Do planes have any effect on climate?

DreXeL said:
I'm sorry, but this whole 'armchair scientist' thing really ****** me off. So, nobody is allowed an opinion unless they have studied in depth everything there is to know on the subject? And anybody else who dares to express an opinion is a Sun/Daily Mail reading 'armchair scientist'? Please :rolleyes:

FWIW my opinion (and it is just that, an opinion, I don't claim anything I say on the subject to be fact), is based on that I have read/watched in various places, none of which include tabloid rags.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't mean that (or at least I don't). Everyone is entitled to an opinion (or debates on this forum for example would last about 2 minutes if only qualified people could answer) however some people seem to quote facts absolutely blindly and give certainties without remotely showing their reasoning. Discussing why you think either way is fine, coming into a thread blindly stating "blah blah" is a FACT is not tbh.

I do think in threads like this however you should give some background as to what research you have actually done on the matter (and ypu'd fall into that catagory, as you showed where you got your ideas from :))
 
DreXeL said:
I'm sorry, but this whole 'armchair scientist' thing really ****** me off. So, nobody is allowed an opinion unless they have studied in depth everything there is to know on the subject? And anybody else who dares to express an opinion is a Sun/Daily Mail reading 'armchair scientist'? Please :rolleyes:

FWIW my opinion (and it is just that, an opinion, I don't claim anything I say on the subject to be fact), is based on that I have read/watched in various places, none of which include tabloid rags.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference about stating a personal opinion, and arguing a point of a scientific theorem you really have no idea about apart from what you are regurgitating, and yet being dead set you are correct.

Hell, some of the best researchers in the field aren't even sure, and it's their life ever single day probably for the past 15 - 20 years. How can someone who has read a newspaper, book, watched a TV programme or other media claim to have better knowledge? Just annoys me and I assume it does a few others.

I doubt many would waltz into a thread and post some definite claim about particle physics or DNA sampling being a sham if they didn't have a good background in it, yet this seems to happen with AGW.
 
Lol, armchair scientists. What I'd do for an armchair here in my lab where I'm posting from :D

I know it's fashionable on here to bash the environment, but don't try and discredit the science just because you read something a journalist made their mind up on. There's facts and then there's carefully filtered facts in newspapers, especially on delicate subjects like this.

The o/p asked if planes had any effect on the climate. Yes they do. Their exhaust emissions reflect sunlight out.

Personally, I'm glad I have a degree of control with legislation. Reading threads like this just confirms that people can't be trusted to make the right decisions and in the end have to be led instead.
 
Jonny69 said:
Lol, armchair scientists. What I'd do for an armchair here in my lab where I'm posting from :D

I know it's fashionable on here to bash the environment, but don't try and discredit the science just because you read something a journalist made their mind up on. There's facts and then there's carefully filtered facts in newspapers, especially on delicate subjects like this.

The o/p asked if planes had any effect on the climate. Yes they do. Their exhaust emissions reflect sunlight out.

Personally, I'm glad I have a degree of control with legislation. Reading threads like this just confirms that people can't be trusted to make the right decisions and in the end have to be led instead.
Click to expand...


Very true. I just came back from a research trip, and for a week we stayed in a backpackers hostel. It wasn't till the last day that we twigged that one of the other guests was the science editor for the Sunday Times :D (and has been for ~12 years).

Was really interesting to hear his view of AGW and how it's handled. He reckons the whole of climategate could have been avoided had the UEA had better press officers.
 
Amp34 said:
Geology at Plymouth, graduated last year. :)

I still have nightmares about some of my third year exams, trying to write exam essays on TEX86 and the PETM. :p
Click to expand...

Aaah, a nice hardcore degree, good stuff. The furthest I dabbled into that side of it was basic volcanology & tectonics, as well as a little sedimentology. That was enough :D
 
all you arrogant academics love to think you are intelligent because you went through university and got a stamp. But how many times i have listened to lectures from 30+ year medical professionals talking about the dangers of vaccines and then some guy who just went through uni thinks he knows what he is talking about...
 
groen said:
all you arrogant academics love to think you are intelligent because you went through university and got a stamp. But how many times i have listened to lectures from 30+ year medical professionals talking about the dangers of vaccines and then some guy who just went through uni thinks he knows what he is talking about...
Click to expand...

Arrogance has nothing to do with it.

But 3+ years of reading, critically reviewing and writing scientific papers gives someone a much better chance of understanding how a paper / theory work.

Why all the anger? I wouldn't go up to a mechanic who has trained for 3 years and call him arrogant for not having 20 years experience. But I also wouldn't presume to try and tell him that what he was doing was wrong with a car, because I'd know he had a much better idea than I have.
 
Last edited:
Please explain to me how they measure the radio active reflectiveness of gases in the atmosphere. (the green house effect) how do they determine which gases reflect the suns rays more than others ?

An over simple explanation would be sufficient. I only ask because i have looked in to it on the internet and can not find any information on how they actually measure it.
 
groen said:
Please explain to me how they measure the radio active reflectiveness of gases in the atmosphere. (the green house effect) how do they determine which gases reflect the suns rays more than others ?

An over simple explanation would be sufficient. I only ask because i have looked in to it on the internet and can not find any information on how they actually measure it.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. It's not my field in the slightest and have no reason to research it, nor am I going to just so a point can be made.

*edit* If you do actually wish to find out, can I suggest joining a university library and seeking the appropriate journals.
 
Last edited:
joeyjojo said:
One of the largest factors in the climate is known as the planetary albedo. It's a measure of how much incident radiation (sunlight) reaches the Earth, compared to the amount reflected off of the clouds, land and ice caps (in particular). In this case, the lack of vapour trails after 9/11 resulted in a measurable increase in surface temperature, as less sunlight was being reflected.

In fact, the phasing out aerosols acts to reverse global dimming (thanks Johnny), increasing the effects of global warming.

The Earth is an extremely complex system. Small changes in one thing can lead to much larger changes elsewhere. For example, a sea level temperature change of only a couple of degrees (happening already) started releasing loads of methane from rocks. Nobody expected this, and now that methane is contributing to trapping more heat, and raising temps more.

Or receding sea ice. As the ice melts, it reflects less sunlight, so the sea warms up more, so more ice melts etc.

Potentially disasterous positive feedbacks are what scare me most.

Planes are particularly bad as they release gases etc. at high altitude, where they have a greater effect on trapping heat.

Global warming IS happening (fact). Whether global warming is entirely man-made or just mostly is the real question.

For the sarcastic types - no you're not going to die of a tsunami because of global warming. But you might be flooded out. The great barrier reef will die. A good proportion of the people and animals of the Earth will be displaced due to rising sea. Large areas of land will become inhospitably hot/cold. And all aspects of the food chain will be moved around (eg. an insect species hatching a few weeks earlier can be disasterous for a plant, which kills off a larger animal etc. etc.)
Click to expand...

+1 for a good post.
although id like to point out that something slightly more frightening. melting of ice caps and a raise in both the temperature and salinity (the ica caps are fresh water) could have the combined effect of closing down the global conveyor which essentually oxygenates the seas.
this would cause mass extinction and it has happened before. youve seen what a pond looks like when its not looked after well and goes stagnant imagine the seas like this.

one of the things that really confuses me with this issue is that people like to say well it happens naturaly so it doesnt matter. yes it does happen naturally (although we are speeding it up)
the reality is even if it does happen naturally we should at least try to control it unless we want mass extinctions (yep that would include us)
 
I'd imagine that measurements are taken of the incoming radiation on a gigercounter-esque monitor below and above the gas levels? Thus a low reading below the gas level and a higher one above. Concluding that reflection occurs would be possible studying areas of high levels of greenhouse gasses compared to areas of low level... maybe...
 
a.hay said:
I'd imagine that measurements are taken of the incoming radiation on a gigercounter-esque monitor below and above the gas levels? Thus a low reading below the gas level and a higher one above. Concluding that reflection occurs would be possible studying areas of high levels of greenhouse gasses compared to areas of low level... maybe...
Click to expand...

At a massively wild guess, probably not too far off. The gas in question may be suspended in a confined area, and the radiation (known quantity) to be researched passed through the gas to a collector plate, where it is measured.

That could be somewhere nearish the right lines, or not even close :D
 
groen said:
all you arrogant academics love to think you are intelligent because you went through university and got a stamp. But how many times i have listened to lectures from 30+ year medical professionals talking about the dangers of vaccines and then some guy who just went through uni thinks he knows what he is talking about...
Click to expand...

Throwing the arrogance card is quite rich coming from you considering what the rest of your post contains. Your more arrogant than anyone if you consider yourself "above" people with a degree just because you've sat through a few lectures. I'd be willing to bet my bank account that all of my freinds taking medicine here at Bristol have sat through more lectures than you, by people just as qualifed and they are only in their 3rd year out of 7.

Seems to me like you have a case of jealousy. Not everyone does a pony degree at an institue of drivel.
 
I had actual reasons for calling academics arrogant, unlike your childish attack, which of course is clearly arrogant. Considering the rest of my posts ? When am I ever arrogant ?

Yea that makes sense. Are you aware of any studies that have been done in controlled environments with gases in confined areas like that,
testing for the radio active reflectiveness ?
 
HeadlessChicken said:
:D

In all seriousness, I bet there are actually only 1 or 2 people on the whole of this board who can actually say they understand the science and make a decent conclusion from it. Another small group are probably scientifically trained and can therefore appreciate the science involved, digest the information given and make a rough conclusion from it.
Click to expand...


The science is very simple - gases in the atmosphere absorb light and release it as heat.

Simples.

The rest is one of two things:

1) Statistics - Most scientists aren't Statisticians, it's a very peculiar field. AGW needs more Statisticians.

2) Modelling the climate so you can adjust one input and reliably predict the effect on a global scale.

(1) is possible but generally neglected because it doesn't give us 'facts' we can base policy on, (2) is thought to be the answer but is entirely beyond our abilities at this time.

Climate models don't work because we don't understand 1% of the processes involved. I don't know if politicians are being lied to about this this or just choose to ignore an uncomfortable uncertainty so they can be seen to be doing something.
 
groen said:
I had actual reasons for calling academics arrogant, unlike your childish attack, which of course is clearly arrogant. Considering the rest of my posts ? When am I ever arrogant ?

Yea that makes sense. Are you aware of any studies that have been done in controlled environments with gases in confined areas like that,
testing for the radio active reflectiveness ?
Click to expand...

wtf is an academic? is it someone who went to school? someone who went to college? or someone who went to university and is taught how to critique scientific results by (hopefully) fairly respected teachers...
i wouldnt know im an art student. i hold my teachers in high regard because theyve spent longer doing this then i have and are better then me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom