ORAC
No, I don't think I was being disingenuous.
The article quite explicitly states that the results are valid only for this area, and would differ if a larger area were considered.
I quote directly from the original text (my parenthesis):
'The results of this case study predict an annual fuel burn change
only for the traffic mix and atmospheric conditions of the five states region in Europe. Other regions would be expected to
have a different seasonal cycle of maximum permitted cruise altitudes dependent on the local atmospheric conditions. The fraction of flights affected by those altitude restrictions would be
dependent on the nature of the traffic mix.'
This is explicitly saying that the results reported here are not applicable more widely.
They do also explictly discuss the problem of long haul aircraft, but note that because this was a Europe based study it is not considered in the article:
'Some long distance flights may also be unfeasible with current aircraft as less efficient operation at lower altitude may reduce their range. These issues are not relevant to this analysis of European airspace, but would be for a global study.'
Pax Vobiscum
Commenting on your two points:
(a) There is incontrovertible evidence that global CO2 levels have increased substantially over the last 150 years (and are continuing to increase, although the rate is slowing). The evidence that this change has resulted in global temperature increases over the same period is much thinner.
I'm afraid that your assertion that the increase in levels of CO2 is reducing is not true as far as I know. This graph is an illustration of global CO2 levels. The acceleration is evident:
Yes, the absolute prrof is still lacking, but the evidence is definitely strengthening all the time. More importantly, many of the problems with the anthropogenic greenhouse effect are now being dealt with. Most (but not all) climate scientists are now pretty convinced.
(b) Models of the earth's climate are still pretty crude. One of the biggest problems is lack of computing power which forces the use of very coarse grids (around 1km square) which can take no account of smaller-scale phenomena such as clouds. Another problem is our lack of understanding of how the climate actually works! Estimates of future global warming amount (IMHO) to little more than a best guess.
If anything, you are being too generous to the modellers! Last I heard (18 months or so ago) the Hadley Centre (UK Met Office) regional simulation worked on grid squares of 50 x 50 km. As far as I know, large scale simulations are not being undertaken on a scale of 1 x 1 km.
However, just with weather forecasting, that level of resolution is not really needed. Climate models have a long way to go, but are definitely getting better, and actually appear to be getting quite good now.
DrDave