Do planes have any effect on climate?

PiKe

PiKe

PiKe

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
25,287
Location
Lake District
I recall something from when 9/11 happened about the lack of planes flying contributing to a temperature drop, what is the scientific reason behind this and would a similar thing be happening because of no flights in/around Europe?
 
I can tell you with almost complete certainty that planes make absolutely zero difference to the climate, just as is the case with cars, ships, and other CO2 emitting machines.

Although i'll put good money on it that the usual suspects will be along shortly to tell us that we're all going to die due to huge tidal waves/storms/blah blah blah.
 
In a discussion with Jonathon Porritt the other day, Toby Young suggested that the warm weather in West London at the weekend was entirely due to the absence of vapour trails, thus proving conclusively that air travel helps to keep the planet cool . . . but that is Toby Young for you :D


Vote Lib-Dem - choose change!
 
Stolen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

Vapour trails or contrails and climate



MODIS tracking of contrails generated by air traffic over the southeastern United States on January 29, 2004.
Vapour trails or contrails, by affecting the Earth's radiation balance, act as a radiative forcing. Studies have found that vapour trails or contrails trap outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the Earth and atmosphere (positive radiative forcing) at a greater rate than they reflect incoming solar radiation (negative radiative forcing). Therefore, the overall net effect of contrails is positive, i.e. a warming.[4] However, the effect varies daily and annually, and overall the magnitude of the forcing is not well known: globally (for 1992 air traffic conditions), values range from 3.5 mW/m² to 17 mW/m². Other studies have determined that night flights are mostly responsible for the warming effect: while accounting for only 25% of daily air traffic, they contribute 60 to 80% of contrail radiative forcing. Similarly, winter flights account for only 22% of annual air traffic, but contribute half of the annual mean radiative forcing.[5]
[edit]September 11, 2001 climate impact study

The grounding of planes for three days in the United States after September 11, 2001 provided a rare opportunity for scientists to study the effects of contrails on climate forcing. Measurements showed that without contrails, the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 degree Celsius higher than immediately before;[6] however, it has also been suggested that this was due to unusually clear weather during the period.[7]
Condensation trails have been suspect of causing “regional-scale surface temperature” changes for some time.[8][9] Researcher David J. Travis, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, has published and spoken on the measurable impacts of contrails on climate change in the science journal Nature and at the American Meteorological Society 10th Annual conference in Portland, Oregon. The effect of the change in aircraft contrail formation on the 3 days after the 11th was observed in surface temperature change, measured across over 4,000 reporting stations in the continental United States[8]. Travis’ research documented an "anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature change".[8] The diurnal temperature change (DTR) is the difference in the day's highs and lows at any weather reporting station.[10] Travis observed a 1.8 degree Celsius departure from the two adjacent three-day periods to the 11th-14th.[8]. This increase was the largest recorded in 30 years, more than "2 standard deviations away from the mean DTR".[8]
Click to expand...
 
The grounding of 63,000 flights over the past four days has saved 1.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, more than the annual emissions of many developing countries.
Click to expand...

Source

We should do it more often. ;)
 
Tute said:
I can tell you with almost complete certainty that planes make absolutely zero difference to the climate, just as is the case with cars, ships, and other CO2 emitting machines.

Although i'll put good money on it that the usual suspects will be along shortly to tell us that we're all going to die due to huge tidal waves/storms/blah blah blah.
Click to expand...

Westyfield2 said:
No.

/thread
Click to expand...

Proof?

/restart thread
 
SteveOBHave said:
Proof?

/restart thread
Click to expand...

The fact that there is no proper, conlusive, unbiased proof that AGW is indeed, real.

The fact that it's being used as an excuse to raise taxes - rather than to combat the so called "threat" properly.

It's like speeding and road safety. If it was really a problem and the government cared about preventing it, they'd do something decisive and proper to attempt to curb it properly. But they don't want that, as it would mean a lot of revenue lost - so we just get blanket camera coverage that does nothing to sort out the problem itself. Just like "climate change" - it's been dreamt up with revenue generation in mind.
 
Tute said:
The fact that there is no proper, conlusive, unbiased proof that AGW is indeed, real.

The fact that it's being used as an excuse to raise taxes - rather than to combat the so called "threat" properly.

It's like speeding and road safety. If it was really a problem and the government cared about preventing it, they'd do something decisive and proper to attempt to curb it properly. But they don't want that, as it would mean a lot of revenue lost - so we just get blanket camera coverage that does nothing to sort out the problem itself. Just like "climate change" - it's been dreamt up with revenue generation in mind.
Click to expand...
Lack of proof doesn't give proof that it doesn't exist.

Every scientist knows this...
 
PiKe said:
I recall something from when 9/11 happened about the lack of planes flying contributing to a temperature drop, what is the scientific reason behind this and would a similar thing be happening because of no flights in/around Europe?
Click to expand...

That would be weather, not climate.
 
simulatorman said:
Source

We should do it more often. ;)
Click to expand...

Except for the stuff spewing out of the volcano to high altitude? ;)


No all this CO2 is a bunch of crap IMO. Another way of getting a cheeky tax out of us. I certainly don't care about CO2 emissions and considering from what I've read we only produce 3% of the world's CO2 I don't think it's really a large contributing factor. CO2 exists in nature... if people are worried about CO2 - plant more trees, problem solved. Sure, the phytoplankton's in the sea are going deeper and therefore not able to absorb as much CO2 - and apparently that's because the sea is getting richer in elements and impurities... Cant' say I'm really bothered.

If people used nuclear power for a start it would be a great move in the right direction.

Others say we have too much cattle, but frankly I like having a choice of foods to eat, and don't see why I should sacrifice a steak or some cheese because we have to get rid of cattle. Balls.

It's just a bunch of hype IMO. Clearly all I've said is reactionary and my opinion and it isn't necessarily "FACT." ;)
 
I thought climage change was a big scam to raise taxes - but this thing with shutting down air space has given me food for thought.

They really are just that stupid.
 
A volcano spewing ash would create more carbon in the air than all the planes in existance.

Ohyeh and don't forget the methane released by the most abundant enzyme on the planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom