On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:03:14 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:50:25 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
What science do you base these comments on - mine is a university

Basic physics my friend. And googling will back me up.

research project that came to the conclusions above.

Care to post a link to it? I need a laugh.

You need a reality check.

That'll be a "no" then.

--
Spud

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:03:14 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:50:25 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
What science do you base these comments on - mine is a university

Basic physics my friend. And googling will back me up.

research project that came to the conclusions above.

Care to post a link to it? I need a laugh.

You need a reality check.

Just for fun I did the calcs for your methane suggestion:

methane it atmosphere = roughly 1.8ppm

A commercial a jet engine takes in roughly 1 ton of air per second (going by
online figures) which for a high bypass turbofan means 100kg of air gets into
the compressor per second.

For a 10 hour flight that'll be 0.1 * 3600 * 10 = 3600 tons of air in
which there'll be 3660000 * .0000018 = 6.6 tons of methane.

Assuming all that methane gets burned (it won't but hey) thats equivalent
to about 165 tons of CO2.

A 747 uses 150,000 litres of kerosene on a 10 hour flight which will create
about 400 tons of CO2 which will be in the atmosphere on average for the next
10K years.

Therefor I think to sum up one can say nice idea, but no cigar.

--
Spud

In message , at 15:11:56 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
What science do you base these comments on - mine is a university

Basic physics my friend. And googling will back me up.

research project that came to the conclusions above.

Care to post a link to it? I need a laugh.

You need a reality check.

That'll be a "no" then.

Not every truth has a handy link.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:34:50 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
Just for fun I did the calcs for your methane suggestion:

methane it atmosphere = roughly 1.8ppm

A commercial a jet engine takes in roughly 1 ton of air per second (going by
online figures) which for a high bypass turbofan means 100kg of air gets into
the compressor per second.

For a 10 hour flight that'll be 0.1 * 3600 * 10 = 3600 tons of air in
which there'll be 3660000 * .0000018 = 6.6 tons of methane.

Assuming all that methane gets burned (it won't but hey) thats equivalent
to about 165 tons of CO2.

A 747 uses 150,000 litres of kerosene on a 10 hour flight which will create
about 400 tons of CO2 which will be in the atmosphere on average for the next
10K years.

Therefor I think to sum up one can say nice idea, but no cigar.

You appear to have ignored the greater greenhouse effect of methane,
versus Co2.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:41:47 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:34:50 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
Just for fun I did the calcs for your methane suggestion:

methane it atmosphere = roughly 1.8ppm

A commercial a jet engine takes in roughly 1 ton of air per second (going by
online figures) which for a high bypass turbofan means 100kg of air gets into
the compressor per second.

For a 10 hour flight that'll be 0.1 * 3600 * 10 = 3600 tons of air in
which there'll be 3660000 * .0000018 = 6.6 tons of methane.

Assuming all that methane gets burned (it won't but hey) thats equivalent
to about 165 tons of CO2.

A 747 uses 150,000 litres of kerosene on a 10 hour flight which will create
about 400 tons of CO2 which will be in the atmosphere on average for the next
10K years.

Therefor I think to sum up one can say nice idea, but no cigar.

You appear to have ignored the greater greenhouse effect of methane,
versus Co2.

Which bit of 6.6 tons of methane is equivalent to 165 tons of CO2 did you
not understand?

And of course this is ignoring the other pollutants jets give out such as
NOx and soot which also contribute to the greenhouse effect.

--
Spud

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:39:02 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:11:56 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
What science do you base these comments on - mine is a university

Basic physics my friend. And googling will back me up.

research project that came to the conclusions above.

Care to post a link to it? I need a laugh.

You need a reality check.

That'll be a "no" then.

Not every truth has a handy link.

Most serious peer reviewed university research projects do however.

--
Spud

In message , at 10:34:49 on Wed, 5 Jun
2013, d remarked:
What science do you base these comments on - mine is a university

Basic physics my friend. And googling will back me up.

research project that came to the conclusions above.

Care to post a link to it? I need a laugh.

You need a reality check.

That'll be a "no" then.

Not every truth has a handy link.

Most serious peer reviewed university research projects do however.

They might have a link (are all academic journals online now?) but this
particular one certainly isn't handy. I did attend a one-hour public
lecture on the topic, by the researcher, at Cambridge University a
couple of years ago though.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:33:21 on Wed, 5 Jun
2013, d remarked:
Just for fun I did the calcs for your methane suggestion:

methane it atmosphere = roughly 1.8ppm

A commercial a jet engine takes in roughly 1 ton of air per second (going by
online figures) which for a high bypass turbofan means 100kg of air gets into
the compressor per second.

For a 10 hour flight that'll be 0.1 * 3600 * 10 = 3600 tons of air in
which there'll be 3660000 * .0000018 = 6.6 tons of methane.

Assuming all that methane gets burned (it won't but hey) thats equivalent
to about 165 tons of CO2.

A 747 uses 150,000 litres of kerosene on a 10 hour flight which will create
about 400 tons of CO2 which will be in the atmosphere on average for the next
10K years.

Therefor I think to sum up one can say nice idea, but no cigar.

You appear to have ignored the greater greenhouse effect of methane,
versus Co2.

Which bit of 6.6 tons of methane is equivalent to 165 tons of CO2 did you
not understand?

Doesn't a 747 have four engines?
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0000, d wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:00:03 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:51:54AM +0000, wrote:
and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.
And the reasoning behind these statements is what?
Look out the window right now. Can you see that smeary haze where there should
be blue sky?

No. I see a coupla contrails, and some very light cloud.

Apart from looking vile

No. That's not vile. This is vile http://poetry.rotten.com/meat-grinder-ii/.
I think you meant "a little bit unpleasant", although I disagree with
even that.

for all that ice from the vapour trails
you can see theres just as much CO2 released that you can't see.

A whole 2% of anthropogenic CO2 production. Even if we could magic it
all away, the power stations that release 15 times as much would still
be there, so I refuse to care about the 2%. I especially refuse to care
when that 2% is actually caused by something useful and is very hard to
get rid of without getting rid of the useful. By comparison, the 30%
vomited out by power stations is easy to get rid of. The technology
exists right now, and we know how to do it. It's just that NIMBYs and
tree-huggers don't like nukes. But replacing fossil fuel power stations
with nuclear ones is, I think, far easier to do than magicking away air
travel, and so on the rare occasions that I do something Environmental,
it's with that aim in mind.

Not to mention all the other pollutants being shoved into the stratosphere.

Meh. Again, fix the power stations if you give a ****.

Plus I'm currently working virtually right under the heathrow flight path and
its not much fun. Thank god I don't live here.

My grandparents lived right under the Heathrow flight path. I noticed
when I visited. I noticed for a few minutes, and then it was just
background noise, no worse than that from people walking past in the
street talking to each other, just the occasional rumble. I get more
noise in my flat from trains whizzing past a few hundred feet away, and
I assure you, it causes no hardship whatsoever.

I'm sure that it's really bad under the part of the flight path that is
really close to the ground - the last coupla kilometres or so - but
otherwise it's irrelevant. If it was relevant further out, then Kew
Gardens, which is directly under the flight path, would be a blighted
hell-hole. It isn't. Therefore you are either exaggerating, lieing,
or are one of the very few people in a very small area for whom it is
a real issue. Expanding Heathrow will make that last category bigger,
but the scale of the problem is nothing like that which the tree-huggers
say it is. There are certainly not millions of peoples' lives ruined
by the airport nor will there be. Not even hundreds of thousands.

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

It wouldn't hurt to think like a serial killer every so often.
Purely for purposes of prevention, of course.

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 12:21:12 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:

On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0000, d wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:00:03 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:51:54AM +0000, wrote:
and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.
And the reasoning behind these statements is what?
Look out the window right now. Can you see that smeary haze where there should
be blue sky?

No. I see a coupla contrails, and some very light cloud.

Apart from looking vile

No. That's not vile.

For the record, this is a wide-angle view (an 18mm equivalent in 35mm
terms) upstream from Southwark Bridge this morning:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/recline...5548/lightbox/
I think the contrails look quite pretty against the brilliant blue
sky.

This was the downstream view (the contrails are less visible as the
shot is into the sun):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/recline...ream/lightbox/
I think that shot's interesting as it includes several generations of
London's tallest office buildings: Tower 42 (completed in 1980),
Canary Wharf (completed in 1991) and the Shard (this year), as well as
the curiously shaped new Cheesegrater and Walkie-Talkie buildings
(likely to be completed in 2014).

In contrast to London's relatively clean air, this is a pic I took a
month ago of Beijing's tallest office building:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/recline...57633508953848

And this is what they have to do to try and keep the once-pristine
Bird's Nest stadium looking somewhat presentable:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/recline...57633508953848
http://www.flickr.com/photos/recline...3848/lightbox/