M
This piece from the Netherlands Met Office develops that last point further:The development of the model, called the System for assessing Aviation's Global Emissions, is driven by the rapid growth in the aviation sector and its associated emissions. In 1992, according to a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, air transportation accounted for 2 percent of all the world's man-made carbon dioxide emissions and 13 percent of the fossil fuel used for transportation. Meanwhile, passenger traffic on scheduled airlines has grown by 60 percent in the past 10 years, with an estimated 5 percent (per annum) increase expected for the next 10 to 15 years. So aviation is and will continue to be an important source of greenhouse gases in the coming decades.
Decreasing those emissions is complicated by certain traits of the aviation industry. The deposition of combustion products in the upper troposphere produces atmospheric effects that are different and generally more significant than those due to ground-based emissions. But "fixing" the technology is problematic because aircraft are more technologically constrained than terrestrial modes of transport, because of their more stringent weight and safety requirements. Furthermore, whatever technical fixes can actually be made will be extremely costly and slow to incorporate because of the large capital costs and long lead times in the aviation industry.
Present commercial aircraft fly at altitudes of 8-13 km. The emissions from such air traffic can change the atmospheric composition:
Directly: by emitting carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx = NO + NO2), water vapour, unburnt hydrocarbons, soot, and sulfate particles.
Indirectly: by a chemical reaction chain similar to smog-formation the greenhouse gas ozone (O3) can be formed. In this reaction chain nitrogen oxides act as a catalyst under the influence of sunlight. As a result of these chemical reations also the concentration of methane (CH4), another greenhouse gas, decreases.
These changes can have effects on climate:
Ozone, CO2, and water vapour are greenhouse gases and their increase has a warming effect.
Methane is also a greenhouse gas and its decrease has a cooling effect.
Aerosols (sulfate particles, soot) could have a cooling effect.
Contrails formed due to the emission of particles and water vapour can increase the cloud cover in the upper troposphere. This may result in a cooling or heating depending on the size and optical depth of the ice crystals of which the contrails consist. Presently it is believed that contrails lead to a net warming effect.
There may be changes in (non-contrail) upper level clouds: Most contrails decay after minutes to hours, but some continue to exist and are then not distinguishable anymore from natural cirrus clouds (thin upper level clouds) for the human eye. The climate effect of changes in cirrus cloud cover due to aviation are not well known.
The ozone changes due to aviation also change UV at ground level:
[broken link removed]
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/232387/how_9_11_affected_the_climate/
In America, land of the gas-guzzler, the Federal Aviation Administration has calculated that the energy used to carry one passenger for one mile is greatest in sport-utility vehicles, pick-up trucks and transit buses. It says cars and commercial aircraft come out roughly equal. But a study for the European Commission reached a different conclusion. Assuming that aircraft are 70-75% full and cars contain 2.5 people (since longer distances usually imply family trips), CE Delft, a Dutch consultancy, came up with a comparison between different forms of travel (see chart 2). Coaches performed best, followed by liquefied-gas and diesel-powered cars or inter-city trains. Long-haul flights of more than 1,500km were 50% worse than petrol cars for each passenger-kilometre. Short-haul flights (where a smaller proportion of the time is spent on energy-efficient cruising and more on profligate climbing and descending) were fully three times worse than petrol cars.
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7033931
The MIT Report.
“In 1992, according to a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, air transportation accounted for 2 percent of all the world's man-made carbon dioxide emissions and 13 percent of the fossil fuel used for transportation”
You can’t use these stats without knowing what the figures for other categories (e.g road-transport) were in 1992 and what the figures are today. If the growth in the road-transport and energy production categories has grown faster than that of aviation then the relative figure for aviation could still stand at 2% and thus my argument is valid. It remains valid in fact even if the percentage has doubled or even tripled.
That paper was written in 2001 as an announcement of MIT's project to create a computer model to simulate the effect.“ But there is currently no comprehensive, internationally accepted method for determining the impact of aviation-related emissions.”
If that be so, how can anyone make a case for tackling aviation pollution?
Well then you obviously didn't bother to look at the video link I provided!The Netherlands Met Office
“Presently it is believed [my italics] that contrails lead to a net warming effect.”
“The climate effects of changes in cirrus cloud cover due to aviation are not well known”
Not very useful without some facts.
Well, your trip to Germany by car is a total of 1595km according to michelin.com, and will take you 20 hours (without traffic jams) according to the same website. The fuel will cost you 145 euro. It doesn't mention road tolls, meals, wear and tear, mental sanity, insurance, etc. By that measure I think my suggested 200 euro per flight hour of airplane tax is good value! Don't you?The Economist
Surely comparing the relative efficiencies of air-travel and ground-travel is of little relevance? There are distinctly different reasons why one might choose to use one mode of travel as against another. If I want to go to Germany for example, I could choose to go by land/sea but it’ll take me a day and a half to get there. I can get there in a couple of hours by air. Why would energy efficiency occur to me at all as a determining factor if I planned to go to the Far East?
Oh boo hoo!!!Look at it another way. How many people will lose their jobs if there was a radical reduction in air-travel?
So pollute and be-damned, eh? A GWB Republican to the bitter end!What damage would be done to countries especially poorer ones which look to tourism as a future economic benefit. Like it or not we live in a world where consumer spending is the engine driving the economy and introducing policies which result in cut-backs can have disastrous effects. It’d be an interesting study to compare the economic loss with the benefit from reducing what I still maintain is in relative terms a small amount of pollution.
You're kiddin' me! Sure Ryanair have saved the world with 1 euro fares!Finally, how many people can actually buy a ticket for 1 Euro? Leaving aside the fact that the true cost as the consumer sees it includes the taxes, do you have any idea how many 1 Euro tickets are actually sold? I suspect there are very few, that it’s merely a smart marketing ploy, either offering for sale those seats which wouldn’t otherwise sell, or where the publicity is worth the loss of a few bob.
Wrong Wrong Wrong! Please check Newtons first law of gravity.Besides, the empty seats may as well have bums on them even if at an uneconomic rate. The punters might buy a few drinks anyway. Full or not, the plane will still take off causing just as much pollution, so what’s to be gained by frightening away the “€1 merchants”?
I think that the situation will level out eventually if left alone, particularly if a fuel surcharge is introduced, as is likely I think. Remember too that the true cost of your trip includes the holiday itself and we’ll continue to fly only while we can afford it. Any dip in the economy and one of the first things we’ll abandon is the ‘impulse’ holiday.
I think our posts crossed, didn't see your comments until I posted the above.meccano: I know you didn't specify a tax on cheap flights but that report in uk the other day did. or if it didn't it was certainly misquoted on both the bbc and rte news. both stated that in order to start combating climate change the report suggested a tax on CHEAP flights. and if it was implemented who paying say €2000 business class across the atlantic would mind, or even notice? no one. on the other hand someone paying €50 to paris might well mind. taxing the 'poor' disproportionately again. nothing new there then. (the other was a joke by the way, but you probably guessed that)
I've been rolling my eyes at the weather-panicking for years. The atmosphere has been doing its thing for a few billiion years. We have only been studying it in detail for the last century. Earth will change, and regardless of whether that change affects us for good or ill, we have no control over it.
I am trying to recall which famous person sounded the alarm bells back in the 18th Century that by the year 1900, the whole of America would be buried under six feet of horse manure. Luckily, that only happened in Washington, DC
Two seater?Don't worry Meccano, because I was reading recently that Boeing are currently testing out a 2 seater fuel cell powered plane, once that technology gets up and running you can be sure Michael will quickly change the whole fleet over to such planes, thus eliminating any carbon taxes for customers and giving Ryanair a massive competitive edge in their battle for world domination!! (or good v evil...)
Yeah, and if you win at the bingo, sure it might even pay for the hire!! (Sure we all know that the pilots do nuttin anywayTwo seater?
Ye mean you'll have to fly the thing too!?
The ultimate cost saving!
Well said.I can only conclude that the human race is a mistake and on a fast track to extinction as no other species on earth actually increases consumption when a resource is in short supply or is going to ruin their habitat.
Well said.
The flippant responses on this thread just shows where the publics head is - up its collective butt.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?