What is the most climate friendly way to travel the from Copenhagen to Atlanta?

KlimaKristian wrote:
I will soon be going to Atlanta, GA, USA from Copenhagen, DK, and I would like know which of the following opportunities you think is the most climate-friendly way to travel:

Flying from CPH to Atlanta with transfer in Amsterdam (4.750 miles/7.650 km).
Taking train/bus from CPH to London (aprrox. 950 miles/1500km). Then flying from London to Boston (3.250 miles/5.250km). Then taking train/bus from Boston to Atlanta (1.050 miles/1.700km). Distance in total: 5.200 miles/8400km.
This trip is roughly 500 miles/1.000 km longer, but it's a 1.500 miles/2.400km shorter flight-trip. What do you think the difference in the CO2 emission will be?

KlimaKristian wrote:
I will soon be going to Atlanta, GA, USA from Copenhagen, DK, and I would like know which of the following opportunities you think is the most climate-friendly way to travel:

Flying from CPH to Atlanta with transfer in Amsterdam (4.750 miles/7.650 km).
Taking train/bus from CPH to London (aprrox. 950 miles/1500km). Then flying from London to Boston (3.250 miles/5.250km). Then taking train/bus from Boston to Atlanta (1.050 miles/1.700km). Distance in total: 5.200 miles/8400km.
This trip is roughly 500 miles/1.000 km longer, but it's a 1.500 miles/2.400km shorter flight-trip. What do you think the difference in the CO2 emission will be?

Swan wrote:... the most climate friendly way to travel this distance is by sailboat

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:... the most climate friendly way to travel this distance is by sailboat

In what way is that "climate friendly"?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:... the most climate friendly way to travel this distance is by sailboat

In what way is that "climate friendly"?

No fumes retard, a sailboat uses the wind and the wind alone.

The only thing that I really wonder about you is if your mother dropped you too often, or perhaps she did not drop you enough.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:... the most climate friendly way to travel this distance is by sailboat

In what way is that "climate friendly"?

No fumes retard, a sailboat uses the wind and the wind alone.

The only thing that I really wonder about you is if your mother dropped you too often, or perhaps she did not drop you enough.

Nope, sailboats that large are required to have a motor. The wind isn't reliable enough for ports, and docking maneuvers. They are tiny, compared to commercial boats in shipping lanes.

Even Greta's racing yacht had a motor. Supposedly, it was never used...

James_ wrote:

Back in your time they dropped anchor offshore. And then a row boat
was used to ferry its passengers to and from the ship.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:... the most climate friendly way to travel this distance is by sailboat

In what way is that "climate friendly"?

No fumes retard, a sailboat uses the wind and the wind alone.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:... the most climate friendly way to travel this distance is by sailboat

In what way is that "climate friendly"?

No fumes retard, a sailboat uses the wind and the wind alone.

The only thing that I really wonder about you is if your mother dropped you too often, or perhaps she did not drop you enough.

Nope, sailboats that large are required to have a motor. The wind isn't reliable enough for ports, and docking maneuvers. They are tiny, compared to commercial boats in shipping lanes.

Even Greta's racing yacht had a motor. Supposedly, it was never used...

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:... the most climate friendly way to travel this distance is by sailboat

In what way is that "climate friendly"?

No fumes retard, a sailboat uses the wind and the wind alone.

Great, ... but you answered a question that I did not ask, and you did not answer the question that I asked.

Let's assume I know how a sailboat works. How is the lack of "fumes", say, somehow good for an unspecified climate?

Sometimes I wonder if you miraculously survived abortion only to be condemned to existing in a persistent vegetative state. I'm not suggesting that anyone pull your life support but you should be aware that people will eventually make that cost-benefit analysis. Jussayn.

Swan wrote:Actually I answered your question perfectly as sailboats emit no fumes that can damage the environment in any way.

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:... the most climate friendly way to travel this distance is by sailboat

In what way is that "climate friendly"?

No fumes retard, a sailboat uses the wind and the wind alone.

The only thing that I really wonder about you is if your mother dropped you too often, or perhaps she did not drop you enough.

Nope, sailboats that large are required to have a motor. The wind isn't reliable enough for ports, and docking maneuvers. They are tiny, compared to commercial boats in shipping lanes.

Even Greta's racing yacht had a motor. Supposedly, it was never used...

Maybe you need to get laid? It is well know that sailboats have motors.
How would you expect them to maneuver close to land or in a marina?
Back in your time they dropped anchor offshore. And then a row boat
was used to ferry its passengers to and from the ship.
And yet you are okay with avoiding mass transit so you won't save energy
by riding with minorities. And then you have a problem with sailboats.
Just an FYI, white Americans also use mass transit. Today, fewer white Americans like yourself are getting a driver's license. Commuting by mass transit allows
them to spend their hard earned American dollar on something other than gas.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually I answered your question perfectly as sailboats emit no fumes that can damage the environment in any way.

Once again, I realize that you are about as proficient in English comprehension as ancient Egyptians' were at programming in FORTRAN, but I'll try to go a bit more slowly for you.

I did not ask about the "environment". I specifically asked about the word you used "climate."

So let's try this yet again ... How is the lack of fumes climate-friendly?.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually I answered your question perfectly as sailboats emit no fumes that can damage the environment in any way.

Once again, I realize that you are about as proficient in English comprehension as ancient Egyptians' were at programming in FORTRAN, but I'll try to go a bit more slowly for you.

I did not ask about the "environment". I specifically asked about the word you used "climate."

So let's try this yet again ... How is the lack of fumes climate-friendly?.

OK I have the answer about fumes, but you will need to understand what happens to a person who locks the garage door then starts the car and guzzled a quart of vodka. The answer will follow.

That said the question was not posed by you unless you were using one of your schizzo personas so you just gave up the boat Sybil. If one understands that some people believe that degrading the atmosphere of the Earth with petroleum based fumes changes the climate then one would traverse the ocean by sailboat as no pollution would be created which would be a plus under all circumstances whether the climate would be effected or not. That said you enjoy the climate in the garage with the Yugo running, so have fun

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:... the most climate friendly way to travel this distance is by sailboat

In what way is that "climate friendly"?

No fumes retard, a sailboat uses the wind and the wind alone.

The only thing that I really wonder about you is if your mother dropped you too often, or perhaps she did not drop you enough.

Nope, sailboats that large are required to have a motor. The wind isn't reliable enough for ports, and docking maneuvers. They are tiny, compared to commercial boats in shipping lanes.

Even Greta's racing yacht had a motor. Supposedly, it was never used...

Maybe you need to get laid? It is well know that sailboats have motors.
How would you expect them to maneuver close to land or in a marina?
Back in your time they dropped anchor offshore. And then a row boat
was used to ferry its passengers to and from the ship.
And yet you are okay with avoiding mass transit so you won't save energy
by riding with minorities. And then you have a problem with sailboats.
Just an FYI, white Americans also use mass transit. Today, fewer white Americans like yourself are getting a driver's license. Commuting by mass transit allows
them to spend their hard earned American dollar on something other than gas.

Mass transit at 2:00 AM? Not here...Liberal play the minority game. We are all people, all Americans. Well, except those sneaking past Joe at the southern border, by the hundreds each day... But, you have fun riding the covid bus. The vaccines will protect you. Too bad we slacked off on the cold and flu herd immunity for two years. Better stock up on tissue paper, before hyper-inflation kicks in. The hoarders will clear the shelves again.

Maybe you can supplement you SSD here. Our new climate hero is looking for a few henchmen, to join his horde of minion. The pay is 'crap' though, literally...

Swan wrote: .. the question was not posed by you

Swan wrote:If one understands that some people believe that degrading the atmosphere of the Earth with petroleum based fumes changes the climate

Swan wrote: ... then one would traverse the ocean by sailboat as no pollution would be created which would be a plus under all circumstances

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually I answered your question perfectly as sailboats emit no fumes that can damage the environment in any way.

Once again, I realize that you are about as proficient in English comprehension as ancient Egyptians' were at programming in FORTRAN, but I'll try to go a bit more slowly for you.

I did not ask about the "environment". I specifically asked about the word you used "climate."

So let's try this yet again ... How is the lack of fumes climate-friendly?.

OK I have the answer about fumes, but you will need to understand what happens to a person who locks the garage door then starts the car and guzzled a quart of vodka. The answer will follow.

That said the question was not posed by you unless you were using one of your schizzo personas so you just gave up the boat Sybil. If one understands that some people believe that degrading the atmosphere of the Earth with petroleum based fumes changes the climate then one would traverse the ocean by sailboat as no pollution would be created which would be a plus under all circumstances whether the climate would be effected or not. That said you enjoy the climate in the garage with the Yugo running, so have fun

Actual research shows emissions over the oceans are insignificant. I started watching a show about the Empire State building in NYC going green. Over 70%
of the carbon emissions in NYC come from its buildings.
Basically heating and cooling a confined area creates more carbon than traffic does. This means that when carbon footprints are discussed, where is the CO2 coming from?
As for myself, I think I can improve both the solar panel and wind turbine. If so, then the carbon footprint from heating or cooling occupied spaces would become greener.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: .. the question was not posed by you

I realize that being in a persistent vegetative state is a rather formidable handicap when it comes to answering questions, but I'm willing to work with as you take baby steps forward. Just hang in there.


My question was most certainly asked by me. But don't get distracted. Stay focused.

Swan wrote:If one understands that some people believe that degrading the atmosphere of the Earth with petroleum based fumes changes the climate

OK, maybe we need to take a couple steps back. I'll take the hit for this. I was clearly going too fast for you.

I did not ask about what some people believe.

I asked you how "fumes" are not climate-friendly.

I will now add another question to the list, effectively doubling the length of the list:

How do petroleum-based "fumes" degrade the atmosphere?

Perhaps we can start with definitions of "climate" and atmospheric "grading."

Swan wrote: ... then one would traverse the ocean by sailboat as no pollution would be created which would be a plus under all circumstances

How are you defining pollution? Are you including CO2?

Swan wrote:That actual research is nonsense because emissions and oil spills are very significant.

Try again

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:That actual research is nonsense because emissions and oil spills are very significant.

Try again

I don't know how you could say that when there hasn't been any of any significance, ever.

The earth is mighty. The ocean is mighty. We are insignificant relatively. There is nothing we can do of any significance.

Try again.

Swan wrote:LOL so in your opinion there were no ecological impacts from the deepwater horizon oil spill in the gulf of Mexico.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL so in your opinion there were no ecological impacts from the deepwater horizon oil spill in the gulf of Mexico.

LOL! LOL! So what impact are you claiming I can see today? Would you care to post some pics? ... of today.

What? There isn't any impact to be seen? It's funny how that works, as in funny is as funny does.

So no, there hasn't been any human activity that has had any significant impact on planet earth. Our ocean is a super-machine that breaks down everything. Our planet is a super-machine whose geological activity breaks down everything.

You went to school, didn't you?

Swan wrote:There is a dead zone on the bottom of the Gulf,

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:... the most climate friendly way to travel this distance is by sailboat

In what way is that "climate friendly"?

No fumes retard, a sailboat uses the wind and the wind alone.

Great, ... but you answered a question that I did not ask, and you did not answer the question that I asked.

Let's assume I know how a sailboat works. How is the lack of "fumes", say, somehow good for an unspecified climate?

Sometimes I wonder if you miraculously survived abortion only to be condemned to existing in a persistent vegetative state. I'm not suggesting that anyone pull your life support but you should be aware that people will eventually make that cost-benefit analysis. Jussayn.

Actually I answered your question perfectly as sailboats emit no fumes that can damage the environment in any way.

Swan wrote:
If I am wrong you can tell us how a sailboat in motion is not climate friendly?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually I answered your question perfectly as sailboats emit no fumes that can damage the environment in any way.

Once again, I realize that you are about as proficient in English comprehension as ancient Egyptians' were at programming in FORTRAN, but I'll try to go a bit more slowly for you.

I did not ask about the "environment". I specifically asked about the word you used "climate."

So let's try this yet again ... How is the lack of fumes climate-friendly?.

OK I have the answer about fumes, but you will need to understand what happens to a person who locks the garage door then starts the car and guzzled a quart of vodka. The answer will follow.

Swan wrote:
That said the question was not posed by you unless you were using one of your schizzo personas so you just gave up the boat Sybil.

Swan wrote:
If one understands that some people believe that degrading the atmosphere of the Earth with petroleum based fumes

Swan wrote:
changes the climate

Swan wrote:
then one would traverse the ocean by sailboat as no pollution would be created

Swan wrote:
which would be a plus under all circumstances whether the climate would be effected or not.

Swan wrote:
That said you enjoy the climate in the garage with the Yugo running, so have fun

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually I answered your question perfectly as sailboats emit no fumes that can damage the environment in any way.

Once again, I realize that you are about as proficient in English comprehension as ancient Egyptians' were at programming in FORTRAN, but I'll try to go a bit more slowly for you.

I did not ask about the "environment". I specifically asked about the word you used "climate."

So let's try this yet again ... How is the lack of fumes climate-friendly?.

OK I have the answer about fumes, but you will need to understand what happens to a person who locks the garage door then starts the car and guzzled a quart of vodka. The answer will follow.

That said the question was not posed by you unless you were using one of your schizzo personas so you just gave up the boat Sybil. If one understands that some people believe that degrading the atmosphere of the Earth with petroleum based fumes changes the climate then one would traverse the ocean by sailboat as no pollution would be created which would be a plus under all circumstances whether the climate would be effected or not. That said you enjoy the climate in the garage with the Yugo running, so have fun

Actual research shows emissions over the oceans are insignificant. I started watching a show about the Empire State building in NYC going green. Over 70%
of the carbon emissions in NYC come from its buildings.
Basically heating and cooling a confined area creates more carbon than traffic does. This means that when carbon footprints are discussed, where is the CO2 coming from?
As for myself, I think I can improve both the solar panel and wind turbine. If so, then the carbon footprint from heating or cooling occupied spaces would become greener.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: .. the question was not posed by you

I realize that being in a persistent vegetative state is a rather formidable handicap when it comes to answering questions, but I'm willing to work with as you take baby steps forward. Just hang in there.


My question was most certainly asked by me. But don't get distracted. Stay focused.

Swan wrote:If one understands that some people believe that degrading the atmosphere of the Earth with petroleum based fumes changes the climate

OK, maybe we need to take a couple steps back. I'll take the hit for this. I was clearly going too fast for you.

I did not ask about what some people believe.

I asked you how "fumes" are not climate-friendly.

I will now add another question to the list, effectively doubling the length of the list:

How do petroleum-based "fumes" degrade the atmosphere?

Perhaps we can start with definitions of "climate" and atmospheric "grading."

Swan wrote: ... then one would traverse the ocean by sailboat as no pollution would be created which would be a plus under all circumstances

How are you defining pollution? Are you including CO2?

Again kid this is not your thread,

Swan wrote:
or are you admitting to using multiple names?

Swan wrote:
LOL

Anyone who denies that there is a climate and that it is changing

Swan wrote:
is retarded just like you.

Swan wrote:
Again 20000 years ago the Earth was half covered in ice,

Swan wrote:
then it melted itself because the climate changed.

Swan wrote:
Not that the local schizzo YOU would be able to comprehend.

Swan wrote:
So you been on the communist government payroll for long?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:That actual research is nonsense because emissions and oil spills are very significant.

Try again

I don't know how you could say that when there hasn't been any of any significance, ever.

The earth is mighty. The ocean is mighty. We are insignificant relatively. There is nothing we can do of any significance.

Try again.

LOL so in your opinion there were no ecological impacts from the deepwater horizon oil spill in the gulf of mexico.

Funny is as funny does, now grow up turdy

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL so in your opinion there were no ecological impacts from the deepwater horizon oil spill in the gulf of Mexico.

LOL! LOL! So what impact are you claiming I can see today? Would you care to post some pics? ... of today.

What? There isn't any impact to be seen? It's funny how that works, as in funny is as funny does.

So no, there hasn't been any human activity that has had any significant impact on planet earth. Our ocean is a super-machine that breaks down everything. Our planet is a super-machine whose geological activity breaks down everything.

You went to school, didn't you?

There is a dead zone on the bottom of the Gulf,

Swan wrote:
but since you can not see it you just ignore reality

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:... the most climate friendly way to travel this distance is by sailboat

In what way is that "climate friendly"?

No fumes retard, a sailboat uses the wind and the wind alone.

Great, ... but you answered a question that I did not ask, and you did not answer the question that I asked.

Let's assume I know how a sailboat works. How is the lack of "fumes", say, somehow good for an unspecified climate?

Sometimes I wonder if you miraculously survived abortion only to be condemned to existing in a persistent vegetative state. I'm not suggesting that anyone pull your life support but you should be aware that people will eventually make that cost-benefit analysis. Jussayn.

Actually I answered your question perfectly as sailboats emit no fumes that can damage the environment in any way.

No, you never answered his question. Try again. What fumes are you concerned about? How do they damage the environment?

Swan wrote:
If I am wrong you can tell us how a sailboat in motion is not climate friendly?

Define 'climate friendly'.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL so in your opinion there were no ecological impacts from the deepwater horizon oil spill in the gulf of Mexico.

LOL! LOL! So what impact are you claiming I can see today? Would you care to post some pics? ... of today.

What? There isn't any impact to be seen? It's funny how that works, as in funny is as funny does.

So no, there hasn't been any human activity that has had any significant impact on planet earth. Our ocean is a super-machine that breaks down everything. Our planet is a super-machine whose geological activity breaks down everything.

You went to school, didn't you?

There is a dead zone on the bottom of the Gulf,

Fiction.

Swan wrote:
but since you can not see it you just ignore reality

The bottom of the Gulf can be seen. That's how I know you are lying and making shit up.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL so in your opinion there were no ecological impacts from the deepwater horizon oil spill in the gulf of Mexico.

LOL! LOL! So what impact are you claiming I can see today? Would you care to post some pics? ... of today.

What? There isn't any impact to be seen? It's funny how that works, as in funny is as funny does.

So no, there hasn't been any human activity that has had any significant impact on planet earth. Our ocean is a super-machine that breaks down everything. Our planet is a super-machine whose geological activity breaks down everything.

You went to school, didn't you?

There is a dead zone on the bottom of the Gulf,

Fiction.

Swan wrote:
but since you can not see it you just ignore reality

The bottom of the Gulf can be seen. That's how I know you are lying and making shit up.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:That actual research is nonsense because emissions and oil spills are very significant.

Try again

I don't know how you could say that when there hasn't been any of any significance, ever.

The earth is mighty. The ocean is mighty. We are insignificant relatively. There is nothing we can do of any significance.

Try again.

LOL so in your opinion there were no ecological impacts from the deepwater horizon oil spill in the gulf of mexico.

Funny is as funny does, now grow up turdy

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:That actual research is nonsense because emissions and oil spills are very significant.

Try again

I don't know how you could say that when there hasn't been any of any significance, ever.

The earth is mighty. The ocean is mighty. We are insignificant relatively. There is nothing we can do of any significance.

Try again.

LOL so in your opinion there were no ecological impacts from the deepwater horizon oil spill in the gulf of mexico.

Funny is as funny does, now grow up turdy

The spill caused more economic problems, than ecological. You do realize that oil has been seeping out of the gulf, long before anyone thought to drill? You have to get use to the fact that everything is political, and gets over-hyped to mind-control the masses of morons. How many of these 'crisis s' do you thing you've lived through, that were resolved in a few years? Most would have fixed themselves anyway, maybe a few more years, but nature can handle it.