We all know that the aviation industry produces a good amount of CO2. Nevertheless, as climate change scientists we frequently fly to attend a growing number of meetings and conferences organised to discuss some of the impacts of climate change.
Shouldn't we start thinking about the necessity of some face-to-face meetings that could alternatively occur by video conferencing?
I agree. Video conference not only reduces CO2 emission, but also saves our time on travel.
That's another important point Xianwen, sometimes we spend more time traveling than in the meeting.
Yes, if possible. Sometimes it is mandatory to attend a family gathering or official. In such situations this option of not attending the event doesn't exist. But if we have the option, we must avoid such traveling.
As a scientist you need to be open minded and read my 2013 & 2016 papers which are cited pp.87ff in this comprehensive review on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333746713_Climate_Change_-_A_review - See also: http://climate-change-theory.com
Of course Nafees, there are commitments that we can't miss. My concerns are about those scientific meetings that we could avoid by putting people together by video conferencing, as project meetings, small workshops and so on...
A video conference would never provide the same experience and opportunities to speak with other colleagues (or prospective colleagues) than face to face ones. Change the aeroplane for train transport. It is like going to work, could you do it from home? not really, then look for the most environmental friendly way of transport instead of not doing it.
I agree with you Isabel Seguro , there is nothing better than talking face to face to exchange professional experiences with colleagues...and usually during some relaxed chatting during coffee breaks we get to know prospective colleagues more deeply and have time (and confidence) to talk about technical details of someone's work.
And yes, train is an excellent alternative to aeroplane, but I would say it works well if you are leaving in Europe. In South and North America, Australia and Asia the distances are huge....and unfortunately we don't have so good rail infrastructure.
Anyway, I am still "trying to convince myself" that we should reduce aeroplane journeys to strictly necessary.
Gullible people have been falsely indoctrinated to believe that burning fossil fuels causes climate change. CO2 has no significant effect on climate. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Try doing a study of actual data as I did in my 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605.
Read this https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cogent-irrefutable-reasons-why-carbon-dioxide-cannot-warm-cotton/ and http://climate-change-theory.com, watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BEN3iJzlrI&feature=youtu.be and read https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333746713_Climate_Change_-_A_review.
DC,
I see you have found a venue, from which you have not yet been banned, to spread your nonsense. Apparently you have never successfully passed a course in engineering heat transfer analysis. If you had, you would know better.
What part of ‘measured’ do you not grasp? That IS actual data.
The misleadingly named greenhouse effect of water vapor from the oceans increased the average surface temperature by about 33 C° (above the no-ghg temperature) making the planet warm enough for life as we know it to evolve. Increased WV from irrigation has added another half degree or so. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
If water vapor does most of the "33 degrees" of warming with its average concentration of just over 1%, then how much warming should it do in a region with 4% concentration? I have offered US $10,000 for the first to prove the physics in my 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" wrong, and you cannot do that. Nor can anyone else. The brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt was correct in 1876, but climatologists ignore the now-proven fact that Loschmidt was right and gravity does indeed form the stable equilibrium non-zero temperature gradient seen in every planetary troposphere, thus explaining that 33 degrees without any fictitious, fiddled physics whereby climatologists think they can add the flux of back radiation to that of solar radiation and use the total in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to "explain" the global mean surface temperature. That is false physics, never supported by any empirical experiment, but rather refuted by the simplest of experiments with multiple sources of radiation and a thermometer. You are way out of your depth. And real-world data shows water vapor cooling, as is supported by correct physics. Read what this physicist wrote ...
DC,
Water vapor is driven into the atmosphere by the vapor pressure which varies only with the temperature of the liquid water. (Didn’t they teach you that or did you forget?) Water vapor partial pressure in the atmosphere varies primarily with the liquid water temperature and secondarily with winds effect on the water/atmosphere boundary layer. Ocean surface temperature of around 86F (30C) near the equator (combined with wind effects) results in an average of about 4% WV.
What you call ‘heat creep’ is actually a combination gas phase thermal conductivity with influence of gravity, both of which are well known. The influence of thermal conductivity is several orders of magnitude less than the active forces in climate and weather and is therefore justifiably ignored. The influence of gravity at the molecular level contributed to establishing standard atmosphere tables several decades ago.
How do you rationalize that your bizarre theory, which contains both truth and fantasy, does not explain:
The ‘notches’ in graphs of radiation flux vs wavenumber.
The ‘hash’ in these same graphs in e.g. the wavenumber range 0-500/cm.
The warm up since the depths of the Little Ice Age.
Simple calculations using the output from Hitran which show WV being 37+ times more effective than CO2 at ground level warming.
Plus other things most of which are explained in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com with the rest explained at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Yes, it would make sense to limit air travel.
One could "meet" people by FaceTime rather than at conferences. I do that with my relatives for a few years now.
I "justify" the correct physics in my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" from the laws of physics. I suggest you study the paper before trying to guess what it says. You display no knowledge what-so-ever as to the contents. For a start, I am not talking about weather. Perhaps you might like to explain how a location on the equator of Venus rises in temperature from about 732K to 737K over the course of about four months on the sunlit side. Likewise explain what keeps the core of the Moon over 1,000 degrees hotter than the hottest location on its surface. Answer: solar energy supplied by heat creep - no gas involved down there my friend. Show me any explanation anywhere in world literature similar to my world-first explanation of the heat creep process.
Dear colleagues,
I might react a bit late but I would like to add something especially to what Isabel Seguro wrote. It is true that we get to exchange better in face-to-face meetings, but couldn't we learn to exchange better through other medias? I know we are all overwhelmed by e-mails but sometimes written exchanges allow great discussions and are also more inclusive to hearing-impaired colleagues. That would however require creating new tools or at least making sure that e-mails don't get lost in crowded mail boxes.
I sometimes also wonder if we all need to go to that many conferences, the escalation in the number of scientific events is not always for the sake of research...
Thank you Jorge Arigony-Neto for bringing this question!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change