How about if people just fly 5 to 7% less often?
Or never.
२६ सप्टेंबर, २०२४
"The proposal would slash fuel burn by 5 to 7% and would reduce the 4% industry contribution to overall climate change, per the research, which is being presented to the United Nations."
From "Scientists want every flight to take up to an hour longer — they say slower speeds are better for the planet" (NY Post).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४६ टिप्पण्या:
Ban private jets. Zoom conference all ngo, scientist, government meetings that require air travel.
How about if everyone who believes in global warming . . . oops, I mean climate change - particularly those who say so in public - how about they take 5% fewer fights and mothball their private jets as well.
"How about if people just fly 5 to 7% less often? Or never."
How about nobody moves, ever? Better yet, how about nobody lives?
"Or never."
That is insane Left's ultimate goal.
I am already firmly planted in the never category.
How about all the Karens who propose an unnecessary solution to a nonexistent problem just STFU.
How about scientists go fly a kite? Or we slash scientists….
"How about if people just fly 5 to 7% less often? Or never."
Change "people" to "celebrities" and ad "private jets" after "fly" and you've got a deal.
Why in this era does the UN need to have a physical presence? What if the UN led by example and stopped flying.
HA! I know. Absurd.
>How about if people just fly 5 to 7% less often?<
Let's not fool around. How about if people not travel by anything but Flintstone-mobiles?
"Scientists want".... Top five discredited titles since COVID. 1) Scientists 2) Experts 3) Professors 4) Teachers 5) Doctors
When an actor "Bill Nye the Science Guy" became the #1 spokesman for your profession simply by wearing a bow tie, your credibility is cooked.
Bill Gates now speaks for the entire medical profession.
How about we all live at high altitude in the mountains?
Will the left obey?
If they reinstate hiring only hot women with weight limits as stewardesses, I'll go along with the longer flights. Can we get meals served again? Smoking section???
Better than nothing is a high standard.
If there are no solutions, only trade offs, what are the trade offs implicated by this proposal?
According to the website How Stuff Works, a 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile. A 747 can carry as many as 568 people. A 747 can transport 568 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning less than 0.01 gallons per person per mile (5/568). The plane is getting more than 100 miles per gallon per person, and at 550 mph. Newer models of commercial jets are more efficient.
The purported fuel savings of slower flight are less than the actual fuel savings of more efficient engines. Commercial aviation is not profligate in fuel use.
"or never". That's the goal, but the new rules won't apply to the elites.
let's impose a CO2 tax on Private Jets.. Say, a MILLION dollars per pound of CO2
IF you are a "scientist", that "believes" in "climate change"..
WHY are you flying around the world to conferences?
this IS the 21st century
Best suggestion.
they forgot to add mad to the headline, how does slowing down the flight save fuel
"Second thing we do, let's kill all the scientists."
(Side note to NSA: This is clever satire paraphrasing Shakespeare, and nothing else)
Planned Eugenics (oops! i mean, Planned Parenthood) are Already working on that.
slowing down by 18% means 18% more planes to move the same pax. with more airway congestion and burned fuel. Looks like a net carbon increase to me unless you limit tickets to the "good" people and illegals
every kooky crew in 60s action thrillers like man from uncle, matt helm, derek flint
Just ban private jets, especially for politicians.
Slash these climate wacko's by 5-7%. For a start.
Milei really gave it to them in his speech yesterday. Basically called them a bunch of hypocrite Karens whose time is passed. You can defund the worst parts. Trump did. But Joe just restored every dollar plus more. How about zero foreign aid? The effect would be to cut air travel internationally about 50%.
Reynolds just published a paper on criminalizing bad scientific publications. If that data fraud was exposed it would end the climate hysteria tomorrow. The earth is gradually cooling, not warming. It's science. But with REAL data!
Regardless of what you believe, there is a complete disconnect on the outcome of such a plan. A little decision tree analysis is needed to see the real results. It will save fuel, but add far more cost for the airline and/or reduce air travel.
Fine, reduce air travel you say! Then people will switch to another mode of transportation that is less efficient than air travel.
Fine, reduce all travel you say! Then government control over how you spend your personal time will impact the tourism trade and economies of the world as a result.
The point is you can't propose one thing and expect nothing else to change. It's like, let's raise the tax rate and then multiply last years incomes by the new rate and claim that is how much more the government will get. It doesn't work that way.
In the immortal words of Elon Musk they can GFY. With the latest data from the Washington post, climate change is officially a hoax.
Here’s an idea, leave me the F alone. Quit trying to control my every move and make my every convenience more expensive and less effective. In other words GFY
Boy the scientists, experts, democrats really miss covid.
Somehow I'm thinking that the savings from a 5-7% reduction in fuel consumption would have already been factored in by the airlines, and they've concluded that their already-tiny margins would be adversely affected. Mr. Market has a wonderful way of enforcing efficiency, and policy makers that interfere with Mr. Market have a terrible habit of destroying efficiency and driving up costs to everybody else. I don't think we should ban private jets, but I do think they should be heavily taxed when they are not flown at full capacity.
Best comment so far. 99% of their solutions to climate change actually make it worse. (coal plants in China to build solar panels, the vast energy requirements to mine rare metals and copper, etc, etc, etc)
Plane maintenance is based on flight time hours.
Have they calculated the increased carbon footprint of that?
Correct. The tide is turning. Knox County, NE rejected a big solar development. Cass County, NE probably will too. At the Cass County Planning Commission meeting this Monday, a union thug and Dem Party official said, "I hear Begley has been paid by Iran."
Let me suggest that “Climate Scientist” is an oxymoron.
"Scientists" LOL I guess they have not figured out yet that when many of see the word science or scientists we now assume BS and political agenda incoming.
This is a bunch of Chicken Little crap. No matter how many times the warming expectations created by computer models - statistics substituting for science - are not met they just keep at it. Follow the politics and the money. Another Democrat scam to feed their grifters.
Of course their profit margins will be crushed. Levi below points out that maintenance is based on flight hours. But the finance costs are based primarily on how many hours a day that they can keep the planes in the air, and how well they can keep them full. My guess, from my experience this year is that most planes, and esp for SWA, are running mostly full. This translates into fewer flights a day, making the financing of the planes more problematic. Lose/lose. And lose again because longer duration flights mean more uncomfortable, and thus unpleasant. Which means fewer revenue paying passengers.
Flight to Davos by the eco-elite will take two hour less.
"Scientists want every flight to take up to an hour longer..."
NYPost is far superior to NYP but that paper still falls short in the accuracy department. Quaestor's blue pencil strikes through "Scientists" and inserts "Priests".
Looks like the simple folk must still fix Google's mistakes.
Fixed?
Yes.
Please reduce the number of passengers AND fly slower so flights are longer and cost more!
If all, and I mean ALL the people who believe climate change is an existential threat acted like it was by abandoning all forms of transportation that relay on fossil fuels, the problem would be solved according to the experts. a 507% improvement? That is thinking too small! I know that 50% of the country believes in the climate change fairy, so we can have a 50% decrease in travel CO2.
Think BIG people!
If you don't exclusively ride, walk or shutter at home I don't want to hear from you.
Skydragon worshipers
Airplanes should not exceed 55 mph.
Airlines already did this long ago on non-competitive routes, e.g. TWA from Chicago to Albuquerque. The tipoff was flying with the nose high in the air for the whole flight. They flew about 2/3 normal speed. It saved fuel and after all who divides the distance by the time to discover that they're doing it.
How much would emissions be reduced if the UN and WEF became virtual only events?
Dragsters go through 10 gallons of fuel in a quarter-mile run. I didn't realize how efficient those planes were.
Travel by clipper followed by walking on land.
These kinds of problems will be solved by moving forward, not back.
So many Progressive positions are not actually progress at all.
5 to 7% is an observable statistic. 4% is an article of faith in cause and attribution.
They should fly only west against the rotation of the Earth. Migrants should only be transported by human-drawn handcart to reduce the carbon footprint of immigration reform.
They should fly at higher altitude, and avoid atmospheric changes, to reduce their drag coefficient, then release their passengers by parachute.
If the US really was serious about CAGW, we'd bomb the coal-fired power plants in China and India. That comment got me banned from AMZN book reviews and got all my reviews deleted.
The people that fly their private jets once a week, want the people who fly once a year for a 2 week vacation, to cease their wasteful flying in order to reduce emissions by 4% in order to save the climate.
What if five climate cultists, starting with John Kerry, ceased flying their private planes? Let's try that first and see if it would help.
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
"Dragsters go through 10 gallons of fuel in a quarter-mile run. I didn't realize how efficient those planes were."
Part of it is the economies of scale, or at least a corollary.
It takes less than a tablespoon of diesel fuel to ship a head of lettuce from California to the NYC area. That's because it's sharing space on that mile or two long frieght train with a zillion other things; so the per share consumption is far less. Same principle with the people and cargo sharing a 747.
I once annoyed a liberal by pointing out that her parents in northern Jersey were consuming more fuel by buying at a (not so) local farmer's market than it took to ship that produce from CA or FL to their supermarket a few blocks down.
They had other more compelling reasons for buying fresh from a (semi) local farmer's market. But fuel transportation costs was not one of them.
Ann thinks outside the box. It would also reduce the footprint of invasive tourism, activism, etc.
There is still no online substitute for accidentally running into a colleague in the Hallway at a conference and having good work spring from it.
I recently had a problem with my refrigerator stopped working. Happily it was just a dirty filter, don't forget to clean them every 6 months or so.
Once we got it working again I wanted to monitor the freezer temperature just to make sure it was stable. The freezer is about 18" wide, 24" deep, 48" high.
So I took my trusty $4.95 digital thermometer and put it on the top shelf. I got about 1 degree. I wanted to see how uniform the temperature was so I tried temp in different locations.
My little bitty freezer has temperatures that vary by up to 3 degrees depending on where I put the thermometer. So what is the average temperature? "Cold enough" I would say but I would not be so presumptuous as to try to put any number on it.
And scientists want to tell me they can measure the average temperature of the world? To within hundredths of a degree?
I have 2 science degrees and these folks make me ashamed to call myself a scientist.
John Henry
Cool. So my cousin and nephews in construction will be able to drive their F250s and Ram 3500s 5 - 7% more.
We should perform an anthropogenic reduction of artificial intelligence which is an energy leach with novel green benefits.
My "study" assumes that my thermometer is accurate. It is digital, so probably reasonably accurate to within a degree or two. OTOH, it was made in China and sold for $4.95 so if it turned out to be +/-3or4 degrees it would not surprise me. I've never calibrated it.
So not terribly accurate, I assume. But it reads out in hundredths of a degree. So highly precise.
So the middle shelf of my freezer is 2.36 degrees +/- 2 to 4 degrees.
Too few people know the difference between precision and accuracy.
Think of that every time someone tells you they can measure the earth's temperature to hundredths or even thousandths of a degree.
John Henry
747's are old hat. Taking Ampersand's stats, and applying them to four-passenger ICE cars traveling from NY to LAX with those 568 people, with a fuel consumption of 20 miles/per gallon of gasoline, not the cheaper kerosene planes use. 568/4 = 142 cars. ChatGPT says each car would need 140 gallons to make the trip. 140 x 142 = 19,880 gallons total. ChatGPT says this, for flying 568 pople from NY to LAX:
"The Boeing 757 would need approximately 4,480 gallons of fuel to fly 2,800 miles.
Got that? FAR Less fuel, cheaper fuel to bootl. I'm sure someone will nickel and dime me over kerosene's CO2 emissions vs. Gas, but still.....no contest. MUCH less CO2 generated by the plane. (not to mention all the money and energy spent on meals, motels, etc. for those cars on their 5-day trip.
Thing is, I suspect 90% of Americans can not do the basic math to figure this out for themselves. And, of course, none of these stats apply to private jets with far fewer celebrity passengers.
preferably from inside Sarco?
They really want us to all ride trains. We should ask the 12mm Poles, Jews and others how train travel worked out for them back in the day.
NYC to Los Angeles is 6 hours by air. 63 hours by train. Does anyone account for all that wasted time spent sitting on the train? Or do they think that the value of people's time is $0?
And even the cost of an extra hour flying to LA has a cost in lost time.
Wear and tear on an airliner will be about the same at 600 as 500mph (I would think. Anyone know?) so they are asking for an extra hour of wear and tear on the plane and extra maintenance costs, shorter life and so on.
Do they account for those costs?
John Henry
We should stop tilting at wind raptors and other low-energy density converters that endanger avian flyers and spread a Green blight over green, blue, and gray fields. People should only be active when the sun is shining at oblique angles. We should join the Morlocks to live in subterranean structures to reduce our carbon footprint and facilitate carbon sequestration at the end of life.
Abort.
Drill seargeant
A "net carbon increase"? I'm pretty sure you know better. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere is even closer to zero (parts per trillion) than the amount of carbon dioxide (parts per million or 0.04 parts per hundred A/K/A %).
And, the carbon being a solid, it settles out by gravity in about 2 weeks.
If you do not know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide, you are posting misinformation.
If you do know the difference, you are posting dis-information. It is dishonest at best.
My question would by why do you do this?
John Henry
Huh? You have hard evidence of this? My sister is an FA, and she says flying nose high means she can't push those damn carts up and down the aisles. Besides, the engines could be throttled back to reduce speed, w/o raising the nose to increase wind resistance and drag. How would that save gas?
2/3 "normal speed": you mean they routinely arrived well after their schedule? So...what about people making connections?
And what is a "non-competitive" route? One EVERYONE wants to fly, or one NO ONE wants to fly? If no one wants to fly it because it's unprofitable, why fly it?
Finally....TW fucking A? Thye've been out of business for 23 years!!!!
Face it: rhh: you're full os shit.
Yes, me too. I traveled more during Covid, and cheaper, than I ever have in my life. And I had extra space everywhere! It was great. During Covid I bought gas for .92 cents, and I bought flights < 100 and on those flights most of the plane was empty so I had my entire section to myself. Just wonderful. Also, the stock market was very low so there were a lot of deals there. The cycle of inflation/deflation of assets is great for those who know ahead of time when the highs and lows will hit.
I break here to apologize for my Bruce Haydenism above.
If you believe this set of "experts", then believe another group of "experts" and wear a mask all the time and believe your self safe. Problem solved.
See how easy this is? even a caveman can do it.
Ms. Althouse ought to be reminded that she would be reduced to eating food stored in her root cellar over the winter if all planes stopped flying. Rutabagas! Yum!!! Mealy apples!!! mmm mmm.
Unless I am wrong (and I am never wrong), CCP uses 4 TRILLION tons of coal per year which is more than every other country combined. As noted above, they require the cheap energy to make electric cars, batteries, and solar panels to export.
Rocco,
True enough about the fuel cost for the lettuce by train. But the average freight train in the US travels 20-25 miles per hour. Figure a 3,000 CA-FL journey takes the lettuce 120-150 hours (5-6 days) and it is a rough ride.
What is the wastage shipping lettuce by train? Spoilage plus damage.
Fuel isn't the only cost. Probably not even the major cost, though it might be the major variable cost. Think of the capital cost required to get that train across the country.
Flying something perishible might be cheaper than by train. Though perhaps not lettuce given it's low value.
John Henry
John Henry
If you cannot accurately measure freezer degrees, how can you be sure of how many degrees of science you have? Furthermore, if you put pork in the freezer, how many degrees of Bacon do you need to keep it fresh? I guess the best measure of all of this is grant money. If you are not getting pork straight from the barrel, what good is your science?
The best measure of a scientist is not what he knows, but who he knows, and how much he gets paid. Sorry about giving you the third degree here, but it was fun, to some degree, to write this post. Thank you for yours.
Peer reviewed papers published in reputable journals are supposedly "The Gold Standard!" and must not be criticized. They CANNOT be wrong, they are even more infallible than the Pope etc.
But listening to Scott Adams last night, he said that in 2023 39,000 peer reviewed reputable journal studies had been retracted, in 2023.
Brave search AI summary has this:
Papers Retracted in Number
The number of research papers retracted has reached an alarming 39,000, a significant increase from previous years. This surge is attributed to various factors, including manipulation of the peer-review and publication processes.
And then there is the evergreen story of Jon Hendrik Schon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal
John Henry
Obvious you are not doing enough for Iran, David. If you were, they would finance your Frankenstein movie.
John Henry
Scientific theories are an exercise in observation and reproduction. Scientific truths are an indulgence measured in degrees of freedom and green-backs.
Dave, I actually can accurately measure freezer temp, within the limits of my thermometer. But I can only measure it in one location and one point in time.
I can't precisely (there's that word again) measure the average temperature.
Other than that quibble, your comment made me smile. Damn well said.
John Henry
Which means fewer people flying. Which means more control over them by the bureaucrats. Pus the added advantage of (very) slightly increasing te attractiveness of rai transportation. Win/Win!
There used to be a few, Like Judith Curry, but they went away.
Long flights means more thrombosis. Have they included the medical costs (hospitals are big contributors to greenhouse gases), and the economic damage from missed work and increased mortality? Probably not.
How about moving the UN to Zimbabwe ? Then they would all be about the same IQ.
It’s of course worse than that. Most of the globe doesn’t have temperature recording stations anywhere close. Plus, they get shut down, on occasion. So, there is an insane amount of interpolations going on. And the govt is anlways revising their numbers, inevitably to make the past look coder, annd the present look warmer. After that, they take the high and low each day, average them, and average for the year. They could at least integrate them, esp with near continuous readings, but piece-wise integration of hourly measures would go a long way. It’s frankly a statistical joke.
I love rutabagas and my childhood home had a root cellar built by my dad.
Increased mortality means a reduction in Greehouse Gasses. Whatever carbon people emit after their deaths is buried. Or possibly recaptured, with cremation.
At Heathrow they call this "tourist class syndrome."
We’ll, if it’s not Flight, it’s Fight.
MadisonMan, of course there are online substitutes for running into a colleague at conferences. Think of this very comment section, and how many people were praising it a day or two ago for all the serendipitous intellectual intersections it generates.
That’s my biggest argument with the people who say the internet destroys community, keeps people alone, etc: the whole thing started out (as DARPAnet) as a way for far-flung scientists to collanborate, and in its postmodern version, it is a way for people to interact who would never otherwise know about each other. Such as you and me.
The internet builds more communities than it destroys. That’s why the powers that be (eg the London mayor on Morning Joe today) are so afraid of it.
JSM
first up, anytime they say sustainability in the title, run as far away as you can
https://whittle.eng.cam.ac.uk/new-whittle-laboratory/#:~:text=The%20new%20Whittle%20Laboratory%20in%20Cambridge%20has%20been%20designed%20as
this is the outfit behind it,
Never?
I can see reducing travel wherever possible, but you can't eliminate it. Air travel is more fuel efficient than cars or busses. The only form of travel that is more efficient than air travel is rail....but passenger rail travel is not safe in the big cities. It's a really good way to get robbed or stabbed.
https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10311
Yup. The sooner most of the NGO/ government parasite class loses their privileges, the sooner we can get global economic renewal.
Why not odd and even travel days by passport number? Yes, it will break up families, but I've been told the purpose of travel is to meet new people.
How about we accept that the "climate change" is something we don't need to do anything about right now. Even if warming is occurring, we can adjust. That's what Bjorn Lomborg says.
What a load of bollocks.
I scanned the "report" which is so littered with pronunciamentos that it is difficult to follow their reasoning. But I will try my best.
It is true that airliners will burn less fuel per hour by going slower. There is a relationship between lift and total drag (parasitic plus induced — the drag that is caused by generating lift). There is an airspeed at which the ratio between lift and drag is highest, called L/D max — that yields the lowest fuel burn per unit time.
There are two very good reasons not to do this. First, and most important, going slower than L/D max requires more thrust, and the rate of that thrust increase increases the slower the airspeed gets. This is called getting on the backside of the power curve.
At cruise altitude, airliners have very little excess thrust. Get on the backside of that curve, sometimes the only way to speed up is to go down. In cruise flight, being on the backside of the curve is a very bad place to be.
The other good reason — and I can't believe they made this mistake, but the rest of the report isn't encouraging in this regard — they have confused time with distance.
L/D max yields the lowest fuel burn per unit time. However, a line drawn from the origin of the L/D graph tangent to the curve results in the lowest fuel burn per mile airspeed (typically 20 knots or so faster than L/D max), meaning arriving at the destination with more fuel than going at L/D max.
Flying at L/D max, unless trying for max *endurance* burns more fuel getting to the destination than flying max *range* airspeed.
Never mind that doing so at altitude is dangerously stupid.
How about if people just fly 5 to 7% less often?
Or never.
Don't give them any ideas!
Travel with the wife on odd numbered days and the girlfriend on even numbered days.
This proposal purports to address what makes sense in addressing the climate impacts of burning fossil fuels, but it never does so in any serious manner. The question is basically one of economics -- whether the marginal costs of the proposed action are more than offset by the marginal gains (however costs and gains are measured for this purpose). The costs would presumably be measured in lost time and productivity resulting in greater inefficiency overall from the longer flight. The gains would be presumably be measured in the reduction in the rate of increase in the use of fossil fuels overall (assuming that externalities from adoption of the policy would not result in a net increase (however small) in the rate at which fossil fuels are used). Making people spend more time in getting from A to B will inevitably result in some impact on behaviour and don't assume that the impact will be 'skip the trip and do it online.'
If anyone bothered to do a competent analysis, it strikes me as unlikely that this policy, if adopted, would make any sense in terms of costs/benefits.
Hmmm. Another topic boycotted by our resident Leftists.
Madison Man, if the world really is going to burn, you would happily forgo such fortuitous face-to-face meetings.
Excuse me, but there is ZERO Global Warming caused by CO2. Never has been and never will be. And real scientists know that.
Next subject.
its a stupid premise with a dangerous follow through
It's funny how proponents of this are doing their accounting:
Counting: Some unmeasurable change in the climate, which they assume, without evidence, will be beneficial.
The fuel savings is counted.
Not counted, but easily countable: The lost utility of flying airplanes slower means that an expensive asset is doing less work than it can. The airline has to pay the same crew for an extra hour of work. The passengers all lose an hour that they could be doing something else.
Skipper said: I can't believe they made this mistake, but the rest of the report isn't encouraging in this regard — they have confused time with distance.
They were told that math and logic were optional because Climate Change is an existential crisis.
Of course, it could be that math and logic perpetuate White Supremacy, so they were trying to be more sensitive.
So no longer is anyone who disagrees with a Democrat supporting Russia ( that is reserved for people not supporting another 100 billion to Ukraine). They now are supporting Iran.
We have reached an odd point. Considering that with the current climate hysteria, if the Titanic sank today climate change would be blamed. The media would howl 24/7 about man-made climate degradation causing abnormally high calving of icebergs and surface water temperatures that reduce the survivability times in frigid Atlantic waters from 32 minutes to 31 and a half minutes. Any discussion of human error or lack of lifeboats would be swamped by 24 hour CNN chyrons of quotations from environmental scientists nobody knows the names of.
Ludicrous as it sounds, search your feelings, you know it's true.
"I know that 50% of the country believes in the climate change fairy, so we can have a 50% decrease in travel CO2."
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Some time ago on another message board on the intertubes, the resident progressive idiot (BIRM) was arguing that people should do "X" (forget the exact details at this point) to save the planet. I asked him if he was already doing "X" himself, he said no. I asked him, if it would help save the planet, why not? He said because lots of people still would not be doing "X", and it wouldn't be fair to him to do it unless everybody else was forced to, too.
Getting "the right answer" is definitely white supremacy.
Getting "the right answer" is definitely white supremacy.
"The passengers all lose an hour that they could be doing something else." In 2023 there were about 820 million domestic passengers. That's a lot of hours for a speculative and unmeasurable result.
They didn't "go away," they were driven out.
The key stat is not fuel consumption per flight, but fuel consumption per passenger. Increased flight times means you need more flights to carry the same number of passengers, which means you need more fuel. So the flights might be using less fuel (probably not, see Hey Skipper's comment above), but you'll have more aircraft in the sky, burning at least as much fuel.
Now here is a fantasy - maybe with AI the pace of everything will slow down and we all could travel by train again.
Doc, we should at least boot them out of NYC. And drop U.S. membership and financial support. Question to everyone, is there anything the UN has ever solved?
They want the vast majority of people in 15-mminute cities in high-rise apartments with no private autos or such.
From NOAA/climate.gov:
"According to the 2017 U.S. Climate Science Special Report, if yearly emissions continue to increase rapidly, as they have since 2000, models project that by the end of this century, global temperature will be at least 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 1901-1960 average, and possibly as much as 10.2 degrees warmer."
Since virtually every climate prediction shows more of an increase than has actually occurred, I will be generous in allowing for 5 degrees based on the "at least 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer" prediction above. In that case, eliminating every single bit aviation's 4% contribution to "climate change" would result in a two tenths of a degree decrease in the world's temperature.
75 years from now. And since the proposal isn't to entirely eliminate air travel, the temperature decrease would actually be less than 0.2°.
Rhetorical question: Can the temperature of the planet be confidently measured with that sort of precision?
Tim, that's what I meant.
Danno, that UN building would make a nice condo complex. If they could get the smell out.
the ones who have the private jets scream the loudest. They also manage to live on coastal properties.
Weird.
Of course, the "Heat Island" problem has been around for decades.
No and the magnitude of temp rise is bullshit. Maybe 0.5 degree in a century. The "Little Ice Age" ended less than 100 years ago.
Dano, absolutely correct. I hope trump starts getting the US out of the UN on January 22 2025. As for reducing airliner speed, every commenter on this thread so far is way ahead on the IQ curve than the proponents. Plenty of technical reasons offered but anyone with half an ounce of grey matter has noticed the actual flight times are almost always longer than the purported speed the plane can cruise at divided by the milage. In other words, the airlines already are flying the most fuel efficient speed when they can. The average person just relying on common sense knows that. Flying even slower would require a lower altitude and thus burn more fuel due to air resistance.
We need more co2 not less.
Electric Zeppelins! Sequester the MCACs! BLM do not. Climate change is an existential threat! Hotdogs and cats on a global warming tin roof for all.
Nope. You can't even measure the temperature of a room with a .2 degree precision. (And where would you measure? Ceiling? Floor? Middle?)
And this doesn't take into account China or India, which are happily using more and more fossil fuel every year...
I'm at the point where I do a decided sniff of the contents whenever I see a headline like that.
I downloaded the paper and I'm going to read it. I'm pretty sure it's another high-concept paper from people thinking outside the box - outside the box of people who know about jet fuel, airplanes and how they work together. I suspect this because of their first point about how we need to fly to not make contrails. We know how to do that. Every country with an air force with airplanes that could make contrails know how to avoid the "Shoot Here" signals. The are a ton of government meteorologists that provide that data and how to get it is pretty well known. The airlines don't do this because it would cost more money in increased INCREASED fuel burn.
They all keep thinking there is some magic process that will help produce SAF at an affordable price. It's always going to cost a lot more to make kerosene from scratch than for distilling it from crude oil. They're hoping for some miracle to occur because they don't want to face the wrath of the public if they mandate significant percentages of SAF and the cost of flying skyrockets. Fuel is, by far, the biggest cost item in the life or an airliner.
"And where would you measure? Ceiling? Floor? Middle?"
My guess? If it's the people going nuts over "climate change", it would be wherever they think they'll get the result they're looking for.
John Henry,
I definitely agree with your points about capital costs and spoilage.
Decades ago, I worked for a family produce company, so my info may be a bit out of date. But I remember lettuce being cheap enough that spoilage costs were worth the risk versus the increased costs of flying in. On the other hand, I remember citrus being flown into Cincinnati from Florida(?) during the winter months.
A lot of fruit is picked early. If shipping follows schedule, it should continue to ripen and arrive on the supermarket shelves at what would have been the ideal time to pick off the branch and eat. Even a day or two makes a difference.
I'm surprised that nobody has pointed out that we could significantly cut fuel consumption if we would just stop flying and busing illegal aliens to the interior United States in large numbers.
The whole premise of CO2 based uncontrolled global warming is we need to act immediately or all hell with break loose. If we were to evaluate the possible results against the act immediately vs status quo approaches, it is interesting to see the results.
There are three things that could happen in the future - it gets significantly warmer, it stay relatively the same (i.e, less that the predictions of the act immediately alarmists), or it gets significantly colder. Combining these with Act Immediately and Status Quo. We have six possible results.
1 - Act Immediately - Gets Warmer - This means the Act Immediately option was wrong, it did not stop Global Warming and may have even increased the warming. There is probably something else that drives warming.
2 - Stats Quo - Gets Warmer - The Act Immediately crowd claims vindication. The possibility that something else drives warming still exists.
3 - Act Immediately - Stays the same - The Act Immediately crowd again claims vindication. The possibility that something else drives climate still exists. But the Act Immediately crowd needs this to stay in power.
4 - Status quo - Stays the same. The need to Act Immediately because of global warming is at least questionable or most likely disproven. The possibility that something else drives climate comes to the fore front.
5 - Act Immediately, Gets colder. The Act Immediately crowd may have over did their response and their model of global warming is at least questionable or most likely disproven. The possibility that something else drives climate comes to the fore front.
6 - Status Quo, Get Colder. The need to Act Immediately because of global warming is disproven. The possibility that something else drives climate comes to the fore front.
As can be seen the Act Immediately crowd needs to have 3 to claim victory, or at least 2 to stay viable. The Status Quo crowd is correct with 1, 4, 5, and 6. The problem is how to decide which course to take now. Can we wait twenty years to find out which is right?
Well, ironically, it seems we have been on path 4 for at least 20 years. It was at least that long ago that we were told to Act Immediately or the ice caps would melt, snow would be a thing of the past, nations living on atolls would drown and all sorts of other catastrophes. None of it came true - we have larger than normal ice caps, it still snows, the islands are still there.
Since the "ruling class" will obvious not give up their perks, this seems to be more an attempt to create a de-facto privileged elite than an attempt to save the planet.
A large chunk of a trip's jet fuel goes into getting them to cruising speed and altitude. Short hops can't be as efficient as long ones, one reason Europe still has so many nice passenger trains.
I thought flight at higher altitudes, which increases efficiency due to thinner air, requires higher speeds, so at some point, lowering speed becomes counter-productive because you can't maintain high altitude.
Why aren't the Climate weenies fighting space travel and cremation and recommending nuclear power? Because it's all about power and grift.
As Dick Cheney's intellectual heir, I propose we bomb rutabaga fields and the root cellars they are secretly stored in!
The 55 MPH limit on interstates was originally sold as a gas saving measure.
If the world were to 'Act Immediately', and the result was a cooler global temperature, then their conclusion would be supported as a cause and effect result, and they would claim a victory of their climate model, as 'proven'. Not so? I don't understand your hypothesis with this outcome.
As a sanity check, if this actually worked, why isn't an airline saving fuel and money by inconveniencing their passengers with longer flights? That's practically the Southwest business model.
Send Congress home. All legislative work and voting must be remote. Government bureaucrats may not engage in professional travel.
Send academicians home. Teach them to use telephones to conduct the business they purportedly do at conferences. Scientists amd doctors may be an exception, but I've worked enough medical conferences to know exactly how they spend their time.
Send every public employee home. No more team-building conferences in cushy resorts, cultural exchanges, business boosterism that will ultimately be done by the accountants anyway.
Send NGOs home. But don't even let them have zoom conferences. Life will improve sunstantially.
Send the EU home. Ditto. The UN too.
Private citizens and businesspeople can fly. On their own dime, of course.
Some time ago I read a blog post where the author surmised that the airlines had a "Eureka" moment when Boeing was trying to sell the "Sonic Cruiser" concept.
They prospect of a not-quite supersonic speed didn't seem to make economic sense when they did analysis of potential increased-sales (because of a shorter flight time) vs increased cost (fuel, primarily). However, having created the scenario predictions, they deduced that there was plenty of room to reduce costs by reducing speed without significantly reducing demand.
Hence flights are already more than 15% slower on most routes than they were not too long ago.
How about if "scientists" just FOAD?
dingding! Winner-winner, chicken dinner!
Natural gas is the cleanest "fossil fuel" and has significantly LOWERED the rate of C02 emissions in the US, so, of course, the environmental activist organizations want it curtailed. These same organizations are stridently opposed to Nuclear power. Yet, ironically, are silent about the destruction of predator birds from blade strikes at the proximity of winds farms, and the toxicity of minerals used in EV and storage batteries.
Can we really "fight" climate change? Can we stop Hurricanes or Tornadoes? Do we have the power to stop tidal changes or wind currents? Can we lower solar irradiation?
When I buy my first private jet, I'm going to hit top speed at least once.
Compression stockings for everyone, surely DVT/blood clots will go up?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा