Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-07-2007, 05:20 PM   #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: RC-3 Seabee. Skipper of the A21 cutter.
Posts: 896
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FDXLAG View Post
Uhm, so whats the problem? Water gets recycled; it just dosen't evaporate into thin air.

Yes I know it does evaporate into thin air but it comes back when the air gets thick.
Read this study on the water cycle. The water cycle involves a lot more than just simple evaporation and condensation.
http://www.fish.washington.edu/peopl...vorosmarty.pdf

Page 4 in this document will provide you with information on how anthropogenic activites disturb the water cycle. Urban sprawl can be put almost near the top of your list. This document is similar to the studies I did with my professor a few years ago. Very interesting stuff!
blastboy is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 06:14 PM   #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FDXLAG's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 7,981
Default

The first paragraph says it all "modeling projections". When you can model the climate 30 days from now than I will believe your projections for 30 years from now.

Does man have an impact on local water suppplies? Yes. What do you want to do about? Restrict economic growth. Guess what has the greatest influence on reducing population (excluding migration)? Economic Growth.

As you pointed out water (matter) dosen't get destroyed, it just gets used and reused.
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 07:55 PM   #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: RC-3 Seabee. Skipper of the A21 cutter.
Posts: 896
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FDXLAG View Post
As you pointed out water (matter) dosen't get destroyed, it just gets used and reused.
The water molecules don't get destroyed, that's right. But I think you should read the study again. Even though the water molecule may stay intact, that doesn't mean it ends up in the air again.

I wish I could find it, but there's another great study that measured the toxicity of the great lakes over a period of 40 years (1962 - 2002). The concentration (molarity) of toxic substances in the lakes increased over 33% during that time and it's slowly rising. When the facts about global warming, water pollution and air pollution are presented (from a reliable source), it's cold hard science (chemistry).

Projections can be just as reliable. After all, the aerospace engineers who build an airplane use models, simulators and computer programs to project how the plane will fly before it's built. When it accually does fly, it's performance is not far off from the projection models. The models and programs that environmental scientists use are just as accurate.

In addition, you might want think about acid rain and how that effects the water cycle/ecosystems. Acid rain has destroyed/contaminated acres upon acres of forests, wildlife habitats and large bodies of water. Economic growth is good for the industrial society we live in but the earth doesn't work that way. Nature doesn't accept Visa and you can't buy back the resources from her. You can't write a letter of apology and ask for forgivness. You'll see, when the resources become scarce, money will be worthless and people will be fighting over things like fresh water. I went without food and water for nearly 4 days a few years back, an experience I will never forget. Ever. Needless to say, I have never taken food, water and shelter for granted since then. I have learned to indulge in and appreciate the simpler things in life: how good it feels to have water run down your throat, having that first bite to settle the intense hunger in your stomach, sleeping under a roof and best of all, embracing your loved ones. Most of us need a life changing experience to have an appreciation for the changes mankind has reaped upon the planet, and there's a possibility that he will just run himself into the ground. But I'd like to continue living and see that my kids have a better place to live, and by doing my part, however small it may be, it will ensure that my children will have that much more of a sustainable planet. I heard a great quote from a highly respected marine biologist, "live simply so that others may simply live."
blastboy is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 09:26 PM   #14  
On Reserve
 
AndreS's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: C-172 Left
Posts: 22
Default

a politician is a propagandist, an actor, and now a salesman. he is not an authority on true climate change. or truth. he is not an authority. he may have studied SOME 'facts' and put together a movie that he calls a 'documentary' but the fact remains that it is nothing but propaganda, based upon very skewed information, and statistics.

BTW... statistics are nothing but a way to lie to you, and a lie repeated long enough becomes a 'truth'. Remember, they all told us the world was flat once.


When facts come out that one volcano erupting for one day produces more greenhouse gasses in one day than mankind has since the beginning of the industrial revolution...... it throws it into perspective.

it's all lies to gain politcal power, to control the population, and distract them as they are taking rights(and money) away... by legislating the safety, security and well-being of the world.... the way they want it.
AndreS is offline  
Old 05-08-2007, 04:16 AM   #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FDXLAG's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 7,981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blastboy View Post
But I'd like to continue living and see that my kids have a better place to live, and by doing my part, however small it may be, it will ensure that my children will have that much more of a sustainable planet. I heard a great quote from a highly respected marine biologist, "live simply so that others may simply live."
We have been destoying the planet for the last 300 years but our life expectancy just keeps getting longer and longer; go figure. Any bets on the carbon footprint of your simple living marine biologist? Smaller or larger than average?
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 05-08-2007, 05:02 AM   #16  
APC co-founder
 
HSLD's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B-777-200
Posts: 5,620
Default

I think the real issue here is, well founded in evidence or not, the alarm over global warming has the potential to negatively affect our livelihood as pilots.

In the EU, carbon emission trading is HERE and has the potential to change how airlines operate over certain routes. How this will be used against airline labor remains to be seen.
HSLD is offline  
Old 05-08-2007, 06:39 AM   #17  
Line Holder
 
u2drvr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: SWA/FO
Posts: 25
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryane946 View Post
WEATHER has a phenominal affect on the airline industry. Cloudly/foggy, windy, rain, snow, ice, thunderstorms, hurricanes... what does all this do to air travel. Holding patterns, diverts, delays, delays, more delays...
Remember, $3 TRILLION dollars of our economy is dependent upon the weather! If global warming continues, airlines will suffer.
Don't confuse weather with climate...they are different animals. Weather goes in cycles with short periods and is effected by many factors. There have always been years with very bad weather and some with good weather. I can remember many far worse storm seasons 20-25 years ago. Climate is on a much longer/larger scale. There is a lot of debate on global warming's effect on current weather patterns, but little conclusive evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryane946 View Post
Now, as far as I know, air travel only contributes something like 2% of the worldwide pollution. It is probably less. It is not that much. If they are coming after airlines, they are being dumb. But how about automobiles. How about power plants. Those contribute MUCH MORE to global warming.
Well, the majority of "greenhouse gasses" on the planet comes from natural sources like volcanoes and from animals like cattle. If we use your logic and go after the big producers, we should spend billions to research shutting down volcanoes and all become vegitarians.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ryane946 View Post
I am being vocal about global warming for two big reasons. For one, I like the planet. I like the outdoors. I like the environment in which I currently live. I am only 22, and I am going to live for many more years. I don't want to see it damaged. The other is I believe that much of global warming can be solved if we just invest in technology. There is NO REASON why we can't have 100% electric cars other than we have not spend enough money researching. A little advancement in solar cell efficiency, and we could generate all the electricity we need for cars. Slight advancements in battery technology are also needed. We just need to invest the money.
I like the planet too, and while I will probably not be on it as long as you, my kids will be here longer than you and I want them to have a good futur too. The trouble is, you have a niave view of science and technology. Everything has tradeoffs. Trading in all of our cars for electric cars would require an massive increase in production of batteries. The manufacturing and disposal of these batteries would produce huge amounts of toxic waste that may well do more harm to the environment. Other technologies that you mention are being researched and many have been researched for decades. It's not simply a matter of throwing money at scientists, there are very difficult and perhaps impossible barriers to overcome to some of these and funding alone will not solve them.

The big problem with this whole global warming debate is that it is no longer a scientific debate, it's a political one. You're primary source of information that you are basing your arguments on is a film produced by a politician with no real scientific training. It's difficult and time consuming to objectively look into this subject because so many in the scientific community have been influenced by the politics and policy (i.e. money and power) effects of the argument that they are no longer objective. The clear evidence that this is a political (not scientific) debate is the fact that scientists that disagree are not debate with logically, but are attacked personally.

While I don't have a PhD in climatology, I do have a degree in Physics and am a former Physics teacher, so I at least know how to read research and look at things from a objective science standpoint. I have looked into some of the actual scientific research (not just media/politcal debate) and have found that there are a lot of serious flaws with global warming theory. I don't think the theory should be dismissed outright, it is far too uncertain to be the basis for major policy decisions.

If you are really interested in this subject, step back from any preconceived conclusions and do your own research. Avoid anything that advocates some kind of policy change or offers a "solution" to the "problem" and stick to real scientific research. Science is all about learning and understanding, not finding slolutions to unproved problems. Also, keep in mind that many scientists are influenced by power, money, and politics just like anyone else. Truly objective research on this topic is hard to find in the pile of biased BS that has grown around the debeate, but it is out there.

Cheers
u2drvr is offline  
Old 05-08-2007, 07:53 AM   #18  
With The Resistance
 
jungle's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,055
Default

u2drvr, Excellent post, it is nice to hear the voice of well reasoned discussion. I would only add that water vapor represents about 95% of greenhouse gases.




What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" — what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

Heinlein

Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.

Heinlein

Last edited by jungle; 05-08-2007 at 09:47 AM.
jungle is offline  
Old 05-08-2007, 08:29 AM   #19  
Libertarian Resistance
 
Winged Wheeler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 992
Default Poor Logic

"Remember that snowstorm that Denver had right before Christmas. Got 3 feet of snow and closed Denver International Airport for 3 days. What do you think that cost United?? The world's second largest airline, at their second largest hub, on just a few days before Christmas (one of the busiest travel periods of the year). FOR THREE DAYS!! How about Frontier? How about EVERY other airline that flies into Denver. I talked with people who lived in Colorado for 60 years, and they had never seen a winter as funny as this year. And the airlines paid for it.

How about all those storms back east in February. How much did that cost the airlines? American, United, Delta, Continental, Jetblue... I have seen the most abysmal ontime rates and completion factors in quite a while. Do you think weather has something to do with this??????"

Dude,

I stay away from these threads because I don't like to argue religion. I won't chime in on the global warming thing but, as a student of rhetoric, I can say that I haven't seen a worse argument in a long time.

A winter storm in Denver in December and winter storms in the East in Feb show that global warming costs the airlines money?

Back to the books my friend. If you want to convert unbelievers you'll need to do better than that.

Death to the San Jose Sharks
Winged Wheeler is offline  
Old 05-08-2007, 11:49 AM   #20  
With The Resistance
 
jungle's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,055
Default

Mark it zero Dude, this is tournament play! (The Dude, at this point abides.)

Last edited by jungle; 01-29-2008 at 04:36 PM.
jungle is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Global Express - First Officer Pay ErikCFII Corporate 74 11-01-2017 07:54 AM
Global Warming-Test Your Knowledge jungle Hangar Talk 34 05-07-2007 03:58 PM
why not to drink Cokes in cockpits Tech Maven Pilot Health 14 03-01-2007 05:16 AM
2006 record profit Linebacker35 Hangar Talk 88 02-18-2007 07:48 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:17 AM.