Carbon Emissions for Light Aircraft?

[mountain-goat]

Hi All,

Numerous threads with calculations referring to A1 and gasoline but none substantiated by independent sources regarding the true environmental cost of flying light singles and twins... unless of course I've missed the right thread in my searches.

Does anybody know or use any specific links/companies when calculating their carbon footprint for their private use? Aircraft interested in: Seneca II & V, Cessna 340.

Much appreciated,

M-G

[A and C]

Why bother the carbon emissions for GA as a whole are very small.

I am told that the total carbon emissions for UK GA in a year are the equivelent of 2 hours of traffic on the M25 in the morning rush.

[skydriller]

STOP WITH THE CARBON FOOTPRINT BOLLOX .....PLEASE!!!!

It seems you cant turn on the box these days or read a paper without someone going on about our carbon footprints.:mad:

Im alive, I breath out carbon dioxide....as does every other living thing. Why does everyone talk of the carbon footprint. Carbon levels on our world will not change - just the form the carbon is in changes.:ugh:

This constant harking about how bad everything is has made me decide Im going to get a big 4x4 and drive it and fly around in aeroplanes as much as I possibly can, while I still can....before its banned by tree huggers!!:E

If anyone wants to see pollution, and I mean real pollution they need to leave Europe and visit 3rd and 2nd world countries, as I have to do for work sometimes.:yuk:


I had hoped the forum could remain carbon free.....pun intended!!

SD..

[Saab Dastard]

skydriller,

Couldn't agree more. I recently bought a Porsche 928 V8 5-litre monster - to enjoy while I still can!

I pay my way at the fuel pumps - my Shell loyalty card is proving most worthwhile.

SD

[Julian]

I am with Saab on this this one.

You can take your footprint and shove it! Its yet another make everyone feel guilty tactic dreamed up by the greenies to get us all on push bikes, guess they better start building the road to New York.....

Hey and guess what, you can offset you carbon footprint by sending them cash...what a surprise!!!!!

J.

[BeechNut]

Used to be religion would make us feel guilty about a good shag.

Now it makes us feel guilty about playing with our toys...or in the case of the local paper recently, about quaffing one's favourite elixir because it has a "carbon footprint".

I wish these people would give us all a very large break...

On the other hand maybe we don't have to feel guilty about shagging anymore...

[mountain-goat]

Can't say I'm at all surprised at the response in some ways but nobody has actually answered the question. Sure the emissions from GA may indeed be very small but I would still like to be able to answer those "brain-washed" either way with the facts, good or bad.... And if someone could suggests a reliable source with figures relating to GA aircraft may be some of the scaremongering can truly be put to bed with more than just verbal frustration...

Kind regards,

M-G

[High Wing Drifter]

Moutain Goat,

Although I had to stick my tongue out to do the maths, I think it'll work out something like multiply your weight of fuel used by 3.1. A Seneca burns 20 usg/hr, so 20*6 = 120/2.2 = 54.54 * 3.1 = 169.1 kgs of CO2 per hour.

However, I agree with the previous views, its all a load of :oh:

[tangovictor]

whilst its easy to target GA, for this latest fad,
look your only using your airplane for pure fun etc etc, i was told
when I pointed out, that a cruise liner, which is also used for pure fun, burns more fuel just getting out of dock than every single GA aircraft in the world put together, end of arguement

[Miraz]

There are ways of managing your personal carbon footprint without significant impact to aviation.

Just depends what type of carbon footprint you have....here's a picture of mine :)

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a194/NeilH_/CarbonFootprint.jpg

[Genghis the Engineer]

To the best of my knowledge there has been no rigorous study of the carbon impact of GA.

Maybe there should be, it would be interesting at-least. However, since whatever we emit is mostly in the lower troposphere outside of built up areas, it's of limited impact.

The big issue with the environmental effects of GA will almost certainly remain noise for the foreseeable.

G

[IO540]

My TB20 does about 18MPG (UK miles, UK gallons) in cruise.

That is about 2x better than the average MPG of the stupid ridiculous and utterly pointless 4x4 "bus" I see doing the school run and, as J Clarkson once remarked, the nearest they get to offroad is parking on a kerb in Oxford Street.

All travel involves burning fuel. A TB20 is only a bit worse than a 747. Recent Boeing 747-800 adverts claim 3 litres per 100 passenger km; the TB20 works out at 4.5. If you want to save carbon, cut out the family holidays to Orlando - each one of them burns some 3 digit quantity of avtur.

There is no case against GA for being exceptionally wasteful.

[sternone]

Recent Boeing 747-800 adverts claim 3 litres per 100 passenger km

Yes, but that is with all passenger seats filled for all their flights.. wich is not.. probably reality will come close or over your plane!!

[Whirlybird]

Calm down, people. I treat stuff about carbon footprints the same way I treat anything else idiotic which I'm told I should or shouldn't do - I smile sweetly, don't argue, and get on with living my life the way I want to live it. I simply can't be bothered with discussing these things or reacting to them. And to paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt (I think), no-one can make me feel guilty without my consent.

[Bahn-Jeaux]

To the best of my knowledge there has been no rigorous study of the carbon impact of GA.

Maybe there should be, it would be interesting at-least. However, since whatever we emit is mostly in the lower troposphere outside of built up areas, it's of limited impact.

As long as you dont get good ol' Uncle Gordy to initiate the study, it might be worthwhile otherwise if he does it, expect the end of the world to be nigh unless we pay millions of pounds into the coffers of the UK government thus ensuring that every country with a GA following is saved by us.

[smith]

In the USA (FL anyway) it is an offence to just throw the contents of the fuel strainer on the ground. If it is uncontaminated it is poured back into the fuel tank. Generally we take three samples, two under tank and one from the engine. Say on average 50ml for each sample is thrown on the tarmac. 150ml may not seem much but multiply that by all the GA movements daily and then annually and there is quite a lot of fuel thrown away each year. Probably not enough to see the world mean temperature drop by 3oC but it al helps.

Here in the UK, I still use this practice and a lot of people I fly with ask me what the hell I am doing, but at least personally I feel I am doing my bit for the environment.

Incidently is neat fuel thrown on the tarmac worse for the environment than converting it into CO2 in the reciprocating piston engine?

[sternone]

In my opinion nature always stettle's itselfs.. even if we drop a few atomic bombs here and there, doesn't mean the whole world is gone

that bloody al gore crap is just great for the proletarian crowd over there, i'm so happy they never go on holiday with a plane right ?

[effortless]

That chap at Glasgow Airport two of them.






I'll get me coat.

[Saab Dastard]

Calm down, people. I treat stuff about carbon footprints the same way I treat anything else idiotic which I'm told I should or shouldn't do - I smile sweetly, don't argue, and get on with living my life the way I want to live it. I simply can't be bothered with discussing these things or reacting to them. And to paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt (I think), no-one can make me feel guilty without my consent.

So, my dear whirly, have you considered the impact of your CATS on global warming? Every breath they take, all the food they eat that has to be manufactured and transported... I could go on! :8

And if anyone else out there has a pet or pets, THIS MEANS YOU AS WELL! :eek:

Just kidding!

:p

SD

[IanSeager]

Does anybody know or use any specific links/companies when calculating their carbon footprint for their private use? Aircraft interested in: Seneca II & V, Cessna 340

Avgas produces about 2.3kg of CO2 per litre IIRC

Ian

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Interesting that after other recent 'stop it!' campaigns (such as fox hunting and smoking) there's no clear sign what's next...

Private flying must be a contender!

:oh::oh:

[High Wing Drifter]

Avgas produces about 2.3kg of CO2 per litre IIRC
Ah, my analysis was pretty spot on then :ok:

[Mr_B]

Surely it should be possible to have more environmentally friendly aircraft without damaging GA?

This wouldn't be difficult considering the number of old aircraft in use, especially planes like Cessna 152 which trades simplicity against fuel consumption.

Ideal solution would be if environmentalists and organisation like AOPA could agree a common path to lobby governments. I could see a number advantages

Environmentalists (reasonable ones) could get old planes replaced with cleaner and quieter planes. (I was thinking of replacing a C152 with a nice new Flight Design, CTSW)
If AOPA could get maintenance requirements reduced for new planes and a tax incentive scheme for buying a cleaner newer plane. With some sort of exemption for classic planes.Everyone wins. :ok: (I know, I'm too idealistic)

I'm relatively new flying (still learning to fly at the moment). But when I started to fly I was surprised to learn how stone age Cessna's are. I have a car industry back ground, cars have been getting cleaner since the 70's but this doesn't stop car manufacturers producing fun car's like the Porsche Boxster. The sort of improvements found in a modern car.

Runs on unleaded petrol.
Fuel injectors, no carb. (WOW)
Engine management unit (aircraft equivalent is FADEC)
Catalytic converters (difficult to gas yourself with CO unlike a Cessna)
Advance diagnostics which checks that the emissions technology is working correctly, if not a MIL light appears on the dash board.I know aviation is very conservative and reluctant to add new technology, but the above improvements should have been standard in aircraft for some time.

[Dave Gittins]

Had the pleasure of being in the USA for 3 weeks in July/Aug and not once did I hear the words carbon footprint, greenhouse gas or global warming.

Not when I was driving my son-in-law's 6.3 litre Chevrolet Silverado or my daughter's 5.7 litre Chrysler Aspen.

I think the gas we used in 4 hours in the 172 was pretty insignificant in comparison to them.

Oh and nobody in Colorado did anything other than sling the avgas samples downwind across the apron (they probably evaporated before they landed anyway).

Did I not hear somewhere that 99% of the CO2 emitted is from human exhalation ?

DGG

[sternone]

Did I not hear somewhere that 99% of the CO2 emitted is from human exhalation ?


Most of them is comming from Cows who are farting...


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/231244/cow_farts_cause_global_warming.html

[gpn01]

"Surely it should be possible to have more environmentally friendly aircraft without damaging GA? "

- Yes, it's called a glider. ....Yippee My flying has a zero emission footprint (once I'e been launched that is).

Agree with some of the other posters htough - carbon emissions are another guilt trip to extract more taxes out of us.

[Whirlybird]

So, my dear whirly, have you considered the impact of your CATS on global warming? Every breath they take, all the food they eat that has to be manufactured and transported... I could go on!

[Whirly smiles sweetly and carries on preparing cats' evening meal as usual] ;):):):)

[BackPacker]

The sort of improvements found in a modern car.

* Runs on unleaded petrol.
* Fuel injectors, no carb. (WOW)
* Engine management unit (aircraft equivalent is FADEC)
* Catalytic converters (difficult to gas yourself with CO unlike a Cessna)
* Advance diagnostics which checks that the emissions technology is working correctly, if not a MIL light appears on the dash board.

I know aviation is very conservative and reluctant to add new technology, but the above improvements should have been standard in aircraft for some time.

Well, the Thielert engines run on Jet-A and diesel, which has an even higher energy content per liter/kilo than avgas and as a result produces about 1/3 less CO2 per quantity of energy produced. Fuel injected from a common rail system, no carbs, just an alternate air intake in case of impact icing. FADEC controlled. Constant speed. Don't know about the catalytic converter. And yes, a light will come on on the dash if there's something wrong with the engine. All too often I must say... :(

Of course the Thielert 1.7 is available right now in the DA-40 and the DR200 straight out of the factory, and as a retrofit for the 172 and PA-28. The 2.0 should be even better for the four-seaters (DA-40, 172, PA-28). There's a higher-powered Thielert in the pipeline for larger aircraft, and I bet there's a huge market as well for a smaller diesel that could replace the Rotax 912 in a lot of two-place aircraft like the Aquila, Europa, Technam etc.

To give you an idea on how good this technology is (provided that it's working, but that's another story): We had a club flight from Rotterdam to Duxford a while ago. Three club aircraft, all with three adults on board, via the same route, same day, same altitude, same conditions. Both the Warrior and the Archer were properly leaned and needed a little over 100 liters of avgas each for a one-way trip, costing a little over 150 UKP each. The DA-40 needed just 50 liters of Jet-A one-way, costing 30 UKP.

It's a shame that the cost difference, in this case, was offset by the cost of an extra night in the hotel due to engine problems with the DA-40, which nobody in the neigborhood of Duxford could fix. Plus the cost of flying in an engineer who could. :ugh:

[sternone]

It's a shame that the cost difference, in this case, was offset by the cost of an extra night in the hotel due to engine problems with the DA-40, which nobody in the neigborhood of Duxford could fix. Plus the cost of flying in an engineer who could.

Almost everybody who has a diesel is complaining.. how long do you think it will take before they will sort out problems ? In my wild guess, aven't they logged enough Tielert hours already to see what the problem is ?

[BackPacker]

Almost everybody who has a diesel is complaining.. how long do you think it will take before they will sort out problems ? In my wild guess, aven't they logged enough Tielert hours already to see what the problem is ?

There's different problems, at different levels, with the Thielert.

First, there are some problems with the engine itself. Consider them teething problems. It's a new engine (well, okay, a new application for an existing engine, which does require some serious modification) and some problems are bound to turn up. Thielert is working on them. The 2.0 engine as a straight replacement for the 1.7 has been well received, as far as I know, by mechanics. And in any case, the problem we had was a broken sensor/valve that could have happened to any moderately advanced engine.

Second, there are rumours of non-optimum communication between Thielert and Diamond. Apparently they are quietly arguing about whether certain problems are related to the engine itself, or the engine installation. Particularly problems that are caused by long-term exposure to vibration, apparently. (I cannot substantiate this however.) Oh, and there's also a rumour about Diamond working together with some German car manufacturer to develop their own engine for the DA-40, instead of sourcing them from Thielert.

Third, there's the lack of a support network. As said, we were at Duxford, where Spitfire and Mustang engineers abound and they would be able to fix a PA-28 with their eyes shut. In fact, at virtually every GA airfield in Europe you'll find an engineer who's able to fix a Lycoming or Continental. But the Thielert, for starters, requires a laptop with diagnostics software to download the FADEC data. And some knowledge of where and how to hook up that laptop, and what to do/how to interpret the output. There's only two dozen or so places in the UK that have this expertise and, as we found out, the contact telephone number for the place closest to Duxford, as listed on the Diamond site, was wrong... :*

My main problem with the DA-40 is the last one: the lack of an easily accessible support network. As the number of Thielert engines is going to increase in the GA fleet, expect the support to get better. But next time I take her on a trip, I'm going to make sure I have an up-to-date list of authorized mechanics with me for whatever country I'm flying to. And I might just avoid those countries without a support network altogether.

Despite all this, I still consider the DA-40 a fantastic plane though.

[Contacttower]

Oh and nobody in Colorado did anything other than sling the avgas samples downwind across the apron (they probably evaporated before they landed anyway).



I was told in Flordia that if I tipped fuel onto the apron I would be fined $5000!

[mm_flynn]

I was told in Flordia that if I tipped fuel onto the apron I would be fined $5000! I believe it is State law not national that defines this so you could both be right. In addition, I think 'most' States are similar to Florida.

[BackPacker]

We had a do at work today where, among other things, you could calculate your own carbon footprint. Mine came in pretty good at 4.2 hectares - less than average but nowhere near the 1.8 or so hectares that is available, per person, worldwide, for what its worth. Apparently I do need to switch to green electricity though.

But the questionnaire never asked about fuel-consuming hobbies like flying, car racing, power boating or similar pastimes. So I guess the effect of these hobbies is insignificant. Or, at least, my concience is now cleared.

[slim_slag]

If you look at US gas (petrol) pumps they suck the vapour out of your car tank when you are filling them up with petrol. The petrol vapours are responsible for some of the smog you find above these metropolisis (sp), so they put the vapours back in the tank underground as you remove the fuel. So if you dispose of your fuel sample on the ground and it mostly evaporates you are putting VOCs into the atmosphere. I have never seen the same recycling mechanism on a avgas fuel bowser.

Also there is a major problem in parts of the States where a city gets it's water from wells in the ground, and this ground water is being polluted by plumes of chemicals which somehow made it into the ground.

Now I am not saying that chucking your fuel sample on the ground is a big problem in the grand design, but the reason behind the fines for polluting are very sensible. Using litter as an analogy, litter is litter no matter how small.

[Justiciar]

I think all sensible people (ie pilots) know this for what it is. Complete garbage. The green, low carbon fanaticism has the following hugely damaging impact:


Increased regulation will lead companies to relocate outside the EU
The EU will become increasingly uncompetative as a result
The drive towards biofuel puts up the prices of basic foodstuffs in third world countries by diverting production to produce biofuel
Forests are felled and burned to grow biofuel crops, producing more CO2 than is reclaimed


In all this the third world and asia will continue its headlong march to growth, completely ignoring the global warming hysteria.

All the handwringing and winging produce policies which are the equivalent of bailing the Titanic with a thimble (assuming that you subscribe to the whole global warming nonsense).

More critical of course will be the trend to increasingly costly fuel, which is something to be worried about!

[Mr_B]

BackPacker, the key point I was trying to get across was the word standard, car engine management systems were first introduced in 1979. Modern car engines generally have good reliability but to keep costs low they have a few single failure points (like having one crank sensor, one battery etc). I would have thought 28 years should be enough time for all new aircraft to have a FADEC type system that works reliably.

[BackPacker]

Yep, conservative bunch, these aviators.

[mountain-goat]

Many thanks all for your contributions.

MG

[deice]

Wow! I'm sitting here reading this thread in shock! I used to think pilots in general were rather more enlightened than the general public, but apparently that is not true, they're equally ignorant and self-centered.
What's wrong with reducing environmental impact? Just because GA contributes so little doesn't mean it's completely meaningless. It's an attitude problem. Drive your 4x4 and use as much fuel as you can so that we'll be rid of it even more rapidly than necessary. Wow, how intelligent, I bow to you oh mighty thinker... Why not get an ethanol powered two ton truck and use 50% more fuel - all the more fun!
I work in an industry that contributes zero point lots of zeros of lead, yet we're striving to reduce even that amount, why? Because it makes sense to remove it altogether - it's a dangerous substance to humans. The way you're thinking reminds me of a cook we had when living in Ethiopia many moons ago. At a time of water shortage he gave everyone who knocked on our door the little water we had with the explanation that there was water in the tank. The idea that we would run out of water if he gave it away didn't sink in. He had no perception of planning ahead, and you're proving exactly the same, are you related by any chance? He had a good cause, but failed to see the consequences of his actions.
I think you may have failed to grasp the point some environmentalists are making (and I'm not one of them) but it really is quite simple. Don't use more than necessary, and if you do, pretty soon you won't have anything to use, so think about that. How hard can it be. The fact is we have X amount of everything and we're now 3 times as many on this planet than we were just 50-60 years ago.
Me, I'm all for lower fuel consumption no matter the reason, it just makes sense. I happily fly DA40s and DA42s because they use less and go faster, but I'm concerned about their emissions - I'm sure they spit out particles like crazy, check the belly and see for your self. Could be better I'm sure. Autos with diesels have particulate filters, but I doubt the Thielerts do, and I don't see the point as to why not. Ok, someone's gonna say they steal a few horses, so what, re-chip and be done with it. Ok, they weigh 10 lbs, I'll go on a diet and make my friends do the same, big deal.
For those that bothered to read to the end and are working up a flame, don't blow your top, it's just my opinion, and I'm entitled to it just like you are to yours... :-)

[bigbloke]

I think it's a little bit better than 2.3 KG/Litre of carbon, more like 2.9Kg/Imp Gallon from petrol.

Avgas isnt going to be hugely different to that.

[Captain Smithy]

Deice, of course you're entitled to your opinion. You make a few good points. It has nothing to do with being ignorant or self-centred however, rather we are just sick of hearing about this nonsense which strengthens the hand of those who want to bring down our industry/job/hobby (delete as applicable) of aviation.

What I find interesting is that there is never any talk of finding alternative fuels or improving on current technology, which aviation has been doing very well... it's always the same old "ban flying". :ugh:

[aviate1138]

CO2 is the Modern World's equivalent of Witchcraft, Fools Gold, Tulip Trading. All scaremongering is based on dubious Computer Modeling. As Mankind as a whole produces 3%
of Planet Earth's total CO2 output do you seriously think that anyone's carbon footprint using light aircraft means anything significant?

Glad to see Anthropogenic Global Warming is producing all the unpredicted ice and snow in the USA and Canada!

Reverting to medieval ways would at least see Al Gore burnt at the stake or elevated to the post of Witchfinder General. :rolleyes:

[Penguina]

As Mankind as a whole produces 3%
of Planet Earth's total CO2 output do you seriously think that anyone's carbon footprint using light aircraft means anything significant?

No, I don't. I agree that it's ever so easy to target GA for criticism or penalties, because we're a tiny minority and it won't affect the lives of most of the population. Aviation in general seems to get a disproportionate amount of the bad PR about emissions. Statistics are often quoted in such a way as to distort their meaning, to aviation's detriment. And I agree that this is kind of unfair.

However... global warming is happening. We have been affecting the way the planet works since the industrial revolution. 3% doesn't sound like much, but it's enough to change the environment. I understand that the oceans have been absorbing a lot of it over the past 150 years, reducing the climate change impact, but apparently they're reaching saturation now - hence the sudden panic. I really don't think this is a big conspiracy just to 'make us feel guilty' - this is the best science.

This doesn't mean I want to answer for the kinds of environmentalists who'd have us only eat dandelions from our back gardens and what have you, but please acknowledge that this IS a problem and that we DO need to change the way we work - planet-wide - everyone. As deice says, there are a lot of people!

The argument 'I don't have to change because other people are hypocrites and the developing world doesn't have to so it's not fair' won't change the way the planet is heading, even if you're right! What a bummer, eh, that being right won't change anything? ;) The sad truth is that wealthy and educated people have the ability, the opportunity to make alterations, however tiny, and so have little reason not at least to try. This doesn't mean stop flying.

Speaking as one who likes to eat asparagus in November from time to time, who works as an FI and who wants an open fire in her new home, I too really hope that we can make the changes through technological research and compromise, before the planet forces it upon us in any case.

[rusty sparrow]

Being stuck in roadworks or road closures on UK motorways chucks out a load of pollution - the amount from GA is a small proportion of the total.

I hope new labour don't get any ideas of 'environmental taxes' on GA. I remember Callaghan's gov in the early 70's banning gliding due to the fuel shortages. Even though my own gliding club had several months supply of diesel for the winch.

RS

[FullyFlapped]

Did anyone see the TV program on the "Ocean Conveyor" system of currents a couple of nights ago ? Seems this system is critical to the planet's welfare, carrying as it does oxygen and nutrients around the globe on a vast, never-ending scale (takes a 1,000 years for a single cycle of currents).

The program went on to say how terminating this current sequence would have a devastating effect on life on earth ... as it did millions of years ago, caused by ... dah dah ... "global warming".

I know life is all about balance, and I'm sure many of the things we've done to this planet aren't clever ... but I've just got this strange feeling that the natural rythm and cycle of things won't be much affected by either paying more taxes to the Lying Scotsman, or by doing as I'm told by someone who knits his own sandals ...

Merry Christmas, everyone!

FF :ok:

[BackPacker]

Even though my own gliding club had several months supply of diesel for the winch.

Your club does take proper precautions in storing that diesel, do they? Not just because of fire, but diesel fuel that's stored for a long time has a habit of growing fungi, which may eventually block fuel filters, gascolators, injectors etc. There are additives that you can use to prevent fungi growth. Also, if you bought the diesel in summer, it may flocculate in winter times unless you add winterization additives.

I work in ICT and have been involved, on the side, with keeping backup generators and their diesel supply in proper condition. Same problems. Always use the old stock first. Test regularly. Take proper precautions, particularly filtering and water draining, when filling the main tank.

[A and C]

I think that GA sould focus on the carbon that it is NOT emiting!

Building and maintaning roads emits carbon and we don't use them, Airfields are mostly grass, and the grass is CO2 negitive.

The engines in aircraft are re-built not scrapped and recycled that is also the very low carbon option.

As for my next Robin DR400 it is still in the first stages of costruction and at the moment has a number of "greeny's" hugging it !

[Justiciar]

What's wrong with reducing environmental impact?


Depends what you mean by environmental impact. The prevailing theory has been that we can take action to prevent "global warming", which is how environmental impact is termed. The problem is that even the IPCC admit that they do not know the rate of natural change, which is a pretty big unknown against which to argue that man is responsible for everything which is now happening to the climate, everywhere. This is clearly nonsense: we don't know how the climate should be changing anyway; we do know that temperatures have changed dramatically in the past (the alps, for example were far warmer in the 11th century than they are today).

Even Kyoto, which would have required huge economic dislocation to meet its targets, would have delayed the forcast changes by a few years at most.


I understand that the oceans have been absorbing a lot of it over the past 150 years, reducing the climate change impact, but apparently they're reaching saturation now


Sorry - no! Atmospheric CO2 has been much higher in the geologic past than it is today and the planet survived. There is an increasing body of evidence that suggests that CO2 follows on from climatic warming and is not the cause of it.

Climate change is a wonderful tool for anyone who has a prejudice about any aspect of modern life or any section of the community. It is a weapon to beat us over the head with and for the climate change faction to try and take the moral high ground. "Green taxes" are of course nothing more than a cynical way of extracting more money form the hapless public so that governments can fritter it away on useless policies designed to keep them in office.

Yes we need to make changes, but not to save polar bears from drowning (they are actually doing very well and don't seem to know they should be dying out because of global warming). We are facing increased scarsity of oil - no major finds in 30 years - which will become more expensive. It is questionable how much longer avgas will be produced for (lead plus it being a minority product). Traffic needs to be cut not because of the CO2 but because the roads can't cope with any more congestion.

Lets focus on what can be achieved for good practical reasons and not on things that not only can't be achieved but will have no impact even if they are.

[soay]

Sorry - no! Atmospheric CO2 has been much higher in the geologic past than it is today and the planet survived. There is an increasing body of evidence that suggests that CO2 follows on from climatic warming and is not the cause of it.
Only from discredited climate change deniers. Please read this article (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/) for an explanation of what actually happened during warming periods identified by analysis of ice cores. If you can't be bothered reading the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm) peer reviewed science, at least read this FAQ (http://aquarium.ucsd.edu/climate/Climate_Change_FAQ/).

[deice]

Justiciar, I assume you're one of the scientists studying the climate, and that you therefore speak from a large body of fact as opposed to most of us who just go by what we hear. I haven't seen drowning Polar Bears and neither have you apparently, but I hope it's bacause I've never seen one period whereas you have and they said they were doing fine.

I don't know where all this talk of us having to stop flying comes from. The message I'm hearing isn't necessarily "stop flying" but rather invest in less consumption. How is that a bad thing? If we use less Jet A to accomplish what we're doing it'll last longer, no? Same goes for emissions. If we reduce them what harm would it do? Like I said before, the population is climbing constantly. Lets say the same percentage of chinese people as europeans start flying GA - that would make a difference would it not?

I feel the issue isn't just about GA pollution (small as it is), it's about consumption in general. When I purchase a box of some electronic gadget I go nuts because they pack the damn thing in 14 different packages that were produced somewhere, shipped somewhere else, packed in a third place, shipped again to a warehouse, then distributed by truck, then bought by myself in another place, driven home, emptied, thrown in the recycling heap then driven to the dump to be picked up by a truck and driven somewhere else, dumped in a new place, picked up again, burned/recycled and then everything starts over. It's complete lunacy. What the heck are we doing!?!?

I'm NOT an environmentalist in the manner you refer to, but, I've opened my eyes to the possibility of consuming less to accomplish the same tasks. I fly more than ever, but calculating the way I used to fly I can now spend 200 hours in the air burning the same amount of fuel as I did flying 100! Hooray!!

But, what do I know, I'm just an ignorant and self-centered pilot as I pointed out.

[Pudnucker]

I think Global Warming is a red herring. Whether it happens or not, whether the science is sound or not. The REAL threat to this planet is the human race running out of oil. IF it happened in the next 50 years (or sooner), would we have the technology to come up with a solution? Personally I think the instability caused would trigger a nuclear war and we're all dead anyway.

Sorry to be full of doom and gloom. There's not a lot us individuals in the UK can do when the US, China, India etc use up all the oil before theres alternatives. The world's resources are already outstripped by the human population (apparantly the human populace is already twice what the world can sensibly sustain). Huge and very worrying problems - so get out there and fly while we still can is what I say!

Second point - does extreme and continuous farting dramatically infuence one's carbon foot print????

[soay]

Pudnucker,

I don't know you, or whether you have any children, but my experience is that when you do have them, being fatalistic is not an option. Our generation is dumping on the next, and they won't be very happy when they find out that we knew we were doing it!

[englishal]

I'm still waiting for Al Gore to explain why global warming is happening on Mars and the other planets in the Solar System....

Hmmm, me thinks that possibly the sun has something to do with it?;)
Anyway, I don't believe a scientist who says one thing because his budget is controlled by someone else. My Mrs is as much a scientist as these IPCC people - geophysics, geology and astronomy and she reckons it is balls.
Actually come to think of it, I may be a scientist too....It all depends on your definition of "scientist" I suppose.The difference is that I am FINDING oil to burn :E

One thing that pisses me off is that these high and righteous politicians who preach Global Warming at us are the same bunch who advocate building nuclear weapons, designed to destroy whole countries within 30 minutes, and they they "worry" about a 0.1 degree increase in the earths temperature (which is nothing in comparison to the past)...which may or may not cause much damage.

Lets get they big issues sorted out now, (wars, nuclear bombs, depleted uranium shells, bio warfare, chemical warfare etc etc etc) before we worry about a few tenths of a degree increase in the climate.

I'm quite looking forward to a med climate at home myself....

[soay]

My Mrs is as much a scientist as these IPCC people - geophysics, geology and astronomy and she reckons it is balls.
And who has peer reviewed her research into climate change? As a scientist, she'll know that scientific research papers are only accepted after they have been peer reviewed, like those brought together by the IPCC.
I'm quite looking forward to a med climate myself.
Even if it means that the Med becomes uninhabitable and Bangladesh disappears under water? I wonder where all those people will want to come and live.

[deice]

My first post is proving to be valid still... 0.1 increase is not what they're saying and if you think med temp in the UK will be pleasant think again. With 2billion refugees on your doorstep you may find it difficult to see the sun.

"Ignorance is bliss" only works in the movies, this is no movie.

[Bahn-Jeaux]

she'll know that scientific research papers are only accepted after they have been peer reviewed

Unless the twaddle being written is considered definitive by its author as he/she is so brilliant, they have no peers.....similar to G Browns stance on his running and taxing of this country.

Alternative views, most unwelcome.

Dissenting views to be ridiculed as uninformed, much as the anti 'Global Warming Theory' brigade are on here.

[deice]

Hang on englishal, you're expecting Med climate in Norway? Oh, and your profession is to find oil? Hmm, biased by any chance?

[Pudnucker]

Hey Englishal, you find the good old black stuff - how long until it runs out and we all have to go gliding instead??

[Justiciar]

Soay: Is this the bit you mean

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
So, CO2 started to rise after the warming, therefore it did not cause the warming:D That seems fairly clear!

But, the other 4200 years of warming "could ... have been caused by CO2. The operative word here is could (not might or did, but could). The article is full of this: take a fact, speculate about the cause and then advance the speculative cause as an established fact :ugh:. Why could the other 4200 years not have been caused by the same factors which caused the first 800 years?

discredited climate change deniersThis really has to stop. Do the climate change lobby have such bankrupt theories that they have to behave like members of the inquisition, branding those who disagree with them as heretics. Why are they so afraid of rational argument? Why did we have the antics at Bali, with those who dare to contradict the official line threatened with physical removal from meetings and denied a platform? What exactly are they afraid off? Trying to portray anyone who dares to contradict the IPCC report as a charlatan does not wash and convinces no-one. Many respected scientists challenge the conclusions drawn from the evidence. Have you read the IPCC summaries; have you noticed the things they don't know and have you then wondered how they draw the conclusions they do. Their latest report is most interesting: the downgrading of sea rise and temperature rise predictions. Why? Because they haven't happened since the third report was published. Can you blame people for being sceptical?

(Interestingly the summary of the latest report has removed the large element dealing with uncertainties which was in the third report! This is rather like the obliteration of the medaeval warm period and the little ice age which seemed to be rather inconvenient for the writers of the report)


Justiciar, I assume you're one of the scientists studying the climate, and that you therefore speak from a large body of fact as opposed to most of us who just go by what we hear.
No, deice, just a studier of the evidence presented and a challenger of its conclusions. You do not have to be a climate scientist to be able to form an opinion by weighing the evidence presented and the conclusions drawn and to see if they add up. To me, the IPCC are wrong. Their own evide3nce does not support the predictions they put forward. How can you in one breath say that "we don't know how much of climate change is natural and would have happened anyway" and then conclude that man is causing climate change:ugh::ugh:

You have got it exactly right. This is about consumption and when you look at it from that perspective what we have to do makes sense and becomes clear

[soay]

So, CO2 started to rise after the warming, therefore it did not cause the warming That seems fairly clear!
You are confusing two issues. The FAQ I referenced is explicit that CO2 in the atmosphere causes it to heat up, and that it did not start the warming that the ice cores show evidence of. It also states that "It has been known since 1869 that CO2 traps heat. This is settled physics. It has been shown beyond a shadow of doubt that humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 30% in the last 150 years. Basic physics plus remedial math, and the rest is details" and goes on to say "Earth's climate does change naturally, but the current warming is not natural. Known natural causes of warming, such as the sun, have been constant in the past 30 years, so they cannot explain the warming of the past 30 years. The pattern of the current warming is also highly unnatural. For example, it is warming more at night than during the day; this is expected for CO2-caused heat trapping, because CO2 works at night, whereas natural warming would be more in the day. A long list of similar patterns (a "fingerprint" of human-caused warming) proves conclusively that the warming isn't natural".
Many respected scientists challenge the conclusions drawn from the evidence.
Please list some that are not sponsored by the oil, coal or automobile industries, whose work has been peer reviewed. Without that step, research cannot be described as scientific, by definition.

[englishal]

Hey Englishal, you find the good old black stuff - how long until it runs out and we all have to go gliding instead??
See, another myth that everyone believes.

The reserves in certain places could possibly be twice the North Sea
Deep water drilling means they can get more out....Better imaging means they find more fields

;)

I am not biased, I read the facts...in scientific papers. Here's one for you...Some reckon that the classic "hockey stick graph" that all this doom and gloom is based upon can be changed dramatically by changing the input variables slightly. A lot of the input is based upon sketchy evidence - ice core samples for example.

Ice core samples show the climate WAS warmer in the past, and there was more CO2, but the important thing is that if you take the age of the ice core samples go back, it is miniscule compared to the age of the earth. It is like me putting my hand out of the window for 11 seconds and predicticting that tomorrow it will rain. Also one BIG BIG factor - which came first, the heat or the CO2? This is crucial, some scientists reckon that the CO2 is a result of the heat, NOT the other way around.

Sure the world is getting warmer. But the climate has been in a relatively stable period for thousands of years, so we get worried when the temp rises slightly and blame us.

It is aviation that bears the brunt. These doom and gloom reports fail to take into account new technology in jet engines (for example). It'd be like living in the age of the steam train, and saying that in 100 years we're all going to choke on smoke from them...IN reality steam trains were replaced, and there is a lot of research going on into clean jet engines. In 50 years time, you can bet the average jet is a damn site cleaner than they are now......But of course people choose to ignore this fact.

We are "environmentally friendly" but not because we believe this clap trap, but because we don't like living in pollution (another story). We drive a smart car (well the mrs does;), when she is not cycling the 15 mile round trip to work each day) and I ride about 3000 miles a year on my bikes....But I do fly to work ;)

I think politicians should get their own house in order before using GW as an excuse to win votes, get Nobel Prizes and make money...

[Justiciar]

Please list some that are not sponsored by the oil, coal or automobile industries, whose work has been peer reviewed. Without that step, research cannot be described as scientific, by definition.So if you are funded by those industries your work cannot be worth reading, is that it? But it is OK to be in receipt of much greater sources of funding dedicated to showing that climate change is man made. So the scientists on one side are hopelessly compromised in their professional integrity but those on the other side are not. What a very balanced attitude.

So from what you say all these mathematical models are unnecessary: CO2 traps heat; CO2 has increased, therefore CO2 causes global warming.

The pattern of the current warming is also highly unnaturalThe trouble is no one knows very clearly what unnatural warming actually means, since we don't know what the climate has done in the past. We do however know that in relatively recent geological times the earth has warmed and cooled dramatically. Since this has not been explained (though the IPCC tried to wipe out these periods in the infamous "hocky stick" graph, which it turned out would still produce a hockey stick with random data!) how are they now able to confidently say that present observations are due to man and not something completly natural?

In fact, many observations of recent warmig may well be localised due to the location of the data points. Satellite measurements provide no support for a general warming; the temparatures at the poles and on the Greenland ice caps seems to be dropping and the ice levels increasing. Snow in the high alps also seems to be increasing. Whilst sea ice appears to be reducing, we once again do not know if there is such a thing as normal nor what the natural pattern of sea ice growth and retreat is. Alpine glaciers, though retreating, are still bigger than they were in the early medaeval period, when areas now unihabitable were settled and farmed.

If it is all down to man, those that say so haven't proved it to be the case.

[Contacttower]

But, the other 4200 years of warming "could ... have been caused by CO2. The operative word here is could (not might or did, but could). The article is full of this: take a fact, speculate about the cause and then advance the speculative cause as an established fact :ugh:. Why could the other 4200 years not have been caused by the same factors which caused the first 800 years?



Well the Metoffice seem quite convinced that despite that in the past temperatures drove CO2 this has now reversed:


Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Concentrations of CO2 are now much higher and increasing much faster than at any time in at least the last 600,000 years. This should be a warning that what is happening now is very different to what happened in the past.

In fact, over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years.

The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate (due to orbit changes for example) led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 is enhancing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.


And we all trust them don't we...:E

[soay]

Please list some that are not sponsored by the oil, coal or automobile industries, whose work has been peer reviewed. Without that step, research cannot be described as scientific, by definition.
So if you are funded by those industries your work cannot be worth reading, is that it?
I take it from this that the "increasing body of evidence that suggests that CO2 follows on from climatic warming and is not the cause of it" all comes from sources sponsored by those industries. Their reports may well be worth reading, but they are not scientific evidence unless they have been peer reviewed, and they have to be read in the context of the vested interests they represent.

[Contacttower]

but they are not scientific evidence unless they have been peer reviewed, and they have to be read in the context of the vested interests they represent.

But the hype surrounding climate change has made the concept of 'peer review' a bit of a nonsense recently. I agree that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that global warming exists and I support all (sensible) efforts to reduce CO2, but at the same time the big increase in 'weight' which the climate change theory has had in the last 5 years or so is very much down to the media and government action, not to an increase in scientific evidence.

[deice]

:D Indeed smart to drive a Smart. I reckon you'll get the Think when they get their act together!
The concept of GW is very controversial obviously and compounded by the fact that we won't really know who's right until it's too late (perhaps). You'll go on debating who's right and end up nowhere, that's conviction for you. But, if indeed we are the cause, and we elect to ignore doing anything about it, then we'll be kicking ourselves later, or, our kids will (in my case 5 of them :uhoh:). The other option is to take these signals as a warning that all is not well with our only home, and when combined with the development of our community, increasing population, ever increasing demand for energy, food, material goods etc. look at ways to reduce the overall waste contribution per person, including emissions.

There are so many small things happening in our world that make no sense whatsoever, from a waste point of view. An example is importing meat from Brazil to Sweden. It's not Yak, it's the same frikkin cow we got trodding our own turf. What the heck is going on? Or, in the company I presently work at, we produce brochures in China, ship them to Sweden and redistribute to the US and EU. My brain is on fire over here - what the heck is going on!? There are printers in the US, no?
If we continue to ship meaningless junk back and forth and at the same time need to reduce "GW", which is accomplished by imposing taxes, the little people, us, won't be able to afford visiting India 10 years from now, because we're shipping paper and meat all over the place. We ought to save our "travel points" for humans rather than glossy brochures nobody ever reads in the first place, and meat that equals the stuff from the farm next door.
And, in my little world, I don't mind consuming less to accomplish the same task - it's a bit of a sport. In fact, I'm trading my 7-person car for one that consumes HALF while delivering more. The yankee gas guzzler crap (although comfy) is going out the door in favor of european high tech machinery!
And, each time I take a student up in the club's Piper I can't help but wish it was the flight school's DA40, or any Rotax powered 2-seater.

I don't need a report to do that, it only takes a mindset.

[Contacttower]

If we continue to ship meaningless junk back and forth and at the same time need to reduce "GW", which is accomplished by imposing taxes, the little people, us, won't be able to afford visiting India 10 years from now, because we're shipping paper and meat all over the place. We ought to save our "travel points" for humans rather than glossy brochures nobody ever reads in the first place, and meat that equals the stuff from the farm next door.


I agree that the way the world economy has grown up does seem rather strange and wasteful...but I somehow think any human effort to control it on a worldwide scale would end in disaster. If we are ever going to kill CO2 emissions it is going to have to be technology, not human intervention in the economy.

[englishal]

Global warming is not in doubt....

What is in doubt is whether it is man made or not and whether we can actually do anything about it.

650 million years ago 95% of all life on earther was killed off by GW. It was caused by massive, continent wide volcanic erruptions lasting a million years. I somehow don't think EasyJet can compete with that.

The geologic time scale is huge. So huge that ice core samples going back a few 10's of thousands of years are meaningless. So meaningless in fact that if you were to show the earths age on a clock, and the earth came into being at 00:00 the time now is about 12:00. The samples they use to predict all this doom and gloom date back less than a second on this clock face. The GW event I was talking about above happened about 10 minutes ago on our clock face - oh and it is doubtful mankind will last another second because we'll nuke ourselves long before that. Until we harnes the power of fusion and EVERYONE is allowed cheap, clean power then we are doomed anyway, not because of GW but because of power struggles and wars over energy (oil etc...).

If people really believe in man made GW then they should do something about it. Carbon Offsetting is a scam to make the rich feel good. If people seriously believe that we are causing then then there is only one course of action for them: Stop driving the car, stop flying straight away, and use home made renewable energy - wind turbines, solar power etc....

The trouble is people don't believe in it that strongly. But it is a great excuse for governments to raise revenue to prop up other areas which need a bit more cash.

If governments really believe in GW then there is only one course of action they can take. Get rid of all fossil fuel burning power stations and replace them with nuclear power plants. They must also give all third world countries access to nuclear technology to make it happen....Is this going to happen...? No chance.

But it is easy to raise taxes and make us all "feel good".....;)

[soay]

Global warming is not in doubt....
What is in doubt is whether it is man made or not and whether we can actually do anything about it.
Thousands of scientists from around the world whose work has been brought together by the IPCC, and reduced to its lowest common denominator by political pressure from the US and Saudi Arabia (do you spot a common factor there?), have concluded that there is 90% certainty that we are the cause of global warming. On what basis do you question that conclusion?

[Justiciar]

have concluded that there is 90% certainty that we are the cause of global warming. On what basis do you question that conclusion?

Well .... do we trust the science. If in 2001 I had questioned the conclusions of the IPCC third report you would have criticised my scepticism. Now, in the fourth report, we have quite significant reductions in the predictions for temperature rise and sea level rises. In the third report, the rate of natural change was flagged as an uncertainty in the calculations (quite a large one, I would have thought). Now, this is down played. What will the 5th report tell us in seven or 8 years time? Further reductions in the predicted rise perhaps?

The world has heated and cooled many times without human intervention; the last time it was warmer than it is today was about 900 years ago. Then the temperature dropped quite quickly, forcing out communities in Greenland and the high Alps. Now the climate may be warming again. Yet for some reason this time it is all man's fault.

If you want to see how the rest of the world really views global warming then go to the US or Asia. They all burn cheap hydrocarbons like they were going out of fashion! All our self imposed and crippling restraint will be the equivalent of bailing the Titanic with a thimble: the impact will be so infinitesimal that we would be better engaged in dealing with the inevitable consequences (if that is what they are) than in trying to achieve the impossible.

[englishal]

On the basis that several thousand "scientists" (I use the term loosely - what is a scientist?), is a drop in the ocean of the Scientist pool. I bet, there are an equal number who dispute MMGW....(The mrs has had papers published and reviewed - mainly astronomy)

However:
-They are called "doubters"
-They are not receiving government funding

You stated earlier that the oil company scientists are biased. I put it to you that they are no more biased than the ones working for the IPCC...I saw Gore and some Indian "scientist" being interviewed the other day on Norwegial telly. Gore was being all dramatic, and the "scientist" was being a bit more cagey when asked direct questions.

But it is all words anyway. I can't see the average American giving up his 5.7L HEMI V8 anytime soon? And I can't see the majority of people on Pprune giving up flying on environmental ground. And if this MMGW is to be believed, then to save or children we need to act now, and drastically. Ban all flights, ban people from living more than 10 miles from work, ban farming etc......

I had this argument with one of my mates who has also turned "green" after having kids. He was bitching and moaning about cheap flights (he never takes any because he is not allowed). Then I pointed out that he races go-karts and other stuff. Ah but it is such small stuff that it makes no difference was his response - he races every weekend, and often drives his big long wheelbase transit to get ther. I say that IF you believe in MMGW then YOU should change your life dramatically - get rid of the car, get off the train, walk, cycle, don't eat farmed meat etc.....But of course no one does it because they soon realise that they can't.

This crusade to heavily tax flights (which is my MAIN gripe), will do NOTHING to stop MMGW (if it exists) and people need to realise this. Even Biofuels don't work - to grow biofuels, they cut down the rain forests!

I'd happily accept a 50% tax on my North Sea heating gas, if, in return the government installed a free solar hot water heating system and a wind generator. But they won't........that is because they spend the "environmental" taxes proping up a failing NHS etc.....

Anyway, it is my view and you won't change it any more than I can change your view ;). I must go now, as I'm about to board my plane and fly to the UK :E

[deice]

Why is it that we always must take such drastic measures?
"We'll all be dead anyway so we might as well keep on doing what we're doing" is such a mature stand point. It falls in line with the "If you don't stop everything you might as well shut up about it" attitude.

No, we want to fly, we want to race go-karts and ride bikes and all the rest, but do we have to sacrifice the environment to do it? Stick a catalytic converter on the kart, get a truck that uses less and purchase direct from the farm while you're at it. What's so difficult about it?

[soay]

You stated earlier that the oil company scientists are biased. I put it to you that they are no more biased than the ones working for the IPCC.
In what way does undertaking research which concludes that there is a 90% probability that humans are causing global warming further the ends of these organisations?

NASA (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/)
The Met Office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/index.html)
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (http://aquarium.ucsd.edu/climate/Climate_Change_FAQ/)

Now, in what way does funding research that comes to the opposite conclusion benefit these organisations?

Exxon
Shell
General Motors

Those in the latter list are doing exactly what the tobacco companies did: use the 10% uncertainty as implying that the cause and effect connection was still in doubt.

This problem can only be solved at a political level, and that will only happen when the politicians don't think they will scare away votes by telling it like it is. The longer those with vested interests can spread FUD, the later that is likely to be, by which time even more drastic action will have to be taken. That's why I keep banging on about peer reviewed scientific research.

I don't want to have to give up my hobby because we didn't start to make serious reductions in fossil fuel use early enough. Given the political will, there's a lot that can be done without seriously affecting our lifestyle. The politicians know that, because they commissioned the Stern Report (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm), which spelled it out.