Airbus proposing Measures to Reduce the Aviation Carbon Footprint that may make Flying more Dangerous

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 9th, 2012

Week in Review

Airplanes are very complex machines.  They fly at speeds 3-4 times the speeds they land and take off at.  Which requires leading edge slats and trailing edge flaps to curve the wing more at low speed to increase lift.  While flattening it out more at high speeds to reduce drag.  When landing pilots put the engines into reverse thrust to help slow the plane down.  So they even use fuel to slow down.

And speaking of fuel it’s expensive.  Airlines carry as little of it as possible in their airplanes to reduce weight which reduces costs.  Sometimes bad weather forces planes to go to an alternate airport.  Sometimes there are strong headwinds.  Sometimes they fly into Heathrow and have to circle for a half hour or so to land.  Because they only have two runways.  Compounding this problem planes are getting lighter and engines are getting more efficient.  Allowing airlines to carry even less fuel.  So it is not uncommon for a pilot to declare a fuel emergency because of unexpected additional flying time.

When flying in the air highways air traffic controllers keep airplanes separated by large distances.  To keep them from running into each other.  The more distance the better so they can take evasive actions to avoid bad weather cells.  Or allow a plane some leeway in case they have a system malfunction (like plugged pitot tubes feeding false air speed and altimeter readings into the autopilot) that takes the plane off course.  Or in case a plane flies into some clear air turbulence (CAT) and it drops out of the sky 1,000 feet or so.  Or rises 1,000 feet or so.  Two things that allow a plane to recover from unplanned events like these are empty skies around you and altitude.

Aviation has come a long way.  And Boeing and Airbus are making some incredible airplanes.  So they know a thing or two about flying an airplane.  And it shows in their planes.  Which makes it hard to take them seriously when they talk about ways to reduce their carbon footprint by making flying more risky (see Airbus To Present Measures To Reduce Industry’s Environmental Footprint by Jens Flottau posted 9/6/2012 on Aviation Week).

Airbus on Sept. 6 will unveil five measures it says will make the aviation industry environmentally sustainable by 2050 despite projected growth for global air transport…

Airbus also foresees a new method for takeoff, with renewably powered propelled acceleration allowing aircraft to climb steeper and reach cruise altitude faster. This in turn would allow airports to build shorter runways and minimize land use.

Once in cruise, aircraft should be able to self-organize and select the most efficient routes, says Airbus. On dense routes, aircraft could fly in formation, like birds, to take advantage of drag reduction opportunities.

In Airbus’ vision, aircraft will descend without using engine power or air brakes and would be able to decelerate quicker and to a lower final approach speed enabling them to use shorter runways…

Fuel is a key component of Airbus’ proposal, and the manufacturer says the use of biofuels hydrogen, electricity and solar energy will be required to reduce the industry’s environmental footprint.

You simply can’t build shorter runways.  Because planes aren’t perfect.  Sometimes things happen.  If we had shorter runways what would happen to a plane landing with damaged leading edge slats or trailing edge flaps?  And they have to land at a higher speed than normal because they can’t curve the wing to create more lift at lower speeds?  And what if a plane’s thrust reversers failed to deploy?  This is why we have long runways.  To give planes with problems a better chance to land safely.

Flying commercial jets in formation?  Not a good idea.  One of the most dangerous things to do in the Air Force is aerial refueling.  Where two large planes get real close to each other.  If they bump into each other they could cause some damage.  Even cause them to crash.  Flying in formation would be exhausting for a pilot.  Or they could entrust their formation flying to an autopilot.  But if they hit some CAT and get thrown around in that airspace they could get thrown into each other.  Even while flying on autopilot.  Planes also make their own turbulence.  Which is why there are larger distances between the big planes (i.e., the heavies) and the small ones.  So the small ones don’t get flipped over by some spiraling wingtip vortex turbulence off the heavy in front of it.

Solar energy?  Really?  How?  It’s not going to propel a jumbo jet.  And if they think they’re going to save on engine emissions by using solar panels on the wings to produce electricity for the cabin lights and electronics I don’t think that will work.  The emissions from the electrical load on those engines may be negligible compared to emissions they make producing thrust for flight.  And if they add more weight (solar panels) that will only take more fuel for flight.  Which will release more emissions.  Finally, a lot of planes fly at night.  When there is no sunshine.  What then?

Trying to reduce a plane’s carbon footprint will only make flying more dangerous.  It’s one thing to throw money away building solar panels and windmills on the ground.  For that’s just ripping the people off.  But applying this nonsense to aviation may end up killing people.  It’s hard to believe that Airbus is serious with these suggestions.  One wonders if they’re just proposing this to get those proposing that carbon trading scheme to back off as it will increase the cost of flying.  Which will reduce the number of people flying.  And reduce the number of planes Airbus can sell.  Perhaps by dangling this green future of aviation they may buy some time before the carbon trading scheme kills the aviation industry.

Fighting nonsense with nonsense.  It’s just as good an explanation as any.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The US assures the UN that they Still Plan on Ruining their Economy to Fight Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 11th, 2012

Week in Review

The UN is still trying to impose a carbon trading scheme on the world.  To fight global warming.  Perhaps by 2015.  To make people pay them (or their governments that fund the UN) for burning carbon.  To create an egalitarian world.  With them sitting at the top.  More equal than others (see U.S. affirms support for U.N. climate goal after criticism by Alister Doyle posted 8/8/2012 on Reuters).

Almost 200 nations, including the United States, have agreed to limit rising temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) above pre-industrial times to avoid dangerous changes such as floods, droughts and rising sea levels.

The EU Commission, small island states and environmental activists urged the world to stick to the target on Tuesday, fearing that Washington was withdrawing support. Temperatures have already risen by about 0.8 degree C…

Many scientists say the 2 degrees target is getting out of reach because of rising emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels.

Emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, rose 3.1 percent in 2011 to a record high. The decade ending in 2010 was the warmest since records began in the mid-19th century, U.N. data show.

Anyone else see the fatal flaw in this plan?  It assumes man alone controls global temperatures.  Which we don’t.  We had the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period.  It wasn’t glaciers reaching halfway down North America but cool, wet growing seasons reduced harvests.  And caused some famine.  And this was before we burned gasoline in our cars.  And coal in our steam engines during the Industrial Revolution.  Man didn’t cause these global changes.  Man just suffered through them.

And speaking of the Ice Ages, what about the Ice Ages?  Just what made the glaciers advance then recede?  These even preceded man’s use of fire.  So it clearly was something else cooling and warming the planet.  Unless we were a far gassier people back then.  (If so lucky for them there were no open flames.)

The planet warms and cools.  It did so before man burned fossil fuels with a vengeance.  And after man burned fossil fuels with a vengeance.  If the temperature moves a degree in one direction or the other there is absolutely no way to know if that was just a natural change (like through 99.9% of the planet’s existence – including those ice ages) or if it was caused by man (whose been around approximately 0.1% of the planet’s existence).

This isn’t science.  This is politics.  A way for the anti-Capitalists to turn back the hands of time.  And make life truly unpleasant for the masses.  As they produce an egalitarian world.  Where everyone suffers equally.  Except those sitting at the top ensuring the world is fair and just.  As they determine what fair and just to be.  The UN.  The world’s overlords.  Once they control the world’s economies, that is.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

More Evidence Debunks the Great Pseudoscience Charlatans from the Church of Man-Made Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 3rd, 2011

Week in Review

More damning evidence has surfaced showing once again that man-made global warming is a man-made political science (see Scientists Behaving Badly by Jim Lacey posted 11/28/201 on National Review).

Global-warming skeptics spend much of their time knocking down the fatuous warmist claim that the science is settled. According to the warmists, this singular piece of settled science is attested to by hundreds or thousands of highly credentialed scientists. In truth, virtually the entire warmist edifice is built around a small, tightly knit coterie of persons (one hesitates to refer to folks with so little respect for the scientific method as scientists) willing to falsify data and manipulate findings; or, to put it bluntly, to lie in order to push a political agenda not supported by empirical evidence. This is what made the original release of the Climategate e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia so valuable. They clearly identified the politicized core of climate watchers who were driving the entire warmist agenda. Following in their footsteps are all the other scientists who built their own research on top of the fraudulent data produced by the warmist core.

Last week over 5,000 new e-mails, already dubbed Climategate 2, were released. Anyone still desiring to contest the assertion that only a few persons controlled the entire warmist agenda will be brought up short by this note from one warmist protesting that his opinions were not getting the hearing they deserved: “It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.” Over the years this core group, led by Phil Jones at East Anglia and Michael Mann at Penn State, became so close that even those inclined toward more honest appraisals of the state of climate science were hesitant to rock the boat. As one warm-monger states: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

If you have trouble reading the above it might be because of all the smoke.  Smoking guns tend to do that.  Smoke.

Man-made global warming is a political movement.  A religion.  Not science.  The two main profits who have written the holy scriptures of Man-Made Global Warming are Phil Jones and Michael Mann.  And all of the climate pseudoscience that followed was based on their dogma.  Not actual scientific inquiry and peer review.  Like the work of Isaac Newton.  Albert Einstein.  And Niels Bohr.  Who where were true men of science.  And we remember them as such.  But we won’t remember Jones and Mann as men of science.  But rather as charlatans.  And leaders of their cult of Global Warming.

Here’s just a smattering of some quotes Lacey pulled from these climate pseudo scientists’ emails.

“It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.”

“I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.”

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.”

“The figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].”

“I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!”

”I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.”

“Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions — bad politics — to one about the value of a stable climate — much better politics. . . . the most valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as possible.”

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.” To which one warmist replied: “Phil, thanks for your thoughts — guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open.”

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get — and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

Do these sound like the exchange of scientists?  Or more like people trying pull the wool over our eyes?  Of course this is a rhetorical answer because we all know the answer.  Wool.

At one point, Jones admits that the “basic problem is that all of the models are wrong.” Of course, there is a simple reason for this. When the models do not show what the warmists want them to show, they simply apply “some tuning.” One scientist was worried enough about this “tuning” to write that he “doubt[ed] the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.” In this case, “tuning” means changing the model until it tells you what you want it to. When it became impossible to torture the models any further without making their uselessness apparent to all, the warmists resorted to changing the data.

The most efficient method of corrupting the models was to use data only from time periods when there was warming and discard others, as Jones admits to doing. This method helped one scientist reduce the cooling in the northern hemisphere between 1940 and 1970, so that he did not have to make up an excuse blaming it on sulphates, which could not be proven. Another complains that no matter how much he fiddles with the data, it is “very difficult to make the Medieval Warming Period go away.” Solving this problem in the modern era was much easier: The warmists merely changed the temperature readings for much of the 20th century and threw away the original data.

Yet our children are being taught that free market capitalism is melting the polar ice caps and killing polar bears.  These kids grow up and go to college.  And vote.  Which helps to push an environmental agenda that strangles free market capitalism.  By enacting layers of regulations.  And fees.  Perhaps the greatest being the carbon trading scheme.  Forcing businesses to buy shares of something no one owns.  Where all the proceeds go not surprisingly to government coffers.  To try an offset huge budget deficits.  And as it turns out the greater pushers of this carbon trading scheme are those countries with some of the biggest budget deficits.

Talk about the coincidence of all coincidences.  Global warming legislation transfers huge sums of wealth from the private sector to the public sector.  That same public sector that funds the climate pseudo-scientists.  If one didn’t know any better one would say it was all about the money.  And the political power.  Ever since Thatcher and Reagan debunked Big Government liberalism.

Everyone should read this piece by Jim Lacey.  Learn it.  Save it.  And share it.  He concludes with:

My favorite quote of all those uncovered was from the climate criminal who asked his colleagues what would happen to them if it was discovered that climate change was “mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation,” as much of the evidence shows. He answers his own question: “They’ll kill us probably.”

So there is another reason to perpetuate this fraud.  Because if the fraud is found out they will be exposed as being the frauds that they are.  They’ll lose whatever scientific credentials they have.  As well as their scientific careers.  And be forever remembered as the great charlatans of the pseudoscience of the Church of Man-Made Global Warming.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,