Home / Blogs / Innovation / Pure Genius
Follow this blog:
RSS

Air traffic to become major source of global warming

By | June 15, 2010, 4:00 AM PDT

As air traffic emissions double — or even triple — by 2050, a recent study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology indicates that air travel will become one of the significant factors in global warming. (Currently, global air traffic contributes 2 to 3 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, according to the report.)

The study’s lead author, Bethan Owen of the Dalton Research Institute at Manchester Metropolitan University in the United Kingdom, answered my questions last week.

Why are air traffic emissions expected to increase so much?

Aviation emissions are largely driven by demand. Global aviation demand, in turn, tends to be driven by global economic growth. Many parts of the developing world currently experience a very low amount of air travel per capita and the potential for growth could thus very large on a global scale. The methods used for predicting future aviation demand in this paper are fairly conservative. The scenarios are based on the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emissions Scenarios] GDP growth predictions and the scenario story lines. Improvements in technology leading to better fuel efficiency are included in the scenarios to varying degrees. However, the rate of improvement in fuel efficiency does not generally keep pace with the growth in aviation in any of the scenarios in the first half of this century.

What kind of damage could these increasing emissions do?

CO2 emissions from aviation are no different from any other emission source. However, the non-CO2 climate effects from aviation also need to be considered. There is not a simple way of including all the effects of aviation using one metric as the different effects have varying time scales. Currently, international aviation emissions — around half of the total — are not part of the Kyoto Protocol or any other international emission reduction agreement. Future growth in aviation emissions against a background of reducing emissions in other sectors is potentially a significant issue.

What can we do about this problem?

The International Civil Aviation Organization is a specialized UN agency and acts as a global forum for aviation. The ICAO Committee for Aviation and Environmental Protection are currently developing ideas for a CO2 standard for aviation which may help force the pace of technological development.

Mitigation options for aviation include:

  • Increased rate of technological development and uptake for fuel efficiency measures
  • Alternative fuels, although there are major problems associated with this not least, the sustainable production of biomass feedstock
  • Lower levels of future aviation activity than forecast

Image: Airplane / iStock

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Christina Hernandez Sherwood

About Christina Hernandez Sherwood

Christina Hernandez Sherwood is a contributing writer for SmartPlanet.

Christina Hernandez Sherwood

Christina Hernandez Sherwood

Contributing Writer

Christina Hernandez Sherwood has written for the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Diverse: Issues in Higher Education and Columbia Journalism Review. She holds degrees from the University of Delaware and Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. She is based in New Jersey.

Follow her on Twitter.

Christina Hernandez Sherwood

Christina Hernandez Sherwood

In the unlikely event that Christina has a professional or financial relationship with a company she writes about, it will be prominently disclosed.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
53
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
Hey when are you tree huggers going to face the PLAIN FACTS???
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING

IT is a FARCE
Posted by verd@...
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
There is historical proof
Research the weather patterns for the three days after
September 11th, 2001. With all air transportation grounded,
weather changed significantly in the US, in some areas
temperatures dropping 5?F or more and humidity levels
changing. Forecasts were noticeably off for days until flights
were allowed to return to normal.
Posted by vulpine@...
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
You are looking at the symtom, but the wrong cause.
The post 911 cooling was likely caused by the reduced contrails in the sky. The water vapor contrails have 100"s of times the warming power of CO2. any legit scientist knows this.
Posted by Hates Idiots
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
And where do these contrails come from?
Airplanes.
Posted by vulpine@...
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
I read this as "Air traffic to become a major source of Leprechaun
overpopulation." There is more evidence to support the existence of
Leprechauns than there is supporting man-made global warming.
Posted by jtdavies
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, but you are missing the point...
My point is the contrails trap more heat the CO2. The alleged scientist who wrote the study should have known that. Blaming CO2 from increased use of planes for an increase in warming is moronic.

We also have a situation where airlines are businesses. New planes have more fuel efficient engines which means more airliners flying in 20 years will use less fuel. New planes are bought because they use less fuel and cost less to operate.

It is the same situation as we have more cars on the road today than 20 years ago, but total emissions are down because of better fuel economy and stricter emissions laws.

Again, any respectable scientist would know this information.

But I have no respect for global warming frauds.
Posted by Hates Idiots
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Global Dimming
There are studies showing that the Contrails reduce the amount of heat and light entering the atmosphere. Measurements of the electromagnetic radiation (including light) hitting the earth have dropped over the last 50 years. A study in the Indian Ocean found this to be due to pollution particles in the atmosphere. Contrails are thought to have the same effect and thus cool the earth.
Posted by PMPCSM
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Great points PMPCSM
There is so much science out there that disproves man based global warming that to still believe in it is to be the DENIER.

Maybe the earth is warming. Maybe it's cooling. But my money is on Mother Nature being behind whatever is happening.

Instead of chasing carbon credits and cow poofs maybe we should learn how the earth has warmed and cooled on it's own for the last 200,000 years and figure out how to get out of Mother Natures way when she decides to change gears again.

From 800 ad to 1300 ad the earth was 10 degrees warmer than it is now. Why?

We had no factories, no cars, trucks or planes. Why was it warmer?

It is proven science that we can poison the planet with toxic materials, oil spills and radiation, but Mother Nature controls the thermostat.
Posted by Hates Idiots
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
Hellooooo, why don't the folks who are really interested in what they call "man made global warming" begin working with the Chinese who are putting a coal power plant into action per week for 10 years. That will begin to solve all the problems. A real source of pollution will be harassed, unaffected but harassed, while the dimmer leaders of the West will be left alone to figure out other ways to ruin our economy.
Posted by MikeBytes@...
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Look to WW II data over Europe and airplanes
By 1944 there were 1000+ 4 engine bomber raids (and a few thousand more 2 and single engine sorties) every three days over Europe, 1000+ 4 engine bomber raids every three days at night (British) - and the winter 1944/45 was one of the coldest on records - lots of contrails (water vapor) in the air had a definate effect on the weather. And they have consisent weather reporting data for those years too. The weather in Europe certainly did NOT heat up due to CO2 release by all those gas aircraft engines with no emmission controls at all.
Posted by TAPhilo
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
OK that's it. lets give up our homes. cars. plane, boats. anything and everything that uses power.. which mean no drugs for when you are sick. no hospitals. no advance tech, no MRI No Cat-scans, and if you live in anyplace that gets below 40 any time of year. Sorry but no fires for warmth or cooking for that matter.

This planet has warmed and cooled for millions of years.
And if you check with Astrophysicist the time when they "warmers" were claiming it was all man made.. the sun's output what at a higher than normal level.. IE all the planets warmed up not just us.
Posted by rparker009
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
If the EPA is allowed...
to regulate CO2 as they are trying to we could technically be found in violation of the pollution regulations just by breathing.

You may not be far from the truth rparker009 with the lengths they will go to ban CO2 creation.
Posted by Hates Idiots
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Another propaganda piece by the loony left
This is real simple people: the sun & the ocean control the climate, not man's puny "efforts". So let's see: the oceans cover 71% of the earth's surface (with a volume of around 1.3 billion cubic kilometres), contain most of the "greenhouse gases", and are greatly affected by that massive ball of burning gas & plasma called the sun (which is almost 1,000,000 times the size of our planet). Are we starting to get a grip on reality yet? No? Oh well, no matter. This planet as we know it will be gone before 2050, then all this stupid nonsense, wastage of money / resources, and the massive effort to hoodwink / fleece all us workers will be shown for the complete folly that it is. Still, it would be nice for all this greenie nonsense to go away now so I can have lower taxes and actually spend my money that I earn by my own sweat on things that I want / need, not what the loony leftist "governments" in the "west" want.
Posted by naibeeru
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
Don't worry. Humans will be extinct before then, thanks to
environmental head-in-the-sanders like verd enabling the greedy
corporate masters.
Posted by eddzpc@...
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
"Hates Idiots" gets the point.
The ability to regulate CO2 effectively gives government the power to regulate absolutely everything. It's little wonder why there is such a focus on this relatively inefficient greenhouse gas instead of other far more potent ones, such as water vapor.

So today they talk of regulating politically incorrect bugaboos like SUV and vacations to Europe. But once those evils are vanquished, what will they come after next?
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
What do you expect when See-BS buys ZDNet?
Posted by jabster17
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
You morons! You just have to keep pounding the Man-Made global warming crap. Get a life - we are NOT buying this any more. Go find some other BS to peddle, cuz we are done with this!
Posted by howard.blake@...
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
I never blamed CO2...
...on the other hand, I personally experienced a cool down after 9-
11--a cool down that was NOT forecast. Mankind may not be
causing the warming, but we are definitely affecting it!
Posted by vulpine@...
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
John McGrew,

While water vapor is the major greenhouse gas it is not a factor in forcing global warming but merely a feedback. This is because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly limited by temperature. If you were to pump a bunch of water vapor into the atmosphere it would precipitate back out within a few hours/days returning to a level that the current temperature can support. For that reason it can't force global warming.

The "efficiency" of the various greenhouse gases is related to both their effectiveness as blockers of infrared radiation and their relative concentration in the atmosphere. The water vapor level in the atmosphere is about 4,000 ppm overall but it is concentrated in the troposphere (because it gets colder as you go higher) where it is 10,000-40,000 ppm. CO2 is about 400 ppm so the overall concentration of water vapor is 100 to 1000 times that of CO2. The estimations of their contribution to the greenhouse effect is 36-70% for water vapor and 9-26% for CO2 (from Wikipedia). Methane, the 3rd most important greenhouse gas is over 25 times as effective as CO2 as a blocker of IR radiation but its average atmospheric concentration of less than 2 ppm means it's less important to the overall greenhouse effect than CO2.

One other thing about water vapor, because of the global warming we've see so far, forced primarily by increasing CO2 concentrations, the level of water vapor in the atmosphere has increase by about 4%. This is probably a factor is some of the unusual precipitation events we've been seeing lately. I'm talking about the heavy snowfall in the DC area last winter, the flooding in Tennessee last month and the recent flooding in Arkansas.

And Hates Idiots,

The EPA is never going to regulate the CO2 you breath out, only CO2 emitted as a result of burning fossil fuels. If you had a clue you would know that the CO2 you exhale is from carbon in the food you eat that originally came (mostly) from CO2 that the plants absorbed during photosynthesis so the net effect is zero. But keep using that argument. It makes it easy to identify you as an idiot.
Posted by riverat1
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
@riverrat1
"The EPA is never going to regulate the CO2 you breath out, only CO2 emitted as a result of burning fossil fuels. If you had a clue you would know that the CO2 you exhale is from carbon in the food you eat that originally came (mostly) from CO2 that the plants absorbed during photosynthesis so the net effect is zero."

So if we run our aviation on brown coal, everything will be sweet!

I wonder what the penguins said at the end of the last ice age. Gee we better stop peeing in the ocean, its creating global warming.
Posted by david.hunt@...
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
Global Warming is a Scam. Then national weather service meteorologists were quick to point out that no one in their profession was involved with the start of Global Warming. It is political science not science. Don't waste any more space on the subject.
Posted by DEfromDC
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
The national weather service meteorologists were quick to point out that no one in their profession was involved with the start of Global Warming.

That would be because they are not climatologists.
Posted by riverat1
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
The only CO2 in the upper atmosphere is that which falls from aircraft engines
or is lofted up from volcanic eruptions. The extra 3 or 4 parts per million
increase, detected in the last 20 years, is usually measured from Mauna Loa. I
wonder if the increase in air traffic to Honolulu and the occasional volcanic
eruptions on the adjacent Hawaii Island.
I loved the stupid symbolic black balloon adverts during the death throes of the
AGW scam. Try filling balloons with CO2 and then release them from an
aircraft. They will drop like bricks.
Posted by firth@...
16th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@riverrat1, your reply would only be relevant if...
...I considered CO2 to be a problem, which I do not.

But what is relevant is the impending reality that we will soon be
living under totalitarianism justified by the existence of CO2, which is
a conversation that the progressives just assume we not have.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
16th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
Ok, here are some facts for you all. In the area of Climatologists funding. Colleges and groups working on proving GW is out there got a 75% budget increase. And the groups trying to prove the reverse have had funding cut 90%. By the Obama administration.
So now why does this make me think its all political BS to get more power for the government and less for the people.

My source was the US Congregational website. and I looked up the funding bills via the freedom of information act.
Posted by rparker009
16th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
...your reply would only be relevant if...
John McGrew,

Hmm... Who am I going to believe, you or the vast majority of climate scientists who say that increasing CO2 is a problem. Guess I'll flip a coin. /snark
Posted by riverat1
16th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Again they ignore the big questions...
Why was the planet hotter in the past, by as much as 10 degrees in the middle ages, if man was not burning fossel fuels?

What did Mother Nature do to raise temperatures and why?

Until the global warming profit takers can answer those questions I will question why man is suddenly at fault now....

No one here has answered those questions. Not one of you....

..............................................

The more questions you hear, the louder you shout. As if that helps make what you are saying right.....
Posted by Hates Idiots
16th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
Please give me a citation for your claim that the planet was as much as 10 degrees hotter in the middle ages. I've look for it and never found it. What I've seen indicates that perhaps the MWP was as warm as it is now in Europe and Eastern North America but not so much around the rest of the world.
Posted by riverat1
16th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
The only "vast majority" who still buy into the CO2 villain...
...are the politicians seeking power, the media that enables them,
and the grant seekers who wouldn't get funded otherwise.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
16th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
John,

Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy to crush you under their totalitarian thumb.

The problem is in science you can't run a scam forever. Eventually, with further study, reality becomes evident. Unless someone comes up with a better explanation for what's happening without using CO2 it will continue to be the " villain" in global warming. So far no one has been able to account for the changes we've been seeing without including the effects of CO2. No one has shown a reason that the radiative absorption properties of CO2 don't apply when it's mixed with other gases in the atmosphere. It's not enough to just say CO2 isn't a factor, you have to back that up with evidence.
Posted by riverat1
17th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Do not use Wikipedia riverat1...
One of the "scientist connected to the East Anglia fraud case was caught using his credentials as a scientist to alter over 1000 Wikipedia listing for it.

Talk about a lack of integrity. He knew it raised questions against his falsified data and spent countless hours trying to destroy it.

Look up the Medieval warming trend.

There is a lot of information out there.

Also lookup the theory that the last ice age was triggered by an asteroid hitting a North American Glacier and releasing the fresh water in Lake Agassiz.

The global warming thoery about the glaciers melting and causing a Day After Tomorrow situation are based on it.
Posted by Hates Idiots
17th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
@Hates Idiots

Who pays you to be a science and fact denier?
Posted by Chiatzu
17th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Yes Riverrat, it is a scam, and you can't run it forever.
You're six months behind the curve. The "gold standard" of "climate science" behind AGW (The IPCC) has been discredited. The "peer review" was a fraud, and "consensus" never existed. As mentioned above, Wikipedia has been totally compromised as Green Party activists have been virtually erasing recorded history. One in particular, William Connolley, using his scientific credentials altered over 5000 articles and has since been banned from editing) Magically, the historical fact known as the Medieval Warming Period practically disappeared.

Perhaps the Islamofascists can use the same tactics to erase the Halocaust.

There are plenty of other explanations for climate change. Few seem interested in listening to solar scientists, who are convinced that the sun is responsible for the majority of it. But since the progressives have yet to find a way to link capitalism to fluctuations of the sun, there isn't much interest in that outside of their circle.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
18th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
The science supports me...
Fraud and lies are what support man made global warming.

Look up past global warming trends and you will see a pattern of the earth warming and cooling on it's own. Man is along for the ride.

Greenland is not called that because the Vikings who found it were stoned. They found an island that was entirely green. The only year round ice was in the mountains. They planted crops and enjoyed a nearly 10 month long growing season.

And why did they suddenly abandon it in the 1600?s?

Because it had started to cool off after the Medieval Warming Trend ended in the 1300?s. The ice stayed year round and the glaciers moved in from the mountains.

Did you ever study the ice calving on Greenland? Greenpeace has been going nuts over what they have called increased glacial calving there in the past 10 years. Apparently their ?research? only goes back to 1970. A real inconvenient truth. What they fail to acknowledge is that Greenland went through a period of accelerated ice calving from about 1900 to the late 1950?s.

Did you know Greenland is rising out of the ocean? Did you know the middle of the island rises faster than the edges and causes a tilt into the ocean? Land tilts and glaciers move down hill. It?s called crust rebound. Look it up.

Not all events on the planet are driven by man-made CO2.

Did you know that the Antarctic ice sheet has grown in recent years. One side of the South Pole ice pack has shrunk, but the other side has expanded so much that the overall size is larger than it used to be.

If the ?global? temperature is rising why has this ice pack expanded AND we have an ocean cold enough that icebergs have been seen off the coast of New Zealand and Australia for the first time in over 70 years?
Posted by Hates Idiots
18th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
HI, Ok, I'll concede that Wikipedia isn't the most authoritative reference but they're usually pretty good when it comes to scientific information like the strength of the various components of the greenhouse effect that I mentioned. If you have different information let me see it.

I have paid attention to the information about the MWP and from what I've seen it appears to be largely limited to the Northern Hemisphere, particularly on both sides of the North Atlantic Ocean. It doesn't appear to be a global phenomenon.

As far as the last ice age being triggered by an asteroid strike releasing the fresh water in Lake Agassiz, LOL! You really ought to look into these things a bit more before you use them. Lake Agassiz was formed from runoff as the last glacial period was ending and while the draining of its fresh water into the Arctic Ocean (twice, 13,000 & 8,400 years ago) may have caused a few of centuries of cooling it didn't last. There is no evidence that a meteor had anything to do with it although there is some evidence for there being a large meteor strike sometime in that period.

I never watched The Day After Tomorrow but from what I've heard it was far over the top in its science. What I'm concerned about is slow year by year changes that few notice until a decade or two later you wake up and ask "What happened?". The melting of land based ice causing sea level rise is like that. You get 2 or 3 mm of sea level rise per year but current projections are for 1-2 meters (3-6 feet) of SLR by 2100. That doesn't sound like a lot but it probably means several miles of shore retreat along most of the Gulf coast. What does it do to places like New Orleans, Miami, New York City, etc.?

John, can you cite a specific "solar scientist" who is claiming the Sun is responsible for the currently observed warming? The Sun is of course the source of practically all of the incoming energy on Earth but there have been no changes in it's observed output large enough to account for the warming we are seeing. In fact, despite seeing the lowest level of solar activity in a century this year, 2010, is setting new all time record highs for global temperatures.
Posted by riverat1
18th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Are you kidding?
As someone who repeatedly quotes "realscience,org" and Wikipedia, it's easy to see how you can be so ignorant and mis-informed.

The sun has a widely variable output. In fact, over the last 3-quarters of a century, it's been more active than any time over the last 12,000 years.

But you asked for some skeptical "solar scientists", so here's a good starting point: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/21/its-the-sun-stupid/
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
19th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
I'm not kidding.
John,

No one including climate scientists and me deny the Sun's influence on climate. Any significant change in solar output is bound to be significant to Earth's climate. A significant change in the Sun would surely overpower human influences. The question is "Has there been enough change in solar radiation in the last 40 years to account for the warming that has occurred?" The answer to that is "No one has measured any changes in the Sun's output significant enough to account for all of the warming that has occurred during that period." Solar radiation has essentially been pretty flat since the 1950's. The 11 year solar cycle can be seen in the temperature record but as long as it just keeps cycling between similar extremes it doesn't have much of a long term effect on climate.

Lawrence Solomon quotes Dr. Kuhn as saying ?As a scientist who knows the data, I simply can?t accept [the claim that man plays a dominant role in Earth?s climate].? It makes me wonder what was really said in the parenthetical part. I'd like to know his thoughts in more detail so I could understand his position better. Thanks for the heads up.

As I said above there are factors like solar radiation that can overwhelm human influences but there is little evidence any such thing is occurring at this time. Again, despite the longest solar minimum in a century 2010 is setting new all time high records for global temperature.
Posted by riverat1
19th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
If you're not kidding, then that just leaves cluelessness or lying.
Riverrat, apparently most of the "climate scientists" who populate the IPCC and Al Gore's social circles ignore any solar connection, along with most other likely causes. Mann's infamous "Hockey Stick" to which you and the IPCC still cling is based upon carefully selected tree rings, not solar data. They also choose to ignore the "climate change" that happens on most of the other observed bodies in our solar system; places that are not populated by SUV driving soccer moms and tourist-laden jumbo jets.

There's plenty of evidence & data. It's just like with Jones' & Mann's careful selection of which trees to use and their purposeful erasure of the MWP, you've chosen not to regard it.

Oh, are you ready for the next solar storm? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7819201/Nasa-warns-solar-flares-from-huge-space-storm-will-cause-devastation.html

/snark
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
20th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
John,

Climate scientists and the IPCC are not ignoring solar influences or any other likely causes. They just don't spend a lot of time talking about them because they don't appear to be significant factors in the current situation.

Here is a quote from the FAQ of the IPCC AR4 WG1 report:

Radiative Forcing from Natural Changes

Natural forcings arise due to solar changes and explosive volcanic eruptions. Solar output has increased gradually in the industrial era, causing a small positive radiative forcing (see Figure 2). This is in addition to the cyclic changes in solar radiation that follow an 11-year cycle. Solar energy directly heats the climate system and can also affect the atmospheric abundance of some greenhouse gases, such as stratospheric ozone. Explosive volcanic eruptions can create a short-lived (2 to 3 years) negative forcing through the temporary increases that occur in sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is currently free of volcanic aerosol, since the last major eruption was in 1991 (Mt. Pinatubo).

The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today?s atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes.

You really need to give it up on Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph. It's a dozen years old now and at least 10 other reconstructions done since then by other researchers using different sources of proxy data all substantially agree with its conclusions.

If global warming is due to external factors then why isn't it showing up on Venus?

What does the next great solar storm have to do with anything? The fact that they have happened in the past means it pretty much a sure thing they will happen again but I think it's going out on a limb to try and predict when that will be. It would be a most a minor factor in climate change.
Posted by riverat1
20th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Last major eruption in 1991?
--The stratosphere is currently free of volcanic aerosol, since the last major eruption was in 1991 (Mt. Pinatubo).--

Are you kidding me? Google volcano eruptions 2009 and 2010.

I guess it was not a volcano that shut down air traffic in Europe for week earlier this year. I guess you never read about the massive amounts of fluorine gas being released in Iceland in that same ash cloud.

You obviously missed the volcano that has been erupting periodically on the island of Montserrat since 1995. Buried most of the island and drove most of it?s residents away. Buried the capitol city. Ash from it shut down air traffic over Antigua back in February 2010. Any of this ringing a bell?

How about Mount Redoubt in Alaska that threw ash above 50,000 feet in March 2009?

Or the undersea volcano near Tonga that threw ash, volcanic gases and steam over 12 miles high in March of 2010.

Or Anak Krakatau, born of the infamous Krakatoa volcano eruption of 1883. It has been continuously erupting since 2008.

And lets no forget our own Kilauea, which has been erupting non-stop since 2007 and erupting nearly continuously since the early 20th century.

There are several more to list, but I think you get my point.

To say volcanoes have not contributed to the gas makeup of our atmosphere goes to show how little you know about our planet.
Posted by Hates Idiots
22nd Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Air traffic to become major source of global warming
HI,

First, to be fair the quote from the IPCC was written in 2007 so it wouldn't take note of anything after about 2006.

But, not all volcanic eruptions are equal. The eruption of Pinatubo in 1991 injected more aerosols into the stratosphere than any eruption since Krakatoa in 1883. It was truly a massive eruption compared to the others you mention. Just because a volcanic eruption produces relatively local effects like shutting down air traffic doesn't mean it has meaning in a global sense. All of the volcanoes in the world added together release less than 5% of the CO2 in an average year that human burning of fossil fuels releases.

Volcanoes have obviously contributed to the makeup of the Earth's atmosphere but except for truly massive eruptions (see Deccan Traps or the Yellowstone supervolcano) it works on a geologic time scale, not a human time scale. There is no evidence that the volcanoes you mention are a significant factor in global warming. They are just the normal level of volcanic activity that's been going on for ages.
Posted by riverat1
22nd Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
They are abondoning ship..
Blaming man made CO2 is so yesterday. Realizing they are losing the scientific fight against manmade CO2, they are shifting targets.

Now the target is methane.

Enjoy the read.

http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm

Vegetarians unite!
Posted by Hates Idiots
23rd Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Cannot prove your point? Find a new thing to blame.
Greenhouse gas calculations blame carbon dioxide too much for global warming, and methane too little, suggest researchers Thursday.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-10-29-methane-global-warming_N.htm
Posted by Hates Idiots
23rd Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Methane
If the methane repositories in the Arctic really start to let go we'll be longing for the days when we thought CO2 was the big problem. The warming from additional CO2 released by humans could trigger such an event..
Posted by riverat1
24th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
The biggest source of methane?
Wetlands, which we have been restoring for the last 20 years. Was
that a man-made mistake?
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
24th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Good point John.
There are scientists who say the global warming caused by the methane output from the Amazon plant decay out paces any CO2 scrubbing effect of the trees growing there. So what is worse for the environment?

The CO2 dumped into it by a factory or the methane from Amazon trees planted as part of a carbon offset sold by Al Gore?

Do we tear down the Amazon to stop the methane?

Composting is behind the Amazon methane. Do we stop the thousands of municipal composting programs started as green alternatives to dumping our yard waste into landfills? Have you ever walked past a large municipal compost pile? It reeks of methane.

In the end Mother Natures output of green house gases, be it CO2, methane or water vapor, always outweighs mans output. Anyone who tells you other wise is lying.
Posted by Hates Idiots
25th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Rain Rain Go Away
riverat1 according to your theory

"One other thing about water vapor, because of the global warming we've see so far, forced primarily by increasing CO2 concentrations, the level of water vapor in the atmosphere has increase by about 4%. This is probably a factor is some of the unusual precipitation events we've been seeing lately. I'm talking about the heavy snowfall in the DC area last winter, the flooding in Tennessee last month and the recent flooding in Arkansas."

here is scientific evidence to disprove your theory.

If you are blaming the flooding in Tennessee, Arkansas, and the heavy snows on the moisture in the atmosphere. Why isn't it always raining over every body of water in the world all the time?
Posted by Albee_Freeoneday
28th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
More on the false "Scientific" theory
Lake Michigan is right in the industrial center. Chicago is right on the lake.
How about Lake Ontario, Lake Superior. Oh those are too big with no industry neat them? Ok how about Mexico City? One of the most polluted cities on earth. It does not always rain there and there are large bodies of water nearby.

How about the Yangtze river, the Pearl River. It does not rain every day there, and they have much more heavily polluting industries there. Yes... right ON the river. The Yangtze and Pearl River have been flooding since the beginning of China... way, way, way before there were modern factories.

Why doesn't is constantly rain over the oceans. If there is global warming, then it would be worldwide. The oceans are a huge expanse of water. SO thee would be a lot of CO2 there as well. But it does not rain over every spot of the ocean or beaches every day. According to your "scientific" theory, it should.

Sorry go back to the disgraced storytellers at the University of East Anglia?s Climate Research Unit or the University of East Anglia?s Climate Research Unit falsely claiming the Himalayan glaciers are melting due to global warming, or the people claiming that the huge flooding (which occurs regularly) in Venice Italy was due to global warming.

Nice try, but a made up story.

Frankly, I'd rather read a better fiction work. Something with a better story... like... umm... Chicken Little maybe happy
Posted by Albee_Freeoneday
28th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
The biggest source of methane?
"The biggest source of methane?

Wetlands, which we have been restoring for the last 20 years. Was
that a man-made mistake?"

I thought it was cattle passing gas. At least that is what the pseudo scientists were telling us or implying

You mean they were wrong? Oh dear me, what am I to do?
Posted by Albee_Freeoneday
28th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
If they want to regulate methane like they want to CO2...
We all better lay off the bean burritos... happy
Posted by Hates Idiots
29th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Once again....
...a non-sequitur.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
2nd Jul 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!

Join Login

Keep Up with SmartPlanet

SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter
SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter

Facebook Activity

View Results

Quick Poll

How is your organization connecting and engaging to become social?

View Results

Blog Archive