View Full Version : Atmospheric effects of no flights around Europe
welliewanger
21st Apr 2010, 03:34
After aircraft were grounded in the USofA from the 9/11 attacks, the boffins noticed marked improvements in various barometers of pollution (CO2, ozone, stuff like that) The skies over America weren't closed all that long (can't remember how long)
Has anyone heard any reports like this relating to Iceland's volcano?
No worries, no one has guts to admit that in these couple of days without any traffic, pollution has not been affected at all. Gotta keep them carbon offset taxes flowing!
One Outsider
21st Apr 2010, 07:44
Despite the glib uninformed commentary that have been so prevalent the last few days, there is some factual information to be found here. (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aqe2P9sYhZ2ndERxaWs2TU1iaDU1QW9ldzBzQXBpbkE&hl=en_GB)
It suggests a net reduction in CO2 emissions of some 55,000 metric tons per day.
Captain Smithy
21st Apr 2010, 09:07
When taking into account the millions of tonnes of CO2 released by Ejaffawhateveritis, probably about as much effect as a fart in a Force 10 gale.
Considering that Wx varies by the minute, never mind over a few days, attempting to make any sort of measurement or comparison would be thoroughly impossible, and as such any concluded "affect" or "variation" linked with the lack of air traffic would be extremely tenacious at best.
Also bearing in mind the amount of low-level VFR traffic over the past few days, and the increased traffic on roads and seas, it is impossible to judge any sort of effect.
What will be more interesting to study is how this affair will affect operators' maintenance costs... perhaps a few early returns to the workshop are in order...? :uhoh:
Smithy
One Outsider
21st Apr 2010, 09:37
When taking into account the millions of tonnes of CO2 released by Ejaffawhateveritis, probably about as much effect as a fart in a Force 10 gale.
Instead of just grabbing numbers out of the blue, why don't you try and inject a bit of fact in your comments? A good place to start is the link provided.
First.officer
22nd Apr 2010, 15:00
One Outsider - you really want smithy to provide some particulate information about his "farting in a force 10 gale" ?? lmao
Capt. Smithy.......you sure you want to satisfy this request ?!
:ok:
After aircraft were grounded in the USofA from the 9/11 attacks, the boffins noticed marked improvements in various barometers of pollution (CO2, ozone, stuff like that) The skies over America weren't closed all that long (can't remember how long)
Actually no, there were not "marked improvements". It was a period of especially good/clear weather, particularly in the Eastern half of the country. Since it was outside of the norm (and would have been so with or without aviation), people with agendas have been bending the data ever since.
welliewanger
23rd Apr 2010, 10:08
@742
Thanks for this input, could you elaborate, a link maybe?
@One Outsider
Your link doesn't work for me, possibly because I'm currently locked away behind the great firewall of China. Does it work for everyone else?
Captain Smithy
23rd Apr 2010, 10:28
Capt. Smithy.......you sure you want to satisfy this request ?!
Hmm, one thinks that gathering empirical data on that experiment might be somewhat difficult. :uhoh: Not to mention waiting for the ideal conditions. :uhoh:
In seriousness however I think it is almost impossible to make any judgments with respect to Wx/Climate and the effects of emissions (or a lack of) since there are so many variables involved. Volcanic eruptions, gas being released from the oceans, plants, etc. all make a contribution which at the moment cannot be accurately measured. We can theorise and guess all we want at how much CO2 or any other trace gas for that matter a volcano releases into the atmosphere for example but the fact is we cannot make any measurement at all on how much is actually being emitted. It is impossible.
Added to that Wx is never a perfect constant, trying to draw any sort of comparison is a statistician's nightmare...
Smithy
Agaricus bisporus
23rd Apr 2010, 11:12
CO2...and other pollutants
How long will it take for us to realise that CO2 is NOT a "pollutant".
We'd all die very quickly without it as nothing would grow - at all.
Trebling the normal atmospheric CO2 concentrqation makes plants grow faster - which is hardly a surprise if you cast your minds back to Biology lessons on photosynthesis at school.
It is as essential and as life-giving as oxygen. Some pollutant!
:ugh:
Pilot Positive
23rd Apr 2010, 11:38
Pollutant or no pollutant it was simply amazing to see how blue the sky was without con trails. :)
@742
Thanks for this input, could you elaborate, a link maybe?
Pull the historical wx data for a city in the northeast. Note the barometric pressure and visibility.
Or just read the contemporary news reports. The exceptional weather was often cited as a factor in the success of the attacks.
I live in the northeastern United States, and like all of us I remember that day. Weather-wise the visibility was truly unlimited, with a vivid blue sky. It would not have taken a Doctorate in Meteorology to realize that the temperature drop after sundown was going to be significant. The following days were similar.
Perhaps contrails will kill us all; I don't know. But I do know that making comparisons based on the weather on those days is a fool's errand simply because the weather itself was so exceptional, as was frequently noted at the time.