500ks
yawn
Don’t they have a smaller aircraft available to test this tech? Surely a white-tail 737 is laying around somewhere.
yawn
Don’t they have a smaller aircraft available to test this tech? Surely a white-tail 737 is laying around somewhere.
With one leg in Seattle and the other in the D.C. swamp, one shouldn’t be surprised that Boeing is going full-green. Everything they are doing is based in the false premises that carbon dioxide is bad (we exhale it, plants call it food), that we’re running out of water (humans are more endangered by floods than by thirst) and that we’re running out of natural resources (they need to read Julian Simon’s “Ultimate Resource”). And then there is the biggest swindle of all, biofuels. As if the ethanol disaster wasn’t bad enough. Read “Ethanol Is Bad for Cars, the Environment, the Poor, and America - Is Ethanol the Single Most Destructive Government Subsidy?“ at fee.org. 40% of the US corn crop goes to make biofuels, mostly ethanol. It should be used to feed people and animals. I used to fly the airlines nearly every week for business. Between the TSA goons, crowded flights and the crazies that the airlines transport, I find driving my car to be far more enjoyable and less stressful. And private planes, of course.
2 replies
The hype is greenwashing - pandering to politicians and eco-goons.
The only one of the technologies mentioned by you that fits ‘eco’ is use of fuel made from other than petroleum.
Water weighs, thus using less should be good if safe.
Additive manufacturing is cost reduction which is good.
‘SMART’ VGs perhaps reduce fuel consumption which is good.
Safety is good in principle.
Humans cannot cause runaway climate warming, which is not and cannot happen.
Earth was warmer and climate stable in the Medieval Warm Period when Vikings farmed southwest Greenland.
Climate has been warming slowly since the end of a cool era that drove them out, shown by accurate thermometers like weather balloons and satellite sensors, and tide gages.
The effect CO2 can have is small, limited by the ‘saturation’ effect of overlap of spectra of carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide vapour, most of the increase has already been realized.
2 replies
It’s a shame “TSA goons” must put up with attitudes like yours as they make sure idiots with bad intentions stay off the airplanes we ride in.
BTW… for those who have been warned not to crack jokes with TSA operatives… The TSA inspector who examined my wifes’ and my luggage on our recent trip to Europe demonstrated they actually ARE capable of humor…:
As my wife and her luggage passed inspection just-ahead of me…the TSA agent was looking at my luggage under the X-ray …then turned to her and asked, “Are you sure you want him to go along with you on this vacation…??”
LOL
(I reminded him, “Hey!… No Jokes at Security!” (grin)
CO2 feeds you.
The land is greening from it.
@Rational K: What climate which existed eons ago is unrelated to todays’ human-footprint on the environment… and it is no excuse for our behavior. (or perhaps you believe a return to an unlivable climate for your present selfishness makes it OK…)
It’s Medieval beliefs and thinking like you expressed that will harm us in the present and our grandchildren in the future.
If this is true about TSA, then why are the incidences of disruptive passengers so much higher than they used to be?
Not long ago I was exiting the “secure area” at San Jose, you know that narrow tunnel exit out to the main terminals, and there were TWO TSA guards stationed there sitting not 8 feet apart "guarding the exit point. The TSA folks must have really studied the old railroad featherbedding book on unnecessary employees.
Who made YOU the scientific arbiter of what good environmental practice is–and what ISN’T?
“Environmentalists” seem to MEAN well, but then go “over the top” on regulation–using sometimes spurious claims of environmental catastrophe to buttress their contentions.
They’ve been at it long enough for time to prove that their overzealous claims never came to pass–the modern equivalent of “the boy who cried wolf”–leading to distrust of their claims (even if they WERE well-founded.
I believe that the point George H is making (one with a lot of support) is that the climate is ALWAYS changing–and may not be anthropomorphic. The far left often goes on the attack if anyone challenges their beliefs (“idiots like you”–“believe a return to an unlivable climate for your present selfishness”–“Medieval beliefs and thinking like you expressed”).
“Do the right thing” by keeping things “green”–yes–but unsubstantiated claims of global climate disaster cause the environmental community to lose credibility.
“Regulation by press release” is hardly good policy for making laws. You can’t make regulatory policy “just because I say so”–that harks back to the old policy of “because I SAID SO!” or “the Divine Right of Kings.”
1 reply
No clue George! The huge benefits to all of mankind from using fossil fuels is the sole reason for the success of today’s civilization, a huge decrease in human suffering and the vary survival of the species. Are humans increasing the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere -yes. But show me the science that can definitively tie this to detrimental environmental effects. There are many prognostications and models out there but there is no proven scientific proof, as has been recently discussed by several leading climate experts. So far all the drastic issues you profess have been debunked and every climate model has proven to be wrong and inconsistent with realized effects. But keep drinking the Kool-ade and submitting to the shrill calls of the ecofreaks who want total control.
Well, nothing says concern for the environment like flying around in the largest kerosene burning behemoth airplane you make to “demonstrate” your ideas on conservation. I guess it’s a good thing they aren’t still building 747s.
‘There are many prognostications and models out there but there is no proven scientific proof,…’
Yes! Without proven scientific proof, how in the world do we prove a point to counter proven scientific proof of legitimate climate science work with our own proven countering scientific proof?
And how in the world do we take people seriously who never - ever - offer proven scientific proof to the counterargument of serious proven climate science but only opinion and prognostications? The head spins in search of an answer…
Here’s merely ONE offering that can be used as a stepping stone to proving further scientific proof of the legitimacy of climate science - there is so much more available:
-climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
See? That wasn’t so hard. Now your turn to disprove the available scientific proof of the ever ongoing proven climate science proof of anthropogenic climate change. Literally the world - not just a few deluded tree-lovin-huggin libtards like me on an aviation-splinter-group comment section - is waiting.
2 replies
Hi Dave, as you have noted, commentary on this section has denigrated into a repository of comments by persons who act out their anger by writing diatribes blaming the “liberals”, “government” and other faceless groups of persons who these commenters feel are threatening them. Unfortunately, these commenters jump to attack mode and are simply lashing out. Perhaps if these commenters would state what is freaking them out, it might be possible to have a rational exchange. But until then, it’s just sort of spittin’ in the wind.
2 replies
The “CO2 saturation effect” is a fallacy based on misunderstanding of how heat transfer works in the atmosphere. Heat passes from the earth’s surface by convection up to an altitude from which it can radiate. Increase the CO2 in the atmosphere and you increase that altitude. That increases the adiabatic cooling in the convection, meaning a higher surface temperature to maintain the same temperature at the radiation altitude. The earth’s surface will continue to get warmer as we continue to dump more CO2 into the atmosphere.
See the Wikipedia article on Climate Change. It has two important graphics - the first of global surface temperature since 0 AD. The temperature rise over the last century dwarfs all the previous effects including the Medieval warm period and the following “little ice age”. The second is CO2 percentage in the atmosphere over the last 800 years. It’s fairly consistent until the Industrial Revolution takes it off the chart. You can only miss the correlation if you’re in willful denial.
2 replies
IDK, Rich, but all I can come up with at this moment is a quote from Genesis: Book - Invisible Touch Chapter - 1986 Verse - Land of Confusion
‘There’s too many men, too many people
Making too many problems
And there’s not much love to go around
Can’t you see this is the land of confusion?’
"Perhaps if these commenters would state what is freaking them out, it might be possible to have a rational exchange. "
Nobody “freaking out”–most of us are just pointing to the fact that the predictions of "the end of the World is coming due to man-caused “climate change” haven’t lived up to their predictions–causing many of us to question the CURRENT “theory du jour”.
As others have pointed out–“climate” has changed not only during recorded history, but eons BEFORE man.
NOBODY is in favor of spreading pollution–but to claim that activities of mankind is causing GLOBAL “climate change” is an over-reach–and failure of these dour predictions to come about has discredited them and caused so many to examine claims made TODAY.
Will more restrictions by governments cure “climate change” (IF it exists)? The reality–government often makes things WORSE in their zeal to “help.” (mandated ethanol, for example).
Most of us would be happy if government simply adopted the mantra of the medical profession: “FIRST–DO NO HARM!”
‘Most of us would be happy if government simply adopted the mantra of the medical profession: “FIRST–DO NO HARM!”’
Huh? As if practitioners would consider harming patients?
An insulting phrase that should die. When the patient doth protest under the surgeon’s knife, or the chest tube, or being intubated, there is an understanding that the trauma of surgeries and chemo and pain and therapies will hopefully, eventually, lead to resolution of the health problem, or at least mitigate it for average livability.
Addressing multi-faceted challenges like anthropogenic climate change, institutionalized racism, increasing economic inequality (which, the long view would show would hurt the rich far more than the poor but alas!, ignorance rules the day), takes government and private sectors working hard and aligned to keep the balance of life going.
With the leadership of NASA, National Academy of Sciences, AMS, NWS, AMA, JPL - hundreds of legitimate sources, governments, and private firms working on this dangerous, existential threat from climate change - not unlike the pandemic - just how does the constant, repeated whine of impatience and hatred of all things gummint reveal your ‘I’m right You’re Wrong!’ stance?
Never gets old, eh?
Speaking of so many jerks today that someone else mentioned…
Error: Wikipedia is proven to be biased, people keep editing it that way. Wonkipedia staff did finally block one jerk.
I recommend Alex Epstein’s book ‘Fossil Future’ for solid information and an explanation of the great value of fossil fuels to humans, and even to the environment.
And cut the ‘denial’ smear scam - why are you afraid of questions?
And try this quick sampling:
https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/empirical-observations-show-no-sign-of-climate-crisis/
and illustration of incompleteness of climate science:
https://www.timescolonist.com/national-news/blue-marshlands-store-as-much-carbon-as-green-forests-says-study-5343448
https://the-pipeline.org/models-fail-again/
https://joannenova.com.au/2021/10/great-speech-the-oil-execs-are-owed-an-apology/
https://the-pipeline.org/the-end-of-the-world-yet-again/ History shows you can never go wrong betting against doomsday cults (over half a century of FAILED predictions by anti-human climate activists)
Thankyou.
There is an apocalyptic mentality about, that wants to take affordable portable energy away from poor people.
Huh? Confused statement.
The challenge to doomsday merchants is to prove their claims, not the responsibility of questioners. The Chicken Little’s have mantras, like the lie of ‘consensus’ and ‘science’ which they define to match their emotionally-derived beliefs.
There’s much evidence doomsday criers are wrong, http://www.friendsof science.org covers much.