We were about to embark at Dover, when d () came up
to me and whispered:

Your average car doesn't use about 10 tons of fuel per trip
(100 tons if you're talking about a 747 on long haul)

So what's that per passenger mile?

nor do they inject their
pollution direct into the stratosphere.

Jet-A fuel is basically kerosene, one of the cleanest fuels to burn under
pressure. A Jet Engine is one of the cleanest ways to burn it.


--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

On Oct 14, 11:51*am, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:01:13 -0700 (PDT)

77002 wrote:
Actually even the people who arn't convinced about mans impact on the
climate accept that the planet has got warmer over the last century so
you're on your own with that one.

There are clear long term climate cycles. *We are now transitioning
into a cooling trend. *Hence the warmers now talk about "climate

Oh really? How come we've had some of the the hottest years on record in the
last few decades then? *How does that square with a cooling trend exactly?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...mest-year.html

We have just turned the corner from a warming period.

change". *It is about more funds for the liberal elite.

Oh riiight. Silly me, all those climate scientists, ecologists and campaigners
are all the liberal elite. Now it all makes sense.

Check out the leading promoter of this blx. Follow the money.

trousers on and stopped having so many damn kids. If there were only a
billion people on the planet it wouldn't matter a jot if we all drove aro=
und
in 5 litre V8s and left the lights on 24/7.

Hardly an issue in European countries.

Depends. There are plenty of chavs shooting out half a dozen kids still.

It happens. By and large the native populations in Western Europe
have a declining birth rate. France is a specific case in point.

Usually by an equal number of fathers. And thats before we get onto large
immigrant families.

Take a look at the birth rate of the "religion of peace".

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:18 +0100 (BST)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when d () came up
to me and whispered:

Your average car doesn't use about 10 tons of fuel per trip
(100 tons if you're talking about a 747 on long haul)

So what's that per passenger mile?

Who cares? Its the same amount of C02 being released whether its full or empty.
If there was no flight most of the passengers probably wouldn't make the trip
or would use a more efficient train.

nor do they inject their
pollution direct into the stratosphere.

Jet-A fuel is basically kerosene, one of the cleanest fuels to burn under
pressure. A Jet Engine is one of the cleanest ways to burn it.

Early jet engines were filthy. Anyone who's seen a 707 or concorde at
takeoff can remember the dirty trails of pollution they left behind. The
latest ones are cleaner but then so are the petrol engines when combined
with a catalyst.

B2003

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 05:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...mest-year.html

We have just turned the corner from a warming period.

Ah , so we've started on the cooler trend this very year have we?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

"The January - September worldwide land surface temperature was 0.80°C (1.44°F
) above the 20th century average - 7th warmest such period on record"

Perhaps you mean this week?

Oh riiight. Silly me, all those climate scientists, ecologists and campai=
gners
are all the liberal elite. Now it all makes sense.

Check out the leading promoter of this blx. Follow the money.

Thanks, but I'll follow the science if its all the same.

B2003

On 14/10/2011 11:51, d wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
wrote:
Actually even the people who arn't convinced about mans impact on the
climate accept that the planet has got warmer over the last century so
you're on your own with that one.

There are clear long term climate cycles. We are now transitioning
into a cooling trend. Hence the warmers now talk about "climate

Oh really? How come we've had some of the the hottest years on record in the
last few decades then? How does that square with a cooling trend exactly?

IIRC we are midway along a warming-cooling curve, ie at the warmest
point so it should be getting cooler from now on. Trouble is it is a
42000 year cycle so it will be 10000 years or so before we notice.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:41:35 on
Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Bruce remarked:
The proposal for a second runway is a little over 1km to the south of
the existing one, with the new (third) terminal between the runways.

There is no proposal for a second runway. Legally, there can be no
such proposal until 2019.

There has been a proposal since at least 2005 (I've been quoting from
the BAA documents). No doubt the new owners considered such proposals
before buying - it would be an insane leap in the dark not to.

What they can't do is *start building* until 2019. I originally thought
they couldn't apply for planning permission until 2019, but it's not
even that.


That is what I thought too. I researched it in some detail in the
1990s as I lived in an area of Sussex that already had quite a lot of
aircraft noise and would have had more if the changes had gone ahead.

It was quite clear at that time that a second runway could not even be
considered before 2019. I wonder when that changed,

If not before, it will have changed when BAA was privatised as there is no
way that you could force a company to abide by such a rule

tim

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:34:22 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
Oh really? How come we've had some of the the hottest years on record in the
last few decades then? How does that square with a cooling trend exactly?

IIRC we are midway along a warming-cooling curve, ie at the warmest
point so it should be getting cooler from now on. Trouble is it is a
42000 year cycle so it will be 10000 years or so before we notice.

Presumably most of that 42000 cycle is cooling then given how quickly the
warming happened in the last 200 years because if it cooled as fast we'll
be at absolute zero long before the end of the cycle.

B2003

On 14/10/2011 21:04, d wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:34:22 +0100
Graeme wrote:
Oh really? How come we've had some of the the hottest years on record in the
last few decades then? How does that square with a cooling trend exactly?

IIRC we are midway along a warming-cooling curve, ie at the warmest
point so it should be getting cooler from now on. Trouble is it is a
42000 year cycle so it will be 10000 years or so before we notice.

Presumably most of that 42000 cycle is cooling then given how quickly the
warming happened in the last 200 years because if it cooled as fast we'll
be at absolute zero long before the end of the cycle.

B2003



No, it's 21000 warming then 21000 cooling. Has to do with changes to
the Earth's orbit around the Sun. One consequence is that there is a
theory that the only thing preventing the imminent onset of the next
ice-age is anthropogenic global warming. Unfortunately for it's wilder
advocates they assume a very compressed time scale.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

wrote in message

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:18 +0100 (BST)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
under pressure. A Jet Engine is one of the cleanest ways to burn it.

Early jet engines were filthy. Anyone who's seen a 707 or concorde at
takeoff can remember the dirty trails of pollution they left behind.
The latest ones are cleaner but then so are the petrol engines when
combined with a catalyst.

It depends what you mean by 'cleaner' -- catalytic converters make
engines less, not more, efficient in terms of CO2 emissions. What has
made a positive difference is fuel injection. High bypass turbofan aero
engines are more efficient in every way than their low bypass or
turbojet predecessors.

We were about to embark at Dover, when d () came up
to me and whispered:


Who cares? Its the same amount of C02 being released whether
its full or empty.

But CO2 in the stratosphere isn't a problem. Nor is it pollution.

If there was no flight most of the passengers
probably wouldn't make the trip or would use a more efficient train.

Let me know when I can catch a train to Canada.

Anyone who's seen a 707 or concorde at
takeoff can remember the dirty trails of pollution they left
behind.

Which isn't in the stratosphere, which is what you were complaining about.
And Concorde using afterburners was very clean...



--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----