Heathrow

MK Shrimper · Oct 25, 2016

rigsby said:
So your avoiding the question by playing the climate change card.

We are adding another runway, not building another airport. Bigger population means more flights. Should we build any more houses?

How did I avoid it? I stated that we have enough airports & runways, hence we don't need a 3rd at Heathrow. Building houses will not add to CO2 emissions in the same way that thousands of planes will bring, not to mention the traffic getting to and from Heathrow.

Now answer my question - how should the world deal with the very real threat of climate change?

Another Surrey Shrimper · Oct 25, 2016

yogi bear up the cagire said:
Goldsmith preparing to resign his Richmond Park seat and stand as an Independent in the by-election. Another little problem on the horizon for May..............following Witney, the Lib Dems must be smacking their lips in anticipation.

The racist Zac Goldsmith got 58% of the vote at the 2015 GE, I wonder if the Tory voters will do a Carswell and stick with their MP or stick with the party (though I did hear from somewhere that the Tories may not put up a candidate). Lib Dem vote was down 23% between 2010 and 2015 so I assume they have a lot of ex voters to tap into. An odd set up for an election really - if the Tories do put up a candidate then it's going to be interesting, if not the it should be a safe seat for Zac.

Boris Johnson famously said he'd lie in front of the bulldozers but those are a few years off yet.

superblue24 · Oct 25, 2016

MK Shrimper said:
We have enough airports.

What's your answer to deal with the very real threat of climate change? Close your eyes and hope it goes away?

Says who? You? What qualifies you to make this statement?

Have you ever actually seen the skies over Heathrow and the way the planes are chock-a-block coming in and out of the airport?

MK Shrimper said:
Now answer my question - how should the world deal with the very real threat of climate change?

Again, the extra runway will not necessarily automatically mean more climate change. That's like saying more lanes on a motorway means more cars and this means more CO2 emissions.... Whilst it most probably will lead to more planes, it will also increase the flow so that (as lb rightly says) planes aren't sat on the tarmac idling away their exhausts waiting for a slot.

I'm not sure I've heard of the "adage" you mentioned.....I'll quickly sift through my 'book of adages'.....

MK Shrimper said:
No we'll probably be 6 feet under, but our children & grandchildren may care. Short term thinking, short term gains, long term damage.

Yep, when delays in airports are plentiful and we're not able to cope with our air travel infrastructure, I'm sure they'll thank you for the 3 additional particles of good air quality they breathe as a result of not having the third runway.

stick to trains, the mediocrity really suits you!

mrsblue · Oct 25, 2016

Build runways at Heathrow ,Gatwick and Stanstead !

MK Shrimper · Oct 25, 2016

superblue24 said:
stick to trains, the mediocrity really suits you!

I've dealt with climate change - I've looked at the graphs, I've studied the data and looked at the costs that will be involved to mitigate the effects on the railway - and the figures are staggering. Far in excess of what it will cost to build HS2 and this third runway.

But I'm mediocre apparently, what do I know eh? :finger:

Yorkshire Blue · Oct 25, 2016

MK Shrimper said:
I've dealt with climate change

That's rather a bold claim to say you've solved it.

rigsby · Oct 25, 2016

MK Shrimper said:
How did I avoid it? I stated that we have enough airports & runways, hence we don't need a 3rd at Heathrow. Building houses will not add to CO2 emissions in the same way that thousands of planes will bring, not to mention the traffic getting to and from Heathrow.

Now answer my question - how should the world deal with the very real threat of climate change?

What is your alternative for people who want to travel. Or should we see a restriction on the number of flights someone can take in a year.

How about a tax on aviation fuel ? That would see a huge increase in flight prices and reduce the number of fights.

How about alternative fuel for planes. It has already been done in tests. But that would mean taking on one of the most powerful groups in the world. The oil industry.

MK Shrimper · Oct 25, 2016

Yorkshire Blue said:
That's rather a bold claim to say you've solved it.

Masking tape over certain people's mouths would be a start :winking:

mrsblue · Oct 25, 2016

MK Shrimper said:
I've dealt with climate change - I've looked at the graphs, I've studied the data and looked at the costs that will be involved to mitigate the effects on the railway - and the figures are staggering. Far in excess of what it will cost to build HS2 and this third runway.

But I'm mediocre apparently, what do I know eh? :finger:

I dont think you are mediocre,below average yes.

The rest of your claims are well hmm eh.

Another Surrey Shrimper · Oct 26, 2016

Possibility of Labour not putting up a candidate so as not to split the anti Zac vote. The nature of his Mayoral campaign has made a lot of enemies and this election is being seen as a Zac vanity project paid for by the public (let's face it if he is re elected he will vote with the government on all but this one policy). Zac voted Leave and 72% of his constituents voted Remain so if it is just him v Lib Dem his little scheme could backfire.

Tangled up in Blue · Oct 26, 2016

londonblue said:
Not necessarily. Most of the pollution at Heathrow (and other airports for that matter) is created by aircraft on the ground waiting their turn to taxi and take off. With a new runway the "waiting on the ground" time will be far less. Moreover, at the moment a lot of the time aeroplanes can't land immediately at Heathrow, and have to be stacked. Each loop of the stack adds 4 minutes to the flight (stacks are shaped like an athletics track and planes fly each 1/4 section in one minute). If a plane does say 3-4 loops (probably about average) then you've added 12-16 minutes to the flight. Multiply that by the number of aeroplanes that land at Heathrow each day, and you have a whole load of unnecessary pollution that can be reduced with the reduction in congestion a new runway will offer.

Added to that, over the years new engines and aeroplanes have reduced not just noise, but pollution levels as well. In future a complete redesign of controlled airspace around airports to make their flightpaths more fuel efficient will also help. (That may also help GA, but that's a different issue.)

I'm not an expert, and don't know if these will offset the pollution the extra aeroplanes will bring (and logic would dictate this won't be carbon neutral) but it really needs proper investigation before anyone can say for certain what the overall effect will be.

I was under the impression that most of the pollution problems at Heathrow were caused by the traffic getting there and back.

mrsblue · Oct 26, 2016

For several year's the public have been told of global warming,change your cars which have been revealed as a con,change your fridge,save the planet,save the Ozone.

Ironic the very same people now want more aircraft flying around the world.

MK Shrimper · Oct 26, 2016

mrsblue said:
I dont think you are mediocre,below average yes.

The rest of your claims are well hmm eh.

What, you're judging my claims despite the fact you haven't even seen the data. Wow, just wow.

mrsblue · Oct 26, 2016

MK Shrimper said:
What, you're judging my claims despite the fact you haven't even seen the data. Wow, just wow.

What was your conclusion then ?

I think the Ozone and GW are a blatant con trick designed to get the public buying various stuff in their belief they are actually saving the world.

MK Shrimper · Oct 26, 2016

mrsblue said:
What was your conclusion then ?

I think the Ozone and GW are a blatant con trick designed to get the public buying various stuff in their belief they are actually saving the world.

**** me. 99.9% of scientists (you know, those who work with it) agree that it's real. If you look at this data, it's incontravertable: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

My conclusions (and this was just for electrification, a small part of the infrastructure) is that it would cost, at 2015 prices, approximately £1M per KM of track and there is a lot of electrification out there, with more planned.

And for those who say it's about freeing up the current crop of planes; The runway, which could be finished by 2025, would lead to almost 50% more planes over London, bringing new neighbourhoods under the flightpath, and protests and legal challenges are expected to focus on air quality, noise and Britain’s climate change commitments.

londonblue · Oct 26, 2016

Tangled up in Blue said:
I was under the impression that most of the pollution problems at Heathrow were caused by the traffic getting there and back.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was talking about the aeroplanes themselves. Traffic does (obviously) cause an issue as well, but even that is diminishing with cleaner cars (the exhaust coming out of new cars is cleaner than the air going in!). Better transport links in general will also make a difference.

mrsblue · Oct 26, 2016

MK Shrimper said:
**** me. 99.9% of scientists (you know, those who work with it) agree that it's real. If you look at this data, it's incontravertable: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

My conclusions (and this was just for electrification, a small part of the infrastructure) is that it would cost, at 2015 prices, approximately £1M per KM of track and there is a lot of electrification out there, with more planned.

And for those who say it's about freeing up the current crop of planes; The runway, which could be finished by 2025, would lead to almost 50% more planes over London, bringing new neighbourhoods under the flightpath, and protests and legal challenges are expected to focus on air quality, noise and Britain’s climate change commitments.

Governemts want more aircraft flying which are burning tonnes of fuel every minute of every day.
Governments want wars to continue in order to sell arms.

Your example never mentioned the growing world population,this must have an effect as more and more oxygen is taken !

China and the US are the biggest culprits....what have they done to stop their pulluting !

Consider this,

We are told fridges and cars are our worst enemy,yet in most parts of the world these items don't exist for people.

MK Shrimper · Oct 26, 2016

mrsblue said:
Your example never mentioned the growing world population,this must have an effect as more and more oxygen is taken !

Thank god we're killing all those animals eh, do all the vegetarians and vegans want us to suffocate? #endthismadness #eatbacon

mrsblue · Oct 26, 2016

MK Shrimper said:
Thank god we're killing all those animals eh, do all the vegetarians and vegans want us to suffocate? #endthismadness #eatbacon

Hmm you ignored my questions then.

Put it another way....one person enters an air tight room with enough oxygen to sustain them for year's,if another 99 people also entered that room the oxygen would expire very quickly.

Gordon Brown was advised by scientists that diesel cars was the only way forward,decade later they are frowned upon by some quarters.

Never believe what they tell you..use your own common sense.

MK Shrimper · Oct 26, 2016

.......and I'm done.

Heathrow

Striker

Life President

Director

Banned

Striker

Super Moderator⭐

Life President⭐

Striker

Banned

Life President

Certified Senior Citizen⭐

Banned

Striker

Banned

Striker

Topgun Pilot

Banned

Striker

Banned

Striker

.

ShrimperZone Sponsors

ShrimperZone - Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel

All At Sea Fanzine