That response was almost, but not quite, too ignorant for me to waste my time and perfectly good electrons on.
Of course the study was “flawed”; show me a perfect one. The authors go into excruciating detail about the limitations of the data they had to work with, the assumptions they had to make (and why), and the modest conclusion that the data suggested. Nonetheless, the data supports their patently obvious assertion: “private aviation is making a growing contribution to climate change”. The NBAA’s “Nuhn-unh, we’re not nearly as bad as we used to be” rebuttal (reiterating the study authors’ own analysis) is nothing more than a knee-jerk attempt at PR damage control.
1 reply
“regulation is needed to address the sector’s growing climate impact.”
What precisely IS their impact to the nearest 2 decimal places?
What precisely WOULD a regulation lower that impact global climate to the nearest 2 decimal places?
This is all make believe. There are no numbers.
Aviatrexx, How much has the heat transfer from Earth through the atmosphere changed in the last 40 years? What are the direct numbers for that? As far as I have researched it has not changed (within the measurement limits of the sensing equipment).
If the theory of CO2 going from an atmospheric concentration from 0.038% to 0.04% is slowing heat transfer in the atmosphere is correct, what are the directly measured numbers for that change so far? Thanks.
2 replies
Heat influx varies with small variations in earth’s orbit resulting rom mismatch of orbital cycle of planets thus gravitational effect on earth. (Sometime adding up, sometimes offsetting.)
And there’s the fundamental physics of greenhouse gases - the saturation effect of overlap of spectra of carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide limits effect of CO2 on climate temperature to a small amount most of which has already been realized. Climate was warmer yet stable in the Medieval Warm Period when Vikings farmed southwest Greenland.
1 reply
Dihydrogen monoxide (in all it’s forms) is really key in regulating temperature swings.
That, and since air (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon) is 99.9% of the atmosphere and is an insulator, one wonders what real effect that a few PPM of a trace gas actually contributes.
If anyone was really serious about limiting emissions from bizav the focus would be on how NOT to use that asset, not to make excuses for how much damage they may or may not be doing.
We are focused on consumption and “growth” as a mantra by divising more expensive and more extensive ways of doing more of what gets us into unsustainable situations instead of learning to stop doing these same things altogether. That is also an economic statement, not just environmental.
CO2 going from 0.038% to 0.04% – you are perhaps referring to the Mauna Loa measurements (Trends in CO2 - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory)? Note that CO2 was measured at 0.038% around the year 2005. Since 1960 it’s risen from 0.032% to 0.042% today. A 30% relative increase in 60 years seems pretty significant to me.
“one wonders what real effect that a few PPM of a trace gas actually contributes.” – just because something is small doesn’t mean it has a small effect. The effect of CO2 concentration has been understood for more than 100 years and validated multiple times.
I suggest you read this:
… and keep an open mind that not all climate scientists are collaborating together to run a conspiracy to scam the world, but are devoting their lives to understanding what’s going on. Could it be that they’re doing valid work but you just don’t like the answer?
1 reply
Meanwhile, GA planes still overwhelmingly consume leaded AvGas, and the politics around the unleaded replacement development seem to be preventing us from transitioning to cleaner fuels.
In some ways, it appears that the current regulations are the largest impediment to progressing towards cleaner future solutions.
“0.038% around the year 2005. Since 1960 it’s risen from 0.032% to 0.042% today. A 30% relative increase in 60 years”
And the radiant cooling through the atmosphere is unchanged. That is teh whole crux of the AGW/CO2 warming theory. So yea, it has have little if any effect.
It was warmer when the dinosaurs roamed because there was a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere at the time. That concentration had been slowly decreasing, becoming oil and coal … until very recently when we’ve been returning it back into the atmosphere.
Just because the dinosaurs were happy under warm conditions doesn’t mean the current world order wouldn’t have significant problems if the current temperature rises a few more degrees. The dinosaurs were adapted to that environment and we (and our civilization) are adapted to this one.
After rising from the last ice age, the temperatures had been pretty stable or very slowly decreasing again (like half a degree in 1500 years) … that is until the late 1800s.
1 reply
JJ JJ11: So who or what put the CO2 in the atmosphere before or during dinosaurs? Why isn’t that elevated level considered the “natural state” that earth is trying to move back too after somehow the dinosaurs’ existence changed it? Perhaps global warming adherents are trying to work against nature? Personally, I’m all for a few degrees warmer temps in the northern states where I live - so maybe I should buy a gas guzzling car? Seriously though, I’m not arrogant enough to believe that humankind is able to alter the earth’s natural climate cycles - to suit its needs.
I’ll start worrying about global warming when the US government stops using a 747 for presidential travel, the world’s ultimate business jet, or when John Kerry stops using his wife’s private jet to preach to us about this issue. In the meantime I still intend to drive to the airport in my comfortable 10 year old hemi powered pickup so I can fly one of the business jets that my company manages with only the owner on board!
1 reply
The concern about some gases is absorption-emission of energy (complicated subject but definition of ‘greenhouse gas’ is molecules that do that).
It’s the molecules that affect red end of light spectrum that are of great concern, whereas oxygen is at violet end.
Much flapping by catastrophists, methane has been a recent hobby horse.
The WattsUpWithThat.com website publishes articles refuting accusations against methane, claims of more severe weather, etc.
Realistically, the science is far from complete, especially in the primary heat reservoirs called ‘oceans’.
Meanwhile, weather balloons, satellite sensors, and tide gages show only a continuation of the slow temperature rise since the end of a cool era circa 1750AD. (The cool era that was a key factor in Viking farmers leaving southwest Greenland, where they’d come in the Medieval Warm Perio which was warmer than today and stable.)
How much damage has to be caused to get you people interested in trying to minimize further damage? There’s no good reason to not minimize what we can. You’re not edgy or countercultural for wanting to cause all the damage you can. I know it’s just “to own the libs,” and that’s an immature stance to take. The sad reality is that we are causing irreversible damage, and need to do what we reasonably can to mitigate further damage. This doesn’t mean giving up on aviation altogether. We shouldn’t do that. But it may mean aiming for unleaded fuel, or pushing for new planes to be more efficient, or discouraging rich people from using jumbo jets like taxis.
A lot of people in aviation are p*ssed-off Boomers who think they’re entitled to whatever they want regardless of who has to suffer, but it’s time you grew up and realize that, after you’re dead in a few years, your kids and grandkids have to live on whatever if left of the planet. Something maybe not causing AS much damage as thought shouldn’t be used as an excuse to cause all the damage you can. Grow up.
2 replies
In our desperate race to knee-cap civilization with the panic over global warming, consider the following:
During pre-history, carbon dioxide levels were much higher and earth’s original atmosphere contained zero oxygen. Plants breathe in and consume CO2 the same as how we require oxygen to breathe. Cyano bacteria, and then vegetation grew during prehistory at a tremendous rate, consuming CO2 and expelling the waste product, oxygen, into the atmosphere, all the while trapping massive amounts of carbon in vast mats of dead vegetation that would eventually become huge deposits of coal and other fossil fuels. This unchecked consumption of CO2 by the plant kingdom drew down the level of carbon dioxide to 0.03%. Our current geologic period has the lowest average CO2 levels in the history of earth. This level is the threshold for plant survival. If CO2 levels drop below 0.02% photosynthesis is impossible and plant life will be extinguished on planet earth.
Simultaneously, plant life “polluted” earth’s atmosphere with the waste product oxygen, which has now reached more than 20%. For those who wish to ascribe “cognizant, purposeful actions” to nature, “Mother Earth” created in recent years a new biological entity known as humans to save the earth from a total depletion of CO2. These humans are unique in the animal kingdom in that they sniff out the carbon deposits buried across the globe and return those deposits back to the natural carbon cycle. Mankind and its insatiable appetite for fossil fuel is nature’s way of saving the earth from the otherwise inevitable complete depletion of CO2 and the loss of plant life as we know it. We are not the enemy destroying the earth; we were created just like everything else God and/or nature created, to play a roll. Global warming alarmists just misread what that roll is; to return those fossil fuel deposits to the carbon cycle. In layman’s terms: Drill, baby, drill!
Huh? Noelle Alexandre
It has been explained to you that humans are not and cannot ruin earth’s climate.
Read again on accurate temperature data, basic physics of greenhouse gases, warmer periods in past yet climate stable, natural variations in earth’s orbit, …
Friends of Science Calgary reports on articles/papers and writes explanations.
Climate Audit exposes faulty analysis methods, often in statistics. (Climate ‘research’ gets complicated - voluminous analysis, theories called ‘models’ that are not complete and are disproven by actual performance of climate.)
Catastrophist David Suzuki says in my words ‘It’s a tough job but someone has to do it.’ to justify his jetting around the world.
He and alGore each live in two or more large houses.
What is their real agenda?
On any given year, 98-99% of all CO2 released is “natural”. This is why suggesting that CO2 is “damaging the planet” is nonsensical. Unless you believe that the planet releasing truly massive amounts of CO2 is natures way of committing suicide, then stop saying that CO2 will kill the planet.
1 reply
I’m sorry, please explain what “natural” mechanism is leading to the recent CO2 increase? I’d really like to know.
(link to data above came from the WattsUpWithThat website suggested above as a reference to use… and remember we’re now above 420ppm)
Note that this is completely separate from whether that CO2 is “damaging the planet”
1 reply
This is what happens when one tries to appease environmental fanatics, who will only be happy when private aviation is dead. The alphabets have pandered to them for decades, now the chickens are coming home to roost. They should have gone on the offensive from the start, beginning with a strong refutation of the myths of manmade climate change and that CO2 - what humans exhale and plants need for survival - is somehow harrmful. They are reaping, what they have sown.
THANK YOU for that chart.
Now overlay atmospheric temperatures on that chart for teh same period. Once you do that, you have conclusive proof that CO2 increase in the atmosphere have had no measurable effect on retaining heat in the atmosphere. Take your time & think about it why the “theory” is not happening in the real world.
(pro tip: people have no accurate records of global atmospheric or co2 concentrations even 1000 years ago, muck less 160,000. It’s an estimate with very low accuracy).