Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

356
Banjo Lovers Online


Discussion Forum

Want to hide these Google ads? Join the Players Union!

 All Forums
 Other Topics
 Off-Topic (Not Banjo Related)
 ARCHIVED TOPIC: Earthly modifications..


Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link: http://www.banjohangout.org/archive/360547

Rossanne - Posted - 01/23/2020:  01:11:54


..Wondering which percentage aviation contributes toward airborne carbon monoxide distribution.
How can a percentage be figured out?
How many planes are up there all the time?
Gushing out choking spent fuel..
Electric planes..omg!

heavy5 - Posted - 01/23/2020:  04:49:15


phys.org/news/2018-08-effect-g...ment.html
4.9 %

banjo bill-e - Posted - 01/23/2020:  07:53:34


Well it must be zero since celebrities fly private jets to climate conferences where they lecture all of us about our excessive emissions. I mean, otherwise they would all be hypocrites.

Richard Hauser - Posted - 01/23/2020:  08:37:17


I don't thing the public determines the available modes of public transportation. Generally speaking, I get the impressions -

1. Railroads do not want to provide public transportation. Freight is more lucrative. My father was a railroad engineer and often remarked that the now defunct "New York Central" rail line was discouraging passenger traffic. And this was in the mid 1950's. Everybody in the country doesn't live in large cities.
BTW, the NYC guessed wrong and went "Kaput". A person shouldn't have to ride an airplane to travel a couple of hundred of miles.

More research and development should be done to create more durable and maintenance free railroad "lines". An old railroad firerman once remarked "You can't run a 100 mph train on a 60 mile an hour railroad bed".

2. Many smaller communities are in need of public transportation. Outside of larger communities, no regular public transportation available. You can fly into a regional airport, but cannot travel a shorter distance to a smaller community. Years back, there was more bus transportation available. When I lived in Japan, I did not own a vehicle. I could go anywhere I wanted using public transportation - train, trolley, bus, etc..

3. Alternate sources of energy and not adequately encouraged. When visiting my daughter in north Texas, I was surprised to see a large field full of windmills. I live on the gulf coast and the only commonly used source of solar energy seems to be provided for lighting small advertisements and lawn ornaments.

4. The public is not made aware of the amount of fossilized fuel required to manufacture, transport, and market "environmentally friendly" products.

rinemb - Posted - 01/23/2020:  08:42:21


quote:

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Well it must be zero since celebrities fly private jets to climate conferences where they lecture all of us about our excessive emissions. I mean, otherwise they would all be hypocrites.






Touche'!

Cornflake - Posted - 01/23/2020:  10:51:43


I recently read an article comparing auto emissions to that of commercial planes. As I recall for shorter distances, say less than 600 miles, autos are less polluting. For longer distances the advantage goes to the planes.

This discussion also reminds me of the times I've had a window seat in an airliner. At 30,000 feet I realize that I could barely get enough air to survive at the elevation outside, and that the thickness of our earth's skin of atmosphere is not even the distance to the next town in our county.

banjonz - Posted - 01/23/2020:  11:04:51


youtube.com/watch?v=hDKSkBrI-TM



This link from Professor Ian Clark may hsed some light.

chuckv97 - Posted - 01/23/2020:  11:13:20


quote:

Originally posted by rinemb

quote:

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Well it must be zero since celebrities fly private jets to climate conferences where they lecture all of us about our excessive emissions. I mean, otherwise they would all be hypocrites.






Touche'!






Can a smoker not warn about the hazards of cigarettes?

figmo59 - Posted - 01/23/2020:  12:41:12


I been ..Modifyin..Mutha Earth...
Most of me life....

Face lifts mostly...

I gots'ah ...P.H.D.
In Rockolagy...

That's...
Piled..High.n...DEEP....... ;0)

DC5 - Posted - 01/23/2020:  12:51:33


Space is only 62 miles straight up.

Rossanne - Posted - 01/24/2020:  00:52:36


Cornflake) ..gave me the notion that air traffic is about 90 years old and hot fumes emitted is much closer to the Ozone spraying out all that time like crop dusting.
Now vehicle traffic obviously ground based, as well this heavy filth has much longer to rise to have effect.
So then bad smoke has further to rise? To contaminate the Ozone high above, maybe car smoke is a little bit heavier and stays on the ground, rain can be helpful it swishes smokey grim and particles down drains.

Yours Sincerely
Roxsanne: Senior head of
scientific snooping. (smiley)

Rossanne - Posted - 01/24/2020:  00:56:23


quote: awesome twisty comment chuck..

Originally posted by chuckv97

quote:

Originally posted by rinemb

quote:

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Well it must be zero since celebrities fly private jets to climate conferences where they lecture all of us about our excessive emissions. I mean, otherwise they would all be hypocrites.






Touche'!






Can a smoker not warn about the hazards of cigarettes?






 

tmercks - Posted - 01/24/2020:  11:49:37


I must be out of the loop. I thought cow farts were the major problem, especially since all the restaurants are trying to turn us all into fake meat grass grazers.

Rossanne - Posted - 01/25/2020:  02:32:24


quote:..are you referring to Quorn ? A meat substitute anyone tried this? ..In Canada..

Originally posted by tmercks

I must be out of the loop. I thought cow farts were the major problem, especially since all the restaurants are trying to turn us all into fake meat grass grazers.






 

steve davis - Posted - 01/25/2020:  10:30:42


Electrics are pulling the plug on the oil business.
I firmly believe the momentum is there and batteries continue to get more efficient.

Paul R - Posted - 01/26/2020:  16:20:30


Fossil fuel industry CEOs flying private jets to campaign for weakening enviro regs may not be hypocrites, but are far more damaging than those celebrities. Just sayin'.

monstertone - Posted - 01/26/2020:  17:24:38


quote:

Originally posted by Roxsanne

..Wondering which percentage aviation contributes toward airborne carbon monoxide distribution.

How can a percentage be figured out?

How many planes are up there all the time?

Gushing out choking spent fuel..

Electric planes..omg!






Sail planes the only ones not contributing & without taking it out to some ridiculous number of decimal points, I think it safe to say as close to 100% as you can get.



 

Brian T - Posted - 01/26/2020:  20:50:01


Roxanne: you said carbon monoxide in your first post. Did you mean carbon dioxide?
It's a poor but better absorbant for heat.
Cow farts have a high methane component = really good heat absorber for green house effect.
Sail planes are really hard to self-propel to any cruising altitude.

DC5 - Posted - 01/27/2020:  05:35:03


quote:

Originally posted by Roxsanne

Cornflake) ..gave me the notion that air traffic is about 90 years old and hot fumes emitted is much closer to the Ozone spraying out all that time like crop dusting.

Now vehicle traffic obviously ground based, as well this heavy filth has much longer to rise to have effect.

So then bad smoke has further to rise? To contaminate the Ozone high above, maybe car smoke is a little bit heavier and stays on the ground, rain can be helpful it swishes smokey grim and particles down drains.



Yours Sincerely

Roxsanne: Senior head of

scientific snooping. (smiley)






Be careful on confusing your science.  Ozone, O3, which is a 3 atom oxygen molecule ( the oxygen we breath is a 2 atom molecule) in the upper atmosphere helps block UV radiation from the sun.  Without O3, there would be no surface life on the planet.  Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is a greenhouse gas in that it retains heat.  CO2 need not be in the upper atmosphere.  Many people think it works like a blanket high in the atmosphere, which is what ozone is, but CO2 anywhere traps heat.  If you think of the atmosphere as a pinball game, and CO2 being the bumpers in the game, the ball is heat energy trying to leave the planet.  When it hits a CO2 bumper it slows it's escape.  Add more bumpers, slow the escape.  In this scenario though, the bumpers also hold some of the heat energy, as well as reflecting it.  Methane works pretty much the same way, but is much more of a heat absorbent than CO2.  So the gas emitted at the surface does not need to rise in order to contribute to global warming.  In fact, it is closer to plants, where it can be absorbed through photosynthesis.  CO2 in the upper atmosphere is less likely to be absorbed, and in this way emissions from high flying jets do contribute a bit more, but there are far more cars being driven than planes flying.  



What jets do contribute to global warming are the contrails, that increase upper atmosphere cloud cover.  Clouds both, reflect heat energy from the sun, and block heat energy from leaving the earth.  This is why clear nights in winter are much colder than cloudy nights.  The clouds do act like a blanket.  During the 3 day moratorium on flights after 9/11 there was a noticeable drop in temperature.  This was more notable in dense air traffic areas, like the NE Unites States.   There were several studies on this.  You can find one here globalnews.ca/news/2934513/emp...periment/

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.0625