How many large jet flights are there in a year??

24.4 MILLION in 2012 according to Boeing - up from about 14 million in 1993

I wonder what the percentage of flights making contrails is??

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Wow, with that many flights they could simply add small amounts of chems to the fuel and cover the entire planet, and no-one would be any the wiser!

Funny how just over 100 years ago, no one needed to travel by air. Where the heck are all these people going, and shouldn't the ticket cost cover the cost to the environment, not to mention the threat of spreading diseases cost, whatever that might be (incalculable)?

Bring back Tall Ships, please.

a reply to: VoidHawk
Unless of course someone actually measured what was in the atmosphere - like, say, hundreds of cities do worldwide with air pollution monitoring.

a reply to: signalfire
I don't think that tall ships would cope very well with the numbers of passengers involved - approaching 3 BILLION in 2012.

ETA: why stop at regressing to tall ships?? What's wrong with coracles and flint tools??

a reply to: VoidHawk

Let me know when you're next in a plane. You and I will add some chemicals to your fuel "simply" the we'll wager how far you get! You don't just simply add "Chems" to jet fuel!

a reply to: minkmouse

It doesn't have to be done on the plane or even at the airport. You are aware that fuels already have chemicals added to them before they're delivered?

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: VoidHawk
Unless of course someone actually measured what was in the atmosphere - like, say, hundreds of cities do worldwide with air pollution monitoring.

Many people have measured the air quality and found its full of chemicals, can you find a clean sample?
With so many flights it would be impossible to say where any pollutants originated.

I confess I dont know if its really happening, but seeing the info you posted made me consider it!

a reply to: VoidHawk

Beyond "Prist" no...I'm unaware, enlighten me please.

a reply to: VoidHawk
the point is that the pollutants are identified - there is little or nothing unknown, there is considerable effort going into cleaning up emissions - mainly from cars and trucks because they spew out many times more pollutants than aircraft and they do it at ground level where we all breathe it.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: minkmouse

It doesn't have to be done on the plane or even at the airport. You are aware that fuels already have chemicals added to them before they're delivered?

Is this an attempt to explain how "chemtrails" are caused?

a reply to: minkmouse
Actually there's quiet a lot of "chemicals" go into jet fuel - but unless they are approved then adding anything else would be illegal - see the specification at Def Std 91-91 Revision 7
and of course "but there's chemicals in it" is just a pointless rant in the first place, since EVERYTHING is "chemicals" - the air we breathe, the food we eat - even "organic" and "raw" - it is all "chemicals".

Unless there is a specific "chemical" that is a problem it's just obfuscation and scaremongering.

That's the way to go, consider the chemical contrails in their entirety with their net warming below, opposed to their albedo above. That's pretty well known, although it's not exactly splashed across the front pages of even the most crappy of newspapers though is it? I wonder why not.
In any case, it's not going to get any result either way in the question of deliberate geo-engineering by usage of jets or not, since the science of jet exhaust chemical novelties are themselves not yet completely understood. Again, however the jet net warming effect is there and has been noticed, while nobody is shouting about it. Dirty air in cities..smog, localised air is something that can be dealt with the right determination and China as I understand it is working on it, other cities, have cleaned up their air yonks ago.
So back to the bad jet buddy and it's net warming effect on below, is it a transient effect, or is it at the point of saturation? nobody is much talking that way, because they can't know yet, that much is patently obvious.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: VoidHawk
the point is that the pollutants are identified - there is little or nothing unknown, there is considerable effort going into cleaning up emissions - mainly from cars and trucks because they spew out many times more pollutants than aircraft and they do it at ground level where we all breathe it.

Ground level is not high altitude, it is ground level. And do you think that if everything is known NASA would have spent money on four satellites to measure properly Co2 from space, and that includes two failed missions..meaning two more than intended.

originally posted by: signalfire
Funny how just over 100 years ago, no one needed to travel by air. Where the heck are all these people going, and shouldn't the ticket cost cover the cost to the environment, not to mention the threat of spreading diseases cost, whatever that might be (incalculable)?

Bring back Tall Ships, please.

I'm with you 110%.

Where are all these people going, indeed?

To an all inclusive resort somewhere to be separated from their dolleros.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of these trips are entirely unnecessary.

There's a kind of mental disconnect that happens, somehow allowing an otherwise conscientious human being to 'reward' themselves once or twice a year by torching a drum of kerosene.

If I travel 20 miles in my little skiff or 100 in my sailboat, I get more feeling of accomplishment then ever I would being strip searched, irradiated and packed into a sardine can for five hours there and five hours back.

a reply to: Psynic

I fly almost every week for business and the majority of people I see are not going on extended vacations based on their dress and carry on baggage.

And even if they were vacationing why is your method of vacationing any more morally superior?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Psynic

I fly almost every week for business and the majority of people I see are not going on extended vacations based on their dress and carry on baggage.

And even if they were vacationing why is your method of vacationing any more morally superior?

If you need ask, I'm sure I could never explain it to you.

It seems to me that run-of-the-mill contrails from that many flights, particularly over regions with major airport hubs, like say Atlanta or Dallas or LA, would have some impact on cloud cover as the many contrails spread out over time and turn the blue sky overcast. That overcast has a ripple effect on surrounding areas, similar to heat islands from the vast concrete of cities.

The weather impact from air traffic needn't be nefarious to be real.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
It seems to me that run-of-the-mill contrails from that many flights, particularly over regions with major airport hubs, like say Atlanta or Dallas or LA, would have some impact on cloud cover as the many contrails spread out over time and turn the blue sky overcast. That overcast has a ripple effect on surrounding areas, similar to heat islands from the vast concrete of cities.

The weather impact from air traffic needn't be nefarious to be real.

The weather impact from air traffic locally is subjective in that it all depends where you are, long haul jet's that use the jetstream only enforce cloud cover that is travelling in the same direction, while there are also jets travelling in the opposite direction in pretty specific corridors, making a log-jam of cloud cover over a much wider area. If, however that is an understood factor, that alone could be used in a socio-economic beneficial, but also artificial way to anyone who had the means. The term is controlling the weather.

originally posted by: Psynic
Where are all these people going, indeed?
To an all inclusive resort somewhere to be separated from their dolleros.

Right.
On the other hand all the people that travel for business on a daily or weekly basis what should they do?
Nothing about your mode of travel is anymore valid then anyone that flies.