He noted that some studies suggested it would be ice free in summer. That was an outlier, and he would have been better to have gone with a mainstream projection (currently somewhere in the region of 2050, down from around 2100).
Chester isn't Caledonia (Scotland) where Romans reported vineyards 2000 years ago and King John's census of the British Isles located vineyards in Scotland sometime around 1250.
Chester is in northern England, so Nothern Europe.
'When Henry VIII was crowned in 1509, 139 vineyards were recorded, 11 of which produced as Royal vineyards, dedicated to the monarchy.
In the 1660s Lady Batten, wife of Sir William Batten, Surveyor of the Navy, had a vineyard at their estate at Walthamstow; Samuel Pepys thought the wine (which was red) "very good".[8]
Just as English wine began to recover from the epidemics of phylloxera and powdery mildew in the mid-19th century, brought back by the explorers of New America, commercial English wine was dealt a heavy blow. In 1860 the government, under Lord Palmerston (Liberal), supported free trade and drastically cut the tax on imported wines from 1 shilling to twopence, a decrease of 83%. English wine was therefore outcompeted by superior foreign products that could be sold at a lower cost to the customer.[citation needed] The twilight of British winemaking tradition, which stretched back to the first Roman explorers, was brought to an end with the onset of the First World War, as the need for crops and food took priority over wine production. The rationing of sugar pushed the knife even deeper until, for the first time in 2000 years, English wines were no longer being produced in Wessex, nor the rest of the country. '
Even in the north of England monasteries were cultivating grapes into the 1500s. Then they stopped. Because they ceased to exist. 1500 is not 700 years ago. The wine wasn't considered to be very good, though, hence all the references from 1200s,1300s, 1400s about importing wine from English posessions in France into England for the nobility who wanted decent wine during the MWP.
The risk isn't just a bit of sea level rise, but significant changes to ecosystems which might result in the loss of a number of ecosystem services. If the cost of reducing CO2 emissions is less than the cost of replacing those ecosystem services with artificial versions, then the pragmatic option is to reduce CO2 emissions. Examples of such services including things like pollination by bees. If services are lost and can only be replaced by more expensive options then there would be GW and a drag on the economy. And whilst it might be possible to replace pollination by bees with a technological option, you also have to take into account the risk that it may not be, and so that can mean that caution is advisable.
Assuming you have facilities to land them and disgorge the passengers. As it is, many airports are at close to capacity, so replacing a 300 seat jet with 10 30 seaters, let along more than 30, isn't viable.
It's ICEs that gain efficiency from smaller and more engines. For electric motor props it would be better if this plane had a single very large prop.
Not a turboprop, I would have thought, as there's a limit to how small you can make the channel through it due to boundary layer issues (too small and it's a glorified pito tube) and the need to have a shaft through it of non-zero diameter.
One the issues with large engines, particularly props, is that if you have a few large engines then uness you have a lot of blades you get tips that are heading towards being transonic and very noisy. Hence some turboprops have a large number of blades, much like a turbofan, but exposed. In a sense a turbofan is not so dissimilar from a ducted turboprop. Turbofans are quieter than turbojets for a give level of thurst, but not exactly quiet overall on a large aircraft. How quiet you can get a turboprop or fan on a 9 seater is another matter, though.
Turboprops have to be relatively large to get sufficient airflow through them, so making them small doesn't work in terms of efficiency compared to making them large. Yes, you can get small jets for model aircraft, but they are not as efficient, but putting a big jet or turboprop on a model stops it being a model. With electric motors you can make them pretty small.There have been experiments in which multiple drive shafts are used from a reciproacting engine (maybe turboprop too), but there are losses from drive shafts and a lot of added complexity, not to mention vibration
It's a passenger airplane. 650 miles is basically useless.
The distance from London to Glasgow, to give just one commonly traveled route, is about 420 miles, and the estimated driving time between the two is just over 7 hours.
In other words this place would very easily fill the role of carrying business passengers (or MP's, or...) between the two, with fewer carbon emissions, in less than a quarter of the time it would otherwise take. Another advantage is that we're talking about a small aircraft, meaning it can take off from, and land at, smaller, regional, airfields.
That you cannot see a use-case for the aircraft says more about your imagination or experience of the world than it does about the actual utility of the vehicle.
Why not take the train? Takes 5 hours. Flying on a current fast plane will, given connections and wait time, be three, electric plane probably nearer four when they exist.
The models have been very bad at predicting anything, unless you really twist the data around.
I would urge you to go and look up Hansen's testimony (to the Senate?) in 1988 and the projections along what is now RCP8.5. Right on the money. The models have only got better since since then.
The models have been very bad at predicting anything, unless you really twist the data around.
The raw data is available, so you can judge for yourself.
The problem is that global warming is as much faith and science. It might be true, but the data is not there, if you are honest.
You can go and download it (although it's big). Well, I will qualify it that there was some from, say, the CRU that was collected in partnership with a commercial organisation so could not be released, and there have been instances of poor curation (losing stuff), but that's been very much in the minority.
I read your grade school Mr. Science link. I am sure this is convincing to a grade schooler. However, most grade schoolers have not been taught that correlation is not causation. I wont bother providing a link for that.
When you have actual scientific evidence, please post it. Until then, AGW is no different than being Christian. Both require faith and ignoring or twisting science to get the desired conclusion regardless of facts or lack thereof.
We can measure the effective 'age' of the atmosphere via carbon dating. It is getting older. We know that CO2 traps heat within the atmosphere. We have sophisticated models that predict the change in climate accurately (and models from 30 years ago have proved to be very good). So in what way is this correlation and not causation? For it to be only correlation you need to show why, this time, CO2 is not trapping heat in the atmosphere.
I don't know which world you live in, but in the one I live in, socialism is much reduced. Look at places like the UK 40 years ago (nationalised rail, steel, coal) versus now (none of those). It's much the same story across the whole of Europe.
Not going in the gutter feels dangerous to me. Even there seems to risk being sideswiped by larger vehicles such as buses, or in one case, an army lorry back from peace keeping that I presume was lost as it was going through a very narrow 20mph zone.
It's an issue on small suburban roads when cyclists cycle two abreast with a largish gap as it functionally blocks the entire lane. I don't mind hanging back on a small suburban road at 15 mph as to avoid running over kids on twisty roads I might not be going much over 20mph anyway, but it's not universal, which can cause a hazard. AFAIK you are not supposed to go two abreast.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had a couple of third party refurbs which were pretty much as new, in that they looked new to me.
He noted that some studies suggested it would be ice free in summer. That was an outlier, and he would have been better to have gone with a mainstream projection (currently somewhere in the region of 2050, down from around 2100).
10 years ago Al Gore assured us the Arctic would be ice free in 5 years.
He didn't.
Washington post - Jan 11, 1970 - "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In Future"
Held? Hail? What?
Chester isn't Caledonia (Scotland) where Romans reported vineyards 2000 years ago and King John's census of the British Isles located vineyards in Scotland sometime around 1250.
Chester is in northern England, so Nothern Europe.
Too cold today
https://food.list.co.uk/articl...
'When Henry VIII was crowned in 1509, 139 vineyards were recorded, 11 of which produced as Royal vineyards, dedicated to the monarchy. In the 1660s Lady Batten, wife of Sir William Batten, Surveyor of the Navy, had a vineyard at their estate at Walthamstow; Samuel Pepys thought the wine (which was red) "very good".[8] Just as English wine began to recover from the epidemics of phylloxera and powdery mildew in the mid-19th century, brought back by the explorers of New America, commercial English wine was dealt a heavy blow. In 1860 the government, under Lord Palmerston (Liberal), supported free trade and drastically cut the tax on imported wines from 1 shilling to twopence, a decrease of 83%. English wine was therefore outcompeted by superior foreign products that could be sold at a lower cost to the customer.[citation needed] The twilight of British winemaking tradition, which stretched back to the first Roman explorers, was brought to an end with the onset of the First World War, as the need for crops and food took priority over wine production. The rationing of sugar pushed the knife even deeper until, for the first time in 2000 years, English wines were no longer being produced in Wessex, nor the rest of the country. '
Calendonia included parts of what is now northern England (Hadrian's wall is in England), although almost certainly not as far south as Chester.
Even in the north of England monasteries were cultivating grapes into the 1500s. Then they stopped. Because they ceased to exist. 1500 is not 700 years ago. The wine wasn't considered to be very good, though, hence all the references from 1200s,1300s, 1400s about importing wine from English posessions in France into England for the nobility who wanted decent wine during the MWP.
The risk isn't just a bit of sea level rise, but significant changes to ecosystems which might result in the loss of a number of ecosystem services. If the cost of reducing CO2 emissions is less than the cost of replacing those ecosystem services with artificial versions, then the pragmatic option is to reduce CO2 emissions. Examples of such services including things like pollination by bees. If services are lost and can only be replaced by more expensive options then there would be GW and a drag on the economy. And whilst it might be possible to replace pollination by bees with a technological option, you also have to take into account the risk that it may not be, and so that can mean that caution is advisable.
Then you need a dehumidifier, not AC.
pitot
Assuming you have facilities to land them and disgorge the passengers. As it is, many airports are at close to capacity, so replacing a 300 seat jet with 10 30 seaters, let along more than 30, isn't viable.
I think you are confused....
It's ICEs that gain efficiency from smaller and more engines. For electric motor props it would be better if this plane had a single very large prop.
Not a turboprop, I would have thought, as there's a limit to how small you can make the channel through it due to boundary layer issues (too small and it's a glorified pito tube) and the need to have a shaft through it of non-zero diameter.
One the issues with large engines, particularly props, is that if you have a few large engines then uness you have a lot of blades you get tips that are heading towards being transonic and very noisy. Hence some turboprops have a large number of blades, much like a turbofan, but exposed. In a sense a turbofan is not so dissimilar from a ducted turboprop. Turbofans are quieter than turbojets for a give level of thurst, but not exactly quiet overall on a large aircraft. How quiet you can get a turboprop or fan on a 9 seater is another matter, though.
Turboprops have to be relatively large to get sufficient airflow through them, so making them small doesn't work in terms of efficiency compared to making them large. Yes, you can get small jets for model aircraft, but they are not as efficient, but putting a big jet or turboprop on a model stops it being a model. With electric motors you can make them pretty small.There have been experiments in which multiple drive shafts are used from a reciproacting engine (maybe turboprop too), but there are losses from drive shafts and a lot of added complexity, not to mention vibration
It's a passenger airplane. 650 miles is basically useless.
The distance from London to Glasgow, to give just one commonly traveled route, is about 420 miles, and the estimated driving time between the two is just over 7 hours.
In other words this place would very easily fill the role of carrying business passengers (or MP's, or...) between the two, with fewer carbon emissions, in less than a quarter of the time it would otherwise take. Another advantage is that we're talking about a small aircraft, meaning it can take off from, and land at, smaller, regional, airfields.
That you cannot see a use-case for the aircraft says more about your imagination or experience of the world than it does about the actual utility of the vehicle.
Why not take the train? Takes 5 hours. Flying on a current fast plane will, given connections and wait time, be three, electric plane probably nearer four when they exist.
The models have been very bad at predicting anything, unless you really twist the data around.
I would urge you to go and look up Hansen's testimony (to the Senate?) in 1988 and the projections along what is now RCP8.5. Right on the money. The models have only got better since since then.
The models have been very bad at predicting anything, unless you really twist the data around.
The raw data is available, so you can judge for yourself.
The problem is that global warming is as much faith and science. It might be true, but the data is not there, if you are honest.
You can go and download it (although it's big). Well, I will qualify it that there was some from, say, the CRU that was collected in partnership with a commercial organisation so could not be released, and there have been instances of poor curation (losing stuff), but that's been very much in the minority.
I read your grade school Mr. Science link. I am sure this is convincing to a grade schooler. However, most grade schoolers have not been taught that correlation is not causation. I wont bother providing a link for that.
When you have actual scientific evidence, please post it. Until then, AGW is no different than being Christian. Both require faith and ignoring or twisting science to get the desired conclusion regardless of facts or lack thereof.
We can measure the effective 'age' of the atmosphere via carbon dating. It is getting older. We know that CO2 traps heat within the atmosphere. We have sophisticated models that predict the change in climate accurately (and models from 30 years ago have proved to be very good). So in what way is this correlation and not causation? For it to be only correlation you need to show why, this time, CO2 is not trapping heat in the atmosphere.
I don't know which world you live in, but in the one I live in, socialism is much reduced. Look at places like the UK 40 years ago (nationalised rail, steel, coal) versus now (none of those). It's much the same story across the whole of Europe.
Women in Iran are also, on average,well educated. Ditto Turkey (I don't know what the levels are in Malaysia and Bangladesh).
That is not how they measure annual rises.
Particulate deposition is modelled in climate models these days. And it is also measured.
Citation?
Not going in the gutter feels dangerous to me. Even there seems to risk being sideswiped by larger vehicles such as buses, or in one case, an army lorry back from peace keeping that I presume was lost as it was going through a very narrow 20mph zone.
It's an issue on small suburban roads when cyclists cycle two abreast with a largish gap as it functionally blocks the entire lane. I don't mind hanging back on a small suburban road at 15 mph as to avoid running over kids on twisty roads I might not be going much over 20mph anyway, but it's not universal, which can cause a hazard. AFAIK you are not supposed to go two abreast.