Carbon Emissions for Light Aircraft?

[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".

[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.

[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]

easy target

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

[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]

More green than you think

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]

Originally Posted by Justicair

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 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 peer reviewed science, at least read this 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

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]

Originally Posted by englishal

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.

Originally Posted by englishal

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 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 . Why could the other 4200 years not have been caused by the same factors which caused the first 800 years?

discredited climate change deniers

This 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

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]

Originally Posted by justicair

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".

Originally Posted by justicair

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.