DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Who is it that thinks a/c emissions are not a problem and therefore not an issue? Just curious.

leftj Loc: Texas

Sure there has. It’s not caused by human activity. Ever hear of the ice age? C*****e c****e is a religion.

aphelps Loc: Central Ohio

We already have electric jet engines (really ducted fans) for model aircraft. Now it's just a matter of up-scaling. If it was easy it would have been done. I did read about some experimental short haul planes but the battery weight and size are current limiting factors. But with tech progress it's just a matter of time.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

You are correct, ONLY because Billions of years ago there were not humans to speak of. But now there are and always will be. You will of course have your opinion and that is fine. My opinion is that c*****e c****e was always here and was changing because of SOMETHING. Make up wh**ever you want to justify c*****e c****e but it sure has hell has not been because of mankind.

Here is a question for you that nobody else has answered when asked. Let's say every nation donates Trillions to Gazillions of dollars to the fund that will combat c*****e c****e. Exactly how will that money be spent. This is not a problem (the Left says it is a problem) that money can take care of. So how will the money be spent?

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

As AOC has told us, just plug them in to an outlet.

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Well said. But AGAIN, where do you think the electricity comes from to power those electric cars?

Dennis

howIseeit Loc: Kootenays, BC Canada

Mr. Bison Bud wrote;

It seems to me that we have pretty much ignored another major factor and that is all the jet fuel being consumed daily, especially at high altitude. Not only do these aircraft literally consume tons of f****l f**l on a single flight


RdY
There is a good reason for not including air traffic into the debate, namely because that would include the viciously debunked geoengineering campaign, almost around the clock aerosol dumps into atmosphere, especially the huge C-class air crafts, vehemently denied even by, sadly, some of the airline pilots, on the payroll, to keep the mouth shut. Therefore such an inclusion would certainly draw attention to those, on goings.
In meantime we are using the programs such as Sky Replacement programs more and more. As the natural sky becomes anything but. I am noticing trend for some time now, to get away from 3 thirds framing and include less sky when it becomes to obvious to saturated with unnatural streaks caused by these polluters.

Bison Bud

Dennis,

I have always questioned the "Green" part of electric cars primarily because of the point you make about them generally being charged from f****l f**l burning power plants. Not to mention that our power grids probably can't support the power demands for a complete changeover to electric vehicles without a serious upgrade. Can you imagine the brownout conditions that would routinely occur when every commuter got home from work and plugged in their vehicles to charge back up? Add to that the power and toxic materials used to make the batteries may well become an even bigger pollution issue as these vehicles become more and more mainstream. Disposal and/or recycling of these batteries is going to become a big issue as well. All in all, I don't think that electric vehicles are really the end solution to our "Green" t***sportation needs and that we need to make good/better decisions going forward if we really intend to "Save the Planet (tongue firmly plant in cheek on that one)."

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

We are in agreement. A few days ago a friend and I had a similar conversation and he mentioned that hydrogen fuel was somewhere in the works and the only by product would be water. A great idea and if so, one that should be explored. I have heard that idea a long time ago, maybe in the 1970's. Surely something needs to be done for the long term future of children to great grandchildren. But so far f****l f**ls are working well and the skies are not so filled with smog as they were in the 1960's.

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

We photographers have been changing the sky in our photographs even back in the film days with dodging and burning etc. That is nothing new. I have never changed a sky in my life and most likely will never do that. But I doubt most photographers change the sky because of anything the climate is doing. Most simply change the sky to make it brighter, darker or filled with more of a cloud formation they like. Apparently the sky they are changing TO doesn't seem to bad due to any c*****e c****e.

As for aircraft, do you have a better method of getting from place to place at long distances? Yeah, me neither.

Dennis

Bison Bud

Yeah, the hydrogen fuel cell shows some real promise, at least in my opinion. In fact, the National News recently ran a story about a new ferry boat that is being built powered by hydrogen fuel cells. Frankly, the technology is out there, but they are going to have to find ways to bring down costs before it becomes a mainstream option. Frankly, I'd bet that we are going to see more and more hybrid vehicles in the near future that can run on either gas or electric rather than a complete switchover to electric vehicles. In any case, at 68 years old, I don't think I'm going to see the end of the internal combustion engine.

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

I can't imagine electric passenger planes will ever take off.

Watash

Yes! I bet man was blamed for the climate-changing millions of years ago. No, wait.....that's right, man was
not around then. Man cannot stop c*****e c****e. It will change with or without man.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

It seems that no one from the c*****e c****e believers side has yet piped up, so here goes.

1) Yes, c*****e c****e is completely natural, has been going on forever, and will continue going on forever... and probably in cycles of some sort. That does not mean that humans haven't, or can't, modify the process. Everything we do has an impact somewhere on something. Don't you think cutting down forests to create farmland has an effect on the local ecosystem? Don't you think turning deserts into irrigated farms has some impact on water levels somewhere? Nothing is ever "free;" there is always a "cost" somewhere. Even hydroelectric power has an environmental cost/impact despite the total amount of water going from higher ground to lower ground being the same. It really comes down to the relative impact of the human meddling. So for hydroelectric power, water flow at the dam site has been changed dramatically, but probably has little impact on the flow volume one mile downstream. However, the size of the reservoir created behind the dam may have a huge impact on the environment, including large amounts of methane coming from decomposing vegetation in the water. You can Google this if you don't believe me.

2) There is plenty of evidence that greenhouse gas emissions have increased with industrialization. It is also believed that increased greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere may cause increases in the average temperature of the earth. This relationship is not yet completely understood, and climatologists have been honing their models as more data becomes available. It is logically tempting to conclude that we can slow the rate of g****l w*****g by reducing our burning of f****l f**ls, but there are still many variables and factors that we don't understand that could make this relationship significant... or not. But one thing is certain: wh**ever natural c*****e c****e was happening BEFORE humans started pumping out greenhouse gases WILL BE ALTERED by human activity; and it may be good, or it may be bad; but denial of human activity having an impact is simply foolishness.

3) I have explained in many other posts that, discounting nuclear, ALL of our energy comes from the sun. F****l f**ls are simply solar energy that was absorbed by plants millions of years ago and stored as oil or coal. Even hydroelectric power comes from the sun evaporating water from the oceans, lifting it to higher levels as clouds in the atmosphere, and dropping it as rain on the highlands where it runs downhill back to the oceans... and through a dam or two along the way.

4) Every "thermodynamic engine" has 3 main components: energy in; useful work output; and waste heat output. It matters not if we are talking about a gasoline engine, a diesel engine, an electric motor, or even a muscle contracting in your body. What does matter is the efficiency of the energy conversion process, because less waste heat means less energy input for the same amount of useful work, which is what we want from the system. When comparing internal combustion engines to electric motors there is no contest -- electric motors are WAY MORE efficient. So do you burn a lump of coal or a gallon of diesel at a power station to charge a battery that then drives a motor in a car, or do you burn that lump of coal in your Stanley Steamer, or that gallon of diesel in your Audi? If the efficiency of burning f****l f**ls at a power generating station is greater than burning it in a car, then electric is the way to go IF we can reduce the losses and inefficiencies between the power station and the car. Technology is certainly moving well in this area.

5) So what about airplanes? Even if clean hydrogen-powered jet engines are still a long way off, that is no reason to not clean up our act in every other possible way that we can. If your neighbour jumped off a cliff, would you do the same? We can certainly give up all air travel right now if you are willing to spend days of travel time getting from A to B. And you could ask yourself whether it is actually more efficient from a f****l f**l perspective to have 400 people driving cars from New York to Los Angeles over a week vs flying in a 747 in a few hours. Are you happy to wait 3 months for your Wayfair/Amazon purchase to come by sea container, or do you want it in 3 days?

To summarize, there is nothing that humans do that does not have an impact on something, including climate. If we suspect that there might be a way that we can preserve this earth in its present state -- i.e., reduce the rate of what is perceived to be a detrimental change in its state -- then should we not give it a try?

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I am ahead of you by a few years at 75. I still love my diesel truck and don't see getting a replacement anytime soon. Of course it only has 102,000 miles on the odometer so no hurry. Still runs like a new truck. Life is good when you expect it to be good.

Dennis