Follow this blog:
RSS

NASA: Road transportation a ‘key driver’ of global warming

By | February 19, 2010, 10:18 AM PST

Analyzing impact by economic sector rather than chemical species, NASA scientists have determined that motor vehicles are the greatest contributor to atmospheric warming, “now and in the near term.”

In a new study led by Nadine Unger of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, researchers used a climate model to analyze how 13 different sectors of the economy will impact global warming from the year 2000 to 2100.

Each part of the economy “emits a unique portfolio of gases and aerosols that affect the climate in different ways and on different timescales,” the researchers write.

The scientists based their calculations on real-world inventories of emissions collected by other scientists around the world. For each sector of the economy, they analyzed the effects of a wide range of chemicals — such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate, sulfate and ozone — on the atmosphere, particularly clouds.

Their findings? Cars, buses, and trucks release plenty of pollutants and greenhouse gases that facilitate global warming, but emit few aerosols that counteract them.

The second biggest impact of global warming: the burning of household biofuels such as wood and manure.

The third: agriculture, in the form of raising livestock, particularly methane-producing cattle.

What’s surprising is that many industries produce chemicals that actually cool the globe, according to the study. The industrial sector releases large amounts of sulfates and other cooling aerosols that actually counteract global warming, and biomass burning — tropical forest fires, deforestation, prairie fires and so forth — emits smoke that blocks solar radiation.

That’s not to say smoke and aerosols are good for your health, by the way. But they do, in fact, cool the globe. Unfortunately, as we eliminate them from the atmosphere, we’re also eliminating their cooling factor.

The bottom line: on-road transportation is both low-hanging fruit and the most impactful change to implement.

By 2050, the study’s authors suggest that electric power generation will overtake road transportation as the biggest promoter of warming.

By 2100, the study’s authors predict that the industrial sector will jump to the third largest contribution to global warming. (It’s now the smallest of all sectors.)

The study was published on Feb. 3 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
12
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
For crying out loud
Global Warming fanatics have (begrudgingly) admitted there has been no warming for the last 15 years! Why are you still trying to push an agenda that is not only dead-on-arrival, but is now becoming an utter embarressment for its beligered supporters.
Posted by LarryPTL
22nd Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: NASA: Road transportation a 'key driver' of global warming
What is NASA doing with their meager budget, studying this stuff? Let me see, we need to remove all the big farters in the world, like cattle and climate change advocates to eliminate, excuse the pun, gases that are heavier than air going up into space (magically?) so NASA can focus on whether or not to measure distances to Mars in kilometers or miles.
Posted by MikeBytes@...
22nd Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: NASA: Road transportation a 'key driver' of global warming
What about all the JETS up in the sky. They generate lots of heat out the back of those engines .
Posted by harrisonh@...
22nd Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
Posted by rrusson_z
Updated - 23rd Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Lovely day for a troll
Talk about hypocrisy! When a techie writes an article that by default supports the abomination known as 'global warming' the technie is actually the one engaged in anti-science rants.

The rest of us have to waste our time trying to set the record straight!
Posted by LarryPTL
22nd Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: RE: Lovely day for a troll
Talk about setting the record straight. I your first reply you mentioned the meme about Phil Jones admitting there's been no warming for the last 15 years. But if you really read and understood what he actually said you wouldn't make that claim. What he said is that the warming of the past 15 years didn't reach the level of statistically significant. In statistics significance means 95% or better confidence that what you are measuring is not just random noise. Jones did say the measured warming was just under the 95% confidence level so while it doesn't quite fit the definition of statistical significance it is not something you can dismiss without further thought. Also he said that 15 years is to short a time period to measure this as natural variation can overwhelm the climate trend.

And harrisonh, all of the heat produced by all of the vehicles and industrial processes in the world amounts to essentially zero compared to the energy we receive from the Sun each day. In some places it does affect local conditions a bit but overall it's so small an effect that it can be ignored.
Posted by riverat1
22nd Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: NASA: Road transportation a 'key driver' of global warming
I wonder why NASA didn't attribute any warming to the Sun? IMO the 1st problem comes when he talks about using a "climate model". What does the modeling include? Does it include the affects of clouds or Wind on the climate? Some in the past have not. Additionally, there was no mention of any naturally occurring temperature increases. In the recent past there were 2 such periods - late 1800s and early 1900s - but since there was no man-made target to blame they were not mentioned I suppose?
As long as we're talking about P Jones; if his work is so groundbreakingly important, why would he destroy all those emails where their work was discussed? Surely a scientist should retain all notes in the research whether they seem pertinent or not.
Posted by l_turn9
22nd Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: NASA: Road transportation a 'key driver' of global warming
NASA didn't attribute any warming to the Sun because that wasn't the point of the studies. Of course the Sun is the source of over 99% of the incoming radiation on the Earth and NASA knows that but this study was analyzing the atmospheric effects of various gases and aerosols. The other reason you don't hear the Sun mentioned much is that over the past 50 years or so the Sun has been pretty steady in its output so has had little or no effect on global warming. (That's not to say the Sun doesn't go through its 11 year cycle, just that the average over the last several cycles hasn't changed much.)

Climate models include every factor the people working on them can think of that might have a significant effect. The factors that are not implicated in the changes we are seeing don't get mentioned much which causes people like you to think they aren't included in the models.

Phil Jones destroyed emails? That's a new one on me. I'm sure if he had any idea at the time (more than a decade ago now) what an issue would be made of him "destroying" data today he would have kept it all so it couldn't be used against him.
Posted by riverat1
22nd Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
The whole point
of this study was to try and keep fooling the people and push forth the Goreite agenda global warming is a farce and has been proven to be so yet the business that has grown around it will not die without a fight!!
Posted by wizardb@...
23rd Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
The hyprocrisy of many global warming advocates
The study says that the third largest cause of global warming is animal husbandry, i.e. eating meat. Of all the possible ways to make significant reductions in global warming simply banning meat would be the quickest and most effective.

Consider: There are already effective and lower-cost alternatives to eating meat. It would greatly improve the health of humanity. Going vegetarian would allow us to feed many more people. It could free up land for the production of biofuels. The process could be done in just a few years. Its economic impact would largely be confined to one industry (agriculture), and this industry would have viable alternatives, such as raising foodstuffs for humans instead of animals, making tofu turkeys instead of slaughtering chickens, etc. No other strategy to reduce greenhouse gases would give us a larger bang for the buck and be so simple.

So why is going vegetarian seldom promoted by global warming advocates? Why do they insist instead that we must tear down coal and gas power plants, converts our automobiles to electric, and do other extremely costly and questionable schemes to "save" us?

I would argue that most of these advocates are hypocrites. Most of them like their meat too much. Instead of saving the planet from global warming, they really just want us all to live by some Utopian green vision. Global warming is just a means to an end for these people, and I wouldn't listen to any global warming advocate who is not a vegetarian.
Posted by zackers
23rd Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Power Generation Not the Greatest? Effects of Water Vapor & Respiration?
I'm skeptical. Especially to see the explosive growth to over 5 times the present capacity by 2100.
Besides that, how about the volume of water vapor as a by product of combustion? People overlook its involvement.
Anyway, how will we resolve the idea that water and carbon dioxide are also results of many organic processes such as respiration not to mention decay? Kind of makes one wonder about the effects from a growing human population not to mention the resource use and waste that will be generated.
Posted by donnydo77@...
3rd Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
I mean, why consider the sun?
And Phil Jones didn't destroy any e-mails. But he wanted to, and
certainly wishes he had.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
6th 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!