Airplanes use jet turbines which are highly efficient in terms of motive force delivered. They have very high compression ratios and operating temperatures. IF you look at the mass of a aircraft and hte number of passenger carried, it's actually not that bad. I don't know the emmissions. Since it's jet-A vs. diesel and exhaust temps are so high, I suspect the particulate is fairly low but nitrogen and sulfur compounds are higher than cars.
However, I'd like to see a link to overall average fuel consumption and emmission per passenger mile of bus, train and car.
Don't forget, moving humans around uses far less fuel that that of freight transport and transportation represents a fairly small portion of total man-made CO2 emmissions.
Oh and for regional travel, high speed rail is much faster than a regional aircraft after you factor in ground movements, ascending, approaches and descending. A turboprop only crusies at around 200mph. A regional jet will be closer to 400mph, but will fly at higher altitudes. High speed rail can also be all electric, taking advantage of a range of energy sources.
Look at it this way, if a smaller city of 20k plus indsutry used 100MW of power, if the city is 4 square miles and 1 mile up, if all the nergy eventually becomes heat (which most of it will) it would heat that volume of air 0.000009F per hour. If that volume could be insulated 100% and sealed off, it would still only raise the temperature 0.7F over a 365day period. Of course in reality, that energy is lost of space and conducts to the surrounding area. An 100MW for that size populat is actually a pretty high energy density. That's 5kwhrs per resident.
That's the problem with relying on statistical data and only using small scale tests to prove it.
If you ever looked at theoretical physics? They have all sorts of data nd mathematical formulas ot prove some pretty wild theories.
That being said, Steven Hawking apparantly is on the GW bandwagon. I would think they he might have looked at the data and determined that there were too many unsolved vairables to draw a conclusion. But OTOH, he also might say that many of the possible conclusions are in fact bad, therefore you might as well assume them to be true. Its' also popular to be for rather than against GW and CC. So He might just enjoy being well regarded. Much of his research and speaking is funded by various universities I assuem that gain funding from liberal government.
When one studies history from an unbiased (and unaltered) viewpoint... one sees this zero sum idea just does not hold as much water as a funnel or a strainer. Does it make sense? No... but then a wise person understands that not everything makes sense.
EXPERIENCE is the key to understanding... not what makes sense or feels good.
Once you have brought it you condemn all those who disbelieve as ignorant hicks who have not seen the light and drank the koolaid of your Marxist masters in the Democratic Party. Thank you, thank you very much
Another scary fact, what percentage of land is tillable and in an acceptable climate for growing food or rasing livestock? 10%? So that's an average of 1/2 acre per person. Enough, but that's getting a little scary. And to government want use ot use more corn for fuel? I wonder if that strategy will change with this summer's drought conditions in the growing regions. No way we can spare a large portion of corn for fuel a year from now as corn reserves drindle.
My Dad died of a Coumadin overdose... it was being monitored carefully and 'by the book'... I verified this weekly for years. In short... this wonderful medical system killed my Dad. I did some research on this: the second most common cause of elderly folks dieing is medical screw-ups. Still think medicine is moving forward? Personally, I think medicine is BIG BUSINESS, supported by a corrupt govt, which does not really care about anything other than profits. Trusting the system is not always in one's best interest... PROOF is a better idea IMO.
My statement about repeatable same results stands. Unless the experiment can be repeated with the same results... then there is no real science there... only politics... or maybe more accurately said; hot air from sources who are probably profiting from the viewpoint being projected on the public. To me, believing this pontification without proof is similar to p*ssing into the wind... just a dumb choice which WILL produce results I have to clean up.
Surely your numbers must be wrong. That cannot possibly be right.
THAT IS really scary, and the corn angle had skipped my mind!!!!
Somebody should start a new thread on that topic! Population-arable land issue, and possibly another thread on the corn thing as a topic in itself.
Stunning. Frightening also.
I know some who believe in man made climate change and who believe it is a positive not a negative, because the elevation of the tillable area will lift. Increasing the total usable area.
I have no doubt that we are influencing our environment, how ever determining the cause and effect and rate of change, is where the issue lies, as any predictions are only as good as the formula that you use. As this is a complex model, we still do not have a accurate model. That does not mean we should just ignore our climate influences.
What harm can it do to the make the most of the earth resources.
As with war, health etc, there will always be profiteers. Do not let these people cloud the scientific facts.
If climate does turn to shyte or not, i will not be around, but does that mean i should not focus on future.