear what the international community represented on this board has to say about this subject. In addition, since this is a fun medium, let's keep a light hearted attitude and not be afraid to make fun of ourselves.
I'll start it off with a few random thoughts of my own and others;
I believe that I'm part of the solution (very small part) when I reuse my fuel samples by pouring them into the A/C tug's gas tank instead of dumping them on the ramp. Of course, this hardly negates the effect of the gas guzzling SUV my wife drives but it's something! :-\ (we're going to replace it with something much more economical next year) |:)\
FADEC equipped aircraft (like the Diamond-Thielert diesel twin) are a huge step in the right direction. |:)\
Here in my little part of California (land of fruits and nuts-so I'm told) I'm proud to say that 70% of our trash is recycled instead of just being dumped into a land fill. How about other parts of the country and the world?
I believe that high fuel prices are driving all segments of world industry to look for more fuel efficient options in doing business, which is good. |:)\
I believe that solar power should be more heavily promoted---my next home (2 to 5 years away) will be solar powered as part of the acquisition and construction process. 8)
Any comments out there--humorous or otherwise--about what you're doing?
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Zaffex on July 25, 2006, 12:45:09 AM
Hmm, well, concerning the solar bit, I have been reading lately about solar dishes being proposed for use it the desert. I believe that they are far more efficient than traditional solar cells. It utilizes mirrors to focus the sun on a stirling engine. Pretty cool, I must say. More about it here -http://www.stirlingenergy.com/solar_overview.htm
I also heard of tests a long time back when they made an expeimental aircraft with an electric engine. They placed two ingredients (I forget what they were) in the wings and, when mixed together, produced the electricity for the engine. the expended fuel then flowed to the other wing, where it could be drained and reused.
After so much buzz about it in the automotive world, I've been wondering about how E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) is affecting aviation. Is it growing in availibility? Practically invisible? I've also heard that due to its high octane rating (100-something, I think), it works very well with turbochargers.
I believe I've heard of a new wave of diesel engines being tested and used in GA aircraft. A Cessna was converted to run on jet-A, and the new Twin-Stars from Diamond have diesels too.
So those are my thoughts.
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: happylanding on July 25, 2006, 07:36:01 AM
Really interesting thread, Fireflyr! |:)\
Okay, I'll start from the situation here. Ozone and pollution are so much high that you're supposed not to stay outside. Period. Even if traffic could be stopped for weeks if law were enforced, nobody does it, since we are the north/south hub of traffic by car in Europe. "Enjoy your summer, trap yourself in the house and if it ever happens that you encounter a breeze of air, do not let it enter into the house, since it could cause you asthma and breathing problems!". ??? ??? You risk so much about your health, that my Dad counseled me to stop to go running during the day (have you ever heard about not practicing sport because it's bad for your health?!?).
What we do at home: I learnt from my Mom |:)\ about recycling and we recycle whatever it's possible: from bottles to paper, from alu to oils. I had never thought about reusing the AVGAS throwing it inside the plane again, but it's a really nice idea, and will follow it, thanks! |:)\ . I also spare on water, using it intelligently (or as best as I can): I do not let it run wild while taking a shower, or while washing dishes and never charge a washing machine (either clothes or dishes) if it's not full. And oh, I try to use the smallest quantity of chemical products to clean or for whatever reason they are to. We are far from perfect though: the quantity of trash created in this house is still a lot and yes, we have a SUV. :-[ :P
I did not change my car for an electric or "green energy" one, though. Sorry, but they have no space, no autonomy, and well, at the end they either look ridiculous. You can't use a car that goes at the same speed of a scooter and have to look for....say....alternate current parking, otherwise you have to push it home! About this, I often ask myself if they do it on purpose and if it isn't a secondary market for petrol car industry. I mean: they create the clean energy one, that's so half baked and so limited, that you keep getting the other and won't ask about a "green option" and they do not worry about R&D costs for a clean energy CAR, since in reality they do nothing more than what you see: a loathsomeness. Hell, how many years it is now that we hear about research and development in the next generation cars, that use alternate energy, and they come out with prototypes that looks like the designer was on a LSD trip?Hell, do you really need to make a car that looks like a suppository?!? ??? is there no other way to design it? Or, a friend of mine, who is driving instructor, had the car going by natural gas. I let you imagine: he had to go every now and then to the gas supply, since he was running out of energy. You're asking for a car, not a pair of roller blades! Okay, looks like a conspiratorial theory, but I was born listening to promises of green energy cars/green energy houses/factories and whatever and I still saw no non laughable results, and no alternatives, so it makes too many years I've lost hope on seeing at least a CAR that's not a prototype, that's self sufficient, and that doesn't look ugly! I ignore what it's being made in aviation field, but if it goes like cars...., it could happen that we see a prototype that looks like a crossing breed among a Dodo, a Zeppelin and a yes!....a shadow of a plane, and will be parked on a blue tarmac with AC plugs and be careful not to use radio to much, otherwise it switches off ;) ;) . Energy in other fields....I ignore if we are so much advanced and have solar powered system: some really new houses probably do, but at home, where I am, we still run on gas. it would be interesting though. Well, we'll see what's going to happen in the next years. I'm quite cautious, since - at the end - we hear about hundreds ideas and just a really minority (or almost none) comes to life. It would not be bad to see a really working, efficient and affordable alternative to oil and specially to pollution..........
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Frank N. O. on July 25, 2006, 08:07:24 AM
I'm not sure if the heating is natural or not since temperature studies from specimens from soil and ice shows a lot of tempereature, however it is clear that it's not good for breathing with the stuff that's sent out, both vehicles but also powerplants and other factories, however while factories and powerplants indeed have a big share of the total polution then cars are the most prevalent source of air-polution in cities, especially diesels but a particle-filter can handle that, plus modern diesels have massive amounts of torque that should make even americans happy and they can run on bio-diesel that is CO neutral since it's from rapseed oil. However if enough of that can be produced to cover fuel is another matter so it's both the vehicles and the use of them that should change for the future.
About electric cars, this doesn't look too shabby in my humble opinion. http://www.supercars.net/cars/3528.html 200+ miles (322+ km) average range, 0-60 mph (0-96.6 kph) in around 4 seconds. Here's a video of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt1AdfgcNiQ
There is however another problem with electric cars, production polution and polution from what produces the electricity for it, but again there are different ways to handle this problem.
My dream-house will have energy windows, designed with materials that suite the enviroment and with advanced electric panels on the roof and a small private wind-mill in the yard (I don't plan on living in the city but outside of it in a peaceful hillside where I can get peace to gather my thoughts so I can handle myself since I've gotten my theory proven that if I just get some peace to gather my thoughts and rest then some traffic and people when shopping in a city isn't going to stress me more than I can handle calmly). In DK they made a demonstrator-house of wood with paper-insulation among other technologies, and this house was so tight it couldn't be measured to leak in a large test-chamber (it was fairly small, only slightly larger than a shed so it could be trucked around to show what was possible already today). Furthermore, and here's the kicker, the solar-panels could power 90% of all the power the house needed, and due to the insulation and different construction-method elimitaing cold-bridges over the windows then this house, in Denmark did not need any conventional heating system!! This technology already exist!
I also think cars today are way too heavy due to tons of electrical equipment totally unneeded for my purpose like: heated seats, heated windshield washer-nozzles, electric seat-adjustment, lit make-up mirrors in both sun-visors, automatic windshield wipers (rain-sensor), high-power stereo with tons of speakers, tons of sound-proofing making it hard to hear what's going on with the car, as well as emergency vehicles, hydralic engine mounts and balance-shafts to elimate the engine's vibration, again counter-productive for a driver, multi-zone aircondition (ok this is just for me not driving a family and if I get to USA then I would need AC, but in DK, no), lights in glovebox, engine-room, trunk, cooling glovebox, heated steering-wheel, engine-sound synthesizer (Ford Focus ST, despite having a good natural engine-sound from the Volvo-sourced Turbo-5-cylinder), electronic handbrake (Focus C-Max MPV, also european), electrically adjustable headlight level, multiple map-lights with dimmer and delayer, electronic shock absorbers, computer-controller electric power-steering with computer-orverride steering (BMW-system, part of ESP), electronic brakes (fly-by-wire brakes, no physical connection, Mercedes-Benz), 7-speed computer-controlled automatic transmissions (BMW and Mercedes-Benz) etc. etc.
The electric plane was probably a fuel-cell plane, it uses a fuel-cell with hydrogen where there's a process that produces electricity and water, I can't remember the details but many companies have developed running prototypes of such a thing, in DK there's even a Focus sedan running with a system like that in private ownership. Mazda used the Wankel rotary engine with good success to run on hydrogen since the seperated combustion-stages makes it easier to run on it.
Btw about E85 or pure ethanol, it has a higher octane rating and therefore it's optimal compression-ratio is higher than when running on normal gasoline, I think I read that pure ethanol has a octane-rating of around 120, not sure if that's the european RON or the US std. Danish scientists recently took out a patent on a technique to extract ethanol cheaply and easily, I think it was from garbage.
Frank
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: happylanding on July 25, 2006, 09:30:23 PM
I agree with you Frank, that's a really nice car! :) (I searched the site and they say that in January 2007 they are going to sell the first ones.....) BTW, you say you're not sure if the heating is natural or not. it could well be, but it's clear anyhow that we can't keep going on mistreating Earth. it's like throwing garbage into the house we live, since at the end, it's our "biggest" home. You know, in december 2004 I spent a month in Nepal and India and when I arrived I had to spend the first two days in Kathmandu. you had to walk in the...ehm...roads having a mask in the face, otherwise at evening you would end up having breathing problems because of fumes. that's not life, and our society should understand that and find better options. Here ozone cannot be seen (instead of the black fumes of cars in Kathmandu), but as it's not normal to have to walk with a mask on the face, neither is normal to have to avoid spending time outside in Summer since it's dangerous for the health! I'm happy to hear that the technology already exists and to tell you the truth I'm already asking my parents why don't we change at least to solar panel :) and the day I will have enough money to build my own house, it's sure I will go for more ecological alternatives. Do you have any picture of the house you talk about? It would be interesting to see....
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Callisto on July 28, 2006, 07:47:03 AM
In the US E85 isn't "better" than plain ol' gas. If you look at the MPG of FlexFuel vehicles MPG for E85 is worse than gas. And E85 is more expensive (for now anyway), so yes it will decrease dependence on oil, but now we have to worry about corn supplies! ;D
E85 isn't better, it's just different.
I just read an article in Popular Mechanics (Aug 2006) about 100+MPG and bottom line, the costs right now are astronomical and the cars that would be built are not up to the US's standards of "cool"
The status a SUV trumps 100+MPG car. Just look at VW's diesels. 60+ already, but there are VERY few Americans running diesels. "We" would rather deal with 10MPG to look cool.
*Note* I am not part of the "We" I own a 02 Civic Si Hatchback... I just filled up tonight and calculated my MPG... 27MPG and I wasn't driving efficiently the whole time. When I try I can get 30 easy.
Just my 2˘ And if I'm wrong with the E85, please correct me. But just as an example... 2007 Chevrolet Impala 3.5L V6 gas is 21 city / 31 hwy and E85 is rated 16/23
PS - I think cylinder management is a decent idea... A V8 shuts off 4 cylinders on cruse mode, almost doubling MPG on long highway trips.
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on July 29, 2006, 03:45:47 PM
I can't speak for the rest of the country, but in my neck of the woods E85 is quite a bit cheaper than regular unleaded. However, if you figure fuel costs for a whole year, you'll spend more on E85 because of poor gas mileage. Higher octane = worse mileage.
Hybrid cars are getting better. Ford has a hybrid SUV (I forget what it's called, but it starts with an E ;) ) and the other hybrids I've seen look like "normal" cars. The thing about them is that they do better in the city where speeds are slower and the electric motor can be used. They're pretty cool, actually. I'd consider buying one if we weren't moving to the middle of nowhere.
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: happylanding on July 30, 2006, 09:47:00 PM
Mates, I've a question for you. ??? ??? Have you ever heard about thermic pump? How does it work? is it reliable? would it be enough to warm an house? Does it work also to rely energy? Any ideas?
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on July 31, 2006, 02:07:02 AM
Is that the same thing as a ground source heat pump? My brother-in-law has one and likes it a lot. He's explained it a couple of times, and I'm still not sure how it works, but I'll give it a shot.
Somehow, it takes heat from the ground in the winter (below the frost) and pumps it into the house. In the summer it takes heat from the house (thus cooling it) and dumps it into the ground, where it can be "stored" and used in the winter to heat the house. It's supposed to do a pretty good job.
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Callisto on July 31, 2006, 02:45:18 PM
I can't speak for the rest of the country, but in my neck of the woods E85 is quite a bit cheaper than regular unleaded. However, if you figure fuel costs for a whole year, you'll spend more on E85 because of poor gas mileage. Higher octane = worse mileage.
Actually after I posted my thread I drove by the only station that sells e-85 around me and it was cheaper $2.89 and regular was $3.19. I was wrong about that... oops! AND I didn't know higher octane = worse mileage, I get better gas mileage with premium than regular (not much, but 2 or 3 MPG) I guess I don't know much about gas. :P D'OH! Thanks for the correction GS
Hybrid cars are getting better. Ford has a hybrid SUV (I forget what it's called, but it starts with an E ;) ) and the other hybrids I've seen look like "normal" cars. The thing about them is that they do better in the city where speeds are slower and the electric motor can be used. They're pretty cool, actually. I'd consider buying one if we weren't moving to the middle of nowhere.
I agree! The first (mass produced) hybrids in the US were the Honda Insight, and first gen Prius. Both very ugly, but now car makers are "just tossing in" a battery and a motor into regular cars. Ford Escape, Honda Accord and Civic, Toyota Camry, etc. http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024086 http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4023397
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: spacer on July 31, 2006, 09:04:53 PM
Is that the same thing as a ground source heat pump? My brother-in-law has one and likes it a lot. He's explained it a couple of times, and I'm still not sure how it works, but I'll give it a shot.
Somehow, it takes heat from the ground in the winter (below the frost) and pumps it into the house. In the summer it takes heat from the house (thus cooling it) and dumps it into the ground, where it can be "stored" and used in the winter to heat the house. It's supposed to do a pretty good job.
If this is what I'd been considering... here's how I understand it.
The ground below the surface is a steady 60 deg F at a particular depth, which can be useful in both winter and summer and can really cut the heating/cooling bills if used properly. A simple rig would be a big radiator (or two, or more) sunk to this level, with air pumped through it to warm or cool. In addition, during the winter you can build a simple thermosiphoning water heater and/or a similar heater for the air. Most of what I've read on these subjects came from Backwoods Home Magazine http://www.backwoodshome.com/index.html A bunch of their articles are available online, and they have great anthologies as well. Lots of great advice and articles on energy efficient living, mostly due to their concentration on backwoods/off-the-grid living. Ah, nice place out in the boonies, grass strip and a simple quonset hangar... Yeah, that's for me!
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on August 01, 2006, 03:46:55 AM
Higher octane gas burns more efficiently, leaving fewer emissions. But, because of this, it sucks the gas out of the tank faster. ;) Gotta love physics.
If you're getting better mileage with premium, would your car be designed to run on it?
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Zaffex on August 01, 2006, 02:30:27 PM
That's another thing about E85, the poor mileage. However, I think by using a turbo you can improve your mileage and get more Power! Saab was featured in a Popular Science article with a car that can sample the fuels used and adjust the turbo to produce more or less pressure. So if you're running on E85, the turbo will boost the pressure, but if you're running regular unleaded, it will back down the pressure.
happylanding brought up another good point earlier on, that being what we as individuals can do. Obviously we can make a big impact if we are more conservative in our resouces. Simple stuff like turning off the lights when leaving a room, carpooling and making car trips count (we live about fifteen minutes from everything, so we need to have a real good reason for going into town), bumping the thermostat up a couple degrees in the summer and a couple down in the winter. It's important to try and stretch what we've got.
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Callisto on August 02, 2006, 06:02:02 PM
Higher octane gas burns more efficiently, leaving fewer emissions. But, because of this, it sucks the gas out of the tank faster. ;) Gotta love physics.
If you're getting better mileage with premium, would your car be designed to run on it?
Physics you say? Well if I didn't sleep through those classes I would have known that! ::)
My car is a Honda Civic... 2.0L - I4 I can't imagine it needing Premium gas... I switch off between regular and premium, I've always noticed a few MPG better with the good stuff. Maybe I just need to be more sientific and take all conditions into account. Highway time vs city time, temp, how heavy my foot is, etc ;D
Thanks for the info.
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Frank N. O. on August 02, 2006, 08:19:46 PM
I can't quite make a long post atm but let me just say this: Don't oversimplify, engines are different and some engines can work with higher-octane gasoline and others wouldn't make a difference, it depends on the fuel-system/engine management and how strong the engine's made. To my knowledge then the higher the compression the better the combustion but there are drawbacks that makes it hard to use high compression at least on production engines, I think one of the problems, besides the problem of weak cheap engine-parts there's something about gasoline vaporising too early at high compression so it won't combust or something but there are ways around that. There was a special super-high compression Jaguar V12 that had something like 14:1 compression. Btw, ethanol has a higher octane-rating that gasoline so a Otto-cycle engine running it would be better with higher compression.
As I said btw, I'm not sure if the temperature changes globally are man-made either completely or partially, but it is pretty clear that there is too much polution, especially in the cities from cars since you can smell and breathe it. However using cars better would also improve it. Not all people need to use the car as they actually do. I used the Orion to drive to the student-class in down-town Odense which was a 14.5 km trip back and fourth and I felt bad, even though bus-rides weren't that nice and I didn't walk that well and I couldn't ride a bike that more than one day in a month due to my health but then I heard some classmates that said they drove a car for 2-3 km and they did not have health problems. My old Orion could do 14.5 km/l with Shell V-Power, up from 13.5 with normal 98 RON (it was designed to run on octane 98 RON and had valve-chime despite changed ignition-timing when forced to run on 95 which 80% of all cars in DK run on).
The basic problem, with many things is that one has to look both at the details and the broad picture to make improvements overall but few can do both. It's no good to get a good car if it's not used the right way or mainaned so it can function as designed (modern direct-injection engines won't work well with dirty gas/diesel like US has, chip-tuning the engine with pre-made chips increase polution to a level few will believe, an example gave 20 extra hp in a Peugeot diesel, but increased polution from the engine by 300% Three-Houndred!). Using more power on the road due to more stress and more insulation making it harder to feel the car's going faster than your old one also uses more fuel. All the tons of electrica equipment that's in the car also weighs it down and needs a bigger generator which again sucks fuel. I do know that some people use these things but as I wrote above, all things go into the equation, including production and material costs to produce these cars. I read that cars are no longer being made in foreign countries because labour is now so low down on the expenses list that it's no longer a place to save money (at least for german cars).
With all the cell-phones and iPods and what-nots then there must be an increase in the use of batteries and non-rechargable batteries will definately be a big souce of garbage and even with rechargable batteries then there's a bigger need for electricity and fusion-powerplants are still not possibly so it's dependant of coal-powerplants and that's also a big source of polution of the breahing air.
Hmm, this got to be a long post anyway. Well I hope I helped with the little knowledge I have. While things have to be done then one should always research what the consequences are and look at both details and the big picture, look both at the present and the future (for example, buying a old house will be cheaper than building a new one now, but the running costs will be higher and even expensive modifications will not necessarily make the house as efficient/comfortable as a new-built house, for instance with the ground-heat-circulation system and maybe solar-panels for extra and free electricity (well, free apart from the purchase costa and maintanence but I doubt it's that much compared to the alternative)).
Edit: Wow, I just looked and this is even longer looking in the thread than here in the typing window. But I got an extra bit of info that I forgot: Otto-cycle = 4-stroke spark-ignition engine, normally known as a gasoline engine. And octane-rating normally also tells how fast the fuel burns, when the Orion's CVH 1.6 Carburator engine ran on 98 it's ignition was set to 12 degrees before top point, for 95 it had to be set to 6 degrees. Ethanol is around 120 RON perhaps? I think I read that somewhere. Another thing is also that the stuff used to get the octane level up over 95 is actually hyper-poison! Or at least what they used to use, one drop could permanently ruin an entire underground water-supply.
Frank
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Mike on August 04, 2006, 12:05:46 AM
I just saw this thread (good thing we have chicken farmers cuz I can't keep up with you guys anymore...)
It's funny that it just now got my attention. In fact I read yesterday that the wildland fires last year in Alaska (or was it 2004?? whenever the big fires where up there...) supposed to do as much damage to the ozone layer than all cars in the world together for a year (might have even been more...10 or so) This is a little confusing I must say. I always thought wildfires are a part of the US, Canada and Australia for thousands of years.... There are so many theories out there....cow flatulence . . . and so on... ;)
Recycling: Coming from a guy who has been many places I must say the Americans have a lot to learn still when it comes to recycling. The Europeans are doing an excellent job. We used to recycle a lot in California as well, but again, I got confused one day about this as well: I was living with a bunch of (not so clean) guys in Ventura right after I got divorced and rented this little room from them. It was a typical boys-house, smelly, dirty, empty beer cans everywhere. And of course we always forgot to put out the trash on Wednesday. One day the trash problem was getting so bad that we just had to get rid of a few bags. We gave the recycling-truck-guy a beer if he'd take our regular trash with the recycle-crap. He told us it wasn't a problem and we got to watch him throw our trash in with all the "recycle" stuff.... ...makes you wonder if the Wednesday-truck and Thursday-truck aren't going to the same place.... ???
I do, however, dump my fuel sample into our diesel fuel truck. That's my little part. But what do you do with AVGAS when all those old tugs, Ford Broncos, and old Jeeps go away?? How good for the environment are they?
And more devils advocate thoughts: Yes, solar cells are great. But how much energy is needed to produce them? (I really don't know, just one of the thoughts I have...) The electric plane Zaffex was mentioning: How much energy or waste is made making this plane and it's chemical fuel?
Even if one invents a very efficient engine... ...will one have an unfortunate accident? I am sure the big oil companies aren't going to like ones invention....
What was the best thing before sliced bread? Before they invented the drawing board, what did they go back to?
questions over questions......
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: spacer on August 04, 2006, 05:13:32 AM
I can't tell ya much about the city-owned garbage collection, but one of my clients is a Fortune 100 company, and they have separate, specific facilities for recycling. I believe they also handle loads from other companies as well as some city government fleets. Interestingly enough, it's a private company, and it blows away the 'public' ones in safety, equipment, recompense, etc... (little private-sector jab at the gov't monopoly folks)
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: happylanding on August 04, 2006, 06:15:22 AM
Recycling: Coming from a guy who has been many places I must say the Americans have a lot to learn still when it comes to recycling. The Europeans are doing an excellent job. We used to recycle a lot in California as well, but again, I got confused one day about this as well: I was living with a bunch of (not so clean) guys in Ventura right after I got divorced and rented this little room from them. It was a typical boys-house, smelly, dirty, empty beer cans everywhere. And of course we always forgot to put out the trash on Wednesday. One day the trash problem was getting so bad that we just had to get rid of a few bags. We gave the recycling-truck-guy a beer if he'd take our regular trash with the recycle-crap. He told us it wasn't a problem and we got to watch him throw our trash in with all the "recycle" stuff.... ...makes you wonder if the Wednesday-truck and Thursday-truck aren't going to the same place.... ???
I saw it happening once here, that the trash guys collected trash and recycle-things all together. Isn't it that the truck is compartmentalized inside and from the outside you do not see where the garbage is going into? Otherwise I could not explain the fact that they threw everything in the same place. BTW, I was watching a documentary 3 days ago or so on TV, and they said that one of the most important thing to recycle is cellphones, since the motherboard has a lot of components, among metallic and quite dangerous "metallic/ non metallic elements and compounds" that it's better not to throw into the bin, because of the toxicity. Yesterday I inadvertently broke a thermometer: Any idea about where mercury must be given? ??? I know it's highly dangerous and the fumes are dangerous too....
BTW, we in the first days of August and yesterday in northern Switzerland, it snowed above 2000 meters. Hope it doesn't mean that summer is over....
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: tundra_flier on August 11, 2006, 05:17:28 PM
Quote
In fact I read yesterday that the wildland fires last year in Alaska (or was it 2004?? whenever the big fires where up there...) supposed to do as much damage to the ozone layer than all cars in the world together for a year (might have even been more...10 or so) This is a little confusing I must say. I always thought wildfires are a part of the US, Canada and Australia for thousands of years.... There are so many theories out there....cow flatulence . . . and so on...
Both 2004 and 2005 were record wild fire years in Alaska. 2005 as I recall had a tally of 6.3 million acres. Most of the summer was IMC due to smoke. We had a week solid where the EPA's CO meter in Fairbanks was pegged off the scale! over 10 times the "safe" level. I've often wondered about the amount of CO2 released compared to human production. I did see a program on volcanoes last year, and one of the scientists they intervied stated that the AVERAGE eruption released more CO2 than 1000 years of human production at current rates.
Phil
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: spacer on August 13, 2006, 03:47:31 AM
In fact I read yesterday that the wildland fires last year in Alaska (or was it 2004?? whenever the big fires where up there...) supposed to do as much damage to the ozone layer than all cars in the world together for a year (might have even been more...10 or so) This is a little confusing I must say. I always thought wildfires are a part of the US, Canada and Australia for thousands of years.... There are so many theories out there....cow flatulence . . . and so on...
Both 2004 and 2005 were record wild fire years in Alaska. 2005 as I recall had a tally of 6.3 million acres. Most of the summer was IMC due to smoke. We had a week solid where the EPA's CO meter in Fairbanks was pegged off the scale! over 10 times the "safe" level. I've often wondered about the amount of CO2 released compared to human production. I did see a program on volcanoes last year, and one of the scientists they intervied stated that the AVERAGE eruption released more CO2 than 1000 years of human production at current rates.
Phil
Unfortunately ;) that doesn't support an agenda, and won't get as many grants, cushy appointments, and cute interns.
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: fireflyr on August 13, 2006, 05:18:18 AM
Gee, I feel so silly, worrying about the world my children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren are going to inherit---guess you naysayers must be right! ;D My wife's been wanting a Hummer, might as well get it---we don't need to worry about global warming---it's part of natures cycle, right? Just because Greenland's ice cap is disappearing and causing the ocean levels to rise---well, that's not my worry, I've lived my life and everything will be OK for the next 20 years so I'm content that I'll not have to be inconvenienced because I'll be dead by then. HEY, the dinosaurs didn't have any worries and they were here for 200 million years! Don't worry-be happy (you can keep your head in the sand or any other handy orifice.................. ::)
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: tundra_flier on August 13, 2006, 06:08:19 AM
Fireflyr, Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not overly concerned about global warming, I've seen about equal amounts of data that indicate it's our fault, and that it's part of the natural cycle. I figure we'll know for certain in about 20 to 30 years. If the natural cycle guys are correct there should be a definite cooling trend by then.
I am far more concerned with other polution than CO2, and very concerned that all the environmental research and legislation concontrates so heavily on CO2.
For example, one of my hobbies is aquariums. Planted tanks get pure CO2 pumped into them. It's the only way to keep the plants growing well without letting algae take over. However, even a few drops any household cleaner would devistate all the fish overnight. That's why I'm a bit nervous about the Hybrid vehicle trend, what happens when all those batteries expire? Recycling or disposing of auto batteries was a hot environmental issue a few years back, there's a lot of very toxic chemicals and heavy metals in a battery. What happens when every car has 10 times as many batteries as a conventional car? Also, how much energy does it take to produce all those batteries in the first place?
I'm also very excited about the LEED program in US. It's a new standard for building energy efficient "green" buildings that seems to be very practical and flexible. I've also seen some new solar heating systems that look very promising, even here in the far north. (what ever happened to the passive solar house craze of the 80's?)
One of the things I've seen recently regarding the environment that really pissed me off was a show on one of the huge hydro dams in Brazil. They concluded the show by stating that Brazil gets 95% of it's electricity from Hydro dams. And state that it was a huge environmental tragety because of all the forests flooded! What they failed to mention was that since Brazil has zero CO2 emmisions for it's electrical production they're getting rich selling carbon credits to europe under the Koyoto treaty. They're also starting to use hydrogen powered cars since they can produce the hydrogen very cheaply using the Hydro power. Definitly a huge environmental problem. Demostatrated just how narrow minded the environmental movement can be.
So no, please don't buy the Hummer unless you really need a vehicle that big. I'm trying to do my part too, when my old truck started getting to the point it needed lots of TLC, instead of trading it for a new truck I kept it, and bought a compact car. Since 90% of what I do the car works fine, I now only use the truck when I need a truck. My total petrol comsumpsions gone way down, my car payments are a lot less than a new truck, and there's one less older truck beeing driven daily, or taking up space in a land fill.
Oh, and I fly a C-150 which only uses 5gph or unleaded fuel. Shall we talk about how much fuel a helicopter uses? Hmmmm?
OK, I'm done ranting. :-X
Phil
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: fireflyr on August 13, 2006, 07:41:24 AM
Informative post Phil of the Phar North, |:)\ I not only don't have the answers---I can't even imagine all the questions! :-\ There's no bunny huggers in my family but I sure feel that we all need to be better stewards of our natural resources since there is a finite amount. And my wife doesn't really want a Hummer---just a new Yukon. :P
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: happylanding on August 13, 2006, 08:39:09 AM
If I'm not wrong, I heard that once an environmental group was fighting to have an animal specie protected, they won, and that kind of animal grew completely out of control, creating problem on the opposite direction: at first there were too little, after there were too many, unbalancing the "feeding chain". Same with forests: while the Amazzonia forest is being thrown down, here we planted, planted and planted, and now we have too much green that's taking over. So, any hint we give can actually be as dangerous as doing nothing: the right equilibrium must be found, otherwise we end up doing the equal mistake, but on the other side (on the seecond example I do not see any environmental problem but an economical one, though), maybe it should be seen as a chess game. but I always stand from the "let's try to do something to save our planet side", since I know that we're not yet ready to relocate to Mars, and it doesn't definitely look as beautiful as Earth :) . Why not? CO2 could eventually be a minor problem, but say ---- what about the nuclear tests we did during the last 50 years? or nuclear (and chemical) disasters, like the one of Chernobyl (thanks to the weather condition of the days when it happened, "radioactive rain" fell mainly around the site and here in Ticino, the part of Switzerland where I live, in quite big quantities. the amount of radioactive elements is still high, even more than 10 years after). I do not say we should start living as the cavemen, as the flinstones, but at least do our small part to maintain an equilibrium, since small part plus small part plus small part gives a result, so that we do not affect too much the natural Earth's life. Once done, we could be able to say either if we are the problem or if the problem is another "ice age" coming that we can't stop. If it's not enough to convince....for the ones who like tuna....it's quite known that tuna is going to disappear in the next years, due to violent chase, that doesn't give time to tuna to reproduce and he is unable to reproduce in artificial conditions. so, 10...20 years, 5 maybe and we won't have any more tuna salad, any more tuna sushi and sashimi, tuna pizza, and so on. you sure you can live without it?? And yes, that's not a joke :)
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: fireflyr on August 13, 2006, 02:35:28 PM
Happy, I can live without tuna but my cat would be devastated :(
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Frank N. O. on August 13, 2006, 02:56:43 PM
I've said it before and I'll write it again, the enviroment and nature is complicated so maybe global warming is natural, maybe it isn't, but there are thigns about our envirment that is clear to see problems with, like the air in big cities from traffic and big factories and old-fashioned powerplants. It is true that electric cars cost money and materials to build that should count as well when comparing their envirmental impact to that of conventional gasoline and diesel-cars. But there is the fact that in dense cities there are many people that use the car for just a few miles, and not all have practical need for it, like carrying large parcels or being handicapped, but using electric cars in inner cities, maybe with a loaner-card so you just used it as a manually operated taxi and parked it at a re-charge central in the city that could perhaps reduce inner city air and noise polution. But the powerplants producing the electricity for them should also be clean.
Nothing is simple, it takes a lot of investigation and time and money, and with the western society's focus on quick fast media-covered results and 30 second speeches on the 6-o-clock news then times are tough.
Btw, some people also say that hybrid-suv's aren't really making an actual good impact on emissions, not sure why though, if it was production costs or if they don't really give less and cleaner emissions or what. Also, the heavier a car is, the more power is needed to move it and lately even sub-compact cars are getting equipment as std. you couldn't even find in a Rolls-Royce 15 years ago, but how many really need it? And what about the costs of sending the car to service and repairs more often? In DK and other countries some new cars burst into flames on their own due to electrical problems, the engine-room is packed with little space for either repairs, or for the parts themselves. I can't even change a lightbulb without scaring my hand on the front chassis-part, and engine's get hot and they vibrate, so not having much space doesn't sound smart. It's not just the bottom-line that counts, manye things are connected and affect each-other. My chemistry-teacher had a 95 Camaro Z/28, she said it could do 8 km/l if driven nicely, but she'd never done more than 6.
I hope you can understand the intention with my post. Some things are natural, but other things are clearly not well and we should do something about it, for our own generation's sake, but we should look at all things involved in this process.
I would like to |:)\ the people here for keeping the conversation serious but calm despite differing opinions, it's pretty clear that we all want to do the right thing, and that we're open to new information we don't have ourselves yet but that is important instead of just holding on to our opinion stubbernly even though there is clear important evidence.
Action without guidance is at best a waste of energy, and at worst a worsening of the problem that needs to be fixed.
Frank
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: fireflyr on August 13, 2006, 03:34:45 PM
I made my contribution to the CO2 bank yesterday, flew to KMOD (138 NM) for a burrito and ice cream. Let's see, that's 1.3 hours round trip at 18 gallons per hour........HMMM, I'll have recycle a lot of plastic water bottles to make up for that extravagant behavior!!!! (yeah but the burrito was free)! ;D It helped to know that there were about 350 athletes pedaling past my house doing the "Vineman Triathalon" who were not using any gas (other than chase cars, sag wagons, support staff prepositioning, police cars at intersections and race fans motoring to favorite cheering spots) Al in all a great day was had by everyone including me since it was CAVU with smooth air and moderate temperatures. The small crowd at KMOD was happily admiring the aircraft display and telling typical pilot lies (er I mean stories). ;D We had beautiful views of the Sierra Mountains as well as being able to see the San Francisco Bay Area and the Pacific. A waste of gas perhaps but I guess thats the description of pleasure flying. 8) Gotta go recycle something and take my dogs out for a run, Ya'll have a wonderful day!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: spacer on August 13, 2006, 04:26:07 PM
Frank, I'm not going to come out for or against a particular technology. I honestly think we need to diversify to allow the market to take care of itself. We're so heavily regulated now that only the current manufacturers have the clout to actually produce anything in numbers. Smaller upstarts can't take the overregulation and die quickly. There are unintended consequences with everything, some worse than others. Electric cars serve to relocate pollution from the city to the rural areas where the plants are normally located, which dumps more power plant pollution on what had been a clean area. Of course, this is not the case where the power is nuclear, hydro, solar, or wind. (each of those are also demonized by some of the very same folks who'd like us all to drive e-cars... it's a lose-lose situation by those rules) There's also the other end, as you have to eventually dispose of the batteries, which have to be handled carefully, and with the expensive regulations on this, there'll be a natural 'black market' there, too, where you don't know what'll happen to them. This was something that had an impact in Dallas a couple years ago. It was getting so expensive to 'properly' dispose of waste, that amoral operators started picking it up to dump in the river. Unintended consequence. I see a need for cleaner air, as it's more pleasant and healthier to breathe, but when you pile on the regulations (of dubious qualities in the first place), you drive people to do things which hurt, rather than help. Of course, the next thing after that is the formation of a paramilitary branch of the EPA, which will, like BATFE, will start with the stormtrooper tactics and will come down with a heavy boot on the neck of anyone who dares get outta line. (as well as the folks who simply disagree with it and must be silenced) (/tin foil hat off)
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Frank N. O. on August 13, 2006, 05:05:34 PM
Yes that's another point in the grand scheme of trying to get the world to work. One door closes, another opens. No one thing is perfect. As I see it then changes has to be made in smaller steps for them to work. I'm not saying that we should all keep score on polution and never do anything for fun though, like a fun-flight for a good meal. Let's face it, how many can do that and what impact would that have on polution vs. daily traffic and factory-polution? I also know that some people have a legitimate need for larger vehicles, be it for family transport or large items so I'm not trying to turn the world into the Vulcan Empire or pure logic here, heavens forbid! Hopefully the brilliant minds in the world can still have the change to explore different things even outside the normal envolope of technologies but sadly that's very hard as said above. No small new place has much of a chance to become anything in this globalised industrial world, but at least people are still trying :)
I however have time to think about things, most people I see and hear here in DK are so rushed and stressed that people are increasingly agressive in both traffic and shopping malls and with such stress then I think most people would try to take the easiest route, legal or not for daily chores. On the other hand, regulations are clearly needed, at least here, people think they know best, but they are proven wrong time and time again. I do however also think that regulations and laws have to be properly made and with a good purpose, but opinion on what is a good purpose is also hard to agree on. Furthermore it's hard to find a skilled person you can actually trust, mechanic, doctor, store-clerk etc. so it's not easy to get reliable information for those like me that actually want to try and figure this out. That's actually a big cause of continued confusion and lack of progress for the moment.
I hope this post isn't recieved negatively, especially since I've tried to write that I don't want to transform the whole way the world is living, in fact I just want my own little life out of the way of the big crowded cities.
Frank
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: happylanding on August 13, 2006, 09:47:07 PM
then I think most people would try to take the easiest route, legal or not for daily chores. On the other hand, regulations are clearly needed, at least here, people think they know best, but they are proven wrong time and time again. I do however also think that regulations and laws have to be properly made and with a good purpose, but opinion on what is a good purpose is also hard to agree on.
There are some parts in switzerland where you pay something as 2 dollars for a plastic bag for garbage (25 liters). I let you imagine what happens: public bins are used for any sort of garbage, so that you do not have to pay so much to dispose of it.... :( clearly not the most efficient way to solve the problem!! Trash hasn't diminished, just the place where it's thrown has changed! but that is one of the points with law: if men were virtuous, laws would be useless!
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Mike on August 14, 2006, 01:11:09 AM
Wow, this sure is an interesting conversation...
Seems like everyone has a slightly different agenda and worries about different things. I for one must admit that I am thoroughly confused on this issue. Coming back to forest fires and their impact and the impact we made on the forest I used to be a big fan of "just let it burn" because it needs to burn anyways since it has burned for thousands of years. Now I just read that juniper trees are actually producing a lot of oxygen and that we now don't want them to burn... At least we'll always have gin this way, eh?! ;)
There are so many theories on global warming and how it happens and how we are or are not affecting it. I guess we won't know until later (maybe even until it's too late) My big thing is TRASH!! That is something we CAN do something about, even us little un-influential average citizens. I am amazed that in Vegas in most communities there is no recycling. In a city of several million people! It's scary! The other thing that scares me more than makes me mad is being on the freeway and seeing how many cars are stuck there at the same time with only one person in each car. A whole city with no public transportation system!! The list goes on...
I am not sure if I am helping or hurting the environment flying and aircraft that puts out fires on one hand but uses 45 gallons per hour to do it (a crane uses 500 !! gallons per hour). But I sure don't think about it while I am in the pilot seat......
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: fireflyr on August 14, 2006, 04:28:10 AM
YAAA, logn liv thr Junispersh (wish flavors gin) of wich i yam sppin on now. (hiccup -belch) :-X
I'm with Mike on trash and recycling, it's mind boggling when I see people wasting valuable resources and I believe that any effort, no matter how small, has value. |:)\
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: spacer on August 14, 2006, 02:09:35 PM
Oooh, Mike... that mention of 'public' transportation sent a chill... I used to ride the trains. Never again. I'd rather take my bicycle. Government run transit systems I've ridden have all sucked, and never really paid for themselves... the ones I've ridden, at least. Besides, I watch these guys (the bus drivers, anyway) for a living, and the public drivers on average are pretty bad.
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Frank N. O. on August 14, 2006, 02:31:58 PM
Jim: Recycling has been well-evolved here in DK, just sometimes they can't agree on what things go under what catagory even in the same city (more than one center per city) and some times in the past seperated garbage for recycling have been picked up in the same truck, and compartment. Still those are mainly in the past or being worked on, and to my knowledge at least, recycling has been proven to reduce overall material and energy use.
About public transport then here's a funny but real tidbit: A city in DK, can't remember which one, found out it was cheaper to make the busses run free of charge for passengers than charge money since the income was smaller than the pay to cover the administration fees for the ticket income :D It is very noise though with all kinds of rude passengers and narrow bus-seats and some, not all, but some bus-drivers drive very roughly so any person that doesn't walk perfectly is in big risk of falling well before reaching a seat.
Frank
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: spacer on August 14, 2006, 02:33:48 PM
Yep. Those grab handles have to be pretty sturdy :D
Unfortunately, their idea of 'free' means the money was stolen from other people. Hey, someone's gotta pay for it, why not wring out the taxpayers (again).
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: tundra_flier on August 14, 2006, 04:46:59 PM
Well, I guess I can be proud of my home town then.
We have a sorta recycling program for paper, it's recycled into fuel pellets for the airforce's power plant. Better than filling a land fill with it and digging more coal I guess. I read once there was more paper turned in for recycling, than there was demand for recycled paper products. Don't know if that's still true or not.
Also, the busses are free in the winter, the only time we have a polution problem (not counting forest fire smoke in the summers ;)). The main reason we have winter polution problems is the very very still air, so it just collects here. And people who let their cars warm up for an hour so the interior is nice and cozy. Everyone here has electric preheaters to warm the engine block and oil, you only need a couple minutes of idling before going. Put a parka on for god's sake! On a side note, a friend of mine who's an EMT tells me they frequently have problems with accident victims getting frost bite. They come out of a warm garage, or run the car for an hour so they're not wearing a coat, then when they get trapped in the car, with the windows busted at -40 temps... Idiots! Grrrrrr. >:(
OK I'm done again. :p
Phil
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: happylanding on August 14, 2006, 05:15:21 PM
About public transport then here's a funny but real tidbit: A city in DK, can't remember which one, found out it was cheaper to make the busses run free of charge for passengers than charge money since the income was smaller than the pay to cover the administration fees for the ticket income :D It is very noise though with all kinds of rude passengers and narrow bus-seats and some, not all, but some bus-drivers drive very roughly so any person that doesn't walk perfectly is in big risk of falling well before reaching a seat.
Frank
Well, I presume that the drivers get anyhow a salary and do not drive free for all the free riders, so they probably should learn to be a little bit less rude! :) About public transport, I do not live in a part of Lugano that's well linked. or, better, there is a bus every hour (fm 8 AM to 7 PM), but for a trip that would need 7 minutes by car, you need 30 minutes via public transport and also have to change and thus wait for another bus. the price then, isn't really fair - at least until you do not get a general/year long ticket - compared to the other zones and the bus is really small and mainly used by children going to school. so said, no space, too expensive and too long. when I decide to leave the car at home I need less time to go to the center walking, given that it takes 25 minutes and at least is an healthy thing. coming back, on the contrary takes more time, since I live on a hill!! :)
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: tundra_flier on August 14, 2006, 06:18:13 PM
Happy, I'm in a similar situation as far as public transportation goes. There's a bus at least every hour stopping just a couple blocks from where I live, to just a block from where I work. But there are so many stops in between it takes over an hour! It's only 4.5 miles, so takes less than 10 min to drive, 20min on a bicycle (I really need to start riding it again) and about an hour to walk (when the snow's not too deep). So the only time I consider using it is when it's -45 or colder and I don't want to subject my car to that kind of abuse.
Phil
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: happylanding on August 24, 2006, 09:00:10 PM
Mates, here Summer already was over at the beginning of August when, with a thunderstorm, it was - from one day to the other - completely.....cancelled. temperatures dropped to sping/autumn levels. today we had another big thunderstorm and ice grains. Damn, if we are not causing any big harm to our planet, it's anyhow sure that it's not behaving anymore as it used to. That's a picture I've taken of the outside. And the other one...the power of the water was so high that it destroyed a window that's below ground level, and we had a small...tsunami in the house. I spent the afternoon cleaning an entire floor from the water.... :) ....and since a toast bread always fall on the buttered side, the water entered into the room in which we have the electricity panel and decided to invade the rooms where we have white tiles to the floor!! I could have passed for Cinderella! ;)
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: happylanding on August 24, 2006, 09:13:01 PM
......And that is me at work........ :) :) could you imagine that the floor had to be white? ???
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Plthijnx on August 26, 2006, 06:24:57 PM
damn girl! looks like you had you're work cut out for you! everything back to normal yet?
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: happylanding on August 26, 2006, 07:15:40 PM
damn girl! looks like you had you're work cut out for you! everything back to normal yet?
Hehe! A backbones-breaking work, but everything was more or less back to order at evening! On the contrary, the grains of ice are still outside even if today the temperature was about 27 degrees C, something that was not seen since the beginning of august, when a "spring/autumn like" climate began. I think that the fact that the street where I live is a really steep one (if I'm not wrong on how to measure it should be around 16 degrees sloop) everything just collected on the lowest point, that means in front of the door....causing all the mess it caused with the water inside the house! And the tiles....they are more or less back to their original white......... :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: tundra_flier on August 28, 2006, 03:29:53 PM
Quote
Damn, if we are not causing any big harm to our planet, it's anyhow sure that it's not behaving anymore as it used to.
Sure it is Happy, Just like it's behaving like it did 250 years ago, when Europe was in the coldest part of the little ice age. ;)
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Baradium on August 31, 2006, 04:00:20 AM
I admit glossing over most of the discussion, so apologies if this has already been hashed...
Global warming, as much as the PC crowd wants it to be, still is just a theory. In fact, there was a time when France banned wine imports from *england* which had much higher temperatures than today.
The global temperature rises and falls in cycles. There is plenty of evidence of much warmer times before humans were making these "greenhouse gasses."
BTW, you know what the biggest greenhouse gas is? Water vapor. Think of that every time you see a cloud. That is why clear nights are colder than cloudy nights.
Volcanoes produce an untold amount of carbon dioxide (the gas touted by environmental groups) each year, more than humans produce. Our actual production is negligable. Now, there is air pollution, but that's not global warming... that's air pollution.
I have national geographic magazines from the 60s and 70s. They are worried about global *cooling,* especially caused by jets as they saw the contrails up high.
We can't take 10 or even 100 years of data and actually *know* what's going on. We can only guess. Right now there is a lot of public pressure on scientists to simply agree with the idea.
Think of this, we know glaciers weren't always there because there is stuff under them. They also are growing, now if they are growing, that means that they weren't always so large (since they get bigger each year). See where I'm going with this?
Temperatures can rise dramatically and still be within historic patterns. England was a temperate zone! If it was just a global temperature that was going to make the world end, then how did we survive when England was like that? And why wasn't it under water? There are records of the *wine* industry in England... it's too cold for the grapes now.
I still hear that for the past few centuries we've been in a mini ice age. That we should expect to experience warmer temperatures as we come out of it. That national geographic article actually worries about whether we *would* come out of it (IE, "will it get warmer like it should?").
I only wish I had the thing with me so I could quote it directly. Funny how in 30 or 40 years we can conviently forget what they knew then. Some people want so badly to be right, they don't actually care if they are or not, they just want everyone else to say they are.
Then there are those who pretend just to try to make other people agree with what they want done. I talked to a group of environmentalists on the north slope about a month and a half ago. They were looking to oppose drilling in the ANWR (btw, the area in the ANWR they intend to drill is tundra, not the mountains and streams you'll see from them but the flat nothingness like they already pump oil from). I asked them about it and they freely admitted to me that they didn't really think the drilling would harm anything, but they had to say it to try to keep it from happening... to reduce oil supply with the idea of reducing usage of gasoline. And not for global warming, but becuse of the *other* effects they believe come from combustion. This is the only time I've ever had a group like that talk so freely, but they did seem sincere. I guess they felt I'd agree with the reasoning.
Anyway, that's getting a little off on a tangent. What I wonder is how many people out there spouting stuff really see it as a "ends justify the means" thing.
In any case, even if the weather isn't *normal* there has always been abnormal weather, some storms are 100 year storms for that reason, they don't happen that often. Well what's a 1000 year storm then? Just because it happens doesn't mean that we caused it too, it could just be a rare occurance.
Storm cycles also vary. For a while we were in a cycle (that can be traced back through records) of lower numbers of hurricanes and other storms. Now we are back in the upswing. I don't know if we are topping out now or not, but they had tracked a cycle.
I've been told many times now that this is the coldest summer on record in Alaska. That doesn't mean there's global cooling though. Just like hotter than normal temps don't mean there is global warming.
BTW, someone tried to tell me that in global warming some places would be hotter and some colder. If there is a shared relationship, how is it global warming if the averages are going to stay the same? Wouldn't that just be global sameness?
Oh, and they had trouble getting the fuel barges to barrow this year because the ice pack didn't recede nearly as quickly (or as far) as normal.
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: happylanding on August 31, 2006, 09:10:47 AM
Think of this, we know glaciers weren't always there because there is stuff under them. They also are growing, now if they are growing, that means that they weren't always so large (since they get bigger each year). See where I'm going with this?
Baradium, you're sure about that?!?!? Since in switzerland all the contrary applies. Glaciers are disappearing and the Cervino (the Toblerone chocolate form) is crushing.....
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: tundra_flier on August 31, 2006, 11:13:40 PM
Actually, in Alaska for the past century most glaciers have been receeding, but a few have been growing. And I won't address the "galloping" or "surge" glaciers. If I remember my arctic geography class correctly, glacier length is determined more by the amount of snowfall at the top, than the melting at the bottom. The more weight on top, the faster they move, so the longer they get. Since arctic regions tend to get more snow during warmer winters, they're really a questionable indicator of temperature, like tree rings. Besiides, over all the glaciers have been slowly receeding since the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago.
Coincidently, one of the theories I've heard on the ice age cycle maintains that warmer temperatures trigger the next ice age. The theory goes that as temperatures increase, polar region snowfall also increases, more and more water get locked up in ice. Eventually the ocean levels drop to a point where polar precipitation exceeds tropical evaporation and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere begins to drop. Since water vapor is responsible for 95% of the earth's green house effect temperatures drop very rapidly into the next ice age.
Incidently, the recently completed Antartic coring reports showed some very interesting things. One is that the warm periods between ice ages always correspond with higher CO2 levels, but points out that the cause/effect relation isn't clear since warmer temps produce greater natural CO2 production. Also of interest is that Ice ages always last 60 to 70 thousand years, while the warm periods between only last 10,000 years. With one exception, there was one temerate period in the study that lasted 28,000 years. It corresponded with the earth's axis relative to the sun the same as it is currently. If that wasn't the case, we'd have plunged into the next ice age about 2,000 years ago. Imagine for a min. what that would have done to modern civilization. :o
Phil
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: switchtech on September 01, 2006, 01:25:43 AM
It'd be really ironic after all the work we'll be doing in the next few decades to prevent Global Warming if we actually enter the next ice age.
jbs
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Mike on September 08, 2006, 04:57:33 AM
The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee.
--- Gunter's Second Law of Air Travel
That reminds me of something else. Without giving away enough details to get me in too much trouble, you have to be careful if you want to open up a thermos of hot cofee at altitude if it was almost boiling down low, since that might be above boiling at altitude and leave you with a thermos boiling over when you open it! (no it wasn't me)
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Baradium on November 02, 2006, 11:06:47 PM
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N Damage: Substantial
LOCATION City: FOREST LAKE State: MN Country: US
DESCRIPTION ACFT LOST POWER, FLOATS FELL OFF, TWO PASSENGERS JUMPED OUT INTO THE LAKE, THE PILOT WAS THEN ABLE TO LAND AT A GRASS STIP, FOREST LAKE, MN
Does this report just seem odd to anyone else? This is an actual report from the FAA website.
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: Frank N. O. on November 02, 2006, 11:25:59 PM
Two people jumped from a plane into a lake and were unhurt, and the pilot landed with the floats off which I think would leave struts sticking down and the plane landed on grass and the pilot wasn't hurt? Yes that's weird, nice but weird.
Frank
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: cj5_pilot on November 03, 2006, 02:53:48 AM
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N Damage: Substantial
LOCATION City: FOREST LAKE State: MN Country: US
DESCRIPTION ACFT LOST POWER, FLOATS FELL OFF, TWO PASSENGERS JUMPED OUT INTO THE LAKE, THE PILOT WAS THEN ABLE TO LAND AT A GRASS STIP, FOREST LAKE, MN
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N Damage: Substantial
LOCATION City: FOREST LAKE State: MN Country: US
DESCRIPTION ACFT LOST POWER, FLOATS FELL OFF, TWO PASSENGERS JUMPED OUT INTO THE LAKE, THE PILOT WAS THEN ABLE TO LAND AT A GRASS STIP, FOREST LAKE, MN
The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee.
--- Gunter's Second Law of Air Travel
That reminds me of something else. Without giving away enough details to get me in too much trouble, you have to be careful if you want to open up a thermos of hot cofee at altitude if it was almost boiling down low, since that might be above boiling at altitude and leave you with a thermos boiling over when you open it! (no it wasn't me)
Been there---done that :-\ :-\ Early morning departure on fishing trip, told wife "I could use a cup of coffee" (climbing through about 9 thousand)------- Instant IFR with a lot of screaming and swearing and some "WTF were you thinking?" comments >:(
Title: Re: Global warming and aviation
Post by: happylanding on November 28, 2006, 11:48:26 PM
I was just reading the newspaper this morning (one of the several free copies you find in the underground in London) and it's written that by far, this has been the hottest autumn since....1757 or something like that. it's umbelievable, but even if I do not go out anymore just with a pullover, a light jacket is still enough and no scarf is needed here...... and wonder what? inside the metro you see some panels where the gov advises the people about turning down the lights in the house and the equipments, in order to spare money and energy, so that the pollution reverses. and........I'm currently living near several government buildings: and the transport and traffic agency (or whatever it's called) is a 8 or something store's building. nobody is inside from 5.30 in the afternoon and the lights of the building are ALL on, during the night, for a total of 24 hrs a day.
Ps. sorry for my english, but I must be quite tired and I cannot come out with a better style! :)
