Comments on: New emissions calculator reveals true cost of your flight

By: Craig Wright

Craig Wright — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:11:13 +0000

As a statistician who worked on some of the Varve datasets, I have to state that the way that the results are reported has nothing to do with the calculations we did.

Carbon from human sources is less than 2% of the global emissions.

Most critically, 83% (+/-4% at a 95% CI) of the model is attributable to water (H2O) vapor. At present, we can not model water vapor. The result is that the models are highly non-robust.

The real issue lies with water. Deforestation is impacting rainfall patterns, but we can not as yet quantify the effect. The carbon issue is drowning the issues that actually occur in a quasi-religious and definitely non-scientific paradigm. The problem is that this is actually damaging things more as we are failing to focus on the actual issue.

By: barbie45

barbie45 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:33:45 +0000

joe i agree with you a thousand percent ; we are living with the green taliban now; when i lived in ma we had reclying tax 5cents for deposit; well the streets were not that much cleaner; now i live in florida, no mandatory emissin control for cars; no for deposi returns ; gee as i look around cannot spot any litter ,cans bottles etc in delray beach ; not even in my local shoppin g center; hmm this whole eco movement smells of money going down a rathole.

By: Joe Farrell

Joe Farrell — Mon, 05 May 2008 12:17:32 +0000

If you wish to alleviate your concern over global warming and greenhouse gases, I am able to offer you the special program called ‘SI Concern.”

For the price of 1 cent per gram of excess carbon dioxide you emit, I will guarantee that in 10 years the global temperature will not exceed what it is today. For the price of 2 cents per gram of excess methane [from beans and similar foods you may consume] we shall offer additional guarantees that this greenhouse gas will not cause global temperature to exceed what they are today.

You ask how we can do this? We simply ignore what so called experts are saying about global climate change because, honestly, the Earth simply cannot get much warmer than it is today given the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The amount of energy staying in the atmosphere cannot exceed the amount coming in from the sun, since the ONLY source of energy for the Earth IS the sun.

We GUARANTEE that the year 2017 will not be warmer across the globe than 2007 was, using our scientific skills and abilities, you can rest assured that you will not be contributing to the warming of the planet. The price will be less than $250 pp per year.

For further information, or to send your $250 to protect the environment, contact . . . ..

Would you believe the above? No? Well thats what these companies are selling. Think about it – even if only 1 million people sent me their $250. And think about what I’m selling? The promise that temps will be what the average is today 10 years from now, after a decade of cooling. Go google ‘global warming delay’ and everyone ‘in charge’ now admits the next 10 years will be cooler than the last 10.

I’m not sure how the global warming models used by Al Gore work, but I’m pretty sure that 10 years of cooling were not forecast. . . .

By: CT

CT — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:21:15 +0000

This flight calculator claims to be better than others, but they won’t show anything about the calculations. With zero transparency it does not seem promising. Furthermore, while they claim to be making airline specific calculations, it looks like it is using factors related to the airlines fleet at large, but not properly taking into account the route flown. As far as I can tell, this calculator is not as good as the top-tier existing calculators out there.

Furthermore, the fact that they are selling offsets at the same time makes their black box calculator questionable – their incentive is surely to get visitors to their site to calculate a higher number so that if they make offset purchases on the sight, they buy more.

Finally, their choice to sell forward offsets calls into question their knowledge about the science and the market. Not only is this a highly questionable practice with respect to the science of offsets (emission reductions occurring in the future are not equal to emissions occurring today) but many savvy buyers in the market know this and will question the overall integrity of a seller who tries to pass off these forward credits as being equivalent to (or better than) verified emission reductions that have already occurred.

By: WT

WT — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:58:08 +0000

We are a market economy…that’s what stopping them. And I do not blame them. This planet has a history of correcting itself. Let’s let it do it’s job, rather than being so concerned about personal liability. I’d rather take a cheap flight vs. worrying about a supposed envirnomental issue.

PS: I don’t recycle either!

By: Joe Farrell

Joe Farrell — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:52:42 +0000

I would like to point out to Chris and the others who were worked up over ‘pollution’ instead of CO2 and other GW gasses – this blog began with a reference to http://enpalo.com/flight.php – which – if you go to it – ONLY measures CO2 emissions – it does NOT tell you about any other gasses or pollution created by your flight. It is CO2 only, and only CO2 – hence my comments about GW.

Honestly, if you to comment about my idea on GW and CO2 as being ‘pollution,’ please feel free to do so, however, that would change the topic from the one reported on my our erstwhile blogger. CO2 is NOT ‘pollution’ as that term is generally accepted in mitigation circles. Don’t attack me by changing the subject because you have no answer to the two simple questions I ask.

Science and logic are important, at least to me.

By: V. F.

V. F. — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 06:10:40 +0000

I live in a fast pace world and I travel often by plane and car for business and personal reasons. To be honest with you, I’m one to look at the fastest time and convenience of luxury when traveling than I do the impact on the environment. However, if it is really that important to forcast the future and the deteriating environment and if my decisions today can impact, then I suppose I can make a good educated consumer effort to choose travel avenues with the lowest carbon emmissions based on your site to determine what mode of transportation or company I will embark. Are others doing the same?

By: Karly M.

Karly M. — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:38:02 +0000

Whatever your view on the issue, is it not inarguably important to bring information to the people? We are a society that values freedom of thought, speech, and action. It would appear to me that this website makes available information previously difficult or impossible to find. I am in favor of educated decisions, regardless of the issue. The more (varied) information we have the more likely we are to make the “right” decision. The funny thing about politicized science is that facts can be and are easily manipulated. It is therefore of vital importance to expose yourself to every side of the issue in order to glean valuable information that would have otherwise been inaccessible. Plus, regardless of your take on the issue, is it not important to do whatever we can to sustain the livability of planet earth? As this website shows, reducing carbon emissions is not difficult. I also have yet to see any sort of scientific information that says that putting this much (or any) CO2 into the air is a good thing. Until then, I encourage the (relatively) morally neutral stance of cleaning up after ourselves, with or without the threat of rapid Global Climate Change.

By: Joe Farrell

Joe Farrell — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:20:38 +0000

Josh, did i say GW is not happening? No, I didn’t. The evidence is verifiable that temps have gone up.

If you go to the website referred to in this article, or the Finnair or Brit. Airways sites, the calculator ONLY calculates CO2 – it does not calculate any other ‘pollution,’ so, arguing pollution in general from this post simply is apples and oranges.

There is zero point getting into a debate over GW since this is a travel forum. But, once again, my two challenges stand. And the facts underlying them stand as well.

Josh is typical of those persons who are asked the two simple questions about GW. Oh, I do not need to answer them because its happening. Well, so what? My two questions ask basic questions concerning the anthropogenic source of GW. If the scientists and the politicans cannot answer those two basic questions there is little point to spending trillions to ‘reduce CO2 emissions.’

It might be a good idea to reduce CO2 emissions along with everything else, but the idea of ‘reversing GW” or ‘Doing Something About GW” is meaningless without a goal. It is akin to getting to the airport, and not knowing where you are going. You made all the effort to pack, get the time off, park or wrestle with public transport, and you don’t know where you are going so you have no idea what clothes to pack, but, you packed anyway.

How about you Josh, at least tell me, since you think mankind as caused GW, what it our temperature goal and why?

By: Carol Grissom

Carol Grissom — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:16:08 +0000

I think this website is helpful…making these calculations easily accessible to an ordinary person, regardless of what they chose to do with the information! I agree it is about pollution, not global warming (which I also agree is nonsense).