Mathias wrote:
I have to say that I am somewhat surprised to see so many climate change deniers or at least -sceptics on this thread
I’m not at all surprised. People with vested interests in emitting lots of CO2 are going to also have a vested interest in the vain hope that anthropogenic climate change isn’t real, so they don’t need to make changes to what they do, or to avoid the cognitive dissonance of doing something they know is bad while believing they are a good person.
Personally I just accept I’m a little bit bad (in terms of fuel economy, my antique plane is about as bad as a sports car). I’d love an AFFORDABLE electric aircraft – it would revolutionise glider towing for a start.
As I said above, you can offset. Calculate your carbon use, double it, then put that into growing trees. I plant about 100 trees a year in Kenya (where there is an excellent and uncorrupt project) which replaces twice as much carbon as I use.
The result is guilt free flying!
What is the maths underlying this, Timothy? For example, how much do you spend on avgas and how much does it cost to plant the 100 trees?
Well. The climate, or should I say the earth, don’t give a rat’s a$$ about what we think, what we mean, what we feel, what we wish. Not about the climate, and not towards each other. The climate reacts only to one single thing: what we do.
My wife and I have commuted to work the last 5 years in an e-up. It’s fueled with clean hydropower. My house is 100% electric (again, clean hydropower) and we top it up with wood (carbon neutral). My “carbon footprint” is zero. I’m not part of the problem (and I could have written much more about this).
So, if you feel you are a part of the problem, then do something about it or STFU 
Don’t say that “we” have a problem. But, for the sake of the argument, let’s say “we” have a problem. Then, in that case, “our” problem is “you”. Simple logic.
In an obscure sort of way, I am much more pro Greta, than I am pro climate politics and climate “scientists” which is nothing but quasi-religious bull.
alioth wrote:
Personally I just accept I’m a little bit bad
Me too.
Right now, it would be refreshing to at least clear the first and very basic hurdle of us acknowledging a highly significant global problem and it’s causation by humans. That’s step one, which I admittedly thought, like Mathias, wouldn’t really be necessary in 2019.
Only from that point can we debate our actions as pilots (electric? carbon offset? both? other?) and as humans to start to er, turn the supertanker.
Well said, @Mathias!
Peter wrote:
What is the maths underlying this, Timothy? For example, how much do you spend on avgas and how much does it cost to plant the 100 trees?
I can’t reproduce the maths now, but I did it based on 200 hours a year @ 110 l/h plus an average of 12,000 miles a year on commercial jet plus doing 12,000 mile a year in my 40mpg Diesel plus our household energy bills which are very low because we have solar panels for electricity and water heating.
From memory that came to 53 tonnes which equals 53 trees (the tonnage may be wrong, but the tree are correct.)
So I roughly doubled it to 100 trees a year, which is around £1k pa which I give to an organisation which plants trees in Kenya.
As I say, I did the maths some time ago, so the details may be wrong, but the end result is right. The details are here.
Mathias wrote:
is not a credible position that anyone can stand on, let alone in a community of rational, physics-appreciating individuals.
I have a background as a physcist, I also know many who are professional academics in the area, some of whom are not crystal-clear about it. I’m afraid likening climate change modelling to relativley simple mechanics and fluid dynamics related to flight is just not honest.
Mathias wrote:
disqualifies you from any serious further discussion!!
Good point, just stop anyone with a counter opinion from having any input. Very authoritarian. The beauty of the flat earth types is that they cannot produce a rigours model to match observations. discussion and debate is the best way to point out where they’ve gone wrong.
What do you propose we do about the biggest polluters in the world?
Genuine questions:
1) How do trees compare with fast growing crops in climates where growth is possible throughout the year?
Are there water constraints for crops cf. trees?
2) In the UK, how does light energy capture by solar panel farms compare with crop photosynthesis on the fields where they replace it?
(Not just a climate save, as opposed to change, sceptic. I even mistrust BBC/CNN/Daily Telegraph/Boris/Jeremy.)
Here’s a Sweedish scientist with a plan to combat climate change.
