Hot Air Performance as a (Cost) Consideration for Flying and Future Aircraft

kolibri282;n1125228 said:
Please, Javier, be so kind as to read my post #15 and then tell me again that climate change doesn't exist.

I don't deny that, in recent years, a change in air and seawater temperatures, with a corresponding climate change, may indeed be taking place. But what is not proven, not at all, is that the cause of that change is the human industrial activity. In my opinion, *anthropogenic* climate change is just another fashionable myth.
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree with Jürgen (kolibri282) on this. Since the effects of global warming (assuming it is for real, no matter what the cause) are irreversible in our lifetimes and the effects too far reaching and catastrophic to be shrugged off, it is only prudent to err on the safe side. The procedural and legal requirements in a court of law have nothing whatsoever to do with what is being discussed here.

There is yet another point to consider: we know that crude oil is running out in the not too distant future. It is -- and that is uncontested -- a limited resource. Therefore it behooves us well to switch to alternatives in a timely fashion before our economy throws a fit.

And, let's admit it, burning stuff that stinks is simply stone age technology. When I imagine our future I see ourselves using much cooler technology than that!

-- Chris.
 
Step 1.......reduce the world population (stop breeding ! ) By making parents financially responsible for their kids (like my dogs ) would help. No baby daddy , no money ! Paying to send your kids to school......no property (school tax ) tax for people without children.
Tax credits for not having children........!!

Step 2.....sell more carbon credits ! This will save the planet !
 
Population growth is not rooted in first world countries like the US or Europe. Here, we are trying to motivate people to have kids. So your proposed measures don't act where the cause of the problem is rooted.
 
By the time the planet is overpopulated........I will be dead (hopefully). Then all the brilliant people will have to figure out how to survive. There will be plenty of brilliant minds.

So let's keep cutting down the rainforests & grow more food !

It's funny how the video after this one calls this a satanic belief !


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM1-DQ2Wo_w
 
My wife and I switched to having one meat dish a week (usually on Sunday... oh, the Sunday roast...;-) a long time ago. The funny thing: it's not only cheaper and healthier, the best thing about it is that it opens up a whole new universe of great tasting vegetarian dishes like the one below: It's a casserole with chickpeas sheep cheese and tomatoes. I add a good tea spoon of dried vegetable stock when boiling the chickpeas...bonne appetit! Kichererbsen_Tomaten_Schafskäse.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Kichererbsen_Tomaten_Schafskäse.jpg
    Kichererbsen_Tomaten_Schafskäse.jpg
    145.9 KB · Views: 0
I eat mainly vegetarian, because all that evil done to our animal cousins is terrible and should not be supported, even indirectly... To be frank, I'm still somewhat hooked to jamón, chorizo, cheese and eggs, but I'm actively withdrawing, and hope to be 'clean' by next year.

The horrific treatment given to pigs, hens, cows, etc. will be someday remembered with shame, as it's now the case with slavery...
 
You guys need less TV news and more air time as in flying,not

watching it.

This is the wrong forum for all of the above,in my opinion.
 
The thread started with an article that points out the cost of climate change for aviation and then broadened in scope, discussing climate change in a more general way.
I therefor think it might be an appropriate end to read the article below on a Government Accountability Report that points out the cost of climate change to the tax payer in general and I think it's also worth listening to Senator Cantwell's speech
http://www.scienceaf.com/the-trump-...rt-warns?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=native

PS: at about 6:35 Senator Cantwell mentions that currently the United States rely on the European weather model for predicting the path of a hurricane ...;-)
(I understand that the European model takes into account ocean atmosphere interaction, whereas the US model doesn't)

PPS: Please accept my apologies for posting a recipe, this was indeed way off topic!
 
For the longest time, I thought that Al Gore had invented global warming but on reading up, it seems that it was invented or at least popularized by Margaret Thatcher, the UK’s iron lady PM.
Ms Thatcher, in her fight with the Labour Party and its more aggressive component, the coal miner’s union, alleged that CO2 emissions were polluting the atmosphere and causing global warming. That was her weapon for closing money losing coal mines and going to nuclear power for electrical generation.
Coal fired power plants, in the days before exhaust gas cleaning, did emit polluting and dangerous fumes in the form of sulfur and nitrogen compounds but the CO2 emissions are fairly benign.
Ms Thatcher knew better, having been a research chemist before taking up politics.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas in the sense that’s it is often fed into greenhouses to enhance plant growth.
The real culprit in thermal blanketing in plain old water vapor, H2O. This somewhat technical link explains why:

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/201...-on-trial-co2-is-a-weak-ghg-it-has-no-dipole/
 
The effect of CO2 on the climate was discovered about a hundred and fifty years ago, amongst others by Fourier (yes, the one with the series..;-) the first calculation of the effect was made by Svante Arrhenius in the 19th century, he came up with a figure of about 4°C if the CO2 level is doubled. The prediction from 1912 is probably based on his work. All this is summed up in the video below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...;v=H4YSwajvFAY

There is one consolation: those who deny climate change will pay for it just as dearly as those who do something about it (seems a bit unfair, did New Orleans, Houston or Puerto Rico have an unusually high number of climate change deniers?) Anyway the US already seems to struggle to give proper disaster relief, in Puerto Rico thousands are still without electricity, more than a month after the hurricane and people directly feel the cost of Maria:
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pu...etbook-n815161


PS: If Maggie Thatcher helped make people aware of the climate problem that's one positive thing in here tenure, in my opinion though it doesn't make up for her destruction of England's industrial basis: The car, motorcycle and especially the once glorious aircraft industry, all gone!
 
Last edited:
Jeurgen, the theory of the Earth’s heat balance, as claimed in the article posted above, is that solar radiation, primarily in the visible IR wavelength, heats the Earth and that the Earth re-radiates that energy at a much longer wavelength.

In order for a gas to behave as a thermal blanket and reduce the escape of heat, its molecules must resonate at the wavelength of the escaping IR radiation.

That eliminates CO2 as a thermal blanket.

If that theory is correct, then man made global warming along with Al Gore and all his cuddly polar bears is a hoax.

The early proponents of CO2 as a warming gas wouldn’t have known that heat and light were a form of electromagnetic radiation; Maxwell didn’t publish his theory until 1865 and Herta didn’t verify it until 1887 while the first crude attempts at transmission of radio waves were made around the turn of the century.
 
Chuck, Chuck, Chuck.............. please do not confuse the argument with scientific fact......
 
The power of science is, as you know Chuck, the ability of a theory to allow correct predictions of the future behaviour of a system. Arrhenius' estimate, which seems to have been made around the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, is correct at least regarding order of magnitude, which is jolly good considering what was known at the time. Arrhenius didn't have to know about micro waves to calculate the effect of CO2 in capturing infrared light and yes, our hat is off to him, for his incredible ability to use the knowledge of his time for such an accurate estimate.

As to the influence of water vapor it is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas but it acts as an amplifier since

The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia
is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2

The whole mechanism is very nicely explained here:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...t-the-co2.html
 
Last edited:
The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~400 ppm, Juergen. During the age of dinosaurs, it is claimed to have been ~8000 ppm and animals and plants flourished. The Earth didn’t turn into a ball of fire.

I have no idea how atmospheric content was determined so far in the remote past.
 
The figure given in the article below, which explains the way the team reached its conclusion, is about 2000ppm

https://www.livescience.com/44330-ju...n-dioxide.html

From this article:
"We are now producing more CO2 than all volcanoes on Earth," van der Meer added. "We will affect climate in ways that are unprecedented and unnatural. The question is how much climate will change. We can now answer this for the past and apply [it] to the future by extrapolation."
 
Last edited:
Those who are concerned about adding CO2 to the atmosphere should ..................... stop exhaling.
 
In his post #4 Jean-Claude had presented a graph that shows the curve of global warming over the last century and where we see some heretofore inexplicable behaviour. Part of the puzzle seems to have been solved by the findings below: the slow down in global warming that seemed to occur at the end of the last century are simply due to the use of incomplete data. Since data further back in the last century are quite likely even more incomplete that explanation for the curves presented might well be the same.

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-added-...bal-didnt.html
 
Top