Sustainable Aviation Strategy. Just a load of hot air?
Thread Starter
Sustainable Aviation Strategy. Just a load of hot air?
Is see that the Sustainable Aviation Strategy has been launched. Are not Aviation and Green issues at opposite ends of the spectrum. How are we going to reduce CO2 emmisions without some major leap in engine technology? How is the UK going to feed more aircraft "economically" through it'a already congested skies.
Just a lot of hot air? A waste of paper? or just keeping some consultants in work?
Just a lot of hot air? A waste of paper? or just keeping some consultants in work?
Guest
Posts: n/a
For info:
Estimated CO2 emissions from the aviation industry per annum = c.700 million tonnes
Amount of carbon dioxide that a typical new growth tree in Toronto absorbs per year = 341 kg year.
Number of trees needed to absorb CO2 from aircraft: 2 billion.
Average density of trees in Toronto forests: 247 / hectare
Number of hectares of new growth Toronto forest needed: 8.3 million = 32,000 square miles (or an area of 400 miles by 80 miles of forest. Land area of England = 50,000 sq miles)
Forest planting isn't really the answer (but is a good thing). Trouble is, we are losing forest, and most of the carbon is being released into the atmosphere, so adding to the problem.
D.
Estimated CO2 emissions from the aviation industry per annum = c.700 million tonnes
Amount of carbon dioxide that a typical new growth tree in Toronto absorbs per year = 341 kg year.
Number of trees needed to absorb CO2 from aircraft: 2 billion.
Average density of trees in Toronto forests: 247 / hectare
Number of hectares of new growth Toronto forest needed: 8.3 million = 32,000 square miles (or an area of 400 miles by 80 miles of forest. Land area of England = 50,000 sq miles)
Forest planting isn't really the answer (but is a good thing). Trouble is, we are losing forest, and most of the carbon is being released into the atmosphere, so adding to the problem.
D.
Dr Dave
Interesting numbers - by Toronto forest - do you mean a typical Canadian forest? - Would Brazilian rainforest suck up a similar amount?
Actually - (having done my time tree planting) - on a global scale 32,000 sq miles isn't that much. Once you created this new forest annual maintenance would be fairly cheap.
Some sort of industry fund to create and maintain this "air travel forest" spread worldwide would not have to be that expensive. Just don't allow any EU or UN organization anywhere near it.
As a bonus all the environmentalists could continue to jet around to their conferences and create more pilot jobs.
20 driver
Dr Dave
As an aside - in North America we are gaining forests - have being for the last 100 years. What we are losing is agricultural land to development and reforestation.
20 driver
Interesting numbers - by Toronto forest - do you mean a typical Canadian forest? - Would Brazilian rainforest suck up a similar amount?
Actually - (having done my time tree planting) - on a global scale 32,000 sq miles isn't that much. Once you created this new forest annual maintenance would be fairly cheap.
Some sort of industry fund to create and maintain this "air travel forest" spread worldwide would not have to be that expensive. Just don't allow any EU or UN organization anywhere near it.
As a bonus all the environmentalists could continue to jet around to their conferences and create more pilot jobs.
20 driver
Dr Dave
As an aside - in North America we are gaining forests - have being for the last 100 years. What we are losing is agricultural land to development and reforestation.
20 driver
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fuels & sustainability
Hydrogen has some pros & cons as a fuel. It has a very high BTU/lb content, and zero CO2 emissions.
But hydrogen must be manufactured - you can't just drill for it. The emissions resulting from the manufacturing process must be considered.
And even in a supercooled liquid state, its density is very low, meaning HUGE tank size.
Methane has some of these advantages, and some of these disadvantages, and may turn out to be more attractive than H2.
But hydrogen must be manufactured - you can't just drill for it. The emissions resulting from the manufacturing process must be considered.
And even in a supercooled liquid state, its density is very low, meaning HUGE tank size.
Methane has some of these advantages, and some of these disadvantages, and may turn out to be more attractive than H2.
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get IATA to sponsor last years Nobel Peace Price winner Wangari Maathai's green belt movement in a significant way? 
Win-win, to use a much abused expression.
Win-win, to use a much abused expression.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rate of absorption in new growth tropical rain forest = 2-3 times that of a boreal forest. However, we lose about 1 hectare of forest per second globally, much of it from the tropics.
Please note also that the figures I have quoted are on the very optimistic end of the scale - many scientists believe absorption rates are MUCH lower than this.
Finally, also consider that aviation only represents 3% of global emissions, so you need a huge increase in forest to cover even cover the current output, let alone the predicted increases.
Dr D.
Please note also that the figures I have quoted are on the very optimistic end of the scale - many scientists believe absorption rates are MUCH lower than this.
Finally, also consider that aviation only represents 3% of global emissions, so you need a huge increase in forest to cover even cover the current output, let alone the predicted increases.
Dr D.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: World
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation activities, according to IATA, produce about 3% of global CO2 emissions. Of that 3%, just over 1% are from the ground support activities that keep us all flying.
1 billion people travelled several hundred miles each for 3% of global CO2 emission. Calculations of CO2 emissions for the same billion people to travel in cars the same distance are frightening.
The idea that aviation is a high level CO2 polluter is understandable as an assumption but wrong in fact.
The aviation business operates on negligable margins as generally there is an excess of capacity on the supply side. This drives relatively small efficiencies on the cost side to create significant improvements in margin.
Technology advances such as the A380 or B787 represent examples of quantum leaps in cost efficiency, mainly in the area of direct operating costs. Of the 20% savings promised in seat mile cost by these types, 75% of that saving is represented by increases in lower fuel burn by using new engine fan blade and design technlogy.
Major CO2 contributors globally are power generation, factory emissions, and carbon burning vehicles. How many of these industries can show the 20% increase in efficiencies illustrated above? None. If they could, Kyoto emission targets would have been achieved.
So why are governments targeting aviation? In the EU there is even talk of an aviation tax to fund African development, with dark hints that African poverty is somehow caused at least partly by aviation emissions.
While admirable in their aims, their process is flawed. The real issues of reducing the root causes of CO2 emissions are both too expensive to politically contemplate or too unpopular to apply consumption tax to.
The answer if for governments to encourage and reward industries that cut emissions by such significant amounts as aviation promises to in the next 20 years. Instead we see punitive taxes proposed in an industry that has contributed far more to emission efficiency than most others that show little or no progress in protecting all our futures.
1 billion people travelled several hundred miles each for 3% of global CO2 emission. Calculations of CO2 emissions for the same billion people to travel in cars the same distance are frightening.
The idea that aviation is a high level CO2 polluter is understandable as an assumption but wrong in fact.
The aviation business operates on negligable margins as generally there is an excess of capacity on the supply side. This drives relatively small efficiencies on the cost side to create significant improvements in margin.
Technology advances such as the A380 or B787 represent examples of quantum leaps in cost efficiency, mainly in the area of direct operating costs. Of the 20% savings promised in seat mile cost by these types, 75% of that saving is represented by increases in lower fuel burn by using new engine fan blade and design technlogy.
Major CO2 contributors globally are power generation, factory emissions, and carbon burning vehicles. How many of these industries can show the 20% increase in efficiencies illustrated above? None. If they could, Kyoto emission targets would have been achieved.
So why are governments targeting aviation? In the EU there is even talk of an aviation tax to fund African development, with dark hints that African poverty is somehow caused at least partly by aviation emissions.
While admirable in their aims, their process is flawed. The real issues of reducing the root causes of CO2 emissions are both too expensive to politically contemplate or too unpopular to apply consumption tax to.
The answer if for governments to encourage and reward industries that cut emissions by such significant amounts as aviation promises to in the next 20 years. Instead we see punitive taxes proposed in an industry that has contributed far more to emission efficiency than most others that show little or no progress in protecting all our futures.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Politicians haven't thought out the possible side effects of imposing tax on aviation fuel. If the tax is not introduced universally and at the same rate everywhere then we will tanker fuel from the destinations where it is cheap. We could even find ourselves tech stopping to pick up cheap fuel enroute if the price differential made it worth while. The end result would be greater fuel burns to carry the extra fuel around thus completely negating any intention to reduce co2 emissions.
Last edited by tightcircuit; 20th Jun 2005 at 21:09.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The time has come for all the so called "Global Warming" myths to be laid to rest. It has taken the Earth 200 years to gain 0.7 degrees C. We still are not at the temperature of the 1200-1300's. When there were no cars, few people and certainly no aeroplanes. Life was bountiful in terms of food in those days. Check the History Books [which have no axe to grind, unlike GreenPeace, Friends of the Earth etc] and you will see that in the green and reasonably pleasant land that was the Island on which we live, the Top Brass went off to the Crusades confident that their lands were full of crops and animals and their serfs would not revolt [too much!]. Way up in Scotland, in the Isles, communities lived happily in warm weather and plenty of crops. Even the Devon moors were cultivated, so good was the climate. And as always, in the life of this Planet, the Climate was Changing. Sometimes slowly, sometimes more quickly. Vineyards, cultivated by the Monks, flourished in North Wales and over in Cumbria.
The Sun is the supplier of heat. Not anything else.
At the moment the Sun is very active and as many pilots will know there have been some spectacular Aurora's in the last few years.
Back to the 1300's. By 1309 the climate had begun a downward spiral in temperature. In that year there was a bad crop failure and from then on the trend was towards colder times. Not that gradual a change and the same could happen again! By the 1600's people were walking across the Thames on the ice and avoiding paying Toll fees on bridges. Then gradually the Climate change was to warmer times. The last really bad time was during the Irish Potato Famine. Carbon Dioxide is what trees need, the more the better. Idiots who waffle on about the "Lungs of the Earth" should be more accurate. Our lungs need oxygen and we expell CO2. Exactly the opposite of tree 'lungs'.
The UK supplies 2.4% of the World industrial CO2 and getting smaller. The computer models which are quoted to 'prove' Global 'Warming' are not using all the 2000+ variables our Planet has to offer. None of them until recently even used water vapour in the equation!!!! Not significant apparently. With even the latest sophisticated super computers how many days ahead do you professional pilots trust the forecast? So how on earth can they 'know' accurately about Global Warming?
Don't be conned by Politicians who have to hitch their credos to a star now that the Cold War has gone and as usual, History once again will show that for millenia, Politicians have used smoke screens of War, Famine, etc to keep the masses focussed on anything other than their own quest for Power.
Big news this week, Beech trees are threatened. Big deal, they only arrived a few thousand years ago as a result of Climate Change anyway, after the last real Ice Age. Dammit, the Northern UK landmass is still rising as a result of all that ice melting 11,000 years ago! South Greenland was cultivated by the Inuits long before the Vikings got there.
Science must be accurate in its telling. History is the yardstick. Cherrypicking the doom laden predictions is what our Politicians and Charity Money Gatherers do. Frighten the masses with a series of doom laden predictions. Frankenstein Food?
Not one of the Euro countries has reduced its CO2 output, in fact they have all added to their Kyoto [crap] promises and yet they have a go at the USA who have been brutally honest and realised it is just not going to work and won't make any difference anyway. All the money to be squandered in trying to reduce emissions [Squillions of Pounds] could go to help educate the third world, ease sickness, feed the hungry. But no, we will build useless wind farms, when we should build super clean Nuclear Power stations and try and increase solar power efficiency. After all the Sun is free energy and we should use as much as we can.
Then at least we will be spared Bob Geldof [failed pop singer] spouting on about saving the World!
Another rant over.
Suggest you have a look at some of the Scientific Bloggers like......
Professor Emeritus Philip Stott of London University
http://greenspin.********.com/
Aviate1138
The Sun is the supplier of heat. Not anything else.
At the moment the Sun is very active and as many pilots will know there have been some spectacular Aurora's in the last few years.
Back to the 1300's. By 1309 the climate had begun a downward spiral in temperature. In that year there was a bad crop failure and from then on the trend was towards colder times. Not that gradual a change and the same could happen again! By the 1600's people were walking across the Thames on the ice and avoiding paying Toll fees on bridges. Then gradually the Climate change was to warmer times. The last really bad time was during the Irish Potato Famine. Carbon Dioxide is what trees need, the more the better. Idiots who waffle on about the "Lungs of the Earth" should be more accurate. Our lungs need oxygen and we expell CO2. Exactly the opposite of tree 'lungs'.
The UK supplies 2.4% of the World industrial CO2 and getting smaller. The computer models which are quoted to 'prove' Global 'Warming' are not using all the 2000+ variables our Planet has to offer. None of them until recently even used water vapour in the equation!!!! Not significant apparently. With even the latest sophisticated super computers how many days ahead do you professional pilots trust the forecast? So how on earth can they 'know' accurately about Global Warming?
Don't be conned by Politicians who have to hitch their credos to a star now that the Cold War has gone and as usual, History once again will show that for millenia, Politicians have used smoke screens of War, Famine, etc to keep the masses focussed on anything other than their own quest for Power.
Big news this week, Beech trees are threatened. Big deal, they only arrived a few thousand years ago as a result of Climate Change anyway, after the last real Ice Age. Dammit, the Northern UK landmass is still rising as a result of all that ice melting 11,000 years ago! South Greenland was cultivated by the Inuits long before the Vikings got there.
Science must be accurate in its telling. History is the yardstick. Cherrypicking the doom laden predictions is what our Politicians and Charity Money Gatherers do. Frighten the masses with a series of doom laden predictions. Frankenstein Food?
Not one of the Euro countries has reduced its CO2 output, in fact they have all added to their Kyoto [crap] promises and yet they have a go at the USA who have been brutally honest and realised it is just not going to work and won't make any difference anyway. All the money to be squandered in trying to reduce emissions [Squillions of Pounds] could go to help educate the third world, ease sickness, feed the hungry. But no, we will build useless wind farms, when we should build super clean Nuclear Power stations and try and increase solar power efficiency. After all the Sun is free energy and we should use as much as we can.
Then at least we will be spared Bob Geldof [failed pop singer] spouting on about saving the World!
Another rant over.
Suggest you have a look at some of the Scientific Bloggers like......
Professor Emeritus Philip Stott of London University
http://greenspin.********.com/
Aviate1138
Paxing All Over The World
From this BBC article
"I know, why don't we get the manufacturers to say that they can fix everything? By the time 20 years has gone by and they say that they can't fix it ... we'll already be retired." Oh dear, I really am too cyncial for my socks. 
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Aircraft manufacturers, airports and airlines aim to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced by new aircraft over the next 15 years by half.
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Guest
Posts: n/a
For balance, there is a good level of scientific discussion of the pros and cons of global warming at:
http://www.global-warming-debate.com/
Many scientists active in the field post at this site. You will see that the consensus amongst serious climate scientists is that this is real. That a few high profile scientists disagree does not change that consensus.
That climate changes naturally is undeniable - we all know about Ice Ages. That the climate has been warmer than at present is also undeniable (indeed in the Cretaceous it was probably much warmer). However, the climate appears to be changing more rapidly now than the historic record shows, and these changes are pretty much those that are predicted by the Global Climate Models (which are rather more sophisticated than some here would have you believe).
Dr D.
http://www.global-warming-debate.com/
Many scientists active in the field post at this site. You will see that the consensus amongst serious climate scientists is that this is real. That a few high profile scientists disagree does not change that consensus.
That climate changes naturally is undeniable - we all know about Ice Ages. That the climate has been warmer than at present is also undeniable (indeed in the Cretaceous it was probably much warmer). However, the climate appears to be changing more rapidly now than the historic record shows, and these changes are pretty much those that are predicted by the Global Climate Models (which are rather more sophisticated than some here would have you believe).
Dr D.
Guest
Posts: n/a
To follow up my last post, probably the best place for informed debate about global warming is at the realclimate site below. This site was set up by a group of very renowned climate scientists to allow an open dialogue about the science of climate change.
I suspect that this is the best source of information outside of the dedicated scientific press.
http://www.realclimate.org/
Hope you find it useful and interesting (and a little eye-opening...).
Dr D.
I suspect that this is the best source of information outside of the dedicated scientific press.
http://www.realclimate.org/
Hope you find it useful and interesting (and a little eye-opening...).
Dr D.
Thread Starter
Just to get back to the main topic a little, although some of the above comments are quite illuminating.
Extract:
The ‘Sustainable Aviation’ strategy sets up mechanisms for monitoring and regular reporting of progress toward a range of specific objectives.
These include:
Limiting climate change impact by improving fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions by 50 per cent per seat kilometre by 2020 compared with 2000 levels;
Improving air quality by reducing nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 per cent over the same period;
Lowering the perceived external noise of new aircraft by 50 per cent by 2020 compared with their 2000 equivalents;
Establishing a common system for the reporting of total CO2 emissions and fleet fuel efficiency by the end of 2005, and pressing for aviation’s inclusion in the EU emissions trading scheme at the earliest possible date;
Airport plans for community-related noise limitations, including landing and take-off restrictions where necessary.
The initiative, the culmination of 12 months’ work by a cross-industry project group, has been strongly endorsed by the Government.
In a foreword to the 52-page strategy document, the Prime Minister praises the industry’s co-operation in searching for environmental solutions.
Tony Blair says:
“I am delighted that such a wide range of organisations have worked together on Sustainable Aviation. By working with Government and society to tackle the environmental issues associated with aviation, the industry can demonstrate that economic success, social progress and respect for the environment can go hand in hand.”
Launch signatories to the strategy include the industry national trade associations, British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Airbus UK, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, NATS and the operators of Britain’s 24 biggest airports.
This is all very good in principle, but as Aviation is a growing and some would say, critical business, is this all just some high value ideal with little substance or just a job creation scheme for some analysts and consultants?
Extract:
The ‘Sustainable Aviation’ strategy sets up mechanisms for monitoring and regular reporting of progress toward a range of specific objectives.
These include:
Limiting climate change impact by improving fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions by 50 per cent per seat kilometre by 2020 compared with 2000 levels;
Improving air quality by reducing nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 per cent over the same period;
Lowering the perceived external noise of new aircraft by 50 per cent by 2020 compared with their 2000 equivalents;
Establishing a common system for the reporting of total CO2 emissions and fleet fuel efficiency by the end of 2005, and pressing for aviation’s inclusion in the EU emissions trading scheme at the earliest possible date;
Airport plans for community-related noise limitations, including landing and take-off restrictions where necessary.
The initiative, the culmination of 12 months’ work by a cross-industry project group, has been strongly endorsed by the Government.
In a foreword to the 52-page strategy document, the Prime Minister praises the industry’s co-operation in searching for environmental solutions.
Tony Blair says:
“I am delighted that such a wide range of organisations have worked together on Sustainable Aviation. By working with Government and society to tackle the environmental issues associated with aviation, the industry can demonstrate that economic success, social progress and respect for the environment can go hand in hand.”
Launch signatories to the strategy include the industry national trade associations, British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Airbus UK, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, NATS and the operators of Britain’s 24 biggest airports.
This is all very good in principle, but as Aviation is a growing and some would say, critical business, is this all just some high value ideal with little substance or just a job creation scheme for some analysts and consultants?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is all very good in principle, but as Aviation is a growing and some would say, critical business, is this all just some high value ideal with little substance or just a job creation scheme for some analysts and consultants?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr Dave said in part......
"Many scientists active in the field post at this site. You will see that the consensus amongst serious climate scientists is that this is real."
Aviate 1138 ponders....
How interesting - they wouldn't be the ones anxious to keep their Financial Grants going. How would they do that if Climate Change is just a given fact and we have no real influence over it. Or ever will be able to.
Of course when Scientific progress is made it is always done by the majority of Scientists isn't it? Not by the individual Darwin, Copernicus, Mendel, Archimedes? I think not, dear Doctor Dave. Take the blinkers off and apply real accurate science, not statistics that can be made to fit the situation the doom mongers wish to promote. This hysteria has all come about because we have been lulled into expecting 100% safety, 100% predictability, 100% liability and 100% stability. Newspapers, TV stations can't publish no-news stories - everything has to be hyped up. PPrune is full of sensation seeking journos whenever an accident occurs.
Our human psyche must explain the inexplicable. Religion exists because no one wants to die and vanish. Doesn't seem fair does it? In a few years when the start of the next trend towards another Ice Age happens what will Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Johnathan Porrit and their like do for a living?
We can't even predict accurately any weather other than general conclusions. Even these are not to be relied on unless it is based on a High. Low pressure area predictions are often hopelessly wrong even with Bracknell's latest number cruncher. In 1946 my mother said the bad weather was caused by the 'Atom' In the 1600's it was Mankinds unchristian behaviour. The Aztecs slaughtered thousands to get a good crop. Global Warming hysteria is along the same path.
Let's have some good Science for a change, in this case Climate Change, one of Mother Natures little miracles. BTW not one Kyoto signatory is on track. And it won't make any difference anyway.
Time for a nice cup of Earl Grey and a dunkable chocolate biscuit. While there is still water in the tap.
Aviate 1138
"Many scientists active in the field post at this site. You will see that the consensus amongst serious climate scientists is that this is real."
Aviate 1138 ponders....
How interesting - they wouldn't be the ones anxious to keep their Financial Grants going. How would they do that if Climate Change is just a given fact and we have no real influence over it. Or ever will be able to.
Of course when Scientific progress is made it is always done by the majority of Scientists isn't it? Not by the individual Darwin, Copernicus, Mendel, Archimedes? I think not, dear Doctor Dave. Take the blinkers off and apply real accurate science, not statistics that can be made to fit the situation the doom mongers wish to promote. This hysteria has all come about because we have been lulled into expecting 100% safety, 100% predictability, 100% liability and 100% stability. Newspapers, TV stations can't publish no-news stories - everything has to be hyped up. PPrune is full of sensation seeking journos whenever an accident occurs.
Our human psyche must explain the inexplicable. Religion exists because no one wants to die and vanish. Doesn't seem fair does it? In a few years when the start of the next trend towards another Ice Age happens what will Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Johnathan Porrit and their like do for a living?
We can't even predict accurately any weather other than general conclusions. Even these are not to be relied on unless it is based on a High. Low pressure area predictions are often hopelessly wrong even with Bracknell's latest number cruncher. In 1946 my mother said the bad weather was caused by the 'Atom' In the 1600's it was Mankinds unchristian behaviour. The Aztecs slaughtered thousands to get a good crop. Global Warming hysteria is along the same path.
Let's have some good Science for a change, in this case Climate Change, one of Mother Natures little miracles. BTW not one Kyoto signatory is on track. And it won't make any difference anyway.
Time for a nice cup of Earl Grey and a dunkable chocolate biscuit. While there is still water in the tap.
Aviate 1138
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK Aviate 1138, let me reply to a few points. First let me make it clear where I am coming from. I am a scientist and academic - a Reader in the Department of Geography at the University of Durham in the UK, which is the highest ranked Geography Department in the UK (and possibly the world). I am Director of the International Landslide Centre and Acting Director of the Institute of Hazard and Risk Research. My specialist research is landslide impact, particularly in developing countries. Climate change, in terms of its effect on landslides, is a key part of much of this work.
OK, so let's address a few of your points:
"How interesting - they wouldn't be the ones anxious to keep their Financial Grants going. How would they do that if Climate Change is just a given fact and we have no real influence over it. Or ever will be able to."
I absolutely refute this point. In fact, I would find it far easier to get research grants and publications if I were to take the line that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. There are huge sums of money available for people who take this line. For most scientists, arguing that global warming is real leads to a reduction in potential research funding, not an increase.
Actually, 10 years ago I was a real cynic about anthropogenic climate change, as were most of my colleagues. However, we can only interpret the data that we have - and the evidence is, I'm afraid, stacking up. The case is not proven, but that is science. For most of us the balance of probabilities is coming down on the side of anthropogenic climate change. Your cynicism about the scientific community is, in my view, totally misplaced.
"Of course when Scientific progress is made it is always done by the majority of Scientists isn't it?" One of the great things about science is that contributions can and are made by individuals, teams and international consortia. There is still a place for all of these, and indeed most scientists still work individually for at least part of the time. I don't actually see what this has to do with the argument. The nature of science is that to be accepted the work has to stand up to scrutiny through peer review - often I receive material to review that I don't agree with, but which is an interesting interpretation for discussion, so publication occurs. Sometimes they are right, sometimes I am - investigation of hypotheses, and debate about them, is how science advances. This is happening all the time with climate science - material is published on all sides of the argument. Through time, theories and hypotheses are tested and validated or rejected and understanding moves forwards. Ultimately, we aim to get to a point in which the consensus is that the theory explains the available facts in the most simple way. At the moment, for most of us anthropogenic climate change comes closest to fulfilling that criteria, though there is still a lot of work to do. We are applying real science, and proper scientific methods, and will continue to do so. If a lone scientist has something to contribute then great.
For me, and most other scientists, the best paper that I could ever write would be the one that proves definitively that the anthropogenic climate change theory is wrong. That would be instant fame, fortune, a job for life, a high score in the RAE, citations, TV appearances (if that is what you want - I don't actually), etc. There are many, many very intelligent people trying to write that paper - but no-one has succeeded (or indeed come close), and many of the potential lines that were being followed have proven to be dud. Maybe someone will - but I don't see any evidence of it at the moment.
"Our human psyche must explain the inexplicable." Yes, but science is about trying to undertake that explanation in a way that is logical, consistent and that allows us to predict / forecast. Along the way we put up our theories and invite criticism and even for people to disprove them. That is how science works. It is the best we have, unless you have a better idea? We will get to the bottom of climate change, and the results will not necessarily be the ones that the funders, or the public, want to hear.
"We can't even predict accurately any weather other than general conclusions." Well, not quite true. We can now forecast pretty well 24-48 hours ahead. We can predict within about 0.1C what the global average temperature will be this year (0.55 C above the long term trend by the way - the 2nd warmest year in temperature record history). We can predict the number of typhoons that will occur in the Pacific this year. We can forecast that China will have very intense precipittaion this summer (forecast made by the Chinese Met Agency this winter, and proven to be true).
So, not as bad as you think.
More importantly, you are confusing climatre and weather. No, we cannot model weather as well as we would like, but we can model climate rather well actually. That John Kettley can't tell you what the weather will be next week doesn't mean that we can't model what the climate will do for the next 50 years. Yes, the climate is an almost infinitely variable system, but simplification is possible.
"Global Warming hysteria is along the same path. " I am sorry, but it isn't. Yes, there is hysteria and a lot of dud information. However, the difference between the Aztecs, your mum, etc is that there was no scientific evidence. This time there is.
"Let's have some good Science for a change" I assure you that there is a lot of good science (including, I hope, my own). There is some bad science too. That the results don't confirm your preconceptions does not mean that it is bad science. Indeed, I do wonder quite why it is me that you are accusing of wearing blinkers!
"Time for a nice cup of Earl Grey". That we can agree on!
Happy to continue the debate on here or privately, or for you to contact me directly.
Dr Dave (Petley)
Department of Geography
Durham University
OK, so let's address a few of your points:
"How interesting - they wouldn't be the ones anxious to keep their Financial Grants going. How would they do that if Climate Change is just a given fact and we have no real influence over it. Or ever will be able to."
I absolutely refute this point. In fact, I would find it far easier to get research grants and publications if I were to take the line that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. There are huge sums of money available for people who take this line. For most scientists, arguing that global warming is real leads to a reduction in potential research funding, not an increase.
Actually, 10 years ago I was a real cynic about anthropogenic climate change, as were most of my colleagues. However, we can only interpret the data that we have - and the evidence is, I'm afraid, stacking up. The case is not proven, but that is science. For most of us the balance of probabilities is coming down on the side of anthropogenic climate change. Your cynicism about the scientific community is, in my view, totally misplaced.
"Of course when Scientific progress is made it is always done by the majority of Scientists isn't it?" One of the great things about science is that contributions can and are made by individuals, teams and international consortia. There is still a place for all of these, and indeed most scientists still work individually for at least part of the time. I don't actually see what this has to do with the argument. The nature of science is that to be accepted the work has to stand up to scrutiny through peer review - often I receive material to review that I don't agree with, but which is an interesting interpretation for discussion, so publication occurs. Sometimes they are right, sometimes I am - investigation of hypotheses, and debate about them, is how science advances. This is happening all the time with climate science - material is published on all sides of the argument. Through time, theories and hypotheses are tested and validated or rejected and understanding moves forwards. Ultimately, we aim to get to a point in which the consensus is that the theory explains the available facts in the most simple way. At the moment, for most of us anthropogenic climate change comes closest to fulfilling that criteria, though there is still a lot of work to do. We are applying real science, and proper scientific methods, and will continue to do so. If a lone scientist has something to contribute then great.
For me, and most other scientists, the best paper that I could ever write would be the one that proves definitively that the anthropogenic climate change theory is wrong. That would be instant fame, fortune, a job for life, a high score in the RAE, citations, TV appearances (if that is what you want - I don't actually), etc. There are many, many very intelligent people trying to write that paper - but no-one has succeeded (or indeed come close), and many of the potential lines that were being followed have proven to be dud. Maybe someone will - but I don't see any evidence of it at the moment.
"Our human psyche must explain the inexplicable." Yes, but science is about trying to undertake that explanation in a way that is logical, consistent and that allows us to predict / forecast. Along the way we put up our theories and invite criticism and even for people to disprove them. That is how science works. It is the best we have, unless you have a better idea? We will get to the bottom of climate change, and the results will not necessarily be the ones that the funders, or the public, want to hear.
"We can't even predict accurately any weather other than general conclusions." Well, not quite true. We can now forecast pretty well 24-48 hours ahead. We can predict within about 0.1C what the global average temperature will be this year (0.55 C above the long term trend by the way - the 2nd warmest year in temperature record history). We can predict the number of typhoons that will occur in the Pacific this year. We can forecast that China will have very intense precipittaion this summer (forecast made by the Chinese Met Agency this winter, and proven to be true).
So, not as bad as you think.
More importantly, you are confusing climatre and weather. No, we cannot model weather as well as we would like, but we can model climate rather well actually. That John Kettley can't tell you what the weather will be next week doesn't mean that we can't model what the climate will do for the next 50 years. Yes, the climate is an almost infinitely variable system, but simplification is possible.
"Global Warming hysteria is along the same path. " I am sorry, but it isn't. Yes, there is hysteria and a lot of dud information. However, the difference between the Aztecs, your mum, etc is that there was no scientific evidence. This time there is.
"Let's have some good Science for a change" I assure you that there is a lot of good science (including, I hope, my own). There is some bad science too. That the results don't confirm your preconceptions does not mean that it is bad science. Indeed, I do wonder quite why it is me that you are accusing of wearing blinkers!
"Time for a nice cup of Earl Grey". That we can agree on!
Happy to continue the debate on here or privately, or for you to contact me directly.
Dr Dave (Petley)
Department of Geography
Durham University
(a bear of little brain)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 51 10 03.70N 2 58 37.15W
Age: 75
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note Michael O'Leary's contribution to the air transport/climate change debate report here, from the Guardian today.
No matter what the GreenSkies Alliance wins the 'best epithet' ("Michael O'Leary is a recidivist, serial polluter and he should be arrested for crimes against the climate.") award.
No matter what the GreenSkies Alliance wins the 'best epithet' ("Michael O'Leary is a recidivist, serial polluter and he should be arrested for crimes against the climate.") award.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Malta
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anyone interested I wrote a thesis about Aviation and The Environment. It is available for download from the following location:
www.areco.org/ThesisLondonCityU.pdf
In the long term only new technoligies such as hydrogen fuel can help decrease emissions without stifling growth. In the meantime a lot can be done to help reduce the current amount of emissions, such as improved ATC procedures etc. The sad thing is that for all the improvements in current technologies and procedures we still have a 3% increase in emissions per 5% increase in traffic.
www.areco.org/ThesisLondonCityU.pdf
In the long term only new technoligies such as hydrogen fuel can help decrease emissions without stifling growth. In the meantime a lot can be done to help reduce the current amount of emissions, such as improved ATC procedures etc. The sad thing is that for all the improvements in current technologies and procedures we still have a 3% increase in emissions per 5% increase in traffic.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Harbourville
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O'Leary: "Sell your car!"
The Guardian are reporting that Mr O'Leary is once again making ground-breaking statements:
QUOTE: The thorny issue of climate change has left most airlines bending over backwards to sound green. But Europe's largest low-cost carrier, Ryanair, has dismissed its environmentally nervous rivals as "lemmings".
Ryanair's chief executive, Michael O'Leary, has refused to support an industry-wide effort to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Asked yesterday what he would say to travellers worried about the environment, he replied: "I'd say, sell your car and walk."
More HERE
QUOTE: The thorny issue of climate change has left most airlines bending over backwards to sound green. But Europe's largest low-cost carrier, Ryanair, has dismissed its environmentally nervous rivals as "lemmings".
Ryanair's chief executive, Michael O'Leary, has refused to support an industry-wide effort to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Asked yesterday what he would say to travellers worried about the environment, he replied: "I'd say, sell your car and walk."
More HERE