Climate Change And Airlines

CRJ200flyer · Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:14 pm

ikramerica wrote:
Why will those who don’t believe in the hysteria die first?

Listen to interviews with Jerry Brown and he sounds like a raving lunatic biblical doomsday dude.

Al Gores deadlines have all passed but the North Pole still exists.

The progress of the avalanche is glacial. So I guess you are right, none of us will be around to see the dire consequences.

The latest Arctic Ocean climate report was released by NOAA last week. Arctic set a new maximum temperature record this year. The region is warming at twice the rate of the globe. 98% of the sea ice is now less than 4 years old (meaning the old ice has now melted). The population of native species is falling (caribou and reindeer have fallen from 4.7 million to 2.1 million in the last 20 years).

Outside of this report, over the past few years shipping companies have been testing new routes through a nearly ice free summer in the Arctic. The Canadians are trying to determine how to allocate search and rescue resources to be able to assist these ships if needed. Things are happening up there, fast.

Again, please do some research. Our excellent scientists are constantly delivering fresh data and insight. You can make fun of Al Gore, but don’t lose sight of the real issues.

frmrCapCadet · Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:20 pm

The permafrost line is moving north.
Sub-tropical deserts are moving to higher latitudes
The long noted 100th longitude separating the arid west of the US from the rainy east is expanding to the east
Sea ice (existing 4 or more years) has come close to disappearing on the Arctic

When these and other phenomena are modeled along with changing CO2, and correlated with historic temperatures and CO2 levels going back hundreds of millions of years it all holds together. Just like evolution does.

I will not answer non scientific diatribes from those who deny climate warming or evolution.

I can see privleging

AirFiero · Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:21 pm

CRJ200flyer wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
Why will those who don’t believe in the hysteria die first?

Listen to interviews with Jerry Brown and he sounds like a raving lunatic biblical doomsday dude.

Al Gores deadlines have all passed but the North Pole still exists.

The progress of the avalanche is glacial. So I guess you are right, none of us will be around to see the dire consequences.

The latest Arctic Ocean climate report was released by NOAA last week. Arctic set a new maximum temperature record this year. The region is warming at twice the rate of the globe. 98% of the sea ice is now less than 4 years old (meaning the old ice has now melted). The population of native species is falling (caribou and reindeer have fallen from 4.7 million to 2.1 million in the last 20 years).

Outside of this report, over the past few years shipping companies have been testing new routes through a nearly ice free summer in the Arctic. The Canadians are trying to determine how to allocate search and rescue resources to be able to assist these ships if needed. Things are happening up there, fast.

Again, please do some research. Our excellent scientists are constantly delivering fresh data and insight. You can make fun of Al Gore, but don’t lose sight of the real issues.

Yes, do some research. There have been predictions about the “northwest passage” opening up for years, and it hasn’t. As for the Arctic temperature, they are extrapolating temperature for the entire arctic using ONE temperature station. That would be like saying the temperature in Montana is warmer than normal using a weather station in Phoenix.

frmrCapCadet · Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:22 pm

duplicate post

AirFiero · Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:25 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
The permafrost line is moving north.
Sub-tropical deserts are moving to higher latitudes
The long noted 100th longitude separating the arid west of the US from the rainy east is expanding to the east
Sea ice (existing 4 or more years) has come close to disappearing on the Arctic

When these and other phenomena are modeled along with changing CO2, and correlated with historic temperatures and CO2 levels going back hundreds of millions of years it all holds together. Just like evolution does.

I will not answer non scientific diatribes from those who deny climate warming or evolution.

I can see privleging

Sea ice has not come anywhere near disappearing in the arctic. It has been at or near “normal”. Also, we only have data on sea ice since 1979, not long enough to determine long term “normal” sea ice amounts.

As for “modeling”, no, the models have been spectacularly WRONG and no, they do not model the past accurately.

Where are you getting this crap from?

CRJ200flyer · Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:48 pm

AirFiero wrote:
CRJ200flyer wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
Why will those who don’t believe in the hysteria die first?

Listen to interviews with Jerry Brown and he sounds like a raving lunatic biblical doomsday dude.

Al Gores deadlines have all passed but the North Pole still exists.

The progress of the avalanche is glacial. So I guess you are right, none of us will be around to see the dire consequences.

The latest Arctic Ocean climate report was released by NOAA last week. Arctic set a new maximum temperature record this year. The region is warming at twice the rate of the globe. 98% of the sea ice is now less than 4 years old (meaning the old ice has now melted). The population of native species is falling (caribou and reindeer have fallen from 4.7 million to 2.1 million in the last 20 years).

Outside of this report, over the past few years shipping companies have been testing new routes through a nearly ice free summer in the Arctic. The Canadians are trying to determine how to allocate search and rescue resources to be able to assist these ships if needed. Things are happening up there, fast.

Again, please do some research. Our excellent scientists are constantly delivering fresh data and insight. You can make fun of Al Gore, but don’t lose sight of the real issues.

Yes, do some research. There have been predictions about the “northwest passage” opening up for years, and it hasn’t. As for the Arctic temperature, they are extrapolating temperature for the entire arctic using ONE temperature station. That would be like saying the temperature in Montana is warmer than normal using a weather station in Phoenix.

At least three stations:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/arctic/pl ... ature.html

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

Northwest passage development is underway. Ice minimums are falling, and yearly ice thickness and area is falling.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-arct ... SKCN1L91BR

williaminsd · Sat Dec 15, 2018 5:00 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
williaminsd wrote:
Meh... this is what you get when you challenge a man's religion, and that's exactly what the cult of climate change is. While I admire your quaint faith, your "science" is based on no actual evidence, and relies completely on your bible of computer models, which can and are manipulated to produce the desired result. Despite the impotent yelping here by the naively devout, the United States, the world leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions under our magnificent President, will not participate in these fact-free climate scams as commanded by your high-priests in Geneva. Cripple your own economies if you must, just don't expect Americans to pay for your laughable ignorance and gullibility. Now you run along to church like good little puritans, and I'll don my yellow vest...

What is this then, if it's not evidence?

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

Climate is measured in terms of thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions of years. Our measurements with instruments go back a few hundred, with satellite data only going back 40 years or so. When we measure climate changes with ice core samples, we see clear cycles of warming and cooling. Again, these are cycles of thousands of years, not tens. There's actual evidence that Antarctica at one time had a much more temperate climate. Was that because you sat out on the ramp idling your jet engines? Probably not.

So sea levels are going to rise and fall, as are global temperatures, as are ice packs. They are going to do so despite your devout efforts to tell others how they should live their lives. Who's to say what we've experienced over the last 100 years is "normal?" (Hint: not you.)

30 years ago, the noted climate "scientist" Philip Shabecoff said this:

“If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit [between now and] the year 2025 to 2050…. The rise in global temperature is predicted to … caus[e] sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.”

New York Times, June 24, 1988.[/i]

So here we are at the mid-point to that predicted Armageddon, and where are we? It's actually about one degree, and holding. Precisely zero of the dire predictions he made have come true.

In 2007, that noted Climate Charlatan, Father Al Gore sternly lectured us during one of his many sermons, "Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. This was at the 2007 American Geophysical Fall Meeting in San Francisco.

So how has the "Ice Free" prediction by 2013 gone? Not so well, for the month of September overall, there was 31 per cent more ice than in 2012, figures released in 2016 from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) show. This amounts to an extra 421,000 (1.09 million square kilometres) of sea ice. https://nsidc.org/

Now is this total still lower than in 1981? Yes, but that's the point. Much like the Puritans of the 17th Century, you are demanding unyielding obedience to your religion with crippling lifestyle changes all to serve an altar of climate cycles that cover hundreds of thousands of years, based on data from tens of years. I guess ya gotta have faith, right?

Antarctic Ice is also showing huge gains, much to the consternation of the Climate Cult high-priests. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/na ... han-losses

Let's look at some more "fun facts," shall we?

Nineteen nations “believe” in climate change. How are they backing up their statement of faith?

China was praised for signing on to the Paris Climate Agreement and in Argentina reaffirmed its commitment to controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Last year, however, China increased those emissions by 1.7 percent.

India, the fourth largest source for CO2, saw their emissions grow by 4.6 percent in 2017. Luckily for them, they too were praised for signing that “nonbinding communiqué.”

Overall, the European Union raised their CO2 output by 1.5 percent.

France, home of the Paris Agreement, is leading the diplomatic effort to save the planet (although the masses seem to indicate they've finally had enough). France increased their greenhouse gas emissions by 3.6 percent. . . .

If the nations paying lip service to climate change aren’t meeting their goals, imagine how poorly us oil-drilling, coal-mining Americans must be doing. President Donald Trump was pilloried for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and for being only G20 leader who refused to sign the climate change statement in Argentina.

From 2016 to 2017, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 2.7 percent. Emissions from large power plants declined 4.5 percent since 2016, and nearly 20 percent since 2011. And all without signing a worthless piece of paper in Paris or Buenos Aires.

Again, it's the United States, lead by President Donald Trump, who is leading the world in gas emission reductions, not the pretenders in Europe and Asia who wish to cripple our spectacular economy by forcing us and only us to live by a dubious set of environmental demands based on at best, limited, uncertain and often duplicitous data.

I always hesitate to challenge a man's religion precisely because the undoubtedly shrill, incoherent, and ignorant responses are so utterly predictable. Thanks for living down to every one of these expectations. Unfortunately it's only good for a few laughs for so long, and we've reached that portion of the program.

Don't worry, I'll give you the last word. I know how important that is to those who confuse rage with reason and the mob for consensus. Enjoy your day!

NZ321 · Sat Dec 15, 2018 5:07 pm

There could be a thread on how airlines will cope with mounting evidence on global warming but as things stand, sadly, this topic gains little traction. Airlines such as Air NZ have a carbon tax but it is voluntary AFAIK. I'm, curious given China's announced intention to expand their airport infrastructure significantly to understand what responsibility is being accepted by countries and their airlines to reduce carbon emissions and adopt efficiencies as per the latest protocol. All seems to be paperwork with little transfer to action overall. It does leave one with lingering concerns.

tsra · Sat Dec 15, 2018 5:35 pm

Well, to do my part, I guess I will not press the chemtrail button during the enroute checklist anymore and more importantly stop eating Taco Bell. That should give the earth at least a few more years.

smartplane · Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:50 pm

williaminsd wrote:
[China was praised for signing on to the Paris Climate Agreement and in Argentina reaffirmed its commitment to controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Last year, however, China increased those emissions by 1.7 percent.

India, the fourth largest source for CO2, saw their emissions grow by 4.6 percent in 2017. Luckily for them, they too were praised for signing that “nonbinding communiqué.”

Overall, the European Union raised their CO2 output by 1.5 percent.

France, home of the Paris Agreement, is leading the diplomatic effort to save the planet (although the masses seem to indicate they've finally had enough). France increased their greenhouse gas emissions by 3.6 percent. . . .

From 2016 to 2017, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 2.7 percent. Emissions from large power plants declined 4.5 percent since 2016, and nearly 20 percent since 2011. And all without signing a worthless piece of paper in Paris or Buenos Aires.

But are the numbers for China, India, EU and France not adjusted for population growth? In contrast, are the numbers for the USA adjusted for population growth, including estimated illegal immigrants? Hasn't the USA also uniquely excluded some emitting activities and industries on the basis of relevance and/or strategic importance?

CRJ200flyer · Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:21 pm

williaminsd wrote:
Climate is measured in terms of thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions of years. Our measurements with instruments go back a few hundred, with satellite data only going back 40 years or so. When we measure climate changes with ice core samples, we see clear cycles of warming and cooling. Again, these are cycles of thousands of years, not tens. There's actual evidence that Antarctica at one time had a much more temperate climate. Was that because you sat out on the ramp idling your jet engines? Probably not.

So sea levels are going to rise and fall, as are global temperatures, as are ice packs. They are going to do so despite your devout efforts to tell others how they should live their lives. Who's to say what we've experienced over the last 100 years is "normal?" (Hint: not you.)

30 years ago, the noted climate "scientist" Philip Shabecoff said this:

“If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit [between now and] the year 2025 to 2050…. The rise in global temperature is predicted to … caus[e] sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.”

New York Times, June 24, 1988.[/i]

So here we are at the mid-point to that predicted Armageddon, and where are we? It's actually about one degree, and holding. Precisely zero of the dire predictions he made have come true.

In 2007, that noted Climate Charlatan, Father Al Gore sternly lectured us during one of his many sermons, "Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. This was at the 2007 American Geophysical Fall Meeting in San Francisco.

So how has the "Ice Free" prediction by 2013 gone? Not so well, for the month of September overall, there was 31 per cent more ice than in 2012, figures released in 2016 from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) show. This amounts to an extra 421,000 (1.09 million square kilometres) of sea ice. https://nsidc.org/

Now is this total still lower than in 1981? Yes, but that's the point. Much like the Puritans of the 17th Century, you are demanding unyielding obedience to your religion with crippling lifestyle changes all to serve an altar of climate cycles that cover hundreds of thousands of years, based on data from tens of years. I guess ya gotta have faith, right?

Antarctic Ice is also showing huge gains, much to the consternation of the Climate Cult high-priests. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/na ... han-losses

Let's look at some more "fun facts," shall we?

Nineteen nations “believe” in climate change. How are they backing up their statement of faith?

China was praised for signing on to the Paris Climate Agreement and in Argentina reaffirmed its commitment to controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Last year, however, China increased those emissions by 1.7 percent.

India, the fourth largest source for CO2, saw their emissions grow by 4.6 percent in 2017. Luckily for them, they too were praised for signing that “nonbinding communiqué.”

Overall, the European Union raised their CO2 output by 1.5 percent.

France, home of the Paris Agreement, is leading the diplomatic effort to save the planet (although the masses seem to indicate they've finally had enough). France increased their greenhouse gas emissions by 3.6 percent. . . .

If the nations paying lip service to climate change aren’t meeting their goals, imagine how poorly us oil-drilling, coal-mining Americans must be doing. President Donald Trump was pilloried for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and for being only G20 leader who refused to sign the climate change statement in Argentina.

From 2016 to 2017, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 2.7 percent. Emissions from large power plants declined 4.5 percent since 2016, and nearly 20 percent since 2011. And all without signing a worthless piece of paper in Paris or Buenos Aires.

Again, it's the United States, lead by President Donald Trump, who is leading the world in gas emission reductions, not the pretenders in Europe and Asia who wish to cripple our spectacular economy by forcing us and only us to live by a dubious set of environmental demands based on at best, limited, uncertain and often duplicitous data.

I always hesitate to challenge a man's religion precisely because the undoubtedly shrill, incoherent, and ignorant responses are so utterly predictable. Thanks for living down to every one of these expectations. Unfortunately it's only good for a few laughs for so long, and we've reached that portion of the program.

Don't worry, I'll give you the last word. I know how important that is to those who confuse rage with reason and the mob for consensus. Enjoy your day!

Keep reading! There’s a difference between sea ice and land ice, as well as the complex circulation of air and water around Antarctica. I studied this as part of one of many climate classes I took as part of my degree.
——
“A new NASA-led study has determined that an increase in snowfall accumulation over Antarctica during the 20th century mitigated sea level rise by 0.4 inches. However, Antarctica’s additional ice mass gained from snowfall makes up for just about a third of its current ice loss.

“Our findings don’t mean that Antarctica is growing; it’s still losing mass, even with the extra snowfall,” said Brooke Medley, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published in Nature Climate Change on Dec. 10. “What it means, however, is that without these gains, we would have experienced even more sea level rise in the 20th century.” “

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2836/anta ... -snowfall/

Edit: here’s a great video explaining just part of the complexity of sea level rise: https://youtu.be/SA5zh3yG_-0

Anyways, let’s please get back to the topic originally posted by the op, and save the debate of climate change for another thread.

Karlsands · Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:34 pm

Let’s talk aviation, this argument will go on for ages. Goodness. Be realistic and a critical thinker, stop arguing in a political manner, no ones gonna come out with a medal

blockski · Sat Dec 15, 2018 8:39 pm

Climate change is obviously real. To deny the human role in changing our climate would be to deny basic chemistry. While forecasting the specific impacts is incredibly complex, the basic math is not: humans emit huge amounts of GHGs from burning fossil fuels, and this is changing the composition of the atmosphere with significant effects.

There’s been a ton of progress in terms of developing renewable sources of energy, but this is mostly focused on electricity generation. There’s a lot of work yet to be done, but there’s at least a plausible pathway to decarbonize those activities.

Transportation in general is much harder, and aviation in particular. Despite advances with electric cars and battery technology, there are still huge limitations on them. Likewise, nothing yet matches the required energy density of fossil fuels that powers aviation.

Any solution to climate change will require not just adaption to a changing planet, but also reducing emissions to limit the damage as much as possible (note that the reason to limit emissions is not about “saving the planet” but about protecting human civilization). Limiting emissions means less fossil fuel use, and less fossil fuel use means limits on aviation - either via regulatory limits or carbon taxes or whatever.

There will still be a key market for avaiation, particularly for long haul flights that have no substitute and provide lots of value. And a world with carbon taxed would still be one were aviation has lots of value.

Even if the world gets their act together and takes action to limit emissions, contain warming to 2 degrees C, and reverse the trajectory of climate change to date, there will still be big changes in store and major risks to aviation. Airports at sea level are an obvious area of risk.

trauha · Sat Dec 15, 2018 8:42 pm

I am encouraged by the display of patience of some of you here who tirelessly try to educate the vandals.

When the air can no longer be breathed, the water is unfit to drink, and the crops to be eaten did not survive,
the vandals will still claim it is all really good for the economy.

airzona11 · Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:01 pm

Ban airplanes. The economy will crumble. Less economic activity will reduce the need for energy consumption.

Weather will still exist, temperatures will still fluctuate, and there will still be storms.

Airlines are already frugal when it comes to cost. Energy and fuel are a huge component in their cost. I don't think airlines are frivolous with energy.

trauha wrote:
I am encouraged by the display of patience of some of you here who tirelessly try to educate the vandals.

When the air can no longer be breathed, the water is unfit to drink, and the crops to be eaten did not survive,
the vandals will still claim it is all really good for the economy.

The beauty of necessity is that it provides the catalyst for innovation and invention that will render your scenario just a scenario.

WeatherPilot · Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:39 pm

The amount of airplanes in the sky and whether they're burning efficiently or not has no effect on the climate. Just like the number of factories spewing smoke and cars stuck in traffic will. Hell, did you know the average person breathes out 2-3 pounds of CO2 a day? Does that mean we are all guilty of changing the climate just by living? Should we all hate ourselves for what our mere existance is supposedly doing to the Earth? No. There is nothing you can do about climate change. It is all about the Sun. Don't just look at the Earth, look at all the other planets as well and you will see that they are all warming just like the Earth. So sit back relax and have fun with the years you have left on this rock because it's the Sun that's running the show and you can't do jack sh*t about the Sun.

EvanWSFO · Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:52 pm

ikramerica wrote:
EvanWSFO wrote:
Some1Somewhere wrote:
Yes, of course they pollute. Consider how many tons of fuel are loaded into them.

However, it's likely to see other areas get targeted first - energy production, ground transport, heating, agriculture & industry etc.

Because of the weight restrictions, batteries aren't currently very feasible. It is somewhat possible to synthesise a dense fuel from electricity or other energy, which would be carbon-neutral, but that requires having a greed power grid first.

You might see carbon taxes pushing ticket prices up, and schemes to subsidise e.g. high-speed trains as competition.

The above is of course all supposition and depends on political will.

It's not political, people just want to make it that way. It's real.. Anyone who thinks differently likely won't be around to see it get worse, but it will.

Why will those who don’t believe in the hysteria die first?

Listen to interviews with Jerry Brown and he sounds like a raving lunatic biblical doomsday dude.

Al Gores deadlines have all passed but the North Pole still exists.

The progress of the avalanche is glacial. So I guess you are right, none of us will be around to see the dire consequences.

If you bothered to research facts instead tow the corporate line, you will find that glaciers and the polar caps have diminished greatly in the last half century. As a Bible thumping, dirt loving, tree hugging liberal, I take time to learn before I speak.

EvanWSFO · Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:54 pm

ikramerica wrote:
EvanWSFO wrote:
Some1Somewhere wrote:
Yes, of course they pollute. Consider how many tons of fuel are loaded into them.

However, it's likely to see other areas get targeted first - energy production, ground transport, heating, agriculture & industry etc.

Because of the weight restrictions, batteries aren't currently very feasible. It is somewhat possible to synthesise a dense fuel from electricity or other energy, which would be carbon-neutral, but that requires having a greed power grid first.

You might see carbon taxes pushing ticket prices up, and schemes to subsidise e.g. high-speed trains as competition.

The above is of course all supposition and depends on political will.

It's not political, people just want to make it that way. It's real.. Anyone who thinks differently likely won't be around to see it get worse, but it will.

Why will those who don’t believe in the hysteria die first?

Listen to interviews with Jerry Brown and he sounds like a raving lunatic biblical doomsday dude.

Al Gores deadlines have all passed but the North Pole still exists.

The progress of the avalanche is glacial. So I guess you are right, none of us will be around to see the dire consequences.

If you bothered to research facts instead tow the corporate line, you will find that glaciers and the polar caps have diminished greatly in the last half century. As a Bible thumping, dirt loving, tree hugging liberal, I take time to learn before I speak.

Aesma · Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:57 pm

williaminsd wrote:
CRJ200flyer wrote:
Just some fun facts while running through some government statistics:

US Airline Oil Consumption 2000-2017:
309.7 billion gallons burned
3 billion tons of CO2 emitted

US Airline 2018 average so far: 49.5 million gallons/day

Here's another fun fact: What nation leads the world in carbon emission reduction? That would be The United States of America. As usual, Europe talks a great game, but is full of it when actual results are measured... https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 ... emissions/

You're going from horrible polluters to extremely high polluters and we should congratulate you, when we pollute far less than you ?

EmoticonsAllDay · Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:17 pm

By the looks of this thread, very few people have background in basic sciences so much for advanced sciences. Please quote some reliable and bonafide sources rather than crappy sources. Everyone knows the internet is 90% crap.

I can type very long statements proving global warming is real, how climate is so much different from weather and how planes contribute very little to global warmning than your everyday car by quoting legit sources but hey, very few people will listen. So, I'll pass.

lydh · Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:30 pm

I love how my posts calling out climate denial were removed, but the people denying it are free to keep doing so.

aviationaware · Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:33 pm

trauha wrote:
I am encouraged by the display of patience of some of you here who tirelessly try to educate the vandals.

Vandals? It's time you faced the truth. Out of hundreds of climate models created by human caused climate change evangelists, absolutely non have worked even remotely. Not one. If climate change were really as simple as you claim, with basically a single cause, human gas emissions, one should think someone would manage to create a working model that both accurately reflects the past AND manages at least some degree of certainty as for future scenarios. Yet this hasn't happened. The only possible explanation, of course, is that climate change is much, much more complicated than the single source human emissions religion is preaching.

EvanWSFO · Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:35 pm

lydh wrote:
I love how my posts calling out climate denial were removed, but the people denying it are free to keep doing so.

They might as well shut this thread down. Political myth versus scientific reality don't mix, even among avgeeks.

Aesma · Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:42 pm

aviationaware wrote:
trauha wrote:
I am encouraged by the display of patience of some of you here who tirelessly try to educate the vandals.

Vandals? It's time you faced the truth. Out of hundreds of climate models created by human caused climate change evangelists, absolutely non have worked even remotely. Not one. If climate change were really as simple as you claim, with basically a single cause, human gas emissions, one should think someone would manage to create a working model that both accurately reflects the past AND manages at least some degree of certainty as for future scenarios. Yet this hasn't happened. The only possible explanation, of course, is that climate change is much, much more complicated than the single source human emissions religion is preaching.

So you're saying gods or aliens are also contributing to changing the climate faster than even the scientists thought would happen ?

The climate of an infinitely complex system called planet Earth is understandably difficult to modelize, there is nothing surprising there.

We're all waiting for scientists to prove what we're seeing has nothing to do with human activity and is entirely natural.

EvanWSFO · Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:49 pm

AirFiero wrote:
CRJ200flyer wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
Why will those who don’t believe in the hysteria die first?

Listen to interviews with Jerry Brown and he sounds like a raving lunatic biblical doomsday dude.

Al Gores deadlines have all passed but the North Pole still exists.

The progress of the avalanche is glacial. So I guess you are right, none of us will be around to see the dire consequences.

The latest Arctic Ocean climate report was released by NOAA last week. Arctic set a new maximum temperature record this year. The region is warming at twice the rate of the globe. 98% of the sea ice is now less than 4 years old (meaning the old ice has now melted). The population of native species is falling (caribou and reindeer have fallen from 4.7 million to 2.1 million in the last 20 years).

Outside of this report, over the past few years shipping companies have been testing new routes through a nearly ice free summer in the Arctic. The Canadians are trying to determine how to allocate search and rescue resources to be able to assist these ships if needed. Things are happening up there, fast.

Again, please do some research. Our excellent scientists are constantly delivering fresh data and insight. You can make fun of Al Gore, but don’t lose sight of the real issues.

Yes, do some research. There have been predictions about the “northwest passage” opening up for years, and it hasn’t. As for the Arctic temperature, they are extrapolating temperature for the entire arctic using ONE temperature station. That would be like saying the temperature in Montana is warmer than normal using a weather station in Phoenix.

You mean this Northwest Passage? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/07/the-arctics-fabled-passage-is-opening-up-this-is-what-it-looks-like/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9161fa4e1f63

MillwallSean · Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:07 am

Climate seems to be a topic where normal common sense goes out the window and it becomes legit to question a pretty united science front using expletives rather than facts. Maybe its a topic that is to abstract so people cant understand it or a symptom of the general education level of some western countries.
With that said, the population increase across the developed world makes almost any direct action taken by the EU (worlds largest economy) and the US (worlds second largest economy) limited in scope and effect. To feed the booming population we need more agrarian land and that correlates to less carbon catching/storing environments. Somehow I dont see the developing world restricting their population growth so whether we tax planes or not is unlikely to effect the big picture.

Back to aviation, perhaps some real topic experts can add to this. Its my perception that while the aircraft manufacturers have worked hard and quite successfully to reduce the fuel consumption over the last two/three decades we have not seen much change to jetfuel. I, thus, believe it is time to ask what the oil companies have done?
Not that I am an expert on the finer parts of aviation fuel, but isn't it time to see some serious new technology in this field and what is it that makes the field so static. After all we humans continue to improve products, so why have serious development of the product jetfuel seen so little change over the last decades

aviationaware · Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:23 am

Aesma wrote:

So you're saying gods or aliens are also contributing to changing the climate faster than even the scientists thought would happen ?

No. But sun activity probably is. Even the slightest shift in the sun's activity is likely to have a significant effect on the earth's climate and ecosystem. Maybe my theory has fewer indicators than the greenhouse gas theory, but that's not the point. Indicators are not enough to make credible scientific claims.

But as I said before, whether humans actually cause climate change or not is actually completely irrelevant.

It's a pseudo-academic discussion with zero real world bearing as long as differences in wealth distribution incentivize a majority of the world's population to refuse to make changes. Since three quarters of the world's population have economic catching up to do and that part of the world is growing disproportionately, we will never know what would happen if we cut greenhouse gas emissions significantly.

Meanwhile, the gross misappropriation of assets continues as climate evangelists ignore this elementary truth.

MillwallSean wrote:
Back to aviation, perhaps some real topic experts can add to this. Its my perception that while the aircraft manufacturers have worked hard and quite successfully to reduce the fuel consumption over the last two/three decades we have not seen much change to jetfuel. I, thus, believe it is time to ask what the oil companies have done?
Not that I am an expert on the finer parts of aviation fuel, but isn't it time to see some serious new technology in this field and what is it that makes the field so static. After all we humans continue to improve products, so why have serious development of the product jetfuel seen so little change over the last decades

Ecologic benefits have never been and will never be the driver behind technological progress. If and when aviation makes the step away from gas turbines, that will be because the replacing technology will be more cost effective than gas turbines. Just like the fuel consumption savings manufacturers have realized in the past were only powered by monetary motives. The positive ecological effects are only a PR sideshow, not a driver of innovation.

EvanWSFO wrote:

You mean this Northwest Passage? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/07/the-arctics-fabled-passage-is-opening-up-this-is-what-it-looks-like/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9161fa4e1f63

The existence of polar ice caps is a geohistorical abnormity. Their disappearance is to be expected, what do we care whether it happens now or in a thousand years? We will have to deal with the effects either way. The idea that humans have controlling influence over such processes can only be summarized with one word: Hubris.

EvanWSFO · Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:36 am

aviationaware wrote:
Aesma wrote:

So you're saying gods or aliens are also contributing to changing the climate faster than even the scientists thought would happen ?

No. But sun activity probably is. Even the slightest shift in the sun's activity is likely to have a significant effect on the earth's climate and ecosystem. Maybe my theory has fewer indicators than the greenhouse gas theory, but that's not the point. Indicators are not enough to make credible scientific claims.

But as I said before, whether humans actually cause climate change or not is actually completely irrelevant.

It's a pseudo-academic discussion with zero real world bearing as long as differences in wealth distribution incentivize a majority of the world's population to refuse to make changes. Since three quarters of the world's population have economic catching up to do and that part of the world is growing disproportionately, we will never know what would happen if we cut greenhouse gas emissions significantly.

Meanwhile, the gross misappropriation of assets continues as climate evangelists ignore this elementary truth.

MillwallSean wrote:
Back to aviation, perhaps some real topic experts can add to this. Its my perception that while the aircraft manufacturers have worked hard and quite successfully to reduce the fuel consumption over the last two/three decades we have not seen much change to jetfuel. I, thus, believe it is time to ask what the oil companies have done?
Not that I am an expert on the finer parts of aviation fuel, but isn't it time to see some serious new technology in this field and what is it that makes the field so static. After all we humans continue to improve products, so why have serious development of the product jetfuel seen so little change over the last decades

Ecologic benefits have never been and will never be the driver behind technological progress. If and when aviation makes the step away from gas turbines, that will be because the replacing technology will be more cost effective than gas turbines. Just like the fuel consumption savings manufacturers have realized in the past were only powered by monetary motives. The positive ecological effects are only a PR sideshow, not a driver of innovation.

EvanWSFO wrote:

You mean this Northwest Passage? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/07/the-arctics-fabled-passage-is-opening-up-this-is-what-it-looks-like/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9161fa4e1f63

The existence of polar ice caps is a geohistorical abnormity. Their disappearance is to be expected, what do we care whether it happens now or in a thousand years? We will have to deal with the effects either way. The idea that humans have controlling influence over such processes can only be summarized with one word: Hubris.

Your ignorance is amazing. It's more like 100 years. I hope you don't reproduce and leave your future family to have to deal with what is happening and worsening while corporations get rich.

SeoulIncheon · Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:41 am

Aloha717200 wrote:
SeoulIncheon wrote:
axiom wrote:

This is what I do for a living. It's not quite as simple as whipping up an alternative -- it's the life's work of dozens of economists. The point is that we need multiple models for understanding the problem indifferent ways. The first step to using an existing model is to understand its limits. I would be happy to direct you to discussions of these limits.

What are you doing to understand and contribute to this challenge?

Would you argue that it's absurd to declare that the law of gravity doesn't exist?

I have very little time for pretending that ideological anti-science nonsense is an equal position. It isn't.

If you want to talk about who wins and loses under different scenarios, about the politics of it -- sure. I appreciate that, underpinning these misguided calls for non-partisan or "thoughtful" debate, are real concerns. They are hugely important. But let's stick to those, not debating whether or not we need to have the debate.

Neither of us has the time.

So this person, without any rationale, simply denies every sigle argument that this person does not agree with.
Climate change activists - they are simply trying to get absolute power to be a dictator that is unknown since the days of Stalin and Hitler. No more democracy. It is urgent! So everyone must do as what I tell - or be summarily executed! For Stalin, it was "equality", for Hitler, it was "superiority of German people." For those "environmental activists", it is "threat of climate change."

Wow. Truly...unbelievable. The people who are trying to warn people about the dangers of climate change and calling for us to set aside the political divides for a moment and actually do something to protect all of humanity are....equated to Stalin and Hitler.

Dude, sometimes the "conspiracy" doesnt exist. Sometimes people can and do want to do something that's good for everyone. I know humans suck, but sometimes we do good things. This is one good thing we're at least trying to do. And calling people who dedicate their lives to this cause because they want to save the lives of others by some evil name is remarkably disingenuous.

"set aside the political divides"... wow truly unbelievable. Yeah. It's so urgent so everyone, no more political discussion just follow our orders. Who don't agree - they are enemies of the people! Alright, I see what you mean. Only that our generation , unlike those who believed in Communist Party or National Socialist Worker's Party, clearly know what did those two parties brought to people.

stratclub · Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:10 am

CRJ200flyer wrote:
williaminsd wrote:
Meh... this is what you get when you challenge a man's religion, and that's exactly what the cult of climate change is. While I admire your quaint faith, your "science" is based on no actual evidence, and relies completely on your bible of computer models, which can and are manipulated to produce the desired result. Despite the impotent yelping here by the naively devout, the United States, the world leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions under our magnificent President, will not participate in these fact-free climate scams as commanded by your high-priests in Geneva. Cripple your own economies if you must, just don't expect Americans to pay for your laughable ignorance and gullibility. Now you run along to church like good little puritans, and I'll don my yellow vest...

Clearly I am no match for your level of ignorance Intelligence.

I fixed your spelling error for you. Your welcome in advance. :cool2:

RickNRoll · Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:17 am

ryhops wrote:
Of course the climate changes - it has since the beginning of time. It's changing as we speak. It all depends on who wins the political debate as to whether we spend trillions of dollars trying to make the climate not change - by punishing industries like commercial aviation. Time will tell! Does not seem to be going well in France ...

It always changes for a reason and some periods of climate history are more stable than others. Since that last period of climate stability started we have seen civilisation flourish. At current climate change is, on a geological time scale, happening in the blink of an eye. The reason has been well understood for many years now. It's the extremely rapid rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Dieuwer · Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:31 am

Dieuwer wrote:
...pig farming is one of the most warming-gas producing industries on earth.

Methane emissions from pig manure represent nearly half of total global farm animal manure emissions.

https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/def ... change.pdf

According to the IPCC, aviation is responsible for around 3.5 percent of anthropogenic climate change. Since pig farming contributes 50% of agricultural emissions (9% of total emissions, see pie chart below), pig farming is more damaging than flying.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/source ... -emissions

planecane · Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:22 am

ryhops wrote:
Of course the climate changes - it has since the beginning of time. It's changing as we speak. It all depends on who wins the political debate as to whether we spend trillions of dollars trying to make the climate not change - by punishing industries like commercial aviation. Time will tell! Does not seem to be going well in France ...

^This. There were these things called ice ages. Since the last one happened, the Earth warmed and the ice that covered most of North America melted. Humans weren't around for that.

There could be some impact of humans but I'd theorize that it's more likely due to land development (Urban island effect) than CO2 emissions.

When I was in middle school 30 years ago, we were learning of the predicted mini ice age coming due to pollution. That turned into global warming a few years later.

nikeherc · Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:33 am

I have three problems with human caused climate change movement. First, the data is not consistent and has been adjusted to fit the premise.

Next, scientists with even reasonable disagreement with the orthodoxy are denied publication and are hounded by the true believers.

Finally, none of the models pointing to catastrophe have ever been able accurately model the past.

We risk doing severe damage to the economy by overreacting to the situation.

stratclub · Sun Dec 16, 2018 4:58 am

Eyad89 wrote:
For those who want to visualize the effect of climate change, next time you find yourself in a parking garage, notice how warm that place. Why is that? it is because the carbon dioxide from the cars emissions are getting trapped inside the garage and increasing the temperate. Now, imagine all human activities that produce carbon dioxide, where does it all go? they get trapped within our atmosphere, and hence the warming.

That is probably the most ridiculous climate change example I have ever heard. And really that is the problem with the climate change cult. Check this out: https://fstoppers.com/animal/national-g ... and-273428 The problem is that many folks that support the climate change model do not base their opinion on anything in reality. The author of this Nat Geo article claimed that an old age dying polar bear's condition was because of climate change. The retraction later stated that climate change was not the cause of the polar bears condition, but did represent what climate change might look like to poor old Yogi bear. How do you reason with stupidity like that?

Ever wonder who grants scientific research? With the current climate change cult, if you are a scientist and don't support the climate change myth, you don't get funding so you are effectively silenced. Those scientist that were lucky enough to go to the public trough and get grants will tell you that their conclusions are not really based upon anything more than speculation. According to Bob Dole, we should all be dead by now because of climate change.

Another thing I find amazing is the concept of electric transportation. For a 777 to fly the distance of it's range, you would need so many batteries that you would not have any payload left over to fly any passengers. How is people toting around mega tons of batteries in an all electric scheme saving the planet? Oh I know. In an all electric society, electricity is not a problem. You just go over to your nearest electrical outlet and plug in. Just ask the governor of California what the plan is when they have rolling blackouts because everyone is on the grid with their cars.

NYPECO · Sun Dec 16, 2018 5:15 am

planecane wrote:
There could be some impact of humans but I'd theorize that it's more likely due to land development (Urban island effect) than CO2 emissions.

This is based on what?

stratclub · Sun Dec 16, 2018 5:48 am

NYPECO wrote:
planecane wrote:
There could be some impact of humans but I'd theorize that it's more likely due to land development (Urban island effect) than CO2 emissions.

This is based on what?

The real problem is that there are just to many people on the planet. If by some chance we could humanly deal with that problem, we could actually solve our impact on the planet.

That is if you look at the big picture. If as a race we happen to snuff ourselves out, in a million years or so, the planet would completely recover from anything our being here caused. The time humans have been here is barely a snapshot in time in the life of our planet. I know, a completely alien concept because it is based in truth rather than some politicians agenda. Are you hearing me Mr. Dole?

NameOmitted · Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:09 am

Aviation is low hanging fruit. Most people only fly once or twice a year, if that. Trucks and ships move goods that we buy every day.

It does not matter what people on this board want to believe. Storms are getting more frequent and damaging, and politicians will need to look like they are doing something.

The politically easiest thing will be a carbon tax on jet fuel. It's gong to happen, within the decade.

CRJ200flyer · Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:19 am

WeatherPilot wrote:
The amount of airplanes in the sky and whether they're burning efficiently or not has no effect on the climate. Just like the number of factories spewing smoke and cars stuck in traffic will. Hell, did you know the average person breathes out 2-3 pounds of CO2 a day? Does that mean we are all guilty of changing the climate just by living? Should we all hate ourselves for what our mere existance is supposedly doing to the Earth? No. There is nothing you can do about climate change. It is all about the Sun. Don't just look at the Earth, look at all the other planets as well and you will see that they are all warming just like the Earth. So sit back relax and have fun with the years you have left on this rock because it's the Sun that's running the show and you can't do jack sh*t about the Sun.

To your first point about CO2, this a great time to address carbon emissions from aircraft! Every gallon of jet fuel produces approximately 21 pounds of CO2 according to the EPA.

When I pilot my CRJ-200 on four daily flights, we burn roughly 15,000 pounds of fuel, or 2239 gallons (just taking a random day I had). That equates to 47,019 pounds of CO2.

Now for comparison I transported 200 people. Their breathing contributed (using the high end of your estimate) 600 pounds of CO2. Nothing compared to what came out of the tail pipe of that SINGLE airplane!

To your point about the sun, once again let’s turn to NASA for some help!

“But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

-Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

-If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

-Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

NameOmitted · Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:29 am

AirFiero wrote:
[Yes, do some research. There have been predictions about the “northwest passage” opening up for years, and it hasn’t.

With respect, cruise ships have sailed the Northwest Passage 2 of the last 3 summers. It's actually a cause for concern since we have nowhere near the rescue equipment in place to handle a crisis.

NameOmitted · Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:37 am

CRJ200flyer wrote:
When I pilot my CRJ-200 on four daily flights, we burn roughly 15,000 pounds of fuel, or 2239 gallons (just taking a random day I had). That equates to 47,019 pounds of CO2.

The gong rate for sequestering a ton of carbon using voluntary markets in the US is about $12. 24 tons of carbon would mean less than $300 world cover your aircraft for the day. Divided by a day's worth of tickets, that's completely manageable.

AirFiero · Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:48 am

CRJ200flyer wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
CRJ200flyer wrote:

The latest Arctic Ocean climate report was released by NOAA last week. Arctic set a new maximum temperature record this year. The region is warming at twice the rate of the globe. 98% of the sea ice is now less than 4 years old (meaning the old ice has now melted). The population of native species is falling (caribou and reindeer have fallen from 4.7 million to 2.1 million in the last 20 years).

Outside of this report, over the past few years shipping companies have been testing new routes through a nearly ice free summer in the Arctic. The Canadians are trying to determine how to allocate search and rescue resources to be able to assist these ships if needed. Things are happening up there, fast.

Again, please do some research. Our excellent scientists are constantly delivering fresh data and insight. You can make fun of Al Gore, but don’t lose sight of the real issues.

Yes, do some research. There have been predictions about the “northwest passage” opening up for years, and it hasn’t. As for the Arctic temperature, they are extrapolating temperature for the entire arctic using ONE temperature station. That would be like saying the temperature in Montana is warmer than normal using a weather station in Phoenix.

At least three stations:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/arctic/pl ... ature.html

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

Northwest passage development is underway. Ice minimums are falling, and yearly ice thickness and area is falling.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-arct ... SKCN1L91BR

From your article...

While the route is significantly shorter than going via the Suez Canal, it has not yet proven to be commercially viable for container shippers.

“Currently, we do not see the Northern Sea Route as an alternative to our usual routes,” a spokeswoman for Maersk said.

“Today, the passage is only feasible for around three months a year which may change with time,” the spokeswoman said.

Not the Northwest Passage

AirFiero · Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:49 am

NameOmitted wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
[Yes, do some research. There have been predictions about the “northwest passage” opening up for years, and it hasn’t.

With respect, cruise ships have sailed the Northwest Passage 2 of the last 3 summers. It's actually a cause for concern since we have nowhere near the rescue equipment in place to handle a crisis.

Link/reference?

CRJ200flyer · Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:51 am

I decided to take the previous calculation I had of calculating daily tonnage of CO2 emissions even further. Let’s take a look at the United States.

US Airline DAILY CO2 emissions (based on 49.5M gals/day): 520,000 tons of CO2

Americans breathing (assuming all adults at 3lbs/person): 493,000 tons of CO2

US Daily Oil CO2 emissions (19.96 million barrels of oil/day): 8.4 million tons of CO2

US Daily Natural Gas CO2 emissions (7.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas/day): 8.7 billion tons of CO2

US Daily Coal CO2 emissions (1.96 million short tons coal/day): 9.1 billion tons of CO2

TOTAL US CO2 emissions (only counting human breathing, oil, coal and natural gas fuels): 17.81 billions tons

So back to the breathing carbon emissions issue: Americans breathing make up .003% of US CO2 emissions (strictly from breathing, oil, coal and natural gas.

AirFiero · Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:52 am

NameOmitted wrote:
CRJ200flyer wrote:
When I pilot my CRJ-200 on four daily flights, we burn roughly 15,000 pounds of fuel, or 2239 gallons (just taking a random day I had). That equates to 47,019 pounds of CO2.

The gong rate for sequestering a ton of carbon using voluntary markets in the US is about $12. 24 tons of carbon would mean less than $300 world cover your aircraft for the day. Divided by a day's worth of tickets, that's completely manageable.

And a GROSS waste of time, money and resources.

RickNRoll · Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:57 am

trent768 wrote:
idp5601 wrote:
ryhops wrote:
Of course the climate changes - it has since the beginning of time. It's changing as we speak.

That is literally not what climate change (as it is referred to by scientists) is.
Climate change, as defined by the OED, is 'a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.'. It is not the season changing from spring to summer.

No, what he probably means is that climate change is a natural cycle that happens every several thousand years.

P.S: I'm not a denier. Just saying that it'll happen anyway, with or without human presence.

The Milankovic cycles. They shouldn't be affecting the climate at present.

RickNRoll · Sun Dec 16, 2018 7:00 am

LAX772LR wrote:
idp5601 wrote:
It is not the season changing from spring to summer.

You're missing the boat just as badly as s/he is.

The "climate has always changed" statement is usually in reference to the fact that the planet (as a whole, or even in continental regions) has never had the same, or even similar, climate for any geologically-significant period of time. That's an inconvenient truth.

The climate now is (obviously) not the same as it was during the last few ice ages, or during the Devonian period, or during the Mesazoic, or Cenozoic, or the etc etc.

That's not to say that humans aren't exasperating the situation, and making it occur in ways and at rates too excessive for ecosystems to adapt to. But to think that humans will ever "stop" the climate from changing, or produce a lasting climate similar to what's been experienced over the last several centuries, is equally as deluded (or more worrisome: equally as EXPLOITED) as those who outright deny human involvement in climate change.

I don't know anyone who has claimed that humans will ever stop climate from changing. We can't stop the Milankovich cycles.

NameOmitted · Sun Dec 16, 2018 7:11 am

AirFiero wrote:
NameOmitted wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
[Yes, do some research. There have been predictions about the “northwest passage” opening up for years, and it hasn’t.

With respect, cruise ships have sailed the Northwest Passage 2 of the last 3 summers. It's actually a cause for concern since we have nowhere near the rescue equipment in place to handle a crisis.

Link/reference?

https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/no-more-crystal-serenity-northwest-passage 2016 and 2017, Crystal Serenity, 68,000 gross tons.

AirFiero · Sun Dec 16, 2018 7:17 am

NameOmitted wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
NameOmitted wrote:

With respect, cruise ships have sailed the Northwest Passage 2 of the last 3 summers. It's actually a cause for concern since we have nowhere near the rescue equipment in place to handle a crisis.

Link/reference?

https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/no-more-crystal-serenity-northwest-passage 2016 and 2017, Crystal Serenity, 68,000 gross tons.

An amazingly ambiguous article saying they won’t be continuing. Is the passage open, still? The article doesn’t say.

LAX772LR · Sun Dec 16, 2018 7:36 am

RickNRoll wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
But to think that humans will ever "stop" the climate from changing, or produce a lasting climate similar to what's been experienced over the last several centuries, is equally as deluded

I don't know anyone who has claimed that humans will ever stop climate from changing.

Then click HERE and meet plenty.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net