Ice bubbles reveal biggest rise in CO2 for 800,000 years

[lazs2]

ok.. so we have more co2 now than in some other times.  We are in a global warming trend.  Co2 allways rises after a global warming trend.

You can't stop a global warming trend or the C02 that follows.

None of you can tell anyone how much man is affecting climate one way or the other.   The warming trend would continue no matter if we all died.   There is nothing we can do to stop it or start it.

eureka...  soooooo... you feel that your pleasure to see new things and people is more important than our mother earth?   How selfish...  You don't care how much polution is spewed into the air so long as you have a good time?    

Oh... and kalifornia has many millions of tourists every year.   With a tank of gas I can go see the desert or the beach or the mountains or huge redwood forests or a national park.  Yosemite attracts a few people now and then.

lazs

[Jackal1]

Well I see we have reached the chart posting war and the "No , I`m not bored " stage. It can only get better from here on in.

[lazs2]

angus... do you eat 747's on pleasure jaunts around the planet "making new friends" and spewing filth on our beloved mother earth?

No one can say how much or how little we are affecting climate change or how much we can affect it with our best efforts.

We could all walk everywhere and live outside in the cold and it wouldn't change things a bit.

If/when we go into the next global cooling cycle what are you idiots gonna suggest then?   slash and burn?   setting the oil fields on fire?

lazs

[mora]

Originally posted by Elfie
If the plane is 75% full, one passenger is carried 22.2 km for each
liter of fuel burned (52.2 miles for each US gallon of fuel burned).
This fuel efficiency exceeds that of almost all cars, when the driver
is travelling alone.

The average load ratio of airlines is more than that, but 75% is fair enough. IIRC the average number of passengers in passengers cars is about 1,5 here,  I assume it's much less than that in the US(Just look at the empty carpool lanes).

[Angus]

Originally posted by lazs2
angus... do you eat 747's on pleasure jaunts around the planet "making new friends" and spewing filth on our beloved mother earth?

No one can say how much or how little we are affecting climate change or how much we can affect it with our best efforts.

We could all walk everywhere and live outside in the cold and it wouldn't change things a bit.

If/when we go into the next global cooling cycle what are you idiots gonna suggest then?   slash and burn?   setting the oil fields on fire?

lazs

There you go again. You miss the point. The point is all about that WE ARE AFFECTING CLIMATE ON A VERY BIG SCALE. (Very well established)
THE WAY WE DO THINGS DOES AFFECT THINGS.

So, my first suggestion to the problem is to face it and abort surrender.
But of course it is uncomfortable to those who either won't face the problem, and if they think it is there, they immediately shrug their shoulders and raise their palms in surrender.

And this airplane sidetrack is cool. It's a diversion and a strawman on a discount deal.

[Nifty]

C'mon guys, I'm thuper therial here!

[Squire]

How many here think China and India will reduce fossil fuel emmissions and slow down their economic growth to stem CO2? Aint going to happen. The rest of the world wants cars, industry and electricity too, and they are going to get it. Drive a hybrid car if you want too, China is mining for coal on your behalf, dont worry.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Squire
How many here think China and India will reduce fossil fuel emmissions and slow down their economic growth to stem CO2? Aint going to happen. The rest of the world wants cars, industry and electricity too, and they are going to get it. Drive a hybrid car if you want too, China is mining for coal on your behalf, dont worry.

Sadly, this is rather true.
Yet, worth the go.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Nifty
C'mon guys, I'm thuper therial here!

He could do his part to reduce co2 if he'd just stop breathing.

[Angus]

Pointed out above, he'd turn into a rotting corpse which emits CO2 and Methane which is much more powerful.

Which by the way, is what marks the point of no return, - since temperature in enough quantity will unleash the methane stored in the Siberian territories, there will be so much greenhouse gases around that what we humans emit is like a toothpick in Hell. Then BAM, hit the boiling point at certain areas (for Farenheit people that is 100 degrees celcius), and there will be no turning back.

So, is it worth a fight?

[lazs2]

I keep hearing that it is all mans fault or... some of the saner fruitcakes saying that "we are a big part of it"

No frigging numbers.   we get numbers for co2 production... man made and otherwise but not one number as to how much is natural and how much is man made and how much stopping all man made co2 would help.

More co2 means healthier plants which use co2...  probly kick us into an ice age eh?

Nope....  if you can't tell me how much time off the inevitable man made destruction of the planet is gonna be saved by me suffering.... I ain't gonna worry about it.

If the planet is in a global warming cycle then it will just have to play itself out naturaly.... we can't fix it any more than we can stop an ice age.

lazs

[Elfie]

Originally posted by mora
The average load ratio of airlines is more than that, but 75% is fair enough. IIRC the average number of passengers in passengers cars is about 1,5 here,  I assume it's much less than that in the US(Just look at the empty carpool lanes).

At 75% capacity the airliner is more fuel efficient per passenger than your average car with just a driver. Add just one passenger and your average car beats that fuel effiency hands down. Even an airliner with full capacity wouldn't beat a car with one driver and one passenger for fuel efficiency.

More people are using the carpool option here in the Denver area. The high occupancy lanes have alot more traffic on them these days than they used to.

[mora]

Originally posted by Elfie
At 75% capacity the airliner is more fuel efficient per passenger than your average car with just a driver. Add just one passenger and your average car beats that fuel effiency hands down. Even an airliner with full capacity wouldn't beat a car with one driver and one passenger for fuel efficiency.

Like I said the average load for a passenger car is less than 1,5 persons. Also you need to find out the average load ratio for airliner(definately more than 75%). And use combined fuel consumption for an average passenger car.

The A380 Family represents the optimum outcome of decades of R&D:
first civil aircraft to incorporate 25% composites. less than 3 litres of fuel per passenger/100 kilometres, generating CO2 emissions lower than 80g per passenger/kilometre (the European car industry aims to achieve 140g of CO2 per kilometre in 2008)..

http://www.rtcc.org/2006/html/soc_air_airbus.html

[IgnorantJoe]

Is it just me or can anyone else envision Angus wringing his hands while reading this thread?

[Elfie]

Like I said the average load for a passenger car is less than 1,5 persons. Also you need to find out the average load ratio for airliner(definately more than 75%). And use combined fuel consumption for an average passenger car.

If 75% passenger load on an airliner is beaten by 2 people in a car (fuel effiency wise), even a 100% passenger load isnt going to beat 2 people in a car.

Point I was trying to make (obviously failed lol) with my original post on this subject was......a single airliner in ONE flight (regardless of numbers of passengers) puts out more hydrocarbon emissions than a single car does in years. There are hundreds, if not thousands of airliner flights per day.

With car pooling (should be alot more of that going on) airliners are much worse than cars emissions wise.